The Need to Be Recognized as Superior

[lansao]

Difficult to do much else on an internet forum.

Now that's a good point. I'll just go scratch my head on that for a bit!



~ Alan

 

[LFJ]

The one problem I see with all of this conversation is that it is conversation, and not training. The time spent debating is time that could be spent training...

I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.

That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, in addition to the hours per week spent training.

The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid.

 

[dudewingchun]

We should just all meet up and have a brawl to see who has the best stuff. Simplest way to solve all these problems

 

[guy b]

That and the fact that they are illegal in Olympic judo.

The idea is that it makes for scrappy judo. I think this is stupid, and it just limits the usefulness and adaptability of mainstream judo. Wearing the jackets and pants is enough of an advantage against wrestling.

 

[guy b]

Well I look at things beyond the propoganada of the art and look at Japanese History. The period during which Judo was created was a period when many a "jitsu" became "do" because of the influence of the Meji Restoration which specifically were trying to reduce the "war" element of martial arts in their effort to "modernize". Someone actually posted a link to this history on these forums I will try to seek out but here is a quote from a different source...



Its that difference in intent... Created for war vs sport that makes a difference in my mind due to wearing a uniform for 25+ years now and in seeing such a difference maybe I have a blind spot other lack /shrug

The link elsewhere on the forums spoke directly to the the transition in Japanese culture from jutsu to do in various martial arts and how the change was in part to suppress a warrior/samurai culture.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It is the training method of Japanese ju jitsu that makes it incredibly ineffective compared to judo/BJJ. Intent pretty much irrelevant when comparing these two approaches in terms of effectiveness.

 

[guy b]

In jacket wrestling, your opponent's push (such as leg shooting) can be your pull, and your opponent's pull can be your push. This will not be the case in the no-jacket wrestling.

Good point

 

[Buka]

Hadn't read any of this thread until today, found it interesting.

As to the respect and saving face thing (in my opinion, anyway) I suppose we could discuss the social aspects and ramifications all day, but there is a tactical side to that as well. Especially in street life, crime milieus, dealing with folks who don't have the same social interactions that we do, with drunks (sometimes but not usually) and with psychotics, again, sometimes but not always, and with regular people who have temporally gone over the edge. And also with some predators.

Respect, feigned or not, - and/or allowing someone to save face, be it orchestrated by you or not, can sometimes make life a whole lot easier and tactically superior. Unless you just want to butt heads. In which case, eventually, you'll butt against the wrong bull. You might still win, but it's going to suck.

As to the clothing thing, unless someone is fighting me naked (and, strangely, it wouldn't be the first time) there's a good chance I'll utilize his clothing if we get into a grapple, be it ground or standing.

As to everything else, I think a lot of Martial Artists tend to overcomplicate things. You either know how to fight or you don't. It doesn't matter what your brand is.

 

[Transk53]

I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.

That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, in addition to the hours per week spent training.

The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid.

I for one am never afraid to admit that, don't think that is about being humble though, just honesty. A person can still be humble, but still lie.

 

[Transk53]

Hadn't read any of this thread until today, found it interesting.

As to the respect and saving face thing (in my opinion, anyway) I suppose we could discuss the social aspects and ramifications all day, but there is a tactical side to that as well. Especially in street life, crime milieus, dealing with folks who don't have the same social interactions that we do, with drunks (sometimes but not usually) and with psychotics, again, sometimes but not always, and with regular people who have temporally gone over the edge. And also with some predators.

Respect, feigned or not, - and/or allowing someone to save face, be it orchestrated by you or not, can sometimes make life a whole lot easier and tactically superior. Unless you just want to butt heads. In which case, eventually, you'll butt against the wrong bull. You might still win, but it's going to suck.

As to the clothing thing, unless someone is fighting me naked (and, strangely, it wouldn't be the first time) there's a good chance I'll utilize his clothing if we get into a grapple, be it ground or standing.

As to everything else, I think a lot of Martial Artists tend to overcomplicate things. You either know how to fight or you don't. It doesn't matter what your brand is.

Yes, and I have always been of the opinion that it is inbuilt, you can train someone to fight, but that does not mean that they are going to actually fight, and actually know how to on a fundamental level.

 

[Buka]

Yes, and I have always been of the opinion that it is inbuilt, you can train someone to fight, but that does not mean that they are going to actually fight, and actually know how to on a fundamental level.

I've found that it is sometimes inbuilt as well, but in many other instances it isn't. I've found that when some people change from what they were, into what they are becoming - their very core beliefs, especially in themselves, changes drastically. Takes a whole lot of work, though. But that very work - is part of what changes them.

 

[anerlich]

The idea is that it makes for scrappy judo. I think this is stupid, and it just limits the usefulness and adaptability of mainstream judo. Wearing the jackets and pants is enough of an advantage against wrestling.

Many, including me, agree.

 

[lansao]

I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.

That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, in addition to the hours per week spent training.

The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid.

Ah, I woke up to this reply and after rereading my post you're right, it's pretty arrogant. Apologies for the offense. I'm going to edit it out to avoid offending future readers and appreciate your calling it out.

Edit: It looks like I can't edit it out! Oh well, I'll survive the embarrassment. Thank you again.

~ Alan

 

[LFJ]

Ah, I woke up to this reply and after rereading my post you're right, it's pretty arrogant. Apologies for the offense. I'm going to edit it out to avoid offending future readers and appreciate your calling it out.

Edit: It looks like I can't edit it out! Oh well, I'll survive the embarrassment. Thank you again.

~ Alan

No worries. I wasn't even really directing that at you. You weren't being condescending, but the "talk less, train more" line isn't always appropriate. Just making the point.

There have been some who've occasionally come on obviously waving the condescending finger at more frequent posters they personally know next to nothing about.

Coincidentally, the last guy I remember doing that on this forum was also someone by the name of Alan, well-known in the Wing Chun community, and who ironically/hypocritically is himself quite an active poster on Facebook forums.

 

[Juany118]

I look at things the way they are now, regardless of intent.

The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer". Why? Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art. Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason. The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer". Why? Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art. Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason. The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.

 

[guy b]

The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer". Why? Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art. Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason. The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

 

[geezer]

Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.

Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.

That would be one extreme of the spectrum. Like some of the super traditional Koryu of Japan. The other extreme might be what? RBSD? Most MA and even combat sports fall somewhere in between. Even competitive arts develop "traditions" and sometimes impractical rule sets. But granted that their objective is winning within that rule set, I'd have to agree that they must be more adaptable. That's why I'd like to see an agreed upon way to competitively test WC. Then we wouldn't have to argue so much!

...or maybe we'd just argue about the rule-set. Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[Juany118]

Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.

And I agree entirely with this. The thing is, in my experience, how something is trained is tied to the purpose of the art as it is designed. So if an art was designed to operate as a sport and with a "rule set" the training tends to reflect this. As an example most judo training I have experienced uses a lot of techniques that rely on grabbing the judogi and that can be impractical in terms of real world effectiveness. Why is this? Because the training has a strong focus on the sporting aspect the rules of which include that uniform. This isn't to say that there aren't teachers who teach "outside the box" but again I believe these instructors are the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Juany118]

I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

I hope I did this in my second response to Steve, if not I can elaborate more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

That would be one extreme of the spectrum. Like some of the super traditional Koryu of Japan. The other extreme might be what? RBSD? Most MA and even combat sports fall somewhere in between. Even competitive arts develop "traditions" and sometimes impractical rule sets. But granted that their objective is winning within that rule set, I'd have to agree that they must be more adaptable. That's why I'd like to see an agreed upon way to competitively test WC. Then we wouldn't have to argue so much!

...or maybe we'd just argue about the rule-set. Yeah, that sounds about right.

I think you're misunderstanding. Traditional doesn't necessarily indicate that efficacy is unimportant. Only that, if there is a conflict between how to train and whether it is effecticw, efficacy will lose. ,