Yellow Bamboo and Fraud in the Martial Arts

[Phrost]

Hello, I believe this is my first post here on your forums.

By way of introduction, I am the co-founder and site director for Bullshido.com, a website devoted (mostly) to rooting out fraud and what we call 'Bullshido', in the Martial Arts. We're a bit rough around the edges, but we share similar goals. We just shine our flashlight on a smaller group of roaches, so to speak.

Being a fan of Mr. Randi's work, and a rational thinker (Skeptic) myself, I noticed that he'd posted a brief message about Yellow Bamboo in one of his commentaries, and I was pleased that something related to our humble crusade was being given attention by such an esteemed mind.

We've had several discussions about Yellow Bamboo on our website. I've put up a news post on our front page, linking directly to your forums, for our members to share any insights they might have with your members on this subject and fraud in the martial arts in general. We have a solid group of dedicated members who are simply tired of the hucksters who have gravitated towards the martial arts because the traditonal secrecy and mysticism have created an environment ripe for fraud.

So if there's a slight influx of martial artists over here, we're to thank (blame?) for it.

Keep up the great work, and my apologies if this is not posted in the correct forum.

Neal "Phrost" Fletcher
Site Director, www.Bullshido.com
Exposing Fraud in the Martial Arts

[ImpyTimpy]

When I first saw the name Phrost I thought to myself, I wonder if that's the guy from the bullshido website :) Welcome to the forum.

[Yahweh]

Welcome to the board, Phrost :).

Nice website.

[Yahweh]

You've got a few errors on the front page:

You linked to JREF.org, that's a small business loan organization, nothing to do with this JREF.

And you have a database error...
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'

Record is deleted.

/inc_footer.asp, line 80

Both are easy fixes.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Yahweh
You've got a few errors on the front page:

You linked to JREF.org, that's a small business loan organization, nothing to do with this JREF.

And you have a database error...


Both are easy fixes.

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. Frankly, I'm a bit punchy tonight from an amatuer mixed martial arts event yesterday that I got into at the last minute. Yeah, that's it..

The database error will likely be there for a bit because we're upgrading to a completely new version of the forums/portal soon. We were actually down for a bit last week for the very same reasons we're upgrading. That also explains the little red x's in the place of images you see scattered through the site. We're usually not so rough looking.

Impy, wow, it's pretty cool that someone from this neck of the woods has heard of us. I take that as a big compliment.

Thanks for the welcome (and corrections) all.

[Denise]

Another hearty welcome to you!

[T'ai Chi]

Welcome Phrost!

I enjoy the discussion over in your neck of the Internet woods, especially the critical examination of taijiquan and qi.

Enjoy your stay!

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Phrost


--snipped--

Impy, wow, it's pretty cool that someone from this neck of the woods has heard of us. I take that as a big compliment.

Thanks for the welcome (and corrections) all.

No worries. I came accross your forum after hearing about shoddy martial art schools while actually training in a McDojo myself (that was a long time ago). Long story short, left pretty fast and got into a better school thanks to your site. :) Your name is just something I remembered.. Dunno why..

[Marc]

Welcome!

My first instructor only a very few times said anything that would be woo-woo in his class. Guess I had good luck with school grounded in reality. :) I'll be checking out your site, thanks.

[Bikewer]

Howdy! I count myself in the ranks of skeptical martial artists as well; even wrote an article on same for Black Belt years ago.

(the fellow sent me a letter indicating they were going to publish the thing, but to my knowledge they never did! At least, I never got any money.....)

[arcticpenguin]

Welcome!

I was fortunate to have a first instructor in Aikido that was not into the 'magical' stuff.

[Garrette]

I've had experiences with both. My first exposure to martial arts was ninjutsu in which the physical aspect was great, but it was peppered with mystical stuff that I did not recognize until much later was woo woo.

[Garrette]

Just wanted to add that I have a great joy coming up next year:

I will finally get to take martial arts with my two sons (well, one at least; the other hasn't decided if he's interested enough).

It's been a very long while since I've done any organized training and and it will be a new discipline so I'll probably just start at white belt like my son. Then, if he wants it, I'll change to another time so as not to cramp his style.

When my daughter is older, I'll spring for her classes, too, if she likes. Though right now she is more stereotypically the little girl and would prefer ballet. Heck, I wouldn't mind trying that myself, either...

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh, Bullshido is a cool site. I especially enjoyed the article where "Ashida Kim" was punked out. Great site and welcome.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Garrette
Just wanted to add that I have a great joy coming up next year:

I will finally get to take martial arts with my two sons (well, one at least; the other hasn't decided if he's interested enough).

It's been a very long while since I've done any organized training and and it will be a new discipline so I'll probably just start at white belt like my son. Then, if he wants it, I'll change to another time so as not to cramp his style.

When my daughter is older, I'll spring for her classes, too, if she likes. Though right now she is more stereotypically the little girl and would prefer ballet. Heck, I wouldn't mind trying that myself, either...

It is great fun and exercise, and as an added bonus I'm more flexible now than I was 20 years ago. My family (wife, son, I) have been taking Tae Kwon Do for 2 years. No woowooism at all from our master, and one of the 2nd black belt occasional instructor has a PhD in physics, and likes to explain the physics of various moves, holds, etc.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by BTox

It is great fun and exercise, and as an added bonus I'm more flexible now than I was 20 years ago. My family (wife, son, I) have been taking Tae Kwon Do for 2 years. No woowooism at all from our master, and one of the 2nd black belt occasional instructor has a PhD in physics, and likes to explain the physics of various moves, holds, etc.

I might have bad news for you.

"Family" Tae Kwan Do is woo-woo, if the instructor implies in any way that the training equips you to fight. If the instructor states or implies that you might be able to defeat anyone except a half-hearted incompetent of your own size, they are a liar and a fraud. That sounds pretty harsh, but it's the truth.

The available evidence is that "McDojo" TKD students have a success rate in actual fights that is around chance level, and a success rate in open tournaments that is around zero. In other words, it doesn't work.

The heart of the problem seems to be that a McDojo class, while fun, involves absolutely nothing like an actual fight. It's akin to learning how to swim by lying on a plank between two chairs, and waving your arms and legs around.

After two years of training you and your family are probably ready to "graduate" to a school that teaches something that works. Judo is excellent, and cheap, and everywhere. Brazilian jiu-jitsu is excellent, not quite as cheap, and almost everywhere nowadays. Your current skill set would probably best suit kickboxing, but if your family don't want to get punched in the face I can't blame them. ;)

It would mean giving up your belts and whatnot. But that's the price of taking a skeptical approach.

That said, I trained in a mildly woo-wooey kung fu school for a couple of years because it was fun and close to my home, and because I couldn't get to anything better without a car. A lot does depend on such issues for many martial arts students.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The available evidence is that "McDojo" TKD students have a success rate in actual fights that is around chance level, and a success rate in open tournaments that is around zero. In other words, it doesn't work.


Could you provide evidence for your claims? I am also wondering what the "chance level" is.

[Garrette]

I agree, on the basis of only personal experience, with Kevin Lowe in the main.

The majority of my training and experience in the martial arts is informal in that I have, through good fortune and the nature of my work, met many qualified instructors who have 'taken me under their wings' during our times together. Hence, my style is a mish-mash of ninjutsu, jujuitsu and some other styles taught in backyards and living rooms, workplaces, and the military.

I have no belts in anything, but I've sparred with people of varying skills from varying disciplines.

Then about two years ago I joined a very nice Taekwondo dojo with an instructor and assistant instructor who were both great guys, not at all woo woo, and worthy of respect. The assistant instructor had only recently taken up Taekwondo but was experienced mostly in karate and judo.

My experiences in the dojo boiled down to these three things:

1) When the assistant instructor was teaching throws, he always stopped short of actually throwing the volunteer. Until I volunteered. I told him he could actually throw me as I knew how to fall from my jujitsu training. He was surprised, happy, and hesitant until he got used to actually throwing me. Then I began to regret it a bit as I REALLY got thrown a few times. Ouch. But I learned...

2) When I sparred with the higher belted students, including one black belt, and when I adhered to the 'rules' then I got my ass kicked. They learned their discipline focused almost solely on how to fight in Taekwondo tournaments and earning points and not getting penalized.

3) Whenever it was sparring for takedown or neutralizations or something akin to actually fighting, I never lost. (That's a qualified 'never;' I never sparred the instructor or assistant instructor or even the two or three other students who had broader experience than Taekwondo.

I stayed in that dojo for a month before I moved out of town.

---

The place I plan to go with my son(s) is a long established facility in Indiana. I've visited it several times in the past (one of their black belt assistant instructors is also a performing magician I knew through the local magic shop), and like their style and atmosphere. He advertises as Karate, but when questioned admits it is in truth an amalgam of styles he has developed, with jujitsu being one of them. He differentiates between his fitness classes and his 'fighting' classes.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Could you provide evidence for your claims? I am also wondering what the "chance level" is. [/B]

Well, second things first. By "chance level" I mean the general proportion of fights you'd expect people of that size, background etc win.

This is actually important, because different styles tend to attract different people. Some styles attract big, aggressive athletes and some styles attract smaller, milder people. It proves little if a gorilla from Style A stomps a teensy person from Style B, because unless all else is wildly unequal the gorilla will always win regardless of style.

(Yes, woo-woo martial artists claim that there are four-foot Chinese kung fu masters that could kill any kickboxer, or little aikidoka that could mop the floor with much larger wrestlers. There is no evidence to support these fairy stories).

First things second, this is a damned hard area to get solid evidence on. Most fights aren't conveniently videotaped, most fighters lie like rugs about their exploits, and all McDojos claim that their training is effective. We end up relying mostly on that oxymoron "anecdotal evidence".

The evidence that McDojo training is useless in "street fights" mostly comes from disillusioned ex-McDojo patrons. People who were put in the unfortunate position of finding out the hard way that their "training" had left them unprepared for a fight.

Stories of McDojo students busting loose Bruce Lee-like destruction upon larger opponents are thin on the ground, to say the least.

Does this prove anything? Well, you wouldn't win a million with such evidence. On the other hand, we aren't dealing with an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. A proper test would be to hire people to attack McDojo patrons. But that's illegal and unethical.

The tournament scene is a different animal. To a certain extent you can argue that you can't generalise from effectiveness vs a trained opponent, to effectiveness vs a crack-addled mugger. So just because no McDojo player has ever gotten anywhere in a contact tournament, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't get somewhere against an incompetent opponent. But against trained opposition, McDojo students lose badly.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Could you provide evidence for your claims? I am also wondering what the "chance level" is. [/B]

The evidence is the lack of success of TKD fighters in MMA events.

For some reason, they don't do well in Muay Thai events either. The TKD moves are all legal in Muay Thai, yet they simply avoid that ring. TKD is a martial art based almost purely on the olympic event and rarely do they learn how to really fight.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Could you provide evidence for your claims? I am also wondering what the "chance level" is. [/B]

Muay Thai vs. Taekwondo in open tournament (http://bullshido.com/dl_goto.asp?id=5)

While this lone match caught on video is by no means conclusive evidence that TKD is garbage, anyone familiar with both of the martial arts styles enough can easily tell that the flaws in TKD's fighting techniques are demonstrated by the unholy arse whomping the TKD guy recieved.

The 'hippity-hop', point striking tournaments that TKD trains for are nothing like real fights. There is no ref to stop you after you score your theoretically 'fight ending punch/kick'. Real streetfights are not like the movies, which is a ridiculous delusion that so many Karate and TKD schools have cashed in on.

This is what a real street fight looks like:

http://bullshido.com/dl_info.asp?id=143

And then, there's always multiple attackers:

http://bullshido.com/dl_info.asp?id=145

Fighting isn't a 'Family Activity'. You will not learn how to fight, or to even defend yourself in a 'Family Environment'. Nor will a child be able to defend himself against an adult by throwing a spinning back kick.

Realistic self defense can be taught in the space of a few hours. It does not require contracts, belt testing, uniforms, monthly fees, board breaking.

As a sport, Taekwondo is great. It exists within its own set of rules, and as with any other sport, you compete within said rules. But on the street, there are no rules. And the more rules you are conditioned to training under, the less prepared you will be for such a situation.

And just to leave you with with a smile, here's a video of a guy with no training who was challenged by a TKD black belt. They play 'pitty-pat' for a bit, before the teen kicks the black belt square in the crotch, and ends the fight.

http://bullshido.com/dl_info.asp?id=34

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Does this prove anything? Well, you wouldn't win a million with such evidence. On the other hand, we aren't dealing with an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. A proper test would be to hire people to attack McDojo patrons. But that's illegal and unethical.


But it can be a lot of fun.

One possible measure of the 'effectiveness' of martial arts is ultimate fighting. Although I'm not a follower of it at all, from what I understand fighters who use 'striking' types of martial arts (Karate, and probably Tae Kwon Doe) tend to do fairly poorly, while people using a more mixed forms of martial arts, or ones that allow 'closer' forms of combat (holds, join locks, pressure points, etc.) tend to win.

I myself do Jiu Jitsu... From what I've seen, its one of the best 'street fighting' techniques (in other words something you'd actually want to use in a real fight). It has striking techniques (punching and kicking, like in Tae Kwon Doe), throws (like in Judo), and pressure points and locks (like in Aikido).

Of course, 90% of the moves involve hitting your opponent in the groin.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


But it can be a lot of fun.

One possible measure of the 'effectiveness' of martial arts is ultimate fighting. Although I'm not a follower of it at all, from what I understand fighters who use 'striking' types of martial arts (Karate, and probably Tae Kwon Doe) tend to do fairly poorly, while people using a more mixed forms of martial arts, or ones that allow 'closer' forms of combat (holds, join locks, pressure points, etc.) tend to win.

I myself do Jiu Jitsu... From what I've seen, its one of the best 'street fighting' techniques (in other words something you'd actually want to use in a real fight). It has striking techniques (punching and kicking, like in Tae Kwon Doe), throws (like in Judo), and pressure points and locks (like in Aikido).

Of course, 90% of the moves involve hitting your opponent in the groin.

Superior strikers are now bridging the gap with grapplers. But the only reason for this is that they are training in grappling themselves, and learning how to avoid being...well, "grappled". And NONE of them train in Taekwondo.

But you are right. For just about every self defense situation outside of a gang of thugs with baseball bats (only Run Fu will save you there) it's much more effective and safe to take the other guy to the ground and disable him. Not only do you learn, at full speed in class, to restrain/control a struggling attacker, but the courts will look more favorably on someone who was trying to restrain another person than kick his head in.

[BNiles]

Phrost,

I followed your links above, and though I got to the site, it couldn't find the server to view the clips.

I don't think it's my system, but I geuss it could be. :confused:

[thaiboxerken]

I am having the same problem at Bullshido, I can't download ANY clips. Maybe they are over bandwidth.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by BNiles
Phrost,

I followed your links above, and though I got to the site, it couldn't find the server to view the clips.

I don't think it's my system, but I geuss it could be. :confused:

Dangit. We've been having server problems lately. They should be working in a few hours.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Phrost

And then, there's always multiple attackers:

http://bullshido.com/dl_info.asp?id=145


I agree, facing multiple attackers can be a very real possibility. I always find it strange how BJJ, for example, is often touted as being effective in "the street". I would find it incredible to see how, when on the ground, one could defend themselves effectively while being pounded by multiple attackers.
(and I don't mean 'multiple-attackers-but-yet-attacking-one-at-a-time like in aikido demos. I mean all attacking at once.)

I seriously doubt there are any non-demo clips of that.

Not to mention, bumpy cement is not a cushy (by comparison) canvas mat.

[Phrost]

I'm working to restore the links to the videos. What happened was that the host went down, and lost all my data. I had to restore the website from backup, and a lot of the files (outside of the database) hadn't been backed up for months.

It's been a nightmare.

Sorry for any inconvenience. I've got great admins and moderators, but essentially I run the site as a public service out of my basement office.

[Segnosaur]

I have a general question about "false" martial arts....

A few months ago, I saw an "Ultimate 10" TV show. I believe it was on either the learning channel or Arts and Entertainment. (There have been various Ultimate 10 shows, showing for example the top 10 disasters, or the top 10 serial killers.)

This particular episode featured the top 10 Martial arts. They didn't specify how the Martial arts were ranked; Kung Fu was listed as #1, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu as #10, Tae Kwon doe, Kick Boxing and Karate were in there too. (Some of the martial arts were "main stream", others seemed to be fringe techniques.)

Did anyone else see this episode?

Anways, one of the top 10 didn't appear to be a real 'fighting technique', but some way to 'strengthen' the body against blows. For example, they had one of their masters punched in the throat by students.

Questions:
- Does anyone remember what that name of that martial art was?
- Am I right in assuming it was B.S.?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I would find it incredible to see how, when on the ground, one could defend themselves effectively while being pounded by multiple attackers.

I'd like to see any martial art as effective on the ground against multiple attackers. No BJJ guy is going to purposely go to the ground against multiple attackers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- Does anyone remember what that name of that martial art was?
- Am I right in assuming it was B.S.?

Probably Combat Ki.

Yes, it is BS.

[zakur]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Probably Combat Ki.

Yes, it is BS. That was it. Nothing like watching a bunch of fat white folks kick eachother in the crotch.:rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by zakur
That was it. Nothing like watching a bunch of fat white folks kick eachother in the crotch.:rolleyes:

Yeah, that and willingly taking chops to the neck... Hella stupid.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I'd like to see any martial art as effective on the ground against multiple attackers.

Well, I'd like to see a non-demo video clip of a BJJ (or whatever "ground" style you like) defending against multiple attackers (attacking all at once, not taking turns) as I requested.

It seems no such videos exist.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well, I'd like to see a non-demo video clip of a BJJ (or whatever "ground" style you like) defending against multiple attackers (attacking all at once, not taking turns) as I requested.

It seems no such videos exist.

Maybe when Star Wars Episode III comes out...

[tracer]

Originally posted by Phrost
Fighting isn't a 'Family Activity'. You will not learn how to fight, or to even defend yourself in a 'Family Environment'. Nor will a child be able to defend himself against an adult by throwing a spinning back kick.
When I was 10 years old, I signed up for a Tae Kwan Do class. In the first week, just watching the others, I learned a valuable technique which greatly improved my ability to hold my own in a fight at school:

The whole idea of blocking a punch with my arm had never, ever occurred to me before.

So, in a sense, I guess it was helpful. ;)

[ImpyTimpy]

This is a long post... Bear with me :)

My first experience came from a TKD school, that wasn't really a TKD school but more of a mixed school labelled as TKD (the founder was an ex-korean military instructor). The training was very good, the sparring was proper contact sparring (past yellow belt) and they taught throws, arm bars and joint locks. Some people who came from sport TKD backgrounds would get yelled at to keep their arms around their head at all times or they'll get a punch to the face (and they would). The high belt graduations had some "accidents" where people would get knocked out twitching on the ground and fail their gradings :p The classes were extremely intensive physically but you really felt like you learnt something. The "katas" were second nature to everything else.

I left that school and quit MA for a while only to go back to a Karate class (the place is called GKR Karate here in Australia) with me and my wife... I thought things would be exactly the same as with my old TKD school (which now seems to have gone into more "family" oriented school - people don't want proper training anymore and instructors need to eat :(), I mean I thought we'd have proper sparring. I thought if we'd practice blocking drills we'd actually have to hit each other hard... I thought we'd get taught at least basic locks or throws... S**t, I thought'd we'd actually get to hit something. Not quiet, the class focused on first a basic warm up. Then we'd do kata or some basic strikes into empty air. We'd practice empty air strikes for a while, then we'd do more Kata... Then more empty air strikes... Finally the yellow belts and higher were allowed to spar.. Sparring was a joke. You weren't allowed to even touch each other. You'd just wave your arms and legs around each other pretending to do some strikes.

Grading was a joke. A huge class of people basically going over a reduced every day lesson plan, followed by performing the kata... When I was in my old mixed TKD school, the head of school was there supervising all the tests and actually judging whether you learnt something or not. Here, you were just in a huge class that paid crapload of money for it. Some people did fail, but they were so crap at doing anything it'd be embarrassing to let them through (the only saving grace of this school).

Well, I was willing to put up with this crap since I figured, what the hell, at least I'm learning something right? Not quiet. I suspected the school was a bit strange but since I was away from the world of MA for so long I assumed maybe that's the way schools were going. I started doing some searches on the net for GKR karate and what I saw opened my eyes. The instructors, who all had what I thought were black belts, turned out not to be even black belts. Turns out that GKR has a special "instructor" belt given to people who attend some sort of special instructor courses. It's a belt with a white rectangle surrounding it. It means the person is between a yellow and black belt, but not actually a black belt. That's when the alarm bells exploded and I told my wife we're not coming back anymore. :)

If that's not bad enough, they made claims that this was an excellent self-defense course. Their "defense" methods involved using a front kick to attack and then running away... Their "counter" methods involved "uhhh, not sure what you'd do"...

Pays off to be skeptical in all walks of life.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I might have bad news for you.

"Family" Tae Kwan Do is woo-woo, if the instructor implies in any way that the training equips you to fight. If the instructor states or implies that you might be able to defeat anyone except a half-hearted incompetent of your own size, they are a liar and a fraud. That sounds pretty harsh, but it's the truth.

The available evidence is that "McDojo" TKD students have a success rate in actual fights that is around chance level, and a success rate in open tournaments that is around zero. In other words, it doesn't work.

The heart of the problem seems to be that a McDojo class, while fun, involves absolutely nothing like an actual fight. It's akin to learning how to swim by lying on a plank between two chairs, and waving your arms and legs around.

No, this school and master do not make such claims, nor are we interested in them. The emphasis is on learning the techniques and forms, very little time is spent on rudimentary self defense, and the sparring is only to prepare for tournaments. We are doing it primarily as a family exercise activity, with the additional benefit of providing more discipline for our very active 7 year old. I personally like the stretching and aerobic activities (just came back from an adult class and it is really a good workout) that go well with my weight-training regimen that I've followed for over 20 years.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

After two years of training you and your family are probably ready to "graduate" to a school that teaches something that works. Judo is excellent, and cheap, and everywhere. Brazilian jiu-jitsu is excellent, not quite as cheap, and almost everywhere nowadays. Your current skill set would probably best suit kickboxing, but if your family don't want to get punched in the face I can't blame them. ;)

It would mean giving up your belts and whatnot. But that's the price of taking a skeptical approach.

Again, not interested in learning a system that "works" in a street fight. If I was really worried about self defense I'd carry my Beretta ;)

[Garrette]

In defense of TKD, I have to say I think it is a great sport, and there's nothing wrong with approaching it that way. The students whom I could whup in an actual fight were far more limber and even more cardiovascularly fit than I was.

If that's what you want, great, just don't fool yourself into thinking you'll get more than that.

Regarding evidence over what's best, I don't have anything scientific. I only have my own gut feelings based on experience.

Ignoring for the moment the truism that running away is the best defense and that I would choose it over fighting (and have, on more than one occasion, I proudly admit), if I had to fight someone who is trained, what kind of training would I prefer they have and what kind would I prefer they not have?

Without doubt, no question, no contest, I'll choose a TKD practicioner as my opponent.

All other trained fighters give me pause, but three types put actual fear in me (in no particular order):

1)jujitsu
2)muay thai
3)various military special forces such as the British SAS and the Israelis

Not scientific, but it is sort of 'putting my money where my mouth is' and all that

[De_Bunk]

I practiced Shotokan from 7yrs old 'till i was 33..

Both my children are black belts...but not in Shotokan...

They both do "Kook Sool Wan"...(Now based in Texas...)

After 26yrs...I learnt that, no matter how good you think you are......Fighting two men at once...well,...that takes some doing....

Martial arts makes you fit and capable...it don't turn you into Batman...

DB

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Garrette
In defense of TKD, I have to say I think it is a great sport, and there's nothing wrong with approaching it that way. The students whom I could whup in an actual fight were far more limber and even more cardiovascularly fit than I was.
I think that's true of sport TKD schools. The traditional TKD taught properly makes a very effective fighting system. Unfortunetly, you're very unlikely to be taught traditional TKD... :(


If that's what you want, great, just don't fool yourself into thinking you'll get more than that.

This is what I find a problem with - that is people going to martial arts for aerobic exercises. Honestly, you pay for Martial Arts instructions, not fitness classes! :mad:


Regarding evidence over what's best, I don't have anything scientific. I only have my own gut feelings based on experience.

I think a lot of people say, it's not the style but the fighter... Just more confusion to the already mixed up pot.


Ignoring for the moment the truism that running away is the best defense and that I would choose it over fighting (and have, on more than one occasion, I proudly admit), if I had to fight someone who is trained, what kind of training would I prefer they have and what kind would I prefer they not have?

Without doubt, no question, no contest, I'll choose a TKD practicioner as my opponent.

All other trained fighters give me pause, but three types put actual fear in me (in no particular order):

1)jujitsu
2)muay thai
3)various military special forces such as the British SAS and the Israelis

Not scientific, but it is sort of 'putting my money where my mouth is' and all that
I agree, running away - after a takedown is the best defense i think (especially if you manage to dislocate a shoulder or disable other limbs). I wouldn't want to go against any fighter since I don't know their level of training or whether they have weapons. If you have to however, I would stick with styles that advocate grappling over striking. Grappling will always be superior to striking (requires much less power to do much more damage).

I agree with your list as well, I would never ever want to face a properly trained jiu-jitsu practitioner. :)

My list (properly trained of course, not watered down McDojo training):

1) Jiu-Jitsu/BJJ
2) JKD
3) Muay Thai

I'm not too worried about special forces people if they're not armed. :)

[ImpyTimpy]

The karate style I was practicing was supposedly based off Shotokan. However after I found out it's history it turned out some ex-cop basically went to Japan, took a few lessons, came back and declared himself a black belt then proceeded to "borrow" katas from Shotokan and other karate styles while laughing all the way to the bank...

They apparently have tournaments to find who is the best.. Internal tournaments that is. They wouldn't dare step out since everyone else would see what a joke they are. The way they get suckers in however is by going door to door and telling people they offer an excellent self-defense course for the whole family.

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I practiced Shotokan from 7yrs old 'till i was 33..

Both my children are black belts...but not in Shotokan...

They both do "Kook Sool Wan"...(Now based in Texas...)

After 26yrs...I learnt that, no matter how good you think you are......Fighting two men at once...well,...that takes some doing....

Martial arts makes you fit and capable...it don't turn you into Batman...

DB

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

This is what I find a problem with - that is people going to martial arts for aerobic exercises. Honestly, you pay for Martial Arts instructions, not fitness classes! :mad:


It is martial arts, which I interpret to mean that 'other things' are included.


Grappling will always be superior to striking (requires much less power to do much more damage).


I disagree. If that were the case, then everyone would be doing grappling, which isn't the case. I don't believe there is any such beast as the superior martial art. It all depends on the person's effort, the conditions, the opponent, and very little on the style.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Well, I'd like to see a non-demo video clip of a BJJ (or whatever "ground" style you like) defending against multiple attackers (attacking all at once, not taking turns) as I requested.

It seems no such videos exist. [/B]

I'd like to see one of ANY martial artist defending against multiple attackers in a real fight.

My philosophy is simple, IF i'm on the ground, I think knowing BJJ is great regardless of how many attackers... the chances of victory is slim regardless of "style" once on the ground, but with BJJ it is slightly better because of the expertise on the ground.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by tracer

The whole idea of blocking a punch with my arm had never, ever occurred to me before.


Blocking a punch isn't very effective, parrying and evading is much simpler and effective.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BTox


No, this school and master do not make such claims, nor are we interested in them.

I might be weird, but I just can't imagine training in any martial art if it isn't uselful for fighting/self-defense.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BTox

Again, not interested in learning a system that "works" in a street fight. If I was really worried about self defense I'd carry my Beretta ;)

I think this is a rather naive way of looking at self-defense. Do you carry a gun with you? Do your kids? Can you carry your gun in all situations? You can take your martial arts with you everywhere. It seems a waste of time, to me, to train in a martial art that you realize is useless for fighting or self-defense.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Garrette

All other trained fighters give me pause, but three types put actual fear in me (in no particular order):

1)jujitsu
2)muay thai
3)various military special forces such as the British SAS and the Israelis

Not scientific, but it is sort of 'putting my money where my mouth is' and all that

I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad... then again, military special forces have used the Kali, Silat and Kuntao that I've trained in as well.
Special forces people, for the most part, don't really impress me in the field of hand to hand combat. They ARE great at their jobs, but hand to hand isn't their job.

[Garrette]

I'm with TBK. It doesn't bother me if a martial art is presented as a sport or fitness class, so long as it is honestly presented that way. In fact, I think it's great.

I also agree with the other statements that make it difficult to say this-is-superior-to-that.

The person matters more than the art.
The environment matters.

When I posted my list, I was assuming a sorf of UFC format in the final rounds, meaning that the people who might have training but no understanding (or maturity) have been culled and everyone left, regardless of style, are properly trained and have a proper martial attitude (and, no, I won't try to define that term).

Multiple attackers, whether trained or not, would be difficult to beat unless you control the environment. "Situational awareness" (to borrow a military term) is paramount. I'm not perfect at it, but it is a habit of mine to scan establishments when I enter them, to know who is around me and where, to keep a sort of third eye and third ear attuned to noises and conversations nearby, and to adjust my actions accordingly.

Confidence and bearing matter. I have both won and avoided fights with my demeanor. I sort of equate it to the myths about gunfights in the old west. The uninitiated think that the fastest guy wins. Those in the know realize it's the one who stays calm and gets off the first and most aimed shots. It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope the idea comes across.

And, lastly, if a fight surprises you, you've lost.

Hmmmm......this could turn into a treatise that is undoubtedly not needed by most here. I think the ones who have posted here are, for the most part, the ones who already know and understand all this.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by De_Bunk

After 26yrs...I learnt that, no matter how good you think you are......Fighting two men at once...well,...that takes some doing....

Martial arts makes you fit and capable...it don't turn you into Batman...

DB

Wise thoughts! I agree completely.. even Rorion Gracie would not want to fight multiple opponents.

[Garrette]

Hey, TBK:

I think my inclusion of special forces is misunderstood because I poorly worded it.

I am, myself, spec ops. I agree that our training in hand-to-hand when there at all is insufficient.

I was trying to refer to specific military special forces with their own brand of training. I've worked with some of the SAS (no, not on any of the interesting missions, just administratively) and got to have their styles demonstrated. Almost ditto with the Israelis, though in that instance it was a second-hand demonstration from a friend who had trained with them.

There are specialties within special forces that devise (or use) specialized fighting systems.

What makes them fearsom to me is that they are developed with no middle ground. See a threat, neutralize the threat. Swift and brutal.

Better?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm with TBK. It doesn't bother me if a martial art is presented as a sport or fitness class, so long as it is honestly presented that way. In fact, I think it's great.

Exactly.. Tae Bo wouldn't bother me if they didn't advertise that it was good for self-defense.


The person matters more than the art.
The environment matters.

I don't agree with the former. The art matters more than the person, if it didn't, we'd see TKD being the superior art in the UFC's or other MMA tournaments. TKD is great for people with great talent, however, the average person is more likely to be able to fight better using Muay Thai or Brazillian Jujitsu.

And, lastly, if a fight surprises you, you've lost.

Well.... unless you have trained hard enough that you react and place yourself in a safe position.

[thaiboxerken]

that our training in hand-to-hand when there at all is insufficient.

Well, maybe not insufficient to perform your task. Because of movies, people tend to think SF makes you hand-to-hand experts. You guys are trained enough to kill (which is the easiest martial art skill) and that it..... for the most part.

I was trying to refer to specific military special forces with their own brand of training. I've worked with some of the SAS (no, not on any of the interesting missions, just administratively) and got to have their styles demonstrated. Almost ditto with the Israelis, though in that instance it was a second-hand demonstration from a friend who had trained with them.

Those guys are trained primarily for fire-arm combat, just like you probably are. It's not a slam on the SF, it's just reality..... why would the military spend alot of money to train SF in hand-to-hand combat when it's not used alot?

There are specialties within special forces that devise (or use) specialized fighting systems.

It's very rare, and those guys are usually contracted to civillian martial art instructors to learn the skills. Even then, the military isn't very good at picking what a good martial art is...... just take a look at SCARS for an example of that.

What makes them fearsom to me is that they are developed with no middle ground. See a threat, neutralize the threat. Swift and brutal.

The mindset is very scary indeed.

[thaiboxerken]

I think that's true of sport TKD schools. The traditional TKD taught properly makes a very effective fighting system. Unfortunetly, you're very unlikely to be taught traditional TKD...


A common misconception/myth is that TKD started out at a martial art. The reality is that TKD is a sport that was created to integrate competition between various martial arts. The TKD martial art is geared toward that sport.

This is what I find a problem with - that is people going to martial arts for aerobic exercises. Honestly, you pay for Martial Arts instructions, not fitness classes!

I don't understand learning a martial art for fitness myself.. why not learn how to fight or defend yourself as well?

I think a lot of people say, it's not the style but the fighter... Just more confusion to the already mixed up pot.

That's BS, it's the style AND the fighter. Royce Gracie is not naturally athletic or talented, yet he won the first 3 UFC's. You can't teach a fighter ballet (TKD) and expect him to win. This is why TKD doesn't win in mixed martial art events.

If you have to however, I would stick with styles that advocate grappling over striking. Grappling will always be superior to striking (requires much less power to do much more damage.

A false dichotomey. A good martial art will use both striking and grappling. Also, strikers can win over grapplers. No system only uses striking or only grappling.

1) Jiu-Jitsu/BJJ
2) JKD
3) Muay Thai

I'm not too worried about special forces people if they're not armed.

Well.. JKD isn't really a style, but I understand your meaning. I train in "JKD" but do not consider it a system or style. Kali and Silat would be scary to me... especially since those guys like to use weapons.... good thing I train in those systems.

[Garrette]

TBK:

You guys are trained enough to kill (which is the easiest martial art skill) and

Actually, I got exactly zero percent of my training on how to kill or fight from spec ops, but that's not why I'm quoting you.

I'm quoting you because I wish I could get this thought into the head of every CEO or employer or client for whom I have ever worked or who has hired me as a consultant (I do security stuff, including setting up security departments and doing some training on both verbal and physical intervention).

At some point, each client will come to me--usually because of a complaint by some nincompoop--and say "Did you really have to use 5 guys to restrain that lady?" or "Do you really have to spend so much money on training?"

I've created a stock opening to my response, which is invariably lengthy and detailed:

"5 people to restraine one lady? Yes, I needed five people. If you merely wanted her dead, I could do that myself, but as I assumed you want her restrained without injury because she is, after all, merely a psychiatric patient in your hospital, then I think 5 people is a good number indeed. And about the training, I assume you object to the Continuing Education credits required of your nurses."

---

Other than that, I'll stop debating for two reasons:

1) I think we agree more than I have been able to communicate properly

2) You're a Muay Thai guy and I am therefore afraid of you

;)

{Edited for format}

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

... even Rorion Gracie would not want to fight multiple opponents.

Who???

;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I don't agree with the former. The art matters more than the person, if it didn't, we'd see TKD being the superior art in the UFC's or other MMA tournaments. TKD is great for people with great talent, however, the average person is more likely to be able to fight better using Muay Thai or Brazillian Jujitsu.


What? If that were true, everyone in the world would be doing Muay Thai or BJJ instead of their martial art, and that just isn't the case. Do you have any evidence for your "average person" statistic?

Martial artists are a practical folk. They tend to gravitate towards what works well. The fact that martial artists all over the world tend to gravitate toward a wide range of martial arts, and no one particular martial art, tells me that the style isn't as important as the effort a particular person puts forth.

My opinion: saying an art is superior because it is primarily used in the UFC or other MMA tourney's/competitions/$29.95 pay-per-view spectacles, is like saying TKD is best because it is the primary style used in 'karate' tournaments, or taijiquan is best because it is the primary style in push hands tournaments. In each case, the type of competition isn't evolving to determine the most effective style, but the main style involved determines the type of competition it will be, a priori. In fact, even when the UFC/etc. started out, the grapplers/groundfighters, etc., constituted the largest percentage.

Related note: Does anyone have any actual statistics/evidence on the 'most fights end up on the ground'? myth(?) ?

And while I'm at it, I must say that Bruce Lee was not only the best martial artist of all time and space, but also a cha-cha champion!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

What? If that were true, everyone in the world would be doing Muay Thai or BJJ instead of their martial art, and that just isn't the case. Do you have any evidence for your "average person" statistic?


I think you are labouring under two misconceptions. The first misconception is that Joe Martial Artist is perfectly informed about the pros and cons of every single martial art in the world.

They just aren't. How could they be?

The second misconception is that Joe Martial Artist is willing to bleed to learn how to fight. Most aren't. Most McDojo patrons know, at least vaguely, that kickboxing and full-contact karate exist. They stay with nice, safe McDojo classes because they figure "Well, I might lose a fight to a kickboxer, but I'll take that risk".

The people who don't do BJJ, boxing, judo, kickboxing, MMA or whatever are the people who put other considerations ahead of effectiveness in a fight, or who don't know what works. They are the majority of people studying "martial arts".


Martial artists are a practical folk. They tend to gravitate towards what works well. The fact that martial artists all over the world tend to gravitate toward a wide range of martial arts, and no one particular martial art, tells me that the style isn't as important as the effort a particular person puts forth.


Your assumptions above, about MAists being practical folk, is incorrect. The practical folk are already doing what works. But there are plenty of impractical folk.


My opinion: saying an art is superior because it is primarily used in the UFC or other MMA tourney's/competitions/$29.95 pay-per-view spectacles, is like saying TKD is best because it is the primary style used in 'karate' tournaments, or taijiquan is best because it is the primary style in push hands tournaments. In each case, the type of competition isn't evolving to determine the most effective style, but the main style involved determines the type of competition it will be, a priori. In fact, even when the UFC/etc. started out, the grapplers/groundfighters, etc., constituted the largest percentage.


Your opinion is true, but mostly irrelevant because a real fight is much more like an MMA bout than a karate tournament or a push hands competition.


Related note: Does anyone have any actual statistics/evidence on the 'most fights end up on the ground'? myth(?) ?


Not offhand. You could ask on rec.martial-arts.

For what it's worth, 99.9% of fights end up on the ground if any of the people involved want to end up on the ground.


And while I'm at it, I must say that Bruce Lee was not only the best martial artist of all time and space, but also a cha-cha champion!

He was the best of his time, I guess, but the best of all time? He'd get creamed in any modern MMA event. Too small.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

Edited for formatting goof.

[thaiboxerken]

What? If that were true, everyone in the world would be doing Muay Thai or BJJ instead of their martial art, and that just isn't the case. Do you have any evidence for your "average person" statistic?

I said the art matters MORE than the martial artist, you seem to be arguing against a strawman (that the art is the only thing that matters). The evidence is in the competitions, there are more Muay Thai and BJJ fighters in the mixed art competitions than any other arts.

Martial artists are a practical folk. They tend to gravitate towards what works well. The fact that martial artists all over the world tend to gravitate toward a wide range of martial arts, and no one particular martial art, tells me that the style isn't as important as the effort a particular person puts forth.

They happen to be gravitating towards Muay Thai and BJJ these days. Other grappling arts are proving effective as well, and those arts are being seen in the mixed art tournaments.


My opinion: saying an art is superior because it is primarily used in the UFC or other MMA tourney's/competitions/$29.95 pay-per-view spectacles, is like saying TKD is best because it is the primary style used in 'karate' tournaments, or taijiquan is best because it is the primary style in push hands tournaments. In each case, the type of competition isn't evolving to determine the most effective style, but the main style involved determines the type of competition it will be, a priori. In fact, even when the UFC/etc. started out, the grapplers/groundfighters, etc., constituted the largest percentage.

This is false, the mixed tournaments are closer to actual fights because they have less rules. What they do in TKD can be used in mixed tournaments, but the mixed tournament fighter would be DQ'd from a TKD tournament because of the more restrictive rules.

Related note: Does anyone have any actual statistics/evidence on the 'most fights end up on the ground'? myth(?) ?

Is it a myth? Many fights end up on the ground, but I can only speak from my own anecdotes.

And while I'm at it, I must say that Bruce Lee was not only the best martial artist of all time and space, but also a cha-cha champion!

Agreed. I love hearing the stories from Guro Dan about Lee.

[thaiboxerken]

Martial artists are a practical folk. They tend to gravitate towards what works well.

This is a rather bold assumption, especially considering the topic of the thread.

LOL.

[De_Bunk]

Mauy Thai is an extremely hard style to fight against...

Its not so much the style or quality...its the mindset of the Muay Thai fighters that is difficult to beat..

Shotokan is a very precise and methodical style...

MuayThai is to just keep hitting back until the other person falls over...

I fought in Japan in the early 80's and done fairly well...i won some and lost some...

It wasn't that they were any better than me...it was their mindset, their "not wanting to lose to a westerner"...

They somehow sharpened up and i got caught out...

Its all in the head...

DB

[Bikewer]

Regarding "fights ending up on the ground", I can speak only from my background in law enforcement, where almost all "resistings" do. Whether you can refer to most such altercations as "fights" is a difficult question; usually, the suspect is "resisting" in that he does not want to be arrested, but is not actively fighting with the officers.

I was involved in TKD for a while, but got annoyed at the sporting aspects (at least in my school) being emphasized over practical techniques. I remember going to the competition at the Olympic Festival which was held in St. Louis a few years ago, and being appalled at the way the matches were conducted. No hand techniques whatever.... when the fighters "clashed" they would stand there idly till the referee separated them to proper kicking distance..... Hopefully, they were taught some self-defense techniques as well!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
I said the art matters MORE than the martial artist, ...


Ok, fine. So if we were to get a wide variety (say 50) people and split them randomly into 2 groups of 25, one of which was trained in BJJ and the other trained in, say, Shorin Ryu, you seem to be implying that if we had these groups compete against each other that the BJJ group would win significantly more fights, and that that accomplishment would have more to do with BJJ than with the individual people. Is that your view?
(Note that Helio Gracie lost to Kimura.. so I guess it does have more to do with the person afterall..:) )


This is false, the mixed tournaments are closer to actual fights because they have less rules. What they do in TKD can be used in mixed tournaments, but the mixed tournament fighter would be DQ'd from a TKD tournament because of the more restrictive rules.


First, I believe neither are anywhere close to "real fights". Saying one is closer is like saying .999999 is closer to 1 than .99999. Technically true, but not especially significant. My reasons for this follow:

Pitting two experienced martial artists, from the same weight classes, against each other knowingly in a safe refereed and rule filled atmosphere (let's not even mention the cash involved in prizefighting) for a given number of rounds, with rest periods, with doctors standing by, is hardly a real fight.

Second, there many rules in such events, probably about as many as in some non-mma tournaments. There is simply minimal protection, more contact, and everything from the pro-wrestling-like entrances and 'who cares?'-titles, to the flashy environment, to the card girls, to the intimidation tactics like the participants tatoos and psyche-out posturing, make the uninformed viewer judge that it has minimal or no rules. Some rules from 2001: http://www.boxinginsider.com/mma/ufcrules.php

In fact, many non-mma tournaments actually allow light to moderate strength groin attacks! This could be seen as more real..?

Also, it is obvious that many of the 'tools' that are against the rules would be the most effective in a (truly) real encounter. Therefore, I see no way to possibly determine 'the style that is most effective in a real encounter' without being seriously unethical.


Many fights end up on the ground, but I can only speak from my own anecdotes.


Right, and I am asking for evidence, not anecdotes, on this matter. I've heard this possible myth, in this form, since 3rd grade, and then later, I've heard it the other way around! :) It seems like it is used the first way by the ground folk when they want advertise, and the latter way by the standup folk when they want to advertise, but neither group, apparently, has any real statistics.

I mean, does a fight count as 'ending up on the ground' if I kick someone in the knee and they go down to the ground, or would that hypothetical count as the fight not going to the ground? If a person pushed me to the ground, and I got up and resumed, would that count as the fight going to the ground? Or does going to the ground mean that both fighters are on the ground fighting for the majority of the fight? Or.. ?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Most McDojo patrons know, at least vaguely, that kickboxing and full-contact karate exist. They stay with nice, safe McDojo classes because they figure "Well, I might lose a fight to a kickboxer, but I'll take that risk".


The fact is, as I see them anyway, is that bleeding-inducing full-contact training, with another skilled martial artist is overkill if you are simply training to defend yourself against a stupid bum, someone trying to pickpocket you, a pervert grabbing your butt, or some drunk trying to steal your beer; the more realistic possible day to day encounters. If you are knowingly training yourself to fight against other martial artists who would attack you, then that is another issue all together.

[voidx]

Another reason mixed arts have come to the fore is because it gives people experience with a wide range of styles and techniques, not only to use, but to understand, so one can defend themselves against them. I do a lot of training in historical european sword arts (not SCA or RenFaire stuff either which has very little to do with real world martial arts) and period specific grappling (to a lesser extent). Training against as many different weapons combinations as possible is beneficial because 1.) you learn how to defend yourself against those combinations 2.) you learn how to fight offensively against thoes combinations, and 3.) your own techniques with a chosen combination become more clear, you whittle down further what works effectively and what does not. This example can be drawn with the mixed unarmed arts as well.

Strikes and grappling are equally as important, people tend to just use them at the wrong times. Its rare against a trained fighter to land a solid strike right off the bat. However, this most often leads to a clinch, where upon grappling can be employed (and what most people sometimes forget) and where strikes can continue to be employed if the opening presents itself. The problem with run of the mill "McDojo's" as they've been called here is there isn't a strong enough emphasis placed on serious, at speed and intent sparring. One cannot gleam how exactly techniques work, or even more, don't work if their not done at full speed with (albeit controlled) intent. I agree, for myself I'd want to learn a MA for self-defense as well as fitness, but I think its ok if people do it just for fitness. However, there should be a disclaimer that doing those types of classes does not make you necessarily capable of defending yourself better in a street fight. As mentioned I cringe when tai bo people go on about fitness and "I feel I can defend myself in a fight at the same time, hurray its great!". This is a dangerous attitude to give people because now in situations where they might have just run away, they will stand their ground thinking they have a chance to "defend" themselves. I imagine most of them later regret that choice.

Size was mentioned before as well and its an important consideration. Many people consider MA as an equalizer for the smaller person to fight against larger opponents. While it is to an extent one must realize, a person of smaller stature must be that much MORE resolute and perfect in the style of fight than a person of larger stature. All things being equal, the larger person will almost always win. The medieval masters understood this implicitly and stated as much. If you're smaller, you must be perfect in your art, and they (larger opponents) must not. Otherwise your kind of screwed :D.

Another issue is the use of knives. I don't know about in the states, but here in Canada it seems more likely to have to deal with someone packing a knife, than a gun, and its a serious consideration. If you're in a knife fight, with or without a knife, you will get cut, even if you win, you'll just get cut less. These techniques people try and teach that disarm a person of their knife are often patently ridiculous, and just do not work in a real situation.

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, fine. So if we were to get a wide variety (say 50) people and split them randomly into 2 groups of 25, one of which was trained in BJJ and the other trained in, say, Shorin Ryu, you seem to be implying that if we had these groups compete against each other that the BJJ group would win significantly more fights, and that that accomplishment would have more to do with BJJ than with the individual people. Is that your view?

Yes.


(Note that Helio Gracie lost to Kimura.. so I guess it does have more to do with the person afterall..:) )


False, it took a few hours for that fight to end. Kimura is much bigger as well. Gracie's art was the reason. If Helio trained in TKD and tried to fight Kimura in the same match, Helio would've lost within the first minute.


Pitting two experienced martial artists, from the same weight classes, against each other knowingly in a safe refereed and rule filled atmosphere (let's not even mention the cash involved in prizefighting) for a given number of rounds, with rest periods, with doctors standing by, is hardly a real fight.

No it's not, but it is much closer to a real fight than a point-sparring competition. The more rules tossed in, the less like a fight it becomes.

make the uninformed viewer judge that it has minimal or no rules.

There are less rules than a point-sparring competition or at TKD olympic event PERIOD.

In fact, many non-mma tournaments actually allow light to moderate strength groin attacks! This could be seen as more real..?

The original UFC's allowed full contact to the groin. It has been watered down since Royce's day.


Also, it is obvious that many of the 'tools' that are against the rules would be the most effective in a (truly) real encounter. Therefore, I see no way to possibly determine 'the style that is most effective in a real encounter' without being seriously unethical.

Sure there is, it's called observation. The less rules in a competition, the closer to a real fight it becomes. The system of martial art makes the bigger difference, otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning the UFC.


Right, and I am asking for evidence, not anecdotes, on this matter.

I'll not even respect your request, since you have made numerous claims without presenting evidence.


I mean, does a fight count as 'ending up on the ground' if I kick someone in the knee and they go down to the ground, or would that hypothetical count as the fight not going to the ground? If a person pushed me to the ground, and I got up and resumed, would that count as the fight going to the ground? Or does going to the ground mean that both fighters are on the ground fighting for the majority of the fight? Or.. ?

STFU you troll.

[voidx]

Posted by thaiboxerken
The system of martial art makes the bigger difference, otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning the UFC.
Or Gymkata :D.

[BTox]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I think this is a rather naive way of looking at self-defense. Do you carry a gun with you? Do your kids? Can you carry your gun in all situations? You can take your martial arts with you everywhere. It seems a waste of time, to me, to train in a martial art that you realize is useless for fighting or self-defense.

Naive? I'd say it is dependent on your environment. If my family and I lived or worked in an urban/high violent crime area I suppose self defense would be a higher priority. Fortunately, we do not, and never will. I'd say the biggest chance of me being assaulted is by some drunk at a pro football game I might go to in Philly once or twice a year.

Secondly, I reject the notion that TKD is "useless" for self-defense or fighting. Clearly it is not the optimal fighting method, as has been pointed out in open tournaments other styles are much more effective, however I never plan to compete in such tournaments so this point is irrelevant. Regarding self-defense, it seems obvious to me that a few years of training to kick and punch faster, more accurately and with greater power, training to evade and block punches and kicks from opponents, coupled with the resultant increase in aerobic conditioning, reflexes, speed of reaction and flexibility, gives us a significantly better chance at defending ourselves than without such training.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, it took a few hours for that fight to end. Kimura is much bigger as well. Gracie's art was the reason. If Helio trained in TKD and tried to fight Kimura in the same match, Helio would've lost within the first minute.


Kimura was much bigger as well. Yes, I agree! And stronger. And maybe trained more? I think it depended more on that, rather than Kimura being a judoka. It depended more on Kimura than judo. The part about if Helio training in TKD is pure speculation. I'm talking facts here.

By the way, I don't allow revisionist history. The fact is that Gracie lost 3 minutes into the second round (about 12 minutes total), not anywhere close to "a few hours" you somehow dreamed up. Some links to verify:

http://www.gracie-jiu-jitsu-videos.com/history3.htm
http://www.gracieacademy.com/generations/1951kimura.shtml

You might have been thinking of some other matches I think.


Sure there is, it's called observation. The less rules in a competition, the closer to a real fight it becomes. The system of martial art makes the bigger difference, otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning the UFC.



Observation is not a controlled scientific study, and mere observation does not determine fact. You should know that.

With your logic, one could say 'otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning judo tournaments'. What came first, the system of fighting or the venue? The system! The venue then gets built around it.


I'll not even respect your request, since you have made numerous claims without presenting evidence.


If you don't choose to back up your claims, that is your choice.


STFU you troll.

:cry:

You have the right to say you will not answer. I'll ask again, since it is certainly valid questioning if one wishes to see if it is a myth or not:

Does a fight count as 'ending up on the ground' if I kick someone in the knee and they go down to the ground, or would that hypothetical count as the fight not going to the ground? If a person pushed me to the ground, and I got up and resumed, would that count as the fight going to the ground? Or does going to the ground mean that both fighters are on the ground fighting for the majority of the fight? Or.. ?

[thaiboxerken]

Kimura was much bigger as well. Yes, I agree! And stronger. And maybe trained more? I think it depended more on that, rather than Kimura being a judoka. It depended more on Kimura than judo. The part about if Helio training in TKD is pure speculation. I'm talking facts here.

Not just speculation, but a conclusion based on observation. Has a TKD fighter won a UFC event? Why not?


You might have been thinking of some other matches I think.


Probably.


Observation is not a controlled scientific study, and mere observation does not determine fact. You should know that.

We don't have the luxury of scientific study in this subject, so observations is all we can rely on. Oh and observation does determine fact in many cases, take evolution as a prime example of that.


With your logic, one could say 'otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning judo tournaments'. What came first, the system of fighting or the venue? The system! The venue then gets built around it.

Not true, the mixed martial art tournaments are there so all non-weapon martial arts can compete. A ballet fighter is welcome to compete in MMA. TKD fighters have tried and failed.


Does a fight count as 'ending up on the ground' if I kick someone in the knee and they go down to the ground, or would that hypothetical count as the fight not going to the ground? If a person pushed me to the ground, and I got up and resumed, would that count as the fight going to the ground? Or does going to the ground mean that both fighters are on the ground fighting for the majority of the fight? Or.. ?

If one or both fighters are on the ground and still fighting, it counts as "taking it to the ground".

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Probably.


Yes, your statement: "False, it took a few hours for that fight to end.", was very wrong.

:teacher:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
[b]

Yes, your statement: "False, it took a few hours for that fight to end.", was very wrong.


Whatever.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Kimura was much bigger as well. Yes, I agree! And stronger. And maybe trained more? I think it depended more on that, rather than Kimura being a judoka. It depended more on Kimura than judo.


You are probably unaware of the fact that BJJ is an offshoot of judo, not of Japanese jujitsu as you might think.

Judo is the closest style there is to BJJ.

So the fact that a BJJ guy lost to a judo guy doesn't prove the point you want it to. If Helio'd lost to a TKD guy you'd have a point.


The part about if Helio training in TKD is pure speculation. I'm talking facts here.


You're making up facts liberally, or relaying things you've heard that aren't true. No offence, but it doesn't look like this is an area you actually know much about.

The TKD/Helio speculation is likely to be accurate, as far as that goes.


With your logic, one could say 'otherwise you would see fighters trained in ballet winning judo tournaments'. What came first, the system of fighting or the venue? The system! The venue then gets built around it.


This is an example of you making up facts. The UFC, the first open "no rules" tournament to get worldwide attention, led to the creation of modern MMA and not vice versa. Arguably it was created as a showcase for BJJ, but if that ever were the case it long ago ceased to be one because the pure BJJ fighters stopped winning.

The systems arose to win in the venue, not vice versa.

[Khonshu]

Dude(s), Kimura was a monster. From what I've seen of the videos, he toyed with Helio. Kimura toyed with just about everyone he competed against until old age slowed him down. Mas Oyama referred to Kimura as the only person he knew that trained harder than himself.

I don't think Kimura vs. anyone is much of a basis for saying "this is better than that". Kimura was just in a class by himself.

[Khonshu]

Dude(s), Kimura was a monster. From what I've seen of the videos, he toyed with Helio. Kimura toyed with just about everyone he competed against until old age slowed him down. Mas Oyama referred to Kimura as the only person he knew that trained harder than himself.

I don't think Kimura vs. anyone is much of a basis for saying "this is better than that". Kimura was just in a class by himself.

[Jaymz]

Phrost:

"And just to leave you with with a smile, here's a video of a guy with no training who was challenged by a TKD black belt. They play 'pitty-pat' for a bit, before the teen kicks the black belt square in the crotch, and ends the fight."

Just a little nitpicking: If they had both actually been trying to kick each other in the nuts, my guess is that the black belt would have succeeded before the no-belt.

Tae Kwon Do is in my opinion generelly lees useful than a lot of other martial arts but it certainly is better than none at all. Imagine if one of the kids in the other video could have produced a half way descent kick while they were holding on to each other.

And btw...cool website!

[voidx]

Originally posted by Jaymz
Just a little nitpicking: If they had both actually been trying to kick each other in the nuts, my guess is that the black belt would have succeeded before the no-belt.

While I believe this statement has some truth in it, its also wishful thinking in my opinion. Sometimes MA's influence a person to be far to technical, and so they miss these normal run of the mill fight ending opportunities because their searching for a spot to insert that new round-house kick they've been working on. Basically what I'm getting at is he didn't think to do it at all, and the other guy did, and that makes all the difference. Hypothetical what-ifs don't count for much when you're laying on the ground holding your crotch.

[Phrost]

Generally, I disagree with the argument that "It's not the style, it's the person".

It's both, and here's why:

1. All martial arts are not equal. If I teach a martial art that involves hopping up and down and occasionally throwing a chambered (underpowered biomechanically) kick to score a "point", and you train your students near to full contact striking that is geared towards a more realistic fight, your students will beat my students 9 times out of 10.

2. Some people have physical gifts above and beyond the average person. In fact, there's almost a physical 'genius' in the athletecism of certan individuals. These people, if trained in "my art" (above), might very well defeat those trained in a better art. But it's not a result of any balance between the arts, it's only due to the innate gifts that individual posesses.

3. If such an individual were to train in the more effective art (effectiveness being judged by its ability to defend against a wide variety of situations and opponent ability levels), he would be 200% of the fighter he is studying a 50% martial art.

There is nothing wrong with sport martial arts other than the implication that Point Fighting, Board Breaking, and the like translate into effective self defense. Boards don't hit back, as Bruce Lee said, and fights don't stop when you score a point.

We are lucky enough that certain individuals came together and created the original UFCs, as they dispelled a lot of the myths that the 80's Karate Kid explosion sought to entrench in the minds of the public. A skinny Brazillian with superior technique in a superior martial art destroyed Karate, Kickboxing, Ninjitsu, Boxing, Kung Fu, and general thuggery.

Since then, martial artists superior to this man have found and exploited flaws in his martial art. As such, the martial arts have evolved and continue to do so to this day.

Ask yourself this question:

If every Black Belt/Master of a martial art were required to fight in the UFC under its original rules, how many styles/McDojos would vanish out of thin air, and how quickly would ALL arts evolve into looking very similar because there are simply only so many ways that the body can move to effectively defend itself?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

So the fact that a BJJ guy lost to a judo guy doesn't prove the point you want it to. If Helio'd lost to a TKD guy you'd have a point.


I agree, BJJ is an offshoot. It is a combination of jiujustu, judo, and whatever else Maeda threw in.

If one of BJJ's main persons could not beat a non-BJJ practicioner, that is evidence of something I would think. Heck, they even brought in a coffin for Kimura. Oops!


The TKD/Helio speculation is likely to be accurate, as far as that goes.


That is your opinion. It does not change the fact that it is still speculation.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'd like to see any martial art as effective on the ground against multiple attackers. No BJJ guy is going to purposely go to the ground against multiple attackers.
That's the whole point of karate - fighting multiple attackers. That's what all your katas are - practice fights against multiple attackers.

The shute-fighting really does work - one on one. I'd be terrified of ever having to fight a Gracy Jujitsu guy. On the other hand, I can't actually remember the last time I had a street fight that wasn't one against two or more. (Not that I've had a statistically significant number of street fights).

If the bad guys came in singles (like they do in Ultimate Fighting challenges) then I'd be all for grappling. But when there are two or more of them, I don't want to be on the ground.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by BTox
We are doing it primarily as a family exercise activity, with the additional benefit of providing more discipline for our very active 7 year old.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. If all you want is an excersize program, and you know that all you are getting is an excersize program, then that's great. And yes, being physically fit will make you more confident, which will make you more competent.

One thing my first instructer taught me is that if you don't enjoy it, you won't stick with it, and sticking with it is the most important part. So you got to do what you can, even if it isn't the optimal choice.

The tough guys in my style punch through buckets of gravel. I, however, type for a living. Therefore I must trade the ability to dent the bottom of a five-gallon bucket full of gravel (by punching through the top) for the ability to type.

But I'm still 100 times tougher than I was when I started. I can't take Mike Tyson, but I can take 99% of the people on the planet. And martial arts taught me that if I try, I can perform almost any physical task adequately.

For the Tysons of the world I'll have to trust to my Glock. ;)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Phrost
By way of introduction, I am the co-founder and site director for Bullshido.com

Rocking site! I will make sure the people in my dojo see it.

[thaiboxerken]

That's the whole point of karate - fighting multiple attackers. That's what all your katas are - practice fights against multiple attackers.

I don't agree with those opinions, karate is no more effect against multiple opponents than any other art. Katas are merely a way to practice tecniques in a set pattern. Fighting multiple opponents shoudn't involve standing in the middle of a circle of opponents coming at you one at a time. Footwork is much more important, positioning yourself so that the badguys are constantly in each other's way. I don't see THAT in any Kata.

The shute-fighting really does work - one on one. I'd be terrified of ever having to fight a Gracy Jujitsu guy. On the other hand, I can't actually remember the last time I had a street fight that wasn't one against two or more. (Not that I've had a statistically significant number of street fights).

What about 2 Gracies?

If the bad guys came in singles (like they do in Ultimate Fighting challenges) then I'd be all for grappling. But when there are two or more of them, I don't want to be on the ground.

Grappling can be used against more than one person, obviously it won't be done on the ground though.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Yahzi

The tough guys in my style punch through buckets of gravel. I, however, type for a living. Therefore I must trade the ability to dent the bottom of a five-gallon bucket full of gravel (by punching through the top) for the ability to type.


I certainly hope they weren't taught or told to do this by your instructor. I would laugh my butt off if I actually saw people training like this, it's like a kung-fu movie! I have seen Thai boxers do that kind of conditioning on their shins but have yet to meet a Ajarn (instructor) advocate it. I laugh at those guys too.

[Khonshu]

Whoa!

Let me heartily discourage anyone from buying into the "hand conditioning" crap out there. What it really is is "hand damaging" - almost garaunteed to give you arthritis at an early age.

If you're training hard, your hands and feet will take enough abuse - no sense in intentionally trying to build up calcium deposits in your joints & tissues - there's more than a fair chance it will happen anyway. I've never done any of the "conditioning" and I can still feel it when the weather changes.

[Bikewer]

I agree completely- I'm 56 and have numerous little hurts, aches, and pains starting to show up from whanging things in my youth!

BTW, I just wanted to say how much I enjoy a nice bitter, rancorous Martial Arts dispute....

Hehe- used to love those "letters to the editor" wars in Black Belt.

"I am the true student of Wang Wung Woo, and only I have the true secret knowledge!"

"No! Wang Wung Woo imparted the REAL true secret knowledge to me while he was on his deathbed, and you were in Taipan...."



I havn't watched any of the UFC- style matches in years, but I recall a few where they would build up one of the participants in the preview; "So-and-so has 13 black belts, 14 brown belts, a yellow sash, and trains 23 hours a day in 5 different styles...."

Then the guy would get into the ring with some other hulk and all that training would go out the window, and he'd flail around like a 10-year old girl in a school-yard fight.

Just my opinion; One can argue endlessly over which style is better than the others, structurally or otherwise...but in the end it usually comes down to the individual.
A lot of "martial arts" have lost a great deal of thier combat utility in pursuit of other things, from competition to personal enrichment. As example, Kyudo. Once a vital warfare technique, now essentially "meditation with a bow and arrow."

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Rocking site! I will make sure the people in my dojo see it.

Thanks!

Good discussion, by the way.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Bikewer

Just my opinion; One can argue endlessly over which style is better than the others, structurally or otherwise...but in the end it usually comes down to the individual.


I don't think reality supports that position, otherwise we'd see ballet dancers winning UFC's, right? It's really come down to having a good mix of striking and grappling along with training... talent and size does make a difference, but technique/system can make up the difference. I would hardly consider Royce Gracie athletic or big, but his martial art won the first three UFC's.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

If one of BJJ's main persons could not beat a non-BJJ practicioner, that is evidence of something I would think. Heck, they even brought in a coffin for Kimura. Oops!

I'm not sure what you think it's evidence of.

Evidence that BJJ does not make you Superman? I don't think anyone has claimed that it does. If you look on the net you can find lots of instances where BJJ fighters have lost matches.

As I have said before, when a McDojo clown defeats a pro BJJ or MMA fighter then you'll have a point.

[Khonshu]

I'll stick with what I said earlier - Helio/Kimura isn't much of a basis to say "this is better than that" - Kimura destroyed everyone. I mean everyone. It's like saying, "he must not be a good Greco-Roman wrestler - he lost to Karelin 3 times!".

Not to mention that BJJ is Judo based, so you're kind of comparing apples to apples stylewise, anyway.

But the video I've seen, admittedly not the full match, Kimura controlled Helio with relative ease. He threw him, passed his guard like a hot knife through butter, and eventually broke Helio's arm.

Again, no disrespect to Helio - he was fighting the Judo equivalent of Godzilla. And he never quit.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
As I have said before, when a McDojo clown defeats a pro BJJ or MMA fighter then you'll have a point.

Then I guess your position is non-falsifiable, considering 'McDojo' status is an opinion. Unless of course, you have objective criteria for that status.

[ImpyTimpy]

I think McDojo status is far more then an opinion. The criteria seems to be self evident:

- School that does only no-contact or point sparring.
- School that tells you you'll need to get to 5th dan black belt to learn it's super super secrets until then you must practise this kata until it's perfect.
- School that doesn't have properly taught people teaching others how to defend yourself.
- School that tells you you'll be able to fight off multiple attackers after a few lessons.
- School that never teaches you to hit/throw things (not even boards/punching bags/dummies), simply teaches you the "theory" behind the strikes/throws.

I mean, that is pretty much common sense and objective criteria which tells someone whether or not the school is a McDojo.
Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Then I guess your position is non-falsifiable, considering 'McDojo' status is an opinion. Unless of course, you have objective criteria for that status.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I don't agree with those opinions, karate is no more effect against multiple opponents than any other art. Katas are merely a way to practice tecniques in a set pattern. Fighting multiple opponents shoudn't involve standing in the middle of a circle of opponents coming at you one at a time. Footwork is much more important, positioning yourself so that the badguys are constantly in each other's way. I don't see THAT in any Kata.

--snipped--

I might even go further and say Katas tend to be fairly useless in my opinion - even for training techniques. You can't learn the technique properly by just practising the "theory" behind it. You need a punching bag or (better still) a living, breathing resisting person.

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed on the Katas, Impy. I have never learned a Kata in my 8 years of martial arts because of this. :)

[Bikewer]

That was one of Bruce Lee's main points, of course. He felt that repetitive practice predisposed you to react in certain ways, which might not be the best thing in a fluid, dynamic combat situation.

Of course, that remains an enormous bone of contention. I like to think of it as an analogy to musical training. The "classical" method is to learn scales, arpeggios, chord stucture, and so forth, and to do endless "excercises" with the end result of being able to sight-read and play any sheet music. However, many students trained in this manner become "slaves to the sheet music", and are unable to improvise.

Self-trained musicians may be able to improvise quite well, but have little knowledge of structure and may develop bad habits that limit thier technique.
Bottom line, I would think, is that some folks are naturally creative, regardless of training.
Some folks do well in combat because they are capable of staying cool and analytical.

Another thing that's become apparent over the years (and one which we stress in law enforcement) is that fine motor control tends to vanish under stress. That's why so many "defensive tactics" techniques being taught now emphasize simple, gross body movements, directed at relatively easy-to-hit targets. The fellow who can stay collected enough in actual combat to pull off complex techniques is very rare.

[BTox]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I think McDojo status is far more then an opinion. The criteria seems to be self evident:

- School that does only no-contact or point sparring.
- School that tells you you'll need to get to 5th dan black belt to learn it's super super secrets until then you must practise this kata until it's perfect.
- School that doesn't have properly taught people teaching others how to defend yourself.
- School that tells you you'll be able to fight off multiple attackers after a few lessons.
- School that never teaches you to hit/throw things (not even boards/punching bags/dummies), simply teaches you the "theory" behind the strikes/throws.

I mean, that is pretty much common sense and objective criteria which tells someone whether or not the school is a McDojo.


Now I'm confused to what a "McDojo" is. I got the impression from this thread it applied to all U.S. TKD schools. At least in ours we do full contact sparring free fighting (with pads of course), and we go timed rounds, usually 2-3 minutes, without stopping for points. Occasionally we do the same with 2 against 1. Also spend alot of time striking and kicking held target pads at full speed.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I think McDojo status is far more then an opinion. The criteria seems to be self evident:

- School that does only no-contact or point sparring.
- School that tells you you'll need to get to 5th dan black belt to learn it's super super secrets until then you must practise this kata until it's perfect.
- School that doesn't have properly taught people teaching others how to defend yourself.
- School that tells you you'll be able to fight off multiple attackers after a few lessons.
- School that never teaches you to hit/throw things (not even boards/punching bags/dummies), simply teaches you the "theory" behind the strikes/throws.


The criteria is what you came up with, no?

[Jaymz]

voidx:
"While I believe this statement has some truth in it, its also wishful thinking in my opinion. Sometimes MA's influence a person to be far to technical, and so they miss these normal run of the mill fight ending opportunities because their searching for a spot to insert that new round-house kick they've been working on. Basically what I'm getting at is he didn't think to do it at all, and the other guy did, and that makes all the difference. Hypothetical what-ifs don't count for much when you're laying on the ground holding your crotch."

Personally I don't even think that the no-belt was trying to kick the black belt in the crotch. It looks to me like an attempted round house kick or front kick gone wrong. My point is that I doubt this was a fight without rules - and that is why the black belt "didn't think to do it at all".

That said I agree with you that a sport martial artist can become preconditioned to follow the rules of his sport even in a real fight. Kickboxers, Thaiboxers, boxers and several other martial artists tend to leave the crotch way to open when during an attack, because we know that our usual opponents are not allowed to kick us there.

However my choice of martial arts (kickboxing) is not solely based on what will be the best possible self defence. In order to do my best in training I need the competition, and I am not willing to get into a crotch kicking and eye gouging competition. Therefore I have chosen a sport that eliminates those elements.

[T'ai Chi]

Martial artists are well aware that real fights are not like sparring, or the UFC for that matter.

[Jaymz]

T'ai Chi:

I agree. However being aware that there is a difference is not necessarily the same as being able to adapt to a fight without rules.

An example could be that blocking punches works like a charm for me......as long as both my opponent and I am wearing boxing gloves. If I ever get into a real fight were an attacker throws several punches at me, I might as a reflex try to block the punches instead of avoiding them.

"You fight like you train" - don't remember who said it, but I believe it has some truth to it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Martial artists are well aware that real fights are not like sparring, or the UFC for that matter.

Yes, but you don't train for a real fight by point-sparring. UFC type of training and competitions go a long ways in learning how to fight. Of course, scenario training and drilling the "dirty" tactics needs to be implemented as well.

One doesn't learn how to play soccer by only punting the ball. It's the drills along with scrimmaging that prepares a team for the actual game.

In martial arts, there are 4 things that contribute to learning how to fight. Drills, technique, sparring and experience. UFC type of competitions lie somewhere in between sparring and experience.

[thaiboxerken]

An example could be that blocking punches works like a charm for me......as long as both my opponent and I am wearing boxing gloves. If I ever get into a real fight were an attacker throws several punches at me, I might as a reflex try to block the punches instead of avoiding them.

Good boxers and kickboxers try to avoid punches and kicks instead of blocking them. Blocks are generally the last line of defense. The parry/pak is my preferred defense for punches, along with the slip.

Oh, and good Thai boxers understand the groin is a good target for their attackers.. it's a bait. It's simple enough to move the knee over to hurt the attackers foot if he attacks the groin. Then again, those that only train in the sport of Muay Thai might not.

[Jaymz]

Thaiboxerken:
Yes, blocks are the last line of defence. This however does not change the point I was trying to make: That boxers (also good boxers) often use their gloves to block punches.

You have a good point about thaiboxers and groin attacks. Any martial art that uses low kicks will condition the practitioner to use shin blocks against kicks to the crotch.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Jaymz
Personally I don't even think that the no-belt was trying to kick the black belt in the crotch. It looks to me like an attempted round house kick or front kick gone wrong. My point is that I doubt this was a fight without rules - and that is why the black belt "didn't think to do it at all".
I see what your getting at there, but its hard to tell one way or the other what rules may or may not have been in place.

That said I agree with you that a sport martial artist can become preconditioned to follow the rules of his sport even in a real fight. Kickboxers, Thaiboxers, boxers and several other martial artists tend to leave the crotch way to open when during an attack, because we know that our usual opponents are not allowed to kick us there.
Yes the crotch area is one often forgotten. Read any of the old historical european grappling manuals and the crotch and the belt or seat of the pants were favorite spots, kick punch grab the crotch was used in many techniques. Gives one some...unique...leverage.

However my choice of martial arts (kickboxing) is not solely based on what will be the best possible self defence. In order to do my best in training I need the competition, and I am not willing to get into a crotch kicking and eye gouging competition. Therefore I have chosen a sport that eliminates those elements.
That's fine, so long as you acknowledge, and realize your leaving that out. I find in these discussions people often point out the flaws in others styles while ignoring those in their own. I'm not saying you've done this, but its a common occurance. No system is perfect, no style is perfect, there is never any guarantee of success in a fight. You could train for years, and in one particular fight, some pigeon-toed drunk slack jaw could somehow do something completely unexpected and slip through your guard and drop you. Its less likely if you've trained well and hard, but its always possible. This is a concept I find many people miss with martial arts, and again the medieval masters understood it implicitly. You mustn't fear the fight persay, but you must always be wary of it, because you never know what will happen. When they fought with swords and spears and other weapons the lesson was simply. If your afraid, and you hesitate, and you do not commit to your attacks, if you do not control the encounter...you die. And even if you do, sometimes you die anyways, because hell, sometimes stuff just doesn't go your way. I would never ever expect a practioner to be able to beat anyone and everyone all the time. Its an impossibility I'm sorry, and a loss here and there is not an indication of a useless art whatsoever.

[Bikewer]

Reminds me...Back in the days of the PKA (professional Karate Assoc.) there were some high-class fighters running around.

Matches had a number of good features, including a minimum number of above-the-waist kicks. Pretty much kick-boxing in it's infancy. Guys like Jean-Yves Therriault, Brad Hefton, Joe Lewis, among others.

Anyway, (can't remember names) one guy showed up who was very wild and unconventional. Used to yell and scream, throw himself all over the ring, use wild techniques, and so forth. Won several victories right off the bat. Then they put him in with a fighter who obviously decided to ignore all the shenannigans; the guy just stuck to basics and got out of the way when the dude was trying his "crazy" act. 2nd round knockout, as I recall.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I might even go further and say Katas tend to be fairly useless in my opinion - even for training techniques. You can't learn the technique properly by just practising the "theory" behind it. You need a punching bag or (better still) a living, breathing resisting person. [/B]
Ah! Heresy! Heretic!

:D

The role of Kata is not actually to teach technique. It is to discipline the mind, teach kinesthetics, and give the instructor a diagnostic tool. So I think it is important, but I agree it is not a replacement for a punching bag.

Just as point fighting can be valuable (in teaching distancing and timing), but is not a replacement for gloves.

A good dojo uses many methods.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I might even go further and say Katas tend to be fairly useless in my opinion - even for training techniques. You can't learn the technique properly by just practising the "theory" behind it. You need a punching bag or (better still) a living, breathing resisting person. [/B]
Ah! Heresy! Heretic!

:D

The role of Kata is not actually to teach technique. It is to discipline the mind, teach kinesthetics, and give the instructor a diagnostic tool. So I think it is important, but I agree it is not a replacement for a punching bag.

Just as point fighting can be valuable (in teaching distancing and timing), but is not a replacement for gloves.

A good dojo uses many methods.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Yahzi

...

A good dojo uses many methods.
Including repetition?

[ImpyTimpy]

I wouldn't say your school is a full blown McDojo as long as it doesn't make claims that what it teaches prepares you for proper out of school fighting (no pads). :) While your style might not be the most effective judging from what you said your school can't be labelled a McDojo - unless they simply give out belts for the right price ;)

Originally posted by BTox


Now I'm confused to what a "McDojo" is. I got the impression from this thread it applied to all U.S. TKD schools. At least in ours we do full contact sparring free fighting (with pads of course), and we go timed rounds, usually 2-3 minutes, without stopping for points. Occasionally we do the same with 2 against 1. Also spend alot of time striking and kicking held target pads at full speed.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sort of. It's more based on common sense mixed with critical thinking and what you learn when visiting sites like Bullshido...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The criteria is what you came up with, no?

[ImpyTimpy]

I couldn't disagree more. I believe the original idea behind the katas was to give students a learning tool and a way to pass on proper techniques (those weird movemements with the hands for example were meant to be a neck crank :p). Overtime it seems Katas turned into nothing more then an excuse to mystify the martial art the instructor was teaching, allowing him or her to criticise the student for not standing upright correctly or not having the right distance between the feet. Combat is fluid, Kata is fixed... While it may have been valuable as a tool to pass on knowledge (I don't think peasants knew how to write things down) it is not the same today.

Originally posted by Yahzi

Ah! Heresy! Heretic!

:D

The role of Kata is not actually to teach technique. It is to discipline the mind, teach kinesthetics, and give the instructor a diagnostic tool. So I think it is important, but I agree it is not a replacement for a punching bag.

Just as point fighting can be valuable (in teaching distancing and timing), but is not a replacement for gloves.

A good dojo uses many methods.

[T'ai Chi]

I find forms useful. In several styles, there is only one (or a few) forms, so the form encapsulates a very large part of the styles' 'moves'.

Second, forms are a way to 'do the moves' in a controlled, relaxed, environment. If a practicioner can't get them right there, they won't have any chance in sparring or in any more stressful encounters.

Third, forms force the student to practice a variety of techniques. Most students, when sparring, tend to stick to their favorite moves.

Fourth, it is tradition. It is a way to keep a style preserved better than any other way so far, which is why the vast majority of the martial arts styles practice them.

[T'ai Chi]

So do people seriously think that practicing punches, kicks, throws, and weapons, even in a point system environment, would not help in a 'street' situation??
(ie. defending yourself from muggers, drunks, attackers, etc.)

[ImpyTimpy]

We need to look at what is being practiced. Basically if by point system, we're learning to keep our arms around our sides then no, it won't help much. You're more likely to get seriously hurt then if you instinctively protected your head from getting whacked.

If we're only practising punches and kicks into thin air, we'll have no way of judging how far the punch or kick needs to be in order to connect with maximum force, let alone what will happen after the kick or punch connects (loss of balance for the kicker probably).

If we're practising throws on a partner that is simply flopping down on the ground, what will happen if we try it on a resisting attacker?

If you're practising knife defenses without using something as a 'knife' how do you know that you won't

a) Get stabbed before you even get near executing any move (I'll give an example of this in a second)
b) Won't freeze up in fear
c) Won't slice your wrists or hands or whatever trying to do your fancy move.

In the old school I trained in our instructor decided to give us a knife demonstration. We got shown a very simple disarm first and then got to try it on each other. Seemed like it was pretty easy until he introduced a training implement... It was just a thick long stick. How laughable some of you might think but the difference was amazing... First of all, you got told you have to actually stab the person properly. Now that alone showed us all how easy it was to get run through even when you knew the move was coming. If that wasn't enough we actually discovered that the "knife" would end up slicing our arms... What was the lesson from that? If you see a knife, run or pull your own out. If you must fight, you at least know what to excpet. If you notice the guy is weapons trained (you can tell by the way they handle the blade) you run even faster or scale a wall if you have to :)

So proper training will prepare you for a fight but improper training might actually get you killed.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So do people seriously think that practicing punches, kicks, throws, and weapons, even in a point system environment, would not help in a 'street' situation??
(ie. defending yourself from muggers, drunks, attackers, etc.)

[thaiboxerken]

The role of Kata is not actually to teach technique. It is to discipline the mind, teach kinesthetics, and give the instructor a diagnostic tool. So I think it is important, but I agree it is not a replacement for a punching bag.

Discipline comes through hard work.. kata is not hard work, just brute memorization. There are better drills to do what you claim kata's do.

Just as point fighting can be valuable (in teaching distancing and timing), but is not a replacement for gloves.

Why use such a tool if other tools are better for achieving the same effect? Nope, point fighting is crap.

[thaiboxerken]

I find forms useful. In several styles, there is only one (or a few) forms, so the form encapsulates a very large part of the styles' 'moves'.

This is rather silly, all martial arts have different "moves", but not all martial arts have Katas.

Second, forms are a way to 'do the moves' in a controlled, relaxed, environment. If a practicioner can't get them right there, they won't have any chance in sparring or in any more stressful encounters.

It gives a false sense of security that falls apart with stress. I remember seeing the first UFC's... many of the competitors had great kata technique.. but their fighting technique looked nothing like it.


Third, forms force the student to practice a variety of techniques. Most students, when sparring, tend to stick to their favorite moves.

Variety is not key to winning, it's the basics that count.

Fourth, it is tradition. It is a way to keep a style preserved better than any other way so far, which is why the vast majority of the martial arts styles practice them.

Tradition has no value to me. They are merely chains that stunt growth.


So do people seriously think that practicing punches, kicks, throws, and weapons, even in a point system environment, would not help in a 'street' situation??
(ie. defending yourself from muggers, drunks, attackers, etc.)

I think point-sparring will get a person killed in a real fight. They don't punch for full contact in point sparring and they don't take into account counter-attacks. Most people don't quit after getting hit semi-contact.

Point sparring is useless.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is rather silly, all martial arts have different "moves", but not all martial arts have Katas.


That's silly for thinking it is silly! Forms are a type of moving book that students can learn from. The fact is that the vast majority of martial arts have forms.


I remember seeing the first UFC's... many of the competitors had great kata technique.. but their fighting technique looked nothing like it.


Can you name a minimum of 3 specific people where your remembering applied?


Variety is not key to winning, it's the basics that count.


Right, but which basic move will be used in a real encounter? You must practice all the basics. If you stick with your favorite downward block, you might be schooled in a situation where your attacker doesn't let you use it.


Tradition has no value to me. They are merely chains that stunt growth.


Without tradition, you wouldn't have been exposed to your martial art daniel-san. There is TONS of tradition in Muay Thai, and some in BJJ. Do you disagree? Apparently tradition had extreme value to the originators of the martial arts.


I think point-sparring will get a person killed in a real fight. They don't punch for full contact in point sparring and they don't take into account counter-attacks. Most people don't quit after getting hit semi-contact.

Point sparring is useless.

As I've said, most martial artists are WELL aware that point fighting is not a real encounter. In fact, from observing the more aggressive martial artists in tournaments, it is all you can do to keep them from pummeling each other with excessive contact! The fact that sane people don't wish to knock each other unconscious as part of training, in no way negates point sparring.

Being able to defend yourself from a mugger/drunk/etc., is quite different than wanting to be able to successfully attack another trained martial artist.

[thaiboxerken]

That's silly for thinking it is silly! Forms are a type of moving book that students can learn from. The fact is that the vast majority of martial arts have forms.


Yes, many martial arts have forms, the question is... do they really add anything of value to training? I think not.


Can you name a minimum of 3 specific people where your remembering applied?

Nope, losers are forgotten fast.

Right, but which basic move will be used in a real encounter? You must practice all the basics. If you stick with your favorite downward block, you might be schooled in a situation where your attacker doesn't let you use it.

Downward block.... now I realize that I'm talking to a McDojo student.


Without tradition, you wouldn't have been exposed to your martial art daniel-san. There is TONS of tradition in Muay Thai, and some in BJJ. Do you disagree? Apparently tradition had extreme value to the originators of the martial arts.

Tradition has no value to me, BJJ and Muay Thai dominate because they work.. not because of tradition.


As I've said, most martial artists are WELL aware that point fighting is not a real encounter. In fact, from observing the more aggressive martial artists in tournaments, it is all you can do to keep them from pummeling each other with excessive contact! The fact that sane people don't wish to knock each other unconscious as part of training, in no way negates point sparring.

The fact that point sparring adds no value to training does, though.


Being able to defend yourself from a mugger/drunk/etc., is quite different than wanting to be able to successfully attack another trained martial artist.

Yes, you keep saying this. It only indicates to me that you aren't preparing yourself against the possibility of fighting other martial artists.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Nope, losers are forgotten fast.


So, you can't name any?? I'd like to know some, that way I could do some research and see if they had a 'great kata technique' as you stated you remembered 'many competitors' had.


Downward block.... now I realize that I'm talking to a McDojo student.


And using the sidestep technique, you don't address the question or the point. Stick to the points. Downward block, a low block, a deflect, whatever you want to call it. The undenaible fact is that students tend to focus on their favorites, much like blacktop basketball players tend to use their favorite fake-outs when they drive down the lane.


Tradition has no value to me, BJJ and Muay Thai dominate because they work.. not because of tradition.


They might dominate, but probably until a grand tournament is set up where people from all martial arts compete against others with absolutely no rules at all, all we can say is that they dominate in tournaments/challenges that are designed around BJJ and Muay Thai. More popular does not mean more effective.

But, the fact that those martial arts are even here is partly because of tradition. The 'chain' that 'stunted growth' actually helped lead to the growth, it helped lead to the martial art as it is today. Some examples of tradition in Muay Thai are Wai Kru, and Ram Muay, but there are many others.


Yes, you keep saying this. It only indicates to me that you aren't preparing yourself against the possibility of fighting other martial artists.

And you are training to primarily fight other martial artists? I can definitely say that I am not. That is not practical, nor real. Statistically, the average person you could get in a fight to on 'the street' is not another trained martial artist, and not one who would be interested in attacking someone first.

Could you list some examples of one martial artist fighting another on 'the street'? I doubt that is common place at all, and is therefore unrealistic to train primarily for that situation in my opinion. I'd rather train against what is out there, not on what is out there in a ring or another simulated setting.

[thaiboxerken]

So, you can't name any?? I'd like to know some, that way I could do some research and see if they had a 'great kata technique' as you stated you remembered 'many competitors' had.

Shut up. Their "tale of the tape" segments showed them doing kata, high kicks and simulated multiple opponent attacks. All of their techniques went out the door when facing a real opponent.


The undenaible fact is that students tend to focus on their favorites, much like blacktop basketball players tend to use their favorite fake-outs when they drive down the lane.

And there is nothing wrong with that.


They might dominate, but probably until a grand tournament is set up where people from all martial arts compete against others with absolutely no rules at all

Like the first 3 UFC's....

all we can say is that they dominate in tournaments/challenges that are designed around BJJ and Muay Thai. More popular does not mean more effective.

Their popularity comes from the effectiveness in and out of the ring.

But, the fact that those martial arts are even here is partly because of tradition.

BS. Tradition would've kept those martial arts in their originating countries.

The 'chain' that 'stunted growth' actually helped lead to the growth, it helped lead to the martial art as it is today. Some examples of tradition in Muay Thai are Wai Kru, and Ram Muay, but there are many others.

Wai Kru, Ram Muay and other "traditions" can be passed, but are unnecessary for the martial art. I do not teach Wai Kru or Ram Muay unless asked by a student.

And you are training to primarily fight other martial artists? I can definitely say that I am not. That is not practical, nor real. Statistically, the average person you could get in a fight to on 'the street' is not another trained martial artist, and not one who would be interested in attacking someone first.

According to what statistics? I guess you are playing odds of never having to fight another martial artist. I'll train for worst-case scenarios. Even an experienced "street fighter" is akin to a martial artist. I guess you'll just train for fights against 8 year old school-girls.

Could you list some examples of one martial artist fighting another on 'the street'?

Yes, I've been there to see it personally. A place in Virginia Beach had martial artists that picked fights with most people. Some of my buddies happened to be there. They lost.

I doubt that is common place at all, and is therefore unrealistic to train primarily for that situation in my opinion. I'd rather train against what is out there, not on what is out there in a ring or another simulated setting.

That's your choice. I'll stick with my training for the worst situations. I don't ever expect to be in a knife fight, stick fight or a fight against martial artists in "the street" but I still train, just in-case. Martial art training is becoming more commonplace in the USA, those "statistics" you talk about are dynamic. I'll figure that you'll be one to just get your butt kicked by anyone with fighting experience.

[Garrette]

TBK:

I have to disagree with you on the value of katas or forms.

The only ones I've learned are from jujitsu, where they are called preceptors. There aren't that many total (I think only 7 or 8, but I'm not sure), and I only learned three of them. The first, counter-intuitively, is the longest and most involved.

My friend/instructor said it was really a matter of muscle memory; in the event of a tussle, you might find yourself in a position analagous to a step in the preceptor, and voila! you're home free.

It's worked for me on several occasions (contrary to what it may sound, I don't get in bunches of fights per se; I set up, manage, and train security departments, specializing in healthcare, including psychiatric care; performing non-injurious restraint on combative patients and distraught parents of injured children and drunks in the ER and violent non-custodial parents involved in custody disputes and ..... and .... and ...)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Shut up. Their "tale of the tape" segments showed them doing kata, high kicks and simulated multiple opponent attacks. All of their techniques went out the door when facing a real opponent.


LOL. Shut up, moi? No thanks! I simply asked for some specific names, and apparently there are none, still. See, without specific names for me to research to see if they practiced forms, it is just your testimony, which while I have no reason to disbelieve it, it is not evidence.


Like the first 3 UFC's....


The first 3 UFC's had rules. No biting, no eye gouging, for sure, and I believe there was also no fish hooking, and no groin strikes.- things that are probably quite useful to do in a real fight. They also took place in a nice cozy environment (compared to 'the street'). Now there are even more rules. It is also a fact that among the first participants, almost none of them were well known in the martial arts world. Many of them completely mismatched with their opponents. I'd say that that makes for entertaining pay per viewing. :)

You don't find it interesting that UFC was helped conceived by Rorian Gracie and that Royce Gracie was one of the first participants? It seems to me, from this, that UFC and similar MMA thigs are built around BJJ. But that's just my opinion. It would be more telling, about the effectiveness of BJJ to me, if a Gracie could dominate in Judo or other tournaments, not one that they played a key part in conceiving.


Wai Kru, Ram Muay and other "traditions" can be passed, but are unnecessary for the martial art. I do not teach Wai Kru or Ram Muay unless asked by a student.


The Thai seem to disagree as Wai Kru, Ram Muay, and others are practiced quite] often. I do agree that the USA export of Muay Thai tends to not practice these rituals though.


I guess you are playing odds of never having to fight another martial artist. I'll train for worst-case scenarios. Even an experienced "street fighter" is akin to a martial artist. I guess you'll just train for fights against 8 year old school-girls.


I'm playing realistic odds in that case, as it is highly doubtful that most fights gotten into are with other martial artists. And you aren't really training for worst case scenarios if you aren't practicing to fight hand to hand against the terrorists!


Yes, I've been there to see it personally. A place in Virginia Beach had martial artists that picked fights with most people. Some of my buddies happened to be there. They lost.


Again, that is testimony. Also, a single place where martial arts thugs pick fights isn't common. It is, in fact, way out of the ordinary.

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. Shut up, moi? No thanks! I simply asked for some specific names, and apparently there are none, still. See, without specific names for me to research to see if they practiced forms, it is just your testimony, which while I have no reason to disbelieve it, it is not evidence.

Your choice, maybe you should've watched the UFC.

The first 3 UFC's had rules. No biting, no eye gouging, for sure, and I believe there was also no fish hooking, and no groin strikes.- things that are probably quite useful to do in a real fight.

Nope, just no biting or eye-gouging.

They also took place in a nice cozy environment (compared to 'the street'). Now there are even more rules.

Fights have to take place somewhere, plus it is a spectator event so the octagon is a good choice. Of course, it's not a real "street fight" and no one is saying that it is. What is being said is that it's the closest competition to unarmed streetfighting there is.

It is also a fact that among the first participants, almost none of them were well known in the martial arts world. Many of them completely mismatched with their opponents. I'd say that that makes for entertaining pay per viewing. :)

I never heard of the Gracies until the UFC's either. The "martial arts" world is made up of many small factions. You might not have heard of some of my instructors, but they are "big" in my part of the martial arts world. These guys in the UFC's touted huge "ranks" and grandmastery of their systems.

You don't find it interesting that UFC was helped conceived by Rorian Gracie and that Royce Gracie was one of the first participants? It seems to me, from this, that UFC and similar MMA thigs are built around BJJ.

If so, the rules would be like a BJJ tournament. They are not.

But that's just my opinion.

And it's wrong.

It would be more telling, about the effectiveness of BJJ to me, if a Gracie could dominate in Judo or other tournaments, not one that they played a key part in conceiving.

Judo players are good at Judo tournaments, where the rules are restricted. The UFC rules are much less restrictive.

The Thai seem to disagree as Wai Kru, Ram Muay, and others are practiced quite] often. I do agree that the USA export of Muay Thai tends to not practice these rituals though.

It's the Thai choice to keep their traditions, but the traditions do not make their martial art any more or less effective. I could care less for tradition.

I'm playing realistic odds in that case, as it is highly doubtful that most fights gotten into are with other martial artists. And you aren't really training for worst case scenarios if you aren't practicing to fight hand to hand against the terrorists!

Who said I am not?

Again, that is testimony. Also, a single place where martial arts thugs pick fights isn't common. It is, in fact, way out of the ordinary.

It's uncommon, but not such bad odds as you'd like to think. You can train to fight the unprepared, that's your choice. You can train to fight those unskilled, but I'll prepare to fight those that do have skill.. just in-case.

[Wudang]

May I ramble? Thank you.
Fred Ettish - Matsamura-ryu shorin-i karate (from memory) - quite high rank (3-5 dan??). His style flew apart when he took the first punch in the face. The guy had bottle though and took quite a beating before he threw the towel in. A guy who trained with him, Ryan Parker, was at that time visiting people from rec.martial-arts and showing his kiko training where he'd take full power kicks to the groin, throat shots etc. I didn't see Ryan in UFC but he said himself that he "sucked" - lost it on the day.
Very very few are prepared to really train in martial arts. They mess around for a couple of hours a week. You need to train what the chinese call "kung" practically every day - the basic power you need to make your techniques work. I've met people who said they knew hung kuen because they'd learned a couple of forms but had never done the conditioning drills that would let them use the techniques - very hard blocks - and I could tell this as they whimpered when we clashed arms. "Forms" are not traditional, forms can be part of a traditional training regime.
Muay thai and BJJ guys train hard, they condition well and they can take a smack without losing it. Tai chi people tend to hold up Yang Lu Can as an example of how great tai chi is. Except that it's documented that he trained his kids so hard that one tried to commit suicide and one tried to run away from home.
And so much rubbish is talked about street fighters. A lot of martial arts schools seem to think that these guys are going to attack with "John Wayne bar brawl haymakers" (JWBBHs) all the time. They're not. Try reading something like "Watch my back: a bouncers story".
A quote from rec.m-a from years back "we do not rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training".

[Khonshu]

Worthless traditional martial arts in action...

Martial arts expert kills two raiders
Philip Willan in Rome Monday October 13, 2003 The Guardian

A Chinese martial arts expert was in custody yesterday after turning the tables on four burglars armed with knives, killing two of them and seriously wounding a third. The 28-year-old man, known as "the doctor" for his practice of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, managed to seize one of the two knives carried by his assailants and saw off the entire group with the ferocity of his reaction.

Magistrates in the central Italian town of Empoli are now seeking to establish whether his self-defence constituted an excessive use of force.

The butchery, worthy of a Quentin Tarantino film, began shortly before midnight on Friday when the four men knocked at the apartment of a Chinese hairdresser in the centre of Empoli.

The hairdresser, her assistant and "the doctor", who operated from the same premises, were reportedly overpowered and tied up before the group, all thought to be in their 20s and 30s, ransacked the apartment.

Disappointed by their meagre booty, the attackers allegedly threatened to rape the two women unless they told them where the rest of their money was hidden.

At this point the doctor managed to free himself, seize a knife from one of the aggressors and deliver a series of lethal stab wounds.

Investigators found the body of one man, who had been stabbed in the heart, sprawled on the staircase and another man bleeding to death in the street from a wound to his leg. A third man is recovering in hospital from a punctured lung.

The doctor was found crouching in the entrance to the building with cuts to his shoulder, face and hands.

Investigators are trying to determine whether he inflicted the injuries while defending himself inside the apartment, or hunted down the burglars after they had fled.

[Kevin_Lowe]

In Australia, or at least in Brisbane, my experience has been that virtually every male of my age (20s) has done at least some MA at some point.

Usually it was six months at a McDojo, sure. But they had trained.

The people who got into fights regularly all trained.

Maybe it's different in the USA. But I don't see the point of "training" to deal with an attacker who will come at me with looping haymakers, because I honestly think I'm more likely to have to deal with some kind of MAist.

This, among other reasons, is why I'm doing BJJ at the moment.

[JSFolk]

Originally posted by Khonshu
Worthless traditional martial arts in action...

The 28-year-old man, known as "the doctor" for his practice of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, managed to seize one of the two knives carried by his assailants and saw off the entire group with the ferocity of his reaction.


See??! I told you guys! Accupuncture DOES work.

Just get rid of those silly little needles.....


:D

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks for posting that Khonshu! It just goes to show that in a real encounter, in a real environment, with real people, anything goes, and the traditional martial artist obviosuly has as much of a chance as a mixed martial artist.

[voidx]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Thanks for posting that Khonshu! It just goes to show that in a real encounter, in a real environment, with real people, anything goes, and the traditional martial artist obviosuly has as much of a chance as a mixed martial artist.
It goes to show that a persons ability to fight in a real situation are based on both technique, and the mindset to stay calm and execute what you've learned. The best art in the world is useless if you freeze or misuse it when the critical real-world fight comes upon you. Some might claim that McDojo's as they are defined here (as a dojo not using a variety of methods including sparring to teach proper technique) might moreso shield their students from developing the proper mindset to fight in a real situation than other arts and styles, and there might be something to that. But someone practicing in BJJ or the other forms mentioned here, might also freeze up this way and not perform when the time comes. The mentality of a fighter is a hard thing to gauge, impossible really, until its too late. Either you rise to the occasion and fight to the best of your ability, or you stumble and forget everything and more than likely pay the price for it.

[BobM]

With so much testerone in here, I'm surprised you aren't all bald.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BobM
With so much testerone in here, I'm surprised you aren't all bald.

LOL

[ImpyTimpy]

Hey Kevin, where's a good BJJ school in Brisbane? I'm yet to find one...

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
In Australia, or at least in Brisbane, my experience has been that virtually every male of my age (20s) has done at least some MA at some point.

Usually it was six months at a McDojo, sure. But they had trained.

The people who got into fights regularly all trained.

Maybe it's different in the USA. But I don't see the point of "training" to deal with an attacker who will come at me with looping haymakers, because I honestly think I'm more likely to have to deal with some kind of MAist.

This, among other reasons, is why I'm doing BJJ at the moment.

[tracer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Blocking a punch isn't very effective, parrying and evading is much simpler and effective.
Um ... so ... what's the difference between blocking and parrying, then?

[BTox]

Originally posted by BobM
With so much testerone in here, I'm surprised you aren't all bald.

So that's why I'm balding? ;) PS it is testosterone.

[ImpyTimpy]

Testerone is the homeopathic equivalent of testosterone. Now go fight it out like men you two!

Originally posted by BTox


So that's why I'm balding? ;) PS it is testosterone.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by tracer

Um ... so ... what's the difference between blocking and parrying, then?

A block is when you absorb an attack, much like the karate guys like to do. A parry is a redirection of the attack so that it misses.

[Hannibal]

Surely the measure of an arts validity is whether or not it delivers on its promises? Common phrases include:

"Fun and Fitness", "Relaxation", "Make new friends", "Self-defence"

If the art says it is a kick ass street style and has NO contact, NO pressure testing and NO sparring it is not a viable self-defence system. If it invloves shouting at people so they fall over (YB) then it is no good for fitness...or friends either for that matter!

I have said many times that ultimately the man makes the system work, but some are easier to work than others. I have a background in traditional systems (Shukokai, Ju-Jitsu and Budo) but currently train in JKD and BJJ. I am also a serving Police Officer and have had more fights than I care to remember. And yes these were against people who were actively trying to take my head off and yes BJJ DOES work against multiple attackers - I know because I have used it. That is anecdotal though - I have no film of it!

I have found that traditionalists hate MMA/Reality based styles because they fear that there is a threat to them. They forget that most style sthese days, even traditional ones, are only about 100years old. Nearly EVERY style has deviated from its origins as opponents, environments and attacks changed. Do not fear change, embrace it - so long as it is not for its own sake.

By the way I suck at kata so therefore kata's suck!:)