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 7

post #91 of 193
[quote=Gradstudent78]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


which brings me back to krav - I've never seen a no holes bared match, and I have only been to a few martial arts tournements, but I have been involved in a lot of violence. I would be hard put to quantify that, but I would say easily a few hundred encounters (where firearms were not used), all of which ended with somebody either badly hurt or in custody, or both. most of them took the form of either grabing somebody off the street or out of bed and subduing him, or being attacked by a group of people with blunt weapons and rocks, and obsorbing the attack and arresting the attackers. I have also been protecting somebody during an attack by an unarmed person (during the period when I was a bodyguard) and subdued the attacker, and been on the recieving end of 2 attempted muggings and been a helpful bystander in a violent crime. I am not particularly imposing - I am 5 5, and, although I am on the extreme higher end of the strength curve (as I can see from the "how much can you bench?" thread), I am not the type of person who you would think of as scary, by any means.

what krav gives you are skills to take people down quickly, and to go from being relaxed on the street to being involved in taking people down, with a very short learning curve.
post #92 of 193
gradstudent, you are making some of this up. this is a bad habit, especially for a gradstudent.

first of all, there is absolutely NO proof that "a subgroup of practioners became specialized at breaking fingers to get quick submissions".

finger breaking in pankration is mentioned 2 times in history. one of the times it is by Pausanias, who wrote about his travels to Greece, saying that "it is said that" Leontiskos of Messene won by twisting fingers. the other time finger-breaking is mentioned, it is on a 6th century B.C. inscription BANNING the breaking of fingers in pankration. please read this thorough history on pankration: http://historical-pankration.com/art...wrestling.html

so, we don't know for sure if finger-breaking was allowed or not, or if it was banned later, or whatever. we do know that large joint locks were allowed and used effectively. now, i want to talk about finger breaking.

have you ever tried to break the fingers of someone who doesn't want you to break their fingers? of course, it is VERY simple to break the digits of the hand. that is not the easy part, gradstudent. the hard part is holding someone down while imobilizing the arm so that they will allow you to break their fingers. it's very hard to do this standing up, almost impossible because your opponent can move around, hit, etc. this is why when aikido people try to do standing joint locks in real life, they fail miserably. if you grab someone's fingers while standing, they will punch you, move around, grab you, head butt, etc... just doesn't work. SO, you must do it on the ground. you have to know how to control the person on the ground, how to hold him down, how to control his arm and then break the fingers. you wouldn't know this if you just trained finger breaking on a cooperative opponent. this is why i stress the importance of training alive.

any idiot can break someone's finger. let's say that your imaginary clan of finger breakers existed. you say they specialized in finger breaking, how hard is it to specialize in breaking the smallest bones in the body? you also said that they were poor at other techniques. so, how did they get in a position to apply their deadly finger breaking techniques??? how did they defend against techniques applied by their opponent?

this is my main argument against the people (mostly "traditional chinese martial artists") who say, "i'll just break his fingers" or "i'll just gouge out his eyes." if you can't hold someone down and imobilize their arm, how are you going to break their fingers? if you can't hit an actively resisting opponent, how are you going to gouge out their eyes? please realize i am not saying that breaking a guys finger or pulling out their eyes is not effective. but, you have to have other skills to do this. also, finger breaking will not stop a fight. people break fingers and continue to fight all the time. however, breaking a large joint like a elbow, shoulder or knee, almost always stops the fight.

OK. now let me give you a better example.

in japan, during the feudal age, there were many styles of jujitsu. these styles were used by the samurai for combat without a sword. these techniques included striking, eye gouging, small joint manipulation (your deadly finger breaking), throws that would simultaneous break the opponents arm, on top of chokes, joint locks and ground control. brutal techniques (especially the fatal finger breaking), but very hard to train realistically.

a guy name jigoro kano had a great idea. he theorized that training the less dangerous techniques realistically would give better results than training the very dangerous techniques unrealistically. he was right. thus the birth of judo. judo practicioners wiped the floor with the old-school jujitsu guys (even with their arsenal of deadly techniques) because the jujitsu guys were not training realistically. the judo fighters trained the less dangerous moves over and over again in an alive setting. the lack of "deadly techniques" allowed them to develop the more important skills of body control, movement, leverage, etc... against an unwilling, uncooperative opponent. sounds familiar?

in brazil, fights occur (and have been for a long time) where biting, eye-gouging and finger manipulation is fair game. BJJ and luta livre fighters still win.

in catch wrestling, manipulating fingers and putting pressure on your opponent's eyes is called ripping. it sets up your other techniques. but to apply a rip, you have to have control of your opponent. again, a deadly finger break is not possible without having other skills.

in vale tudo japan, yuki nakai, a 150 pound submission figher, fought Gerard Gordeau, a 215 pound champion in kyokushin (bare knuckle) karate and savate (french kickboxing) who knew no grappling. although gordeau repeatedly gouged nakai's eye during the match, yuki nakai defeated gordeau by heel-hook. later, nakai beat craig pittman a 270 pound wrestler by armbar. he lost in the finals to rickson gracie. so, sometimes eye-gouging is not as deadly as it sounds. nakai did receive permanent damage though.

ok, finally...

so you do agree that mma is close to real combat. but you also say that because of other factors, like terrain conditions, etc., that it is not realistic.

ok, fine. so how do you train for these unexpected conditions? people have developed simulation training where you simulate these strange conditions. simulating fighting in bars, in uneven terrain, etc... what happens is that the people who have the strongest foundation in realistic combat arts do the best, regardless of the environment.

sorry for the long post...
post #93 of 193
[quote=globetrotter]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradstudent78
which brings me back to krav - I've never seen a no holes bared match, and I have only been to a few martial arts tournements, but I have been involved in a lot of violence. I would be hard put to quantify that, but I would say easily a few hundred encounters (where firearms were not used), all of which ended with somebody either badly hurt or in custody, or both. most of them took the form of either grabing somebody off the street or out of bed and subduing him, or being attacked by a group of people with blunt weapons and rocks, and obsorbing the attack and arresting the attackers. I have also been protecting somebody during an attack by an unarmed person (during the period when I was a bodyguard) and subdued the attacker, and been on the recieving end of 2 attempted muggings and been a helpful bystander in a violent crime. I am not particularly imposing - I am 5 5, and, although I am on the extreme higher end of the strength curve (as I can see from the "how much can you bench?" thread), I am not the type of person who you would think of as scary, by any means.

what krav gives you are skills to take people down quickly, and to go from being relaxed on the street to being involved in taking people down, with a very short learning curve.

globetrotter, your combination of strength, conditioning and realistic techniques is what has saved your ass and others over the years. good stuff.

i've got the technique and conditioning part...working on the strength right now!

btw, it's "no holds barred".

ok, gotta go to jiu-jitsu training. talk to you guys later.
post #94 of 193
[quote=mizanation]
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter

globetrotter, your combination of strength, conditioning and realistic techniques is what has saved your ass and others over the years. good stuff.

i've got the technique and conditioning part...working on the strength right now!

.


no, M, your grasp of technique is far and beyond anything that I ever approached. I just mentioned my history as an example of what can be done with a good, basic, and small arsonal of tools, when your expectation is conflict with people who are not trained martial artists.
post #95 of 193
Ok, first of all I didn't make anything up. I got my information from "Chin Na in ground fighting" by Al Arsenault and Joe Faulise. They presented their information, obviously what you presented suggest there is more too it. However, I still stand by the fact that rules change what can and can not be done and offer advantages and disadvantages to certain techniques. However, I do agree, as you point out, that those techniques, like all techniques, of course can not be done in a bubble and the practioner must have a set of basic fighting skills to use them.


I do NOT agree that MMA is close to real combat. As you decrease the amount of rules in a competition, you will most likely get better physical preperation for real combat, but any amount of rules prevent it from being close and the fact that it is competiton prevent it from being close from a psychological standpoint. There are two very different mindsets between competition and combat.


Now I'm not saying that NHB would not be an effective part of training for real combat, just that it does not come close to real combat. If your training for real combat the limitations of such competition should be realized and compensated for. That is exactly why the simulated conditions training that you mentioned has been developed.


Where did you get that Kano thought "theorized that training the less dangerous techniques realistically would give better results than training the very dangerous techniques unrealistically."? My understanding was that the old jujutsu ways simply weren't needed anymore because there were no samurai and their warrior class way of life was simply thing of the past. Rather then have that knowledge and those arts end up being lost, he reformulated it to make it easier and less dangerous for mass use.
post #96 of 193
Muay Thai (*real* Muay Thai)
Wing Chun/Ving Tsun
Combat Sambo

You can argue for hours, but in the end, nothing beats those three for an advanced fighter. However, an expert fighter could fight McKarate and still be effective.
post #97 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by meaculpa
Muay Thai (*real* Muay Thai)
Wing Chun/Ving Tsun
Combat Sambo

You can argue for hours, but in the end, nothing beats those three for an advanced fighter. However, an expert fighter could fight McKarate and still be effective.

a lot of martial arts combinations beats those three. i also highly disagree about wing chun. btw, i've trained all three, and still train muay thai.
post #98 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradstudent78
Ok, first of all I didn't make anything up. I got my information from "Chin Na in ground fighting" by Al Arsenault and Joe Faulise. They presented their information, obviously what you presented suggest there is more too it. However, I still stand by the fact that rules change what can and can not be done and offer advantages and disadvantages to certain techniques. However, I do agree, as you point out, that those techniques, like all techniques, of course can not be done in a bubble and the practioner must have a set of basic fighting skills to use them. I do NOT agree that MMA is close to real combat. As you decrease the amount of rules in a competition, you will most likely get better physical preperation for real combat, but any amount of rules prevent it from being close and the fact that it is competiton prevent it from being close from a psychological standpoint. There are two very different mindsets between competition and combat. Now I'm not saying that NHB would not be an effective part of training for real combat, just that it does not come close to real combat. If your training for real combat the limitations of such competition should be realized and compensated for. That is exactly why the simulated conditions training that you mentioned has been developed. Where did you get that Kano thought "theorized that training the less dangerous techniques realistically would give better results than training the very dangerous techniques unrealistically."? My understanding was that the old jujutsu ways simply weren't needed anymore because there were no samurai and their warrior class way of life was simply thing of the past. Rather then have that knowledge and those arts end up being lost, he reformulated it to make it easier and less dangerous for mass use.
I agree with the last part. For any who are interested, there are koryu rthat are still running that have VERY dangerous techniques that would be used for assassinations, combat et.c that are just not suitable for mass consumption. Many budo systems included grappling and a variety of unarmed techniques in their repertoire. I don't have much knowledge on the Chinese side of things but I can point anyone interested towards docs & publications in the differences between japanese gendai budo arts such as karate, judo, kendo, aikido et.c. as oppossed to true old school koryu (the majority of which are facing extinction - whole different story) that were designed primarily for practical use. For instance the iaido ryu I belong to has had three major branches; one of which retained everything, including grappling, kusarigama (chain & sickle), assassination techniques, et.c. Ours has shed most of the non-iai related. As for kata, anyone who thinks that kata are not useflu may not exactly understand their real purpose and the history. In mnosty gendai budo, kata are appended to link them to their more combat-oriented roots that were usually almost ENTIRELY based on the kata. Another misconception is that kata are set forms. Wrong. The whole point of kata is to infuse the practitioner with the techniques and "spirit" (for lack of a better word) of the specific art, not to provide set pieces where if opponent punches this way, I always react this way. P.s. Please don't bring up any bullshit like "ninjutsu" et.c. The only person that has an nounce of legitimacy is the founder of the Bujinkan and even he does not have full legitimacy in Japan outside of pop culture and his fans. A lot of controversy there. I should mention in case anyone is wondering what I mean: Gendai budo: modern budo - technically means post Meiji Restoration arts but that actual line is a little fuzzy. For all practical purposes it is defined by NOT being koryu. Koryu: old school. Older arts that were (in the majority of cases) put together to provide a framework for military training and such related things. Of course that would include duelling-specific arts, policing trechniques, et.c. from the time around the Sengoku Jidai and the Tokugawa era. P.s. 2 In case anyone is wondering, I have nothing against gendai arts - I love kendo (my primary art) - even though my body feels like it is basically falling apart at this point.
post #99 of 193
yes, no one is disputing you on the fact that rules have disadvantages and advantages. i just didn't agree with some of your historical info, and i'm glad you see that some of it was incorrect.

i also agree that mma is not exactly like real combat, but it's pretty fuckin' close, man--as far as hand to hand fighting is concerned. as far as psychological factors, i think you're unaware of the mental toughness it takes to spar full-contact and for those that compete, step into the ring. you can train internal martial arts for a lifetime and never have the experience of getting hit, getting taken down, getting the wind knocked out of you, getting kicked in the leg, etc.... and still have to keep fighting. when it happens to you, it will be an unpleasant suprise. also, there is a another thing that happens when you train alive. you get beat. you realize that you are not invincible, that someone really powerful can power through a technique that works on weaker people, you realize reality. you also realize that if you have enough technique, you can beat people that you would not be able to without training.

i've seen a lot of people get their wake up call on the mat--they either A) realize that what they have been studying their whole life was a waste of time or B) they blame themself for not training hard enough in an art that they think should be effective, but is not. i feel sorry for group B, because it's not them, it's the art. if they put the same amount of effort learning a realistic art, they would be much more satisfied with their level of actual skill.

Kano definitely created judo as an improvement on existing jujitsu--it actually became a complete overhaul. In fact, one of the first things he did after he trained his students is have a competition vs. several of the existing jujitsu ryu. the traditional jujitsu schools got beat bad every time.

most importantly, kano wanted judo to be a way of life, a form of physical fitness practicable by all.

to imply that Kano created judo only so that jujitsu wouldn't be lost is absolutely wrong. you are grossly misrepresenting the history of judo. in fact, one reason jujitsu practically disappeared is BECAUSE of judo. the reputation of it's effectiveness over jujitsu converted many jujitsu students into judo players. this reputation was earned through many victories over jujitsu, both in competition and during "dojo yaburi" or school challenges--which were many times no holds barred fights.
post #100 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizanation
a lot of martial arts combinations beats those three. i also highly disagree about wing chun. btw, i've trained all three, and still train muay thai.

I'm not talking about combinations. I'm talking about those three, individually. Outside of the Pride Fight context in which most people think of martial arts, there isn't much to disagree with.

Sistema is widely considered the most dangerous martial art in the world, for good reason. If you've ever seen it being performed, you'd know. Krav Maga is in the same boat.

Wing Chun's mere foundation automatically disqualifies 90% of all martial arts that exist. I'd like to hear the basis for your 'highly disagreeing' with this.

Muay Thai is just fierce striking. Completely different than the other two, it is the zenith of a striking sport, and within than range of arts, and even beyond it, there's not much that compares.

I'm also not sure of the relevance of 'I've done all of the above.' You could train your entire life and still be a weakling. Saying you've trained in something is akin to saying that once you drove through a bad neighborhood. Does that mean you've had a hard-knock life?
post #101 of 193
Much obliged, Gradstudent! I've been looking to try Bagua for a change instead of Yoga.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradstudent78
This list has some bagua teachers in houston on, I can't comment on if they are any good or not.
http://www.hsing-i.com/teachers/index.html
post #102 of 193
Quote:
you can say tai chi, bagua, hsing-i are great for relaxation, health, etc.

Actually, miz, that is exactly what I said, and why I believe them to be the "most effective" martial arts in the world. You'll get much more good from them for those health aspects than you would get from just learning how to fight. You should read your replies more carefully before you just say people don't know what they are talking about.
post #103 of 193
hey meaculpa, those three as individual arts makes a little bit more sense. i would agree with MT and combat sambo--with reservations. but i don't agree with wing chun, i will tell you why in a second.

i've trained systema a lot and i know a ton of systema people. i just don't think it's very effective. and i'm not the only one who has spent time and money training in it who thinks so. i really, really WISH it was effective, because it's so bad-ass (all that top-secret spetznaz shit rocks!)--but i have not been impressed with the people who train it--except of course for Vlad and people like Dima and Rob who have an extensive jiu-jitsu, wrestling and real-life street fighting backgrounds. if you do systema, you know who i am talking about, if not well, trust me.

i've trained with and was friends with many at a sambo school in new york, run by the most successful sambo player ever. if you know anything about combat sambo, you will know who i am talking about. the person is a legend and at one time trained fedor emalienenko. BUT, the caliber of students at his school was not impressive. in fact, their best fighter started training with one of my coaches after realizing that he could find better at his gym. their school was not really combat sambo because they didn't practice striking and their ground was not all that. so, so much for combat sambo. btw, they had a really good ground fighter there, but he had trained for years in BJJ with one of my old instructors--go figure.

Ok, now for wing chun. i've trained wing chun and again, have many friends who completely abandoned it after studying it for years. i don't think it's very effective at all. have you seen the fight between Emin Botzepe and William Cheung? two of the supposedly greatest masters of wing chun? it's sloppy as shit and looks like a playground fight. IRONICALLY, the fight ends up on the ground, where a BJJ guy would have destroyed both of them. trapping doesn't happen in a real fight. it just doesn't happen, man. we can discuss this further if you want.

see my comments on Krav Maga earlier. basically, i think some Krav Maga schools are awesome, my good friend is a well-respected teacher. some Krav Maga schools are just using the israeli military as a marketing tool. but there are good and bad schools in all arts.

training in something accounts for a lot, man. my whole life, i've searched for the most effective martial arts. that's why i've trained in so many of them. i have first hand reasons for my opinions on different martial arts and martial arts in general.
post #104 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn
Actually, miz, that is exactly what I said, and why I believe them to be the "most effective" martial arts in the world. You'll get much more good from them for those health aspects than you would get from just learning how to fight. You should read your replies more carefully before you just say people don't know what they are talking about.

javyn. i would not have argued with you if the original poster meant which martial art is best for relaxing. he obviously meant, which one is most effective for real self-defense. i'm sorry if i offended you when i said that you don't know what you are talking about, but i believe you don't since you have not trained in any of these arts and are going by hearsay only.

relaxation and health does not = effective form of self-defense.

also, training in an art like muay thai, BJJ, judo, wrestling, or boxing has great health benefits. but that is besides the point.
post #105 of 193
Sadly, I fear there is but one way to resolve this dispute:
LL
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?