Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Steve]

Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,


or a bold head white guy.

Vin Diesel is white?????

 

[Steve]

My first NGA instructor's main tenet was, "If they want to box, I'll grapple. If they want to grapple, I'll box." It's essentially the same thing your'e saying here: don't play to their strengths if you're not stronger there.

This presumes that you are competent to control the situation. This post seems to illustrate the crux of the discussion perfectly. I may desire to control the spacing and the distancing. Whether I am competent to do that will depend on how I train.

 

[Steve]

There is a huge difference between lack of knowledge and 'faith based'. I have never heard that term in regards to MA's from anyone or anywhere else. Something it appears you use to support your argument. If there was consistent validity it may hold water. The hard fact is Everything you hang your hat on originated from TMA or a derivative. Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact. So condemning that which creates you is beyond ludicrous. That you only involve the 'evidence' you choose to use supports the fact that your argument does not hold water much of the time. Some of the time? Yes. All of the time? A foolish assertion and assumption that you have wholly bought into, I assume you are heavily influenced by your piers and environment. Not uncommon but still wrong.

So, by your logic, all martial arts training is good? Come on, man.

The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components. You are one and the person from whom you're learning is the other. The expiration date for expertise in a practical skill is just one or two short generations. This may sound repetitive to some here, but this applies to literally any practical skill. If you are learning from someone who does something... a plumber, a carpenter, a boxer, a pilot, a surgeon, and then you do that thing, you will eventually become competent, and may even become an expert. In martial arts, when someone says they learned something from someone who was special forces, a cop, a golden gloves boxer, or fought in the kumite, that's a red flag for me if that person is not also special forces, a cop, a boxer, etc. where they will also apply those skills in context.

When someone says they learned from someone who learned from someone who was special forces, etc, that is a HUGE red flag. That's like learning to fly a plane from someone who's never actually flown a plane. Or learning surgery from someone who's never performed a surgery. Or learning to plumb a house from someone who's never actually plumbed a house. Can we all agree that most planes can fly? Can we agree that there are people who can competently fly planes? That's analogous to saying that TMAs are the root of MMA. It's a red herring.

So, when you talk about origins, I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique. Just like it's irrelevant to talk about whether a toilet can be installed correctly vs whether YOU can install a toilet correctly. And the more complex the tasks, the higher the cost of failure, and the more urgent the tasks are, the more critical this becomes. Replacing a toilet is relatively easy.

 

[drop bear]

My first NGA instructor was a former Golden Gloves boxer. My second and third instructors were both trained by him. I've had training partners who were experienced competitors in other combat sports. I've taken the time to spar with a few folks who were also experienced in combat sports. This is all stuff you should already know, since I've told it to you before.

I never bothered to compete, because it never interested me. I wish I had, looking back, because I'd have profited by the experience. But I'm not an inept striker, as you seem to have assumed (based on whatever you've imagined).

But because I teach with a self-defense orientation, using a base art that has the word Aikido in it, you assume I'm something without evidence. Because bias.

So you were trained by a guy who was trained by a guy who won? A golden gloves? Just competed in a golden gloves?

And you "sparred" a guy who was "experienced" in "combat sports"?

And this is some sort of definitive answer.?

And this golden gloves?

 

[drop bear]

Firstly, I’m wondering where you get “I’m upset” from “hilarious”. Or are you just assigning me the emotion you want me to have, just as you’ve been assigning me the training you want me to have?

To the rest...nope, no video. It has never seemed important to me to have any. I’ve certainly missed some opportunities to analyze.

But I’ve sparred. Mostly light, mostly technical. Occasionally at moderate intensity or higher. Rarely at full contact levels. Probably about the same levels most common everywhere else. Mostly for a chance to see what works and where I’m vulnerable. And more striking than grappling. When it’s grappling, more groundwork than standing.

"You're hilarious. Now "sparring" is a weasel word??? Next you'll be saying "fight" is a weasel word, because people mean different things by it. Dude, you're being obnoxious in your attempt to make me wrong. You REALLY REALLY have a bug up your butt about my training. I don't know what's so personal about it to you, but it's hilarious."

That reads like you are upset. With all the personal attacks and lack of an actual point about your use of weasel words.

When you combine "hilarious" with "you are being obnoxious" it looks like you are trying to distract my point rather than counter my point.

So I may be hilarious and even obnoxious but according to you that does not make me wrong.

 

[drop bear]

Why?

Because the OP,s topic is based on functionality. So the wide and varied history of an art is irrelevant.

 

[drop bear]

So you assume others do that, too?

There are red flags. Weasel words, refusal to show evidence, operating on hypotheticals rather than first hand knowledge and creating these pseudo logical nightmares to justify a position.

There is a good video somewhere this kung fu guy came up with this whole thing where MMA was biased towards kung fu because t huge floor was too soft or something. (I will see if I can find it)

That sort of thing.

Otherwise we the red flag guides are pretty accurate and can be applied over the internet.

 

[dvcochran]

Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact.

The above statement makes me wonder if you read my post at all. Not much wiggle room in this comment.

If you are learning from someone who does something... a plumber, a carpenter, a boxer, a pilot, a surgeon, and then you do that thing, you will eventually become competent, and may even become an expert.

I cannot count the degreed engineers I have worked with that were borderline/fully incompetent. There are countless examples of people in all trades/positions who have had excellent teacher/trainers who just could not do a specific job well if at all.
The trainer is maybe 1/2 of this equation.

When someone says they learned from someone who learned from someone who was special forces, etc, that is a HUGE red flag. That's like learning to fly a plane from someone who's never actually flown a plane. Or learning surgery from someone who's never performed a surgery. Or learning to plumb a house from someone who's never actually plumbed a house.

This paragraph straight up contradicts your above comments. EVERYONE has learned from someone who has learned from someone else, be it academic or hands on. It is just the way it works. No red flags there. We are not always the First person to do something. That is a silly assertion.

Can we all agree that most planes can fly?

No, very, very few planes can fly all by themselves. It is a mutual relationship between the plane and the pilot(s).
I specifically said the root techniques/skills of MMA originated from TMA or a derivative like wrestling or boxing. Do not muddy the water by identifying TMA as a specific tool/skill. It in and of itself never has been. There is nothing wildly new in MMA.

So, when you talk about origins, I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique. Just like it's irrelevant to talk about whether a toilet can be installed correctly vs whether YOU can install a toilet correctly. And the more complex the tasks, the higher the cost of failure, and the more urgent the tasks are, the more critical this becomes. Replacing a toilet is relatively easy.

I feel the first sentence is the root of why most of us train in the first place; so that we CAN use a technique/skill.
Talking about how to install a toilet is the basis of how many people learn how to install a toilet correctly. There are far fewer people who can just decide to install a toilet. Fewer still who are naturally competent at a MA.
Naturally the more complex anything is the greater likelihood of failure. Applied skill through academic learning and hands on learning are paramount for mission critical tasks. Again, very few people just 'know' how to do this stuff.
I have no clue what you mean about the ease of replacing a toilet in context. Are they easy? Under normal conditions, sure. If the toilet has been leaking for a long time and the floor is rotted out, not so much.

 

[dvcochran]

So if the term faith based was a more popular term you would accept it?

Because of faith?

And nobody else produces evidence. You argued against having to produce any at all. Instead hoping that the free market. (Popular opinion) would support valid claims over invalid ones. A hope that is based again on faith.

I am having conversation with people who refuse to think rationally about this subject.

Maybe you are more familiar with the term bullcrap.

I don't follow at all. Are you familiar with blitz campaigning in advertising? This is what MMA does. They overload every conduit with their material to the point that it completely unbalances the equation. No matter what is seen/heard in regards to MMA it is good. No matter what is seen/heard about TMA it is bad.
Faith has zero to do with any of it. I get your 'not seen or heard' assertion but it is just a load of bull crap to use your wording.

 

[Steve]

I cannot count the degreed engineers I have worked with that were borderline/fully incompetent. There are countless examples of people in all trades/positions who have had excellent teacher/trainers who just could not do a specific job well if at all.
The trainer is maybe 1/2 of this equation.

This paragraph straight up contradicts your above comments. EVERYONE has learned from someone who has learned from someone else, be it academic or hands on. It is just the way it works. No red flags there. We are not always the First person to do something. That is a silly assertion.


No, very, very few planes can fly all by themselves. It is a mutual relationship between the plane and the pilot(s).
I specifically said the root techniques/skills of MMA originated from TMA or a derivative like wrestling or boxing. Do not muddy the water by identifying TMA as a specific tool/skill. It in and of itself never has been. There is nothing wildly new in MMA.


I feel the first sentence is the root of why most of us train in the first place; so that we CAN use a technique/skill.
Talking about how to install a toilet is the basis of how many people learn how to install a toilet correctly. There are far fewer people who can just decide to install a toilet. Fewer still who are naturally competent at a MA.
Naturally the more complex anything is the greater likelihood of failure. Applied skill through academic learning and hands on learning are paramount for mission critical tasks. Again, very few people just 'know' how to do this stuff.
I have no clue what you mean about the ease of replacing a toilet in context. Are they easy? Under normal conditions, sure. If the toilet has been leaking for a long time and the floor is rotted out, not so much.

i started to reply, but I really don’t think it’s worth my time. I invite you to read my post for comprehension and then respond again if you like, because you entirely missed the point. I mean, completely. If you were close, I’d take a run at responding.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you were trained by a guy who was trained by a guy who won? A golden gloves? Just competed in a golden gloves?

And you "sparred" a guy who was "experienced" in "combat sports"?

And this is some sort of definitive answer.?

And this golden gloves?

View attachment 22807

You asked. I answered. Yeah, I’ve “sparred” (common term you seem to think is used to hide something) folks who competed. Not “a guy”, but a few. Off the top of my head, this would include folks who competed in TKD (both major rule sets, I think, but not sure), boxing, wrestling, Judo, and BJJ...though as I think that last one was an MMA guy, but we were just doing ground stuff at the time, and I’m pretty sure his base was BJJ. There are probably others I’m forgetting (both styles and people). I’ve also had some fun workouts with a prison guard.

You did overlook that the boxer was also my first instructor (his senior students respectively took over the school after he moved). It’s not an important point, but you seem to be purposefully omitting it, so it seemed worth pointing out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are red flags. Weasel words, refusal to show evidence, operating on hypotheticals rather than first hand knowledge and creating these pseudo logical nightmares to justify a position.

There is a good video somewhere this kung fu guy came up with this whole thing where MMA was biased towards kung fu because t huge floor was too soft or something. (I will see if I can find it)

That sort of thing.

Otherwise we the red flag guides are pretty accurate and can be applied over the internet.

The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where you clearly paint it as a purposeful attempt to hide information. Until your bias leads to that, you make a reasonable argument about the utility of using competition to validate and sharpen a system. If you could stay on message, you’d make more impact.

 

[dvcochran]

i started to reply, but I really don’t think it’s worth my time. I invite you to read my post for comprehension and then respond again if you like, because you entirely missed the point. I mean, completely. If you were close, I’d take a run at responding.

Had it made any sense I may have gotten it. You were all over the place.

 

[Steve]

Had it made any sense I may have gotten it. You were all over the place.

i don’t know, man. I mean, sure, I didn’t write a novel or run it by my editor. But you got everything wrong. If I have some time with a keyboard tomorrow. I might take another run at it for you.

I have noticed, however, that when you miss the point, it’s always the other guy. I’m noticing a pattern.

 

[dvcochran]

i don’t know, man. I mean, sure, I didn’t write a novel or run it by my editor. But you got everything wrong. If I have some time with a keyboard tomorrow. I might take another run at it for you.

I have noticed, however, that when you miss the point, it’s always the other guy. I’m noticing a pattern.

I look forward to it.
You are correct that I vehemently defend my position most of the time. I do not hide this at all. Again, no pattern to find since it was never hidden.

 

[Steve]

I look forward to it.
You are correct that I vehemently defend my position most of the time. I do not hide this at all. Again, no pattern to find since it was never hidden.

Vehemently defending a position is all fine and good, if you're taking the time to understand folks. Even here, you didn't get it, or maybe didn't want to get what I was saying. The pattern isn't your defense of your opinions. It's that you never seem to accept any accountability when you fail to understand something. The other person just didn't say it right, every time.

I'll take another stab at this in a different way. I hope it works better for you.

1: The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components. The first component is you: how you train and how you apply the training. The second component is the person from whom you are learning. This person needs to have bona fide expertise. If you don't have both components, you're in a faith based situation.

2a: Skill is developed by learning and then doing. Conversely, what you do is what you're developing. So, if you're not fighting, you aren't learning to fight. You're learning something. Just not how to fight. Experience in one context determines how successful you can be transferring those skills to another context. The more experience and the more similar the context, the more likely you are to be successful.

Let's say you have two people. One person watches cooking shows every day, and is a real foodie, but has never actually cooked anything more complex than toast and eggs. The other has never watched cooking shows, but grew up cooking cooking meals every day. If you gave each of them a recipe for Beef Wellington, who do you think is more likely to succeed? My money is on the person with experience actually cooking. The more similar the experience, the easier it will be to transfer the skills.​

2b: Expertise in a practical skill set is compromised in one generation without application. This means that learning a skill set or trade from an experienced person is great, as long as you then apply those skills. This is the difference between theory and practice. Bridging this gap is done all the time, but it can only be done with experience.

So, person one has expertise... just not cooking expertise. This person has a lot of experience mindfully eating food and learning about how it should look and taste, and as a result has a very educated palate. Maybe they'd make a great food blogger. But unless they actually step into a kitchen and start cooking, they will never become a competent cook.​

3: This applies to martial arts and fighting skills, just as it applies to every other skill set. So, when you talk about MMA being derivative, given that skills can be compromised in just a single generation, I think that's a pointless red herring. It only really matters to folks who are clinging to lineage for validation. I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique.

 

[drop bear]

So just a thing that popped up on my feed. This is a highly ranked bjj black belt doing blindfold drills.

This is why I really like to see the video when people make claims.

He does "spar" by the way

 

[drop bear]

I don't follow at all. Are you familiar with blitz campaigning in advertising? This is what MMA does. They overload every conduit with their material to the point that it completely unbalances the equation. No matter what is seen/heard in regards to MMA it is good. No matter what is seen/heard about TMA it is bad.
Faith has zero to do with any of it. I get your 'not seen or heard' assertion but it is just a load of bull crap to use your wording.

That might be the reason that say kudo or Pancrase or Sanda may live under some sort of unfair shadow.

But when nothing is provided you cant blame another style for producing its own evidence.

 

[drop bear]

The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where Until your bias leads to that, you make a reasonable argument about the utility of using competition to validate and sharpen a system. If you could stay on message, you’d make more impact.

"Or, for the sake of discussions, we can just listen a bit and see if there's something useful to discuss.

You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you."

That is a refusal. Which is clearly a purposeful attempt to hide information.

You have to understand that my bias is generated by your dishonesty. I see these sorts of. I never said that, I never meant that, you didn't understand my intentional vague posts, I don't have to show evidence, I don't have to support separating truth from fiction.

And that adds up to a bias.

Without evidence to the contrary it is a very reasonable bias.

It allowes you to work off hypotheticals and anecdotes and this faith based discussion.

I should be having this problem discussing a religion. Not martial arts. Which is a practical mesuable activity.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So just a thing that popped up on my feed. This is a highly ranked bjj black belt doing blindfold drills.

This is why I really like to see the video when people make claims.

He does "spar" by the way

I think you mean "highly ranked" "bjj black belt".

Mr. Rao claims to be a BJJ black belt, He also claims to be a JKD master instructor, a medical doctor, holder of multiple doctorates, a trainer of military commandos, a 9th degree black belt in "unarmed combat", and a bunch of other things. Maybe some portion of those claims have some truth to them. I can pretty much guarantee his claim of BJJ black belt rank is a lie.