or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Do you know martial art? What kind? What Level?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you know martial art? What kind? What Level? - Page 6

post #76 of 193
Your friend is just thick. A very good friend of mine (we've known each other since I was in grade 5, and he in 4, I was just at his wedding, and my brother was his best man) is at that level in Aikido, but he has no illusions about its effectiveness. He does it because he enjoys the body mechanics involved.

We both started off learning a traditional style, but from an old school guy from Hong Kong, from back in the day when disciples of different schools would regularly call each other out, and you had to prove that your style worked. So a lot of the techniques we learned were pretty practical, and there was a lot of full contact drilling, against resisting opponents.

We went on different paths, mostly due to our temperaments - I did a lot of hard, external styles as well as some BJJ, and he focussed on Aikido. His mastery of Aikido (we both started in high school, and are in our early thirties now) is far superior to my skill in anything, and he is naturally a better athlete than I will ever be, but in a free sparring match, I beat him pretty much every time. He invariably reverts to hard techniques, because Aikido is not really useful against, say, boxing, where you never commit to the punch to full extension the way an aikidoika assumes an attacker will, nor is it really useful in a standing clinch or on the ground.

He says (and it seems plausible) that aikido is effectively only if the opponent is attacking without thought of retaliation, and not in a fighting situation. Maybe we can all agree on that?



Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
one story that I love is having a talk with a friend of mine who was a black belt in akido- he had been studying for maybe 10 years at that time, including summers in a camp in japan, and maybe 3 times a week, but he had only ever studied akido. he had good stamina, but no real power, and was about 130 pounds. we got into a discussion, that was similar to your discussion with your cousin - he claimed that his training was such that I couldn't make him move back over a certain line. I was just a little shorter than him, but I was a great deal more powerful and heavy - and in a matter of maybe a seond and a half, without having to strike him, I had him pinned against a wall 20 feet behind where he was standing. it was almost as though I had changed his religion - he couldn't comprehend that all of this training hadn't achieved the results he wanted. several months later, we were walking down the street in a gay neighborhood, and a car drove by and called us "fags" - he took offense and ran after the car, catching them at the next light. what the fuck was going through his pointy little head, I have no idea, but when I cought up with them, he was getting the shit kicked out of him by 3 or 4 guys. I had the advantage of coming from behind them, and was able to get him away from there without to much trouble. but it was the same type of thing - he was sure that he would have been able to take on these guys, and maybe if they were all wearing pajamas and barefoot, and followed his rules, he would have shown them a thing of two.
post #77 of 193
There's also Kalarippayattu
post #78 of 193
Quote:
he was sure that he would have been able to take on these guys, and maybe if they were all wearing pajamas and barefoot, and followed his rules, he would have shown them a thing of two.

Exactly.

My father, a man who was no stranger to fights, legal or otherwise, armed and unarmed (I think he actually had an uncle who was a bare knuckle prize fighter) told me that grabbing testicles, eye gouging and the starting handle from a 1930's Ford are all useful techniques.

I prefer to run away these days myself.
post #79 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy
Your friend is just thick. A very good friend of mine (we've known each other since I was in grade 5, and he in 4, I was just at his wedding, and my brother was his best man) is at that level in Aikido, but he has no illusions about its effectiveness. He does it because he enjoys the body mechanics involved.

We both started off learning a traditional style, but from an old school guy from Hong Kong, from back in the day when disciples of different schools would regularly call each other out, and you had to prove that your style worked. So a lot of the techniques we learned were pretty practical, and there was a lot of full contact drilling, against resisting opponents.

We went on different paths, mostly due to our temperaments - I did a lot of hard, external styles as well as some BJJ, and he focussed on Aikido. His mastery of Aikido (we both started in high school, and are in our early thirties now) is far superior to my skill in anything, and he is naturally a better athlete than I will ever be, but in a free sparring match, I beat him pretty much every time. He invariably reverts to hard techniques, because Aikido is not really useful against, say, boxing, where you never commit to the punch to full extension the way an aikidoika assumes an attacker will, nor is it really useful in a standing clinch or on the ground.

He says (and it seems plausible) that aikido is effectively only if the opponent is attacking without thought of retaliation, and not in a fighting situation. Maybe we can all agree on that?

I would like to thiink that that much training has to help, if you mix it with something harder - I think that if my friend (actually, ex friend, and yes, he was thick, but that is another story) - were to add what he has with some boxing or MT, he might be able to apply all of those years of balance and concentration to something useful. just a thought.
post #80 of 193
i seem to be making the same point over and over again. one more time.

sprawling drills with out a partner trains an actual movement and energy used in real combat. push hands and forms does not do this.

i have seen many, many fights. i've sparred countless hours, with and without protection, with and without rules (back when i didn't know any better). i have NEVER seen push hands energy ever in a fight. no one is going to stand square in front of you and place their hands and forearms lightly against yours in a fight. if you think this exercise helps you block punches, you are misleading yourself. i haven't even seen trapping in a fight. chi-sau just doesn't happen in real life, man.

i have a very open mind. all my life i have been searching for and learning different martial arts from all over the u.s., to japan, to russia. i am not disputing the health benefits of bagua, hsing-i, tai-chi, and chi-gung--those benefits have been clinically demonstrated. i am not saying that those arts do not have a beautiful history and look very graceful. they do.

but to say that practicing those arts will make you an effective fighter is not true. i am not trying to be a dick. i just don't like seeing people get a false sense of security in their art--whether it's internal chinese arts or even BJJ. it's very dangerous.

it's not about whether these styles work for me or not. i am saying that for a style to be effective, it shouldn't work for only some people. it should just work.

i do not count hearsay about old masters being invicible as valid proof. i don't count demonstrations of strength and power as valid proof. the proof is in actual combat, and fortunately, we've seen internal arts put to the test in no-rules setting. the results were not pretty.
post #81 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy
We went on different paths, mostly due to our temperaments - I did a lot of hard, external styles as well as some BJJ, and he focussed on Aikido. His mastery of Aikido (we both started in high school, and are in our early thirties now) is far superior to my skill in anything, and he is naturally a better athlete than I will ever be, but in a free sparring match, I beat him pretty much every time. He invariably reverts to hard techniques, because Aikido is not really useful against, say, boxing, where you never commit to the punch to full extension the way an aikidoika assumes an attacker will, nor is it really useful in a standing clinch or on the ground.

He says (and it seems plausible) that aikido is effectively only if the opponent is attacking without thought of retaliation, and not in a fighting situation. Maybe we can all agree on that?

agreed. thank you.
post #82 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizanation
i seem to be making the same point over and over again. one more time.

sprawling drills with out a partner trains an actual movement and energy used in real combat. push hands and forms does not do this.

i have seen many, many fights. i've sparred countless hours, with and without protection, with and without rules (back when i didn't know any better). i have NEVER seen push hands energy ever in a fight. no one is going to stand square in front of you and place their hands and forearms lightly against yours in a fight. if you think this exercise helps you block punches, you are misleading yourself. i haven't even seen trapping in a fight. chi-sau just doesn't happen in real life, man.

i have a very open mind. all my life i have been searching for and learning different martial arts from all over the u.s., to japan, to russia. i am not disputing the health benefits of bagua, hsing-i, tai-chi, and chi-gung--those benefits have been clinically demonstrated. i am not saying that those arts do not have a beautiful history and look very graceful. they do.

but to say that practicing those arts will make you an effective fighter is not true. i am not trying to be a dick. i just don't like seeing people get a false sense of security in their art--whether it's internal chinese arts or even BJJ. it's very dangerous.

it's not about whether these styles work for me or not. i am saying that for a style to be effective, it shouldn't work for only some people. it should just work.

i do not count hearsay about old masters being invicible as valid proof. i don't count demonstrations of strength and power as valid proof. the proof is in actual combat, and fortunately, we've seen internal arts put to the test in no-rules setting. the results were not pretty.


so, M, let me summarize - you don't like traditional styles, and you don't like styles that were developed by militaries. you do like sport combat type styles. that sum it up pretty well?
post #83 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonk
Physical and mental toughness are very important, not as abstract concepts, but as a real ability to carry on when tired, bleeding and in pain.

I've never studied a martial art or other defense/fighting system (I've thought about Krav, but, unfortunately, I don't have the time). However, the above seems to be a good point. Obviously, fighting skill, training, and athletic ability always factor into the probable winner of a fight. However, I think there's something to be said for guys (and gals) with a high pain tolerance. People who can take a punch or two and deal with the pain while carrying on and remaining somewhat composed definitely have an advantage in combat. Regardless of how good you are at fighting, if you make it a habit, you're going to get hit from time to time, and you're going to have to be able to respond to this.
post #84 of 193
I've used my training to deflect punches before the one time I've gotten into a real self defense situation. I know people who have used their training in real self defense situation. I also know cops you I have trained with that have used their training in arrest situations. For me and for those people the training we used worked.


All sports competitions have some level of rules. You shouldn't make the mistake of equating such compeitions with combat, they are not the same.
post #85 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
so, M, let me summarize - you don't like traditional styles, and you don't like styles that were developed by militaries. you do like sport combat type styles. that sum it up pretty well?

when i say "traditional" i mean a style that doesn't focus in someway on 100% alive training (so maybe i should say "non-alive" martial arts). alive training meaning training with a 100% resisting opponent with as minimal restrictions as possible. point sparring does NOT fall into this. chi-sau or push hands does NOT fall into this. bjj rolling does, judo randori does, wrestling does, full contact sparring with protection does.

that being said, the styles that i mentioned that i like ALL have ancient roots. judo and bjj come from japanese ju-jitsu which has been around for ages in japan. boxing and wrestling go back to greek times. muay thai has been developed for centuries in thailand. so, all the arts i like are technically "traditional" in that they have been developed over a long period of time. you can say that i really am a traditionalist!!!

they all happen to have sports combat forms as a safe way to develop skills. so, instead of push hands or circle walking or forms, they actually have realistic sports forms (with restrictions of course for safety). but hey, even tai-chi has push hands competitions. whether this falls under "sports combat" is up to debate.

btw, i've been to judo schools that sucked and i've been to judo schools with a dozen olympic competitors on the mat. i'm being very general when it comes to style vs. style arguments, but of course, in reality it is on a school by school basis.

also, i didn't say that all military style schools are not effective. it's just that most of i've seen in the states have used the military slant as a marketing tool. there are a few krav maga and systema experts that i am friends with that i have a ton of respect for. however, without exception, they were successful competitors in judo, wrestling, or boxing beforehand.
post #86 of 193
These points go well with my old instructor - he taught Tae-Kwon-Do and kickboxing (ranked kickboxer back in the '80's), and then self-defense, and there wasn't much overlap. He fought differently according to the situation, and stressed the point that while form is a good thing to have, sometimes you just have to get out of a situation by any means necessary.

Probably the best lesson was to avoid bad situations, look people in the eye, and then look for potential weapons you can use.
post #87 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizanation
when i say "traditional" i mean a style that doesn't focus in someway on 100% alive training (so maybe i should say "non-alive" martial arts). alive training meaning training with a 100% resisting opponent with as minimal restrictions as possible. point sparring does NOT fall into this. chi-sau or push hands does NOT fall into this.

Any style trained "traditionally" would have had what you call alive training. Training not involving alive training is a relatively modern occurance.
post #88 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradstudent78
Any style trained "traditionally" would have had what you call alive training. Training not involving alive training is a relatively modern occurance.

agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradstudent78
All sports competitions have some level of rules. You shouldn't make the mistake of equating such compeitions with combat, they are not the same.

also agree with you. evidence of this is seen when a sports jiu-jitsu or judo champ goes up against a good all-around mma fighter in an mma fight. the sports jiu-jitsu champ usually eats a lot of strikes because he is not used to being hit in certain positions. combining striking, clinching, ground and takedowns seemlessly is another skill altogether.

however, mma is pretty close to actual combat. the first time i fought mma rules was a big eyeopener for me. i was a good striker, good ground fighter and good wrestler, but when i went up against someone who knew how to put everything together, it was very humbling.
post #89 of 193
I vote for Gun Kata.
post #90 of 193
[quote=mizanation]
however, mma is pretty close to actual combat. QUOTE]

I would say it might be getting closer, but I wouldn't say it is close. Competitions have rules and limitations, that fact alone keeps it from being close. These rules and regulations act to accomplish three things: they protect the competitors, make for better matches, and offer advantages and disadvantages to certain competitors. Here is a historical example: In greek pankration (basically their version of NHB) there were only two rules, no biting or gouging. After a while, a subgroup of practioners became specialized at breaking fingers to get quick submissions. Even though many of these competitors were poor at throwing and other techniques, they could dominate by specializing in this particular type of technique. This was pretty much looked down upon (probably because it wasn't very entertaining), so they added another rule (no finger breaking) and those guys stopped winning.

In addition to the rules argument, some other issues I have:
There are just too many variables in actual combat that get controlled in any competition. These include enviroment conditions (e.g. glass on the ground, confined spaces, wet/slippery terrain), weapons, the possible addition of multiple opponents, etc...

I also believe the psychological experiences involved between the two circumstances are completely different.

I'm not saying such compeition wouldn't better prepare a person for actual combat, it very well may, but I just don't think it comes close to the actual thing. Anyone competiting in such competitions and wanting to apply their skills to combat should at least be thinking about these differences in the context of their combat training.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Do you know martial art? What kind? What Level?