Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu

[drop bear]

Double post.

 

[Dirty Dog]

With a sword?

With any weapon. Start with "I can choose to use it, or not" and then progress through the multitude of non-lethal ways in which the weapon can be used, until finally reaching the decision point of potentially lethal techniques.
With a gun, for example, roughly 70% of confrontations ate ended by drawing the weapon and never firing. I don't know statistics, but I'd bet other weapons have a similar (though not identical) affect, in that they are used without any injury at all.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[TSDTexan]

Yes. It's about how people train more than what they train. Some schools train in a more practical manner than others. Feedback is critical, and if you aren't training in a way that is giving you reliable feedback, there will be a gap between what you know and what you think you know. And if the stakes are high, that could be a pretty dangerous blind spot.

Not one word of what you just said is supported by anything more than your imagination. I could just as easily say in a 100 matches between a 12 year old and a 13 year old, the 12 year olds would lose 85% of the time. Complete fiction. I have a pretty vivid imagination, so if we're going to pretend our imaginations are reality, I'm not sure you've got the chops. 92% of the time, my ability to make things up is going to submit your insistence that if you say it, it is so.

FWIW, there are some Japanese arts that I would have a lot of confidence in, and some I would not. Or more specifically, some schools, because as we've all acknowledged, some schools are better than others within any style. And what makes one school better than another? In most cases, it is how they train.

I think this is actually pretty close. I don't see it as a comparison of fighting systems. Rather, it's a comparison of training and testing models. How does the school decide what to teach? How do they test for proficiency? How to they ensure that the student is actually learning what the students thinks he/she is learning?

Some styles adhere more consistently to one training model or another, which can lead to conclusions that are broader, but as we've all acknowledged, there are good schools and bad within every style.

Writen from first hand ignorance of aikodo sword capabilities
Nuff said

 

[drop bear]

With any weapon. Start with "I can choose to use it, or not" and then progress through the multitude of non-lethal ways in which the weapon can be used, until finally reaching the decision point of potentially lethal techniques.
With a gun, for example, roughly 70% of confrontations ate ended by drawing the weapon and never firing. I don't know statistics, but I'd bet other weapons have a similar (though not identical) affect, in that they are used without any injury at all.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

So if you have you sword out and I slap you. You could use a restraint or something?

How do the other 30% of confrontations end?

 

[drop bear]

Writen from first hand ignorance of aikodo sword capacity
Nuff said

So we could get an akido guy in and get first hand sword experience?

Cos a lot of guys here are getting their butts kicked.

You can even get larp swords. Which is cool.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So we could get an akido guy in and get first hand sword experience?

Cos a lot of guys here are getting their butts kicked.


You can even get larp swords. Which is cool.

Its Aikido, not akido, this is at least the 2nd time you have spelled wrong

 

[drop bear]

Its Aikido, not akido, this is at least the 2nd time you have spelled wrong

And now will continue to do so.
Acheeedo.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So wait. Are you carrying a stick or a sword for S.D?
Because I can't see how using a sword is not going to potentially maim someone.

But OK you are carrying a stick. And you think I can't generate a powerful strike without training as if anyone has not hit something with a stick. I can hit a small round ball pretty hard with a stick. But you are suggesting hitting a head with a stick will be harder? Or I am not going to hit them with enough force?

Good job nobody gets technical about swinging a stick around.

OK. So you are better than someone who dosent train stick.

(Let's tie the suri stick fighting in here)

You are better than someone who actually does stick fighting.

What evidence have you got that has taken you to this conclusion?

Training will make you better than someone who is untrained. Provided it is the right training. How do you know you are doing the right training?

And regarding the mma guy verses you and sticks. Why would it be so hard just to get some padded sticks find a mma fighter and find out for sure?

You seem to have your conclusions based on everything but evidence.

The issue with stick weapons or any weapon that you swing is that technique plays an important role in how effective that strike is. I'll use your cricket bat example. I've never played cricket before but I'm sure there's a technique to hitting a cricket ball. What are the chances that I'll be able to hit that cricket ball at the same skill level of someone that has been hitting it for 2 years. I'm sure that there will be a lot of force but none of it is of any use if I don't connect. In the event that it does connect with bad technique, the outcome will be less than good and I'll probably hurt myself in the process.

Here's a video of people who don't do martial arts swinging a 6ft wax wood bow staff. My guess is that this is how most people who don't train to fight with a staff are going to swing a staff. They have force and it's good for tearing up that van but the technique isn't good for fighting with. The big long swings where they hold the end of the staff and swing are easy to defend against. The closer you get to their hands the less force that staff will have.

But if you use technique then you can still generate power with a staff without swinging it like a bat. Notice how close his target is. Even if I get close to his hands I would still be in trouble.

Fighting with sticks would be the same way. Brute force rarely defeats technique.
As for me fighting someone that does Suri stick fighting.
1. I didn't say I was better. I said I could easily defend against the way that they were hitting.
2. Wax wood staff (what I train with) will cause more damage than the suri fighting sticks. They already know this which is why they use the type of sticks that they use. They aren't using hard wood staffs. There is no way in the world a body can take a beating from a hardwood staff the same way they are taking a beating with the suri sticks. If I jab them in the face with my wax wood staff then they fight will end (did you notice that they don' jab the sticks).
3. If I hit your knee with the same sticks they are using, you'll still have your knee. If I hit your knee with a wax wood staff then you'll be lucky if you'll be able to walk without a limp for the the rest of your life.
4. They get hit in the head with the stick and it's no problem. If they get hit in the head with a wax wood staff it's a big problem and they'll need more than first aid to fix it.
5. They don't do groin shots or upward shots in suri fighting. In Jow ga we do those.
6. The suri sticks were breaking on each other's body. If you get hit with a waxwood staff, the staff isn't going to break unless it's rotten or already cracked.

I know that I'm doing the right techniques because the techniques have been tested. I'm doing the right training because the training methods have been tested. I don't train in a Mcdojo fighting system or with a Mcdojo teacher or with light practice weapons. Here's a picture of what I train with. The staff on the far left is my staff. The broomstick is about the thickness of a wushu staff or extreme karate staff. The staff on the far right is what my 13 yr old son uses. Neither of the staffs are going to break from hitting a body. Bone will break before those staffs break. I can guarantee that if I hit anyone with either one of those staffs that they aren't going to the same smiles that the Suri Stick fighters had.

padded sticks are not the same as real sticks. It's better to have the body protection instead of padded sticks. Padded weapons make people think they can withstand blows from real sticks.

 

[TSDTexan]

Washing my hands of this one.
Folks can underestimate the speed of sword strikes.
And underestimate the ease at which a bokken will break hands, wrists, upper arms, clavicles, jaws, cheekbones, tempoeral orbits, skulls.
As well as hips, knees, shins, ankles and feet.

Also it is easy to write off 30 inches of reach.
It would be very hazardous to do so.

I hope no one here ever does this in real life.
But aikidoka with bokken is underestimated serverely be a few of us here.

It would behoove some of us to visit a legit Aikido school and receive a first hand appraisal of the sword capability there before casually dismissing it.

 

[Hanzou]

So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?

 

[TSDTexan]

So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?

Yep. This is the latest debate.
And while I handicap a mma at 15%... folks says thats imagination. Yet they won't even say 50/50.

The other stipulation is no weapons/weapons defense in the MMA guy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So akido is effective against completely untrained people hopefully.

Which is the point Joe rogan made as well.

Out of all the street fights you see on you tube. How many were trained fighters? How many were UFC top fighters?
Out of all the violent attacks in the street, How many of the attackers were trained fighters? How many of the attackers were UFC top fighters?
How many street fights have you had where you were fighting a top UFC or a trained fighter or as Joe says "A trained killer"

To be honest most people who actually train to fight are rarely in street fights. Being that the person that attacks you in the street will most likely be untrained then that's a good thing that it works. How many people in here go downtown or to bad areas within the city and worry about someone like Anderson Silva popping out of the shadows and kicking your butt?

Rather, it's a comparison of training and testing models. How does the school decide what to teach? How do they test for proficiency? How to they ensure that the student is actually learning what the students thinks he/she is learning?
Some styles adhere more consistently to one training model or another, which can lead to conclusions that are broader, but as we've all acknowledged, there are good schools and bad within every style.

If the system is sound but the student is lazy to train then you can't discount the system because the student doesn't train to the level that they need to train at in order to fight using a specific training system. This is the same if the teacher is no good. You can have a sound fighting system with horrible teachers, but it doesn't mean the system isn't effective. For the most part the systems that were around when they were constantly being tested in real street fights or war, should be fairly solid minus a few things that may have been lost. If the system is solid then the only thing left is to make the student solid.

The new systems that are coming up or the systems that are designed for sporting are a little more questionable. Hard training looks similar no matter what the activity does. If a school isn't doing things to build strength, body conditioning, flexibility then it will be lacking as a fighting system. There as to be discussions about self-defense fighting tactics, applications, when to do a certain move, and sparring to practice these techniques in order for the students to be able to really use the techniques in a self-defense situation.

I can't speak for other schools but Jow ga test for proficiency based on 2 things:
1. You can do the forms / techniques. This doesn't mean that you can fight using the techniques. It just means that you have the capability to do so provided that they accomplish #2
2. You can actually fight using the technique. Once we learn a technique then we'll spend time sparring and learning how to execute the technique in a real fight. Depending on the student, he or she may not even need the sparring in order to know how to execute the technique. Sweeps and kicks come naturally to me and I can learn the technique and execute it in sparring with no problem. My first double leg sweep was executed without every having done it before. I did it just like I would in the form and it worked. Other techniques may be more complicated and requires a deeper understanding.

 

[drop bear]

I know that I'm doing the right techniques because the techniques have been tested. I'm doing the right training because the training methods have been tested. I don't train in a Mcdojo fighting system

Because you have tested them against other styles or mma fighters or wherever else you think you may actually need to use those techniques against?

 

[JowGaWolf]

So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?

There's no argument about the only way a system can defend against another system.. If you compare 100% mma against another fighting system then compare 100% of that fighting system and not just 30% or 50%. If a fighting system has a weapon then weapons are part of that system. If I want to use a weapon or technique from my system to fight someone then, why not? It's part of my fighting system.

 

[drop bear]

Out of all the street fights you see on you tube. How many were trained fighters? How many were UFC top fighters?
Out of all the violent attacks in the street, How many of the attackers were trained fighters? How many of the attackers were UFC top fighters?
How many street fights have you had where you were fighting a top UFC or a trained fighter or as Joe says "A trained killer"

To be honest most people who actually train to fight are rarely in street fights. Being that the person that attacks you in the street will most likely be untrained then that's a good thing that it works. How many people in here go downtown or to bad areas within the city and worry about someone like Anderson Silva popping out of the shadows and kicking your butt?

And that is fine. But you are acknowledging that you are not as good as a trained fighter.
I acknowledge that I am not. More dedication and more natural talent would make me better. Going to a better gym would make me better. And should I want better striking grappling or weapons. There are better martial arts than what I do.

None of this has anything to do with I have a sword and you don't.

But this still aligns with Joe rogans point that some martial arts are better than others

People do martial arts for reasons other than self defence and that is as valid as any reason to do martial arts.

 

[drop bear]

I mean I did capoera for four years or so. It was never going to make me a good fighter. But then I wasn't getting into many fights.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Because you have tested them against other styles or mma fighters or wherever else you think you may actually need to use those techniques against?

OMG ..Why does everything need to be visual in here. It's not rocket science.

MMA FIGHTER VS STICK.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And that is fine. But you are acknowledging that you are not as good as a trained fighter.
I acknowledge that I am not. More dedication and more natural talent would make me better. Going to a better gym would make me better. And should I want better striking grappling or weapons. There are better martial arts than what I do.

None of this has anything to do with I have a sword and you don't.

But this still aligns with Joe rogans point that some martial arts are better than others

People do martial arts for reasons other than self defence and that is as valid as any reason to do martial arts.

You are right people do martial arts for other reasons other than self-defense but if they plan on doing self-defense then they better accept the idea that they have to conditioned and trained to be able to do the self-defense techniques when or if the time comes to use it in a real fight. I don't train weapons just for the fun of it. I train weapons so that I can actually use them in a real fight. And that's my valid reason. When I train with my staff I train so I can fight with it.

 

[Steve]

If the system is sound but the student is lazy to train then you can't discount the system because the student doesn't train to the level that they need to train at in order to fight using a specific training system. This is the same if the teacher is no good. You can have a sound fighting system with horrible teachers, but it doesn't mean the system isn't effective. For the most part the systems that were around when they were constantly being tested in real street fights or war, should be fairly solid minus a few things that may have been lost. If the system is solid then the only thing left is to make the student solid.

The system can be solid, but how the system is trained can be fundamentally flawed.

 

[elder999]

The fact you bring up about the USMCMAP being more cop-jutsu and less killem-fu actually works for my case of unarmed mma guys vs akidoka with bokken.

I mean a weaker US marine core martial art handled the ufc guys

No. A weaker US marine core martial art handled UFC guys at Marine Corps martial art games

Having rolled with those guys straight up grappling and MMA, I gotta say that 99% of them would get creamed under UFC conditions.