drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,980
Reaction score
5,841
Hey look another strawman argument. The attitude and general rules that you may or may not recognize are independent (or should be) of what art you chose to learn, in terms of a rl self defense system.

You should pick one suited to your physical attributes and mind set. There are arts which suit the more powerful, the more flexible, the more swift. There are arts that suit the more aggressive or the more patient in a fight. There are ones that suit those who have more or less patience when it comes to the pace of instruction etc.

These things things are what my post referred to so that the poster I was responding to would have a better idea, if they were considering studying WC, if it was "right for them." The stuff you note comes into play AFTER you have picked the one right for you and started learning it.

The first step of it being "the fighter and not the art" is making sure the art and the fight "fit" with each other. Example I would not make a good boxer. My body type and metabolism make it hard, if not impossible, to gain a lot of muscle. So I pick arts that are more about speed, deflection vs hard blocks, strategy al la the centerline theory of WC and the defang the snake concept of Kali etc. Martial Arts with an over reliance on muscle for raw power I would fail at.

Sorry. Not sure how to take this post seriously.

You do realize that you should be able to take your martial art and then apply it to your body type?

And that deflection,speed,tactics and even using technique to maximise strength is not exactly a wing chun only concept.
 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
Sorry. Not sure how to take this post seriously.

You do realize that you should be able to take your martial art and then apply it to your body type?

And that deflection,speed,tactics and even using technique to maximise strength is not exactly a wing chun only concept.

There are limits. Boxing is one as I stated. It will work fine if I am in a "weight class" but if I am fighting someone "above" my class, who also knows how to fight, there will be "issues". The same applies to certain types of wrestling.

You also ignore the mindset issue. Some people are simply better suited to martial arts that reward patience over aggression. Aikido is a perfect example of this. If you can't overcome your aggression, and some can't, many styles of Aikido are probably not the art for you. Conversely, if you can't adopt the aggression and "let your butt hang out and risk taking a hit" attitudes of WC, then WC is not for you. There are limits to how far you can change ones nature in this regard without completely being broken down (one of the main purposes of military basic training, to break down who you were so they can build, as Kirk called, "Robo-droid".)

I also understand those concepts you note aren't exclusive to WC but WC heavily relies on them more than other arts. As an example of the use of speed, chain punching. Some MAs, rely on individually powerful blows, yes delivered with speed and precision but not in the way WC does. The best way I e heard the WC theory described, in layman's terms, is that it is like a battering ram, repeatedly striking a door over and over again in rapid succession to take it down. I don't know of many other arts that actively adopt this principle. Additionally how you throw your punches in WC is very different than most other arts to maximize the use of structure and speed to minimize the need for strength (though of course strength is always a benefit.)

Also when I referred to technique I was referring specifically to how they relate and work with the centerline theory, which related to how you punch as I mentioned above.

I might have a touch of the anal retentive here but a MA imo is like a man's suit. I can wear a suit with broad shoulders and even have it tailored but since I have narrow shoulders and an overall slim build, it will never look "quite right." On the other hand, "slim" and "tailored" fit suits fit me MUCH better. With shoes, I can wear shoes fitted for wider feet and a flatter foot and lace em tight but they don't look not feel quite right. However medium and narrow width with a higher arch (or insert) and they look and feel "just right."
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,980
Reaction score
5,841
There are limits. Boxing is one as I stated. It will work fine if I am in a "weight class" but if I am fighting someone "above" my class, who also knows how to fight, there will be "issues". The same applies to certain types of wrestling.

You also ignore the mindset issue. Some people are simply better suited to martial arts that reward patience over aggression. Aikido is a perfect example of this. If you can't overcome your aggression, and some can't, many styles of Aikido are probably not the art for you. Conversely, if you can't adopt the aggression and "let your butt hang out and risk taking a hit" attitudes of WC, then WC is not for you. There are limits to how far you can change ones nature in this regard without completely being broken down (one of the main purposes of military basic training, to break down who you were so they can build, as Kirk called, "Robo-droid".)

I also understand those concepts you note aren't exclusive to WC but WC heavily relies on them more than other arts. As an example of the use of speed, chain punching. Some MAs, rely on individually powerful blows, yes delivered with speed and precision but not in the way WC does. The best way I e heard the WC theory described, in layman's terms, is that it is like a battering ram, repeatedly striking a door over and over again in rapid succession to take it down. I don't know of many other arts that actively adopt this principle. Additionally how you throw your punches in WC is very different than most other arts to maximize the use of structure and speed to minimize the need for strength (though of course strength is always a benefit.)

Also when I referred to technique I was referring specifically to how they relate and work with the centerline theory, which related to how you punch as I mentioned above.

I might have a touch of the anal retentive here but a MA imo is like a man's suit. I can wear a suit with broad shoulders and even have it tailored but since I have narrow shoulders and an overall slim build, it will never look "quite right." On the other hand, "slim" and "tailored" fit suits fit me MUCH better. With shoes, I can wear shoes fitted for wider feet and a flatter foot and lace em tight but they don't look not feel quite right. However medium and narrow width with a higher arch (or insert) and they look and feel "just right."

See i would prefer a system that accomidates different body types. Ranges and strategys.

At the very least because then i am exposed to different body types ranges and strategys in training.

None of our fighters train within their weight class so they can develop skills against different people. We dont even train strictly within our own martial arts.

If your style is only suited to One range. One set of tactics one personality type and so on. That is where you will become comfortable.

Which is exactly the same issue as over sportifying.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
10,990
Reaction score
2,881
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
If your style is only suited to One range. One set of tactics one personality type and so on. That is where you will become comfortable.
Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,980
Reaction score
5,841
Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.

And not even just punching rage. But a more precise position again. So the other guy could also step out.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
10,990
Reaction score
2,881
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
And not even just punching rage. But a more precise position again. So the other guy could also step out.
IMO, if I attack you, you dodge. You attack me, I dodge. The fight will last for a long time. But when your opponent attacks you and you attack him at the same time, both won't have chance to "step out". When that happen, the following outcome could happen:

1. A knocks B out.
2. A and B both knock out on each other,
3. Clinch has been created.

The fight can end quickly. I like this kind of strategy. This is why I don't believe it's that easy to maintain "range".
 
Last edited:

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
See i would prefer a system that accomidates different body types. Ranges and strategys.

At the very least because then i am exposed to different body types ranges and strategys in training.

None of our fighters train within their weight class so they can develop skills against different people. We dont even train strictly within our own martial arts.

If your style is only suited to One range. One set of tactics one personality type and so on. That is where you will become comfortable.

Which is exactly the same issue as over sportifying.

Well first, I said nothing about ranges. WC has long range in the form or kicks, as an example, as does Inosanto Kali. The idea WC has only one range is a myth.

I explained in the "vs boxer thread" why WC's hand techniques are so close. That comes not from a "we want to fight really close" but rather, "because our strikes gain a large amount of their power from a structure (which is torso up right)that is less reliant on raw strength, that structure requires being closer than other fighting styles." Also, since it was designed with "smaller" people fighting "larger" people in mind it uses the centerline theory. However still kicks, still long range.

Kali and it's "defang the snake" concept actually comes from the fact that it is different than a lot of other arts. Many MA, not all but many, start with open hand techniques then teach a weapon or two later. Kali teaches weapons and open hand in tandem out of the gate. It also teaches multiple weapons and weapon techniques. Single stick, sword and dagger, dual sticks, swords and daggers, sword or stick paired with dagger, etc. It also evolved, due to the Spanish Conquest, to fight people wearing metal breast plates and helms. This is where the "defang the snake" concept comes in. An opponent whose limbs you have disabled can't fight you however this does not preclude strikes to the body or head, you can do this as well the key concept simply has its proper place.

This brings about another reason for choosing a Martial art, why are you learning martial arts? So in my case why seek a school that teach both WC and Kali?

1. As I said I have issues "bulking up." Even in my 20s eating like a champ and pumping iron everyday I was not in the field on maneuvers I just don't gain weight easy. I get stronger, more ripped, but I just can't put on weight beyond a certain point so I plateau. I am 5'11" and have never broken 175 lbs doing things the "natural" way. A Doctor gave me a medical reason why that went over my head but it is what it is. As such I looked for arts suited for "smaller" people. Both fit the bill.

2. In the town I work I often find myself in old homes split into multi unit dwellings (YAY Section 8 housing). As such I have fought in VERY close quarters (the hallways in such structures can be TIGHT), something both arts excel with open hand.

3. Next the head is a "red zone" in terms of USA Law Enforcement standards, which means unless I am confronted with serious force, near lethal basically, I can't strike it. So the Kali "defang the snake" theory fits in perfectly. The joints are "just" yellow zones and so I have a lot more wiggle room to justify attacking them.

4. Stick/sword training. I carry a baton and the only difference between a Kali rattan stick/machete and my baton is 1 inch.

So these arts are very well suited to my morphology and specific purposes. But again, one of your points, range, is something I never raised.
 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.

Well as I noted above I have no clue where the "range" issue came from. In another thread, which bear apparently forgot, he asked what I meant when I said that WC punches are thrown from a shorter range than boxers (feel free to visithttp://www.martialtalk.com/threads/fighting-a-boxer-in-wing-chun.120914/). This isn't to say any of the arts I refer don't have long range, only that to utilize strikes in WC, you need to be closer than a boxer because of the way the strikes generate power in the system. WC also has grappling and trapping as well. Tbh I don't know if bear was simply doing what he sometimes does, cherry pick, or if he was just throwing in another strawman because all I said was this.

"A person should chose his/her martial art based on the art that best suits his/her natural physical talents, mind set and personality and finally their purpose."

So my question would be this. Which makes more sense? The above or choosing a Martial Art that we have to force ourselves to fit?
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,253
Reaction score
4,757
Location
Covington, WA
just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person?

Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs). I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.
 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person?

Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs). I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.

No I am not. Btw 175 was my bulkiest, I am back down bouncing between 165 and 170 because I TRX instead of paying for a gym membership ;). There are no Martial Arts that completely I'll suit a specific weight/size strength (I specify size/strength because there are some that, imo, require stupid levels of flexibility lol). The issue rises when you consider who you face.

What I am saying is that, in my job, I have had to deal with guys in the 190-200 + range who did prison time. It is no exaggeration to say that in prison they often feel they have little else to do but pump iron and train in boxing, how to defeat different "standard" LEO restraint techniques etc (the small city of 25,000 I work in has a higher per capita crime rate than the City of Philadelphia).

Boxing is a dang effective art, but it's effectiveness is influenced by weight/strength more than some other arts. Hence weight classes in competition. I studied Aikido before I became an Officer and it definitely made a difference against bigger, stronger opponents, but I had some interesting experiences in narrow hallways and small spaces that made me see limitations.

I still personally practice Aikido it but I decided that I needed to study an Art(s) that were not as compromised by narrow small spaces AND still didn't rely as much on muscle strength and size so I could still address the, theoretical, equally skilled bigger and stronger individual.

I have an INSANE respect for boxers, it's why I study what I do. They don't only train to dish out punishment but also to take it. I am not a fool. I know if I was a boxer and went against that 190-200 lbs boxer who is as well trained, or even just a little less, he would clean my clock. So I chose arts that allow me to a degree (there are limits) to limit the advantage superior strength/size grant.

Does that make sense?
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,253
Reaction score
4,757
Location
Covington, WA
Frankly, no. It makes no sense to me at all. i don't understand how you can say size and strength are factors in boxing but not in aikido. You're so far away from what makes sense to me you may as well be on a different planet.
 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
Frankly, no. It makes no sense to me at all. i don't understand how you can say size and strength are factors in boxing but not in aikido. You're so far away from what makes sense to me you may as well be on a different planet.

First what you are saying then is that an equally skilled 5'11" 170 lbs boxer has an even chance of beating a 6"3" 200 lbs boxer? Not really.

ultimately though I think you don't understand Aikido or arts that use similar principles. The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground. It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics. To paraphrase the O-Sensei, "never be so rude as to get in the way of you opponent. Instead step aside and help them upon their way." Is strength a benefit? Of course it is, but some, like boxing have a greater reliance on size and strength than others. The entire point of weight classes in boxing is to compensate for this fact.

Lets get away from that for a minute though. Think simple principles of physics, in this case leverage. You have a stronger person and a weaker person. They both face a 100 lbs block. The stronger person goes over and simply moves the block. The weaker person, on their own, can't move it BUT give them a lever and a fulcrum and they can.

Many MA's are based on and designed around the principles of physics. The concept of using leverage and/or structure to compensate for a lack of relative size and strength. There are indeed limits to the compensation but they are simply facts based on physics that most learn in high school. So when Aikido meets boxing, if the Aikido practitioner is smaller it is FAR less of a factor than if the smaller boxer tackles the bigger boxer...

Again this is assuming equal skill. This is simply the way of martial arts. Different martial arts focus on different principles of biomechanics and physics.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
10,990
Reaction score
2,881
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground. It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics.
This is the main issue for MA systems such as Aikido, Taiji, Judo, and ... When you try to borrow your opponent's force, your opponent also tries to borrow your force. IMO, you have to give before you can take. The more fore that you can give, the more force that you can borrow back.

If you (general YOU) always stay home and wait for you girl to call you, you will never be able to find a wife.
 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
This is the main issue for MA systems such as Aikido, Taiji, Judo, and ... When you try to borrow your opponent's force, your opponent also tries to borrow your force. IMO, you have to give before you can take. The more fore that you can give, the more force that you can borrow back.

If you (general YOU) always stay home and wait for you girl to call you, you will never be able to find a wife.

That is why timing is VITAL in combative Aikido (I can't speak for the others.) It's not just a matter of using their force but WHEN you chose to do so. Sometimes you are just getting the fff out of the way and other times, once you get a hand on, moving in since they expect you to kinda let them glide last etc. There are basically two general schools of Aikido, one that sees Aikido as more of a spiritual art (the one you seem to refer to) and the one that was closer to the root art founded in Jujutsu.

That said my main point is this. I will use WC as the example. Strikes do not come from the shoulder with a fair amount of waist rotation. The punches are thrown with the elbow down and starting at the heart, and your mental focal point is the elbow, as you step in, with the proper overall body structure. As such your punch, in essence starts from the ground. It uses principles of physics to compensate for lower relative strength. The defenses are the same. There are no "classic" blocks like I learned when studying Ryushinan Karate. They are all based on deflecting attacks so you never meet force with force. Again, so a smaller person can fight a larger person.

There are limits of course but the ultimate point is that some arts are simply not suited to all body sizes. If you must, as I must, plan on dealing with skilled opponents above your "weight class" some arts are simply better or worse suited.

Btw this isn't simply theory on my part. I looked at the theories of the various arts when I got out of the Army (basically Boxing and Judo trainings) I have studied Aikido between wearing green and blue. Since wearing blue, Ryushinan Karate, Krav Maga, Wing Chun and Kali. Anecdotal? One might say that if MA scholars also did not say these principles have existed for centuries so I just see my 20 years of experience as proof of concept created by others far wiser than I.
 
Last edited:

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
10,990
Reaction score
2,881
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
That is why timing is VITAL in combative Aikido ...
Even timing, you still have to wait for your opponent to attack you.

1. I don't like to train "how to respond to my opponent's attack".
2. I like to train "how to respond my opponent's respond when I attack him".

In the following clip, the long hair guy fits in this strategy "act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive".

 

Juany118

Senior Master
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,107
Reaction score
1,050
Even timing, you still have to wait for your opponent to attack you.

1. I don't like to train "how to respond to my opponent's attack".
2. I like to train "how to respond my opponent's respond when I attack him".

In the following clip, the long hair guy fits in this strategy "act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive".


And I get that. That is why I said it isn't just about the body but also about what fits a practitioners mind set and personality as well. I even specifically noted patience. Some people are more suited for responding to the opponent al la Aikido.

Different arts balance these dynamics in different ways and it is that balance and looking at yourself honestly, in the different lights of the arts, that makes the difference imo.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,253
Reaction score
4,757
Location
Covington, WA
First what you are saying then is that an equally skilled 5'11" 170 lbs boxer has an even chance of beating a 6"3" 200 lbs boxer? Not really.

ultimately though I think you don't understand Aikido or arts that use similar principles. The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground. It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics. To paraphrase the O-Sensei, "never be so rude as to get in the way of you opponent. Instead step aside and help them upon their way." Is strength a benefit? Of course it is, but some, like boxing have a greater reliance on size and strength than others. The entire point of weight classes in boxing is to compensate for this fact.

Lets get away from that for a minute though. Think simple principles of physics, in this case leverage. You have a stronger person and a weaker person. They both face a 100 lbs block. The stronger person goes over and simply moves the block. The weaker person, on their own, can't move it BUT give them a lever and a fulcrum and they can.

Many MA's are based on and designed around the principles of physics. The concept of using leverage and/or structure to compensate for a lack of relative size and strength. There are indeed limits to the compensation but they are simply facts based on physics that most learn in high school. So when Aikido meets boxing, if the Aikido practitioner is smaller it is FAR less of a factor than if the smaller boxer tackles the bigger boxer...

Again this is assuming equal skill. This is simply the way of martial arts. Different martial arts focus on different principles of biomechanics and physics.
Yeah, you're right. BJJ is all about brute strength. Physics, leverage and technique don't come into play at all.

Here's the thing. I think where skill is equal, size and strength matter in every case, regardless of style. Aikido, Bjj, boxing, whatever.

Other physical attributes also matter. Athleticism, for example. Regardless of the ma in which you train.

And I also think that training against multiple body types is a great idea regardless of style.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,253
Reaction score
4,757
Location
Covington, WA
Tyson Fury is over 200 lbs. Guillermo Rigondeaux is under 130 lbs. What do Tyson Fury and Guillermo Rigondeaux have in common? They're both elite level boxers.

Daniel Cormier fights in the UFC at 205 lbs. Demetrious (Mighty Mouse) Johnson fights at 135 lbs. What do Daniel Cormier and Mighty Mouse Johnson have in common? They're both elite level mixed martial artists.

Kim Tae-hun earned the gold medal at the 2015 Chelyabinsk TKD championships in the sub-54kg bracket (that's about 119 lbs). At the same competition, a guy named Dmitriy Shokin won gold in the +87kg bracket (that's over ~192 lbs). They both excel in TKD.

Bruno Malfacine and Marcus Almeida in men's BJJ. Are you seeing a pattern? These styles are being performed at an elite level by people who are small and people who are big. People who are fast and people who are powerful.

The specious line of reasoning you're suggesting here is to try and correlate these competitive results with real world self defense, and seem to be suggesting that a correctly executed punch by the small guy will not work on a big guy.

You also seem to be asserting the opposite, which is that somehow, miraculously, the 120 lbs guy will be able to wristlock the 200 lbs guy because Aikido.

What's another thing that all those guys above have in common? They could, any one of them, very likely kick our collective asses regardless of how big or small or strong or weak we are, or whether we're in a cage, a ring, a parking lot or a dark alley. Self defense against these guys, any one of them, would amount to not provoking them or trying to steal their wallet.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,980
Reaction score
5,841
Well first, I said nothing about ranges. WC has long range in the form or kicks, as an example, as does Inosanto Kali. The idea WC has only one range is a myth.

I explained in the "vs boxer thread" why WC's hand techniques are so close. That comes not from a "we want to fight really close" but rather, "because our strikes gain a large amount of their power from a structure (which is torso up right)that is less reliant on raw strength, that structure requires being closer than other fighting styles." Also, since it was designed with "smaller" people fighting "larger" people in mind it uses the centerline theory. However still kicks, still long range

Yeah it was probably the boxing thread that ranges came up. Something about phone booths. And that your one tactic is to get close.

So now you are range fighters as well.

How do you practice against larger people? Aren't they disadvantaged a bit in chun as it is not suited to them.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,980
Reaction score
5,841
just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person?

Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs). I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.

I think this is moving towards those secret principles that one martial art has that others don't.

Because nobody has been exposed to the chun in the last 20 years.
 

Latest Discussions

Top