The Effectiveness Of BBT.

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I'm not disputing your personal experiences -- but I don't think those videos are fair samples to prove your point, any more than a series of line drawings to show how to do a technique are proof that it works against resistance. The videos linked above are clips out of videos being sold as references and training aids. The techniques are being done slower (in some cases), and with no real resistance to simply show how to do them. It's like you're trying to prove that someone can't jam musically by showing them practicing scales...

To illustrate the point I will use the Ippon Seoi nage then. Look here: http://www.genbukan.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?kokusai_techniques
Though its not Ippon persay close enough.

In Judo you would learn Ippon the same way:

So nothing wrong with the technique both X-kan and Judo teach it the same way to learn it. Here is where things take a big difference.

The X-kan will practice Seoi nage just like the clips without adding pressure testing or resistance. While the Judoka will start adding pressure testing. Seoi nage should then look like these:

Most schools in the X-kan are not practicing like that.

The videos are training however a typical class looks exactly like that.

I understand the argument for randori, and to an extent I agree with it.
However, training slow and medium speed definitely has its advantages too. If you learn something new, you do it slow, just to learn the correct movement. Then comes medium speed in order to get a feeling for the flow. Then comes high speed.

I do not have any quarrel with learning technique slow or meduim speed I think learning technique slow is a good thing. The thing is if we take say 5th kyu of X-Kan and 5th Kyu of Judo teach them both Seoi nage the Judo 5th kyu will be able to perform it in Randori at fast speed and the X-kan will not. The reason is the 5th kyu will have pressure training during Randori sessions while the X-kan 5th kyu will be practicing it at slow speed only.

At least, that is how it is done in my dojo. I had the luck of training a lot with my sensei in private, and by the time I knew what I was doing regarding some basic techniques, he really picked up the pace and started mixing various attacks.

Dojo miles will vary however the majority of X-kan practice dead,nonresisting techniques and I hear the arugement well when you go higher up in the dans then you can go fast this type of mindset is a cop out really.

Currently, the only techniques I have been pressured at high speed is tai sabaki though. A couple of times during punch / block drill, my sensei has attacked me with the warning that he would try to hit me full power full speed. And from what I can judge, this was indeed the case. So I really think it depends on the dojo and the sensei.

Its good the punch was thrown at full speed at least you know how to apply your art at the intensity of a real strike. If more people trained like this the X-kans would not get so much flack.

By the time we grade, we have also tested against resisting opponents, even though we start out doing a lot of things slowly. We don't rush through the kyu grades so every student has lots of time to ingrain the new techniques.

I never saw one resistancing Uke in Japan except me at Soka dojo. At Harukaze dojo going over the material no resisting and those two dojos are pretty high level(7th and 6th dans)

I don't know how much resistancing is going on but I doubt it is at the level you find in Randori and in Judo if it is good for you!! Your dojo goes against the majority of X-kan.

 

[jks9199]

The Myth of the Fully Resisting Opponent may be of interest.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I will bow out. I have made my point the X-kan in majority do not train realistic others have come to the same conclusion. If you have not well good luck with your training.

 

[Chris Parker]

Now Jadecloud, you appear to have become more jaded where the X-Kan are concerned over the past year or so. Are you sure you aren't just looking through slightly shaded glasses here?

But to the point, I agree that non-compliant training is not only important, but required. But that is very different to the randori of Judo, and those differences need to be explored.

In Judo (and any other sparring in sporting arts here, whether it is rolling in BJJ, sparring in Karate, or any other), the use of randori is a method of developing the ability to apply your techniques against someone else who is trying to stop you from applying it, and apply their own. This is set up in a very restricted situation, usually with only one or a few ranges, methods of technique (throws and grappling, or strikes and kicks, or a combination of both), number of opponents, and rules to safe-guard what is happening. This is very good training to get you able to apply over time (a competitive match) against another person looking to do the same thing.

But that is not what you will find in a real fight/self defence situation. Here, as stated in the article JKS linked to, your opponent is not defending against you, they are not resisting you (in that they are not "stopping" your techniques), they are simply attacking you in order to hurt you. Ideally, what they want is to attack you, and keep attacking you, so that you never even begin to defend yourself, and so you certainly don't attack back. So if you do, you will get a very different form of "resistance" to that which you would get in randori, rolling, sparring, or the ilk. And that is trained for in a very different way.

The idea of pressure testing, non-compliance in training, is not the same as sparring, randori or rolling. But it is essential. Slow to learn, then definately speed up and remove compliance. But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.

 

[Cryozombie]

But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.

And why my comments weren't directed so much at the detractors of the art, but a commend on some people in the art itself. (Well, and the video stuff)

 

[xJOHNx]

I can only speak from my own point of view, for my own dojo and from the little I read in this whole thread.

What I experienced is that Jinenkan (don't know for the other two X-kans, although I think Bujinkan is closer to it), is not a style that puts heavy focus on a certain aspect of combat. Like boxing or BJJ. People who study Taijutsu seem to be more jack of all trades. Not excelling in something, but still able to do something in every aspect of combat (stand up, defense against weaponry, groundwork).

Training here and elsewhere still is with Uke's that resist. I once got smacked on the head with a shinai because I wasn't struggling enough.
Also when chokes are involved we are expected to push through (controlled though), so that we could endure the situation and feel what is is ( to mimic real life).

This way, Taijutsu becomes a good art that can keep up with the rest. I come form muay thai and I like jinenkan alot. The locks, the sometimes more complex maneuvres, the time I have to invest to become better.

When I did one free lesson of Bujinkan, I noticed how sloppy most of the techniques were. No straight back, no angling the body so that you avoid the surface where the opponent can strike, lots of open space when performing a technique. Things I didn't see when I started going to free jinenkan classes.

I don't know why that was, bad teacher, just bad students, the art itself? No idea.

peace

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Chris,
I have nothing against the X-kan I have nothing against the techniques.

another person looking to do the same thing.

But that is not what you will find in a real fight/self defence situation. Here, as stated in the article JKS linked to, your opponent is not defending against you, they are not resisting you (in that they are not "stopping" your techniques), they are simply attacking you in order to hurt you.

If you throw a jab at an opponent he will either move or block this is defending. If you try to put a joint lock on an opponent he will resist this is also defending.
The article is flawed and I will post all the flaws at the end of this post.

The idea of pressure testing, non-compliance in training, is not the same as sparring, randori or rolling. But it is essential. Slow to learn, then definately speed up and remove compliance. But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.

Randori has pressure testing and non-compliance it has more aliveness then a prearranged attack like you find in say Ichimonji no kata.
You are saying more like we are to D3adly 2 Spar and it takes time to develop this skill. Take a 5th kyu X-kan and a 5th kyu Judoka teach them the same technique Seoi nage and see which one can apply it against a resistacing opponent my money is on the Judoka and I have posted videos of Judoka doing Seoi nage against reistancing opponents this is as close as you are going to get to combat without endangering your opponents life. But then X-kan say but but in theory on paper if your timing,distancing is good you can defend yourself in a steet encounter yes in theory but with out putting that to the test how will you know?

Go read up on Bullshido look at the countless examples. Most have no beef with technique but a major beef on the unrealistic training.

Now for the article:

I submit that if you have never had anyone try to gouge your eyes out to escape from a rear naked strangle, you've never tried the technique against a "fully resisting opponent". The first time, I let go of the strangle to protect my eyes. The second time, I knew better. (Edit- but one eye is still blurry almost twenty years later. From that eye gouge or the one four years later?

Ok if you put on a rear naked choke correct and tight he is not going to have time to try to gouge your eyes so Fail#1
A correct Rear naked choke watch how fast he goes:

In the time it takes to put someone in a juji gatame and start to yell "Back off or I'll break his arm!" You can easily be kicked in the head three times. Maybe more. I remember the first three pretty well.

Ok Juji gatame is this:

I am guessing he means when dealing with multiple opponents: Putting yourself on the ground when facing multiple opponents is stupid. Fail#2

If you've feel you've hit a real opponent as hard as you can hit, take the gloves off and try again. I've known people with shattered hands to keep punching, and people with broken skulls to keep fighting.

Oh really because research says this:

Most reputable studies[1][2] have shown that gloved fights cause more severe and more long-term brain and eye injuries than bare-knuckle fights, although the incidence of superficial injuries (cuts, bruising) is reduced. In part this can also be attributed to more, shorter rounds in modern fights made possible by the use of gloves, which results in longer fights than earlier. Such research is often ignored by boxing promoters, as there is a feeling that the public prefer longer matches to shorter fights with early knockouts.[3]

Fail#3

A fully resisting opponent isn't resisting. He is acting. A pure attack with no thought of defense. He's not resisting your technique, he's trying to beat you so badly, so quickly, that you can't USE a technique. (Edit- I was thinking of the predator ambush when I wrote this.)

It's not pure offense. A fight has defense as well such as parry,blocking,ducking,weaving this is all defense. If you are talking about someone jumping you like this article is saying you are not fighting a reistancing opponent your not even fighting you are getting blind sided big difference. Fail#4

this subject up- someone was claiming that eye gouges and throat spears weren't allowed in his particular brand of ultimate, anything goes, cage fighting because they either didn't work or were too hard to execute.) because I don't know enough about Uechi to contribute. But I have once used a spear hand to the throat.

Teh D34dly Eye gouge is not going to take someone out of a fight. Plenty of boxers in boxing matches fight with swollen eyes. Gerard Gordeau vs Yuki Nakai. Gordeau eye gouged Nakai and guess what Nakai submitted him with a heel hook so Teh D34dly is not so d34dly. Spear hand? Most boxers have their chin tucked and shoulder turned in. This how I learned it from a Golden glove boxer and it is not east to get a Spear hand in. Fail#5

 

[Chris Parker]

Good to know, JCA.

But I still have to disagree with you in terms of what you are looking at (not in the regard as to realistic training being needed). You seem to be describing a "fight", or a match, not an attack or assault, which is a very different animal indeed. The idea of throwing a jab at an opponent implies an extended match style fight, from a distance you simply don't find as a common range in an assault. Now, while I realise this was just one example you gave, the concept itself is flawed in that an attacker will not look to defend against a jab (or anything else), so you will likely get it in with little to no resistance. Just also little to no result.

With regard to the choke, there I am completely with you. Too often I have seen people rely on just one or two moves such as this, without realising the way they are actually applied. Without getting too much into what you actually need to do against a choke (and, for the record, most of it involves moving before the choke is on), this is where the realistic approach to training comes in.

With the Juji Gatame (on the ground against multiple opponents), yep, you are completely correct. But if the authors point was that it was the result of unrealistic training (in this case, I would probably suggest BJJ or Judo, and that has plenty of the resistant training and randori youare suggesting would be the answer here) being applied. And yes, he was completely wrong to try it. But if that is what your training has been like, and you believe in your training, then you will go to the tactics you have been trained in. And that just goes back to my first comment, the way you train trumps the art you train in.

Okay, the punching. The study you referenced states that the gloves tend to lead to more LONG TERM injuries due to the more blows being sustained over a longer period, and the author of the article is saying that without the gloves there is a greater tendancy to break your own hands, and keep fighting through the pain (adrenaline in action there). So I'm not sure how that worked for you, seems like you are both talking at crossed purposes there.

Then you seem to be saying the same thing as the article, and the same thing as myself, for the record, but trying to argue at the same time. We are not talking about a fight, we are talking about an assault. As you say, big difference there.

Okay, we are not talking about a boxing match, we are not talking about boxers, so we are not talking about someone who is prepared and expecting to be hit, and is therefore worried about their own defence. An eye gouge in a competitive match is not going to be applied the same way you would if your life is on the line, so I don't really see the comparrison here.

If there is anything you would like to clarify, or have me clarify, please just ask. As I said, in essence I agree with your thoughts, just the methods being advised.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

But I still have to disagree with you in terms of what you are looking at (not in the regard as to realistic training being needed). You seem to be describing a "fight", or a match, not an attack or assault, which is a very different animal indeed. The idea of throwing a jab at an opponent implies an extended match style fight, from a distance you simply don't find as a common range in an assault. Now, while I realise this was just one example you gave, the concept itself is flawed in that an attacker will not look to defend against a jab (or anything else), so you will likely get it in with little to no resistance. Just also little to no result.

An assault-A sudden violent attack
Fight-combat
Attack-Begin fighting

Are you applying that an assault comes at only close range? Or are you refering to an assault like a sucker punch or ambush like the article was saying? I am guessing you mean someone who just rushes at you like a madman. If you throw a jab at someone who does not look to defend or move out of the way then the jab will stick the person. But I think you are not describing a fight as done on a square off encounter but someone coming up to you from behind or just rushing into you. I am describing where 2 people are going to fight and square off. Push comes to shove and then fist start flying.

With the Juji Gatame (on the ground against multiple opponents), yep, you are completely correct. But if the authors point was that it was the result of unrealistic training (in this case, I would probably suggest BJJ or Judo, and that has plenty of the resistant training and randori youare suggesting would be the answer here) being applied. And yes, he was completely wrong to try it. But if that is what your training has been like, and you believe in your training, then you will go to the tactics you have been trained in. And that just goes back to my first comment, the way you train trumps the art you train in.

Then the author does not have common sense. Anyone with a brain knows going on the ground with multiple attackers is stupid. I can not think of anyone who trains in BJJ or Judo sitting on the ground in Juji Gatame with an opponent while the others are around him. Thats not Randori fault thats not Judo's fault or the technique thats some idiot who has no common sense.

Okay, the punching. The study you referenced states that the gloves tend to lead to more LONG TERM injuries due to the more blows being sustained over a longer period, and the author of the article is saying that without the gloves there is a greater tendancy to break your own hands, and keep fighting through the pain (adrenaline in action there). So I'm not sure how that worked for you, seems like you are both talking at crossed purposes there.

Meaning hitting someone with gloves is harder(You are wearing 8-10oz golves. He said

If you've feel you've hit a real opponent as hard as you can hit, take the gloves off and try again.

If you are hitting with gloves on you are hitting with extra power which causes more damage. Boxers break their hands too sometimes when they are fighting and fight thru the pain. I have broken 7 bones and none of them would have kept me from fighting.

Okay, we are not talking about a boxing match, we are not talking about boxers, so we are not talking about someone who is prepared and expecting to be hit, and is therefore worried about their own defence. An eye gouge in a competitive match is not going to be applied the same way you would if your life is on the line, so I don't really see the comparrison here.

Most street fights expect to be hit but still move or block the strike.

See the moving? see the parrying? This is what street fights look like. The eye gouge was intentional meaning he meant to blind him in fact he did blind him! And the guy still submitted him with a heel hook. So thinking an eye gouge is going to safe you is unrealistic because we have video proof it does not.

Most X-kan training could not handle this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU4LOw2WfYc&feature=fvw

People are not training in an alive manner
People are making excuses for why they are to D34DLY to spar
Noone questions their teacher on how practical a technique is or training is because of the Sensei/Soke worshipping
Here typical X-kan training:

This is the type of bull shi* people are talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YVaG9BL0hw&feature=related

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

**** even Taijiquan puts up and spars!!:

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Jadecloud,

No, I am describing more the assault scenario you are describing there. The sucker punch from close range. This is by far and away the more common type of situation to be encountered from a street predator (different from a street fighter). Someone rushing into you like a madman is not so much an issue, as that type of attack is usually easy enough to see coming.

But to describe further. Most violent encounters (at least here in Australia) are from a talking distance, refered to as an interview distance. From here, most defences are very difficult to use, as an attack (or assault) will simply be too fast for anything other than a flinch to possibly get you out of the way, or at least evade slightly. If someone is squaring off with you, even in a bar or street situation, that is a match fight, and is doing no one any favours. Get out if you can, if not, don't fight, finish. Fighting is, frankly, for losers in this game. It is the opposite of self defence (or self protection, as I prefer to label things). The jab is not a good, or even commonly available, option. As for "push comes to shove, then the fists start flying", that is a pretty good description of the escalation, and if you are allowing the other guy to dictate that, you are always on the defensive, and always behind the times. But that's not this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

One of the most common things heard in the martial arts is that you are training your muscle memory, or getting things into your unconscious, so you don't have to think about things in a real situation. So if someone has trained for years, and has trained themselves to the point where they react from an unconscious place, then common sense doesn't actually enter into it. It is the training coming to the fore, and that is why I don't advocate training unrealistic responces (too often I see overkill responces to simple attacks, or tactics that result in a great deal of danger, or techniques that cross the legal boundaries into assault territory) with the claim that you can always scale them back in the situation. That doesn't work if the training "takes over". And that could easily have been the situation here. Not saying it's smart, just saying how it could very easily happen, and intelligence and common sense is no part of the equation.

I think you can hit pretty damn hard with or without gloves, but the gloves offer a protection buffer for both the hands and the recieving person. This leads to longer bouts, as you said, due to the fact that to get the same amount of damage, the effect needs to be cumulative. Still not sure how you are spinning that...

And I must say I am really lost at the end there, JCA. We are not, I repeat, NOT discussing match fighting here, we are talking about the type of training required to handle a real life assault or attack, so showing two match fight clips seems rather irrelevant. These are not street fights, they are not street assaults, or attacks, these guys are thugs, but not street predators or street fighters (in these clips). They're just insecure kids, really, in need of direction. I kinda feel sorry for them. And I have no need to want to "handle" Kimbo and his group, but if I was going to, this would not be the way I would do it. Not our tactics at all.

 

[MJS]

Rather than quote each post seperate, I'll just address the last few all in one.

Regarding youtube: Yes, it seems that much of the BBT that we see is demo stuff. We would also like to think that what is shown, is good stuff, but of course, whats good to one, may not be good to another. I think what some of the detractors would like to see and are wondering why it can't be done a bit quicker. For example...once the tech. is demo'd, why not do it at a quicker pace, so as to show the effectiveness of it, realtime? For example...when I teach a Kenpo tech., I usually do it once quick, so everyone can see it real time, then I break it down slow. Take this clip for example. Its a demo but at the same time, it seems quicker.

I have said before, even with my arts that I do, that for someone to judge and make an opinion off of 1 visit and/or little to no training, its foolish and impossible to make an accurate assumption.

Slow vs. fast training: There are benefits to both. I do both. When I spar, depending on what the focus is that day, I gear my training to that. I do the majority of the boxing with my inst., so if there is something specific I want to drill, we work it at a slow to med. pace. Perhaps I want to work a specific combo....so thats what I do, over and over and over, with him not throwing anything, unless he sees an opening. There are days when we gear up and just bang. I do my forms/kata slow at times, to work specifics, such as proper foot placement, body position, correct target alignment, etc. There are days when I run thru them fast and powerful. When I say fast, I want to clarify, this doesn't mean that its done sloppy, just that there's more power, etc. I do the same thing with my SD techs. as well. So again, yes, both have their benefits.

Just to reiterate, I have nothing against any of the X-kans. I enjoy talking to folks on here about it, both on the open forum, and privately if I have a specific question. I really enjoyed talking with Greg and watching his class and students. I have always said that there're things to benefit from, from each art. I just hate to see the constant bashing of the Buj by so many people.

From that link that was posted. I disagree with this:

A fully resisting opponent isn't resisting. He is acting. A pure attack with no thought of defense. He's not resisting your technique, he's trying to beat you so badly, so quickly, that you can't USE a technique. (Edit- I was thinking of the predator ambush when I wrote this.)

I'm sorry, but I don't think its acting. When I am working my techs., my uke will attempt to do just what it said here....prevent me from using my tech. If I'm working on a headlock defense, as I'm doing that, he'll start to tighten his grip and move me, trying to throw me off balance. He'll start to punch, so now I have to not only focus on getting out of the headlock, but also deal with punches.

As for the 'deadly' techs....well, I'll say what I always say. Everything, IMO, has its purpose. However, if that is what someone has to do, in order to win, then IMO, they should sit down and re-evaluate their training. Sure, its a good tool to have in your toolbox, but come on, there are other things to do besides that. On the flip side, I wouldn't always call them fight stoppers either, but there have been many a UFC where someone takes a hit to the groin or shot to the eye and the ref. calls a time out so the fighter can compose himself. I don't look at an eye gouge as a fight ender, I look at it as something to buy me some time to set up my next move, and the one after that, and the one after that.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

The sucker punch from close range. This is by far and away the more common type of situation to be encountered from a street predator (different from a street fighter). Someone rushing into you like a madman is not so much an issue, as that type of attack is usually easy enough to see coming.

Ok you can not defend against the Sucker punch thats why they call it the Sucker punch because you can't see it coming.

X-kan is not going to train you to defend against the Sucker punch no art is going to teach you how to defend the sucker punch because you can't see it.

As for street predator what a rapist,robber? Someone who attacks you from behind? someone who sucker punches you? I am sorry how many times does the X-kan train getting punched in the face? Lets be real a boxer can take a punch it is doubtful the average X-kan kyu can take one at full speed. You want to define Street predator and Street fighter please do I am sure it could clear things up.
My defination of a Street predator-is a robber or rapist who stalks people and usually attacks them from behind with a sucker punch or blunt object.
Street fighter-is any person engaging in a fight(street preadator included) on the street.

But to describe further. Most violent encounters (at least here in Australia) are from a talking distance, refered to as an interview distance. From here, most defences are very difficult to use, as an attack (or assault) will simply be too fast for anything other than a flinch to possibly get you out of the way, or at least evade slightly.

This is called Shi* or get off the pot. If someone gets that close to you 2 choices hit them first or they hit you first. I have been in fights in that situation and have seen first hand many fights in that situation first one to strike usually wins the fight. If someone gets that close to you he is most likely going to strike you so hit him first,get hit,or widen the distance. Personally I would hit first he is invading your space.

If someone is squaring off with you, even in a bar or street situation, that is a match fight, and is doing no one any favours. Get out if you can, if not, don't fight, finish.

Ya and when you turn off to run you get hit sometimes with a blunt object to the head seen it done,did it myself to others.

Peopl don't square off really its usually a push or in your face then a sucker punch then from there fist fly. Its not 2 people standing there and getting in ready stances.

Fighting is, frankly, for losers in this game. It is the opposite of self defence (or self protection, as I prefer to label things).

Its the same thing. You are fighting someone to protect yourself. Self protection-protect oneself. Fighting- 1 a : to contend in battle or physical combat; especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons
In order to protect yourself(self protection) you have to fight.

The jab is not a good, or even commonly available, option. As for "push comes to shove, then the fists start flying", that is a pretty good description of the escalation, and if you are allowing the other guy to dictate that, you are always on the defensive, and always behind the times. But that's not this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

The Jab is not good let me guess the lunge punch is better? The jab creates distancing,it disrupts your opponents timing. For more info about the Jab look at Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun do. If push comes to shove you strike first and keep striking.

One of the most common things heard in the martial arts is that you are training your muscle memory, or getting things into your unconscious, so you don't have to think about things in a real situation. So if someone has trained for years, and has trained themselves to the point where they react from an unconscious place, then common sense doesn't actually enter into it.

Doing something slow trains muscle memory however unless you test that muscle memory its not going to be of any use. It's like saying knowledge is power but if you do not use that knowledge its not really anything.

I think you can hit pretty damn hard with or without gloves, but the gloves offer a protection buffer for both the hands and the recieving person. This leads to longer bouts, as you said, due to the fact that to get the same amount of damage, the effect needs to be cumulative. Still not sure how you are spinning that...

As I have said a boxer can break his hand as well during a match. You hit harder with gloves on. If you ever put on a pair of boxing gloves you can feel how heavy they are. A round is 3mins so you are looking at about 30mins of fighting. Most fights do not last that on the street because someone usually gives up for some reason. A 30 second street fight is physically exhausting.

And I must say I am really lost at the end there, JCA. We are not, I repeat, NOT discussing match fighting here, we are talking about the type of training required to handle a real life assault or attack, so showing two match fight clips seems rather irrelevant.

A real life assault or attack looks like that this

The match fights are real attacks. This is how fights are done on the street. I have seen it I have been in it. Let me clarify it for you.
Someone comes up to your face maybe pushes you this is how most street fights come about. Your scenerio is some guy coming out of the bushes with a tire iron and hits you in the back of the head and robs you thats a street predator. The only self defense for that is don't walk at night in bad areas or walk with friends.

these guys are thugs, but not street predators or street fighters (in these clips). They're just insecure kids, really, in need of direction. I kinda feel sorry for them. And I have no need to want to "handle" Kimbo and his group, but if I was going to, this would not be the way I would do it. Not our tactics at all.

Thugs are the people robbing you at night which you call street predators. How do you know these guys are thugs? One of them actually trains MMA(not talking about Kimbo) Are they ghetto yes that area of Miami is ghetto but I know people who know them and say they are nice people. You are saying that the people in the videos are not street fighters?! Every day in the ghetto of Miami people are fighting out in the street. You got alot of Gall to talk about my area and the people in it when you have not set foot in it.

You think your training real?! Son you don't even know what real is...
I am done with this thread and you Chris say something now punk *** and IF YOU EVER STEP FOOT IN MIAMI LET ME KNOW SO I CAN TAKE YOU DOWN PERSONALLY TO THE GHETTO and you can talk your shi* to these people face to face.

 

[MJS]

Well.....the thread is reopened, one user banned for a variety of things, so maybe, just maybe, we can get back to a normal discussion. Like I said in my opening post, I did not start this thread to bash the art, but instead, to get a better understanding of things. I also requested that we not turn this into a flame fest, which apparently went ignored. Guess reading comprehension is difficult at times. *shrug*

Anyways....it sure would be nice, if someone had a doubt as to whether or not something worked/didn't work, instead of saying NO it wont work, how about saying why you feel it wont, or why you feel something will. Again, the experiences of 1, IMO, does not constitute the entire X Kan.

Now a few things:

1) The video of the punks fighting...well, thats been posted on here before, and I'll say the same thing again....IMO, nobody on that clip impressed me. If thats the skill that we see on the street, well, IMO, I didn't see any skill. I saw a few sucker shots, that could have been avoided, had the other guy been aware of what was going on around him. Sure, you get hit with one of those wild swings and it may be lights out, but again, I dont see any skill.

2) I didn't intend to turn this into the typical debate. IMO, fighting and SD are 2 different things. I look at them like this..

SD: You're at the ATM and someone comes up and demands money, someone tries to carjack you, someone gets in your face, accusing you of looking at their girl while you're in the bar.

Fighting: A pre-determined, agreed upon time, place, where 2 people mutually agree to show up and fight. ie: the UFC is a fight. All of the fighters know exactly who they're gonna fight, how much they weight, their skill level, etc. I know none of this during SD.

3) On another forum, I was reading a members post, in which he stated that he had heard that some senior members of the Bujinkan feel that sparring will hurt your skill. Out of curiosity, why is that? I will say that I do spar, but I dont view it as the end all, be all either. Like the other aspects of my art, I gear my 'sparring' to what I want to work on. Some days will be just hands, so its more boxing than sparring. Others kicks will be added. Other times it'll include clinch and ground work. Others, my partner is padded up, and he throws random attacks. He will resist and fight back.

 

[Bruno@MT]

3) On another forum, I was reading a members post, in which he stated that he had heard that some senior members of the Bujinkan feel that sparring will hurt your skill. Out of curiosity, why is that? I will say that I do spar, but I dont view it as the end all, be all either. Like the other aspects of my art, I gear my 'sparring' to what I want to work on. Some days will be just hands, so its more boxing than sparring. Others kicks will be added. Other times it'll include clinch and ground work. Others, my partner is padded up, and he throws random attacks. He will resist and fight back.

I think the argument is 2 fold:
1) you will train not to use certain techniques (on account of damage) and condition your body into not using those techniques.
2) during sparring, people will think about winning instead of polishing their technique, thereby abandoning technique in favor of shortcuts like using strength.

While I can understand the arguments, I don't agree for 100%. I think there is value in pressure testing and randori style sparring. I think beginners should use randori within defined limits (only grapling, only sparring, only striking) and perhaps even with defined uke / tori roles.

That would give even relative beginners the opportunity to 'spar' and pressure test in a freeer format without degenerating into 'rock 'n roll'. As people's skill increases, the limitations could also decrease.
Personally, I like randori, but it is not my call to make

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, it's nice to have my right of reply, even if the questioner is no longer with us. I'll try to keep this brief, but having been asked to clarify, I will for those still reading (and maybe for JCA if he visits here again).

Unfortunately, JCA, it seems you have a rather narrow view of a few things. A sucker punch is very difficult to defend against, but not quite impossible to avoid. The keys are in managing distance, and maintaining awareness, both of which are taught in the X-Kans (although you seem to have gotten off track... this particular thread is why the Bujinkan in particular gets such a hiding in public, not other organisations such as the Genbukan or Jinenkan, so I'll try to keep things to Bujinkan specific). And as for training to get punched full force in the face, that is a rare experience for boxers. Boxing punches are trained in combinations, with the power restrained. It is very rare for a boxer to just punch full force, as that doesn't help their endurance for multiple rounds. We don't train for rounds. And, yes, we do train to be able to handle full force hits and keep going.

A street predator is someone who is entirely concerned with causing you injury and pain, but has no wish to enter into a "fight" (by which I mean two or more people striking, kicking etc in an attempt to injure each other) as that puts them at risk. A street fighter, on the other hand, is the guy in a bar who gets angry, and starts to throw punches. This is still removed from a match fight in that there is a defined aggressor, at least in the beginning, not two people facing up against each other.

As to your take on our tactic of escape first, if you feel that violence cannot be avoided, absolutely hit first. This is one of our most commonly practiced street tactics, and to assume I am unaware of it is a little presumptious. But the priority should always be escape, as that is the safest plan, with the least risk of injury or legal repercussions. But really, JCA, you start off saying that if someone is so close they can launch a "sucker punch" attack, then you cannot defend, now you are saying that it is a prefered method of attack that you have witnessed a number of times? So my model of violence matches yours, I don't understand why you are insisting on arguing...

Escape, though does not mean turn your back. It means get enough distance to avoid attacks, then continue to increase the distance to get away. I am never saying here to turn away, so please don't read into my words what I haven't written. But your next description is the exact interview distance I spoke about. It is very different to sparring, competition, randori, or anything else you have mentioned. This is handled by being aware of your surrounding and distance. And those skills are certainly taught. There's more, but this is enough for this thread.

Okay, the reasons I don't like the jab is it is a disruptor to a rhythm, which is not necessarily there yet, and is not a power hit. If it is a competition/match and my job includes wearing the other guy down, working on rhythms, creating and exploiting openings over time, then the jab is great. In a street sense, a jab can just annoy an opponent, it can kick them off into a completely commited rush (leaving out the opening you may have created), and is really nothing more than a probe. I prefer a strong lead strike, aiming for a knockout if possible,and followed by another (probably rear) strike to continue. A jab won't have the same result. Oh, and a lunge punch is a cultural expression of a fully powered (body weight in motion) rear punch, with a stepping action, just as a right cross is a power strike without a step. Same concept, but with different distancing ideas. And I'll rely more on a power strike to endthings fast, rather than a lower powered annoyance outside of a ring.

Training muscle memory can be done slow, medium, or fast. It is actully more related to the mindset you hold when practicing rather than the actual physical speed at which you perform, but really, if you are just saying again that non-compliance is needed, I agree. Don't know where the argument is...

Yes, boxers can break their hands. Yes, they can keep going. Yes, htey can hit hard with gloves on. And yes, I have put on gloves and hit. I have spent my time in boxing gyms, kickboxing gyms, BJJ classes, and far more. This is part of what is expected of our seniors, so you are really not dealing with a neophyte, nor someone who follows just what he is told. Your comments about a boxer fighting for 10 3 min rounds, and a street fight not lasting as long actually seems to make my point. They are very different scenarios with very different requirements and very different strategies, tactics and skill sets, I'm not sure why you keep insisting they are not.

Okay that clip again? I thought this was discussed a while ago, and many very experienced LE Officers, Security Professionals, and Martial Artists from many different backgrounds found little that impressed them, other than people with no awareness paying for it. I'm of the same opinion as them, by the way. If you don't see the issues with that clip, then there will be little I can say. But that scenario is not what I described at all, it is what you described as something you could not see a way to avoid. Not my fear talking there.

As to Kimbo and his guys, the reason I say they are thugs is that they act like thugs in each of these clips. The amount of ego for them to need to validate themselves with such displays of machismo is sad, to my mind. They may indeed be nice guys, but I doubt it. And hey, I'm not a nice guy. I'm generous, and care a lot about many people around me, but I'm not "nice".

As to your last statements there, I have little to say, other than I remember having very intelligent conversations with you where you were rational, thoughtful, and fun to talk to. During the week of lost posts you started a thread to say you were leaving the forum, and that saddened me, so I was glad to see you back. I now see that was really a tantrum, and it really was just time for you to go. I wish you the best, and if you are in Melbourne, come visit. I'll show you what is "real". In a friendly way...

Okay, thank you to everyone for indulging me there. Back to the topic.

MJS, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment of SD and fighting, that is what I was getting at. But to clarify my point of "self protection" rather than "self defence", the latter implies an attack(er). Without an attack, there is no need to defend. This is where a number of martial arts fall down, in my book, in that that is the only thing they cover. Self protection, on the other hand, is far more wide reaching, and includes aspects such as social and situational awareness, management of distance, verbal de-escalation, awareness of how to be a "hard target", protection of self against disease (health, diet, exercise), psychological protection, and much more. The physical is just the easiest way into exploring being protected in all ways in your daily life (as much as possible).

You also asked about sparring. In essence, sparring is limiting your options, and by training in a way that limits your options, you are robbing yourself of exploring/training skills that could help you survive a real encounter. And by leaving those skills out of your training, you will hurt your development in those areas, while strengthening areas that are not necessarily what would be prefered or required.

The traditional Japanese approach to this is a form of free form training, which involves a free-responce to an attack. This could be nominated (single strike or kick, attempted throw), or unnominated, single attack or continuous, single or multiple opponents, slow or fast. This is a method of pressure testing, and if done properly is done with compliance (to a degree), through to non-compliance. This is also a common drilling method in RBSD classes. So to all who thought otherwise, this is "resistance" training in Bujinkan methods, it's emphasis will depend on the instructor.

Oh, and finally (I promise!), just before JCA's post, you were questioning the earlier articles comment about "resisting versus acting". Personally I think that the author chose a poor word here, and was actually meaning that the opponent is not resisting, as they are looking to move forward in their attack, but they are REacting to your actions. Does this change your take on his words?

Once again, thank you for your indulgance, back on track now.

 

[Cryozombie]

I'm on the same page as Bruno with the subject of "Sparring". Now if you go back and read some older posts of mine on the forum, I said I was against it... but that was because I was defining "Sparring" as somthing different. I'm going to go with the definition of Sparring as the same as "Randori" or other forms of "controlled conflict".

I do it. Im not against it. I don't think it should be an everyday activity. I think its a great tool to see where technique breaks down, but only once you know the techniques.

 

[MJS]

Well, it's nice to have my right of reply, even if the questioner is no longer with us. I'll try to keep this brief, but having been asked to clarify, I will for those still reading (and maybe for JCA if he visits here again).

Unfortunately, JCA, it seems you have a rather narrow view of a few things. A sucker punch is very difficult to defend against, but not quite impossible to avoid. The keys are in managing distance, and maintaining awareness, both of which are taught in the X-Kans (although you seem to have gotten off track... this particular thread is why the Bujinkan in particular gets such a hiding in public, not other organisations such as the Genbukan or Jinenkan, so I'll try to keep things to Bujinkan specific). And as for training to get punched full force in the face, that is a rare experience for boxers. Boxing punches are trained in combinations, with the power restrained. It is very rare for a boxer to just punch full force, as that doesn't help their endurance for multiple rounds. We don't train for rounds. And, yes, we do train to be able to handle full force hits and keep going.

A street predator is someone who is entirely concerned with causing you injury and pain, but has no wish to enter into a "fight" (by which I mean two or more people striking, kicking etc in an attempt to injure each other) as that puts them at risk. A street fighter, on the other hand, is the guy in a bar who gets angry, and starts to throw punches. This is still removed from a match fight in that there is a defined aggressor, at least in the beginning, not two people facing up against each other.

As to your take on our tactic of escape first, if you feel that violence cannot be avoided, absolutely hit first. This is one of our most commonly practiced street tactics, and to assume I am unaware of it is a little presumptious. But the priority should always be escape, as that is the safest plan, with the least risk of injury or legal repercussions. But really, JCA, you start off saying that if someone is so close they can launch a "sucker punch" attack, then you cannot defend, now you are saying that it is a prefered method of attack that you have witnessed a number of times? So my model of violence matches yours, I don't understand why you are insisting on arguing...

Escape, though does not mean turn your back. It means get enough distance to avoid attacks, then continue to increase the distance to get away. I am never saying here to turn away, so please don't read into my words what I haven't written. But your next description is the exact interview distance I spoke about. It is very different to sparring, competition, randori, or anything else you have mentioned. This is handled by being aware of your surrounding and distance. And those skills are certainly taught. There's more, but this is enough for this thread.

Okay, the reasons I don't like the jab is it is a disruptor to a rhythm, which is not necessarily there yet, and is not a power hit. If it is a competition/match and my job includes wearing the other guy down, working on rhythms, creating and exploiting openings over time, then the jab is great. In a street sense, a jab can just annoy an opponent, it can kick them off into a completely commited rush (leaving out the opening you may have created), and is really nothing more than a probe. I prefer a strong lead strike, aiming for a knockout if possible,and followed by another (probably rear) strike to continue. A jab won't have the same result. Oh, and a lunge punch is a cultural expression of a fully powered (body weight in motion) rear punch, with a stepping action, just as a right cross is a power strike without a step. Same concept, but with different distancing ideas. And I'll rely more on a power strike to endthings fast, rather than a lower powered annoyance outside of a ring.

Training muscle memory can be done slow, medium, or fast. It is actully more related to the mindset you hold when practicing rather than the actual physical speed at which you perform, but really, if you are just saying again that non-compliance is needed, I agree. Don't know where the argument is...

Yes, boxers can break their hands. Yes, they can keep going. Yes, htey can hit hard with gloves on. And yes, I have put on gloves and hit. I have spent my time in boxing gyms, kickboxing gyms, BJJ classes, and far more. This is part of what is expected of our seniors, so you are really not dealing with a neophyte, nor someone who follows just what he is told. Your comments about a boxer fighting for 10 3 min rounds, and a street fight not lasting as long actually seems to make my point. They are very different scenarios with very different requirements and very different strategies, tactics and skill sets, I'm not sure why you keep insisting they are not.

Okay that clip again? I thought this was discussed a while ago, and many very experienced LE Officers, Security Professionals, and Martial Artists from many different backgrounds found little that impressed them, other than people with no awareness paying for it. I'm of the same opinion as them, by the way. If you don't see the issues with that clip, then there will be little I can say. But that scenario is not what I described at all, it is what you described as something you could not see a way to avoid. Not my fear talking there.

As to Kimbo and his guys, the reason I say they are thugs is that they act like thugs in each of these clips. The amount of ego for them to need to validate themselves with such displays of machismo is sad, to my mind. They may indeed be nice guys, but I doubt it. And hey, I'm not a nice guy. I'm generous, and care a lot about many people around me, but I'm not "nice".

As to your last statements there, I have little to say, other than I remember having very intelligent conversations with you where you were rational, thoughtful, and fun to talk to. During the week of lost posts you started a thread to say you were leaving the forum, and that saddened me, so I was glad to see you back. I now see that was really a tantrum, and it really was just time for you to go. I wish you the best, and if you are in Melbourne, come visit. I'll show you what is "real". In a friendly way...

Okay, thank you to everyone for indulging me there. Back to the topic.

Well said.

MJS, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment of SD and fighting, that is what I was getting at. But to clarify my point of "self protection" rather than "self defence", the latter implies an attack(er). Without an attack, there is no need to defend. This is where a number of martial arts fall down, in my book, in that that is the only thing they cover. Self protection, on the other hand, is far more wide reaching, and includes aspects such as social and situational awareness, management of distance, verbal de-escalation, awareness of how to be a "hard target", protection of self against disease (health, diet, exercise), psychological protection, and much more. The physical is just the easiest way into exploring being protected in all ways in your daily life (as much as possible).

You also asked about sparring. In essence, sparring is limiting your options, and by training in a way that limits your options, you are robbing yourself of exploring/training skills that could help you survive a real encounter. And by leaving those skills out of your training, you will hurt your development in those areas, while strengthening areas that are not necessarily what would be prefered or required.

The traditional Japanese approach to this is a form of free form training, which involves a free-responce to an attack. This could be nominated (single strike or kick, attempted throw), or unnominated, single attack or continuous, single or multiple opponents, slow or fast. This is a method of pressure testing, and if done properly is done with compliance (to a degree), through to non-compliance. This is also a common drilling method in RBSD classes. So to all who thought otherwise, this is "resistance" training in Bujinkan methods, it's emphasis will depend on the instructor.

Oh, and finally (I promise!), just before JCA's post, you were questioning the earlier articles comment about "resisting versus acting". Personally I think that the author chose a poor word here, and was actually meaning that the opponent is not resisting, as they are looking to move forward in their attack, but they are REacting to your actions. Does this change your take on his words?

Once again, thank you for your indulgance, back on track now.

Regarding the article that was linked: Yes, looking like it that way, does make sense. And if we do think about it, that seems like thats what'll happen.

Regarding the verbal de-escalation, etc. Yes, I think that many times, all thats taught is what to do when the situation is happening. Whats missing is the before and after.

Regarding sparring: Sure, in sparring, you're working on 1 particular skill set. So, if I'm understanding you correctly here, by working just the techs. you can then focus just on the SD aspect. In other words, end the confrontation, ie: our techs., vs. engaging in a sparring match with the person.

Thank you for your input. Please keep your thoughts coming.

Mike

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Thanks! Glad I could help at least a bit with the article's wording there... I certainly think that the word acting didn't really give the right image.

Yeah, the pre- and post-fight are something that not enough martial art schools cover, but also missed are the other aspects, such as protecting others, anti carjacking and anti road rage driving skills, counter surveilance so you don't get targeted by criminals, and more. This is a small part of what we cover, by the way.

With sparring, yes, that is part of it. But the biggest thing is that it is simply teaching tactics and strategies that have no place in a self defence/protection situation. That includes training to stay and trade blows when you should be looking to create enough violence to escape and get away. Not an option in sparring, really.

But, no, just training the techniques as drills I don't feel is enough either. That is where the Japanese free form training I have described comes in, it has many of the benefits of sparring in that there is chaos, distancing, timing, angling, targeting on the fly, it can (and should!) be done with contact from both sides, if you don't move from the attack, you get hit! You are simply focused more on acting like a real situation (finish and move on, or avoid and escape) rather than stay and trade blows. Hope this makes a bit more sense. Oh, and this is sparring in a Japanese sense, randori that came before Judo randori. And that just confuses the matter, as the same word is used for both...

But to make one last thing clear, I should stress that my particular school is not Bujinkan, although that is where we started (as Australia's first schools) 3 decades ago. So my descriptions of my training should not be taken as examples of Bujinkan training, although I feel that, certainly in the better schools around, there will be a number of similarities. Thought I should link this back to the origin of the thread...

 

[Cryozombie]

With sparring, yes, that is part of it. But the biggest thing is that it is simply teaching tactics and strategies that have no place in a self defence/protection situation. That includes training to stay and trade blows when you should be looking to create enough violence to escape and get away. Not an option in sparring, really.

This is an excellent example of why people say our art isn't about fighting, IMO. Its not. To me a fight is two combatants "duking it out" and while yes, we train that, its not what we train FOR. Great point Chris.

I was thinking about some of the points from JCA's post about things not working against someone who is reisisting a technique, and I think too, that one of the things that is emphasized in our training IS flow, so that if you begin a technique, and the opponent resists you can flow into something that uses that resistance to you advantage. Do schools train this, and do it often enough to make that effective? I don't know if its done in a majority of them or not, but I have seen schools that do, the one I train at included. We are forever exploring "but what happens when he locks down, tightens up, straighens out, muscles thru" etc...