'Beliefs' in martial arts.

[Bruno@MT]

I can't say if they're biased or not. I've just seen documentary styled footage.

Check youtube. They're there. If you can't find them, let me know & I'll see if I can locate them again.

'Loose change' is up on youtube.
George Dillman is on youtube.
Ashida Kim is on youtube.
...

There are tons of documentary style footage on yt that are just drivel.
For the purpose of actually making an argument, peer reviewed experiments would be an asset.

 

[clfsean]

'Loose change' is up on youtube.
George Dillman is on youtube.
Ashida Kim is on youtube.
...

There are tons of documentary style footage on yt that are just drivel.
For the purpose of actually making an argument, peer reviewed experiments would be an asset.

Of course there is. I never said it was peer reviewed, defended & published. I just said they were there. You can also find Michael Jackson catching fire, planes breaking the sound barrier, a yellow lobster & people being shot in the streets around the world.

I'm not making an argument, I was making a statement that I have no dog in that hunt on, except mentioning it.

For the record... my view is qi/hei is like religion. You believe in it or you don't. I've found more use of proper body mechanics and power generation by rooting and using my core than limbs alone rather than "projecting qi".

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......' recently. Everyone wants me to name names. I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.

Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing. And Thai Boxing.

I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.

Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.

The only issue that I have in what you are saying is that western boxing is a sport and not a 'fighting system.' Like I said in a previous post, nobody cares if football can beat boxing. Nobody cares if boxing can beat judo. The boxer surely doesn't care; he's paid based on beating other boxers and not on whether or not he can beat some guy who trains in a different fighting sport.

As for whether or not a boxer can beat a Muy Thai fighter, it depends on the boxer. It isn't a question of the MT guy having more tools to use or the boxer having less, but how well one can manage a fight and use what he or she does have to the best advantage while keeping their opponent from doing the same.

So, does a kickboxer have an edge over a boxer? Maybe. Depends on the kickboxer. If the boxer is a good infighter, those kicks are far less of a factor. Ring management is a skill that, like awareness and common sense in SD, is separate from the physical tools of the trade.

Then there's the question of style familiarity. If the boxer is familiar with kickboxing or Thai boxing but the kickboxer or Thai boxer is not familiar with Western boxing, then the boxer now has an edge.

To make a long story short, when I watch boxing, I watch boxing and I really don't sit and evaluate whether or not boxing beats other fighting sports or martial arts because ... its boxing. LIke I said, nobody cares if NFL football beats Association football; they're different sports that share a name.

If I want to see a sport breadth of techniques from different styles, I'll watch the UFC. Only then, I evaluate the athletes, not the styles. I don't really care what the athlete has trained in. I care how he or she is able to apply what they've been trained in within the rule set.

But again, we're talkin' sports.

As far as fighting systems for ALL circumstances and probabilities, I don't really think that such a thing exists with any effectiveness (my opinion). There are fighting systems that encompass multiple fighting ranges, but none that will prepare you for ALL circumstances and probabilities. If you search for that, then you are searching for the alchemical means of turning base metals into precious metals.

In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?

Depends on what the platoon is doing. Not being a military strategist, I'll leave this one for someone else.

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.

About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.

Not familiar with systema or combat ki. Pressure points do exist. Not in some kind of mystical 'interrupt the flow of ki' sort of way, but in terms of points on the body that pressure can be applied to in order to effect pain or incapacitation. Pressure points are not a panacea, however, as those techniques will not work equally on all people. Kind of like the magic groin shot; some guys will be left lying on the floor. Others will just be more annoyed with you than they were before you took the shot.

Aikido techniques are not unique to aikido. Technique wise, you'll find the same techniques that are in aikido in quite a few other arts. You're talking joint locks, throws, sweeps, and takedowns. I think that the major criticisms of aikido center around the level of realism in the training. On the other hand, a lot of aikidoka are in aikido for personal development, self improvement and quality of life with little interest in whether or not they can beat up boxers. So, they benefit from taking aikido. They enjoy aikido. Their quality of life is improved because of aikido. They probably have as good a chance of using what they learned in class against an attacker who is not a trained fighter (the majority of attackers) as most martial arts students of other arts do.

The fact that they may have no competitive attitude may actually aid them in avoiding being placed in a circumstance where they'll be fighting. And they'll get all kind of cool Japanese vocabulary and traditions along with a flowing hakama to boot. If that is what the student is after, then I find no fault.

Keep in mind that for many, going to work the day after class covered in bruises is not an option.

Daniel

 

[oaktree]

Hi Fangjian.

I was not aware that their are western boxing schools that also teach elbows knees, kicks etc. Yes there is nothing preventing the boxer from doing these things but there is less of a chance he will.

What I meant in a street encounter a boxer can use elbows knees and throws and kicks. If you ever seen or been in a street fight seldom is it ever just two guys squaring off and boxing rather it is boxing,clinch maybe goes to the ground maybe kicks. Boxing schools do not normally teach a boxer how to use a knife but a boxer can use a knife. Thinking a boxer will use only boxing in a street fight is a really ignorant thinking it may even get you killed when he pulls out a knife when you are in the clinch.

But we can measure it to a lot of variables and come up with reasonable conclusions.

And other varibles would dismiss the variables you are using making you come up with mixed conclusion or conflicting data.

Yes I think I may have 'implied' through the text that Taijiquan is useless. This was poor on my part. Sorry. What I truly am meaning is that some other styles I think are better. And I KNOW a lot of Taiji guys are good at the clinch game, but I think that's their best area. Taji players are good at clinch wresting, maybe striking, what else?

No worries everyone makes mistakes that is part of learing in fact I am happier making mistakes then I am getting things right. I do not know what you mean by better, better for health better at fighting better at.....? I did post a clip of Chen Bing going against MMA fighters using Fajing,Sanshou from Chen Taijiquan and Tuishou so can it be applied in a realistic manner well Chen Bing does it so its possible.

If you are using the word qi in daily expression and for combined words, the word 'qi' has no meaning here. Yes I know the word qi is used in the words for weather, steam, etc..... But how is that relevant for martial arts?

My point was if you are trying to use the word Qi in a supernatural context and you find no way to measure it the reason is the fault of the defination of the word to fit the context you gave it. The reason I brought this up was because you dismiss martial arts that discuss Qi and spirit. Arguements over Qi spirit and all that really become moot both sides agree to disagree and discussions on the subject are not contructive in anyway.

This post will be the last discussion I will have on this thread regarding Qi,spirit and all of that. My apologies if I do not respond to it again in your rebuttal. For you may have the final word on the topic.

If someone 'believes' that you can knock someone out with a fireball of 'qi' from 10 feet away, I don't think I'm smarter than them. It has nothing to do with being 'better'. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence'. Sometimes, it has to do with 'education'. So, if that person is then educated about all of the evidence and STILL believes by just denying the evidence, than that person is just being 'irrational'.

So, I have a more 'rational' mind than this person. Not smug arrogance. Just physical evidence and reasoned logic. Some people ARE rude, however many times it is just gullible people getting their 'feelings hurt' by someone offering them the evidence.

According to your Blog:

Browse Profiles

Bloggers with an interest in pwning those with irrational beliefs.

and:

Browse Profiles

Bloggers with an occupation of Teaching people how to whoop other people's @sses.

- http://www.blogger.com/profile/07298174238605830704
It does come off as Smug Arrogance.

smug (sm

g) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

ADJECTIVE:
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]smug·ger[/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif]smug·gest[/FONT]
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent

Definition of ARROGANCE

: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

So yes you do fit these which is ok because that's you.

 

[fangjian]

According to your Blog:
and:

- http://www.blogger.com/profile/07298174238605830704
It does come off as Smug Arrogance.

So yes you do fit these which is ok because that's you.

Hahahaha. Caught out!!! -Kudos-

Thanks 4 letting me see that. It is mean, isn't it? ALL beliefs ( religious, political, martial art ) are open to public scrutiny though.

Ok, the last word

In the 'pwning of irrational beliefs' . I am not an unreasonable person. Humans are gullible creatures. Including myself, obviously. I use to believe that goldfish only could hold memories for a few seconds and that if you dropped a penny off a skyscraper, and it hit someone in the head, it could easily kill them. Well guess what? Both of my 'beliefs' are falsifiable through evidence. There's nothing for me to be embarrassed about. It is easy to fall trap to 'beliefs'.

It is when someone/people believe certain things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and it effects others. Supernatural black magic martial arts, al Qaeda, Westboro baptist church etc.

No matter how much you SINCERELY try to educate these people with evidence, they just stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOUUU la la la"

Then my approach is just 'ridicule'. Then I go back to 'education' again. Then back to 'ridicule'. It's like vicious and frustrating cycle for us.

 

[fangjian]

The only issue that I have in what you are saying is that western boxing is a sport and not a 'fighting system.'

Why aren't you considering it a 'fighting system'? All martial arts competitions have rules.

As far as fighting systems for ALL circumstances and probabilities, I don't really think that such a thing exists with any effectiveness (my opinion). There are fighting systems that encompass multiple fighting ranges, but none that will prepare you for ALL circumstances and probabilities.

Yes you can't be totally prepared for everything, of course. But if you do a style that only deals with 1 on 1 kicking and dismisses everything else, it is not reasonably preparing you as well as, a style that's curriculum is broader.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Why aren't you considering it a 'fighting system'? All martial arts competitions have rules.

Boxing is not taught outside of a sporting context. Just as football SD is not taught, neither is boxing SD. Boxing is fist fencing. You win either by KO, TKO, or points, with judges weighing in in some fashion.

To call boxing a fighting system is like calling kendo sword fighting. It isn't. The basic techniques taught in kendo are applicable in sword fighting, but there are differences in their execution based on the fact that you are scorring points with a blunt, straight bamboo stick instead of cutting with a sharp curved sword. Great pains are taken in kendo to relate each strike to what is done with a sword, but at the end of the day, you're essentially cane fencing and scoring points by striking a limited set of targets.

Kendo is not a fighting system. The fact that I can take a cane and beat you to death with it using kendo techniques does not make kendo a fighting system. Any more than you being able to cave my head in with baseball bat swung as if you were hitting a home run makes baseball a fighting system.

Likewise, boxing techniques can be incorporated into a fighting system (I believe Jhoon Rhee incorporated boxing hand techniques into his taekwondo system), but it is not a fighting system itself (though its techniques have practical application).

The fact that I can kill someone by repeatedly punching them in the head using 'boxing' does not make boxing a fighting system. More accurately, boxing is a punching system.

Yes you can't be totally prepared for everything, of course. But if you do a style that only deals with 1 on 1 kicking and dismisses everything else, it is not reasonably preparing you as well as, a style that's curriculum is broader.

I don't know of any styles that teach kicking and nothing else (I'm sure that they exist, but I am unfamiliar with them; Capoeira maybe??), but such styles are not fighting styles. They are usually folk games or sports. Anyway, such an art would be a kicking system, not a fighting system.

Sports, be they martial or otherwise, are focused on winning through either points or achieving some predetermined outcome. WTF sport taekwondo has techniques culled from Kukki Taekwondo, but is itself a sport with its own gamesmanship strategies and peculiarities due to the rule set mandating that high kicks score more points than mid level kicks or body punches, and head punches and low kicks are entirely disallowed. Kicks are executed without any fear of being grabed or trapped by your opponent because doing so is illegal within the confines of the sport.

Its a sport. Like boxing is a sport. The only difference is that WTF sport taekwondo is taught alongside Kukki Taekwondo, which is a fighing system, while boxing is just taught as sport boxing.

Like I said, we're talkin' sports.

This all comes down to evaluating an art/fighting style/whatever you want to call it within its given context. The context of western boxing is to win boxing matches, not to be a complete fighting system. The intended purpose of kickboxing is to win kickboxing matches, not to be a complete fighting system. Which is better? Depends on your perspective. If you find fights with kicks and punches to be more exciting, then kickboxing. If you enjoy straight punching more, then regular boxing. If you want to see grapples, then wrestling is better than both. If you want to striking and grappling, then MMA is probably more your speed. None are better and none are worse. Each has its intended purpose. A guy who trains for kickboxing will probably get his backside handed to him in the boxing ring. A guy who trains specifically for boxing will get his backside handed to him in a wrestling match. Any of the above three will not fare well in an MMA match.

Pick the right tool for the job and then do the job for which it was intended.

Daniel

 

[shesulsa]

NTKO = No Touch Knock Out

And it's ********.

If spirituality isn't for you, then leave it alone. Save your rantings and arguments of "reason" for those who use their faith (whichever faith that may be) in destructive manners like terrorism or power-over or racism or hatred.

Sounds like, from your posts, you're just out to fraudbust against any fighting system you don't agree with simply based on stylism rather than giving credit for individual schools, individual teachers and individual goals. That means little more to people like me than you have a lot to learn.

IMNSHO, "rationalists" who insist on injecting "reason" into society are little better than those who want to include Christianity into the US government because it's supposedly a Christian nation.

Here, you are free to believe what you want and so am I. Your beliefs don't appear to be doing you any harm other than the fact that you seem to be interested in bullying others to buy your specific opinion and accept it as truth ... which sounds an awful lot like a priest to me. My beliefs aren't doing me any harm, so ... I would recommend you go hit the bag some more or ... something.

I wish you well.

 

[fangjian]

NTKO = No Touch Knock Out

And it's ********.

If spirituality isn't for you, then leave it alone. Save your rantings and arguments of "reason" for those who use their faith (whichever faith that may be) in destructive manners like terrorism or power-over or racism or hatred.

ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth.

Sounds like, from your posts, you're just out to fraudbust against any fighting system you don't agree with simply based on stylism rather than giving credit for individual schools, individual teachers and individual goals. That means little more to people like me than you have a lot to learn.

If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'.

IMNSHO, "rationalists" who insist on injecting "reason" into society are little better than those who want to include Christianity into the US government because it's supposedly a Christian nation.

You think that people trying to promote reason into society are the same as religious people trying to push there religion into our government?!?!?!?!

Here, you are free to believe what you want and so am I. Your beliefs don't appear to be doing you any harm other than the fact that you seem to be interested in bullying others to buy your specific opinion and accept it as truth ... which sounds an awful lot like a priest to me.

I want my own 'beliefs' to be as close to reality as possible. I truly not interested in 'bullying others'. I'm more about education and also challenging my own worldview all the time. It's why I am continuing to post here. But, yeah, if someone constantly insists to me that they can manipulate my qi and cause me paralysis from 10 feet away, at first I'd do my best to reason with them, but after a while, yes, I may just start laughing at them.

-and in regards to my 'specific opinion'. It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology. It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)

 

[Steve]

I can do no touch knock outs. But then again, my sweat smells remarkably like chloroform. It's uncanny.

 

[clfsean]

ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth. If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'.

You might want to rethink your statement here after this comment::

I understand SOME of what I have. I know it makes me sound arrogant to say 'some styles are superior/inferior'. I KNOW. But it just seems like an observation of reality to me.

in this thread


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1370835&postcount=76

A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)

Why do you keep presuming that unless somebody dabbles in lots of different things they're one dimensional & can't possibly defend themselves? There are more TMA's that cover multiple ranges than not.

 

[shesulsa]

ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth. If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'.
You think that people trying to promote reason into society are the same as religious people trying to push there religion into our government?!?!?!?!I want my own 'beliefs' to be as close to reality as possible. I truly not interested in 'bullying others'. I'm more about education and also challenging my own worldview all the time. It's why I am continuing to post here. But, yeah, if someone constantly insists to me that they can manipulate my qi and cause me paralysis from 10 feet away, at first I'd do my best to reason with them, but after a while, yes, I may just start laughing at them.

-and in regards to my 'specific opinion'. It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology. It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)

Not everyone wants to be an MMA fighter. And saying MMA is a panacea is like saying a gun is a panacea. You stand a better chance than others, but it is not foolproof and it is not the be-all-end-all fighting system.

You may have missed the part where I said the NTKO is ********.

The reason an MMA fighter has an advantage over a boxer is obvious - they fight differently and the boxer isn't trained to right on the floor.

And guess what? *That's why they BOX.*

You can go on believing your fighting system is da bomb but it doesn't really make you any better than any other mook who has swallowed some line of ******** - the truth is that it is right FOR YOU and for WHAT YOU WANT TO TRAIN FOR. I'm sincerely happy you have found the style that is right for you - some people never do.

I'm not defending people who have never earned a rank and who make up their own system or who lie about military accomplishments nor arts who rank 6 year olds with black belts because those people are irresponsible (or, in the case of olympic TKD, can't come up with a better way to classify fighters than with the color on their hips) as are people who claim they can knock you out from 10 feet away.

But you ... Mr. Reason ... need to be ... well, more reasonable.

Again - many people come to martial arts and for many, many reasons. What works well for some doesn't work well for others. Then there is individual learning curve to consider.l

And then there's granny with the broomstick who fended off a young punk with a knife. Yeah, I'm sure you could take her and all, but ... you seriously need to lighten up just a little.

 

[Big Don]

I can do no touch knock outs. But then again, my sweat smells remarkably like chloroform. It's uncanny.

I bet I could do them, if someone gave me one of those police beanbag guns...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

-and in regards to my 'specific opinion'. It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology.

Not not if you want to know your horoscope. Astrology is primarilly an entertainment media. Astronomy is a science. As a science, it is superior. As an entertainment media? Depends upon your tastes. Personally, I find astronomy more interesting than astrology and limit my reading of predictions to what is inside of fortune cookies.

-It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)

Again, you are comparing sports and games. Boxing is a sport. Capoeira is a folk game. Kickboxing is a sport. Wrestling is a sport. MMA is a sport. They don't compare. Either to each other or to actual combat. People do them for enjoyment. Pick the one you like.

Let me ask you this: why are you concerned about establishing a martial sport pecking order? Initially, I thought that your premise was about BS techniques. Now you're comparing sports.

While I agree with your premise that the technical content of a fighting system should be grounded in fact and should be trained in a realistic manner, the comparison between sports is really a matter of taste and has no place in a discussion about technical BS, faith based MA, or fraudulent instructors.

I practice kumdo because I enjoy it. I practiced taekwondo for years because I enjoyed it and I still practice forms for the wellness benefits that their practice impart. I practice hapkido for a good mix of SD applicable tools.... and because I enjoy it.

No offense, but you're kind of all over the map.

Daniel

 

[fangjian]

You might want to rethink your statement here after this comment::






in this thread


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1370835&postcount=76

Tell me if I a wrong, but I assume you are meaning that since I said, 'I understand SOME of what I have...." , that means that I am not qualified to say if a certain technique or style or method is better than another, right?

If I said I was an 'expert' would you believe me? The top scientist in their field might be modest and say they understand SOME of what they have too. I just didn't wanna sound like I am claiming to be a 'red belt' in Bjj. But you know what? I'm not a black belt in Bjj either. I'm not even a brown belt! Does that mean I have NOTHING to say about Bjj? I've also never done XMA, Muay Lao, Lethwei, Pekiti Tersia etc. However, I can make observations. Look at their movements. Check out their curriculum. How do they spar in that system? I can make informed decisions on where their strengths are, their weaknesses. What other techniques they can be susceptible to. In the 'real world' what threats are probable? What threats are not probable?

Why do you keep presuming that unless somebody dabbles in lots of different things they're one dimensional & can't possibly defend themselves? There are more TMA's that cover multiple ranges than not.

They can defend themselves. But it would be more handy if they also knew how to , grapple, kick, knife fight whatever. And before you say 'hey wait a sec, in a no rules fight a boxer can knee and kick and do all of that too'. Yes he COULD. But it is less likely he will do it as efficiently if he was trained to do so. Not part of his regular training.

It's simple I think. Bear with me.
Let's start here: A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in.................. Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area.
-You still with me?

How is Jon Kwon Do not a superior self defense system to Bjj?

(Also is it my usage of the words 'style', 'superior', 'fighting system' that are misrepresenting something etc ? )

 

[clfsean]

Tell me if I a wrong, but I assume you are meaning that since I said, 'I understand SOME of what I have...." , that means that I am not qualified to say if a certain technique or style or method is better than another, right?

Yep.

If I said I was an 'expert' would you believe me?

At this point, nope.

The top scientist in their field might be modest and say they understand SOME of what they have too. I just didn't wanna sound like I am claiming to be a 'red belt' in Bjj. But you know what? I'm not a black belt in Bjj either. I'm not even a brown belt! Does that mean I have NOTHING to say about Bjj?

Unless you're certified to teach something (which means time in & on the subject to a degree of being able to dissect a technique, teach it & pull it off pretty much when you want), nope. Are you certified to teach BJJ?

I've also never done XMA, Muay Lao, Lethwei, Pekiti Tersia etc. However, I can make observations. Look at their movements. Check out their curriculum. How do they spar in that system? I can make informed decisions on where their strengths are, their weaknesses. What other techniques they can be susceptible to. In the 'real world' what threats are probable? What threats are not probable?

What's your background in those? Nothing. So how can you comment on technique, theory, application, etc... without having spent time sweating & bleeding with it to understand it.

XMA I'll grant you. I have my own issues with that & they aren't unknown.

They can defend themselves. But it would be more handy if they also knew how to , grapple, kick, knife fight whatever. And before you say 'hey wait a sec, in a no rules fight a boxer can knee and kick and do all of that too'. Yes he COULD. But it is less likely he will do it as efficiently if he was trained to do so. Not part of his regular training.

Who says they don't?

It's simple I think. Bear with me.
Let's start here: A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in.................. Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area.
-You still with me?

Hanging on every word... :flame:

How is Jon Kwon Do not a superior self defense system to Bjj?

It's not. That's all fine, well & good for a fantasy based MA. But that's jack of all, master of none in that burrito you wrapped up.

(Also is it my usage of the words 'style', 'superior', 'fighting system' that are misrepresenting something etc ? )

Yep.

 

[fangjian]

Not not if you want to know your horoscope. Astrology is primarilly an entertainment media. Astronomy is a science. As a science, it is superior. As an entertainment media? Depends upon your tastes. Personally, I find astronomy more interesting than astrology and limit my reading of predictions to what is inside of fortune cookies.

The common denominator for both of these that someone mentioned before is 'to gain knowledge of the universe'. The common denominator for martial arts is GENERALLY 'self defense'.
I'm not talking about their entertainment value.

Again, you are comparing sports and games. Boxing is a sport. Capoeira is a folk game. Kickboxing is a sport. Wrestling is a sport. MMA is a sport. They don't compare. Either to each other or to actual combat. People do them for enjoyment. Pick the one you like.

Let me ask you this: why are you concerned about establishing a martial sport pecking order? Initially, I thought that your premise was about BS techniques. Now you're comparing sports.

While I agree with your premise that the technical content of a fighting system should be grounded in fact and should be trained in a realistic manner, the comparison between sports is really a matter of taste and has no place in a discussion about technical BS, faith based MA, or fraudulent instructors.

I practice kumdo because I enjoy it. I practiced taekwondo for years because I enjoyed it and I still practice forms for the wellness benefits that their practice impart. I practice hapkido for a good mix of SD applicable tools.... and because I enjoy it.

No offense, but you're kind of all over the map.

Daniel

All of the things I mentioned you say are 'sports' or 'folk game'. Which, if any, do you consider fighting systems, or martial arts or whatever?
Yes my original premise WAS mostly about supernatural stuff in martial arts. I think what happened was the argument from the other thread leaked into this one Sorry, I shouldn't have let that happen. Thnx, I didn't notice.

Since that was the topic. I am well aware of supernatural claims in Japanese, Chinese and Southeast Asian martial arts. Does anyone have any interesting examples of this phenomena elsewhere?

 

[Aiki Lee]

It's simple I think. Bear with me.
Let's start here: A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in.................. Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area.
-You still with me?

How is Jon Kwon Do not a superior self defense system to Bjj?

(Also is it my usage of the words 'style', 'superior', 'fighting system' that are misrepresenting something etc ? )

Jon Kwon Do would not be superior because in this context Jon Kwon Do is not a style of any kind. It is a mishmash of styles. A style is an art that has unifying principles that are expressed through techniques. Aikido has the principle of entering for example. It is a principle taught in the first technique learned and then used in every technique that comes after. Jon Kwon Do has no principles to unify these other styles that supposedly make it.
Your Jon Kwon Do is basically a samplying of several different training methods that may all have principles that may be contradictory to each other. Without a way to unify them there is no new style created.
Let me tell you about my style for a minute:

Aiki ninjutsu was created by combining seemingly opposing principles from ninjutsu and aikijujutsu. My teachers found ways to make the principles work together. If we just taught ninjutsu alongside aikido we would not have a new art. We would have a school that teaches two seperate things. The philosphy of a school develops its strategy, the strategy develops the tactics, the tactics develope the principles, and the principles are expressed through techniques.

If there is no unifying strategy, tactics, and principles then a person will not be able to take what he has learned and apply it in a new setting. You can teach a bunch of random things all you want in hopes that it gives people an edge, but unless they know how it should all fit together they will never recall it under the pressure of an actual confrontation.

 

[shesulsa]

Sweeping generalizations just don't work either, as much as ALL of us wish they just would.

There are TKD schools that teach grappling and joint locks. Not that I know exactly what the Kukkiwon syllabus entails, but I'm *pretty sure* that it doesn't include those.

There are styles not specific to sword work only that teach it and it's not part of the required curriculum.

You see ... there really are *smart* traditional stylists out there.

But you digressed and said your intention for the thread was the topic of the teaching of supernatural stuff as part of teaching a martial art (assuming you are using the premise of traditional arts).

I'd say most people who teach that stuff are charlatans and little more. I do wonder, open-mindedly, about serious acts of mega-strength or super abilities under pressure and the things that science can't seem to explain with anything but "freak of nature."

Nevertheless, the will behind a strike DOES count, no matter what you call it - Ki power, mental power, MMA power, ... etcetera.

 

[Flying Crane]

Capoeira is a folk game.

ooops, gotta jump in here on this one, as i spent more than just a couple years training capoeira pretty heavily a while back. I had earned the rank of "graduated student" in the San Francisco ABADA Capoeira school, a ranking that could be viewed as roughly equivalent to a shodan in an Asian, belt-oriented system.

I can understand why one would say that capoeira is a folk game, but it is much more than that, and it is definitely a fighting method. How it is trained largely determines how well one is able to fight with it, and it is my personal opinion that most people today, at least in the US, train primarily for the game aspect and not so much for the fight. But I've met some scary capoeira people who are very good at fighting with it, people you most definitely would not want to tangle with. It's origins are definitely as a fighting method as well, tho it kept certain cultural trappings that are not typically found in the Asian fighting arts and more mainstream stuff.

In this regard, one could call most of the Asian methods a "folk game" as well, given that most people are simply practicing for fun and entertainment and exercise. Just because most people are not particularly adept at applying what they train to a real fight, does not mean that the method they practice is not a fighting method.

Then again, the deceptive nature of capoeira and the culture and social environment in which it developed mandated a certain secrecy and deliberate deception of the true nature of the art. I'd say the old capoeiristas would be happy to let you go on believing that capoeira is simply a folk game. Sorry I blew their cover. I'll have to make it up to them in the next life and apologize for my error. We'll share a beer.