Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu

[Tony Dismukes]

There is a difference between finishing off an opponent that you have just taken down with a follow up strike and the ground and pound you see in MMA fights. With ground and pound you are basically raining down blows until either; the ref stops you, your opponent taps; you get tired, your opponent stops fighting back and you declare victory and stop etc.

Don't forget that finishing off your opponent (achieving a knockout) is also a very real possibility with ground and pound.

Your attempt to redefine GnP to pounding someone after you have taken their back really shows desperate your cause is on this one.

This is moving goalposts. I am calling you on it.

Just tap. It is useless to deny that Karate has ground and pound. Not only did I give you kata. And then demonstrated videos. And now fights both traditional and MMA.

I think you may have made a typo here. Ground-and-pound is not typically applied when you take someone's back (although it can be).

RTKDCMB has it right on this one. The traditional karate approach of taking an opponent down and immediately adding a finishing strike from standing (or possibly kneeling on one knee) is pretty different from the MMA paradigm of going to the ground on top of your opponent looking to control their position while landing an ongoing barrage of strikes.

You can apply the G-n-P moniker to the traditional karate approach if you like, but I think it just confuses things. The approaches are different and the name originated in MMA and was not traditionally used in any Karate system that I'm aware of.

 

[Hanzou]

I never specified ground and pound like you see in the MMA.

Uh, ground and pound MMA was exactly what we were talking about via your little graph about MMA fight stoppages.

Just because it is demonstrated.... that does not mean it cannot be applied in a fight.

I never said it couldn't be. I'm simply pointing out that showing people actually using the concept in an actual brawl gives it a bit more weight than performing a concept on a willing partner.

Here is a fight with a resistant opponent demonstrating the same principle.

Again, where did I say that the principle couldn't work? I'm saying that MMA ground and pound is more clearly a descendant of Bjj fighting than the classic sweep, finishing strike you showed.

Your attempt to redefine GnP to pounding someone after you have taken their back really shows desperate your cause is on this one.

This is moving goalposts. I am calling you on it.

Just tap. It is useless to deny that Karate has ground and pound. Not only did I give you kata. And then demonstrated videos. And now fights both traditional and MMA.

Just admit it.
The only thing you can ask for now is recorded footage of a real fight where a KarateKa actually used his training and applied in the real world on an opponent.

I am certain such footage exists

Uh, taking the back and punching someone in the face IS ground and pound. Typically you have your opponent in a hold on the ground (typically the mount), and start punching or elbowing them in the face. That's sort of what ground and pound means. Also in the vid I posted, Royce Gracie had the first guy in the mount, and repeatedly slapped him in the face, instead of dropping bombs on him. He could have punched or elbowed him, but he was choosing to be a bit more gentle.

Who is trying to redefine G&P again?

 

[TSDTexan]

Don't forget that finishing off your opponent (achieving a knockout) is also a very real possibility with ground and pound.



I think you may have made a typo here. Ground-and-pound is not typically applied when you take someone's back (although it can be).

RTKDCMB has it right on this one. The traditional karate approach of taking an opponent down and immediately adding a finishing strike from standing (or possibly kneeling on one knee) is pretty different from the MMA paradigm of going to the ground on top of your opponent looking to control their position while landing an ongoing barrage of strikes.

You can apply the G-n-P moniker to the traditional karate approach if you like, but I think it just confuses things. The approaches are different and the name originated in MMA and was not traditionally used in any Karate system that I'm aware of.

No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.

I objected to his level of specifity. Grounding the opponent so he cannot evade blows is gnp. Yes a backmount is gnp. Not saying it is not. I am saying a greenbelt is going going to pretty much have to GnP after the takedown. A 5th dan should not have to. If he does many strikes he really doesnt deserve the rank of 5th Dan. (This assumes his tradition isnt broken)

You dont even have to mount or pin the guy. You can just as easily kneel beside the prone opponent. He can be face up or down.

Heck... soccer kicking a downed opponent in the head when dealing with multiple opponents is gnp and considered fair in the defense of one's life.

Just not legal or MMA gnp.

However top mounting a fella to drop bombs is very much a valid option within the karate discipline.

The need for an adept to drop a rain storm was glaringly absent. The exponent was expect to have enough power and control to end the fight with one punch to a pressurepoint on a downed oppoent.

However, a younger junior student without Kime or suffecient power would not be shamed for using as much power as he could muster in as many strikes as required.

Terminology specifics need not apply.

The old masters often would test students to come up with a ad hoc solution to a predicament that the sensei would put them in.

Sometimes no labels even existed for what was improvised by the student using the knowledge and principles that the student knew.

TouTe practices included aspects of Chin Na. Go to Okinawa today and visit old schools and you can verify this within the karate tradition. In fact they call the Chin Na that is preserved tudi or tode.

 

[JowGaWolf]

hanzou here are the variations of that karate block
Boxing: Block then punch. If he did the block and punch at the same time the punch would have landed shortly after the block. This is the same concept has the karate video with the exception that he blocked with the outside of his fore arm not the inside.

MMA #1: Concept of making the punch go to the outside of you so that you can move to the inside. This is the same concept of the karate video. Technique is different but same concept.

MMA #2: One hand blocks and the other hand covers. Had the attackers hook connected it would have hit the guard while the defender would take the inside to counter.

The reason why none of these videos look exactly like the karate video is because none of them do karate or kung fu, but as you can see that the concept is sound.

A clip from one of my previous videos of me sparring. #3 It's not mma nor boxing, but it is kung fu which is where a very similar technique exists.
My first two attacks uses this technique and you can clearly see that blocking arm.
My first attempt anticipated a wide shot from my opponent, which never came.
My second attempt was to recover from messing up on first attempt. For the most part the second attempt block was successful in that it connected. It was useless in what I was trying to do because he didn't throw a punch. I would have been on the inside of the jab had he thrown a punch. I also couldn't fire the punch through the inside because his other hand was in the way.

The technique isn't difficult to do, it's very practical, and you can see that it's not slow in actual use compared to the karate demo. I can only assume that in karate the punch will land either at the same time as the block or fractions of a second after the block. After that technique the karate practitioner would need to follow up with something so he doesn't get hit with the fist that he wasn't blocking.

 

[Hanzou]

No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.

Uh, where?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.

Actually, the video Hanzou posted included G&P from both back mount and regular full mount. Other options not covered in that video would include working from top of knee mount, top of full guard, and top of half-guard. (These would be the most common options)

Honestly, Royce is barely doing any real GnP in that clip. It's more landing those little slaps to say "I could really beat you up here if I wanted to and you couldn't stop me."

I objected to his level of specifity. Grounding the opponent so he cannot evade blows is gnp.

You dont even have to mount or pin the guy. You can just as easily kneel beside the prone opponent. He can be face up or down.

If you aren't pinning your opponent, then he is free to move and defend himself. You may get that immediate strike after the takedown, but you don't have the control to hold him in place while you land repeated strikes. That's the situation that the GnP moniker was invented to cover - holding someone in place on the ground to land your punches. Feel free to use "GnP" to describe the Karate approach if you want to, but you'll be confusing people more than communicating.

 

[Hanzou]

hanzou here are the variations of that karate block
Boxing: Block then punch. If he did the block and punch at the same time the punch would have landed shortly after the block. This is the same concept has the karate video with the exception that he blocked with the outside of his fore arm not the inside.

MMA #1: Concept of making the punch go to the outside of you so that you can move to the inside. This is the same concept of the karate video. Technique is different but same concept.

MMA #2: One hand blocks and the other hand covers. Had the attackers hook connected it would have hit the guard while the defender would take the inside to counter.

The reason why none of these videos look exactly like the karate video is because none of them do karate or kung fu, but as you can see that the concept is sound.

A clip from one of my previous videos of me sparring. #3 It's not mma nor boxing, but it is kung fu which is where a very similar technique exists.
My first two attacks uses this technique and you can clearly see that blocking arm.
My first attempt anticipated a wide shot from my opponent, which never came.
My second attempt was to recover from messing up on first attempt. For the most part the second attempt block was successful in that it connected. It was useless in what I was trying to do because he didn't throw a punch. I would have been on the inside of the jab had he thrown a punch. I also couldn't fire the punch through the inside because his other hand was in the way.

The technique isn't difficult to do, it's very practical, and you can see that it's not slow in actual use compared to the karate demo. I can only assume that in karate the punch will land either at the same time as the block or fractions of a second after the block. After that technique the karate practitioner would need to follow up with something so he doesn't get hit with the fist that he wasn't blocking.

I'm talking about the upper, middle, and lower blocks of karate.

I saw none of those in the vids you posted.

Btw, if someone showed me a vid of you guys sparring and they asked me to guess the style, Kung Fu would've last on the list. Some form of Kickboxing would be at the top.

 

[TSDTexan]

Actually, the video Hanzou posted included G&P from both back mount and regular full mount. Other options not covered in that video would include working from top of knee mount, top of full guard, and top of half-guard. (These would be the most common options)

Honestly, Royce is barely doing any real GnP in that clip. It's more landing those little slaps to say "I could really beat you up here if I wanted to and you couldn't stop me."



If you aren't pinning your opponent, then he is free to move and defend himself. You may get that immediate strike after the takedown, but you don't have the control to hold him in place while you land repeated strikes. That's the situation that the GnP moniker was invented to cover - holding someone in place on the ground to land your punches. Feel free to use "GnP" to describe the Karate approach if you want to, but you'll be confusing people more than communicating.

I didnt see the video. Just the thumbnail had the bjj exponent with a backmount. This was the context I responded to.
I fell him changing term use from a generic term to a very specific role of that term when I saw the thumbnail of backmounted striker.

Top mounting a fella to drop bombs is very much a valid option within the karate discipline.

At its core Karate is driven by was is necessary and effective for self preservation.

A younger junior student without Kime or suffecient power would not be shamed for using as much power as he could muster in as many strikes as required.

Or sitting on a guy to keep him from running away' while doing so.

The general feeling is that tactical position is ceded when you go to the ground but kata cearly shows us on the ground at times. So while we are by nessceity on the ground it makes sense to keep the option of pinning and raining blows or (a finishing blow) open.

Actually doing so would be poor art. But an expression of art none the less.

 

[TSDTexan]

Karate blocks in MMA?

Inward depressing forearm/palm block.
His use of an inward palm block
is hardly surprising.

This is the favourite of most competiton kumite (ie. distance karate) fighters - Machida's pre-MMA bread and butter.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I can only show variations. I can't show you an exact one from Karate because I don't do karate, boxers don't do karate, and the MMA guys that I showed most likely don't do karate. Also keep in mind that this type of block isn't a one size fits all block. If the situation isn't there then a person that is comfortable with blocking like that video isn't going to use that block. For example rising blocks works for jabs and maybe crosses, but not for upper cuts and hooks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm talking about the upper, middle, and lower blocks of karate.

I saw none of those in the vids you posted.

Btw, if someone showed me a vid of you guys sparring and they asked me to guess the style, Kung Fu would've last on the list. Some form of Kickboxing would be at the top.

Kick boxing doesn't move that way. If you had seen the entire clip then kickboxing wouldn't even be on your list.

 

[Steve]

I agree. Once you know about it you can then pick the most appropriate technique to use in order to deal with it. You can't understand something that you are unaware of. It's not enough to know that someone may shoot on you and grab your legs. You have to understand what has to happen to make that leg grab work. Things like, how close does my opponent have to be in order to be in shooting range. Is my opponent likely to throw a distracting jab to my face before dropping for the shoot. What stance gives a better opportunity for the shoot? What kicks are high risk are most likely to trigger shoots. Can a shoot be successful with only one arm holding on. Once you have a good understanding of these things then that person will be able to pick the best technique within their style to deal with it. This will also help that person identify any holes in their fighting system that need to be filled.

When I spar against fighters that like to shoot, I'll actually bait them in an effort to make them shoot for my legs. It's better for me to deal with it when I'm looking for it than trying to react to it. Also it keeps them focused on grabbing my leg and not trying to hit me in the face.

Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it. I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.

Many people understand a technique. They know what it is and they know why and how to use it. But as a direct result of their training (whether that is a lack of experience, flaws in their training model or physical/mental limitations that impede learning) they cannot execute the technique.

The issues here are not technical issues. They are procedural. It's not the techniques. It's the verification on an individual level that skills have been successfully transmitted from instructor to student so that the student can demonstrate proficiency.

And ultimately, where people who HAVE never truly tested their techniques teach people who WILL never test their techniques, there is at best a question and at worst, a very unfortunate and potentially dangerous lack of self awareness.

As I've said in other places, the up side is that we live in an era of relative safety under the rule of law. In most places, the chances of actually encountering violence is slim, which allows us all the luxury of indulging our delusions of grandeur.

The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do. The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context. The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she might better understand the context (although this is not a given.) The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Because some people don't know their stuff.
This is kickboxing

This is Muay Thai

None of the stuff in this video ---> Non-kickboxing Non-Muay Thai fighting. looks like anything in the first 2 videos.

 

[Argus]

The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do. The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context. The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she fully understands the context. The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.

That's a very good way of putting it. Actually, it sums up all of the reoccurring points in these TMA vs MMA discussions.

Neither need be the case, however, when individuals examine their training through pressure testing methods, and/or broaden it by exploring other contexts, whilst being very clear and earnest about what they're doing. And, many people do this in both the practice of Traditional Martial Arts, as well as more Sportive Martial Arts. It simply matters how you approach and expand your training. Narrow mindedness, and an unexamined, narrow focus, will hurt anyone who steps outside of the bounds they've established for themselves.

Now, I'm sure we all like to think that we know what we're doing, and that we're not the least bit narrow-minded in our training, but that's rarely the case unless you've actively sought to broaden your experience and understanding and have been exposed to a wide array of training methodologies geared for different purposes.

 

[Steve]

That's a very good way of putting it. Actually, it sums up all of the reoccurring points in these TMA vs MMA discussions.

Neither need be the case, however, when individuals examine their training through pressure testing methods, and/or broaden it by exploring other contexts, whilst being very clear and earnest about what they're doing. And, many people do this in both the practice of Traditional Martial Arts, as well as more Sportive Martial Arts. It simply matters how you approach and expand your training. Narrow mindedness, and an unexamined, narrow focus, will hurt anyone who steps outside of the bounds they've established for themselves.

Now, I'm sure we all like to think that we know what we're doing, and that we're not the least bit narrow-minded in our training, but that's rarely the case unless you've actively sought to broaden your experience and understanding and have been exposed to a wide array of training methodologies geared for different purposes.

I agree, with the caveat that there is nothing wrong with understanding the boundaries of your style of training and choosing not to address them. The only concern is lack of self awareness. I personally think, in this day and age, in the Western world, ROI on most self defense training is very low. On the spectrum of useful things to know to avoid personal danger, self awareness is toward the top of my list, while physically being able to defend myself from a gang of knife wielding thugs is pretty low. And I think that the training methodology either actively creates greater self awareness or actively discourages self awareness depending in large part on how the style is pressure tested.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it. I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.

In most martial arts that I know, the students are taught technique then application using demo attacks to help students understand how the technique works. When it comes to a real fight you have to not only know how to apply a technique, but you also have to understand how your opponent is fighting you.

Everyone in my school knows how to sweep, but I'm the only one that excels in it. Me being able to sweep my opponent is determined by my understanding of how my opponent moves and how they attack. Me understanding the movement of my opponent helps me to understand when I should use the sweep. Without understanding my opponent then there's no successful application (outside of luck). But you can have application without understanding, and we often see this with TMAs trying to punch against someone shooting.

 

[elder999]

You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.
.

...and, just to muddy things up, it occurs to me that this:

is one of the ways I practiced it., ......see 0:44....

 

[Steve]

In most martial arts that I know, the students are taught technique then application using demo attacks to help students understand how the technique works. When it comes to a real fight you have to not only know how to apply a technique, but you also have to understand how your opponent is fighting you.

Everyone in my school knows how to sweep, but I'm the only one that excels in it. Me being able to sweep my opponent is determined by my understanding of how my opponent moves and how they attack. Me understanding the movement of my opponent helps me to understand when I should use the sweep. Without understanding my opponent then there's no successful application (outside of luck). But you can have application without understanding, and we often see this with TMAs trying to punch against someone shooting.

I don't think it's very constructive to try and draw conclusions about what "most martial arts" do or don't do. Who knows?

I appreciate your recognition of what you specifically can and can't do. If we did more of that around here, pointless debates about one style being better than others would largely go away.

You mention application without understanding. In a way, you're right, but I think we're hitting a bit of a semantical distinction. I would say that understanding is academic. You can go beyond parroting back what you have been told, and can now explain it. Then you work to apply the technique. Where you talk about application without understanding actually suggests to me the next step, which is analysis... where your technical ability leads to a deeper understanding, which is called synthesis, and then evaluation. I've talked about Bloom's taxonomy of learning before in posts, and I believe it's a very useful way to make sense of how people learn to do anything and everything, from how to read to how to kick a ball to martial arts.

 

[TSDTexan]

Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it. I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.

Many people understand a technique. They know what it is and they know why and how to use it. But as a direct result of their training (whether that is a lack of experience, flaws in their training model or physical/mental limitations that impede learning) they cannot execute the technique.

The issues here are not technical issues. They are procedural. It's not the techniques. It's the verification on an individual level that skills have been successfully transmitted from instructor to student so that the student can demonstrate proficiency.

And ultimately, where people who HAVE never truly tested their techniques teach people who WILL never test their techniques, there is at best a question and at worst, a very unfortunate and potentially dangerous lack of self awareness.

As I've said in other places, the up side is that we live in an era of relative safety under the rule of law. In most places, the chances of actually encountering violence is slim, which allows us all the luxury of indulging our delusions of grandeur.

The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do. The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context. The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she might better understand the context (although this is not a given.) The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.

Which gives rise to what I call a broken traditional martial art.

Old Te was real.
McDojo Te is as real as MickeyD's all beef burger patties.
But lineage means nothing if the art gets broke.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How could you possibly get that from just two static drawings?

Because the drawing line shows the arm movement path. To show the body rotation and the footwork, that drawing line should be at a different place.

In the following clip at 0.20, you can see the "body rotation" used in the arm block. You mainly see the body rotation, you don't see much arm movement. IMO, that's what I would like to call "body unification".

Your

- hand coordinates (start to move at the same time, and also stop at the same time) with your foot.
- elbow coordinates with your knee.
- shoulder coordinates with your hip.

In the following clip at 1.03, you can see she moves her arm only without moving her body. Her hand coordinates with "nothing". It's easier to be learned by beginners this way, but it also easier to develop bad habit out of it. I'm strongly dislike this kind of "arm moving only blocking".