Traditional vs MMA

[Slihn]

Hello all.What are you ideals on Traditional Martials and MMA?

Which one do you prefer over the other and why?

In your opionion what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Do you think it is better to train in one or the other,or have a balanced mix between them both?

I primarly train in Modern Martial Arts (MMA and both Traditional Style and Modern Style Muay Thay) the reason for this is because I believe that it is more practical concentrating on Techniques that can perform at almost combat speed then it is to concentrate on moves that you cannot really truly pratice ,but you have faith they they will work.For example a few techniques that I get to practice and I KNOW will work are: the rear naked choke, all arm locks, Thai kicks , knees and elbows .

While training in a traditional dojo I was often taught "deadly" techniques, but since I never really got a chance to practice them I dont know how effective the will really be,so how would I know that they will even work.Sure an eye gougue will work,but how do you truly know how to distinguish the pressure it takes to temporarily blind someone or cause serious injury or death?

I firmly beilve that being able to practice your techniques near combat speed is the morst effective way of developing them.It is the concept of Randori.Soon after Kodokan Judo was founded the Judokais challenged their "mother" art (one of the reasons Kano created Judo was because most of the techniques he learned in Japanese Jujistu where not able to be practiced at combat speed,and therefor there was little evidence,besides faith,that they even worked.Also Jujitsu did not have any type of strategy) The Judokais almost always won and Kano believe that the reason for this is because the Judokais got to train their techniques constantly at combat speed.That is the way that I feel about Martial Arts training and that is why I personaly prefer "Mordern/MMA" over Traditional.

Another reason I perfer MMA is because most people today fight more like boxers or wrestlers ,abit different than the way people fought thousnads of years ago.

With all of tha being said there are aspects of Traditional Martial Arts that I srtand for.They are the Spirtiuality,the discipline and the honor.The downfall of many "mordern" Studios is that they have lost the spirtuality and honor that follows with traditional arts.(I feel like fighting in a cage is abit degrading to the martial arts.)

Another aspect on Traditional that I stand for is that they teach students not to want to be on the ground,I feel that many mordern schools,see groud fighting as an alternitve,but the fact of the matter is(the way I was taught in Bujikian Taijitsu) that you DO NOT want to be on the ground and the reason why groud fight should be practice is not to try to take it to the ground,but if you end up there you will be so skillful that you will not be there for long.

Also the idea of taking about your opponent quickly apeals to me,espeically when faced against multiple attackers.I think that some "mordern" schools may implement(rather intenional or not) that its ok,to"wait for an opening" or that its ok to "work a technique in" as oppose to taking your opponet or attacker out quickly.

Traditional Arts also often teach weapon defense,which is very important cause now days you never know what your attacke/opponet might be hiding.

My ideal studio would have the practicalness of MMA and the mindset of the seriousness of combat found in the traditional art.

Like in everything in life there should be a balance between the two.

 

[Andrew Green]

Since I'd guess at least 95% of the people involved in martial arts will never "need it", "it" being the physical fighting skills, I'd say it is purely a matter of personal prefrence.

That said, I am a MMA type person and don't like static drills, untested theory based on old knowledge and tradition for the sake of tradition

On some of the other things, like weapon defence. We are a MMA club, but occasionally involve weapons. The lesson there is if you are unarmed, and the other guy is not very little works, and pretty much nothing is reliable. Find a weapon or run away, and if you take the first both of you will get hit.

Multiple attackers - We've done it. Unless they suck you are going to loss, and loss bad. Even if they suck it's going to be very hard to come out on top.

"Seriousness" - Not sure what you mean there, Most MMA folks are quite serious about what they do. Most not to the level of the pro's that train full time, But seriousness is found in all arts.

"Honor" - Honor is there, but it's an individual thing, not a style thing. And in some ways the meaning of the term changes. MMA, and other combat sports, are in a sense "Duels." Which historically where a matter of "honor". When you fight someone, with the right attitude, both people gain a lot of respect for the other.

"Spirituality" is in the eye of the beholder. When an athlete pushes themself beyond what they where previously capable of, hits "the zone" and achieves what seemed impossible, there is a spiritual component there. IMO a much stronger one then a bunch of people kneeling, bowing and meditating.

 

[Shrewsbury]

well I hope i do not offend anyone. before I state my opinion I will give you a short back ground ( yeah i could be bull crapping, this is the net, but I think you will find me an honest person in the long run)

when i hear people use the term mma today it is as if something is new, well it is not. after 30 years I have studied to an advanced level, okinawa karate, japanes karate, kenpo, juijitsu, external and internal cma's, i grew up in a bad home and ran the streets and got into plenty of dumb trouble, i wrestled in school, until i was kicked out, and had the pleasure of being locked up with some bad street gangs as a teen, no I am not proud of all of my past, but it certainly made me realize what would and wouldn't work, atleast in the circumstances i have faced.

I have always been bewildered by the people who have only studied one style for decades, or by the black belts who open a school, become the "master" and never have a teacher again, I to this day still study with a teacher, my master rank is nothing to me, I love the ability to learn new skills and hone what i have.

I beleive traditional ma's are very valid, though not often taught as such, nearly every system has grappling, controling, striking, and throwing, but they are often not taught as a whole system, just parts and peices.

i study and practice traditional arts, but not in a way most would consider traditional. so most traditionlists consider me a mma person and most mma people consider me traditional.

to me each is great and each lack in areas, but not as a whole, it is certainly the person teaching or practicing that lacks or excells not the system.

again just my opinion.

 

[Cryozombie]

untested theory based on old knowledge and tradition for the sake of tradition

Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd. Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"

48 year old small female security guard studying BBT breaks a LARGE male agressers arm and ko's him before the police arive. (story in the X-kan section of this board) Is that art "untested?"

A small... Id say hes maybe 5'2... local Kung fu instructor put a LARGE self proclaimed chaimpon boxer in the hospital when he came in spouting crap about how boxing was the **** cuz they take "real" hits and challenged the guy... is that art "Untested?"

Basically, Andrew...and the rest of you MMA guys... any art, TMA, Modern Combatives, MMA, or whatever... is only as good as the practitioner... Im sure all of them have their successes and failures... I know one MMA cop who got ****ED up because he tried to use his MMA skills in a livingroom crowded with furniture. Did he successfully take the guy down... YUP... but the guy got right back up after the MMA guy cracked his head open on the coffeetable when they went down... incidently, his partner, a BBT practitioner prolly saved his life when SHE took the guy back down and cuffed him... Lesson learned? MAYBE not the best art to use when there are obstacles, or maybe the guy was a bad practitioner. You decide.

Fact is... testing in the ring is fine, it doesnt mean its the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. I wouldnt wanna step into the ring with one of you guys, you are great athletes and sport fighters, but Id pit an art like mine against almost any MMA guy on the street, with no ring rules.

Why?

My "TMA" trains with firearms, so while you train to "shootfight" we train to fight by shooting... in that situation, which of us wins on the street?

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh, and to answer Slihn's original question, I like many of the MMA techniques I have been shown, I think incorporated into the correct fighting strategy they are SOLID techniques, so I would say a good balance would be appropriate. A lot of arts lack solid groundfighting techniques, and I think MMA crosstraining would be a benefit to that.

However... if I can steal a bit of wisdom from a master here for a moment... technique doesnt go very far... unless its paired with strategy.

Walk up to a girl in a bar, and say "hey Baby. Whats your sign" and it MAY work, but probably not. THATS a technique.

Walk up to a Girl in a bar, and use some strategy to apply that technique... and you are far more likely to go home with the girl.

Please note, Im not saying MMA has no strategy, Im saying another art cant just take the techniques, and expect them to work.

 

[Rook]

Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd. Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"

No problem.

48 year old small female security guard studying BBT breaks a LARGE male agressers arm and ko's him before the police arive. (story in the X-kan section of this board) Is that art "untested?"

We hear stories like this all the time between two or more totally untrained individuals. It happens. It will happen more if you train for it. It will happen more effectively and you'll be able to do it more consistanly as your methods of breaking and methods of training to break improve.

A small... Id say hes maybe 5'2... local Kung fu instructor put a LARGE self proclaimed chaimpon boxer in the hospital when he came in spouting crap about how boxing was the **** cuz they take "real" hits and challenged the guy... is that art "Untested?"

Against who? Did his art prove itself or did one proponent just beat another?

Basically, Andrew...and the rest of you MMA guys... any art, TMA, Modern Combatives, MMA, or whatever... is only as good as the practitioner...

I generally think of it as a combination of factors. In the birth of cagefighting, Royce beat people who had trained longer, were substantially larger, stronger, faster, and more physically capable in almost every form than he was. He beat most of them easily because they were utterly unprepared for him. If you watch the MMA videos floating around the internet, many BJJ guys are skinny south americans who have little muscle mass and are tiny compared to some of the people they choke out with ease.

The level of consistancy with which this is done seems to disprove the idea that it is just a few extraordinarly skilled MMAists or BJJers who wipe out everyone else...

Im sure all of them have their successes and failures... I know one MMA cop who got ****ED up because he tried to use his MMA skills in a livingroom crowded with furniture. Did he successfully take the guy down... YUP... but the guy got right back up after the MMA guy cracked his head open on the coffeetable when they went down...

He needs to work on his takedowns. You will find incompetent practitioners or bad luck in any style.

incidently, his partner, a BBT practitioner prolly saved his life when SHE took the guy back down and cuffed him... Lesson learned? MAYBE not the best art to use when there are obstacles, or maybe the guy was a bad practitioner. You decide.

I don't think the lesson is just that the art doesn't work... the guy made a stupid mistake.

Fact is... testing in the ring is fine, it doesnt mean its the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. I wouldnt wanna step into the ring with one of you guys, you are great athletes and sport fighters, but Id pit my art against almost any MMA guy on the street, with no ring rules.

Go for it! I want to see the video. It has been done before and will be done again.

Why?

My "TMA" trains with firearms, so while you train to "shootfight" I train to fight by shooting... in that situation, which of us wins on the street?

So what is your rating in NRA competitions or the local target shooting events? Compare that to your fellow gunmen to see who would win... its slightly less direct than fighting in a ring, but its the same sort of statistical comparison.

-----

The problem with the use of anecdotal comparisons is that everyone has a lucky day, and 999 out of every 1000 of the stories out there are either lies or greatly exadurated. People promoting herbal healing and psi-powers as well as multilevel marketers and hawkers of all useless junk have one or ten happy customers who gladly write of the miracles that have befallen them.

It is better to look at the statistical breakdown when fighters from different styles go head to head. The fact right now is that almost every time MMA clashes with another style, the MMA has won. These fights take place in rings, on sidewalks and in allyways in dojos and kwoon and in MMA training halls.

If you can beat MMA proponents consistantly, then I would love to see a "buj. in action" video tape of you beating people in MMA gyms all across america to match the gracies in action tapes (which I don't even own).

The martial artists of the past trained for the conditions of their own time (JJJ often assumed the opponent was both armed and wearing wood laminate armor, ringkampf was grappling between armored knights - unfortunately a lost art - and kung fu styles were often built to counter each other). They also were limited in their knowledge of good athletic training at the time - their endurance, strength and speed would pale in comparison to modern fighters.

With the advent of video, jet travel, the internet and the mixed martial arts cage, we can easily compare unarmed components of styles head to head to see which ones work against other styles. Some people, rather than acknowledging that their style doesn't work like this will come up with elaborate chains of excuses why they can't prove the efficacy of their actions or why they can make only anecdotal claims.

This arguement has been rehashed so many times no good is likely to come of it.

 

[Andrew Green]

Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd. Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"

I shall do my best...

When I say untested I refer to ME personally, not being able to test it. If I am given a technique I want to try it, as full speed and as hard as I safely can. I want to look for counters, close up weaknesses, etc.

Obviously it is not neccessary in all cases as your examples point out. I don't have to try slicing someone with a sword to know that a sword will cut someone. I don't have to try blasting someone in the face to know if I can hit hard it will hurt them.

But if I have a sword, I want to spar with it, I want to try it out. Safety steps in and I have to surender the live blade to do so, but to me that is preferable to slicing up the air and running patterns. I want to try and hit a moving person that is trying to hit me, and do it without getting hit back.

I'm not going to try and debate wehter testing is even beneficial in "real life" as I can't, as the result is ultimately, untestable.

I also won't claim that it is neccessary for me to test something live to know it will do something. Medical Science and anatomy can tell me that.

That said there is still a lot of nonsense that gets away without being tested, simply because it is not. Hit the nose to pierce the brain, hit spots x and y followed by a and b to explode the liver, etc.

Of course pointing at the stupid from either side is not a argument for anything.

Self-defence is ultimately untestable, and yes, it is different then sport fighting. Those funky karate blocks that leave you wide open to a trained boxer might suddenly become a great idea against someone throwing wild haymakers. Those silly Aikido wrist locks that are impossible against trained fighters in a fight can become very useful in a more static situation.

Lot's of things about use of force can be simulated quite well, other things cannot. I recognize this, and accept it. I know lots of potentially useful things that are untested, or tested and failed in sports fighting, but in other situations have proven useful.

Right now, my preference is for things that can be tested.

To further expand my ideas on training a "complete" martial artist needs those "tested" skills first and foremost, those are what comes out when the poop hits the fan. But those skills can definately be added on, and the non-tested stuff learnt and used as well, but for me, I'd want a fall-back plan of being able to "fight" before trying anything that was less tested. I also think it gives more perspective to the person as to whether something is or is not practical. A simple example is no boxer would buy the palm to the nose drives bone into brain story, simply because after being punched in the nose so many times and still walking around it becomes a silly story.

Now as the thread is about opinions and preferances mine is towards sparring and live testing, not drilling things which are not really testable. Eventually my training preferences might shift, who knows

 

[Andrew Green]

well I hope i do not offend anyone. before I state my opinion I will give you a short back ground

Usually anyone that is offended by a honest opinion, and not one grounded in racism or that sort of thing deserves to be offended

 

[Cryozombie]

It is better to look at the statistical breakdown when fighters from different styles go head to head. The fact right now is that almost every time MMA clashes with another style, the MMA has won. These fights take place in rings, on sidewalks and in allyways in dojos and kwoon and in MMA training halls.

This arguement has been rehashed so many times no good is likely to come of it.

The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street? And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like real Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.

I agree with you about it being rehashed a million times... Unfortunatley, it seems like EVERY FREAKIN DAY some MMA practioner has to start a new thread about their "Ultimate" martial art vs Everyone else.

Lastly... dont mistake my post... Im not a great fighter by any means... I dont think I personally could win many fights againts a trained fighter in a TMA or MMA, Hell, I dont even have a black belt... But I have seen TMA fighters win fights firsthand, and heard plenty of stories to boot that I dont buy the "Untested cuz it aint done in a match in the ring"... thats why I said "My art" as opposed to "I can"

 

[Cryozombie]

I shall do my best...

That is one of the BEST answers I have heard to date, Andrew.

 

[Flatlander]

That is one of the BEST answers I have heard to date, Andrew.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[MJS]

Hello all.What are you ideals on Traditional Martials and MMA?

Which one do you prefer over the other and why?

In your opionion what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Do you think it is better to train in one or the other,or have a balanced mix between them both?

I primarly train in Modern Martial Arts (MMA and both Traditional Style and Modern Style Muay Thay) the reason for this is because I believe that it is more practical concentrating on Techniques that can perform at almost combat speed then it is to concentrate on moves that you cannot really truly pratice ,but you have faith they they will work.For example a few techniques that I get to practice and I KNOW will work are: the rear naked choke, all arm locks, Thai kicks , knees and elbows .

While training in a traditional dojo I was often taught "deadly" techniques, but since I never really got a chance to practice them I dont know how effective the will really be,so how would I know that they will even work.Sure an eye gougue will work,but how do you truly know how to distinguish the pressure it takes to temporarily blind someone or cause serious injury or death?

I firmly beilve that being able to practice your techniques near combat speed is the morst effective way of developing them.It is the concept of Randori.Soon after Kodokan Judo was founded the Judokais challenged their "mother" art (one of the reasons Kano created Judo was because most of the techniques he learned in Japanese Jujistu where not able to be practiced at combat speed,and therefor there was little evidence,besides faith,that they even worked.Also Jujitsu did not have any type of strategy) The Judokais almost always won and Kano believe that the reason for this is because the Judokais got to train their techniques constantly at combat speed.That is the way that I feel about Martial Arts training and that is why I personaly prefer "Mordern/MMA" over Traditional.

Another reason I perfer MMA is because most people today fight more like boxers or wrestlers ,abit different than the way people fought thousnads of years ago.

With all of tha being said there are aspects of Traditional Martial Arts that I srtand for.They are the Spirtiuality,the discipline and the honor.The downfall of many "mordern" Studios is that they have lost the spirtuality and honor that follows with traditional arts.(I feel like fighting in a cage is abit degrading to the martial arts.)

Another aspect on Traditional that I stand for is that they teach students not to want to be on the ground,I feel that many mordern schools,see groud fighting as an alternitve,but the fact of the matter is(the way I was taught in Bujikian Taijitsu) that you DO NOT want to be on the ground and the reason why groud fight should be practice is not to try to take it to the ground,but if you end up there you will be so skillful that you will not be there for long.

Also the idea of taking about your opponent quickly apeals to me,espeically when faced against multiple attackers.I think that some "mordern" schools may implement(rather intenional or not) that its ok,to"wait for an opening" or that its ok to "work a technique in" as oppose to taking your opponet or attacker out quickly.

Traditional Arts also often teach weapon defense,which is very important cause now days you never know what your attacke/opponet might be hiding.

My ideal studio would have the practicalness of MMA and the mindset of the seriousness of combat found in the traditional art.

Like in everything in life there should be a balance between the two.

This is another thread that will most likely never solve the questions, but I'll throw in my .02 just for the sake of discussion.

IMHO, I feel that both TMA and MMA can benefit from one another, as there are aspects from each that we could say are lacking. For example, some TMAs could stand to use the aliveness factor that we see with MMA. On the other hand, weapons and multiple attackers are something that appears to be lacking in MMA. The list can go on and on, but for the most part, it should be pretty self explanitory.

Again, as I said above, they can both benefit from each other. I've always given credit where its due, to the MMA area, and I include many aspects into my own training.

Mike

 

[MJS]

The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street? And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like real Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.

I too, would be interested in seeing this.

I agree with you about it being rehashed a million times... Unfortunatley, it seems like EVERY FREAKIN DAY some MMA practioner has to start a new thread about their "Ultimate" martial art vs Everyone else.

Lastly... dont mistake my post... Im not a great fighter by any means... I dont think I personally could win many fights againts a trained fighter in a TMA or MMA, Hell, I dont even have a black belt... But I have seen TMA fighters win fights firsthand, and heard plenty of stories to boot that I dont buy the "Untested cuz it aint done in a match in the ring"... thats why I said "My art" as opposed to "I can"

We both enjoy our arts John, and will most likely hear that the methods of training are not as good as (insert the latest craze here). One thing to keep in mind, is that chances are, we won't be fighting a Royce Gracie on the street. I doubt the average "Joe" is going to be on the level of (insert the latest top MMA fighter here).

Mike

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I think MMA would get the athletically inclined person up to speed on all ranges of fighting faster than any traditional art. Certainly, I would have taken it had it been widely available when I was younger - I had to study boxing, judo, TKD and Karate in order to try to get some semblance of a well-rounded fighting system. However; as Andrew pointed out, since most people DON'T ever have to use their skills, it comes down to personal preference (taken as a given that no false confidence is held).

 

[Ybot]

The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street? And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like real Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.

I don't know what BBT is, but isn't Krav Maga a more modern military art? Really don't know much about it's history, but I guess I never really considered it a Traditional art. Isn't it more like a combatives system? Systema, although another military art I can kind of see, as it seems more like other traditional systems.

My take is this, I enjoy the feeling of testing myself against others on a regular basis, so that's why I do BJJ. In the end I feel I get the most realistic experience out of this art, because I pretty much train exactly what I will use it for... BJJ compitition. Perhaps there was a time when traditional arts could say the same thing, though they couldn't slice eachother up with a sword in practice, they did get experience on the battle field. They could see their deadly techniques utilized either by themselves, their comrads, or their enemy. If they survived they took this knowlage back to training with them. They don't have that anymore, and really with modern warfare they haven't for a long time. (this is talking hand to hand or short rang weaponry)

 

[Cirdan]

I train at both a traditional school and a modern one.

The traditional school has a very structured curriculum and you can really feel that things you learn build upon each other. Also there is very much attention to detail and I`ve benefited greatly from the relaxation that is taught.

The modern school uses a system that mixes good exercise, self defense and sports fighting. A lot of pair work and special classes for different aspects of the art (ground fighting, throws, competition etc). I come here for the fun and the chanse to spar more. It also gives me the opportunity to test what I have learned at the traditional school. It usually works very well.

On the less posetive side, taditional can occationaly get boring (kata and one- and three steps over and over) and modern teaches some techniques and tactics that are of little use outside of competition. However I think I`ve found a really good way to mix.

Personally, I am a traditionalist at heart, perhaps because I`ve never been much into sports. I view the arts as a lifelong study that will continue long after I am past my prime.
:asian:

 

[Shrewsbury]

This topic always amazes me. it goes back to my dad is bigger than yours, my brother can beat up your brother.

most arts are realistic in its fighting approach, times may have changed, but humans are humans, we have organs, joints, and other weak areas.

some one can win a "fight" by strength, or speed, or power, or technique, but they are just "fights", nothing else.

when your family is threatened or your life, i owuld hope you are not rolling on the ground, putting on gloves, or following any rules, you will not "fight" you will be protetcing your life or your family's.

lets take the gracies for example, no doubt great "fighters" but do you think they would use the same methods to stop some one from killing their mother? or raping their sister? I know that sounds harsh, but that is what the arts are about, protecting your loved ones and your beleifs, not "fighting".

when any rules are apllied things change, notice that in the cage, when some one is hit in the groin they have all the time they need to recover, no downward elbows, no small joint attacks, no neck strikes, gouges. now I am not saying these techniques will beat anyone, I am saying they will change the situation. but more importantly the mind set can not even come close. beating up some one for money or fame or because you are angry, does not give the same edge or effect if fighting for your beleifs, family, life, or country. mind set is a major factor in real combat, make no mistake, it is not an intent of winning or making money, it is about survival. endorphins, adreniline, and dopemene are far greater enhancers than any thing on the market today.

I am guessing most of you are young or relativly new to the arts and or enfluenced by testosterone and the "my dad can beat your dad" mentality. I have been there and though it will not help you, i can honestly say your opinions and ideas will change with time, beating some one up may sound cool, but is just a foolish act of some one who needs to prove themselves, and the sad things it proves nothing.

again no ofense intended toward anyone, just my opinion, whether foolish or not it is mine and I will stick to it.

take it lightly it is just the internet!

 

[funnytiger]

I guess I am lucky in the fact that my MA although considered a TCMA is pretty young compared to other TMA's (its only a little over 100 yrs old). It is by definition an MMA since it combines several other styles and adds some ground and grappling with its techniques to make it more rounded. It is constantly evolving as a style and (in my opinion) a practical and effective art.

The 'traditional' part of any MA doesn't necessarily mean that its fighting techniques are old and stagnant (although it seems to be the case more than not). The traditional aspects I enjoy about my kwoon are the family ranking system (no belts), traditional lion and dragon dancing, and some other cultural aspects that are all part of the 'traditional' package.

- ft

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that whenever a set of examples is given in which either an MMA practicioner overcomes a TMA or vice versa the bloke on the losing side always says it was a fluke, circumstances were the reason they lost or "statistics" show differently... *shrug*

 

[Shrewsbury]

Funny tiger I had the pleasure of poking into some jow ga training around twenty years ago, and it is a great system, I am glad no belts have been added.

 

[funnytiger]

Funny tiger I had the pleasure of poking into some jow ga training around twenty years ago, and it is a great system, I am glad no belts have been added.

Thank you. :asian:

Unfortunately some schools have adopted the belt (or sash) system. But it is only few and far between as much as I can tell.

Who did you study with/under?

- ft