Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu

[TSDTexan]

And… this is different from what I said how, exactly? I will say, though, that no, Kosen schools are not "analogous to the Ivy League"… it refers to a type of school, being a technical high school/college, for kids between 15 and 20 years old, and encompasses over 60 schools, many of which are national schools (set up by the government). The Ivy League, on the other hand, is an elite group of Colleges/Universities in the US… which is very different.

Most importantly, though, this looks like yet another of your unattributed copy-paste quotes… with no reference to where it came from, and with the lack of understanding shown (the idea that Kosen Judo was in competition with "Kodokan Judo" for one thing), I find it hard to take it seriously as a good source.



Actually, no… the closest we've had to any confirmation of Choi training in Daito Ryu is Kisshomaru Ueshiba's recollection of his fathers (Morihei's) comments about "a Korean man who came to one or two training sessions"… not Daito Ryu under Takeda, it must be noted. In fact, there has been no evidence from Japan of Choi's training at all.



So… it's an associations name? That hardly makes it common, or slang… nor even a "formal" term as you suggested previously. Seriously… I don't think these words mean what you think they mean…



Admitting your wrong is conceding… I mean… admitting your wrong, but not conceding is sheer lunacy, frankly… you already know you're wrong… but won't give up the argument?



Ha! All the best with that…



Yeah… these powerless threats won't endear you to any here, you know…

Well Chris, I am a kinda guy you either love or hate. Hating me is easy. I provide plenty of things to take swings at.
In the end, I am just as human as anyone else.

Brash, cocky, very incorrect on a number of matters, totally spot on in others, willing to fight and die, or just as willing to throw in a towel and walk away.

I upset people, without trying to. I used to think it was me, but then I realized not everyone had a problem with me. And some people loved what others hated about me.

I am a mouth, with strong opinions, and not afraid to say what I think. And yes, this doesn't endear some folks to me.

I would rather have people who can look beyond the troubled surface waters, and make a friendship with such people.

As for admitting I am wrong... Nothing of the sort. I have deferred until such time as I have material to make a stronger case. Or until I am fully won over to your position.

Right at this moment, I am neutral or agnostic about the DRAJJ to BJJ issue. I am not presently in a position to argue the case with new information yet. As have you have not presented me with anything other than your viewpoint backed by your own testimony against Dr. Cunningham's assertion.

I remain internally In favor of my notion, while not taking the field against your counter position.

You might be right, or you might be wrong but think your position is correct. I don't know. I remain undecided at present. But I do not think my case is a hopeless one, just lacking strong support.

There are different types of concession. Some are, your won this engagement (round, day etc).... But the debate discussion is far from over.

Others are, unequivocally pure surrender.

My concession is of a temporary nature. It may remain as such for a while.

 

[Tez3]

Hating me is easy.

You are quite mistaken there you know. No one least of all Chris hates you, I think you may be taking what he has written too personally. As I told you before this place is perhaps more academic than many martial arts places, Chris is very scholarly about his research and his knowledge, he perhaps writes more seriously than many do on forums. What you may think is harsh if you take it personally isn't I can assure you. I think too that you will find Chris is correct in what he writes when he writes about his art. He has done far more studying that anyone I know, if he's wrong and you have evidence present it in the same manner as Chris does. You may be surprised at it's reception.
Whether there's 'troubled waters' or not is not something we think about here, your words are what we reply to, we don't second guess people's personal life, it really hasn't anything to do with us and we don't pry. The reason I offer advice is not to be unfriendly but more that I have far more years than you and have a learnt quite a bit in those years. If you don't wish for advice, feel free to ignore but don't be surprised when you do find out I'm right

 

[Hanzou]

This isn't really true in my experience, I can't quote solid statistics but as a guesstimate most Chinese grandmasters will have trained to a high level in at least three martial arts. Many 'traditional' martial arts were born from cross training, this is partly why there are literally hundreds of Chinese martial arts. The truth is the same the world over, to be good at martial arts you need to be versatile. We incorporate five 'traditional' Chinese arts together with groundwork from BJJ and Sambo at the club where I train. It isn't a problem, it shouldn't be a problem.

That would be quite a guesstimate, since we have verifiable examples of CMAs refusing to cross train to the detriment of their style. Perhaps you could give us some more concrete examples?

I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training". Judo is a hybrid of several classical JJ styles, but I would consider practicing judo alone to be cross training by default.

On the other hand I could quote several famous Gracies who have frowned on cross training at points where 'GJJ alone' was shown to be inadequate in MMA. There is an unfortunate legacy of weaving a story of being 'the best martial art' so closely into a martial history. This legacy kinda lives on in Joe Rogan.

You mean like the story of Relson Gracie supposedly cutting off his brother Royce because he cross-trained in Muay Thai before his fight with Matt Hughes? Meanwhile almost every Relson Gracie school in the country has a second or third martial art available to train in, Relson himself is quite fond of boxing and Judo, and the two brothers have been seen talking to each other several times.

Actions speak louder than words. Don't believe everything coming out of the mouths of the Gracies.

Do you have a source for this please?

Thanks

You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?

 

[Hanzou]

Hanzou has a habit of attributing anything that doesnt fit his perception of a Martial Art as being that way because of cross training in what he feels are superior styles

I have no problem believing that Sanda utilizes traditional kung fu, but almost every source I've read on the sport says very clearly that they also utilize boxing, wrestling, along with various kung fu styles. That would qualify it as a mixed martial art.

Interestingly, the sport doesn't have ground fighting. That's quite unfortunate, since I think the throws are quite impressive and would benefit from a ground component.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?

And which version of Sanda are you talking about? Or better yet how are you defining Sanda?

That would be quite a guesstimate, since we have verifiable examples of CMAs refusing to cross train to the detriment of their style. Perhaps you could give us some more concrete examples?

Please supply those verifiable examples.

 

[drop bear]

You are quite mistaken there you know. No one least of all Chris hates you, I think you may be taking what he has written too personally. As I told you before this place is perhaps more academic than many martial arts places, Chris is very scholarly about his research and his knowledge, he perhaps writes more seriously than many do on forums. What you may think is harsh if you take it personally isn't I can assure you. I think too that you will find Chris is correct in what he writes when he writes about his art. He has done far more studying that anyone I know, if he's wrong and you have evidence present it in the same manner as Chris does. You may be surprised at it's reception.
Whether there's 'troubled waters' or not is not something we think about here, your words are what we reply to, we don't second guess people's personal life, it really hasn't anything to do with us and we don't pry. The reason I offer advice is not to be unfriendly but more that I have far more years than you and have a learnt quite a bit in those years. If you don't wish for advice, feel free to ignore but don't be surprised when you do find out I'm right

He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Interestingly, the sport doesn't have ground fighting

It doesn't have any ground fighting because it's not a ground fighting sport. I think I heard from somewhere that Sanda was how traditional martial artists were able to fight and improve fighting skills without risking serious injury. It set the rules to prevent lethal strikes and strikes that cause permanent damage such as intentional pokes to the eye. From what I've heard Sanda has always been made of Chinese traditional martial arts

Here is some information that I found about the origins of Sanda and what it consists of. It also explains why there is no ground fighting. It's a good read
Source: The origins of Sanda and why it doesn't have ground fighting

This is a quote from the source above. "Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible."

This is the mentality of most traditional Chinese Martial Arts. So it only makes sense that from the perspective of the ground fight there is no need for a ground and pound after being slammed.

Things like this happen when you are slammed on concrete: Notice that not only did the kid get slammed his leg also hit the a small concrete structure. If the throws and slams are this dangerous when kids do it, then imagine how dangerous it when adults who are trained do the same thing. This goes for all fighting systems that have slams.
Example 1: Kid slam

Example 2: Kid slam

 

[Tez3]

He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.

Well that's your opinion, did you present your evidence or did you just have a whinge because all you are doing is making accusations.

 

[Hanzou]

It doesn't have any ground fighting because it's not a ground fighting sport. I think I heard from somewhere that Sanda was how traditional martial artists were able to fight and improve fighting skills without risking serious injury. It set the rules to prevent lethal strikes and strikes that cause permanent damage such as intentional pokes to the eye. From what I've heard Sanda has always been made of Chinese traditional martial arts

Considering that its origins date back to the 1920s, and was originally developed for the military with wrestling and western boxing, I seriously doubt there's much tradition involved.

Here is some information that I found about the origins of Sanda and what it consists of. It also explains why there is no ground fighting. It's a good read
Source: The origins of Sanda and why it doesn't have ground fighting

Yeah, sounds like an excuse for having a massive hole in their style. I would love to see more Sanda guys transition to MMA, but the lack of ground fighting skills really hold them back.

This is a quote from the source above. "Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible."

Again, an excuse for having a big hole in the style. There's plenty of wrestling throws where you end up on the ground as well, some of them are even in Sanda itself. As I said before, I like Sanda. I think its a wonderful evolution of traditional Chinese MA, and I look forward to seeing its future evolution. However, statements like the one above are simply nonsense. Just say that its not in the ruleset so you don't practice it. Don't come up with dumb reasons to exclude an entire range of fighting.

This is the mentality of most traditional Chinese Martial Arts. So it only makes sense that from the perspective of the ground fight there is no need for a ground and pound after being slammed.

Unless you're the one begin slammed.

 

[Chris Parker]

And it is not correct. Martial arts are separated into either good or crap.

If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap. If you can defend against the best in the country you are probably good.

Well, that's a load of garbage…

For one thing, it's got nothing at all to do with whether martial arts are "good" or "crap"… it's to do with your personal perception of how they fit with your preconceived values… and, in that fashion, ignoring the huge variety of other contexts and values found in many, many, many arts. Secondly, the idea that "martial arts are separated into either good of crap" is such a small-minded statement that it's a sheer denial of reality.

As for your litmus test… come along to my school. Pit your MMA/BJJ methods against what I do… er… your sword defence is good in your MMA, yeah? I mean… your art must be crap if you can't defend against mine, right?

Can you see how far off your idea is yet? No martial art is designed for every context, and being applicable in one context means nothing when you're taken somewhere you're not geared up for. In that sense, all arts can be seen as "crap" by your reckoning… just by taking them somewhere where they don't operate.

Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?

Er… you do know what "kung fu" means, yeah? And, seconding Xue, how are you defining sanda?

Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works.

Hmm… and how are you defining "eclectic"? Mainly as, well, BJJ doesn't really fit the definition as commonly applied…

Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition.

Sure… and that's why so many of them spawn new arts… resulting from people cross training… and creating their own form…

My point is that this statement may be correct to a degree for some arts (Kashima Shinryu come to mind as an extreme example), but it's not only not correct for many, it's not correct for the vast majority. Of course, it helps to understand the mentality and reasons for limiting outside influence when that does occur…

Hence why had all that anti-grappling fun in the other thread. The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.

You really do have an interesting reality you live in… have you ever considered that what they did was to express the principles and methods they have (already) in a new context (the ground)? The applicability of such is another matter, but I really doubt it was a case of them not being able to bring in outside methods… more likely that outside methods may have conflicted with their existing approach, and therefore not fit with what they did.

You have different levels of this thing though. There are a couple of Tkders I know of who mix it up kick boxing. So can handle themselves. And there are those who never go outside the class room. And would get owned by anybody with half a clue.

And there are people who cross-train who would get "owned"… and those who do just one thing that wouldn't.

This training in a traditional sense that does not allow outside influences and seems to be for the poupose of stroking the ego of the instructor.

Seems to you, perhaps. Of course, your perception and reality can be very, very different things…

Ameridote satires this school very well.

Er… no. Ameridote is far more a satire of the opposite, you realise… it is not presented as "traditional"… in fact, it's presented as a modern, Western, eclectic Kempo-based system (and therefore is satirising that concept). You know their slogan, yeah? "Best of all, worst of none"? Tell me how that doesn't imply outside methodologies being incorporated… besides which, you have the many, many videos of "X-art is BS"… which makes much the same argument as you try to.

In other words, what Ameri-do-te satirises is most closely represented here by yourself and Hanzou in terms of the way you present yourself. Not traditional arts at all.

Hmm... it occurs to me, as I write this, that you could be referring to the "X-art is BS" clips… in which case, you might want to look up what "satirising" actually is…

Otherwise what we have found with the karate guys that train with us is they can't fight us like karate guys. So even if you are not learning new technique you still have to go outside your school and mix it up with other guys to understand your own system better.

No, learning what the effect of applying your art in a different context can benefit from such… but that's about as far as I'd go.

Joe could have very easily experienced one or both of these situations. It is not uncommon to find. And can be very deceptive and seductive. I mean who does not want to do a style where you win without effort?

And so this idea that if you never fight you are somehow a better martial artist. And we don't have to put you up against an actual boxer. We can just get Barry to pretend to be one and show how we are really superior without any risk at all.

What? Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about here…

I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training".

So… you're putting a time restriction on what you consider cross-training? Let's test this…

The Takagi Ryu (which currently exists as a number of different forms, including the Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu, the Takagi Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, the Moto-ha Yoshin Ryu, etc) was founded in approximately 1660 by Takagi Oriemon Shigenobu… Takagi Oriemon had trained in Ito Kenko Ryu (sojutsu, naginata, bo, kodachi, ken, hanbo), and Kyochi Ryu (sojutsu) before creating his own system of Takagi Ryu. At this point, it was largely weapon work, with a very rough form of jujutsu based in sumo and hade (crude grappling - not meaning ground work, as, well, why would they?). It's important to note that a big influence on how Takagi Ryu was formed came from having an encounter (match, or , more realistically, a couple of matches) with Yagyu Tajima no Kami, of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu… with swords.

He passed his art onto his adopted son, Takagi Ummanosuke, who had an encounter with the head of Takenouchi Ryu, Takenouchi Hisamori. Takenouchi beat Takagi quite emphatically (despite Takagi being much younger, taller, stronger, and overall bigger), after which Takagi asked to become Takenouchi's student. Takenouchi agreed, and the Takenouchi Ryu (which had a large weapon syllabus, but was most well known for it's jujutsu) became a huge influence on the further development of Takagi Ryu… to the point that the Jujutsu side got refined to a great degree, taking a more prominent place in the syllabus.

The third generation head of Takagi Ryu, Takagi Gennoshin Higeshige, struck up a friendship with the fourth head of Kukishin Ryu, Ohkuni Kihei. Over the time of their friendship, the two had a number of matches to determine who had the "better" system… through which, it was decided that Takagi Ryu was superior to Kukishin Ryu in Jujutsu, whereas the weaponry arts of Kukishin Ryu, particularly it's use of bo, were the better. From then on, the two taught together in a joint dojo, with the Jujutsu coming from Takagi Ryu, and the weapon usage from Kukishin Ryu. When Takagi became sick, he appointed Ohkuni to be his successor, and the fourth head of Takagi Ryu. From that point on, Takagi Ryu and Kukishin Ryu were taught as one system, with many modern forms of Takagi Ryu still containing Kukishin Ryu weapon arts.

But let's skip forward…

Since then, the art has created a number of branches, a number of bunpa ryu (descendant schools), and has continued to develop itself. One line, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, was created when Ishitani Masatsugu (the 14th head of the Ryu, according to some lineages - others have him as the 15th, depending on when you start counting…), who had already restructured the school based on his own experiences both in and outside of the ryu itself, passed the school down to his son, then to Kakuno Happeita. Kakuno set about restructuring the school himself (teaching it as a separate form, aside from the "mainline" Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu), creating new kata sets, and so on. He passed his art onto his successor, Minaki Masanori, who continued to refine the art and complete the restructure that Kakuno began.

He then passed the art onto Inoue Tsuyoshi Munetoshi, a rather accomplished practitioner of a number of arts, including Toyama Ryu Iai, Seitei Iai, Seitei Jo, Kyudo, Judo, and a range of other arts. Among his many accomplishments as Soke of this ryu, Inoue sensei revived some aspects of the weapon teachings of the art, such as the Iai, by drawing on his training outside of the Ryu itself. In fact, for a while, it wasn't Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai that was taught to most students, but a line of Toyama Ryu… with the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai being held for senior students only. In more recent times, Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai has been opened to all students of the Ryu.

So, here we have an art that came from cross-training, developed through meeting other martial artists, continued to have it's heads train in other systems, continued to develop, and continued to influence it's own practice through to the present day. Inoue sensei mentioned above was the previous generation soke… and the developments mentioned occurred in the late '80's/early 90's.

Does this count as cross-training? I mean… it was created centuries ago, as a result of someone training in multiple systems and methods… Speaking personally, training in any one system isn't cross-training… but cross-training in different systems is what has helped define what this system is… so I don't consider Hontai Yoshin Ryu as cross training, but the result of such.

Judo is a hybrid of several classical JJ styles, but I would consider practicing judo alone to be cross training by default.

I'd actually argue the idea that Judo is a hybrid of several classical styles… to my mind, it's not. It's Judo. It's a single system, which is informed by a number of other systems… but the fact is that Judo is a particular system, based in a training methodology and philosophy. I do have to ask, though, did you mean you would consider practicing Judo alone to be cross-training, or that you wouldn't? If the former… why? If the latter… okay, cool. You missed some letters, then.

You mean like the story of Relson Gracie supposedly cutting off his brother Royce because he cross-trained in Muay Thai before his fight with Matt Hughes? Meanwhile almost every Relson Gracie school in the country has a second or third martial art available to train in, Relson himself is quite fond of boxing and Judo, and the two brothers have been seen talking to each other several times.

Actions speak louder than words. Don't believe everything coming out of the mouths of the Gracies.

Speaking for myself, I'd say more like Royce saying that "MMA means you can't do any one thing well, so you have to do bits of everything… it means you're not good enough at what you do. BJJ is good enough to not need anything else" (training seminar with Ground Zero BJJ, Melbourne, Feb 2008). Might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it when he was asked "What do you think of MMA?" in the Q&A at the end of the day…

You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?

Not to speak for Renc, but yes. Other than that. An actual source.

 

[drop bear]

Well that's your opinion, did you present your evidence or did you just have a whinge because all you are doing is making accusations.

That was just my opinion. As you expressed yours. I give evidence where I can find it generally.

Not a winge just an opposing view.

 

[Tez3]

That was just my opinion. As you expressed yours. I give evidence where I can find it generally.

Not a winge just an opposing view.

Actually it was an accusation not an opinion wasn't it? I was being polite when I said a whinge.

 

[Hanzou]

Er… you do know what "kung fu" means, yeah? And, seconding Xue, how are you defining sanda?

I know exactly what kung fu means. However, there's a clear difference between traditional Kung fu with weapons and forms, and Sanda with kickboxing and wrestling.

Hmm… and how are you defining "eclectic"? Mainly as, well, BJJ doesn't really fit the definition as commonly applied…

The dictionary definition.

For decades Bjj has absorbed techniques from Catch Wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Luta Livre, street fighting, Judo, and other sources and still considered all of it Bjj. That would be the definition of eclectic.

Sure… and that's why so many of them spawn new arts… resulting from people cross training… and creating their own form…

Yes, spawn new arts, not retain the original art with new techniques added.

You really do have an interesting reality you live in… have you ever considered that what they did was to express the principles and methods they have (already) in a new context (the ground)? The applicability of such is another matter, but I really doubt it was a case of them not being able to bring in outside methods… more likely that outside methods may have conflicted with their existing approach, and therefore not fit with what they did.

Well if that's the case, why not simply bring in outside methods? When Gracie JJ got stomped by Fadda Bjj via leglocks, they didn't come up with nonsensical counters to leglocks, they simply learned Fadda leglocks. The same occurred when Judo was defeated by a ground fighter. Judo simply made the guy they lost to an instructor in the Kodakan and absorbed his tactics.

That's the better route to take.

I'd actually argue the idea that Judo is a hybrid of several classical styles… to my mind, it's not. It's Judo. It's a single system, which is informed by a number of other systems… but the fact is that Judo is a particular system, based in a training methodology and philosophy. I do have to ask, though, did you mean you would consider practicing Judo alone to be cross-training, or that you wouldn't? If the former… why? If the latter… okay, cool. You missed some letters, then.

Yeah, it was the latter. I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of would.

Speaking for myself, I'd say more like Royce saying that "MMA means you can't do any one thing well, so you have to do bits of everything… it means you're not good enough at what you do. BJJ is good enough to not need anything else" (training seminar with Ground Zero BJJ, Melbourne, Feb 2008). Might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it when he was asked "What do you think of MMA?" in the Q&A at the end of the day..

Yeah, again you can't trust everything that comes out of the mouth of a Gracie. They're just people, not gods. While their fighting skills are impressive, they're bravdo and machoism can often times get the best of them.

Not to speak for Renc, but yes. Other than that. An actual source.

So are we really going to pretend that Sanda is a traditional Chinese martial art, and not a modern hybrid sport style?

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm going to separate this one out…

Well Chris, I am a kinda guy you either love or hate. Hating me is easy. I provide plenty of things to take swings at.
In the end, I am just as human as anyone else.

Brash, cocky, very incorrect on a number of matters, totally spot on in others, willing to fight and die, or just as willing to throw in a towel and walk away.

I upset people, without trying to. I used to think it was me, but then I realized not everyone had a problem with me. And some people loved what others hated about me.

I am a mouth, with strong opinions, and not afraid to say what I think. And yes, this doesn't endear some folks to me.

I would rather have people who can look beyond the troubled surface waters, and make a friendship with such people.

Look, there's a lot I could say here… but I'm going to try to keep it simple.

Nothing you said here means anything at all, other than showing a real lack of ability to recognise what people are saying to you, or (more importantly) how you're saying things to them. And, to be clear, I don't hate you. Frankly, I don't give a damn about you one way or the other. What I do care about is when blatantly bad information is presented as being accurate, correct, or anything else, and is being accepted as true. That, I have a problem with.

As for admitting I am wrong... Nothing of the sort. I have deferred until such time as I have material to make a stronger case. Or until I am fully won over to your position.

Let me save you some time. You cannot build a stronger case for such a flagrantly incorrect premise, as it'd be like trying to build a case for the sun coming up in the West.

Right at this moment, I am neutral or agnostic about the DRAJJ to BJJ issue. I am not presently in a position to argue the case with new information yet. As have you have not presented me with anything other than your viewpoint backed by your own testimony against Dr. Cunningham's assertion.

The standard approach if you don't know the truth is to go with the more credible of the two views you're presented with. Cunningham has a phd… in nothing related at all. His listed credentials are… well… questionable at the least. His "Takagi Ryu" seems to be unassociated with any known Takagi Ryu, his teachers are largely unheard of (almost impossible in Koryu terms…), he claims his Judo history facts are "kuden" from the Kodokan… when no-one at the Kodokan seems to know of him… his ranking in Judo is unverified beyond a Shodan (he claims rokudan), and so on.

Me? I'm a practitioner of classical Japanese traditions with a vested interest in them, and friends who live in Japan, train in Takeuchi Ryu, Daito Ryu, and so on. I have pointed out the issues and discrepancies with Mr Cunningham's views (including that, even if we accept Daito Ryu's historical claims, both Daito Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu were on opposite sides of the country when Takenouchi Ryu was founded, and therefore was impossible to have come from Daito Ryu in any case), as well as the fact that there is no support for the idea that Kano even trained in Takenouchi Ryu himself at any point.

Your choice who to believe…

I remain internally In favor of my notion, while not taking the field against your counter position.

Er… fine…

You might be right, or you might be wrong but think your position is correct. I don't know. I remain undecided at present. But I do not think my case is a hopeless one, just lacking strong support.

It lacks any credible support.

There are different types of concession. Some are, your won this engagement (round, day etc).... But the debate discussion is far from over.

Others are, unequivocally pure surrender.

My concession is of a temporary nature. It may remain as such for a while.

You've been given better information, I'll leave it to you to take it from there.

He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.

Honestly, you simply ignored the way that evidence works. We've done this a number of times, and I haven't been alone in pointing this out to you.

 

[Chris Parker]

I know exactly what kung fu means. However, there's a clear difference between traditional Kung fu with weapons and forms, and Sanda with kickboxing and wrestling.

Er… again, are you sure you know what "kung fu" means…?

The dictionary definition.

For decades Bjj has absorbed techniques from Catch Wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Luta Livre, street fighting, Judo, and other sources and still considered all of it Bjj. That would be the definition of eclectic.

Hmm… no, not really. I can see where you're coming from, but it's not that simple.

I'll put it this way… an eclectic martial art would be something like Cuong Nhu… or many of the modern "Jujitsu" systems (which are often more bastardised versions of karate, combined with judo throws, FMA stick/knife work, and, commonly, invented "traditional" weaponry). BJJ, on the other hand, while absorbing techniques, has consistently remained BJJ. Now, if it was to suddenly incorporate sword, TKD-style kicking, FMA methods, then we'd be looking at an eclectic approach.

Yes, spawn new arts, not retain the original art with new techniques added.

Depends on the art...

Well if that's the case, why not simply bring in outside methods? When Gracie JJ got stomped by Fadda Bjj via leglocks, they didn't come up with nonsensical counters to leglocks, they simply learned Fadda leglocks. The same occurred when Judo was defeated by a ground fighter. Judo simply made the guy they lost to an instructor in the Kodakan and absorbed his tactics.

That's the better route to take.

From your perspective. You have to remember, you're operating from a single value point, looking at one context only, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit within that.

Yeah, it was the latter. I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of would.

Thought so. Cool.

Yeah, again you can't trust everything that comes out of the mouth of a Gracie. They're just people, not gods. While their fighting skills are impressive, they're bravdo and machoism can often times get the best of them.

Renc's point was that they espouse the view that cross-training isn't required, and referenced quotes from them. I provided one. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you can trust what they say or not, it matters that they said it. That was the point.

So are we really going to pretend that Sanda is a traditional Chinese martial art, and not a modern hybrid sport style?

No-one said anything about it being a traditional Chinese art, you asked if it was fair to call it "kung fu". The answer was "yes". You referenced it being "a mix of several different (non Chinese) martial arts", and were asked for sources stating this. Your response was to ask "you mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles…", which was not actually providing any source or reference at all, simply stating your own observation (accurate or not).

 

[drop bear]

Honestly, you simply ignored the way that evidence works. We've done this a number of times, and I haven't been alone in pointing this out to you.

That somehow you are your own evidence because you say you are.

Yeah I am going to consider that opinion. And suggest evidence would come from an external source.

 

[Chris Parker]

It did, initially. But, after accumulating enough knowledge, you become the source yourself. That is something you didn't get. And, apparently, still don't.

 

[drop bear]

Actually it was an accusation not an opinion wasn't it? I was being polite when I said a whinge.

You accused Chris of being credible. I disagreed. Two opinions.

Not sure what the issue is.

 

[drop bear]

It did, initially. But, after accumulating enough knowledge, you become the source yourself. That is something you didn't get. And, apparently, still don't.

Look I think it is an increadably strange standpoint to make an argument from. But I have given the idea over to a philosopher friend of mine. Mabye he can understand it.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'll put it this way… if I ask what you do in your gym, are you your own source there, or do I have to demand a website and a whole bunch of videos of you doing exactly what you say before I can accept it? If I ask you what your favourite meal is, are you your own source, or do I have to see photos of you eating it on multiple occasions before I can take it as read?

That's what is meant. If you can't follow that… honestly, I have no hope of your "philosopher friend" being able to help… as, well, it's not philosophy… it's the nature of evidence (first hand, second hand, tertiary, eye-witness, fallibility, and so on…).