Kung fu in MMA Wins

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's much harder for me to stop double and single legs when the attacker can put their knee to the ground.
You've been wrestling for a long time, so how do you deal with this?

According to the wrestling strategy, if your opponent wants to get low, you help him to get much lower than he really wants to.

The double legs is difficult to counter because usually it's too late. When your opponent can reach to your back leg, there isn't much that you can do. This is why you should not stay in a narrow stance that your opponent can reach to both of your legs.

If you can put your hands on top of your opponent's neck and press him down, you can take him down before he can reach you. During my 1983 national SC tournament, in the final, my opponent was a western wrestler. He attacked me twice with single leg and I took him down twice with downward pull. Both rounds were all less than 8 seconds. Those 2 rounds are the easiest rounds that I ever had during my tournament years.

Another method is the reverse head lock that you can put your body weight on top of your opponent.

Also, if your opponent gets you with single leg, you can extend your leg between his legs, control his shoulder, and play the single leg hopping sticky game.

This is the only tournament picture that I have when my teacher competed in SC tournament. He was using "downward pull" against his opponent's "single leg".

 

[JowGaWolf]

Mmmhmm....

Given your statements thus far, wouldn't you agree that Muay Thai has done a better job at teaching people to fight than general Kung Fu? In other words, if the goal is to learn how to fight, wouldn't it be better for someone to go to a Muay Thai gym than a Kung Fu kwoon?

Muay thai schools have done a better job in teaching fighting techniques because that's their focus. Most kung fu schools don't focus on fighting. These schools make no secret about. At most ,only a handful of students will choose to learn martial arts for function.

Go to any Kung Fu school or Traditional martial arts school and almost all of them will tell you that their goal is not to teach people how to fight.

I was never taught how to fight in my school. I was taught how to use and be functional using Jow Ga. I never once asked my teachers how to fight. I always asked how to use and they taught me. I have even said on here many times " The more I learn about kung fu, the less it's about fighting."

If someone wants to learn how to fight, I will send them to a Muay Thai gym. If someone wants to be functional in kung fu then I will teach them.

The fighting skills I want to learn can't be taught in a Muay Thai Gym that trains for sport. They don't train weapons so for me. I cannot reach my goals through Muay Tai.

 

[jayoliver00]

If someone wants to learn how to fight, I will send them to a Muay Thai gym. If someone wants to be functional in kung fu then I will teach them.

The fighting skills I want to learn can't be taught in a Muay Thai Gym that trains for sport. They don't train weapons so for me. I cannot reach my goals through Muay Tai.

That's interesting but I question what all of this functional training is for? It seems for show, more than anything else.

Because I train often with swords, but it's just for show; b/c there's rarely any function for it unless I wanted to risk getting shot.

 

[Hanzou]

Muay thai schools have done a better job in teaching fighting techniques because that's their focus. Most kung fu schools don't focus on fighting. These schools make no secret about. At most ,only a handful of students will choose to learn martial arts for function.

Then what is the focus of a Kung Fu school? You're learning to punch, kick, stand, move, swing ancient chinese weapons, etc. Why are you learning these techniques? Are you seriously going to argue that you're not learning these techniques to be a more efficient fighter?

Go to any Kung Fu school or Traditional martial arts school and almost all of them will tell you that their goal is not to teach people how to fight.

I was never taught how to fight in my school. I was taught how to use and be functional using Jow Ga. I never once asked my teachers how to fight. I always asked how to use and they taught me. I have even said on here many times " The more I learn about kung fu, the less it's about fighting."

If someone wants to learn how to fight, I will send them to a Muay Thai gym. If someone wants to be functional in kung fu then I will teach them.

The fighting skills I want to learn can't be taught in a Muay Thai Gym that trains for sport. They don't train weapons so for me. I cannot reach my goals through Muay Tai.

"Functional in Kung Fu/Jow Ga" simply means that you can utilize a Chinese martial arts style to its desired effect. Jow Ga, like all Martial Arts systems were developed for singular purpose; To make someone a better/skilled fighter, and everything within a given martial arts system is designed for that sole purpose. Now you can obviously say that this practice towards that goal can also make you a better human being, but that doesn't change what the martial art was designed for.

I mean, look at Bjj. I can easily say that getting the life choked out of you over and over again will humble you, as will the knowledge that you can rather easily kill or maim someone with your bare hands. Through diligent practice and consistent checking from your peers, you can actually come through BJJ as a much better person than when you began. Some higher exponents like Rickson Gracie even go off the deep end with the spiritual/metaphysical aspects. However, that doesn't change the fact that BJJ was created to make someone a better fighter, and that's really the only reason for its existence. Kung fu is no different.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That's interesting but I question what all of this functional training is for?

Functional training is just that. The ability to use the skill sets and techniques being taught.

Because I train often with swords, but it's just for show; b/c there's rarely any function for it unless I wanted to risk getting shot.

I haven't trained with swords yet but it's on the list. I'm currently training with my Son to be functional with staff fighting. This doesn't mean that I'm training to be a martial arts staff fighter. It just means I'm learning to be functional with the staff skills that I can use them if I need them. I find enjoyment that my staff skills are not just for show, that I can actually be functional with them.

Things like this appeal to me. If I only train my staff for show then I won't be good in things like this.

You can still be functional with swords. That's what's fencing is. You can take fencing for the enjoyment of it. There's no requirement to compete beyond your club. There's also no push to use a sword in a street fight. You just posses the skill sets to functionally fight with a sword.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Then what is the focus of a Kung Fu school? You're learning to punch, kick, stand, move, swing ancient chinese weapons, etc. Why are you learning these techniques? Are you seriously going to argue that you're not learning these techniques to be a more efficient fighter?

I've said many times before in this forum, that my goal is to be a good representation of Jow Ga kung fu and to show that it's functional. Which is why I often spar to learn vs sparring for the sake of winning. I've been very consistent about this. Being a more efficient fighter can be done without taking kung fu. Learn boxing. Less to learn so you can focus only on punching and you can be a more efficient fighter that way.

If I'm in the street and I have a knife and my attacker doesn't then I can use my knife and be an efficient that way. No need for kung fu. I could even use a gun. There are a lot of ways to be "efficient" But only one way to show that Jow Ga is functional. Train Jow Ga. Use Jow Ga

 

[drop bear]

No it's not. What MMA gym do you train at? Most MMA gyms adopt Muay Thai for their main striking style (esp for kicks) and it's been so for the past 20+ years now. There are some that are very successful with a Karate base, but not nearly as close in numbers as the MT's. Next would be Kung-Fu at a distance 3rd. TKD is probably near the bottom for being used in MMA. There are highly talented athletes that can incorporate TKD into their game to win, such as Izzy...but he didn't chose TKD to begin his KB, then MMA career with...his mommy put him into a strip mall TKD school due to bullies. I doubt she was some martial artist guru who knew the difference.

The first thing we teach TKD people who tries out MT is to not do that chamber & snap kicking. If they really don't believe me, then we spar to find out. Sometimes I do lose, but those were really big TKD boys.

Exept the chamber snap kicking style works for quite a few people.

Especially the question mark kick. Which has become a staple mma move.

Barbosa who I believe is a TKDer chambers his kicks.

And you can even watch him destroy a knee with a round kick.

 

[drop bear]

Also it's hard to kick above the solaplex. The angle becomes so steep that the ball of the foot just slide up the heavy bag. It's hard to "stick into" the bag and penetrate deep. I still having problem doing that after all these years. Lately, I start kicking with the heel, that digs deeper and make a louder popping sound( now with the heel, not the bottom of the foot slapping the bag to make the sound).

There is a trick to it. I throw the stabby toe teep that can drop people.

It is half chambered and almost like a groin kick. Rather than that pushing kick a lot of people do.

And so I just snap it out and try to touch their liver with my big toe.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1169344979768117

This is off the back foot and across the body. I do either side or either foot.

 

[Hanzou]

I've said many times before in this forum, that my goal is to be a good representation of Jow Ga kung fu and to show that it's functional. Which is why I often spar to learn vs sparring for the sake of winning. I've been very consistent about this. Being a more efficient fighter can be done without taking kung fu. Learn boxing. Less to learn so you can focus only on punching and you can be a more efficient fighter that way.

If I'm in the street and I have a knife and my attacker doesn't then I can use my knife and be an efficient that way. No need for kung fu. I could even use a gun. There are a lot of ways to be "efficient" But only one way to show that Jow Ga is functional. Train Jow Ga. Use Jow Ga

Yes. In other words your goal is to become a better fighter through your practice of Jow Ga. What you're talking about here is a preference. You prefer the training methodology of Jow Ga over the training methodology of Muay Thai, just like I prefer the training methodology of BJJ over both JG and MT. However the goals of these martial arts are exactly the same. There is zero difference between you and someone who takes up MT. The only real difference is that MT ( and BJJ) removes all the fluff that Kung Fu stuffs into their systems for whatever reason.

We're all trying to get from A to B. Some arts simply offer a more efficient and effective way to get there. Hence why we have such a hard time finding Kung Fu practitioners in MMA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then what is the focus of a Kung Fu school? You're learning to punch, kick, stand, move, swing ancient chinese weapons, etc. Why are you learning these techniques? Are you seriously going to argue that you're not learning these techniques to be a more efficient fighter?

For some folks, it's a dual purpose. We train for some fighting ability, but also for just the sheer enjoyment of learning something that's hard to do. There are techniques I learned and still teach that aren't very efficient at teaching fighting ability (they are teaching drills, but for specific types of body movement or mechanics, meant to be learned over time). I love working on those techniques, because they are so hard to make use of in the chaos of a fight. The mechanics they are meant to teach do help in grappling (mostly on the defensive side), but there are much more efficient ways to improve fighting effectiveness than those drills/techniques.

While I never specifically asked, I'm quite certain some of the folks I trained with didn't really have much interest in increasing their fighting skill. They just wanted to learn and practice something new and physical with folks who were having fun, in an environment where sucking at it wasn't mocked. And MA training fit the bill for them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Exept the chamber snap kicking style works for quite a few people.

Especially the question mark kick. Which has become a staple mma move.

Barbosa who I believe is a TKDer chambers his kicks.

And you can even watch him destroy a knee with a round kick.

those were some really nice an accurate kicks. right on the mark.

 

[Hanzou]

For some folks, it's a dual purpose. We train for some fighting ability, but also for just the sheer enjoyment of learning something that's hard to do. There are techniques I learned and still teach that aren't very efficient at teaching fighting ability (they are teaching drills, but for specific types of body movement or mechanics, meant to be learned over time). I love working on those techniques, because they are so hard to make use of in the chaos of a fight. The mechanics they are meant to teach do help in grappling (mostly on the defensive side), but there are much more efficient ways to improve fighting effectiveness than those drills/techniques.

While I never specifically asked, I'm quite certain some of the folks I trained with didn't really have much interest in increasing their fighting skill. They just wanted to learn and practice something new and physical with folks who were having fun, in an environment where sucking at it wasn't mocked. And MA training fit the bill for them.

None of those other purposes veers away from that core purpose though. In final analysis what are you learning? Are you learning techniques to paint a room, or are you learning techniques that can hurt or kill another person?

Again, there's certainly more efficient ways to get to the goal, but some people simply like the fluff. One of the reasons I chose BJJ over MMA for example was because I preferred gis and belts over shorts and rash guards. The gis and belts simply added a layer of fluff that I found comforting and appealing due to my background in Karate. However, my purpose in BJJ is no different than someone in a MMA gym seeking self defense and fitness.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

None of those other purposes veers away from that core purpose though. In final analysis what are you learning? Are you learning techniques to paint a room, or are you learning techniques that can hurt or kill another person?

Again, there's certainly more efficient ways to get to the goal, but some people simply like the fluff. One of the reasons I chose BJJ over MMA for example was because I preferred gis and belts over shorts and rash guards. The gis and belts simply added a layer of fluff that I found comforting and appealing due to my background in Karate. However, my purpose in BJJ is no different than someone in a MMA gym seeking self defense and fitness.

You're learning (at least in most cases) techniques that can be used to hurt someone. But some folks aren't focused on that purpose. Just like there are quite a few people who like sport-shooting (clays, targets, etc.) with no real interest in whether what they're doing prepares them at all for either hunting or self-defense. So they are very much veering away from the purpose sought by those training for either hunting or self-defense use of those same guns, though there is some overlap in what and how they train.

The issue for me here is your use of "fluff". The stuff you consider extraneous is part of the reason I train what I train. I like that stuff, so it's not "fluff" - it's content.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes. In other words your goal is to become a better fighter through your practice of Jow Ga.

Here are 2 stages to my training.
Stage 1. Become functional in Jow Ga. That means I can use the techniques in a fight but it doesn't make me a fighter nor does it mean I'm training to fight.

Stage 2: I was going to get into competitive fighting some years back. This training was focused on fighting. It was greatly different than the Stage 1:

Stage 1: Is like asking can you fight. (people can do this without training to fight)
Stage 2: Is like asking can you fight competitively. (I don't know anyone who can do this without training to fight)

As for the "Kung fu fluff" that depends on what you are looking. A lot of time what people see as fluff may not be fluff. There is fluff in Kung Fu but you may be looking at the performance side of Kung Fu and not the functional side in Kung Fu.

Example, This may be considered as Fluff in MT

This may be considered as fluff in Boxing

I would say the most important thing with kung fu is to know what is fluff and what is practical. Sometimes it's an easy thing to determine but sometimes it's not as clear as fighting techniques done in performance do not always have to be done in the same way that you would use them to fight.

Some may consider this fluff. No one fights like this; so the techniques must be fluff right?

 

[Hanzou]

You're learning (at least in most cases) techniques that can be used to hurt someone. But some folks aren't focused on that purpose. Just like there are quite a few people who like sport-shooting (clays, targets, etc.) with no real interest in whether what they're doing prepares them at all for either hunting or self-defense. So they are very much veering away from the purpose sought by those training for either hunting or self-defense use of those same guns, though there is some overlap in what and how they train.

The issue for me here is your use of "fluff". The stuff you consider extraneous is part of the reason I train what I train. I like that stuff, so it's not "fluff" - it's content.

Well we're not talking about clay shooting, we're talking about martial arts.

Consider for example Aikido; While many talk about Aikido's spiritual aspects and how it makes them better people, underneath the surface there is still a strong desire to be effective at fighting another person. Aikidoka still like to talk about how Ueshiba tossed a burly Judo man in a train with his pinky, and that he could really toss 50 people around without breaking a sweat. Aikidoka like the idea that what they're doing is effective in combat. Hence why so much anger was placed upon Rokas when he went up against that MMA fighter and was soundly outclassed, and why many still harbor anger towards him. He exposed the art for all to see, and people simply weren't happy about it.

Now if Aikido wasn't about fighting, whatever Rokas did wouldn't have mattered. People would have said that Aikido isn't about fighting, so you going against a MMA fighter is like someone practicing Yoga going against a MMA fighter. However, that isn't what happened. Instead, what happened is that people said that Rokas wasn't doing Aikido properly, and that he lost because he wasn't doing "real" Aikido.

And yeah, you can definitely enjoy the fluff. For some folks, it's all about the fluff. The fluff is there to make your training feel more important than it really is. It's to give you a layer of tradition, purpose, wonder, etc. However, it's still fluff. When I visited an Aikido dojo a few years back, I rather enjoyed the ceremony, tradition, the bowing, the calligraphy, the tea after class, etc. When I rolled with the head instructor after class though, all of that fluff went away, and it was simply two men on the mat grappling with each other for dominance.

 

[Hanzou]

Here are 2 stages to my training.
Stage 1. Become functional in Jow Ga. That means I can use the techniques in a fight but it doesn't make me a fighter nor does it mean I'm training to fight.

Uh, that's exactly what you're doing. Your goal is to effectively utilize those techniques in a fight.

Stage 2: I was going to get into competitive fighting some years back. This training was focused on fighting. It was greatly different than the Stage 1:

Just because you have no desire to fight competitively doesn't change the fact that you are training to become better at fighting.

Stage 1: Is like asking can you fight. (people can do this without training to fight)
Stage 2: Is like asking can you fight competitively. (I don't know anyone who can do this without training to fight)

As for the "Kung fu fluff" that depends on what you are looking. A lot of time what people see as fluff may not be fluff. There is fluff in Kung Fu but you may be looking at the performance side of Kung Fu and not the functional side in Kung Fu

There's a difference?

Example, This may be considered as Fluff in MT

Definitely.

This may be considered as fluff in Boxing

I would consider that more of a tactic.

I would say the most important thing with kung fu is to know what is fluff and what is practical. Sometimes it's an easy thing to determine but sometimes it's not as clear as fighting techniques done in performance do not always have to be done in the same way that you would use them to fight.

Some may consider this fluff. No one fights like this; so the techniques must be fluff right?

Many Capoeira practitioners would also say that what they're doing is a dance, not actual fighting. I have run across plenty of stylists who say what they're doing would not be effective in a fight, and they're just doing it for the performative aspect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well we're not talking about clay shooting, we're talking about martial arts.

Consider for example Aikido; While many talk about Aikido's spiritual aspects and how it makes them better people, underneath the surface there is still a strong desire to be effective at fighting another person. Aikidoka still like to talk about how Ueshiba tossed a burly Judo man in a train with his pinky, and that he could really toss 50 people around without breaking a sweat. Aikidoka like the idea that what they're doing is effective in combat. Hence why so much anger was placed upon Rokas when he went up against that MMA fighter and was soundly outclassed, and why many still harbor anger towards him. He exposed the art for all to see, and people simply weren't happy about it.

Now if Aikido wasn't about fighting, whatever Rokas did wouldn't have mattered. People would have said that Aikido isn't about fighting, so you going against a MMA fighter is like someone practicing Yoga going against a MMA fighter. However, that isn't what happened. Instead, what happened is that people said that Rokas wasn't doing Aikido properly, and that he lost because he wasn't doing "real" Aikido.

I do think there are folks who train Aikido with the expectation that it is effective for fighting. I even think there are folks who train it with the expectation that they will become effective at fighting. I also know there are folks who train it with no concern whether they become effective at fighting (and for whom the idea of the base being potentially effective is intriguing, but no more), and who train it specifically for peace. And in that, I don't mean just to be strong enough to not need to fight, but they use the movement as an expression of a philosophy of peace. For them, it's very much like me shooting sporting clays (which is why I brought in that analogy). I don't ever intend to hunt, so it doesn't affect me a bit whether training sporting clay shooting is or is not an effective practice for improving rodent and bird hunting.

And yeah, you can definitely enjoy the fluff. For some folks, it's all about the fluff. The fluff is there to make your training feel more important than it really is. It's to give you a layer of tradition, purpose, wonder, etc. However, it's still fluff. When I visited an Aikido dojo a few years back, I rather enjoyed the ceremony, tradition, the bowing, the calligraphy, the tea after class, etc. When I rolled with the head instructor after class though, all of that fluff went away, and it was simply two men on the mat grappling with each other for dominance.

You still insist content is fluff, even if it's the point (or at least partially so). If I take up Aikido solely to improve flexibility and coordination, anything beyond those aims (including fighting application) is fluff to me. If I take it up solely for the philosophy, anything that doesn't support that philosophy (including fighting competence) is fluff to me. If I take it up solely for fighting competence, anything that doesn't support that competence (including ritual and philosophy) is fluff. If I take it up with all three of those things in mind, none of them is fluff.

"Fluff" is the part that doesn't support our goals. You don't get to decide something is universally "fluff" by your definition. I think you know it would be insulting to someone studying Aikido for the philosophy and graceful movement, "That's all fluff."

 

[Hanzou]

I do think there are folks who train Aikido with the expectation that it is effective for fighting. I even think there are folks who train it with the expectation that they will become effective at fighting. I also know there are folks who train it with no concern whether they become effective at fighting (and for whom the idea of the base being potentially effective is intriguing, but no more), and who train it specifically for peace. And in that, I don't mean just to be strong enough to not need to fight, but they use the movement as an expression of a philosophy of peace. For them, it's very much like me shooting sporting clays (which is why I brought in that analogy). I don't ever intend to hunt, so it doesn't affect me a bit whether training sporting clay shooting is or is not an effective practice for improving rodent and bird hunting.

Okay, but don't you also train in your style with the hope that if someone attacks you, you can utilize your martial art effectively and efficiently to end the attack and possibly save your life, or the life of someone you care about? I mean, you're not shooting clay because you want to learn how to shoot people. However, you are learning a wrist lock with the goal to be proficient enough to use it on another human being.

You still insist content is fluff, even if it's the point (or at least partially so). If I take up Aikido solely to improve flexibility and coordination, anything beyond those aims (including fighting application) is fluff to me. If I take it up solely for the philosophy, anything that doesn't support that philosophy (including fighting competence) is fluff to me. If I take it up solely for fighting competence, anything that doesn't support that competence (including ritual and philosophy) is fluff. If I take it up with all three of those things in mind, none of them is fluff.

"Fluff" is the part that doesn't support our goals. You don't get to decide something is universally "fluff" by your definition. I think you know it would be insulting to someone studying Aikido for the philosophy and graceful movement, "That's all fluff."

Yeah, but what are the improvements in flexibility and coordination designed for? What is the philosophy designed for? It's all designed to make you a more efficient fighter. If flexibility and coordination was their main goal, they'd be taking up Yoga instead of Aikido. However, if they're taking up a martial art, then clearly they're also there because they want to toss someone across the room.

The reason I call it fluff is because the tradition and the philosophy isn't necessary to achieve the end goal, which is to apply a technique in an effective and efficient manner. People can do that without the Shinto and heavy Japanese culture. It's just there to add additional layers to the art and to further envelope the students in the overall experience.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Uh, that's exactly what you're doing. Your goal is to effectively utilize those techniques in a fight.

Effectively is not a static level. If varies based on my skill level compared to the skill level of the person you have to fight against. I can teach someone how to punch and how to punch hard. That hard punch may service them good in a street fight where the person is of the same or lower skill that they are. But that same skill set can easily be totally useless in an amateur or professional fight setting. How many videos have we seen when some "street fighter" gets into a ring with someone who actually trains to fight?

The "stlreet fighter" may be knocking out the people he chooses to fight with on the street. But once he gets into the ring with someone who fights, those same skills become crap.

There's a difference in being able to play tennis with friends and to hit the ball good. You are good enough to have a good game. Take those same tennis skills and go against someone who actually trains to be a tennis player.

It's not the same thing. I may play tennis but I'm not a "Tennis player" I may play basket ball but I'm not a "Basketball Player." I may sing but I'm not a "singer" Martial arts is like this. Even Muay Thai is like this as not everyone who Joins a Muay Thai gym is trying to get into a ring to fight. They just want to be able to kick good and punch good. and to be functional.

If I'm trying to be as efficient as possible then I need to train at the highest level. Which I don't.

 

[Hanzou]

Effectively is not a static level. If varies based on my skill level compared to the skill level of the person you have to fight against. I can teach someone how to punch and how to punch hard. That hard punch may service them good in a street fight where the person is of the same or lower skill that they are. But that same skill set can easily be totally useless in an amateur or professional fight setting. How many videos have we seen when some "street fighter" gets into a ring with someone who actually trains to fight?

The "stlreet fighter" may be knocking out the people he chooses to fight with on the street. But once he gets into the ring with someone who fights, those same skills become crap.

How does any of that invalidate my point?

Why are you teaching someone to punch? Aren't you teaching them to punch CORRECTLY so that when they actually punch another human being their punch will have the desired effect (disable their assailant)? Whether they're using it in the ring, the street, or in their home, the purpose remains the same.

There's a difference in being able to play tennis with friends and to hit the ball good. You are good enough to have a good game. Take those same tennis skills and go against someone who actually trains to be a tennis player.

It's not the same thing. I may play tennis but I'm not a "Tennis player" I may play basket ball but I'm not a "Basketball Player." I may sing but I'm not a "singer" Martial arts is like this. Even Muay Thai is like this as not everyone who Joins a Muay Thai gym is trying to get into a ring to fight. They just want to be able to kick good and punch good. and to be functional.

If I'm trying to be as efficient as possible then I need to train at the highest level. Which I don't.

Yeah, but you're comparing someone goofing around on a tennis court to someone paying an instructor (aka a professional) to teach them tennis. If I'm paying a professional to teach me tennis, I expect better results than me just picking up a racket and teaching myself. The job of the tennis coach is to take me far and above someone who is self taught.

Taking this into the realm of martial arts, if I'm entering your school to learn Jow Ga, I'm expecting better results than if I learned Jow Ga from a book I found on Amazon, or me and my friends watching a Kung Fu movie and imitating it's movements.

Back to the tennis example; Am I expecting to become a professional tennis player? No. However, I should be far superior at tennis than someone who just picked up a racket and goofed around with their friends. If I'm not, then the methodology of the tennis coach was flawed. The same applies to martial arts.