Discussion in 'Wing Chun' started by KPM, Jul 18, 2018.
Blinkered? Lol not hardly.
I'm just not convinced that being aware of fouls while in a cage would be a game changer for when you are not. I have given my reasoning for that, and objections that relate to surprise attacks or what can work against untrained opponents aren't really relevant.
The initial argument was that the inclusion of MMA fouls in an MMA fight against a trained fighter wouldn't make much difference as per the outcome. I'm still not convinced otherwise.
Fair points. I just wanted to move the thread on to "the problem with MMA" as I fancied a change from defence.
The main objective for most people is to defend themselves by neutralizing the threat and surviving the encounter. There needs to be some correlation between the use of force and the given threat. Meaning if someone grabs my wrist and they have no visible weapons, but I pull my firearm and shoot them, that's going to be a problem through the eyes of the courts.
The bar isn't the only place you could encounter a physical confrontation though. Driving to the store, going to work, walking your dog taking or even walking to your mailbox are all situations where you might encounter physical confrontations. Unless you completely remove yourself from the world, physical confrontations are still a moderate probability.
I disagree with that training methodology. Focusing mostly on worst case scenarios can have inherit problems. Defending against punches, takedowns, grabs, etc, is just as important. The probability of the scenario should play a factor in how you prioritize them. Being assault/battered is much more likely than being shot, just look at the criminal statistics. That's not to say don't train for worst case, but there should be more of a balance.
Your starting point will change depending on the situation though. Lethal force won't always be justified.
Could you elaborate?
Possibility and probability are important when dealing with MA/SD training. Could that happen? Yes. Will that happen? Very unlikely. The only thing we can do is deal with the threats the world throws at us one at a time while maintaining a reasonable awareness of our actions. If we start over analyzing all the possible outcomes in the future then we would never act. You could legally and lawfully defend yourself, but still might be charged and tried for assault/battery. However, the probable outcome of being charged(much more probable than your scenario) shouldn't hinder me from deciding to defend myself.
There is evidence for two fights as an 18 year old Bruce Lee, and again within 2 years after.
Yoichi Nakachi (1932-1998) vs Bruce Lee, location Downtown Seattle YMCA handball/racquetball court.
Year 1959 or 1960.
This fight was witnessed by numerous people
But Jesse Glover, and Ed Hart have put this fight on the record repeatedly.
I had only known Bruce for a few months, and he had repeatedly amazed me with the stuff he’d shown me, but had never seen him in a fight before, and I think everyone there was stunned by it. This guy was lying there flat on his back, and I just stood there staring at him. I was absolutely dumbfounded! Finally, the guys got together and dragged the karate guy over to a wall and sort of leaned him up against it. They didn’t think it was a good idea to try to stand him up.
After a while, his eyelids fluttered and he opened his eyes, looked up at me, and said ‘How long did it take him to defeat me? I knew how long it was — it was 11 seconds — but I looked at this poor guy, and I just didn’t have the heart to tell him. So I doubled the time, and I said to him ‘Uh, 22 seconds.’ And the guy groaned ‘Aaaah’ and fell back unconscious again! I’ll never forget that.
— Ed Hart
“Was Bruce Lee a Good Fighter, or Simply a Good Talker?”
Black Belt magazine (Nov 1993)
Here is video recorded testimony of Jesse Glover, And Ed Hart.
Prior to that When Bruce was 18 years old, at the 1958 Hong Kong Inter-School Amateur Boxing Championships he defeated three time champion Gary Elms by knock out.
As long as you can show your opponent that you are not that easy to be beaten up, most people will give up.
1. Conservative approach - None of his punches can land on your body (show your defense skill).
2. Aggressive approach - You strong clinch prevent him from moving (show your strength).
Both methods have been proved to work in bar environment and end up "both persons live happily ever after".
Crippling and killing techniques are developed by learning to perform martial arts in real time with real feedback.
Being able to combat sport will almost always improve your ability to cripple/ kill.
Ok. I'll grant you 'anecdotal evidence' There is a lot of Bruce Lee hype just as there are those that benefit financially to this day from having known him, so I tend to take such anecdotes with a grain of salt.
My preference is solving a confrontation with the least amount of force as possible. Unfortunately the use of force required to neutralize the threat is mostly dependent on the attacker. The more committed the attacker the more force will be required to neutralize the threat.
Security is looking for fights. You see a scumbag and instead of avoiding him or going home. You go out of your way to approach him and then kick him out.
The next time you have a problem with a guy. Kick him out of wherever he is. See if that is starting a fight.
The issues addressed in OPs post are not street vs sport though.
It is more about unrealistic training leading to an unrealistic assessment.
Training illegal techniques in a vacuum as some sort of get out of jail free card is where the mindset breaks down.
There is a whole bunch of risk reward issues you haven't considered here.
Unfortunately I’ve known a few ordinary (very few, but a few) folks who had home invasions. Likely (never caught, so not proven) by folks in that first category.
- Your opponent punches you with his right hand. You use left hand to grab on his right arm.
- He uses left hand to punch you. You use right hand to grab on his left arm.
- You pin his left arm on his own right arm and against his chest.
- You then ask him, "Can we be friend now?"
- If he says yes, you let him go.
- If he says no, you then ...
Problem can be solved without fist meets face.
@Anarax thoughtful post, thanks for that.
seems logical but if i look at what and how people train that idea is not obvious to me. what people say is often wishful thinking while what they actually do gives a more accurate picture of their intentions.
oh of course, i have an entire lecture on use of force and the law but that wasnt in the scope of the thread.
agreed, but it has happened in the past that if i start to try and define things too much and parse out specifics the conversation gets bogged down in menusha.
i would like to hear your thoughts on this.
fair enough, but if you follow that logic out it gets flawed at the fringes, the most common scenario is a heated argument. under this premise we would spend the entire class practicing de-escalation. in fact the probability of ever needing your martial art training is so close to zero that we would be better off in a knitting class.
there is utility in focusing training time on high probability attacks, i think it was Patrick McCarthy who is a proponent of the HAPV theory. there is a difference between training for scenario and training for skills. i think your seeing this as an either / or situation and it doesnt have to be. training for a good position is training for a good position. bar fight or deadly interaction is a matter of intensity not of applying different skill sets.
agreed. but my usage was more conceptual and about training not application.
again, this was a specific response to a specific comment and was meant as allegory not literal. it seems this went right over peoples heads.
i follow three principals for a combative event.
violence of action
this means i attack fast, hard and with as much ferocity as i can without sacrificing integrity, when you least expect it. the level of violence has to be equal or greater than what the other person can muster. most people are not emotionally prepared for sudden intense violence. this has to be trained for and your mental system works better if your inoculated to receive and deal with that level of violence. its my belief that you can train at that intensity and lower the intensity when needed. you can moderate to a lower level easier then the other way around. the common martial art school never rises to that level. most dojos have an atmosphere as if its a social hour. i have seen so many dojos where the sparring is so relaxed and non violent. then a new student will come in and they will "tone it down" for the new guy. they are so far down on the spectrum they would just panic and freeze in a real situation. to Drop Bears credit he is constantly hopping all over people because he knows full well his normal level of intensity for sparring would overwhelm most martial arts practitioners. its like night and day and those who are in low level intensity training dont see it.
That pretty much sums up everything I believe about the world of Karate, not just today, but throughout my lifetime.
You're a Martial Arts instructor. Teaching whatever. In your travels somebody shows you something that's the greatest thing you've seen in the Arts. Maybe it's a technique, a partner drill, an escape, a reversal, a punch, kick whatever. But it's really awesome.
But it is not part of your traditional art.
Do you teach it to your students? And if you do, does that mean you are no longer teaching a traditional Art?
MA can be as simple as
- how to enter, and
- how to finish.
If you have a goal, to find a path to reach it should be easy. As long as a certain path can help you to reach to your goal, you should not care whether that path come from your MA system or not.
There are many preying mantis combos that can be perfectly integrated into the throwing art.
For example, The preying mantis Gou Lou Cai Shou can be used as:
- Right hand block and grab on your opponent's forearm.
- Left hand push on his elbow joint.
- Right hand move to his neck.
I agree. But that didn't answer my question.
Well the story I got was that Uechi-ryu didn't have a round kick until someone saw Bruce Lee doing it in the movies. And we thought...gee that looks pretty cool..and the rest is history
Not sure if it's true but it speaks to your question.
Separate names with a comma.