Hybrid Arts

[Grenadier]

Admin's Note:

Please keep this discussion civil.

Keep in mind, that while you do have leeway to attack the message, attacking the messenger is a surefire way to "earn" warning points that will lead to the banning of your account.

 

[Juany118]

Who are the "YOU" that you are talking about?

Where did your (general YOU) MMA coach learn how to integrate the striking art and the grappling art? Did he learn from his MMA coach? Where did your MMA coach's MMA coach learn from?

MMA may only have less than 40 years history. In the past 40 years, many people had involved with that integration task.

Ahh so that's someone's issue. MMA coaches are apparently from Faerie rings and only they can do such integrations? Such hybridization of martial arts has occurred for centuries but for all different purposes.

Yes an MMA practitioner, or coach, would be the best choice if you wanted to do MMA. How do they pull that off? Experience in MMA. However for that to be an excuse that others can't hybridize when they have adequate knowledge of the arts they study for other purposes. That beggars logic. All one needs to do, and it's what people who blend arts for MMA do, is be capable of ignoring the strategy/philosophical trappings behind an art and look at the Biomechanics. Where there is a natural flow biomechanically is where you make the connection. Can you connect everything, everywhere? Nope, but if you accept the reality that in the end all martial systems boil down to biomechanics you can see where the connections can be made. There is no "secret sauce" in martial arts.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.

In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles. Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot. If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.

It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.

Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.

When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand. Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system. When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.

When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration. That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.

A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation. What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles. But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid? I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been. In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.

Hybrid methods can work and can be effective. But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea. Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.

Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid. They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together. People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things. They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.

I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method. They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.

 

[Juany118]

I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.

In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles. Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot. If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.

It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.

Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.

When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand. Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system. When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.

When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration. That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.

A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation. What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles. But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid? I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been. In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.

Hybrid methods can work and can be effective. But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea. Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.

Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid. They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together. People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things. They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.

I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method. They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.

Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."

As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns. It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.

So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?

 

[Flying Crane]

Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."

As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns. It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.

So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?

That is a question for you to answer. I only point out that I see potential problems in the creation of hybrid arts. Some result in good stuff. Others do not.

I think that some people do not have an accurate assessment of their own skill and knowledge and insightfulness. These people create something that ultimately fails as a system, or does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.

 

[Juany118]

That is a question for you to answer. I only point out that I see potential problems in the creation of hybrid arts. Some result in good stuff. Others do not.

I think that some people do not have an accurate assessment of their own skill and knowledge and insightfulness. These people create something that ultimately fails as a system, or does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.

Oh I completely agree some arts don't work well in what we would call true hybridization. What I was saying in my post above is a narrower view of the biomechanics point I raised previously. Any fighting system must move smoothly, naturally.

So you need to look critically and ask "can you move smoothly from A to B" when looking to add on everything. Some people are good at that. Me, I went the "cheap" route. I simply study an unarmed striking art that has grappling/takedowns and add simply augment the existing grappling techniques from those with a deeper grappling game.

The more I look at this the more I see two different ways to accomplish a goal.
1. Hybrid: a true combination of different arts so that it becomes, for effective purposes, a new art.
2. I'll call this modular. The individual arts remain intact, there are simply points of transition where you can change from one to another. Now all arts don't work well in terms of modular. You need to find the right puzzle piece and then where the point of transitions are.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.

Agree with you on this.

The "rhino guard" was created from WC double Tan Shou. You

- protect your center from inside out,
- don't let your opponent's arms to get between your arms and your body.
- separate your opponent's arms away from his body.

Anybody can use "rhino guard" for defense. But if one wants to use it for offense, he has to develop a strong head lock first. Unfortunately, to develop a strong head lock is hard work and take time. If the new generation doesn't want to spend time in that hard work, the "rhino guard" usage will be limited.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes an MMA practitioner, or coach, would be the best choice if you wanted to do MMA.

If you have trained WC for 10 years. I believe you can integrate the grappling art into your WC system better than your MMA coach can (if your MMA coach knows nothing about the WC system).

In online discussion, many people like to suggest,

- you should ask your coach.
- You should ask your Sifu.
- You should ask your Sensei.
- ...

Sometime the answer is on yourself.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.

In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles. Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot. If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.

It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.

Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.

When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand. Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system. When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.

When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration. That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.

A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation. What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles. But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid? I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been. In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.

Hybrid methods can work and can be effective. But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea. Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.

Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid. They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together. People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things. They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.

I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method. They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.

I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.

And one other point. The founder of a hybrid art doesn't necessarily need a deep understanding of all his source arts. Rather he needs a deep understanding of all the techniques he incorporates into the new art. In most cases, that probably means a deep understanding of the entire source. In other cases, however, it may be that he found some great pieces that just fit into his developing art, using the principles of that developing art. It may even be that the principles this new founder teaches for a given technique are not in line with the source art's principles for that technique. However, if the technique (and his principles) work within the context of the developing art, then any conflict with the source is inconsequential.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."

As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns. It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.

So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?

Since you are using the techniques from other arts, I'd call it a personal hybrid. You've integrated the pieces from different sources to a workable whole that fits your needs. You may or may not have enough understanding to transmit that personal hybrid to another generation. You may or may not have enough understanding to transmit any of the sources to another generation. In my experience, ability to use technique effectively comes (if it comes at all) before the ability to transmit those techniques for successful use.

 

[wayfaring]

Who are the "YOU" that you are talking about?

Where did your (general YOU) MMA coach learn how to integrate the striking art and the grappling art? Did he learn from his MMA coach? Where did your MMA coach's MMA coach learn from?

MMA may only have less than 40 years history. In the past 40 years, many people had involved with that integration task.

I believe the YOU I referenced was from your post where you talked about it being each individual athlete's responsibility. MMA coaches learn from ring or octagon experience. Each fight is a live application of integrating striking and grappling.

As far as MMA and its 40 year history, I like to look to the person they refer to as the father of modern MMA, that is Bruce Lee. I would love it if somehow Wing Chun as an art could connect as Bruce Lee's foundation somehow to the modern world of MMA. Just a dream for me though.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.

And one other point. The founder of a hybrid art doesn't necessarily need a deep understanding of all his source arts. Rather he needs a deep understanding of all the techniques he incorporates into the new art. In most cases, that probably means a deep understanding of the entire source. In other cases, however, it may be that he found some great pieces that just fit into his developing art, using the principles of that developing art. It may even be that the principles this new founder teaches for a given technique are not in line with the source art's principles for that technique. However, if the technique (and his principles) work within the context of the developing art, then any conflict with the source is inconsequential.

Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built? Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles? Will it be all principles of all the component systems? Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles? And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?

The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.

I'll give a vastly oversimplified example. Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example). Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).

So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.

What is the foundation of this method? Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation. We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.

The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages. Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane. THEY WILL NOT WORK IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION. That is simply the truth. Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim. It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.

This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.

And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range. So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together. You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need. No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built? Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles? Will it be all principles of all the component systems? Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles? And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?

The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.

I'll give a vastly oversimplified example. Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example). Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).

So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.

What is the foundation of this method? Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation. We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.

The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages. Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane. THEY WILL NOT WORK IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION. That is simply the truth. Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim. It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.

This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.

And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range. So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together. You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need. No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.

Agreed. This is an issue with some techniques. From what I've seen of White Crane (not much, admittedly) I'd have a hard time imagining a complete hybridization of it with NGA, for example. There seem to be principles of movement that are in conflict. Arm positions in the one don't lend to the grappling in the other. Wing Chun, on the other hand, seems well-suited. If NGA didn't already have significant striking, this might be a source that would fit with the overall principles of the art.

It comes down to the ability to have underlying principles for the new art. Those principles may be somewhat divided (some of our principles apply to striking, some to grappling, some only to ground grappling), but there must be some unifying principles that tie them together. There must also be bridges between the segments (preferably some grey areas where segments overlap). I don't see those bridges (for our grappling, and even for our striking) when I look at White Crane. I see them when I look a Wing Chun.

This applies to a lesser extent for personal combining. If a person is actually comfortable in both White Crane and Wing Chun, they may flow freely back and forth between them. I doubt it would ever look like a contiguous whole, though. It would be - to use Juany's term - modular, rather than hybrid.

 

[wayfaring]

If you have trained WC for 10 years. I believe you can integrate the grappling art into your WC system better than your MMA coach can (if your MMA coach knows nothing about the WC system).

In online discussion, many people like to suggest,

- you should ask your coach.
- You should ask your Sifu.
- You should ask your Sensei.
- ...

Sometime the answer is on yourself.

This advice circling back around is funny to me. Basically from my perspective this is talking about my background and what I've done. I come on this forum and shared key details about how I have done this, what does work and what doesn't work over some years of experimenting, how my viewpoint has changed over time, and the response I get back from the group of geniuses is basically how I don't understand true hybridization, how it immediately flows for them, and sharing key components of how they can cure up my confusion including this message how I have to work it out for myself. And their combined fight record is 0-0.

So how I have "experimented" with WC, MMA and grappling over the last decade is I do spar with it at a MMA gym under the supervision of a MMA coach with a pro fight record who coaches fighters at all levels from local amateur up to Bellator and the UFC.

But in a way, you are correct. Your answer is on yourself. It is pretty clear my experience benefits nobody here.

 

[wayfaring]

When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand. Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system. When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.

I agree 100%.

 

[wayfaring]

I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.

I've seen a lot of art modifications due to changing rule sets in competition also, along these lines. Judo is one example.

 

[Flying Crane]

This advice circling back around is funny to me.

...and the response I get back from the group of geniuses is...

...And their combined fight record is 0-0.

.

A little friendly advice for you: I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive. If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.

Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are. You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said. But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around. You'll get a better reception.

 

[Juany118]

Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built? Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles? Will it be all principles of all the component systems? Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles? And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?

The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.

I'll give a vastly oversimplified example. Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example). Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).

So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.

What is the foundation of this method? Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation. We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.

The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages. Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane. THEY WILL NOT WORK IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION. That is simply the truth. Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim. It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.

This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.

And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range. So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together. You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need. No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.

Oh agreed. As an example I stop in at a local Tien Shan Pai (Northern Long Fist Style) school in my town and chat with the Sifu. When I see the forms I say "yeah on the striking side not much you could do to some how bring WC in on this." However while their broad sword form is very similar to the unarmed, which SHOULD also make it incompatible with Kali sword/stick techniques I see a couple things that could actually prove useful and integrate well.

What it comes down to is that there needs to be some connections but I think you need to look at the principles of the biomechanics vs the philosophical principles and appearance.

As an example the Wing Chun I study and the arts with deeper grappling all share a similar take down. Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand". You step in and behind the opponent while reaching your arm across their center near the head/neck, in WC and Kali we are striking as we "reach". You then simultaneously do what amounts to a reverse swing arm while simultaneously driving your knee up into the back of the knee/hamstring of the opponent.

Now in WC we will usually release the limb we are controlling to then "ground pound" but the biomechanics of transitioning to full two handed control of the limb all la the grappling arts I study flows just as naturally if you let it.

I think I sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, people allow philosophical principles and visual appearance get in the way of seeing the actual physical/biomechanical principles at play.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I come on this forum and shared key details about how I have done this, what does work and what doesn't work over some years of experimenting, how my viewpoint has changed over time,

I'm not a MMA coach. But I'm a Sanda/Sanshou coach for the past 30 years. The MMA didn't even exist back in my time. To integrate striking into grappling is an import task for the American Combat Shuai Chiao Association (ACSCA) that was founded back in 1984. I also tried to share my personal experience here such as how to use

- kick to set up punch.
- punch to set up clinch.
- clinch to set up take down.
- take down to set up ground control.
- ...

The "Combat Shuai Chiao" is a perfect example of "hybrid art" (Do those guys in the following picture look like "hybrid"?). We tried to integrate striking art into the grappling art and we don't care which striking art system it may come from.

Combat Shuai-Chiao Main Page

 

[Juany118]

A little friendly advice for you: I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive. If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.

Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are. You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said. But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around. You'll get a better reception.

I'm not a MMA coach. But I'm a Sanda/Sanshou coach for the past 30 years. The MMA didn't even exist back in my time...

While there are a couple people I don't see anymore I think, based on responses the issue is this.

Some people only see the value of on type of experience. Thing is there are others outside of formal competition in a Ring.

First you have Occupations. You have the Bouncer who has to deal with the drunk (and thus more resistant to pain) people who are fighting in bars. You have the soldier, whose job now includes having to not use deadly force due to peace keeping missions and counter insurgency protocols (so you got the Marine corp LINE system being replaced by MCMAP), you have LE and Corrections officers etc. These occupations find out rather quickly what consistently works and what does not.

Second simply proper pressure testing in training and what I consider "fun" sparring at least. By "fun" I mean stuff like this... though I prefer lightly padded sticks we use at my school when we Kali spar because I don't want to have use my AFLAK.

People who are overly focused on competition in the ring miss how many people train the same way, even fight harder on the job (life and death vs "hey I won!!!!!"). It's can simply be about having fun in an adrenaline junkie sorta way like the Dog Brothers Gatherings, it can be about training hard and realistically for self defense, it can be about training to make sure you go home in one piece. In the end though it's about how you train and test and LOTS of places do that right, not just MMA.