What does it mean to be well-rounded and why would I want that?

[Jenna]

Wait.. Isaac Newton did MA? I wonder before Isaac Newton do his martial art people would fight and punch each other up into the air.. and but they would not come back down..

 

[JR 137]

You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.

Yeah. The videos I saw (I think they were Wing Chun guys) didn't have anything realistic because the guys who were shooting in looked like they watched a 5 minute YouTube video on shooting in at best. Anyone with a season of pee-wee level wrestling would've taken those guys down, nullifying their "anti-grappling" skills.

 

[Jenna]

I don't think the necessary tools (techniques) existed within the art, though the principles did. Everything I have added to my curriculum is consistent with the principes and movement of the art.

So, I suppose someone with a good analystical mind and patience - and a good training partner or two - could have developed workable techniques from scratch. It would take a lot of time and effort, though. I just borrowed from styles with similar principles.

And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick

 

[drop bear]

Yeah. The videos I saw (I think they were Wing Chun guys) didn't have anything realistic because the guys who were shooting in looked like they watched a 5 minute YouTube video on shooting in at best. Anyone with a season of pee-wee level wrestling would've taken those guys down, nullifying their "anti-grappling" skills.

There is a lot of dumb stuff out there.

 

[drop bear]

And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick

That is kind of what Jr 173 is describing.

There are not always style specific solutions. There are just solutions.

 

[Jenna]

That is kind of what Jr 173 is describing.

There are not always style specific solutions. There are just solutions.

You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff?

Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?

 

[drop bear]

You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff?

Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?

No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.

So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.

Aparently we have already forgotton Kung fu principles does not include take down defence. What principles can we possibly apply?

It is like learning to swim using kung fu principles.

And this logic seriously does my head in.

Go find a guy who can defend a takedown and use their takedown defence principles. It isn't style specific.

The search for instant gratification is what drives this desire to find answers from inside your style. Because that way you never have to learn anything new.

 

[JR 137]

There is a lot of dumb stuff out there.

Another example of a guy doing anti-grappling and thinking it works because the opponent has no clue how to shoot in...

There was only one thing this guy said that was accurate - you have to be aware of the threat of being taken down. EVERYTHING else was absolute garbage.

PS - one of my favorites was when he says mma guys don't know how to deal with punches.

And this wasn't the specific video I had in mind, but it serves the purpose just fine. The video I wanted was so much worse. Seriously.

 

[Jenna]

No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.

So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.

Aparently we have already forgotton Kung fu principles does not include take down defence. What principles can we possibly apply?

It is like learning to swim using kung fu principles.

And this logic seriously does my head in.

Go find a guy who can defend a takedown and use their takedown defence principles. It isn't style specific.

The search for instant gratification is what drives this desire to find answers from inside your style. Because that way you never have to learn anything new.

Did you do specific styles first or did you always train mixed arts?

 

[drop bear]

Did you do specific styles first or did you always train mixed arts?

Specific styles first. I did a lot of hybrids which were trying to do the same thing back in the day.

 

[drop bear]

Another example of a guy doing anti-grappling and thinking it works because the opponent has no clue how to shoot in...

There was only one thing this guy said that was accurate - you have to be aware of the threat of being taken down. EVERYTHING else was absolute garbage.

PS - one of my favorites was when he says mma guys don't know how to deal with punches.

And this wasn't the specific video I had in mind, but it serves the purpose just fine. The video I wanted was so much worse. Seriously.

There is plenty to choose from. Defending takedowns is hard. People really dont appreciate that. Top fighters dont always defend takedowns.

It is harder if you are the instructor and you have to go through being a noob again.

Pretending is easier.

 

[Jenna]

Specific styles first. I did a lot of hybrids which were trying to do the same thing back in the day.

What kind of things make you change away from your specific styles that you did first into hybrids and/or mixed arts? (I am not establishing a dossier on you or anything haha.. just interested because your route through is different from mine)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick

Merit? Yes, from an intellectual perspective. But from a martial perspective, it's more efficient (and has a higher probability of success) to look at what others do that is effective, and learn from that.

The issue with starting from entirely within an art is that you have to 1) ignore what is working elsewhere and 2) work with people inside the art, who also don't know the answer. If they don't know the answer (in this case, effective ground escapes), then they aren't experienced in the attacks, since learning an attack almost guarantees an understanding of its weaknesses and how to defend against it. That means you're developing a response without having someone with experience to provide the attack.

Mind you, I'm not concerned with being able to keep @Tony Dismukes from submitting me. I'm concerned with (as someone put it recently) someone who has some natural grappling ability, or perhaps a small amount of training. So I don't need students to practice these things against a BJJ blue belt, let's say (though it's useful if they get that chance). But it's a good thing if they are using techniques that someone like that blue belt would find useful, even if they don't develop them to the same level.

Here's part of my view on this, and maybe the clearest way to say it (which is why I've used all those other words, first ). Every art was almost certainly created with a certain amount of "outside influence" (input from people other than the "founder"). So, when we look outside the walls of our own art/style, what we look for is what belongs in the style, but we haven't seen it there. I don't actually consider the techniques I've added to my curriculum to be external to NGA. They fit pretty seamlessly into the art. They are, to me, NGA techniques that (so far as I know) weren't in the earlier curriculum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff?

Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?

I don't think anyone can ever learn a full set of responses to everything. Thus, no instructor can ever teach a full set of responses to everything. Given those two truths (and I consider them such), no art can ever be transmitted with a full set of responses to everything. An attempt to do so means much of the material will be partially transmitted, and will degrade over time, leaving a new hole in the art.

The principles of an art can, theoretically speaking, cover every possible contingency. But not the techniques. And though the techniques aren't the art, if transmission (the techniques) doesn't cover an area of use that's significantly different from what is taught, it's difficult to adapt the principles to that new use in a single generation (like transferring standing technique principles to the ground).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.

So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.

Aparently we have already forgotton Kung fu principles does not include take down defence. What principles can we possibly apply?

It is like learning to swim using kung fu principles.

And this logic seriously does my head in.

Go find a guy who can defend a takedown and use their takedown defence principles. It isn't style specific.

The search for instant gratification is what drives this desire to find answers from inside your style. Because that way you never have to learn anything new.

I like that swimming analogy, DB.

The way I see it, we can go looking for answers that already exist. We look at a wide range of them, and look for some that actually do fit the principles of the art. If we find some, "woohoo!" If we don't, then the art probably doesn't actually have principles to effectively cover that area, and it's time to either 1) accept the gap as part of the art and cross-train if we want to fill the gap, or 2) adjust the principles of the art to allow them to include something we've found elsewhere. Both of those are acceptable answers, though the second one would be a real pain in the ***.

So, back to the analogy. If I were a WC guy, and I saw some swimming videos (teaching swimming), and saw the WC principles being used, then I can teach swimming using WC principles (mostly adapting the language to fit what I found elsewhere). But I shouldn't arbitrarily try to use WC principles if they don't already fit the problem.

 

[Jenna]

Here's part of my view on this, and maybe the clearest way to say it (which is why I've used all those other words, first ). Every art was almost certainly created with a certain amount of "outside influence" (input from people other than the "founder"). So, when we look outside the walls of our own art/style, what we look for is what belongs in the style, but we haven't seen it there. I don't actually consider the techniques I've added to my curriculum to be external to NGA. They fit pretty seamlessly into the art. They are, to me, NGA techniques that (so far as I know) weren't in the earlier curriculum.

No I like all of your words! that is like the inner workings of your thinking process on display is nice to see because it is not contrived.. Yes, absolutely I agree with you, new arts are like the music of new bands.. products of a range of influences combined with a specific passion or purpose or intent from within the band them selves.. yes.. I agree with you.. I think for me I find some thing that really resonate with me personally as a 'way' and not just a syllabus and like any good song, or piece of art, the more time I spend with it, the more depth and value I find I can get from it.. Is a depth I am quite certain I would not have uncovered had I not persuaded my self to stay within its sphere.. Exactly like you say, in many cases this appear merely like inefficiency.. I get that I do not argue about that.. nor am I advocating for any thing.. just is my own thinking and but I am interested in the myriad other ways to do martial art which is why I am asking and thank you for taking time to put all of your words down, I am grateful x

 

[Jenna]

The principles of an art can, theoretically speaking, cover every possible contingency. But not the techniques.

So in this case there is a mismatch between the principles of an art and the derivative techniques of that art from its own principles? That would be a fail for that art then yes??

 

[JR 137]

No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.

So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.

Aparently we have already forgotton Kung fu principles does not include take down defence. What principles can we possibly apply?

It is like learning to swim using kung fu principles.

And this logic seriously does my head in.

Go find a guy who can defend a takedown and use their takedown defence principles. It isn't style specific.

The search for instant gratification is what drives this desire to find answers from inside your style. Because that way you never have to learn anything new.

I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers. If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.

It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three. There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.

I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I like all of your words! that is like the inner workings of your thinking process on display is nice to see because it is not contrived.. Yes, absolutely I agree with you, new arts are like the music of new bands.. products of a range of influences combined with a specific passion or purpose or intent from within the band them selves.. yes.. I agree with you.. I think for me I find some thing that really resonate with me personally as a 'way' and not just a syllabus and like any good song, or piece of art, the more time I spend with it, the more depth and value I find I can get from it.. Is a depth I am quite certain I would not have uncovered had I not persuaded my self to stay within its sphere.. Exactly like you say, in many cases this appear merely like inefficiency.. I get that I do not argue about that.. nor am I advocating for any thing.. just is my own thinking and but I am interested in the myriad other ways to do martial art which is why I am asking and thank you for taking time to put all of your words down, I am grateful x

That's a key bit there, Jenna. We have to temper all of this with our individual purpose/needs. I could probably develop faster in some areas by focusing less on my primary art. But I enjoy the intellectual pursuit one reaches after a certain point in an art. So, I accept that some of my personal training time isn't at peak efficiency, from a combat development standpoint. I'm okay with that, because I have other purposes to my training, as well.

So, as long as you are getting "enough" (by your own definition) of the martial/combat side of things, then there's no harm in not seeking the most efficient path in that area. Your enjoyment of/development in the depth of the art meets other needs for you, so you follow those needs. A lot of people stay with arts over long periods of time because they enjoy this deeper pursuit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So in this case there is a mismatch between the principles of an art and the derivative techniques of that art from its own principles? That would be a fail for that art then yes??

I don't think it's a failure. It's just the reality. We can only cover so much, and have to draw the line somewhere. It's only a failure (IMO) if the art claims to cover something, the student wants that something, and it's not really covered.