Ninjutsu vs Bjj (NAGA rules)

[Hanzou]

Winning competition isn’t the only driving force for innovation or evolution. It’s a strong one - perhaps the strongest - but it has some drawbacks as you’ve recently mentioned about BJJ competition.

True, but I don't feel that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Rickson is a personal hero of mine, and to learn from him was one of the pinnacle moments of learning Bjj, but I think he's trying to stop a raging river with a coffee cup.

 

[Hanzou]

While it is not a "Boxer's upper cut" it is an upper and from this uppercut other variations can evolve from it and Jow Ga has a lot of variations of an uppercut.
The follow up strike is an uppercut

Another variation

Some more upper cuts.

So you're arguing that boxing historians are lying about Dutch Sam introducing the uppercut to boxing?

Also those uppercut applications are atrocious.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There’s a broader link to his analogy. We have jets, turbo-props, single- and double-engines. We have forward and backward props. We have helicopters, VTOL (vertical take-off and landing), and even convertible aircraft. Which is better? By the easiest standard, probably a jet engine, but we keep using others for purposes where they suit better (short landing strip, etc). And we keep working to innovate all of those areas.

That’s without getting into the related area of glide-craft.

Correct, and they all evolve by using that specific type of machine. You can't make a better jet by switching from Jets to ground transportation. You dig deep into what makes that jet work and improve on that stuff.

The VTOL aircraft is more of what you doing with NGA. You see a vertical take off and landing concept and wonder if it will fit well with NGA foundations. When you get the combination correct you get something that is like a plane but not quite. Now your NGA can do something that the original NGA cannot do.

This is the NGA variation that you are creating. Taking the concept of one system and applying it to your own in a way that works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, but we were talking specifically about planes. When you think of an airplane, a very specific model pops in your head. You don't envision a bird looking vehicle covered in feathers with flapping wings, you vision the standard airplane design that's been in place for over 75 years.

Fighting is similar. When people fight, they generally look the same, whether they're trained or untrained; like a MMA fighter. They may dance around each other and pepper each other with strikes, they may clench up and try to take each other to the pavement, they may get a clean one-hit KO, but in the end, it all generally looks like an unpolished MMA bout.

So if your goal is to be a more proficient fighter, why waste time learning all those pretty and exaggerated movements when all you need is four boxing punches, a couple of kicks, and some grappling? In short, why not just learn to fight like an MMA fighter?

My point is that there are significant - and increasing - variations within that model. And there are parallel models that serve equally for some purposes and better for others. If we did a speed, distance, or load-carrying competition (or one that factors all 3), a jet probably wins unless someone brings a rocket. But we know from the evidence that other engines and even other flying models are superior for some purposes and equal for others. And in some cases where they aren’t even equal, they still get the job done quite satisfactorily.

 

[Hanzou]

My point is that there are significant - and increasing - variations within that model. And there are parallel models that serve equally for some purposes and better for others. If we did a speed, distance, or load-carrying competition (or one that factors all 3), a jet probably wins unless someone brings a rocket. But we know from the evidence that other engines and even other flying models are superior for some purposes and equal for others. And in some cases where they aren’t even equal, they still get the job done quite satisfactorily.

Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens. My argument is simply that TMAs suffer from a lack of innovation because they don't understand the rules, and they oppose science and logic in favor of tradition and respect to a long-dead founder.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens. My argument is simply that TMAs suffer from a lack of innovation because they don't understand the rules, and they oppose science and logic in favor of tradition and respect to a long-dead founder.

That is true in at least some cases. Maybe most, though I haven’t seen enough to know what the proportion is. I don’t think that’s inherent in any style (though it is epidemic in some) - it’s about the people teaching those styles.

 

[Hanzou]

That is true in at least some cases. Maybe most, though I haven’t seen enough to know what the proportion is. I don’t think that’s inherent in any style (though it is epidemic in some) - it’s about the people teaching those styles.

Well let's look at the evolution of grappling in the last 25 years, we went from the Gracies introducing Gjj, to every grappling system being mixed together to form something new and even more effective. Once we got the rules (take down, dominant position, submission) we started bending the rules (no gi, leg locks, new guards), and we bent the rules with other grappling systems. Wrestling, Judo, Catch, and Sambo were all dying on a vine, but Bjj and MMA brought them all back to the forefront. It's to the point now where I'd put a modern elite grappler over a Gracie without even flinching because the game is complex and ever changing.

Without question, MMA and Bjj are the driving forces of that evolution, because it gives people the outlet for experimentation and innovation. You simply don't see that in traditional styles.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When people fight, they generally look the same, whether they're trained or untrained; like a MMA fighter

But what you are looking at is the general appearance. Two fighters may move generally in the same way for combat but may strike and attack completely different.

For example, this jet looks like a jet until you it moves out of the generalities of looking and performing like one. BJJ based fighters will give the appearance of the Jet and then switch things up with a vertical maneuver. This is where the specifics come into play and it's often what distinguishes a style as being different from another.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here's the question though: If we're not seeing modern fighters using this style, can we actually believe that the founder was actually some amazing fighter?

The problem is that we aren't watching the founder fight. So there's no way to really answer this question in regards to the founder. The same thing can be said about early bareknuckle fighters pre-film technology. Where all you have is a bunch of stories about something different they did and how they beat a bunch of other people. We have no idea of the skill set of the opponents they fought and the level of training they had. We can only go on what was said and written, along with any drawings that the founder may have made.

Just because the founder was awesome doesn't mean the student is going to be awesome the same skill sets. Some people are naturals at it, often times those are the ones that have a really deep understanding of the system they train in, they eat and breath the use of the techniques.

How many modern fighters do we see use the "oblique kick" just because we don't see many use it, does it mean that we are to believe that the founder of that kick wasn't amazing with it?

 

[Hanzou]

But what you are looking at is the general appearance. Two fighters may move generally in the same way for combat but may strike and attack completely different.

For example, this jet looks like a jet until you it moves out of the generalities of looking and performing like one. BJJ based fighters will give the appearance of the Jet and then switch things up with a vertical maneuver. This is where the specifics come into play and it's often what distinguishes a style as being different from another.

Like I said, once you understand the rules, you can start bending and breaking the rules.

The problem is that we aren't watching the founder fight. So there's no way to really answer this question in regards to the founder. The same thing can be said about early bareknuckle fighters pre-film technology. Where all you have is a bunch of stories about something different they did and how they beat a bunch of other people. We have no idea of the skill set of the opponents they fought and the level of training they had. We can only go on what was said and written, along with any drawings that the founder may have made.

Except in the case of bare-knuckle fights and early boxing, we have records of the actual fights via newspaper and media at the time. Those are (fairly) objective sources. So we know that Jim Corbett and Jack Johnson were great fighters because their boxing records proved it. Additionally modern boxers are utilizing their techniques and are considered good fighters by modern standards and a lot of fighters outside of boxing also are using the boxing skill set. That proves that the forefathers of modern boxing had great skill.

What evidence do we have that the founder of Jow Ga was a great fighter? Where are the Jow Ga fighters at in MMA and other professional fight circuits?

Just because the founder was awesome doesn't mean the student is going to be awesome the same skill sets. Some people are naturals at it, often times those are the ones that have a really deep understanding of the system they train in, they eat and breath the use of the techniques.

How many modern fighters do we see use the "oblique kick" just because we don't see many use it, does it mean that we are to believe that the founder of that kick wasn't amazing with it?

Except if you look at Bjj and Boxing, the skill set and the standard abilities of the practitioners have improved greatly. Mike Tyson or Floyd Mayweather in their prime would eat Jim Corbett, Dutch Sam, and other boxing greats for breakfast. The top modern grapplers are far better grapplers than the Gracies were. Jon Jones or Khabib would destroy Royce Gracie in MMA.

It's simple evolution, from start to finish.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well let's look at the evolution of grappling in the last 25 years, we went from the Gracies introducing Gjj, to every grappling system being mixed together to form something new and even more effective. Once we got the rules (take down, dominant position, submission) we started bending the rules (no gi, leg locks, new guards), and we bent the rules with other grappling systems. Wrestling, Judo, Catch, and Sambo were all dying on a vine, but Bjj and MMA brought them all back to the forefront. It's to the point now where I'd put a modern elite grappler over a Gracie without even flinching because the game is complex and ever changing.

Without question, MMA and Bjj are the driving forces of that evolution, because it gives people the outlet for experimentation and innovation. You simply don't see that in traditional styles.

I agree it's uncommon in traditional styles. My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that. There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite - I hang onto a few pieces specifically to keep some traditional links, but change what I think needs changing to improve learning and application. If a student wants to try something new (to me), I'm okay with it, so long as they first learn what I'm teaching (so, don't do a different version of one of the techniques to avoid the one I teach). That way, they can help me figure out what the advantages are of the other version they know. (An exception to this is strikes - if someone has working strikes, I won't bother to replace or even add to them if they have something for each area I teach a strike for, unless they want to learn mine.)

So, which is NGA? Both are. It's not the traditional art that doesn't evolve, it's the people who don't evolve the art. That might be a senseless distinction in some cases, since some arts have reached a point where they're unlikely to interest those who would innovate, and the idea of following the founder has become so strong it'd be difficult to find a school that would allow room for innovation among students.

 

[Hanzou]

I agree it's uncommon in traditional styles. My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that. There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite - I hang onto a few pieces specifically to keep some traditional links, but change what I think needs changing to improve learning and application. If a student wants to try something new (to me), I'm okay with it, so long as they first learn what I'm teaching (so, don't do a different version of one of the techniques to avoid the one I teach). That way, they can help me figure out what the advantages are of the other version they know. (An exception to this is strikes - if someone has working strikes, I won't bother to replace or even add to them if they have something for each area I teach a strike for, unless they want to learn mine.)

So, which is NGA? Both are. It's not the traditional art that doesn't evolve, it's the people who don't evolve the art. That might be a senseless distinction in some cases, since some arts have reached a point where they're unlikely to interest those who would innovate, and the idea of following the founder has become so strong it'd be difficult to find a school that would allow room for innovation among students.

If my history on your system is correct, isn't NGA already an Aikido system known to incorporate techniques not traditionally considered "Aikido" like Osoto-Gari and Shihonnage? If that's the case, I can understand where your mindset comes from. I agree that a lot of it falls on the instructor over the style, but we shouldn't forget that within many styles the idea of innovation and changing the art is drilled out of their minds.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So you're arguing that boxing historians are lying about Dutch Sam introducing the uppercut to boxing?

Also those uppercut applications are atrocious.

1. I'm aruging the use of an uppercut like punch is only being told from one perspective and that's the upper cut as it was used in Boxing. In terms of boxing, Dutch Sam may have introduced it to boxing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in other fighting systems.

2. They only look atrocious to you because you don't know how to use them and you can't see the concept of uppercut beyond boxing.

Same concept throwing a uppercut under someone's arm can be seen in the various clips here. The fighter at 4:34 throws a lead head uppercut which is what you'll see with Jow Ga, and the uppercut was from a bladed stance. If you take note, it was the lead upper cut that knocks the fighter down. It traveled under the arm. At 7:36 you will see an upper cut that travels underneath an extended arm. At 8:02 you see the same thing but within close range. The fighter does a lead hand uppercut from a bladed stance and hits under the guard.

In Jow Ga used both rear hand and lead hand uppercuts.

Not Jow Ga but he throws a TMA rear hand upper cut

 

[JowGaWolf]

Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens.

And all of what you stated requires a deeper understanding of "laws of theromodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc." Which is what I've been saying all along about me having a deeper understanding of the existing Jow Ga techniques.

As for your statement about many in TMA not having the level of understanding needed for innovation and evolution. I agree with this statement and it is what I've been saying all along. The trial and error that you speak of happens during sparring and fighting, yet most TMA practitioners will abandon the techniques when it comes to sparring and fighting and as a result there is no trial and error learning.

 

[Hanzou]

1. I'm aruging the use of an uppercut like punch is only being told from one perspective and that's the upper cut as it was used in Boxing. In terms of boxing, Dutch Sam may have introduced it to boxing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in other fighting systems.

I never made that argument. I was only talking about western boxing, and how the introduction of the upper cut via Dutch Sam changed the system to the point where the system had to develop a counter to it. I have no idea where the uppercut originated from in Kung Fu.

2. They only look atrocious to you because you don't know how to use them and you can't see the concept of uppercut beyond boxing.

If you say so. When I see a Jow Ga professional fighter going toe-to-toe with a standard professional fighter/boxer and besting them using those Jow Ga strikes, it'll make a believer out of me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that.

Definitely. The style is rarely at fault in terms of restriction. Most restrictions are often placed by people who don't get out and actually try to use the techniques against another system. If they only spar within the system then applications can stay fairly consistent. But once the attacks and defenses change it's necessary to start learning how to apply existing techniques in a different way.

There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite -

I'm the same way too. The other instructor that I worked with didn't like it, because that's not how it was taught. The more I learned about the variation the more I began to thing that many of the teachers were incorrect about their approach to the techniques. Just recently the head of the Jow Ga Association that I'm a part of stated the same thing in facebook to the Sifu's under him. He literally said "Stop thinking like westerners. There is more than one way to do a technique." While I'm not a Sifu, it's good to hear that the head of the organization to state that. It means I'll be able to enjoy Jow Ga without someone saying "That's not how we do it." My reply will always be "That may not be how it's taught, but this is one of the ways it works."

 

[JowGaWolf]

I never made that argument. I was only talking about western boxing, and how the introduction of the upper cut via Dutch Sam changed the system to the point where the system had to develop a counter to it.

If you are only talking about western boxing then yes you are correct about how the uppercut was introduced to boxing according to boxing history. I cannot find anything that disputes this in boxing history.

If you say so. When I see a Jow Ga professional fighter going toe-to-toe with a standard professional fighter/boxer and besting them using those Jow Ga strikes, it'll make a believer out of me.

So if I hit you with one and other people with one, then my technique isn't valid because I haven't done it against a professional fighter?

 

[Hanzou]

If you are only talking about western boxing then yes you are correct about how the uppercut was introduced to boxing according to boxing history. I cannot find anything that disputes this in boxing history.

We were both only talking about western boxing. I don't know why you deviated from that and started bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts".

So if I hit you with one and other people with one, then my technique isn't valid because I haven't done it against a professional fighter?

You're arguing that the Kung Fu method of doing an uppercut is equal to the boxing method, yet the boxing method is pretty standard throughout the professional fighting world while the Kung Fu version is non-existent. Not even Sanda fighters are using Kung Fu uppercuts, they use western boxing as well.

For example, let's say that I make the argument that for fighting, Bjj grappling is equal to Wrestling. That argument is supported because professional fighters throughout the world use both wrestling and bjj for fighting purposes despite there being an overlap in places.

You can't say that one method is equal to another method used by professionals if the former isn't being used seriously by professionals at all.

A better argument here is are you better off using boxer punches or Kung Fu punches. For professional fighters (and most people) that answer is crystal clear.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We were both only talking about western boxing. I don't know why you deviated from that and started bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts"

because you mentioned how TMAs don't use and adopt those type of things. Or did I read your statement wrong?

You're arguing that the Kung Fu method of doing an uppercut is equal to the boxing method, yet the boxing method is pretty standard throughout the professional fighting world while the Kung Fu version is non-existent. Not even Sanda fighters are using Kung Fu uppercuts, they use western boxing as well.

How is a professional MMA fighting going to do a technique that he doesn't don't train?

As for martial arts practitioners who use their techniques. You will see many of them fight Lei Tai. There are numerous examples of kung fu upper cuts used here.

For other's you will see people working their techniques outside of competition.
0:31, 0:46, 0:57, 0:58, and 1:14 he throws a kung fu upper cut.

You can't say that one method is equal to another method used by professionals if the former isn't being used seriously by professionals at all.

I never said anything about equal. I said TMA has uppercuts and they throw the uppercuts in a variety of ways. Professionals aren't validations for a technique working.

 

[Hanzou]

because you mentioned how TMAs don't use and adopt those type of things. Or did I read your statement wrong?

Yeah, I said that TMAs don't add new techniques to established systems the way Boxing, Judo, Bjj, MMA, etc. does.

How is a professional MMA fighting going to do a technique that he doesn't don't train?

MMA fighters seek out the best trainers to teach them the best techniques. If Kung Fu hand techniques were on par, MMA fighters would be training and using them. The fact that they choose western boxing over traditional Kung Fu even in China is very telling.

As for martial arts practitioners who use their techniques. You will see many of them fight Lei Tai. There are numerous examples of kung fu upper cuts used here.

For other's you will see people working their techniques outside of competition.
0:31, 0:46, 0:57, 0:58, and 1:14 he throws a kung fu upper cut.

Looks like standard kickboxing with some wild punching thrown in. It's shocking that these people spend all that time learning pretty forms and antiquated techniques to just end up looking like kick boxers with crazy punching at the end. Just incredible.

I never said anything about equal. I said TMA has uppercuts and they throw the uppercuts in a variety of ways. Professionals aren't validations for a technique working.

They're validations for the best approach, since they fight for a living. No one is saying your Jow Ga uppercut doesn't work. I have no doubt that if you caught me in the face with your uppercut, I'd get KO'd just the same. Hell, people get knocked out by getting slapped in the face:

What I'm saying is that Boxing is the better method until someone from your camp proves otherwise.