Become a fighting machine

[Hanzou]

The only issue I have with the Gracie story is that they mostly include exceptional individuals. We can't judge an art (or anything else) by exceptional proponents. The validation of the Gracie system is in the results we see from more "average" practitioners.

While they are exceptional, they have been beaten when other martial artists have adopted their fighting method. Bravo, Hughes, Sakuraba, and Barnett just to name a few. So clearly they weren't just exceptional fighters, they were also utilizing an exceptional fighting method.

On the other hand, we have disciples of medieval martial arts showing pretty poor fighting prowess. I mean, what does it say (for example) when Stephen Hayes can't escape the Guard properly? What does it say when Sherif Bey, a Hung Ga instructor with over 3 decades experience gets knocked out by some MMA chump off the street?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

While they are exceptional, they have been beaten when other martial artists have adopted their fighting method. Bravo, Hughes, Sakuraba, and Barnett just to name a few. So clearly they weren't just exceptional fighters, they were also utilizing an exceptional fighting method.

Those are also exceptional fighters. My point was that the best validation for GJJ isn't in those guys - that's validation of how well it works for (and against) exceptional fighters. The best validation, IMO, is when someone like me (lots of experience, but not an exceptional practitioner) can get on the mats with someone with GJJ training and experience the control the average practitioner has. I know that a blue belt can cause me trouble if I'm not careful, and that's a good testament to the style.

 

[drop bear]

Thing is, we can verify the Gracie stories.

It's a bit harder to verify whether or not Yojimbo killed 50 ninjas with his bare hands. Heck, we don't know if we're even studying Yojimbo's actual martial art, and not something created by a charlatan in the 1950s.

Imi Lichtenfeld was legitimately a badass as well. Doesn't validate the Krav.

Your instructor does not fight for you. Only you can do that.

 

[Hanzou]

Imi Lichtenfeld was legitimately a badass as well. Doesn't validate the Krav.

Your instructor does not fight for you. Only you can do that.

Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?

I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?

I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.

That people join because of some founders isn't the question. A badass can create crap. A badass who is good at systematizing can create a system that another badass can use. A badass who is good at systematizing, generalizing, and teaching can create a good system that works for others.

 

[Hanzou]

That people join because of some founders isn't the question. A badass can create crap. A badass who is good at systematizing can create a system that another badass can use. A badass who is good at systematizing, generalizing, and teaching can create a good system that works for others.

Sure it is, because who the founder was validates the art for some people. That's what Drop Bear was talking about, and whom I was responding to.

Just FYI, I don't think there are any "bad" systems out there. I'm simply saying that some arts are meant for fighting, and others are meant for cultural retention. The older and more traditional your martial art is, the more likely that it's fighting attributes have long since eroded in favor of other attributes.

If your goal is self protection and learning how to fight, you're better off learning boxing than a martial art designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure it is, because who the founder was validates the art for some people. That's what Drop Bear was talking about, and whom I was responding to.

Just FYI, I don't think there are any "bad" systems out there. I'm simply saying that some arts are meant for fighting, and others are meant for cultural retention. The older and more traditional your martial art is, the more likely that it's fighting attributes have long since eroded in favor of other attributes.

If your goal is self protection and learning how to fight, you're better off learning boxing than a martial art designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago.

I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.

And I'll assert that there have been "bad" systems. They generally don't last, because they are confusing and frustrating. Sometimes a first generation will "get it" because they are exposed to the source, who may be a fantastic fighter but crap at systematization. That first generation may contain one or more people who manage to extract a reasonable system from the mess and pass that along, but the original system was crap.

I agree with the tendencies you talk about. Because so many martial artists get into what's "right", it's easy to miss opportunities to evolve the art. In fact, that mindset can cause precisely the stagnation you're talking about. The problem isn't that it was designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago. At that time, it was designed to be effective, and the founder created something that worked well for what that pirate was facing. If the art is to remain a valid fighting system, it should continue those concepts: following what works well withing some central principles. Western arts aren't immune to this, of course. Some arts become cultural hold-overs (fencing, Iaido, archery, etc. are easy examples), and some progress. Western boxing seems to have remained fairly valid for the last couple hundred years, though it has serious weaknesses for grappling. Many martial arts have weakened because they practice against attack types that aren't as common today. Heck, even an art as young as NGA (founded in the 1940's) has to guard against that, incorporating changes that account for how people tend to attack now.

 

[Hanzou]

I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.

If you don't view the system as useful to you, you wouldn't pick it up in the first place.

Take JKD or Wing Chun; Many practitioners in those systems started training in those systems because of Bruce Lee. They'll never have Lee's physique, or his skill level, but they train in those systems because Lee legitimized the system to them. What they'll find "useful" is a personal thing, but if they stick with it, they will find something that is useful to their goals, physique, etc.

And I'll assert that there have been "bad" systems. They generally don't last, because they are confusing and frustrating. Sometimes a first generation will "get it" because they are exposed to the source, who may be a fantastic fighter but crap at systematization. That first generation may contain one or more people who manage to extract a reasonable system from the mess and pass that along, but the original system was crap.

Well yeah, that's my point. If a system has lasted for hundreds of years, then it can't really be a "bad" system with no benefits. Clearly it offers SOME benefits to its practitioners or it wouldn't have lasted this long. I think the problem is when someone picks up something like Tai Chi and believes that training in Tai Chi will make them a fighter like MMA or Bjj would. That's simply not the case because Tai Chi simply isn't designed for that purpose.

Perhaps in the murky past some guy used Tai Chi to kill 20 bandits on the road to Beijing, but there hasn't been any amazing Tai Chi fighters in recent years. So while I certainly wouldn't recommend Tai Chi to a woman looking to defend herself, I would certainly recommend Tai Chi to an elderly woman looking to stay active without injuring herself. There's nothing wrong with that.

I agree with the tendencies you talk about. Because so many martial artists get into what's "right", it's easy to miss opportunities to evolve the art. In fact, that mindset can cause precisely the stagnation you're talking about. The problem isn't that it was designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago. At that time, it was designed to be effective, and the founder created something that worked well for what that pirate was facing. If the art is to remain a valid fighting system, it should continue those concepts: following what works well withing some central principles. Western arts aren't immune to this, of course. Some arts become cultural hold-overs (fencing, Iaido, archery, etc. are easy examples), and some progress. Western boxing seems to have remained fairly valid for the last couple hundred years, though it has serious weaknesses for grappling. Many martial arts have weakened because they practice against attack types that aren't as common today. Heck, even an art as young as NGA (founded in the 1940's) has to guard against that, incorporating changes that account for how people tend to attack now.

Well, actually that is the problem, because the only way for an art that old to evolve is for it to incorporate modern concepts and to become a hybrid style, losing its individual flavor. Thus, Chinese Pirate Kung Fu is probably not going to be willing to evolve their style because they don't want to lose their uniqueness. Again, in that case its less about fighting effectiveness and more about retaining the culture and tradition of the art, which is why its practitioners learn ancient kata and obsolete weapons in order to further whatever goal they're working towards. In the end, you see MMA hopefuls who practice CPKF hoping to be able to be competitive in a martial arts bout, and they're simply not. It isn't because the rules obliterated the effectiveness of their system, its because their system has become obsolete in the face of more modern methods.

It's like a model T getting beat in a race by a Nissan GTR and blaming the race track for the results instead of recognizing that you're simply driving an outdated machine for that purpose.

Western boxing is a sport, so its going to evolve mainly to coincide with whatever rules governs its sport. In some cases the rules don't really hurt the overall system (like Boxing), but in some cases (like Judo) it definitely hurts the overall system. However, the benefit of martial sports is that you have to get good relatively quickly in order to be competitive, so if your goal is to learn how to be an actual fighter, that's the route you're going to want to go instead of learning Chinese Pirate Kung Fu.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What does it say when Sherif Bey, a Hung Ga instructor with over 3 decades experience gets knocked out by some MMA chump off the street?

It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey. I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out. So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well yeah, that's my point. If a system has lasted for hundreds of years, then it can't really be a "bad" system with no benefits. Clearly it offers SOME benefits to its practitioners or it wouldn't have lasted this long. I think the problem is when someone picks up something like Tai Chi and believes that training in Tai Chi will make them a fighter like MMA or Bjj would. That's simply not the case because Tai Chi simply isn't designed for that purpose.

Agreed, on all points, Hanzou.

Perhaps in the murky past some guy used Tai Chi to kill 20 bandits on the road to Beijing, but there hasn't been any amazing Tai Chi fighters in recent years. So while I certainly wouldn't recommend Tai Chi to a woman looking to defend herself, I would certainly recommend Tai Chi to an elderly woman looking to stay active without injuring herself. There's nothing wrong with that.

Again, agreed on all points.

Well, actually that is the problem, because the only way for an art that old to evolve is for it to incorporate modern concepts and to become a hybrid style, losing its individual flavor. Thus, Chinese Pirate Kung Fu is probably not going to be willing to evolve their style because they don't want to lose their uniqueness. Again, in that case its less about fighting effectiveness and more about retaining the culture and tradition of the art, which is why its practitioners learn ancient kata and obsolete weapons in order to further whatever goal they're working towards. In the end, you see MMA hopefuls who practice CPKF hoping to be able to be competitive in a martial arts bout, and they're simply not. It isn't because the rules obliterated the effectiveness of their system, its because their system has become obsolete in the face of more modern methods.

This is where we disagree. If a system evolves over time, it never is a 500-year-old system. It's a system that started 500 years ago and has constantly evolved to meet the needs of the time. The core concepts would change minutely each time, and over 500 years that would produce a significant change - significant enough to meet the changes over that 500 years. It would never lose its individual flavor, because that flavor would also evolve over time. I think this is easier to discuss using either of our arts (NGA and BJJ being started within about 25-30 years of each other) than an older art. If our two arts evolve, changing slightly year over year as new instructors step up to teach, they need never get old.

It's like a model T getting beat in a race by a Nissan GTR and blaming the race track for the results instead of recognizing that you're simply driving an outdated machine for that purpose.

That's what I mean. I'd liken it more to a Ford being beaten by a Nissan. Both brands have evolved (the Nissan being the newer brand), so they can compete.

Western boxing is a sport, so its going to evolve mainly to coincide with whatever rules governs its sport. In some cases the rules don't really hurt the overall system (like Boxing), but in some cases (like Judo) it definitely hurts the overall system. However, the benefit of martial sports is that you have to get good relatively quickly in order to be competitive, so if your goal is to learn how to be an actual fighter, that's the route you're going to want to go instead of learning Chinese Pirate Kung Fu.

Agreed. I think our primary disagreement is over whether a style can effectively evolve to become modern if it currently isn't. I believe it can be done, though it would take a few years.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.

But then your students would reflect the capacity of your system to create bad asses.

So greg jackson isnt discussed in terms of his fighting ability but by his students.

 

[drop bear]

Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?

I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.

It is not one or the other. But someone should be able to fight somewhere in the mix that has influence on the system.

The cultural examples have lost that in both the teachers and the students.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But then your students would reflect the capacity of your system to create bad asses.

So greg jackson isnt discussed in terms of his fighting ability but by his students.

That's the point. A system is better judged by the ability of the average students than by the ability of the founder.

 

[Hanzou]

It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey. I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out. So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.

So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?

 

[Hanzou]

So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?

Sherif Bey getting stomped by a MMA guy isn't anecdotal. There's video evidence of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sherif Bey getting stomped by a MMA guy isn't anecdotal. There's video evidence of it.

It's still a single event. That's weak evidence, and JGW's reply was reasonable, though less documented.

 

[Hanzou]

It's still a single event. That's weak evidence, and JGW's reply was reasonable, though less documented.

While a single event, it was still a powerful statement, because you got to see Sharif really fight, and based on his movements, you can tell that he really couldn't. Thus, its pretty easy to conclude that if he fought another MMA fighter, you'd get a similar result.

And JGW's reply isn't less documented, it's not documented at all. "Weak" evidence is better than zero evidence.

 

[drop bear]

So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?

I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.

 

[Hanzou]

I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.

Hmm, probably right about that. I suppose that makes JGW's account worse than anecdotal.