I think this here is way better than wing chun

[Ironbear24]

A lot of people who are not involved in TMA think TMA is all "sissified" and watered down. TMA is not also only about self defense but many have full contact competitions as well, just look at kyokyushin karate which holds tournaments not only for themselves but all styles can compete in it given you follow the rules of the tournament.

I myself have never walked out of my dojo without some sort of bruise and fatigued feeling. That is because for one, we get hit very hard with nothing on but a gi and no gloves, and two if we were to train weak, we would never become anything beyond weak.

It's like jack blacks character in school of Rock said. "You're not hardcore, unless you live hardcore."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.

Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.

I think Juany's talking to me about others' posts, in most of the posts you are referring to.

 

[Hanzou]

A lot of people who are not involved in TMA think TMA is all "sissified" and watered down. TMA is not also only about self defense but many have full contact competitions as well, just look at kyokyushin karate which holds tournaments not only for themselves but all styles can compete in it given you follow the rules of the tournament.

Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.

In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".

 

[Ironbear24]

Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.

In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".

The organization was created in the 1964. The style was there in the 50's. Modern or traditional is an argument I won't get into but when boxing is called modern and tae kwon do is called traditional then we got some obvious hilarity there since boxing has been around since ancient Greece and TKD was made in the 50's.

 

[Hanzou]

The organization was created in the 1964. The style was there in the 50's.

LoL! Okay...

Modern or traditional is an argument I won't get into but when boxing is called modern and tae kwon do is called traditional then we got some obvious hilarity there since boxing has been around since ancient Greece and TKD was made in the 50's.

Kyokushin was created for competitive and self defense purposes. It wasn't created to kill a thousand samurai with your bare hands. The lack of traditional weaponry is also a dead giveaway.

 

[Ironbear24]

LoL! Okay...



Kyokushin was created for competitive and self defense purposes. It wasn't created to kill a thousand samurai with your bare hands. The lack of traditional weaponry is also a dead giveaway.

I doubt anyone trained to kill one thousand samurai with their bare hands. You are being dramatic again.

You obviously have very different definitions when it comes to tmas and mmas. Me personally I think both are completely nonsensical terms that we would be better of without, they themselves don't make sense.

How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Kenpo has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset. Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be?

If that's the case I guess boxing is a traditional martial art since it has no use of weapons and is very ancient.

 

[Juany118]

Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.

Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.

I am just agreeing with GP but giving detail, based on his responses, as to the motivations I have experienced that would illicit GP's response. I have Drop Bear (and a few others) on ignore so the only info I have access to is GP's responses. It actually makes for odd reading tbh.

 

[Hanzou]

I doubt anyone trained to kill one thousand samurai with their bare hands. You are being dramatic again.

You obviously have very different definitions when it comes to tmas and mmas. Me personally I think both are completely nonsensical terms that we would be better of without, they themselves don't make sense.

How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Keno has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset.

That would depend on which version of Kenpo you're talking about.

Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be?

I also use the purpose of its creation.

If that's the case I guess boxing is a traditional martial art since it has no use of weapons and is very ancient.

Modern boxing has little in common with ancient boxing beyond the name. Further, the term "boxing" has multiple meanings in multiple countries. Many styles of Kung Fu for example are considered "boxing".

However, we're missing the point here; Your argument that Kyokushin proves that TMAs aren't "sissified" is laughable because Kyokushin isn't a TMA, and it was created because its founder felt that older styles were "sissified".

 

[Ironbear24]

That would depend on which version of Kenpo you're talking about.

American kenpo.

 

[Ironbear24]

However, we're missing the point here; Your argument that Kyokushin proves that TMAs aren't "sissified" is laughable because Kyokushin isn't a TMA, and it was created because its founder felt that older styles were "sissified".

TMA or not many styles are more than welcome to go participate in their tournaments and often do.

 

[Juany118]

Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.

In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".

But that is largely due to Government interference with the Japanese Martial Arts. The following is an excerpt from "Modern Bujutsu and Budo" regarding the effects of the Meiji Restoration.

Ultranationalists and militarists, both in and out of government, distorted the intrinsic purpose of classical bujutsu (martial arts) and budo (martial ways), thus proving the truism that new uses can be found for any product of man's ingenuity; indeed, a hammer can be used to paint a house if it satisfies the expectations of whoever uses it in this absurd fashion.

The intrinsic nature of classical bujutsu is manifested by the threefold relationship: (1) combat, (2) discipline, and (3) morals. The forced change modified this relationship to the following: (1) discipline, (2) morals. Similarly, the intrinsic nature of classical budo comprises (1) morals, (2) discipline, (3) aesthetic form. This was changed to (1) discipline, (2) morals. It will readily be seen by these changes, made approximately a century ago, that the people advocating them made no distinction between bujutsu and budo; in their eyes, the two were equated. This is the overriding reason for the general misunderstanding of classical disciplines that prevails today, which helps explain why the majority of modern Japanese are unable to distinguish between these two very different kinds of classical disciplines, and furthermore, why they are unable to make any distinction at all between classical and modern disciplines."

A similar dynamic occurred in China due to Mao, from "the Tao of Wing Chun" in a portion about the History of Martial Arts and why most of the "older" CMA came to the West via Hong Kong in the post WWII period. The below is also why, initially, the focus of Martial Arts on the Mainland was largely sport (Wushu) and fitness.

When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) first took power in 1949 they banned all martial arts for fear of a revolution. Chinese history is full of revolutions that were instigated by martial artists, so to ensure that this didn’t happen again, the CCP’s solution was to obliterate them. The Cultural Revolution, which started in 1966, hammered the last nail onto the coffin of the Chinese martial arts, in what was probably the lowest point for Chinese martial arts in the history of China. When Mao eventually died in 1976, China began to change under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and most of Mao’s Cultural Revolution reforms were abandoned by 1978. However, the citizens were fearful and suspicious of new reforms, lest they should change again, and no one wanted to be exposed to further persecution. As a result, during the 1980s the Chinese people conducted themselves as if the Cultural Revolution was still in effect. It wasn’t until the CCP officially declared that all of the ancient Chinese traditions, religions and martial arts practices that were under government control would now be legal that people started to feel comfortable about practicing them...

With the popularity of Hong Kong action movies (even Mao was said to have been a fan of Bruce Lee’s movies), the Chinese Government began producing them also, the earliest and most popular one being The Shaolin Temple, starring a young Jet Li, who had won several national Wushu forms competitions. It was only when the Government had opened the doors of China to the West, and particularly to the revenue generated by tourism, that they realized that there was a significant market for martial arts and cultural tourism. As a result they began to resurrect and renovate the temples throughout China that had been destroyed and neglected, especially those that had a deep martial arts history like the northern Shaolin Temple.

So what you really end up having are arts we call "traditional martial arts" which were purposefully changed by the central authority to meet political ends.

 

[Blindside]

How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Kenpo has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset. Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be?

Kenpo has weapons, it has forms for stick and club, a staff set and SGM Parker made a nunchaku set to cash in on the craze.

And what competitive mindset does Kenpo have? What AK students have excelled in which competitions?

 

[Ironbear24]

Plenty.

Tournaments

 

[drop bear]

Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.

In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.

And that time i dropped a football team with my lazer eyes.

They are just stories. You can't really give them much weight. Even from guys who do bash people for a living.

 

[drop bear]

Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.

You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.

There are no champion self defence instructors. That is where your issue starts.

There is no method of identifying good self defence instructors from bad other than anecdotes.

They have nothing else which is why so much importance is placed on stories in self defence.

"I saw a guy who did this thing which is why you cant punch in a street fight". Or whatever.

It is kind of silly.

And the important factor here is if your ability is defined by your ability yo tell stories. Your truth can never compete with their fiction. Why would i do bjj and struggle to beat one guy when i can do krave and train to beat ten guys?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And that time i dropped a football team with my lazer eyes.

They are just stories. You can't really give them much weight. Even from guys who do bash people for a living.

Okay, what part of my previous posts is unintelligible. I'm the one who originally said that anecdotal evidence wasn't statistically valid.

But, no, they are not "just stories". They are examples of actual events. The term "anecdotal evidence" is actually used in research to refer to incidents that cannot be statistically analyzed due to very small numbers, but which provide useful information for those digging into the theories and processes being investigated.

If you want to say someone's experience is "just stories", then how does that, in any way, differ from when someone analyzes their performance after a competition? How is that not "just stories"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are no champion self defence instructors. That is where your issue starts.

There is no method of identifying good self defence instructors from bad other than anecdotes.

They have nothing else which is why so much importance is placed on stories in self defence.

"I saw a guy who did this thing which is why you cant punch in a street fight". Or whatever.

It is kind of silly.

And the important factor here is if your ability is defined by your ability yo tell stories. Your truth can never compete with their fiction. Why would i do bjj and struggle to beat one guy when i can do krave and train to beat ten guys?

There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.

I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.

 

[Ironbear24]

There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.

I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.

I guess you can say drop bear is being unBEARable.

 

[drop bear]

There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.

I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.

Would anecdotal evidence count?

Trying to find evidence that self defence is bad is like trying to find evidence that fairies don't exist.

It works the other way. There is no evidence ecept for your desparate anecdotes that self defence is good.

I am not trying to win. I am trying to get you to realize that separate from whether your system works or not.your arguments are primarily a fairy tale.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, what part of my previous posts is unintelligible. I'm the one who originally said that anecdotal evidence wasn't statistically valid.

But, no, they are not "just stories". They are examples of actual events. The term "anecdotal evidence" is actually used in research to refer to incidents that cannot be statistically analyzed due to very small numbers, but which provide useful information for those digging into the theories and processes being investigated.

If you want to say someone's experience is "just stories", then how does that, in any way, differ from when someone analyzes their performance after a competition? How is that not "just stories"?

Because of the weight you put on the stories. There is no advantage to being truthful.