Sparring

[Ironbear24]

That is not a style thing. That is a training methodology thing.

What does expressing ones opinion of whether or not certain styles are effective have to do with ones methos of training?

 

[Hanzou]

How many various "gaurds" and maneuvers do you have in bj?

Too many.

When you train in those and practice the positioning and motions of your body that is like practicing forms.

Meh... I can't say I agree with that. Anytime I'm practicing a guard or position, I'm working with someone else, or I use my grappling dummy. However, everything I do is practical and designed to work in a fight. There's no "who has the prettiest guard" competitions in Bjj.

You earlier pointed out that the more eccentric stances in Kung Fu would never be used in a fight. You won't find anything like that in Bjj, where everything has a fighting application.

 

[drop bear]

What does expressing ones opinion of whether or not certain styles are effective have to do with ones methos of training?

So if you do a style that never trains with resistance. Then you will see a whole heap of baggage attached to that style. The more resistance less baggage.

Mma is a good example of that as it is a leaned up version of a lot of different martial arts. It has even cleaned up a lot of bjj,s baggage.

Some styles will never change their methods of training. That is fine. But they will never become top tier fighters either.

So. When we compare boxing and wrestling you can see the merits of both. A wrestler may beat a boxer but a wrestler can also become a better fighter by learning boxing.

Some styles don't compare or don't compare well.

 

[Flying Crane]

Too many.



Meh... I can't say I agree with that. Anytime I'm practicing a guard or position, I'm working with someone else, or I use my grappling dummy. However, everything I do is practical and designed to work in a fight. There's no "who has the prettiest guard" competitions in Bjj.

You earlier pointed out that the more eccentric stances in Kung Fu would never be used in a fight. You won't find anything like that in Bjj, where everything has a fighting application.

The Kung fu I practice has nothing to do with being pretty. An outsider may not comprehend the purpose of something, but it's all in there for a reason and the reason ain't to be pretty.

 

[Hanzou]

If they have skills that let them survive without learning the principles of that art/style, it is possible (except for the rules. As I've said before, which limit alternatives and force folks to work the style in question). sparring helps eliminate poor fighters. Since those are all arts/styles that depend heavily on it, that reinforces what I've said previously about the value of sparring.

It also reinforces the reality that it's easier to become an instructor with 30 years experience with anemic fighting skills in a form-centric style.

 

[Hanzou]

The Kung fu I practice has nothing to do with being pretty. An outsider may not comprehend the purpose of something, but it's all in there for a reason and the reason ain't to be pretty.

Tibetan White Crane right?

Lovely.

 

[Ironbear24]

Too many.



Meh... I can't say I agree with that. Anytime I'm practicing a guard or position, I'm working with someone else, or I use my grappling dummy. However, everything I do is practical and designed to work in a fight. There's no "who has the prettiest guard" competitions in Bjj.

You earlier pointed out that the more eccentric stances in Kung Fu would never be used in a fight. You won't find anything like that in Bjj, where everything has a fighting application.

You are implying that you can only practice forms alone. That is simply incorrect. There things such as two person kata and technique drill.

We do not train to not look "pretty " but we excencuate the motions so when it comes time to fight or compete we will not fudge the moves and techniques due to be being under pressure. When you are under pressure you will half *** things if you are not trained properly and one of these methods is to over excencuate.

This is because you will end up doing it the way you were taught it, so taking that to competition or a fight you will do it fast, a but slopppier maybe, but still do it fine because you are normally over excencuating it under normal conditions.

Now there are also katas that are designed to be more artful and "pretty" but those are a separate thing entirely and are not meant for fighting to my knowledge.

 

[Flying Crane]

So if you do a style that never trains with resistance. Then you will see a whole heap of baggage attached to that style. The more resistance less baggage.

Mma is a good example of that as it is a leaned up version of a lot of different martial arts. It has even cleaned up a lot of bjj,s baggage.

Some styles will never change their methods of training. That is fine. But they will never become top tier fighters either.

So. When we compare boxing and wrestling you can see the merits of both. A wrestler may beat a boxer but a wrestler can also become a better fighter by learning boxing.

Some styles don't compare or don't compare well.

A "top tier fighter" by what yardstick? Not everyone needs or wants to be in competition. But if they train a system that is interesting, keeps them fit and healthy, and gives them reasonable self defense skills that enable them to get home safely if some idiot tries to start something with them, that's all most people need or want. Very few people want or can make the commitment to training needed to become a top tier competition martial athlete.

Is that a concept you can agree on?

 

[Ironbear24]

Tibetan White Crane right?

Lovely.

Bro, you gotta problem with looking pretty?

(Cracks knuckles whilst wearing high heels.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It also reinforces the reality that it's easier to become an instructor with 30 years experience with anemic fighting skills in a form-centric style.

I don't think there's much debate on that. I mean, anyone could teach boxing, just as anyone could claim expertise in any other art/style. Sparring should identify particularly weak instructors/trainers, assuming it's not just their students fighting each other. This is the biggest benefit, IMO, of competition.

 

[Ironbear24]

Form is also in everything. It is essentially working alongside the laws of physics, boxers do it. All martial arts do it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Tibetan White Crane right?

Lovely.

Yup. Is there something you need explained? I'll give you a hint: I've already explained it. Go back and re-read my post in this thread, #395.

I don't expect you to understand it from just looking at it. It requires some explanation and hands -on to get it. But I've given you the concept.

 

[drop bear]

A "top tier fighter" by what yardstick? Not everyone needs or wants to be in competition. But if they train a system that is interesting, keeps them fit and healthy, and gives them reasonable self defense skills that enable them to get home safely if some idiot tries to start something with them, that's all most people need or want. Very few people want or can make the commitment to training needed to become a top tier competition martial athlete.

Is that a concept you can agree on?

As I said that is fine. But you don't get "I only want enough martial arts to give myself some street defence and I would rather not kill myself for 12 weeks preparing for a fight so I can get bashed in front of 800 people"

You get "my system dosent bother with sport because they train for the street. Which is harder so therefore my martial arts is better"

 

[Ironbear24]

Neither TKD or Bjj are traditional martial arts. Both come from very modern MA styles.

So how exactly do you define a modern martial art vs a traditional martial art?

 

[Flying Crane]

As I said that is fine. But you don't get "I only want enough martial arts to give myself some street defence and I would rather not kill myself for 12 weeks preparing for a fight so I can get bashed in front of 800 people"

You get "my system dosent bother with sport because they train for the street. Which is harder so therefore my martial arts is better"

Well there is some historical context here. In old China/Japan/Korea/Indonesia/etc., before modern communication and before the ability to call 911 and expect help to arrive shortly, in the reality in which many of these systems were developed, they were absolutely practiced with homicidal intent. That is still within the system, even if most people today do not practice to that level. And it isn't an issue of "secret" or "magical" techniques. It was just damn hard training with a lot of intensity and the knowledge that you very well may need your skills today to save your own life or the lives of your family or fellow villagers. Because the police wouldn't come to help you, there were no hospitals to patch you up afterward, and the army was probably being used by the ruling class to repress you. You were on your own, your safety and survival was up to you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do believe the methodology of my system is a better punching method than boxing. However, I am not of a comparable athletic level to expect to routinely defeat an experienced boxer. I know my own limits and I'm not afraid to acknowledge them. But I do believe my method is better, it digs deeper and grows a stronger root.

But that's meaningless to a boxer who's methods work just fine for the context and can certainly overlap well in real self defense. I would never say a boxers skills are poor. They obviously work, and can work quite well. But I don't believe a boxers method represents the pinnacle of punching methodology. If you disagree with my assessment, you are welcome to do so. But I will never accept a list of competition accomplishments as proof of anything, other than what happened in that ring on that day, between two competitors who both agreed to be there.

You need to look at your own presentation in the issue. All too often you come in with some disparaging remarks about TMA, and that leads to an overinflated reply, and it's all whacked out of proportion. But look at your own contribution to the argument.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The Kung fu I practice has nothing to do with being pretty. An outsider may not comprehend the purpose of something, but it's all in there for a reason and the reason ain't to be pretty.

people make the mistake of thinking kung fu is like what we see on tv shows and movies. This usually causes students to try to fight like that. When it's correctly applied is far from fancy and it's very brutal and unforgiving. Some people won't get it. So dont waste your energy on those who have their minds made up.

 

[Flying Crane]

people make the mistake of thinking kung fu is like what we see on tv shows and movies. This usually causes students to try to fight like that. When it's correctly applied is far from fancy and it's very brutal and unforgiving. Some people won't get it. So dont waste your energy on those who have their minds made up.

Fighting is ugly. Regardless what method you use.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fighting is ugly. Regardless what method you use.

fighting is ugly but not all of it has the same level of brutality. At least with boxing you can do every technique that is taught, in the ring. You can't say the the same about kung fu and other martial art fighting systems.

 

[Hanzou]

You are implying that you can only practice forms alone. That is simply incorrect. There things such as two person kata and technique drill.

Not at all. However, there is a real difference between this;

And this;

We do not train to not look "pretty " but we excencuate the motions so when it comes time to fight or compete we will not fudge the moves and techniques due to be being under pressure. When you are under pressure you will half *** things if you are not trained properly and one of these methods is to over excencuate.

This is because you will end up doing it the way you were taught it, so taking that to competition or a fight you will do it fast, a but slopppier maybe, but still do it fine because you are normally over excencuating it under normal conditions.

Now there are also katas that are designed to be more artful and "pretty" but those are a separate thing entirely and are not meant for fighting to my knowledge.

Okay, but why do all of that nonsense when you can just do the actual move and drill it with a partner, ramping up the resistance as you go? I have yet to see any evidence that those eccentric movements and "hidden techniques" give you any benefit whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that quite a bit evidence points to all of that form work as being detrimental to your overall fighting ability.

 

[Hanzou]

So how exactly do you define a modern martial art vs a traditional martial art?

Well Bjj comes from Judo and Catch Wrestling. Kind of hard to consider that traditional when Judo itself is considered one of the first modern MAs.

TKD comes from Shotokan Karate, which was the first modern form of karate.

I would consider a traditional MA something like Kito-Ryu or Xingyiquan.