Bernoulli's Principle and the Martial Arts

[wab25]

Most of us are familiar with Bernoulli's principle, specifically when explaining how a wing on an airplane generates lift. The top of the wing is curved and the bottom of the wing is flat. This means the path from leading edge to trailing edge of the wing is longer on the top than on the bottom. Thus, the air flowing over the top of the wing has to travel faster than the air on the bottom of the wing, to leave the trailing edge. Since the air on top is moving faster.... it creates lower pressure above the wing and higher pressure below the wing... lifting it up.

This explanation is given in many physics books. Many pilots, private and commercial, understand lift this way. Even many of the flight instructors training these pilots. However, this explanation is wrong. Lift generated by a wing does not come from Bernoulli's principle. Here are a few things that break the idea that Bernoulli's principle is generating lift:

• Inverted flight - planes can and do fly upside down. This would be impossible if Bernoulli's principle was generating the lift. In inverted flight, gravity would be pulling down, and with the curved side of the wing now on the bottom.... the plane would not be able to fly at all
• Symmetrical wings - these are wings where the top and bottom have the same curve.... so there would be no difference in the length of the path travelled on the top or the bottom, thus no difference in pressure.
• Stalls - If Bernoulli's principle were generating the lift, then as the plane slowed it would generate less lift... however, if the plane were to slow down a little (100mph to 99mph) it would just make a little less lift.... if 100mph generated enough lift to fly, then going 99mph would result in the plane losing altitude, but still generating lift to slow the decent. When a wing stalls in the real world, what happens is that at 100mph it is generating lift and at 99mph is is generating no lift at all and is falling like a rock.

There are more questions.... and I am not going to spend time explaining how lift is actually generated (talk to an aerodynamicist for that explanation...) However, what is important to remember is that many (most) pilots and even the flight instructors believe that lift is generated by Bernoulli's principle.... and even though they are wrong, they still go around teaching that and flying their planes successfully.

So, what does this have to do with martial arts? We have all been taught things in martial arts that are wrong. The explanation of how and what happens is wrong. Remember the threads we have here about choking.... if I choke you out, I am doing a blood choke and preventing the blood from going to your brain... except that the arteries are high pressure and the veins are low pressure, so really I am stopping the blood from leaving your brain, which prevents fresh blood from reaching the brain... except that there are a lot of veins and you physically cannot close them all.... However, if I think of the choke as cutting off blood to the brain, then it helps me to understand how to correct my grip on your lapel to actually choke you out, even though my understanding of what is happening is wrong. There are lots of things like this in martial arts.

So this leads to a few questions for martial artists....

1. What do you do when you find out that what you believe, what you have been taught is wrong? Many pilots, physicists, engineers (and probably some of you) will cling to Bernoulli's principle... even though they cannot answers the questions I asked above. (some of the answers get pretty comical....) Are we like that, where we double down on what we learned, only because we learned it that way first? Or do we stop and do some more research and possibly change our own position?
2. Do we need to change our own position? If we are getting the results we want and we are able to teach others to get the same results.... is it that important to change to the "correct" explanation? Remember, there are many pilots and flight instructors flying around very successfully, with an incorrect understanding of what they are doing....
3. Is it okay to teach the wrong explanation of what is happening, if it can get people to produce the right result faster? If so, do you need to give them the correct explanation later on? At what point do you give that correct explanation?
4. How do we know that our understanding is correct? Every pilot, instructor, physicist and engineer "knew" that they were right in explaining lift with Bernoulli's principle.... Just like we know that our explanation of what we are doing is the "correct" one....

Just some food for thought here. I just went to a martial arts clinic and worked with some great people. It was interesting that people with the "wrong" understanding of what was going on, were still able to help people get the right result more efficiently. And this is the weird stuff I think about on my 6 hour drive home afterwards....

Note: if you want to argue about lift, private message me.... lets keeps this thread about the martial arts side....

 

[Oily Dragon]

Well I'll throw the first bone out there. Practically everyone who says blood chokes work because they stop blood flow are wrong.

Blood chokes are a nervous system attack, it's the only possible way they can work in just a few seconds. It's the body's natural response to critically high blood pressure. Unless you are pressing on or pressuring the vagus nerve with either your body or a gi lapel, it ain't gonna work.

Making someone lightheaded by strangling them, and sending them to sleepytime in 5 seconds are not the same. Unless you've locked one in fast or had it done to you, you won't know. If you have any issues with your vasovagal system, you know how this works.

Hell, I'm pretty sure if I chop your head off, it'll function longer than it takes to put someone out cold with proper vagus pressure.

 

[_Simon_]

A very interesting thought, and reminds of what Scott Langley Sensei talks about a bit, it being a "useful fiction"

https://fb.watch/nXYJS-HqcO/?mibextid=Nif5oz

 

[Martial D]

Most of us are familiar with Bernoulli's principle, specifically when explaining how a wing on an airplane generates lift. The top of the wing is curved and the bottom of the wing is flat. This means the path from leading edge to trailing edge of the wing is longer on the top than on the bottom. Thus, the air flowing over the top of the wing has to travel faster than the air on the bottom of the wing, to leave the trailing edge. Since the air on top is moving faster.... it creates lower pressure above the wing and higher pressure below the wing... lifting it up.

This explanation is given in many physics books. Many pilots, private and commercial, understand lift this way. Even many of the flight instructors training these pilots. However, this explanation is wrong. Lift generated by a wing does not come from Bernoulli's principle. Here are a few things that break the idea that Bernoulli's principle is generating lift:

• Inverted flight - planes can and do fly upside down. This would be impossible if Bernoulli's principle was generating the lift. In inverted flight, gravity would be pulling down, and with the curved side of the wing now on the bottom.... the plane would not be able to fly at all
• Symmetrical wings - these are wings where the top and bottom have the same curve.... so there would be no difference in the length of the path travelled on the top or the bottom, thus no difference in pressure.
• Stalls - If Bernoulli's principle were generating the lift, then as the plane slowed it would generate less lift... however, if the plane were to slow down a little (100mph to 99mph) it would just make a little less lift.... if 100mph generated enough lift to fly, then going 99mph would result in the plane losing altitude, but still generating lift to slow the decent. When a wing stalls in the real world, what happens is that at 100mph it is generating lift and at 99mph is is generating no lift at all and is falling like a rock.

There are more questions.... and I am not going to spend time explaining how lift is actually generated (talk to an aerodynamicist for that explanation...) However, what is important to remember is that many (most) pilots and even the flight instructors believe that lift is generated by Bernoulli's principle.... and even though they are wrong, they still go around teaching that and flying their planes successfully.

So, what does this have to do with martial arts? We have all been taught things in martial arts that are wrong. The explanation of how and what happens is wrong. Remember the threads we have here about choking.... if I choke you out, I am doing a blood choke and preventing the blood from going to your brain... except that the arteries are high pressure and the veins are low pressure, so really I am stopping the blood from leaving your brain, which prevents fresh blood from reaching the brain... except that there are a lot of veins and you physically cannot close them all.... However, if I think of the choke as cutting off blood to the brain, then it helps me to understand how to correct my grip on your lapel to actually choke you out, even though my understanding of what is happening is wrong. There are lots of things like this in martial arts.

So this leads to a few questions for martial artists....

1. What do you do when you find out that what you believe, what you have been taught is wrong? Many pilots, physicists, engineers (and probably some of you) will cling to Bernoulli's principle... even though they cannot answers the questions I asked above. (some of the answers get pretty comical....) Are we like that, where we double down on what we learned, only because we learned it that way first? Or do we stop and do some more research and possibly change our own position?
2. Do we need to change our own position? If we are getting the results we want and we are able to teach others to get the same results.... is it that important to change to the "correct" explanation? Remember, there are many pilots and flight instructors flying around very successfully, with an incorrect understanding of what they are doing....
3. Is it okay to teach the wrong explanation of what is happening, if it can get people to produce the right result faster? If so, do you need to give them the correct explanation later on? At what point do you give that correct explanation?
4. How do we know that our understanding is correct? Every pilot, instructor, physicist and engineer "knew" that they were right in explaining lift with Bernoulli's principle.... Just like we know that our explanation of what we are doing is the "correct" one....

Just some food for thought here. I just went to a martial arts clinic and worked with some great people. It was interesting that people with the "wrong" understanding of what was going on, were still able to help people get the right result more efficiently. And this is the weird stuff I think about on my 6 hour drive home afterwards....

Note: if you want to argue about lift, private message me.... lets keeps this thread about the martial arts side....

Your understanding of physics (aerodynamicist...lol) is very um. Interesting.

So I'll just ignore all that about lift as it would take a long time to explain to you.

So cutting all that out..you seem to be asking if it's a problem if you are taught something that works but with incorrect reasoning.

Yes and no.

No because it works.

Yes because you will never learn more or advance a technique without the correct 'why'

 

[Gyakuto]

Most of us are familiar with Bernoulli's principle, specifically when explaining how a wing on an airplane generates lift. The top of the wing is curved and the bottom of the wing is flat. This means the path from leading edge to trailing edge of the wing is longer on the top than on the bottom. Thus, the air flowing over the top of the wing has to travel faster than the air on the bottom of the wing, to leave the trailing edge. Since the air on top is moving faster.... it creates lower pressure above the wing and higher pressure below the wing... lifting it up.

This explanation is given in many physics books. Many pilots, private and commercial, understand lift this way. Even many of the flight instructors training these pilots. However, this explanation is wrong. Lift generated by a wing does not come from Bernoulli's principle. Here are a few things that break the idea that Bernoulli's principle is generating lift:

• Inverted flight - planes can and do fly upside down. This would be impossible if Bernoulli's principle was generating the lift. In inverted flight, gravity would be pulling down, and with the curved side of the wing now on the bottom.... the plane would not be able to fly at all
• Symmetrical wings - these are wings where the top and bottom have the same curve.... so there would be no difference in the length of the path travelled on the top or the bottom, thus no difference in pressure.
• Stalls - If Bernoulli's principle were generating the lift, then as the plane slowed it would generate less lift... however, if the plane were to slow down a little (100mph to 99mph) it would just make a little less lift.... if 100mph generated enough lift to fly, then going 99mph would result in the plane losing altitude, but still generating lift to slow the decent. When a wing stalls in the real world, what happens is that at 100mph it is generating lift and at 99mph is is generating no lift at all and is falling like a rock.

There are more questions.... and I am not going to spend time explaining how lift is actually generated (talk to an aerodynamicist for that explanation...) However, what is important to remember is that many (most) pilots and even the flight instructors believe that lift is generated by Bernoulli's principle.... and even though they are wrong, they still go around teaching that and flying their planes successfully.

So, what does this have to do with martial arts? We have all been taught things in martial arts that are wrong. The explanation of how and what happens is wrong. Remember the threads we have here about choking.... if I choke you out, I am doing a blood choke and preventing the blood from going to your brain... except that the arteries are high pressure and the veins are low pressure, so really I am stopping the blood from leaving your brain, which prevents fresh blood from reaching the brain... except that there are a lot of veins and you physically cannot close them all.... However, if I think of the choke as cutting off blood to the brain, then it helps me to understand how to correct my grip on your lapel to actually choke you out, even though my understanding of what is happening is wrong. There are lots of things like this in martial arts.

So this leads to a few questions for martial artists....

1. What do you do when you find out that what you believe, what you have been taught is wrong? Many pilots, physicists, engineers (and probably some of you) will cling to Bernoulli's principle... even though they cannot answers the questions I asked above. (some of the answers get pretty comical....) Are we like that, where we double down on what we learned, only because we learned it that way first? Or do we stop and do some more research and possibly change our own position?
2. Do we need to change our own position? If we are getting the results we want and we are able to teach others to get the same results.... is it that important to change to the "correct" explanation? Remember, there are many pilots and flight instructors flying around very successfully, with an incorrect understanding of what they are doing....
3. Is it okay to teach the wrong explanation of what is happening, if it can get people to produce the right result faster? If so, do you need to give them the correct explanation later on? At what point do you give that correct explanation?
4. How do we know that our understanding is correct? Every pilot, instructor, physicist and engineer "knew" that they were right in explaining lift with Bernoulli's principle.... Just like we know that our explanation of what we are doing is the "correct" one....

Just some food for thought here. I just went to a martial arts clinic and worked with some great people. It was interesting that people with the "wrong" understanding of what was going on, were still able to help people get the right result more efficiently. And this is the weird stuff I think about on my 6 hour drive home afterwards....

Note: if you want to argue about lift, private message me.... lets keeps this thread about the martial arts side....

When I was learning to fly, I was told that the Bernoulli principle made a small contribution to lift but in fact the Coanda effect was the main lift-generating phenomenon: basically Newton’s 3rd Law where the wing directs airflow downwards which pushes the wing (and attached aircraft), upwards.

Maybe I had good instructors.

 

[Gyakuto]

Your understanding of physics (aerodynamicist...lol) is very um. Interesting.

So I'll just ignore all that about lift as it would take a long time to explain to you.

So cutting all that out..you seem to be asking if it's a problem if you are taught something that works but with incorrect reasoning.

Yes and no.

No because it works.

Yes because you will never learn more or advance a technique without the correct 'why'

We’re often taught things in line with our ability to understand it. We learned all sorts of stuff at A level, only to have them turned over at degree level and that turned over again when doing a PhD etc.

A pilot doesn’t really need to know the intricacies of fluid dynamics to fly a plane so a simplified, potted version can be given to them.

A martial artist doesn’t need to know the intricacies of ‘woo woo ki projection’ in order to punch and kick effectively, but instead are told it’s their muscles and joints that are allowing them to do their stuff because it’s only after years of study can they grasp woo woo ki projection.

 

[mograph]

Your understanding of physics (aerodynamicist...lol) is very um. Interesting.

So I'll just ignore all that about lift as it would take a long time to explain to you.

Not sure what you're trying to say.
Is this about right?

No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air

Do recent explanations solve the mysteries of aerodynamic lift?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Oily Dragon]

lets keeps this thread about the martial arts side....

Here's another one that irks me.

People love to talk about combat. And 99% of the time, they're full of it and have not a single ounce of actual fight experience. This goes for almost all karate black belts, kung fu teachers, and BJJ black belts too (sorry BJJ guys, those aren't fights on the mats unless at least one person starts bleeding, in my book).

If we took 100 random people from just this website, I doubt more than a dozen have ever been punched in the nose. So having been punched in the nose many times (and not hit the deck once), I feel qualified to rant about this.

The popularity of action films involving martial arts can't be debated. But almost every single "martial artist" in film history...wasn't a martial artist or fighter. David Carradine, Pam Grier, William Shatner, Rudy Moore, I could go on and on. They were all actors, untrained in full contact. David Carradine, the scion of Kung Fu, Kill Bill, and countless cheesy martial arts movies, rest his soul, would probably run away screaming for help if someone attacked him in real life.

Chuck Norris was a fighter though, and we known this because there is video of him not giving a crap and stepping into the arena for real. For better or worse, people like Norris were not afraid to step up and showcase what real martial arts meant to them. I like these kind of old videos because they show the restraint of someone very well experienced. It's not pretty, but fighting never is. Even point fighting or stoppage fights are still very aggressive encounters compared to what most people ever experience.

Same with Jean Claude Van Damme

Point being, this is not a stunt double. But damn, if you try to have a serious talk with people in any random martial arts discussion, many people are going to start going off on how this guy below is "just an actor", ignoring that fact that he has an impressive full contact fight record under his birth name (which is not Van Damme).

Which makes me wonder: why is it sooo many so-called "martial artists" love to explain the intricacies of techniques until they are out of breath (and so many are out of shape entirely, or muscle-less), but practically none of them can do anything like this. Because if you can do this, you can take a lot of damage and still be dangerous.

So why is everyone in the martial arts so wrong about this sort of discipline? It's like they think discipline is something out of a comic book, not something you have to sweat, bleed, and push beyond the limits of your endurance to achieve?

I can't do this, but I try every day.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I can't do this, but I try every day.

View attachment 30217

This was what I could do. I try to maintain it. But it's getting harder and harder every day. QAQ

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1. What do you do when you find out that what you believe, what you have been taught is wrong?

I was taught that I should train the solo form exactly as I was taught. The more that I think about this, the more that I feel it's wrong. If I follow that guideline, the best that I can do is just to be a perfect copy machine, no more and no less.

How do I change this? I only teach grammar. I let students to use that grammar to create their own sentences.

 

[Gyakuto]

Martial artists, overestimating their fighting abilities in a virtual vacuum of context? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

sorry BJJ guys, those aren't fights on the mats unless at least one person starts bleeding, in my book.

I have always believed that no matter which MA system that you may train, first you have to be able to deal with the incoming flying fists. When someone throws right jab, left cross, right hook, left uppercut toward your head, can you handle it?

Should we treat that as the highest priority in our training?

 

[Oily Dragon]

I have always believed that no matter which MA system that you may train, first you have to be able to deal with the incoming flying fists. When someone throws right jab, left cross, right hook, left uppercut toward your head, can you handle it?

Should we treat that as the highest priority in our training?

I think a lot of focus is on "what technique to use" vs basic endurance.

This is one place I think the theory meets reality. Your best techniques won't work if you can't keep your heart rate and breathing controlled, but you also need to be able to take damage without caring so much. The "our art is too deadly" people will argue this to death, but can't face the reality of what happens after their nose is bleeding.

 

[drop bear]

We train foundational concepts by creating an artificial environment.

That is pretty much what martial arts is.

So doing it mentally is a legitimate approach.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Most of us are familiar with Bernoulli's principle, specifically when explaining how a wing on an airplane generates lift. The top of the wing is curved and the bottom of the wing is flat. This means the path from leading edge to trailing edge of the wing is longer on the top than on the bottom. Thus, the air flowing over the top of the wing has to travel faster than the air on the bottom of the wing, to leave the trailing edge. Since the air on top is moving faster.... it creates lower pressure above the wing and higher pressure below the wing... lifting it up.

This explanation is given in many physics books. Many pilots, private and commercial, understand lift this way. Even many of the flight instructors training these pilots. However, this explanation is wrong. Lift generated by a wing does not come from Bernoulli's principle. Here are a few things that break the idea that Bernoulli's principle is generating lift:

• Inverted flight - planes can and do fly upside down. This would be impossible if Bernoulli's principle was generating the lift. In inverted flight, gravity would be pulling down, and with the curved side of the wing now on the bottom.... the plane would not be able to fly at all

I played video games while in college (Arcade games) One was called After-Burner and used a F-14.
I could fly the plan in the game (model) upside down. Because it was easy for me to keep the nose of the plane between the ground horizon and the top of the skyline. (* I will reference models later *)
Side note: I did have access to the sit down and when the lane was upside the controls would stop the swinging back and forth and jsut sit stable similar to the stand up version (Screen only)

• Symmetrical wings - these are wings where the top and bottom have the same curve.... so there would be no difference in the length of the path travelled on the top or the bottom, thus no difference in pressure.

This makes me think of birds and was the first thing I thought of from your first paragraph

• Stalls - If Bernoulli's principle were generating the lift, then as the plane slowed it would generate less lift... however, if the plane were to slow down a little (100mph to 99mph) it would just make a little less lift.... if 100mph generated enough lift to fly, then going 99mph would result in the plane losing altitude, but still generating lift to slow the decent. When a wing stalls in the real world, what happens is that at 100mph it is generating lift and at 99mph is is generating no lift at all and is falling like a rock.

There are more questions.... and I am not going to spend time explaining how lift is actually generated (talk to an aerodynamicist for that explanation...) However, what is important to remember is that many (most) pilots and even the flight instructors believe that lift is generated by Bernoulli's principle.... and even though they are wrong, they still go around teaching that and flying their planes successfully.

So, what does this have to do with martial arts? We have all been taught things in martial arts that are wrong. The explanation of how and what happens is wrong. Remember the threads we have here about choking.... if I choke you out, I am doing a blood choke and preventing the blood from going to your brain... except that the arteries are high pressure and the veins are low pressure, so really I am stopping the blood from leaving your brain, which prevents fresh blood from reaching the brain... except that there are a lot of veins and you physically cannot close them all.... However, if I think of the choke as cutting off blood to the brain, then it helps me to understand how to correct my grip on your lapel to actually choke you out, even though my understanding of what is happening is wrong. There are lots of things like this in martial arts.

So this leads to a few questions for martial artists....

1. What do you do when you find out that what you believe, what you have been taught is wrong? Many pilots, physicists, engineers (and probably some of you) will cling to Bernoulli's principle... even though they cannot answers the questions I asked above. (some of the answers get pretty comical....) Are we like that, where we double down on what we learned, only because we learned it that way first? Or do we stop and do some more research and possibly change our own position?

As an engineer and understanding models I know they are not 100% Accurate and they are used to for specific reasons.
I adapt to the new data and see how it impacts what I know , teach , ..., .
It also means I may not drop the model as it fits the conditions I am trying to explain.
A simple box drill with three strikes and three blocks is not a fight not sparing yet if used correctly and be used to body mechanics / footwork and once the student is comfortable in the pattern , break it. And have them react and then go back to pattern.
This allows the student to work new information and to learn to react and not just go fast. ( Fast is fun and should be allowed for the enjoyment and for the lesson that fast is not the actual goal , in my opinion )

1. Do we need to change our own position? If we are getting the results we want and we are able to teach others to get the same results.... is it that important to change to the "correct" explanation? Remember, there are many pilots and flight instructors flying around very successfully, with an incorrect understanding of what they are doing....

NOTE: With the breaking of the quote into parts the numbers reset - The above is Item #2 from the original quote, and the reset was done automatically and not done by me.

Change position ? It depends, Review and consider and adjust accordingly.
Is it ok to teach the old, as above yes, and explain to the student why when they are ready.

I ( and I am sure everyone else has had ) have had students that ask why, and why , and why and why.
Sometimes the answer is because.
Yet, I counter with 1 + 1 = 2 - Why?
They look confused.
I say it again, and add there are three proofs I know, one is easy and can be done verbally quickly and the others requires multiple tens of pages of mathematics.
So take it from me that this is what we need to do now, and then later when you understand more we can go back and revisit .

1. Is it okay to teach the wrong explanation of what is happening, if it can get people to produce the right result faster? If so, do you need to give them the correct explanation later on? At what point do you give that correct explanation?

To me teaching the wrong explanation is bad.
Tell them about the wrong explanation and that it is bad, and why it is bad, when it is appropriate. And that depends upon the understanding of the student and when they ask the question(s).
Some will ask as they will say I was watching some videos / channels and ....
Then have the discussion or tell them you will follow up right after class.

1. How do we know that our understanding is correct? Every pilot, instructor, physicist and engineer "knew" that they were right in explaining lift with Bernoulli's principle.... Just like we know that our explanation of what we are doing is the "correct" one....

Light can be modeled as a Beam, as Wave, and as a Particle. One can use any of the two and it works just fine together.
Add in the third one ( in any previous pairing ) and the models all break down.
Are they wrong? Yes of course they are wrong as there is no one model known today that resolves it all.
Can one teach that these are the scientific models used today, and the limitations of those models? - Heck Yes !

Just some food for thought here. I just went to a martial arts clinic and worked with some great people. It was interesting that people with the "wrong" understanding of what was going on, were still able to help people get the right result more efficiently. And this is the weird stuff I think about on my 6 hour drive home afterwards....

Note: if you want to argue about lift, private message me.... lets keeps this thread about the martial arts side....

It is good to review what you learned including how others taught, and see if their methodology is good for you and or your students.
I believe that an art can be good for a person and have the wrong instructor, and this plays into that. It can be how they teach, or explain or ... , .
So , yes it can be efficient and given clinic or seminar there might not be time to go back and correct in the future, so maybe we have to take it on ourselves to own that detail and to follow up on our own.

 

[wab25]

Your understanding of physics (aerodynamicist...lol) is very um. Interesting.

Not sure what you are saying here.... Do you not think Bernoulli is still taught as the main principle for generating lift? A quick google search shows that it is still taught that way. Or are you arguing the Bernoulli actually does generate the lift for a wing?

So I'll just ignore all that about lift as it would take a long time to explain to you.

Gyakuto was able to explain it in one sentence. That was not too long was it? (the only thing I would say about his explanation is that Bernoulli can contribute a little.... if it is not a symmetrical air foil and if the plane is not inverted... if the plane were inverted, then Bernoulli would be contributing to the effect of gravity, and would need to be overcome by some other effect....)

So cutting all that out..you seem to be asking if it's a problem if you are taught something that works but with incorrect reasoning.

Yes and no.

No because it works.

Yes because you will never learn more or advance a technique without the correct 'why'

There are people who can do chokes far better than I will ever be able to.... who think they are cutting off the blood supply to the brain, by collapsing the blood vessels. They can even teach other people, far better than I can, in how to do these chokes. Whats more, many of these people have advanced the art of choking quite a bit, even though their understanding of what was going on was wrong.

Further, how to we know that our understanding is correct? Because I choked someone out? Because I fought in x number of fights and had some number of wins by choking people out? That has been happening for decades and even centuries, by people with the incorrect understanding of what they were doing. I would venture that most of the chokes we rely on today... were created by people thinking that they were preventing blood flow to the brain by collapsing the blood vessels or by cutting off the ki flow in the body.

My real point was....

1. How open are we to investigating the things we "know" to be correct?
2. Would we be open to learning to do something better, even if the person showing the better way has the "incorrect" understanding of what is happening?

 

[mograph]

My real point was....

1. How open are we to investigating the things we "know" to be correct?
2. Would we be open to learning to do something better, even if the person showing the better way has the "incorrect" understanding of what is happening?

It depends on how strongly we identify with the art, the original idea, the teacher who said it, and so on. Similarly, it depends on how attached we are to the idea and where it came from.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Here's another one that irks me.

People love to talk about combat. And 99% of the time, they're full of it and have not a single ounce of actual fight experience. This goes for almost all karate black belts, kung fu teachers, and BJJ black belts too (sorry BJJ guys, those aren't fights on the mats unless at least one person starts bleeding, in my book).

If we took 100 random people from just this website, I doubt more than a dozen have ever been punched in the nose. So having been punched in the nose many times (and not hit the deck once), I feel qualified to rant about this.

The popularity of action films involving martial arts can't be debated. But almost every single "martial artist" in film history...wasn't a martial artist or fighter. David Carradine, Pam Grier, William Shatner, Rudy Moore, I could go on and on. They were all actors, untrained in full contact. David Carradine, the scion of Kung Fu, Kill Bill, and countless cheesy martial arts movies, rest his soul, would probably run away screaming for help if someone attacked him in real life.

Chuck Norris was a fighter though, and we known this because there is video of him not giving a crap and stepping into the arena for real. For better or worse, people like Norris were not afraid to step up and showcase what real martial arts meant to them. I like these kind of old videos because they show the restraint of someone very well experienced. It's not pretty, but fighting never is. Even point fighting or stoppage fights are still very aggressive encounters compared to what most people ever experience.

Same with Jean Claude Van Damme

Point being, this is not a stunt double. But damn, if you try to have a serious talk with people in any random martial arts discussion, many people are going to start going off on how this guy below is "just an actor", ignoring that fact that he has an impressive full contact fight record under his birth name (which is not Van Damme).

Which makes me wonder: why is it sooo many so-called "martial artists" love to explain the intricacies of techniques until they are out of breath (and so many are out of shape entirely, or muscle-less), but practically none of them can do anything like this. Because if you can do this, you can take a lot of damage and still be dangerous.

So why is everyone in the martial arts so wrong about this sort of discipline? It's like they think discipline is something out of a comic book, not something you have to sweat, bleed, and push beyond the limits of your endurance to achieve?

I can't do this, but I try every day.

View attachment 30217

Just a side story, we are all very fragile creatures. I personally saw Jean Claude get knocked flat out by a guy in a big cowboy hat out front of the restaurant Spago in Hollywood in the early 1990s. The had a verbal confrontation going on as my friends were walking by. One punch from the big guy and Jean Claude was on his back with his arms pinwheeling. I only tell this story because it’s proof that no matter how well trained we are, or how tough we fantasize about being, there is always a bigger fish. BTW turns out that the big guy and Jean Claude had previous beef in New York, where the big guy was the president of New York Hells Angels.

 

[mograph]

...where the big guy was the president of New York Hells Angels.

Way to bury the lede there, WWG!

 

[Oily Dragon]

Just a side story, we are all very fragile creatures. I personally saw Jean Claude get knocked flat out by a guy in a big cowboy hat out front of the restaurant Spago in Hollywood in the early 1990s. The had a verbal confrontation going on as my friends were walking by. One punch from the big guy and Jean Claude was on his back with his arms pinwheeling. I only tell this story because it’s proof that no matter how well trained we are, or how tough we fantasize about being, there is always a bigger fish. BTW turns out that the big guy and Jean Claude had previous beef in New York, where the big guy was the president of New York Hells Angels.

The Hells Angels guy was just jealous. The root of a lot of violence.

I'm sure he's doing much better now.

Not.