guird

He says some things that I agree with or intuitively make sense, but for watching a video to be constructive you need to be told things you didn't know or didn't agree with, as well as assurance that what you are hearing is correct. I feel master Wong's videos lack that assurance. he shows a lot of interesting ideas which i would be interested to see put into practice, but Wong never provides any examples of this.

It's worth noting that a lot of the jujutsu referred to as JJJ (and I bet most of the non-brazilian jujitsu in the west), is actually european in origin. It's a western rehybridization of judo(including older, formalized techniques that aren't practiced as much anymore) and aikido, as well as karate. since the germans were among the first to do this, some people call it german jiujitsu. it even has its own wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ju-jutsu as I understand it, genuine japanese jujutsu (aside from judo, insofar as that is still considered jujutsu) is exceptionally hard to find.

When I've seen people try to teach based on principles, it often comes off as abstract. That said, principles always seem far more important than specific techniques in my experience. I find that when techniques are trained well, common mistakes pointed out, over time the principles that underlie the techniques and make them work become clear. Because you have been using these principles in you movements in training, they also become more general habits outside of the specific techniques you've trained, leading to better improvisation using these principles. So what I mean is that technique-based training (in my experience) offers better understanding of principles than explicitly principle-based training because of the hands-on experience it gives with these principles. I should add that in explaining techniques, instructors should (and usually do) touch upon the underlying principles. Though it could be I'm using principles differently than you are. I'm talking about e.g. correct synchronization of footwork and hand movement, understanding of base, center of balance, using the legs to generate force rather than weaker muscles, best practices for posture, hip and arm position in different situations, etc.

As others have pointed out- matches with mismatched weights tend to be dangerous. A lack of weight classes also makes it much more difficult for smaller people to compete at an elite level. One will generally drill and spar with people of varying sizes during training anyway, and so learn to adapt their approach to some degree.

Hi all, So I've been doing GKYS for a few months now, and I have a better idea of what it's like. my first impression was more or less right, but there are a few things I didn't know at first. So starting wth the competitive ruleset: the striking USED to be full contact, but according to an official looking website they have been light contact only since 2010. The reason for this was that only a small proportion of students were entering competitions, so they resticted the contact level to make tournaments more accessible. I understand this, but feel that light contact competitions should have been in addition to existing full contact ones, rather than replacing them. One of the things I wanted to get out of GKYS was the opportunity to compete in a full contact hybrid ruleset without running the same risk of brain injury I would in an MMA fight. There also seem to be more restrictions in the grappling component than I thought. Although double and single leg takedowns are taught as basic material they are currently not allowed in competitions for reasons that don't seem to translate well into english. Maybe a korean speaker can explain them to me? http://www.gongkwon.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=e_sub0601&wr_id=11 groundfighting has a time limit and the fight is restarted from standing if either of the grounded competitors places the soles of both feet on the ground. Some additional things about the curriculum: GKYS has forms. Unlike the forms I've seen in tkd and shotokan the movements more directly resemble those used in sparring and competitions. The hands are kept up, the blocks kept short, the footwork consists of small shifts and pivots rather than steps and lunges. Additionally, the forms come in pairs, one purely of attacks and one of blocks and counters. If two people do corresponding forms in a pair while standing across from one another it turns into a partner drill. Most of the techniques are familiar to me from kickboxing, MMA, BJJ and TJJ (the judo throws in TJJ specifically). Some techniques are done differently, as a different variation, for example the double-leg in the curriculum is done straight forward to open guard as opposed to diagonally to side mount, a throw similar to a fireman's carry exists, but with the leading knee up (the leg is standing on the foot) and done quickly so that (ideally) no actual 'carrying' takes place. Although no punches to the head are allowed, they do drill head-level punches and elbows. In particular the hook punches are interesting, as they taught only as very tight, very short, very fast hooks with the fist turned over to the point where the palm faces away from the puncher. One thing that I like is that in the curriculum there are some of the fastest and smoothest throw to submission transitions I've ever seen. When it goes well, it's possible to shoulder throw someone and have your thighs around their upper arm before they hit the ground. I'm hoping to learn to pull this off consistently in sparring, but first I need to learn to set up that shoulder throw in the first place (any tips? every noob knows how to pull back against someone pulling them off balance, I need some sort of misdirection or a different technique to threaten them with. I'm talking morote seoinage in particular here). As one last note, GKYS training is the first time I've experienced actual benefits from kyups/kiais. The instructor says the reason they do them in GKYS is that it helps you get focused, helps you stop overthinking things. I didn't buy it at first and just wrote it off to traditionalism, I never had that effect in shotokan or tkd, and indeed I didn't have it in GKYS drills either.... until we did punching combinations with pads. A kyup on the last strike of the combo really did wonders for my focus. I'm still skeptical about shouting the rest of the time, but in this one case it worked. I hope people get something out of this information!

I'm with TJ-jitsu on this one, there are a lot of red flags. Like he said, no amount of red flags is a sure indicator, but based purely on the website I'm giving it a < 10% chance to offer decent training. Go check it out anyway if it's close to you. As for MMA, usage dictates meaning. When people say 'Mixed Martial Arts' they are almost always talking about gloved hybrid freefighting. Using the term to describe other things is misleading.

I think it's fine for arts to train a single range in isolation, in which case it's up to each individual to crosstrain other ranges. Better to learn a tried-and-tested grappling curriculum than to try to make somthing up based on knowledge of a standup striking style. I think WC has bigger issues it needs to adress first in any case, both in terms of politics and quality control.

South Africa, he wrote this in his posts I don't think he will read this though, he seems to have disappeared from the forums. That makes sense- BJJ and MMA havent ventured that far yet. Not true, there are gyms there, no clue if they're any good though.

What makes you think boxing or muay thai would be easier to learn alone? One you have some real experience in the dojo you can work on your own on keeping a few skills sharp, but wihout a Sparring partner you won't really improve. Better to just work some general fitness then

South Africa, he wrote this in his posts I don't think he will read this though, he seems to have disappeared from the forums.

I find this another extraordinary claim. At least one that I know of, and at least four others with CMA backgrounds. Additionally I have heard that chen family tai chi produces some solid Sanda fighters and Shuai Jiao wrestlers, and of course there are sanda fighters from all corners of the chinese martial arts. There is absolutely exposure to tai chi and other CMA in the MMA community. Not to mention the many other rulesets in which takedowns are used.

He claimed that during sparring, no one could take him down. No one needs to be killed to substantiate this. I'm sure many MMA fighters would be very excited to learn such techniques as they are extremely valuable under any hybrid ruleset. If they are as common as you say they are, I'm surprised they haven't.

I disagree, he has told some very tall tales, I'm certainly not going to believe him without evidence. For example, that not a single fighter from the top MMA gyms in your country has ever taken you down over many sparring sessions, let alone beaten you, is a pretty extraordinary claim. On top of that his reccomended takedown defense is vastly inconsistent with any tried-and-tested methods I've ever heard of. I'm not saying he's lying, just that it's going to take at minimum, video evidence to convince me he is correct in his statements.

My gym recently started offering it, and I decided to try it out. Only had a few lessons, and as I am the only student with prior experience it was mostly just taking people through some basics. I'll keep you updated and let you know more once I've experienced a bit more of it. I have a rough idea of the competitive ruleset from what the instructor explained. It's bare-knuckle, with striking rules similar to knockdown karate (full contact punches and kicks to body and legs, no punches to head), with the modification that the match is considered over if any contact at all is made with a kick to the head. I'm guessing that is to keep practitioners in the habit of keeping their hands up without placing them at too much risk. The rules regarding grappling I know less about, but I think it's more or less submission grappling. A dobok is worn. looking around the internet it seems to be often marketed as korean MMA. The training has a lot of traditional elements however, with specific etiquette, kyups etc. Probably also depends on the instructor.

Yes this is ridiculous, and far from the first gkr horror story on this and other forums. I'd take your business elswhere.

I think you have me confused with someone else, I never stated with any certainty that they aren't effective. Yes, anecdotes are worth something.

In JJJ I practice a few joint locks that may be considered small joint manipulation. The thing is simply that we don't use them during randori, and hence I am not sure I can apply them as I have not done so. If there were evidence that training them the way we do allows them to be consistently used it would help put my doubts to rest, and allow me to focus more of my training on this area. Anecdotes generally aren't considered stong evidence.

I'm highly interested in evidence of small joint manipulations being consistently effective in stand-up against skilled and agressive opponents. Can you provide some? It would benefit my training indeed.

The only banned strikes in UFC1 were ones to the groin, a ban that was lifted in UFC2. Watching the fights, it seems very unlikely a rule change on groin strikes would have changed the outcome of UFC1 much. I agree that BJJ has some problems, especially at the moment, and it has been the subject of too much hype. It doesn't change the fact that the early UFCs however, had very minimal rules and so very little room for bias. Royce won because he was prepared for fights that involved both striking and grappling, and his opponents weren't. He had an approach that was developed for and tested in a no-holds-barred environment, and which directly attacked the gaps in the knowledge of his opponents. This didn't show that 'BJJ is the ultimate martial art' or anything, (though some people unfortunately did see it that way), it simply showed that one can't afford to neglect grappling if they want to shine in fights where it may be involved.

The only banned strikes in UFC1 were ones to the groin, a ban that was lifted in UFC2. Watching the fights, it seems very unlikely a rule change on groin strikes would have changed the outcome of UFC1 much. I agree that BJJ has some problems, especially at the moment, and it has been the subject of too much hype. It doesn't change the fact that the early UFCs however, had very minimal rules and so very little room for bias. Royce won because he was prepared for fights that involved both striking and grappling, and his opponents weren't. He had an approach that was developed for and tested in a no-holds-barred environment, and which directly attacked the gaps in the knowledge of his opponents. This didn't show that 'BJJ is the ultimate martial art' or anything, (though some people unfortunately did see it that way), it simply showed that one can't afford to neglect grappling if they want to shine in fights where it may be involved.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers? If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs. Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

I'm pretty sure a throw or sweep followed by a punch (with the thrower still standing) is ippon in WKF tournaments. I understand it's a more recent rule though, and many dojos (the last place I trained shotokan included) don't throw. I also remeber something about foot sweeps under JKA rules.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair for those schools. If they train well, why should they be shamed for charging a premuim or showing interest in moeny? A good instructor is a trade just like plumber or electrican. I'm just repeating what I've been told the usage is. I do think it's better applied to schools that provide a low-quality products. question: should the label apply to schools which provide good traijing, but also have irritating business practices? (e.g. long contracts)

I'm told it refers to martal arts school which is only interested in making money. This doesn't neccessarily mean they don't train well, but it is very often the case. http://www.karatebyjesse.com/93-signs-of-a-mcdojo/

You were right in feeling that DVDs are insufficient training, and good on you for realising it. DVD training should be a supplement at most. As for what you should study, it depends on what is available in your area. The most important thing to consider should be which training you enjoy the most, if it isn't fun it probably isn't worth it. If I were you I would try out the schools near you (most will have a free or inexpensive trial lesson) and make your decision after that. That said, if you let us know what you find in your area (ideally some details about what the training is like in the places you enjoyed) and we can give our personal opinions. on that note, I hear Kyokushin is a reliable style. I've heard the training is consistently of high quality. Also consider Judo, which is always available within a convenient distance, affordable, and almost always good quality (and as an added bonus you learn how to fall safely, which is arguably more useful than fighting skill).