Gracie Breakdown on Catch Wrestling vs Bjj

[Tony Dismukes]

Chris, just a quick note - I'm heading out to visit the In-Laws for Thanksgiving. I'm not sure if I'll have internet access while travelling. If not, I'll address your questions when I get back this weekend.

 

[Chris Parker]

Not a problem, Tony. All the best to you and yours for the holidays over there!

 

[Hanzou]

Not taking any sides here but I wanted to point out:

Actually on the current front the Gracie Academy and Rorion and his son's have actually added several things into their self defense curriculum through the years. Gracie Combatives actually has at least one thing in it that you would not find in older BJJ or in other lines of BJJ. (it was codified specifically for Gracie Combatives) They have also addressed certain things for law enforcement and military that again has added to their curriculum and taken into account things that were not taken into account previously. This is an area that they specifically have moved into in a big way. Not to mention their BullProof program is new as well. Some of it is good, some bad but hey that is just my opinion!

So there are some areas in BJJ that specifically are not or were currently not developed through sporting competition. Though I will readily agree that the vast majority of training and technique advancement is from competition training. So much so that if you are not researching and training with different people all the time you will miss new developments quickly! Though of course the best way to counter anything you have not seen before is to have good fluid BJJ fundamentals.

Actually the combatives stuff has been in Gjj for decades. Its almost exactly how Helio and Carlos taught the art to their students, because a lot of the Gracie family (Relson, Rickson, Royler, etc.) teach it at their academies. Honestly, its probably how Maeda taught the art to them as well, because the Fadda line also has a pretty extensive self-defense program as well, and there's footage of Maeda demonstrating very self defense oriented grappling. I will agree that its definitely been modified for police and military purposes, but the combatives is certainly not a new addition.

If anything, the Bjj vs Bjj competitive side is the newer addition. Old school Bjj "competition" was almost entirely about NHB challenge matches and street fighting against other fighting systems. You really can't compare that to Judo or Boxing (for example) that was structured for Judo vs Judo or Boxing vs Boxing competition at a very early stage.

The reality is that there's two very different Bjjs emerging in the modern era. On one side, you have the more traditional Bjj taught by the Gracies, and others, and you have the more competitive side where the only thing you're really learning is how to fight on the ground. There was one hell of a video shown recently where Rickson Gracie was discussing the more self defense based side of Bjj with a black belt instructor, and the latter looked like it was his first day in school.

To be fair though, Rickson does that to anyone.

 

[Hanzou]

Found the vid.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added. So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit. You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now. Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.

You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ. More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)

Nice video with Rickson!

 

[drop bear]

Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added. So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit. You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now. Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.

You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ. More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)

Nice video with Rickson!

ok so 10th planet. Which has their own take on bjj.

where do they fit?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I have little first hand training experience with 10th planet. Though I have several friends now in a 10th planet gym. They seem more sport oriented but like I said that is a comment with limited exposure!

 

[Hanzou]

Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added. So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit. You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now. Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.

You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ. More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)

Nice video with Rickson!

Yeah, sorry I misread that Brian. I thought you were saying something else. No worries.

And yeah, I'm always happy to share that Rickson vid.

ok so 10th planet. Which has their own take on bjj.

where do they fit?

10th planet is sport-oriented. Mainly Bjj developed for use in MMA.

 

[drop bear]

It's not an accusation, it's an observation. And it's about as far from a "cop out" as you can get… I'm not avoiding anything, it gets pointed out after your continual missing of what you're being told.



Do you really want to go back there? After you got that thread locked? Seriously?

You were given the evidence. You started from a ridiculous hypothetical (that samurai might have been killing each other in practice all the time), that was denied, and the denial was supported with existing training methods, taken directly from the methods the samurai used, as maintained, preserved, and codified in "samurai" arts (that still exist, for the record), as well as pointing out that there are documents and records from the time (the densho and other forms) that continue to support just how incorrect your hypothetical was, and, if that wasn't enough, it was demonstrated just how unrealistic your idea was.

In other words, you had documentary evidence, direct (first-hand) experience evidence, logical evidence, contemporary evidence, and current training evidence… and your response? "So… no proof?". Dude, you got nothing but proof… and completely ignored it all.



How would that be funny? Are you thinking that I don't have an understanding of your side of things here? Dude… way off… I've made numerous comments in favour of the more "sport" training methods, depending on the aims and context.

But, for your edification, my background includes Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do (a branch of Shito Ryu that was formed basically to win tournaments), Rhee Tae-Kwon Do, BJJ (Gracie affiliated, including some training under Royce), boxing, and kickboxing. I've also spent some time (occasional visits, really) in a couple of MMA dojo, done some wrestling, and explored Judo. Add to that my traditional work (the semi-traditional side of the Ninjutsu arts, my Koryu training, Iai, Kyudo, as well as some time in Aikido, and more), and my RBSD training (both in various training environments, and as a teacher of RBSD methods within my Ninjutsu classes), my range of friends and associates who train in many of the above, and more (sporting and other systems) with whom I communicate regularly, and my last 3 decades or so reading, learning, and training, and you end up with, quite frankly, one of the most well-rounded persons on this forum.

Why is my perspective "all martial arts"? It's not… but it is one that takes each art from it's own perspective, rather than from one that has nothing to do with it. Oh, but it is far more "all martial arts" than yours, for the record.

ok your observations are wrong.

and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.

so i will do this more simply. Fighting is physical. There is no getting around this. And physical attributes of the person apply. Strength speed athleticism fitness all play a part. there is this idea that fighting exists in some sort of area separate to other physical activities and this is wrong.

technique is not vs strength. This is also a wrong concept. Because fighting is physical,technique is also physical. So the stronger you are the better you can perform technique.

there is your rsbd idea that technique is separate to strength meaning that a certain style is more suited to older,weaker,female and so on. this either hinges on fighting someone who is compliant, or someone who is stronger but can't fight. It is certainly not a more martial arts than me concept.

now i can see why you have these wrong ideas. I had them as well untill i had to fight strong people. Once you go 100% against someone the mechanics of fighting change. Other factors like strength become more prevalent and managing strength more important.

theoretically you can argue technique vs strength but practically it becomes a different concept.

so in a competitive sense this idea that there is a strength based art and a technique based art is not really true both arts are using every advantage they can. If one art wants to complain they got out muscled in competition that is their fault not the other guys.

and if a thread got locked because i don't believe you are a samurai well that is pretty funny as well.

opinion is not proof.

 

[Chris Parker]

ok your observations are wrong.

No, they're not. You have demonstrated, again and again, that you have no clue what you're talking about in anything other than some aspects of some modern competitive training systems.

and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.

Yeah… you're a long way from talking about anything I don't understand, you realise…

so i will do this more simply. Fighting is physical. There is no getting around this. And physical attributes of the person apply. Strength speed athleticism fitness all play a part. there is this idea that fighting exists in some sort of area separate to other physical activities and this is wrong.

Firstly, "fighting" ain't fighting… there's a large number of ways fighting can be defined and various forms that it can take. Next, fighting can have a physical component, but to reduce it to "fighting is physical" is such a basic, low-level understanding that it's really bordering of flat-out wrong. Thirdly, I have never denied that physical attributes are anything but an advantage… but none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed in the post of mine you quoted, other than you still not having a clue about what RBSD is about.

So… no.

technique is not vs strength. This is also a wrong concept. Because fighting is physical,technique is also physical. So the stronger you are the better you can perform technique.

Yeah, you're still going on a beginners mentality there… and a young mans idea. You do get that there's a lot more to the idea and concept of fighting than you are suggesting here, yeah?

But, when it comes to "the stronger you are, the better you can perform the technique", uh, no. Completely unrelated ideas there… in fact, it's the stronger people who often have the bigger issues with "technique"… as they can simply muscle it, and force something to work, they don't get the technique in the first place. I'll put it this way… I have a number of students that I can't possibly out-muscle… they're taller than me, heavier than me, stronger than me… but not one of them has much of a chance against me, as I can out-technique the lot of them. So, by the way, does your coach. He doesn't beat you with strength, he out-techniques you… you might want to look at that.

there is your rsbd idea that technique is separate to strength meaning that a certain style is more suited to older,weaker,female and so on. this either hinges on fighting someone who is compliant, or someone who is stronger but can't fight. It is certainly not a more martial arts than me concept.

For the twentieth time in this thread, that is not an "RBSD" idea. It's a very common martial art idea… it's a fundamental tenet of BJJ (application of leverage rather than strength to enable a smaller person to beat a larger one, if you want an example), among many, many other systems… in fact, pretty much any I can think of. Very few emphasise anything close to "stronger is the key", if at all.

But the biggest thing is that this is not, in any way, anything to do with RBSD methodologies, concepts, ideas, teachings, or anything else. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

now i can see why you have these wrong ideas. I had them as well untill i had to fight strong people. Once you go 100% against someone the mechanics of fighting change. Other factors like strength become more prevalent and managing strength more important.

You really think I haven't done such things? Seriously? You think that my last three decades haven't included anything like that?

You might want to think again.

Oh, and I'd point out that what you're classing as "wrong ideas" are existing largely in your own relatively inexperienced mind… you're not stating anything that I've actually said, and are going down a path that I haven't shown you.

theoretically you can argue technique vs strength but practically it becomes a different concept.

Maybe when you get some more experience you'll change your feelings on this. Hopefully.

so in a competitive sense this idea that there is a strength based art and a technique based art is not really true both arts are using every advantage they can. If one art wants to complain they got out muscled in competition that is their fault not the other guys.

Completely besides the point, and still not anything to do with anything in the post you quoted.

and if a thread got locked because i don't believe you are a samurai well that is pretty funny as well.

Son, you got the thread locked for reporting a post of mine that pointed out, again, that you'd been given the evidence, and were simply too ignorant to recognise it, or were trolling the thread. The idea that you were believing that I was a "samurai" is ludicrous… but what is more ludicrous is the implication that I claimed to believe I was one myself. I'm going to caution you to take care how to twist people's comments, the reducto ad absurdium methodology only works so far… and here, it makes you look like a smarmy little brat who thinks he's smarter than he is. And yes, that's again an observation, not an opinion.

opinion is not proof.

Again, the evidence was presented, everyone saw, recognised, and acknowledged it as such, except you, with your completely childish responses, and refusal to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about. No opinion was given, you realise.

 

[Steve]

For the twentieth time in this thread, that is not an "RBSD" idea. It's a very common martial art idea… it's a fundamental tenet of BJJ (application of leverage rather than strength to enable a smaller person to beat a larger one, if you want an example), among many, many other systems… in fact, pretty much any I can think of. Very few emphasise anything close to "stronger is the key", if at all.

In BJJ, there is technique and then there is everything else. We tell strong guys to focus on technique, don't muscle it. We tell athletic guys to slow down a little and focus on technique. The lesson isn't that strength or athleticism are irrelevant. Rather, the lesson is that you aren't in the school to learn to be strong or athletic. Those are traits you have or you don't have.

Good technique can overcome strength. But technical skill being equal, the rest of the package comes into play. Strength, intelligence, athleticism and good looks are all part of that package (well, maybe not the last one).

You really think I haven't done such things? Seriously? You think that my last three decades haven't included anything like that?

You understand that this is deflection, not a statement.

You might want to think again.

Oh, and I'd point out that what you're classing as "wrong ideas" are existing largely in your own relatively inexperienced mind… you're not stating anything that I've actually said, and are going down a path that I haven't shown you.

It's just strange to me how anyone who disagrees with you must be inexperienced. From the outside, on this topic, Drop Bear is (IN MY OPINION) as credible as you. There are several others on the forum who are as credible as you, IMO, including Brian VanCise and Tony Dismukes. Continuing to call him inexperienced reflects poorly on you.

Son, you got the thread locked for reporting a post of mine that pointed out, again, that you'd been given the evidence, and were simply too ignorant to recognise it, or were trolling the thread. The idea that you were believing that I was a "samurai" is ludicrous… but what is more ludicrous is the implication that I claimed to believe I was one myself. I'm going to caution you to take care how to twist people's comments, the reducto ad absurdium methodology only works so far… and here, it makes you look like a smarmy little brat who thinks he's smarter than he is. And yes, that's again an observation, not an opinion.

Using "Son" is a great way to drive a thread down. As I and others have pointed out, it's disrespectful, and I notice you only use it when you're fully engaged in a personal attack on a poster you deem unworthy. I would also like to suggest to you that your "observations" of Drop Bear could equally apply to you. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

As Steve mentioned using "son" is a great way to not only hurt a good thread but also to make your posts look bad to everyone.

Let's all move forward on the OP!

 

[drop bear]

Interesting kudo update. Australia didn't do so well. It was a fight between Russia who are the example of tough vs Japan who are the example of technical.

Russia dominated this year.

 

[drop bear]

Interesting kudo update. Australia didn't do so well. It was a fight between Russia who are the example of tough vs Japan who are the example of technical.

Russia dominated this year.

there was a Japanese judo chap who smashed people though.

(couldn't edit)

 

[Paul_D]

and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.

Your numerous posts on the subject clearly demonstrate that you are the one that has no understanding what-so-ever of what RBSD is or means.

Chris has pointed this out to you repeatedly, but for some reason the message is not sinking in. To quote Bubba Sparxx "How else can I say it? I don't speak no other languages"

 

[drop bear]

Your numerous posts on the subject clearly demonstrate that you are the one that has no understanding what-so-ever of what RBSD is or means.

Chris has pointed this out to you repeatedly, but for some reason the message is not sinking in. To quote Bubba Sparxx "How else can I say it? I don't speak no other languages"

so Chris can point something out repeatedly but i cant?

that doesn't sound very fair.

seriously where would these discussions go if i just sat back and said you don't understand rbsd.

and rbsd is pretty famously marketed to non athletes using all of Chris,s arguments. And surprisingly he is an rbsd guy. Making arguments i claim are rbsd.

you don't see that as a bit coincidental?

 

[drop bear]

Yahoo answers why krav is better than kickboxing.

"take krav maga. its great for self defense. if you are not really strong its gonna be veeeery tough to defend yourself successfully just with kickboxing. krav maga attacks the human weakpoints. even the strongest men could be hurt by you if you know how to use krav maga techniques. it also teaches you how to react on a knife attack."

classic rbsd argument.

it is not something i have made up it is a really real thing.

and it is funny when competitive fighters use it as they are usually the victims of it.

 

[Chris Parker]

In BJJ, there is technique and then there is everything else. We tell strong guys to focus on technique, don't muscle it. We tell athletic guys to slow down a little and focus on technique. The lesson isn't that strength or athleticism are irrelevant. Rather, the lesson is that you aren't in the school to learn to be strong or athletic. Those are traits you have or you don't have.

And was that to support, or counter my comments? To be frank, it comes across as largely besides the point… I commented that all martial systems I have ever come across do not emphasise being stronger as the primary tactic/methodology, and gave an example of one of the basic concepts behind BJJ to support that (really just to have us all speaking the same language, so to speak)… here, you mention that technique is highlighted beyond any natural attributes someone might have. While that's true, you're missing the reason that technique is emphasised in each case… and none of my comments were really anything to do with natural attributes of an individual. It's really not a part of what I was saying.

Good technique can overcome strength. But technical skill being equal, the rest of the package comes into play. Strength, intelligence, athleticism and good looks are all part of that package (well, maybe not the last one).

Er… okay… again, are you arguing against me, or are you just stating the obvious? There's no question that those factors can help… and, if all else is equal, sure, they can give you the edge… but no system relies on being bigger and stronger, the focus is on being better (technically)… well, maybe the WWE… but that's about as close as I can get.

You understand that this is deflection, not a statement.

Yeah, and maybe I would have offered a more direct answer if I hadn't already listed my background, which includes a number of systems that do exactly what drop bear was talking about… a list he asked for, but has ignored since.

In other words, the answer was already given, and if he didn't listen then, I didn't see much hope in him listening now.

It's just strange to me how anyone who disagrees with you must be inexperienced.

No, Steve, when someone lists only a couple of years (at the most) training in their system, and all previous training seems to be missed or misunderstood, then I will consider the lack of experience to be an indication of the lack of experience. In addition, when all of the posters comments show such lack of experience/understanding, that's when I'll comment as such. Disagreeing with me is not the reason I came to that observation and conclusion. You might want to step back a bit before you decide why I say what I say… it's never without reason, or basis.

From the outside, on this topic, Drop Bear is (IN MY OPINION) as credible as you.

What topic? BJJ? Sure, I'd agree with that… RBSD? Nope, not a chance. Traditional martial arts? Ditto… not a chance. That's from the inside, you understand.

There are several others on the forum who are as credible as you, IMO, including Brian VanCise and Tony Dismukes. Continuing to call him inexperienced reflects poorly on you.

Only if you think I'm saying it as an insult, a put-down, or similar. I'm not. That's your take on it.

Using "Son" is a great way to drive a thread down. As I and others have pointed out, it's disrespectful, and I notice you only use it when you're fully engaged in a personal attack on a poster you deem unworthy.

Again, I'd advise looking at why I say things when I do… it's not a personal attack (trust me, I hold myself back from plenty of those), and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "unworthy". It's a sign of frustration from my side, more than anything else… and comes about when I've already explained something numerous times, and feel I'm not being listened to, but am still being argued against. In short, it's a word used to say "You really need to hear this, as so far, you haven't listened"… among other reasons.

Tell you what, if you want to get the inflection, watch The Avengers… when Cap. America, Hawkeye and Black Widow commandeer a Quinjet, and Cap tells the pilot (who tries to stop them) "Son, just don't"… that's the tone. Not patronising, not condescending, just someone who knows that they're talking about trying to get through to someone who doesn't… after already trying time and time again.

I would also like to suggest to you that your "observations" of Drop Bear could equally apply to you. But that's just my opinion.

My observation was that his posts did not indicate any real understanding of the topics he was trying to discuss with me… do you really think that that could equally be applied to myself? If so, I hardly know where to start…

so Chris can point something out repeatedly but i can't?

When Chris is correcting your misunderstandings, yes.

that doesn't sound very fair.

It's not meant to be. It's a conversation between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who continues to argue despite not having a clue. It's not a "fair fight" to begin with…

seriously where would these discussions go if i just sat back and said you don't understand rbsd.

You'd be asked to back it up. Hang on a second… that's happened. You've been asked to back up, or at least clarify and expand on what you think RBSD is a number of times, since the first page here… the fact that you've been picking poster-children for idiocy who have no connection or correlation to RBSD as examples to back up your argument, among other things, have been why we've (well, I've) been saying you don't actually know what RBSD is. You continue that here, by the way… we'll get to it in a moment.

and rbsd is pretty famously marketed to non athletes using all of Chris,s arguments. And surprisingly he is an rbsd guy. Making arguments i claim are rbsd.

What arguments?!?! I'm serious here, what arguments do you think I'm making??? All I've really said is that what you are constantly calling "RBSD arguments" aren't RBSD arguments, concepts, traits, or anything else… they're martial art concepts, ideas, arguments, and so on.

And who on earth said I was an "RBSD guy"?? While there is an RBSD component to what I do, I'm very much a traditional martial artist… in fact, I'd be one of the most traditional on the board… so… swing and a miss, there.

Oh, and for the record, actual RBSD isn't "marketed" at anyone like "non-athletes"… it's actually marketed at martial artists… both traditional and sports… so you're missing the mark yet again.

you don't see that as a bit coincidental?

No, I see it as another demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about, and are refusing to listen.

Yahoo answers why krav is better than kickboxing.

Good god, you went to Yahoo Answers for backup?!?! Really??

"take krav maga. its great for self defense. if you are not really strong its gonna be veeeery tough to defend yourself successfully just with kickboxing. krav maga attacks the human weakpoints. even the strongest men could be hurt by you if you know how to use krav maga techniques. it also teaches you how to react on a knife attack."

Yeah… the credibility is literally dripping off that… ha!

I'll put it another way. That anonymous comment on a page where answers aren't rated based on accuracy, but on preferred votes and popularity, really means absolutely nothing, is incorrect on a number of levels, and is little more than a fanboy waxing lyrical about something they'd most likely just started, if they'd done at all.

It's really no different to someone who watches UFC telling people that BJJ is the best martial art ever, despite having no clue about BJJ, or anything else.

classic rbsd argument.

Twenty-fifth time now… no, it's not.

You do realise that Krav Maga isn't RBSD, yeah…? This is why I was asking what you think RBSD is… cause… this ain't it.

it is not something i have made up it is a really real thing.

Er… in a way, yeah, it is something you made up… as you're misunderstanding everything from every side… you're claiming things that aren't RBSD are… and deciding what you think their "arguments" are… none of which are actually correct or accurate. So, yeah, it is something you've made up… and are looking for some form of support, by looking in the wrong places, at largely non-credible sources.

and it is funny when competitive fighters use it as they are usually the victims of it.

When they use what? I really can't see the context of this last statement here… I don't know what you're referring to when you say "competitive fighters use it", or "they are usually the victims of it"… use what? Victims of what?

But, most importantly, can you finally say what you think RBSD is? When you finally put that down, I can point out where you're off base, and maybe, maybe you can start to broaden your knowledge.

 

[drop bear]

And was that to support, or counter my comments? To be frank, it comes across as largely besides the point… I commented that all martial systems I have ever come across do not emphasise being stronger as the primary tactic/methodology, and gave an example of one of the basic concepts behind BJJ to support that (really just to have us all speaking the same language, so to speak)… here, you mention that technique is highlighted beyond any natural attributes someone might have. While that's true, you're missing the reason that technique is emphasised in each case… and none of my comments were really anything to do with natural attributes of an individual. It's really not a part of what I was saying.



Er… okay… again, are you arguing against me, or are you just stating the obvious? There's no question that those factors can help… and, if all else is equal, sure, they can give you the edge… but no system relies on being bigger and stronger, the focus is on being better (technically)… well, maybe the WWE… but that's about as close as I can get.



Yeah, and maybe I would have offered a more direct answer if I hadn't already listed my background, which includes a number of systems that do exactly what drop bear was talking about… a list he asked for, but has ignored since.

In other words, the answer was already given, and if he didn't listen then, I didn't see much hope in him listening now.



No, Steve, when someone lists only a couple of years (at the most) training in their system, and all previous training seems to be missed or misunderstood, then I will consider the lack of experience to be an indication of the lack of experience. In addition, when all of the posters comments show such lack of experience/understanding, that's when I'll comment as such. Disagreeing with me is not the reason I came to that observation and conclusion. You might want to step back a bit before you decide why I say what I say… it's never without reason, or basis.



What topic? BJJ? Sure, I'd agree with that… RBSD? Nope, not a chance. Traditional martial arts? Ditto… not a chance. That's from the inside, you understand.



Only if you think I'm saying it as an insult, a put-down, or similar. I'm not. That's your take on it.



Again, I'd advise looking at why I say things when I do… it's not a personal attack (trust me, I hold myself back from plenty of those), and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "unworthy". It's a sign of frustration from my side, more than anything else… and comes about when I've already explained something numerous times, and feel I'm not being listened to, but am still being argued against. In short, it's a word used to say "You really need to hear this, as so far, you haven't listened"… among other reasons.

Tell you what, if you want to get the inflection, watch The Avengers… when Cap. America, Hawkeye and Black Widow commandeer a Quinjet, and Cap tells the pilot (who tries to stop them) "Son, just don't"… that's the tone. Not patronising, not condescending, just someone who knows that they're talking about trying to get through to someone who doesn't… after already trying time and time again.



My observation was that his posts did not indicate any real understanding of the topics he was trying to discuss with me… do you really think that that could equally be applied to myself? If so, I hardly know where to start…



When Chris is correcting your misunderstandings, yes.



It's not meant to be. It's a conversation between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who continues to argue despite not having a clue. It's not a "fair fight" to begin with…



You'd be asked to back it up. Hang on a second… that's happened. You've been asked to back up, or at least clarify and expand on what you think RBSD is a number of times, since the first page here… the fact that you've been picking poster-children for idiocy who have no connection or correlation to RBSD as examples to back up your argument, among other things, have been why we've (well, I've) been saying you don't actually know what RBSD is. You continue that here, by the way… we'll get to it in a moment.



What arguments?!?! I'm serious here, what arguments do you think I'm making??? All I've really said is that what you are constantly calling "RBSD arguments" aren't RBSD arguments, concepts, traits, or anything else… they're martial art concepts, ideas, arguments, and so on.

And who on earth said I was an "RBSD guy"?? While there is an RBSD component to what I do, I'm very much a traditional martial artist… in fact, I'd be one of the most traditional on the board… so… swing and a miss, there.

Oh, and for the record, actual RBSD isn't "marketed" at anyone like "non-athletes"… it's actually marketed at martial artists… both traditional and sports… so you're missing the mark yet again.



No, I see it as another demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about, and are refusing to listen.



Good god, you went to Yahoo Answers for backup?!?! Really??



Yeah… the credibility is literally dripping off that… ha!

I'll put it another way. That anonymous comment on a page where answers aren't rated based on accuracy, but on preferred votes and popularity, really means absolutely nothing, is incorrect on a number of levels, and is little more than a fanboy waxing lyrical about something they'd most likely just started, if they'd done at all.

It's really no different to someone who watches UFC telling people that BJJ is the best martial art ever, despite having no clue about BJJ, or anything else.



Twenty-fifth time now… no, it's not.

You do realise that Krav Maga isn't RBSD, yeah…? This is why I was asking what you think RBSD is… cause… this ain't it.



Er… in a way, yeah, it is something you made up… as you're misunderstanding everything from every side… you're claiming things that aren't RBSD are… and deciding what you think their "arguments" are… none of which are actually correct or accurate. So, yeah, it is something you've made up… and are looking for some form of support, by looking in the wrong places, at largely non-credible sources.



When they use what? I really can't see the context of this last statement here… I don't know what you're referring to when you say "competitive fighters use it", or "they are usually the victims of it"… use what? Victims of what?

But, most importantly, can you finally say what you think RBSD is? When you finally put that down, I can point out where you're off base, and maybe, maybe you can start to broaden your knowledge.

could you pretty please stop this" i am rubber you are glue posting"

it is like talking to a six year old. And it is getting pointless if only one side is trying to have an actual discussion.

so how exactly is anti strength a martial arts concept?

competitive fighters train strength,soldiers train strength,police,bouncers,bikers,prisoners,martial artist and plenty of people who forsee a fight in their future. Go out lift something heavy as a way to gain an advantage in a fight.

yet you have this idea that they don't have the complete understanding of martial arts that you do.

 

[Chris Parker]

could you pretty please stop this" i am rubber you are glue posting"

There was no such posting, mate. I was questioning Steve's comments, and pointing out (clarifying) why, as well as pointing out why I was asking.

You do know what the "rubber/glue" thing is about, yeah...?

it is like talking to a six year old. And it is getting pointless if only one side is trying to have an actual discussion.

I have answered all of your questions, you avoid mine. I have clarified my statements, you respond with denial and a fingers-in-the-ears attitude. I have elaborated and emphasised the points I've made, you just keep going on about the same misunderstandings again and again, despite it being pointed out to you since the first page (and before, if we're to be honest).

Think about the discussion… and previous ones… and ask yourself, who is really the side not willing to engage in an actual discussion? Here's a clue… it's not my side.

so how exactly is anti strength a martial arts concept?

And, once more, you miss what's being said to you. There isn't any "anti-strength" concept… there's a concept of technique over strength. Get the difference?

competitive fighters train strength,soldiers train strength,police,bouncers,bikers,prisoners,martial artist and plenty of people who forsee a fight in their future. Go out lift something heavy as a way to gain an advantage in a fight.

RIght… let's take these in order:

Competitive fighters train strength, but they also train cardio, endurance, and technique. And the least important is strength. But then again, they're competitive fighters… they're going up against someone else who is also a competitive fighter… and, when we're dealing elite levels, they're looking for every advantage they can get… they don't train strength over anything else, they train it in conjunction with the other aspects… and, one more time, the other aspects (endurance and technique) are far more important.

Soldiers train fitness over strength so they can carry out their duties… strength is part of it, but not the dominant aspect.

Police, the same… and I gotta say, training strength is far from a high priority for police, so it'll come down to the individual.

Bouncers, again, comes down to the individual… I've known enough bouncers that don't really train in such a way at all… and those that do don't do it for fighting… but we'll get to that.

Bikers, same. And ditto for prisoners. Once again, we'll get to the actual reason in a moment.

Martial artists… really? All martial artists? Are you sure about that? How much strength training is done in, let's say, Kyudo? How about in Aikido? And while some systems (karate, for example) have a range of training methods that include strength training in various forms, it's often particular (to, say, grip strength).

"Plenty of people who foresee a fight in their future". Right, here's where we get to it… why do you think strength training is actually done in these situations? Here's a hint… it's not because it makes you a better fighter.

It's because it makes you a less-vulnerable-looking target… it's a way of avoiding a fight by looking like you'd be trouble.

In other words, none of this is really showing anything at all about strength being the emphasis of any martial art…

yet you have this idea that they don't have the complete understanding of martial arts that you do.

Please. You've missed the reality of almost everything you've posted… care to go back and actually answer at least one question yet? Or are you going to continue to act like a six-year old who isn't interested in having a real discussion?