Hybrid Arts

[Juany118]

I think this is one of the things people miss. TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries. The problem rises in that one of the reasons they worked was not just because they were pressure tested BUT because they were very often pressure tested against other styles. Without challenging other styles you can end up on the short end if you suddenly find yourself forced into such an encounter.

Ok pagan charms have been around for centuries and worked in real world conflicts. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries.

Considering both methods have been employed for about the same time with the same idea in mind. My guess battlefield use isnt a very good test.

That isn't what I said and I believe you know it. The Crusaders and the Muslims during the Crusades both thought prayers and talismans who save them, that God was on their side. Their Martial skills, tactics and strategies were what won or lost the day, not faith. The charms you speak of arrow the same and are thus a strawman argument because they have no real effect.

Just stop because now you are just being silly.

 

[drop bear]

That isn't what I said and I believe you know it. The Crusaders and the Muslims during the Crusades both thought prayers and talismans who save them, that God was on their side. Their Martial skills, tactics and strategies were what won or lost the day, not faith. The charms you speak of arrow the same and are thus a strawman argument because they have no real effect.

Just stop because now you are just being silly.

ok. why if both were battle tested both have lasted for centuries both have the same evidence of effectiveness. Does one have any more validity than the other?

And I quoted what you said. That is what you said.

 

[Juany118]

ok. why if both were battle tested both have lasted for centuries both have the same evidence of effectiveness. Does one have any more validity than the other?

And I quoted what you said. That is what you said.

Because of this. One, fighting arts, are something that is "physical" it can be measured and codified. Ergo it is factual. Ergo it can be proven or disproven.

Faith, Religion, Superstition, whatever term you may chose to use can not be analyzed in such a manner. I can't remember the specific show but I have always remembered what a Jesuit Priest on a History Channel show... First he quoted from the Hebrews.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

He then explained less poetically "if it is born of faith by definition it can not be proven." This concept existed all the way back to Paul's Epistle. In the post Enlightenment age it takes on even greater meaning

The nature of Talismans is based on faith and thus, even according other religions, are thus by their nature things that can't be measured, thus they can not be tested, thus nothing can be proven.

 

[drop bear]

Because of this. One, fighting arts, are something that is "physical" it can be measured and codified. Ergo it is factual. Ergo it can be proven or disproven.

Faith, Religion, Superstition, whatever term you may chose to use can not be analyzed in such a manner. I can't remember the specific show but I have always remembered what a Jesuit Priest on a History Channel show... First he quoted from the Hebrews.



He then explained less poetically "if it is born of faith by definition it can not be proven." This concept existed all the way back to Paul's Epistle. In the post Enlightenment age it takes on even greater meaning

The nature of Talismans is based on faith and thus, even according other religions, are thus by their nature things that can't be measured, thus they can not be tested, thus nothing can be proven.

No I am using the same proof. Your proof to validate both. There has been no mesurements and no codification. I am sure if there was there would be a separation from fact and fiction.

But we are using your battlefield proof at the moment. Which while good enough to support your claims is apparently not good enough to support mine.

 

[Juany118]

No I am using the same proof. Your proof to validate both. There has been no mesurements and no codification. I am sure if there was there would be a separation from fact and fiction.

But we are using your battlefield proof at the moment. Which while good enough to support your claims is apparently not good enough to support mine.

No you have said something completely illogical..

"People have believed in the unprovable for centuries. Ergo the unprovable is proven to exist." That isn't only illogical, it is blatantly nonsensical. Something that is tangential and not provable by verification on its own merits doesn't suddenly become proveable because something that is verifiable is proven.

On the other hand we have evidence of martial arts used in combat for millennia, some used to this very day and many more used in the last century or so, the body counts, victories and historical records to support their efficacy. That is what is called proof.

Actually if we wanted to get technical we can say that while my case is still proven yours is not only unprovable but disproven. A perfect example is Judicial duels ( Trial by combat - Wikipedia). The theory was basically that God would not let the just lose. What was the reality? The person who was, or hired, the better fighter won regardless of who was "just.". All the faith in the world meant very little.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This reasoning.

TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict...

That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.

 

[Juany118]

That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.

Yeah that was my reasoning. Thing was it was only because someone started talking about a particular art being objectively proven to be effective. Well others have too.

The thing is this. No matter how any particular arts techniques have been proven isn't really the point. MMA is kicking butt today in the Octagon, PTK is being used successfully today in the Jungles of Mindanao. But someone can go to their local MMA Gym or to the local PTO school and not train with the correct pressure testing for their purpose, or the right conditioning outside the art etc. In that case the art will fail.

As an example, and this actually from a Renzo Gracie gym near me. A friend started training Muay Thai a while ago. I thought...Wow a DA that is an attractive blond woman and can kick ***? Some cop's wife is in trouble. . That said I went to the Gracie school's web site and it talks up how hardcore the training is BUT then says this...

"Little or no free-sparring is done in training, due to the devastating nature of the techniques employed." So an art "proven" that may well fail if learned exclusively at that school.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah that was my reasoning. Thing was it was only because someone started talking about a particular art being objectively proven to be effective. Well others have too.

The thing is this. No matter how any particular arts techniques have been proven isn't really the point. MMA is kicking butt today in the Octagon, PTK is being used successfully today in the Jungles of Mindanao. But someone can go to their local MMA Gym or to the local PTO school and not train with the correct pressure testing for their purpose, or the right conditioning outside the art etc. In that case the art will fail.

As an example, and this actually from a Renzo Gracie gym near me. A friend started training Muay Thai a while ago. I thought...Wow a DA that is an attractive blond woman and can kick ***? Some cop's wife is in trouble. . That said I went to the Gracie school's web site and it talks up how hardcore the training is BUT then says this...

"Little or no free-sparring is done in training, due to the devastating nature of the techniques employed." So an art "proven" that may well fail if learned exclusively at that school.

That's a shame, especially for an art that has such a solid background in free sparring. I hope they're at least doing a lot of free rolling in their BJJ.

 

[drop bear]

No you have said something completely illogical..

"People have believed in the unprovable for centuries. Ergo the unprovable is proven to exist." That isn't only illogical, it is blatantly nonsensical. Something that is tangential and not provable by verification on its own merits doesn't suddenly become proveable because something that is verifiable is proven.

On the other hand we have evidence of martial arts used in combat for millennia, some used to this very day and many more used in the last century or so, the body counts, victories and historical records to support their efficacy. That is what is called proof.

Actually if we wanted to get technical we can say that while my case is still proven yours is not only unprovable but disproven. A perfect example is Judicial duels ( Trial by combat - Wikipedia). The theory was basically that God would not let the just lose. What was the reality? The person who was, or hired, the better fighter won regardless of who was "just.". All the faith in the world meant very little.

You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.

Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system.

But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.

Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.

 

[drop bear]

That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.

This was your reasoning. which was in relation to juannys reasonong.

I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.

And I expanded on that concept with the idea that the testing while it may have happened could still lead to ludicrous conlusions becase of the manner in which it can be conducted.

So I cut a guy in half with my sword. Fine. that was the test. But because i know nothing about scientific method I conclude it was my kiai that created the necessary power or something.

And so the misinformation charges down through the ages.

My mates kiai in battle and win fight.

Their students all train kiais.

I mean if it doesnt work why would people be doing it?

Martial arts moves tested in battle as a blanket statement is pretty inconclusive.

So not only do you have issue with the information itself. Whether the documents are accurate.

And you also brought up our understanding of science, how the body works and so on has advanced.

But we also have this third issue of conformation bias. As without a grounding in science you quite often come to terrible conclusions.

 

[Juany118]

You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.

Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system.

But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.

Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.

No you just don't like being confronted by an argument you thought was yours alone to make. Saying that documented history, note I said history not legend, is crappy evidence is about as illogical as the argument I was most recently responding to.

That said you have no clue about the context of the charms you speak of, which makes it even funnier. The charms of which you speak worked in a shamanic/religious based context. They may have been pagan/tribal but they were in the context of their deity/spirit blessed by their priest shaman. It's no different than the Crusader going off to battle with his crucifix blessed by the Bishop.

Also you try to ignore that your own argument, at one point, actually supported mine. Remember when you didn't think I was talking about wrestling arts when it came to knife defense and mentioned Judo, and an Nordic wrestling style you clearly knew little about because you didn't know it had dedicated blade defense (Gllima) as wrestling arts that worked in battle historically. Heck you even accused me of inventing a damn link, which means an entire website in a matter of like an hour. So basically you say "okay history is proven. See I am right! Oh wait they did something different than I say is best? History is not proof at all!!!"

Smh

In the end, we all get it, you think modern MMA is awesome. No one contests it's really good. But that apparently isn't enough for you. MMA, and some of its component parts have to be the ONLY effective martial arts and it lacks no tools for modern self defense in your mind and you will go to whatever illogical mental contortions, and contradictions to try and make your case.

 

[drop bear]

No you just don't like being confronted by an argument you thought was yours alone to make. Saying that documented history, note I said history not legend, is crappy evidence is about as illogical as the argument I was most recently responding to.

That said you have no clue about the context of the charms you speak of, which makes it even funnier. The charms of which you speak worked in a shamanic/religious based context. They may have been pagan/tribal but they were in the context of their deity/spirit blessed by their priest shaman. It's no different than the Crusader going off to battle with his crucifix blessed by the Bishop.

No difference to a martial art based on superstition. then used in battle. you go to great lengths to prove things that are easily tested. By these esosteric means.

Dose martial art A work?

use it and find out. Not a great surreal set of stories about some battlefield nobody knows or even really care about.

 

[drop bear]

In the end, we all get it, you think modern MMA is awesome. No one contests it's really good. But that apparently isn't enough for you. MMA, and some of its component parts have to be the ONLY effective martial arts and it lacks no tools for modern self defense in your mind and you will go to whatever illogical mental contortions, and contradictions to try and make your case.

Please try to stop making stuff up.

 

[Juany118]

No difference to a martial art based on superstition. then used in battle. you go to great lengths to prove things that are easily tested. By these esosteric means.

Dose martial art A work?

use it and find out. Not a great surreal set of stories about some battlefield nobody knows or even really care about.

What Martial arts that were used in battle successfully have their techniques and fighting styles based in reality, and not some "chop rocky" film you may have witnessed? See below for an response to "use it and find out..."

 

[Juany118]

Please try to stop making stuff up.

Then explain to me how we even got here. Let me. You study a Martial art that is an awesome empty hand art but that doesn't have anything, to my knowledge, that directly addresses defense against a weapon because it was designed for an environment where there will never be weapons.

Someone, asked you about weapons defense. You got defensive. You then noted one incident that "proved" you don't need weapons defense training to fight against armed assailants as if this one incident made a universal fact of martial arts. Everything that followed is from that single assertion that you made, that you proved in a global sense something isn't needed.

The only reasons an intelligent person would base a universal fact on a personal anecdote, even in the face of modern military training protocols, Dog Brothers etc., Is one of a few reasons.

1. They are so convinced that their method is THE method that one success = global success.
2. They are trolling.

As I said you even tried to point to historical Martial Arts used such as Judo, which has knife defense, then Glima, which also has blade defense and when I showed an example by showing Home from this specific section COMBAT GLIMA, since it contradicted what you said you actually claimed I made the link of the photo up.

Now after all that time trying to prove me wrong based on facts independent of both of us you say...

Dose martial art A work?

use it and find out

Such moving of goal posts, contradictions, circular logic and simply accusing someone of lying by inventing a picture on a website that advertises instruction in a MA you first claimed simply because you made said claim without adequate knowledge? These actions of yours are telling and pretty much proof that if anyone is making stuff up (like your Glima claim) it's you and not I sir.

 

[anerlich]

My viewpoint on this topic has changed over time. My primary art is wing chun. My secondary art is BJJ or submission grappling. I used to try and find the universal concepts both and cross-apply them. It rarely worked. Once I had solid fundamentals down in each, there are a few situations to cross apply concepts. But very few compared to the many where the fundamentals from one don't work in the other.

Currently I appreciate each art for what it is. I enjoy both. People say "what about when you spar? Aren't you confused? How do you put them together/"

Basically, I don't put them together. Wing chun is a close quarter striking art. BJJ is a close quarter grappling art. They have different goals and aims. For sparring of a striking, or MMA nature, I approach with my primary art, until the point where I find myself in a situation that my application of my primary art isn't working, then I may drop back to my secondary art. And in BJJ you spar every class, so I learned to do that too.

In a self defense situation, my natural reaction will be my primary art. I will stick to that until it doesn't work for me or I'm outside of it's context (i.e. I get taken down). Then the secondary kicks in.

My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.

I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.

I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.

In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.

I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.

 

[Juany118]

My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.

I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.

I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.

In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.

I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.

I will say I don't know BJJ so I can't say whether you can connect them. However I do see how you can connect WC to arts with more "control" techniques in a general sense, such as standing arm bars/takedowns, wrist locks etc.

Why would you do this? It's individual, most don't need to imo. For me, I already have experience in the "general" grappling (Aikido, Judo, learning different methods in Kali now), my issue as I have gotten older (45 now) is bridging to that range in a real fight became harder because I can't bully through it to a 20 something. I don't want to be a badass, I prefer talking (to much according to the wife) but for me that bridge is a necessity and the only teacher in my area teaching a martial art in a rl combative manner is the WC/Kali teacher I now study under.

That all said I am eligible to retire in 6 years come Feb. After I retire and move on to something else I might well just end up the "weird old guy" who does Tai Chi in the back yard because I will likely have had my fill of getting sore and bruised in training lol, but I will always love the flow.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.

Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system.

But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.

Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.

There is a significant difference in the two concepts. Using a less-effective charm won't lose a battle. And there wasn't an actually more effective charm to use, instead.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This was your reasoning. which was in relation to juannys reasonong.

I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.

And I expanded on that concept with the idea that the testing while it may have happened could still lead to ludicrous conlusions becase of the manner in which it can be conducted.

So I cut a guy in half with my sword. Fine. that was the test. But because i know nothing about scientific method I conclude it was my kiai that created the necessary power or something.

And so the misinformation charges down through the ages.

My mates kiai in battle and win fight.

Their students all train kiais.

I mean if it doesnt work why would people be doing it?

Martial arts moves tested in battle as a blanket statement is pretty inconclusive.

So not only do you have issue with the information itself. Whether the documents are accurate.

And you also brought up our understanding of science, how the body works and so on has advanced.

But we also have this third issue of conformation bias. As without a grounding in science you quite often come to terrible conclusions.

Re-read my post that you quoted. I state that I don't have evidence either way. I mentioned stories I'd heard that I had. I support for, so am skeptical abou. So, no, it wasn't my reasoning that if it has existed for a long time (or was used in battle - not clear anymore which you're arguing) makes it valid.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.

I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.

I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.

In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.

I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.

The problem you ran into is highlighted I this:

trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way"

This is what I referred to in a prior post. You don't change the BJJ or the WC to create the hybrid. You find the principles t bridge from one to the other. So, in your case, you're looking for the WC movements and stances structures that lead most naturally into BJJ, defend natural gaps in BJJ, or provide new openings and escapes that make the BJJ more effective. That's what a hybrid art does. NGA doesn't have Shotokan-like Daito-ryu, Judo-ish Karate, etc. It has techniques and principles from each, used following some common principles. In full-on hybridized arts like NGA, there is a natural shift in some areas (we don't often cut the angles seen in Shotokan, because they don't lead into our grappling), but those are results of overall approach, rather than attempts to push the origin arts together.