The Art or The Person

[MJS]

Well, speaking as a member, not a mod. because I'm involved in this thread, it seems lately like we have had quite a few threads with off topic posts and mod warnings. I hate to see threads get locked, especially when we have good discussion, so I think its best to stop all the side chatter and get back to talking about this:

Reading thorugh some threads recently, I began thinking of a few things. Many times, people begin training because of the success or stories they've heard about the art or other people in the art. I'll use BJJ for an example. Back in '93, once the UFC made its debut, everyone ran out to begin training in this art that seemed to dominate the ring. Now, is it a given that anyone that trains in BJJ is going to always be the victor in every outcome? I'm not talking about preset matches, where everyone is paired up with an equal, but in the real world, where things are not equal. What determines that outcome? This of course is not limited to BJJ, but any art. If someone trains in TKD, is it a given that because they train in that art, they're going to be successfull?

This thread is not intended to be a my art vs. your art. Its not intended to turn into a flame war. I'm looking for some good, friendly debate.

 

[exile]

Well, speaking as a member, not a mod. because I'm involved in this thread, it seems lately like we have had quite a few threads with off topic posts and mod warnings. I hate to see threads get locked, especially when we have good discussion, so I think its best to stop all the side chatter...

Absolutely, Mike. I think some of the reason why people get into the art vs. art red herring is precisely because it can't be resolved in any rigorous way, so it provides endless fodder for taking strong positions that in a sense can't ever be subject to cold evaluation and (very likely) rejection. In other words, a kind of work avoidance tactic.

But on the assumption that it really is the practitioner, not the art, what are we supposed to do? Obviously, we're supposed to train harder, but what does that mean, really? Spend more hours at it? Or does it mean, instead, that we're responsible for constructing a version of the art which is customized to our particular physical abilities and talents, and our individual world-views? That's a challenge which I think is much harder than endless debate about Muay Thai vs. Wing Chun or, ... or.... but it's much more relevant to real performance, real outcomes? So we have a bunch of people on MT who do Taekwondo. Quite a few of them enjoy WTF style competitive TKD; that's TKD for them, and they're right: for them, that is TKD. So they have to construct a version of TKD which supports that take on the art and which rewards a certain kind of training. My own view is, TKD is a very hard-style variant of karate and is intended to maximize damage to an assailant regardless of his size. If that's what I think, then I need to develop a model of combat-oriented TKD based on my understanding of the techs concealed within the hyungs, and on my own ability do deliver force to high-value, vulnerable targets. And that model has to take my own body type (fairly tall, lean, narrow shoulders, quite long legs, muscular as a result of dedicated weight training, etc.) and abilities and weaknesses into account. I have to work out a training protocol which lets me overcome my weaknesses (e.g., balance skills) and bring my strengths (e.g., fast reflexes) to bear to tailor TKD to my own very specific requirements. Someone else's TKD may well—and should—be rather different, reflecting their physical, psychological and philosophical differences from me.

What I'm saying is just this: if it really is the artist, not the art, that determines success in some domain of combat, then the art doesn't provide you with either guarantees of success or alibis if you fail. If the individual performer is responsible for his or her success in the art, then one of the first things that has to be happen is giving up a one-size-fits-all version of the particular art. The art supplies principles, strategy and tactics, but these must all be applied by individual practitioners, each with a particular body type and certain physical and emotional characteristics, and that means you have to in a sense reinvent the art, as a matter of execution, for yourself. This isn't easy, because it means you have to think out your training in a much more reflective and active way than most of us like to do in acquiring our knowledge. But it seems to me an inevitable outcome, if we take the practitioner, not the art, to be the primary factor in combat success or failure, however you define these...

 

[kidswarrior]

Sounds like you are describing hapkido to a "T" to ME.

So WHO "invented" mixed MA? Not saying hapkido: the idea actually has come up in many different cultures over the centuries, but one thing IS for certain: HKD had already covered this ground in Korea before Bruce "invented it" in San Francisco

As for the car analogy, it is a good one. Change the race conditions, and you change which car is "best" (in addition to the driver factor).

You don't want to take a Formula One car out on a dirt track

I've said this before, and I'll say it here again: BJJ is a great art for Brazil where mano y mano fights are the norm.

It also works great in a cage match or any other situation where groundwork is a good option.

For Southeast Missouri where you usually have at least two and as many as five or six rednecks jumping on you at once? I don't think I'll be "rolling," thanks, or taking my time waiting for an armbar or rear naked choke opportunity.

Insert, Banger for redneck, and L.A. sprawl for SE Missouri, and...'Check'

So find out what is best for YOU where YOU are at. There is no universal "best."

If BJJ is best for you where you are at — great! It doesn't HAVE to be the "best art in the world ever" to be the best for YOU where YOU are

So stop trying to convince us and yourself and just get in there and train

Even if you COULD convince me that BJJ is my best option for this area, I don't HAVE a BJJ instructor around here – so it's a moot point~!

And even if hakido IS the best art for you (not saying it IS), could be the only instructor you could find sucks, and you would be better off with BJJ, or Muay Thai, or TKD or...

This post really floats my boat. :ultracool

 

[flashlock]

Absolutely, Mike. I think some of the reason why people get into the art vs. art red herring is precisely because it can't be resolved in any rigorous way, so it provides endless fodder for taking strong positions that in a sense can't ever be subject to cold evaluation and (very likely) rejection. In other words, a kind of work avoidance tactic.

I thought the question on this thread was concerning if some arts are just flat better than others, so isn't this thread what you're calling a red herring? I'm confused. Regarding "cold evaluation", WWII H2H combat system vs traditional system has been documented, and I've mentioned the recent material--someone else mentioned combat TKD, mentioning casualties from H2H combat. Also, there are thousands of police reports documenting street fights and knife fights, and what happened. They are mostly untrained people, but you can see how the fight went. A police officer has told me they usually end up on the ground.

What's strange (maybe not overly convincing) is you can find case after case of video footage of BJJ defeating every other style, usually in a crushing manner. The striker throws a few kicks, the BJJ guy absorbs them and clinches, down they go, and the striker is submitted within 45 seconds--every time. I have looked (perhaps not hard enough) but I can't seem to find ANY MA crushing BJJ like that. I think people absorb that concept and it does influence the choice on what style they choose (rightly or wrongly).

Everyone is adding grappling and ground game, or claiming that they had it all the while--but BJJ isn't adding any of their techniques, at least not that I have seen. Why is that?

When I first asked myself these questions, I was trying to dismiss BJJ--I just didn't believe the hype. Obviously, I've been swayed!

Let the neg rep points rain down upon my grateful head!

 

[exile]

I thought the question on this thread was concerning if some arts are just flat better than others, so isn't this thread what you're calling a red herring? I'm confused.

Flashlock, read the OP carefully. E.g.:

If someone trains in TKD, is it a given that because they train in that art, they're going to be successfull?

This thread is not intended to be a my art vs. your art.

The original question is, literally, does training in a particular art guarantee that you will be successful against any other practitioner of any other art? I'm saying that the fairly obvious answer is no. And based on the network of arguments I and others have posted, I'm taking the position that there is no way in principle that arts can be evaluated in a way which abstracts from the performance of individuals—a position based in part on the fact that not one person on MT, or anywhere else, so far as I can tell, has presented a method for doing so, let alone actually carrying out the experimental work necessary to draw any conclusions.

IRegarding "cold evaluation", WWII H2H combat system vs traditional system has been documented, and I've mentioned the recent material--someone else mentioned combat TKD, mentioning casualties from H2H combat. Also, there are thousands of police reports documenting street fights and knife fights, and what happened. They are mostly untrained people, but you can see how the fight went. A police officer has told me they usually end up on the ground.

And if you ask Drac, or any number of other LEOs who post regularly on this forum, they'll tell you that there's no particular way in which a fight necessarily goes, that statistics like `90% of fights end up on the ground' are anecdotal improvisations at best. The battle of Tra Binh Dong is documented from a variety of firsthand participant-observors, but all it shows is that a particular group of individuals, trained in a particular art, were lethally effective against a group of assailants. It does not tell you that their art was superior to any other art. Why would any one think that? What distinguished the Korean War Black Tiger commandos and the ROK Marines in the Vietnam war was that they trained specifically for the purpose of killing their antagonists under a variety of battlefield conditions, including the possession of weapons by those antagonists. It was their training, not simply the technical content of the art itself, which enabled them to fatally damage so many of their enemies under very unpleasant CQ combat conditions. From early days, the Korean military emphasized training for this kind of outcome. The form that military TKD took reflects this emphasis. But do you really think that a trainee who spent four years earning a first dan in this particular form of TKD, but was not subject to realistic, dangerous training of the kind the ROK military was, would have performed remotely as well at Tra Binh Dong?

IWhat's strange (maybe not overly convincing) is you can find case after case of video footage of BJJ defeating every other style, usually in a crushing manner. The striker throws a few kicks, the BJJ guy absorbs them and clinches, down they go, and the striker is submitted within 45 seconds--every time. I have looked (perhaps not hard enough) but I can't seem to find ANY MA crushing BJJ like that. I think people absorb that concept and it does influence the choice on what style they choose (rightly or wrongly).

Look, I agree with you on this—except that I don't really find it strange. Take Mas Oyama, who used to stun bulls with fist strikes as a demonstration of the power he could generate. BJJ or not, I would very much not want to have gotten into a fight with someone who could do that. But would Oyama ever have gotten into MMA competition? Very unlikely: in his own domain, he ruled completely, as an icon of Japanese karate in its most unapologetically brutal form. He would have had no interest in the MMA world, he had nothing to prove to anyone. And the best TMAists of the present are in the same situation. I look at someone like Geoff Thompson or Iain Anderson—they aren't interested in the particular kind of sport competittion that MMA involves. A lot of TMAists aren't!!!

As I said in my earlier post, the crucial test would be, some reasonably successful MMAist of, say, the BJJ persuasion up against one of the bloodier-handed veteran of Tra Binh Dong, or one of the surviving silent killers of the Black Tiger assassination missions that made the North Koreans sufficently worried about ROK MAists to murder several of the original Kwan founders during the Korean War. No rules, and to the death—essentially the conditions you specified in your post, in fact. But in all such cases, the point is that the people I'm talking about were as effective as they were because they were trained in a particular way. They practiced for that kind of fighting, night and day; they were the best of the best because of that training. The art itself had to be able to support that kind of killing effectiveness, technically speaking, but unless you trained the way the ROK trained its spec ops and commando units, you would not get anything like the same performance. What is documented, flashlock, is not the effectiveness of any particular art, but the effectiveness of particular practitioners of that art. Tra Binh Dong is about the 11th ROK Marines. Had they been the same MAists, but trained to use their techs in a fashion comparable to current WTF sparring matches, how likely do you think it would be that the battle at TBD would have gone the way it did?

IEveryone is adding grappling and ground game, or claiming that they had it all the while--but BJJ isn't adding any of their techniques, at least not that I have seen. Why is that?

All I can say is, everything I've read on MT from people who are very au courant with this kind of sport competition suggests that striking techs are playing an increasingly important role in MMA competition, and that many victors in recent tournament competition have won by applications of striking-based attacks of a kind quite different from what BJJ practitioners were winning with in the early years of MMA compeition circuits. If I'm wrong abou this, plenty of others will chime in, for sure! I have to say, I'm not really interested in sport competition...

IWhen I first asked myself these questions, I was trying to dismiss BJJ--I just didn't believe the hype. Obviously, I've been swayed!

Let the neg rep points rain down upon my grateful head!

People on MT don't generally neg rep anyone simply because of a particular position they take or opinion they defend, so far as I can tell. But there are certain ways of presenting and defending your opinion, and there are other ways. If you're having a problem with neg rep, it maybe suggests that there's a problem with how you're talking to the other discussants, more than what you're actually saying. If it doesn't bother you, fine; but in the end, you're probably going to get more people to at least hear you out if you monitor your presentation a bit more carefully than those red dots suggest you've been doing. Just my suggestion; you're free to ignore it, but I really do think you'd have a better chance of getting a fair hearing for your ideas if you tried to avoid doing whatever you've been doing so far in presenting them....

 

[MJS]

Just to add on a bit more to what Exile just said. As I said in my OP, which I will break down again, for further understanding.

Reading thorugh some threads recently, I began thinking of a few things. Many times, people begin training because of the success or stories they've heard about the art or other people in the art.A) I'll use BJJ for an example. Back in '93, once the UFC made its debut, everyone ran out to begin training in this art that seemed to dominate the ring.B) Now, is it a given that anyone that trains in BJJ is going to always be the victor in every outcome? C)I'm not talking about preset matches, where everyone is paired up with an equal, but in the real world, where things are not equal. What determines that outcome? This of course is not limited to BJJ, but any art. If someone trains in TKD, is it a given that because they train in that art, they're going to be successfull?

D)This thread is not intended to be a my art vs. your art. Its not intended to turn into a flame war. I'm looking for some good, friendly debate.

A) I'm using that as a reference point, not necessarily as the focal point.

B) I believe I said this somewhere else, but I'll say it again. When someone hears BJJ, they automatically attribute that to the Gracies. We are not the Gracies. Just because I grapple, does not mean that I can move like Rickson, Royce or Rorion. The same for boxing. I can punch, but I certainly can't punch like Tyson.

C) This discussion, especially some recent posts, have gone the way of the ring. In a MMA match, things are preset. In the real world, we are not going to know who are opponent will be.

D) This should be self explainatory.

 

[matt.m]

You're more afraid to face Judo than BJJ? You can't be serious (watch BJJ vs Judo on youtube). Hey, it's your choice, I just don't see it...

You think Hapkido is as mixed and iconoclastic as JKD? Bruce Lee mixed and integrated arts from western boxing, revolutionized aspects of wing chung, and incorporated grappling from western and eastern boxing systems.

As for multiple opponents, I've seen "Billy Jack"--that crowd kicked his butt! (Joke)

Seriously, I am not here to promote BJJ; why would I? I've taken 3 bloody classes. But it's what I plan to focus on in the upcoming months.

Everyone can try this experiment: while your opponent is throwing his/her kicks and punches, just crash through with your guard up into a clinch, and wrestle them. I found the opponent could not prevent it. To me, that means it's very difficult to prevent someone crashing into grappling range. Ergo, if they are grappling specialists, won't they have an advantage (they spend 95% grappling, and you spend less than 75% grappling)?

zDom is a smart cookie man. I agree, look at my earlier post. I won the PanAm games in Judo. True kodokan judo is more powerful and aggressive than BJJ, sorry. I am not trying to steer the "Hate train" or anything. In essence though, BJJ is nothing more than Brazillian Judo.

The fellow who trained helio was the Japanese Judo champion trained by Kano himself.

Uh, MSK HKD has it all, look at the cirriculum requirements, not to mention for average BB is approx. 7 yrs to obtain. Here is the link:
http://www.mskhapkido.com/id14.html

I have found that my judo background aguments my hapkido. Tae kwon do does the same for me as well. These two other arts help me to understand and make "My" hapkido better. The last thing on the planet I am going to want to do is go to the ground.

I talked with Rodrigo "The Vice" Vaghi a while back. My pal studies from him......Rodrigo is the highest ranking dan from Rickson on the planet. This guy has more BJJ and Judo trophies and wins....to include PanAm games and the Arnold. His words to me were, "Matt, BJJ is a sport and not practical for the gravel and pavement. Judo as you and I both know is an art that is 'dumbed down' for competition."

By the way, I do believe that those who train in BJJ are physical fitness studs and should be congratulated. It is a very hard TMA to do well. I respect all people who train hard and consistently. In the martial spirit I do believe that all practitioners should get and deserve the A+ for effort they deserve. I find that all too often people put blinders on to what others are doing, that is no good in my opinion.

Watching Tom Laughlin / Bong Soo Han take the beatin was something else.

 

[flashlock]

Hi,

My plan had been to jump into BJJ in about 3 months after I lost about 15 lbs.

To be honest, this forum has gotten me so curious/ riled up, I joined the BJJ club in downtown Melbourne (Oz) yesterday.

I asked the teacher some of the questions I've been asking in this form, and brought up some of your points. He has 15 years experience in Karate, but his passion is BJJ (he has several years experience as a bouncer). He is a multiple BJJ Australian and NZ champion. He told me he is biased, so you have to take what he says with a grain.

1. "BJJ doesn't work vs multiple opponents." - He said that nothing really works against two fighters who are WORKING TOGETHER in a strategic manner. Your best option, regardless of style, is to kick the first one in the groin, and then take the other out or run.

2. "BJJ works because of all the rules in a sports ring--outside of that, it's not nearly as effective." - He said BJJ started without any rules, the rules came later because people were getting very injured in BJJ / MA street wars (no rules whatsoever).

3. "In a real fight, the BJJ will get his eyes gouged, scratched, and his arms bitten." He said (after laughing) that if the pinnacle of your art is an eye gouge or bite, you are in trouble. Try to gouge someone's eyes out in a fight--you'll probably break your fingers when you miss against a resisting opponent.

4. "Our art has grappling!" He said they have to have grappling, or they would have to shut down--and the grappling he's seen is TERRIBLE in his opinion.

5. He asked where all the Kung Fu guys and TKD guys and Ninja masters are challenging the Gracies and everyone else, and defeating them... all of them. It doesn't happen becuase, and forgive me, he thinks their arts are crap because they don't work. This from someone who did karate for 15 years. They work if someone just stands there and gets hit, but he said they usually don't pracitce vs people moving into the strike into the grappling range.

6. BJJ people fight at full speed, full strength, every class. No, "Oh, this death touch is so powerful, we can't use it." He said that that was a cop out--prove it or shut up.

7. Most of the people he said that were criticising BJJ have never even taken a class. Basically, they don't know what the hell they're talking about and should take 3 months of BJJ or shut up. It's usually a one way stream: people leaving their art to join BJJ, almost never the other way around.

Anyway, those were his opinions... just food for thought.

(PS: I have never been so tired after a single martial arts class in my life! Amazing, I recommend everyone at least try a few classes, great stuff! I got my butt kicked--.... and loving it!)

 

[zDom]

I have addressed your instructor's comments in another thread, flashlock, so this thread can stay on topic.

 

[flashlock]

I have addressed your instructor's comments in another thread, flintlock, so this thread can stay on topic.

Flintlock! LOL.

What about Zdumb? Just kidding like you!

I'm on topic: style can trump the individual because not all styles are =. (In some expert's opinions based on... see above).

I'm out, good luck!

 

[bydand]

You know, I get tired of the childish "My art is great, your art sucks" then the usage of personal opinions as facts.

Flashlock, you like what you do, GREAT! On the other hand, I could care less what you or your instructor think personally of other arts you don't, or haven't trained in. Also I'll assure you, opinions of people I don't know and opinions which I have seen to be not 100% correct will not get me to change what I do.

The original guestion was Art or Person? Touting the greatness of BJJ and how the style will overcome is your feelings on the issue and question. Relax and step back from the argument for a few. Just because I happen to disagree with that, and many others do as well, doesn't mean I think you need to change your point of view to mirror mine; just as you shouldn't expect your views to cause me or anybody else to change ours. Personally I feel the Person is the biggest factor directing the outcome of a conflict, not an art or style.

 

[kidswarrior]

You know, I get tired of the childish "My art is great, your art sucks"....

Relax and step back from the argument for a few.

Great advice, bydand. :ultracool

Just because I happen to disagree with that, and many others do as well, doesn't mean I think you need to change your point of view to mirror mine; just as you shouldn't expect your views to cause me or anybody else to change ours.

The Friendly Forum at work! I like it. It's what brought me here in the first place, and makes me want to keep coming back.

Personally I feel the Person is the biggest factor directing the outcome of a conflict, not an art or style.

And following the friendly netiquette reminders, answering the topic question. Finishing a dead-on post with a flourish. :supcool:

 

[Sukerkin]

I was unable to 'rep' bydand as he deserves there but was able to 'buff' kidswarrior a little for his good supporting post :tup:.

Right, to brass tacks.

I blushingly admit to having jumped in at the end here, so feel free to give me a slap or two to encourage me to read threads before opening the keyboard.

However, given the initial question posed in the thread, I'm surprised that the discourse has reached four pages (which should really encourage me to go and see what's been said I suppose ).

When personal hand-to-hand combat is concerned, all other things being equal, it is always the intrinsic ability to fight in a person rather than the techniques learned that matter.

There is a rule-of-thumb that applies across all human endeavours, which is that five percent of people that learn something will be much better at it than everyone else, regardless of training or equipment (within reason on the latter).

The most often quoted example for this is fighter pilots. You can train all you like and have the fanciest plane but if you're not one of the 'Aces' and you meet one in combat then the outcome is almost assured (barring dumb luck).

Quoting from personal experience I can attest to this as I have both being resoundly beaten in sparring by someone I was technically better than and have also, one scared night in a dark alley, survived three to one odds in the one time I've ever had to use for real what I was taught.

In the former case, I came up against the natural ability of an 'Ace'. In the latter, my training counted against a trio of non-ace thugs.

 

[flashlock]

You know, I get tired of the childish "My art is great, your art sucks" then the usage of personal opinions as facts.

Flashlock, you like what you do, GREAT! On the other hand, I could care less what you or your instructor think personally of other arts you don't, or haven't trained in. Also I'll assure you, opinions of people I don't know and opinions which I have seen to be not 100% correct will not get me to change what I do.

The original guestion was Art or Person? Touting the greatness of BJJ and how the style will overcome is your feelings on the issue and question. Relax and step back from the argument for a few. Just because I happen to disagree with that, and many others do as well, doesn't mean I think you need to change your point of view to mirror mine; just as you shouldn't expect your views to cause me or anybody else to change ours. Personally I feel the Person is the biggest factor directing the outcome of a conflict, not an art or style.

Hi, Bydand! For someone who couldn't care less about my opinion, you comment on my posts and took the time to give me neg rep points with a suggestion I quit the forum. Just put me on ignore if what I say is so annoying.

Yes, the original question was basically, "Is it the style or the person"? Yes, it is the person, but the style and the training within that style are major factors in my opinion. I think it's silly to say it's ABSOLUTELY NO FACTOR.

You don't know me--you see some immature ignoramous who's excited about BJJ, thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread, and would destroy everything that gets in its way. I bet there have been a lot of immature jerks who say that about their Hopkido, "combat" TKD, BJJ, and even your art.

That's not where I'm coming from though. You have to admit, BJJ has influenced most of the MA through these UFC matches. Why? Because people who used it crushed everyone who wasn't familiar with it. It's a fact, not an opinion. That tells me style and training (and of course the individual) play factors in winning. People mention fads and things, but that's just stuff on movies--you can't take away what the Gracies did for the martial arts--the contribution is enormous. Why? Because with their style a really little guy could beat a much bigger guy--the stuff works better than many traditional arts--I believe ALL of them.

I love the point Crane made about the training. If BJJ, because they are not striking, can really fight, REALLY fight 3 X a week for an hour, while strikers can't, that is a big advantage right there.

Maybe the striking arts need to armour up and just go full contact every class for a full hour--full powered strikes--might have to take turns wearing the motorcycle helmets a la' Vunak--but that might be one equalizer right there.

Any way, take care, buddy.

 

[exile]

Flashlock now:

You don't know me--you see some immature ignoramous who's excited about BJJ, thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread, and would destroy everything that gets in its way...That's not where I'm coming from though....the original question was basically, "Is it the style or the person"? Yes, it is the person,

Flashlock then (post #50)

I'm on topic: style can trump the individual because not all styles are =

If you think you've been misunderstood, flashlock, maybe you might also consider how seemingly contradictory statements like these two, quoted direct from your very own posts, could give rise to that impression... possible, you think? :wink1:

 

[bydand]

Flashlock let me set the record straight here. Yes I did ding you, but not for any post you made in this thread, it was for a juvinile post you made in the "Your most feared opponent" thread when you were making some snide remark about somebody elses answer. I did NOT suggest you quit the forum, I suggested that if you wanted to make posts like that to go elsewhere to do so. I would never tell somebody to quit MT, I think it is a great forum and there is a lot to learn here for everybody, myself included. I was suggesting you make the rude childlike posts somewhere else.

As for my stand on this issue please direct me to where I ever said a style or art had

ABSOLUTELY NO FACTOR.

I said I felt the person was the biggest deciding factor, and I will stand by that statement. Did I say BJJ has not had an impact? NOPE! It has had an impact in the way some people train. It just hasn't had an impact in my training regime because we covered a ton of ground work and grappling already at the training hall I go to. I'm also glad you have found the art that suits you, and you love; now quit trying to shove it down everybody elses necks please.

Apologies for taking the thread off topic, but felt as long as he decided to bring up the ding I gave him, I wanted to clear the air under the circumstances I gave it to him.

 

[flashlock]

Flashlock now:



Flashlock then (post #50)



If you think you've been misunderstood, flashlock, maybe you might also consider how seemingly contradictory statements like these two, quoted direct from your very own posts, could give rise to that impression... possible, you think? :wink1:

I didn't write what you quoted. You cut and pasted my sentences, leaving out things; it's pathetic. Also, in a forum, I would expect contradiction and ideas to change from honest posters--unless you're too inflexible.

 

[flashlock]

Flashlock let me set the record straight here. Yes I did ding you, but not for any post you made in this thread, it was for a juvinile post you made in the "Your most feared opponent" thread when you were making some snide remark about somebody elses answer. I did NOT suggest you quit the forum, I suggested that if you wanted to make posts like that to go elsewhere to do so. I would never tell somebody to quit MT, I think it is a great forum and there is a lot to learn here for everybody, myself included. I was suggesting you make the rude childlike posts somewhere else.

As for my stand on this issue please direct me to where I ever said a style or art had I said I felt the person was the biggest deciding factor, and I will stand by that statement. Did I say BJJ has not had an impact? NOPE! It has had an impact in the way some people train. It just hasn't had an impact in my training regime because we covered a ton of ground work and grappling already at the training hall I go to. I'm also glad you have found the art that suits you, and you love; now quit trying to shove it down everybody elses necks please.

Apologies for taking the thread off topic, but felt as long as he decided to bring up the ding I gave him, I wanted to clear the air under the circumstances I gave it to him.

Hi, Bydand, et al:

You make some solid points, sorry we've been, perhaps, simplifying one anothers views, making charactetures. Let's move on, why not?

Anyway, back to the topic, I was just wondering what you thought of putting on the pads and going full-on as a striker. I'm talking major protection to the head and neck, etc. If we can say that one advantage of the grappler is they can do their techniques at full power (at least till the opponnet taps out out passes out), then maybe that's something the striker can do. The only downside is being encumbered, I suppose. How do strikers get around that? Also, what % of time do you spend going full contact with your striking, as grapplers spend most of their time doing that.

Thanks!

 

[exile]

I didn't write what you quoted. You cut and pasted my sentences, leaving out things; it's pathetic. Also, in a forum, I would expect contradiction and ideas to change from honest posters--unless you're too inflexible.

You did write these things, Brad. I copied them right out of your posts without changing anything I quoted in, cutting out only parenthetical material offered in support of the position I quoted—the fact is, you made an assertion outside the parentheses, and in the context of the thread, it was very clear that you were asserting what I quoted from you. That's not pathetic, that's picking up the clear intent of what you wrote. As for contradiction and ideas changing... they're not the same thing. Have you indeed changed your mind about it being the art, not the person, which you clearly stated in the first post I quoted (throwing in the attribution in parenthesis as apparent further support for a view you yourself held)? Then make that clear; otherwise, as I suggested, you create the impression that you are trying to have it both of two mutually incompatible ways.

If you write something which very strongly suggests a position that you then flatly contradict in a later post, don't be surprised if people get a certain negative impression of your posting behavior. Whether you like it or not, you might—as I suggested—consider the possibility that that's what's led to some of the feedback you've gotten. There's no point in getting pissed off at me; I'm just the messenger.

 

[zDom]

Flintlock! LOL.

What about Zdumb? Just kidding like you!

Actually "Flintlock" as a mistake that I corrected with edit, not a joke

Sorry 'bout that!