White Warlock

Not in all cases, but yes... in most. Well... they could very well be at it to obtain an income, or something else. I.e., your cash... or sex obtained through force. It seems there's a focus here about people having 'high-school' type confrontations. That i could care less about. I am far more concerned with confrontations that could 'end' a life, not end my 'popularity.'

While the topic of discussion is not about statistics, such was nonetheless presented, and thus it has rendered a degree of our attention. Albeit, at the sacrifice of the context in which things were initially running. But, ah well. As to newspapers being utilized for statistics that is fine and dandy, but only for information they actually present, not for information they 'do not' present. As a journalist and ex-editor-in-chief i can tell u right off such information would not be presented in articles. They are not relevant to the topic, are not readily available, and do not present insight into the main issue. Media, as a rule, focuses on topics that interest the populace. The populace, as a whole, are not all that interested in whether criminals have 'formal' training in violence. There was, for a time, an interest in weightlifting being available at prisons, wherein the concern was that such things provide an avenue for criminals to become better equipped at being criminals. That particular issue was 'topic' oriented to present such, but violent crimes are generally merely footnotes in newspapers. They present a police blog, along with a few 'victim' interviews. Neither of which would present 'martial arts' information about a criminal, unless that person... as Andrew indicated, owned or ran an ma school. Even then, it is unlikely to be presented because such information requires 'investigation,' and the majority of news articles presented about such things... are not investigative, they are reportive. Additional points to be presented are: in order for a reporter to obtain such information, he would have to obtain it from either the criminal directly (unlikely), the police (also unlikely, since the criminal would not have indicated such... unless he wasn't really trained in the martial arts), relatives/friends of the criminal (also unlikely as relatives/friends would not communicate to a reporter... unless they were the victims... which touches my other subject presented, and throws a red herring into this whole statistics argument), or the victims (if not related or a friend, they wouldn't know). Even then, were they to obtain said information, it's still not relevant, and thus would not be presented in the article. Any editor of at least basic credentials would ensure such derogatories stay out of an article, for it opens up the newspaper to unwarranted heat. In this case, heat from various martial art schools, possibly even a lawsuit from the school in which this person studied. The goal of a good article is to stay 'focused' on the topic, and not to deviate into peripheral, and possibly slanderous avenues. As to formal training, i stated above in my post that it is not merely 'formal' settings wherein people obtain training. In fact, many criminals obtain training 'inside' jail and prison. Deal with it, this goes on. Criminals teach each other, given incentives... such as extra rations or merely friendship. Also... how do you think a criminal commits a violent crime and succeeds in it? Yes, he chooses a victim that he can overcome, but he needs a modicum of understanding, training (formal or informal), in order to be able to gauge victims and overcome them in the first place. Why do you think we, as trained martial artists, are less likely to be victims? Partly because we gain the insight into where 'not' to go, what not to do, etc. But also because we exude a degree of confidence that others can gauge. Especially those with training, or experience in the commission of violence. We fear life-threatening situations, the possibility of violent crimes being committed against... because they are life-threatening. Just about the only 'violent criminal' i suspect would attack me... would be either a raving idiot, or someone whose confidence is sufficient that he may perceive 'surprise' and 'overwhelm' enough to take me out. He may be right. That's what makes criminals dangerous. Because they are willing to initiate a conflict on uneven terms. Oh, and criminals are not neighborhood dependent. Granted, more violent crimes are committed in certain neighborhoods over others, but there is no 'safe zone.'

Only in the movies... only in the movies. Oh, and i don't think the skull has any muscles that function as padding against a baseball bat.

Why do people always assume strength = big? One of the strongest powerlifters I know of only weighs 135lbs... I don't believe i presented that position. I, for example, am only 185 lbs, yet i presented myself as 'rather strong.' And i did not argue that. The discussion has been about strength over technique, not about strength and technique over technique alone. As to the tangent about weight classes... frankly, i don't like them. You just stated above an opposition to the assumption of strength = big, so in some ways i'm thinking you may agree with my thoughts on this. I used to do quite well against my fellow wrestlers and boxers, who were of the same training level and competitive performance, but significantly larger. In high school, i was in the wee pack and later in college i got up to 135 lbs, while i practiced with 245 lb+. Some techniques were not as effective, while others were far easier to perform. As well, i would be all over the place, while they felt more like stationary objects. Add to this, the UFCs... before weight classes. In the 'majority' of cases, the lower weighted person would win the confrontation. Something to think about. Size/weight, as you presented, does not equate to strength, nor to skill. Then again, strength does not equate to size/weight, nor to skill. And, once again, skill does not equate to strength, size, nor weight. Now, in combination... a skilled assailant who is strong and large.... well, why is it that sumo wrestlers do not fare well in MMA competitions? Skills not applicable to the competition... or is it that size/weight, and possibly even strength, hampers application of skills? Note: in truth, i do not believe strength hampers skills, but it can definitely hamper the 'development' of skills. At least the internally-oriented ones, which i think are far more important than the external.

??? Could you clarify what you mean by that?

hehe

Taku... may i ask where you obtained your information?

No, he studied judo... not another form of ju-jutsu, as well as my information on Maeda goes. To avoid conflicts with the Kodokan (Jigoro Kano and family), Maeda taught judo under the 'guise' of the title ju-jutsu. This is also quite known, and is one of the reasons the Gracie family continued presenting judo as ju-jutsu. Also, Egoassassin, Gracies' own site clearly indicate they initially were teaching judo (under the misnomered title of ju-jutsu). That is, after all, my presentation to these discussions. The foundation art to bjj is judo, not a ju-jutsu (it can be argued that judo is a jujutsu, but for these discussions there does need to be a differentiation). It 'began' as a sport-oriented art. Also, i am not disputing your expertise in technique or application of the art of bjj, only in some of the historical information on the art. Nobody has all the right answers, and oftentimes i'm corrected. I've always considered this a good thing... despite the smack of humility that it carries.

I believe you misread what i wrote. I stated doing so was counterproductive. So, essentially, we agree. Moving on.

http://www.gbgm-umc.org/otterbeinumc-wv/karatehistory.htm

And just to make it clear, someone at this site corrected me on tkd's origins, and thus i pass my newfound knowledge along.

Not really Menjo. TKD was birthed from Shotokan. http://www.gbgm-umc.org/otterbeinumc-wv/karatehistory.htm

The differences are actually quite significant: 1. Guns are weapons... as are knives, sticks, rocks, monkeys with sling shots. The use of such items requires no skill, although skill can assist in making such weapons more effective. 2. Martial arts are studies, requiring extended periods of time developing. Without training, there are no weapons. The weapons themselves, are the person. But, that is not the totality of what is studied. ........ 1. A gun runner sells a weapon. 2. A sensei sells a study, part of which includes development of oneself to function as a weapon, or to understand how to utilize external weapons. ......... 1. a gun runner makes a transaction, the product of which is irrelevant to the gun runner. 2. the sensei performs a service, the service of which is very relevent to the sensei. -------- Time is the biggest factor here. -------- 1. a gun runner makes no time commitment. he is merely a merchant and his limited contact with the buyer provides almost no impact on the buyer and how he/she may utilize the product purchased. 2. a sensei makes a time commitment. Each student is given ample time and attention by the sensei. This, in and of itself, allows the sensei to influence the development of the person who will later be capable of wielding himself as a weapon. .......... 1. The moment of contact for a gun runner is minutes. 2. The moment of contact for a sensei is years, possibly decades. .......... 1. If the gun runner has morals, he would not be able to sell the product. Therefore, gun runners have no morals, or if they do have morals... they bury it in rationalizations (as Yuri does). 2. If the sensei has morals, he would be more able to succeed in maintaining and developing students. 3. If the sensei has no morals, he could very well provide an environment where the students exist merely to kill. This, however, is not the norm. In fact, it is exceedingly rare. ........... 1. The gun runner, because of his limited exposure to the buyer, likely has insufficient time (or inclination) to determine the buyer's motives or mindset. 2. The sensei, because of his lengthy exposure to the student, has ample time to determine the student's motives or mindset. If he were to disapprove of the student's motives, he could cut the student off from further studies in his/her particular school.... possibly from an entire community. ........... 1. The gun runner is 'assumed' to be dealing with criminals. 2. the sensei is 'assumed' to be dealing with upstanding citizens. -------- Content is the second biggest factor here -------- 1. gun runners provide a manual and walk away. there is 'no' content, merely object. 2. Sensei provide a regimen for the arts, which consist of far more than merely developing oneself to function as a weapon. The arts are a study in violence, but not merely the presentation of violence. It is also the cause and effects of violence, understanding of motives for commission of violence, a study in how to avoid circumstances which could force one to utilize violence, an examination of human interaction, and constant, daily, introspection into the motives, emotions, actions, triggers of oneself. It is not an external process, but an internal one. The process is not merely to memorize movements, but to understand those movements. In order to do so, one must understand oneself... On the other hand, the only thing a person needs to know in order to fire a gun... is where the trigger is, where to put the bullets, how to chamber a bullet, and how to disengage the safety. Five minutes max as opposed to five years minimum. .......last points....... * Commission of a crime with a gun, especially one illegally obtained, allows for little to no evidence at the scene of a crime. * Commission of a crime with one's own body, or with a melee weapon, leaves ample room for plenty of evidence. When it comes to the commission of a crime for obtainment of income, criminals will seek the easiest route. Spending five or more years learning a martial art, in order to mug thy neighbor, is not the easiest route. Far from it.

Um... no

First time i saw this thread Mike, having been directed to it by your link in the other thread. My comments... Personally, i think your actions were exceedingly tame. I very likely would have thrown him against the wall and given him a taste of how close he had come to being dead. With his history, and then his 'violence' posed against your sister... and now your daughter, i would say he's too close for your comfort. Contacting his P.O. would have been appropriate, regardless of what came out of your mouth, or your fists. It's not an issue of merely keeping him in check with your daughter, but of recognizing he is nowhere near ready to live in this society and poses an ever-present threat to your immediate family.

Well, two parts here. One is your actions and were they appropriate, and the other is whether i have ever allowed my ego to interfere with my judgement and in so doing, misused the knowledge/skills i've obtained in the arts. ............. Part one: ............. Spit is nowadays considered a weapon, biological in nature. If you had an illness and you spit in someone's eye, they could very well become infected with the self-same illness. The courts view it in this manner and one could effectively be charged with a felony for spitting. That said, your kick was uncalled for. Yes, him spitting on your girlfriend was inappropriate, but it is very likely you kicked him not because he spit on your girlfriend, but because he spit on your girlfriend while you were around. That being the case, you likely felt obligated to put on the mantle of knighthood. The whole scene sounds odd, and something you should have avoided altogether... so i recommend examining the 'scene' at which you found yourself, rather than merely the actions you or they committed. Don't stare too hard at the hammer, or you will fail to see the nail... and thus strike the thumb. As to what i would have done, it's hard to say. Had i found myself at that 'endgame' situation, i may very well have grabbed the guy and flung him then directed my gf to leave immediately and call the police. On the other hand, such an action would have played right into the scene being presented by those jokers... and so i may just as well read that, and not opt to play, instead getting my gf out of there and then calling the police to have that yokel arrested. ............. Part two: ............. Yes, i once became angered at my (ex-)gf's son ( age 18 ), having lifted him by the front of the shirt and slamming him against a door. The kid was talking back to me, the problem underlying his words was sufficient for me not to dismiss it all... in that he was using drugs and entering into the sale of drugs. Oddly, it was my apology later that worked to get my point across. Unfortunately, not well enough, for a year later he was arrested and convicted of felony drug dealing. There have been other times, and other instances, where i allowed my skills to be led by my emotions, or my pride. But, as i grow older, they are fewer and further between. I find myself nowadays spending an inordinate amount of time examining 'my own' motives for doing things that could very well have escalated situations, noting how some of my actions were intentional. As i mentioned a few times already, we're not as simple as we would like to believe. Part of our studies are in examining motives and how emotions play a part in the commission of violence. In this, our best teacher is ourselves. By examining what we do, we gain a deeper understanding of what others do, and why.

Learning more than one style simultaneously is definitely not an issue, as far as i'm concerned. Now, if you were to 'merge' those styles, pick and choose, toss out the parts you haven't been able to figure out yet or master, and create your own hybrid... i think that would be counterproductive. You really do need to develop sufficient mastery of one or more arts before tossing out what could very well be core-critical concepts/techniques.

Wish i had more to go by. The videos presented on that site gave me no more confidence in this than the other videos. Also, there really is no such thing as a 'complete' style.

EA, i received my information directly from the lips of Helio Gracie and Rorion Gracie, via videotape. I also obtained this information from countless sources, most of which present slight variations on the same theme. Suffice it to say, the foundation art of bjj was Jigoro Kano's judo, not ju-jutsu. Do u wish me to provide reference data?

These are interesting observations, but ... well, they just don't jive with my gut feelings. I am aware that many bodybuilders damage their interior in an effort to develop their exterior, but not all. In fact, i don't believe it is the majority. As to weaknesses, everyone has the same or similar weaknesses. You can develop muscles, but there's very little you can do to develop ligament, or tendons, or cartilage, or bone. Nerves are still where they were when born, but tensioned muscles 'can' protect most vital areas, so that exploit should not be overemphasized. The brain, and all other organs, are still full exploitable. A shot to the kidney is still possible. A jarring of the brain, a shot to the jaw, a smack to the temple, a dislocate of the knee, foot, elbow, neck... I'm sorry, i just don't see what all this emphasis on 'strength' is all about. It's a factor, yes, but it is not all that relevant if the person wielding the strength has 'no' skills. And don't get me wrong. I'm no slouch. I'm rather strong, but i'm also plenty stronger than i look... because of technique, approach, experience. When a musclebound guy, who had years of boxing and jujutsu, tried to put a lock on my arm, wrist, fingers for fun... i 'dismissively' thwarted his efforts, not even looking at what he was doing, and put him in a fingerlock instead. His strength was useless, because his skills were inadequate. Also, what matters more than strength, when 'striking,' is speed. A powerful shot to a part of the body is important, but not if it moves too slow to make impact. And to compare bulk, examine featherweight boxers to heavyweight boxers. Immediately you'll think, "wow, those heavyweight guys are huge and can do a lot of damage." But then you probably should pay attention to the featherwieght, who moves about so dang quickly, it's hard to imagine him being tagged by the heavyweight. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine the featherweight doing any damage to the heavyweight. But, this is caused mainly by perceptions. We see bulk and we make the assumption that bulk equates to power, when such is not the case. Strength does play a part in power, but not nearly as much as technique.. application, experience. You develop yourself, your approach, how you apply it... and you increase the speed of delivery, thus increasing the damage imposed. As well, a strong strike is useless if it fails to connect cleanly. An angled shot is weak, for it deflects off the opponent. These things are learned. Being strong doesn't provide this knowledge, only training does.

I would like to see those statistics. Does the definition of martial arts, as pertains to said statistics, include wrestling/boxing? And, in these statistics, is it merely formal training that defines whether someone is skilled in committing violent acts? Ordinary street threat? I wish there was such a thing. As i noted earlier in my post, there are plenty of 'violent career criminals,' with an emphasis on 'career' because... frankly, it is what they do for a living, day in and day out. When/if you are attacked by one of these persons, it will likely be by surprise... possibly more than one assailant. A weapon may be involved, or merely a bullrush manuever with plenty of commands. It could very well be that the encounter will give you a moment to regain your footing, or to be overwhelmed by your adrenalin, thus frozen in place. There are concepts in the arts that sometimes are lost because of extended 'theory' in the dojo, but in the streets there are no theories, only practice. and in those instances of application, nothing is practice. It's all real, all now. If you are trained to manage the adrenal surge, you will be one-up on most other victims, but not necessarily one-up on your assailants. This is not an issue of paranoia, but of reality. Although we do not personally witness violent crimes being committed on a daily basis, they nonetheless do occur... and far more often than people would care to believe. It has happened to family members, to friends, and to me sufficient times that i do not dismiss it so easily. Violent crimes do occur, and you don't necessarily have to be at the wrong place, or at the wrong time. I want each of you do something right now. Spend just a few minutes doing this... for it will be an eye-opener. Visualize being the victim of a violent crime. Aim to visualize at least three versions... one where the threat posed is minor, another where the threat is major, and another where a loved one is at the scene. Examine these situations... and determine if you feel you are 'ready,' or if these visualizations undermine your confidence... bring fear to your heart. ... ... It is 'expected' that you will feel fear and that the situations you present cause you concern. That is the nature of the unknown. If in your visualizations you found no threat, or were not in the least disturbed by what you presented, then you are either not presenting reasonable threats... or you are dangerously overconfident. Consider this... and consider as well, there are no guarantees. We study the martial arts to edge our bets, but surviving a violent encounter is a gamble that we can lose.

Well, there's always this: https://www.kalonline.com Not necessarily what you're talking about, but not bad for free.

Lenny, although i understand your argument... that it is unlikely we will end up being assaulted, or get into a physical confrontation, with an accomplished practitioner... i still don't see the point of your arguments. The reason i say this is because those who strive to study the arts are doing it for more than merely the ability to survive a street encounter. As well, and as you indicated, there is no such thing as preparation (which, btw, i did not state... so kindly recognize i don't communicate with such vagaries), but there is such a thing as practice and personal development. And while we cannot 'prepare' for every eventuality, we can develop ourselves to be able to "improvise, adapt, and overcome" most every eventuality. So while someone may present a grenade, we don't necessarily need to perform some wild flying monkey underhanded kick to disarm him... we just have to have the mindset, developed over countless training sessions and introspection, to determine the best action (or inaction) in handling such a difficult situation. The martial arts is not merely about actions... it is about development. In my decades in the arts, i've noticed a 'huge' gap between how i react in an emergency situation and how just about everyone else acts. Indeed, when i'm at the scene of an emergency, i can immediately tell those who have 'developed' themselves and those who have not. For example, when i watch my sister react to a scene, i am proud of her... for i know that although she is not as developed in her understandings, she is nonetheless miles ahead of everyone around her, moving quickly to take command of the situation. And when she watched me in action, dealing with an emergency, she stated it was like she was moving in slow motion in comparison. So... while it may not be obvious on a day-to-day basis, practice does make a significant difference. Back to the physical aspects of the arts. We do not study to protect ourselves from the 'average joe.' Were we to speak only of the physical aspects, we study to deal with the skilled assailant. My life will be on the line when i encounter someone who is better than me or presents an equalizer into the confrontation... such as a stick, stone, brick, or bone (preferably not mine). If i practice to handle a minor threat, and the situation escalates (weapons and/or skilled opponent), or multiple unskilled opponents confront me, than i will be 'ill-equipped' to handle the elevated threat. What's the logic in that? Why spend decades studying something if i am only practicing to handle a minor threat? Indeed, why spend decades studying, if all i'm trying to do is defend myself in a confrontation? As i indicated, the arts are far more than merely the physicalities. One aspect is about avoidance, another about communication, another about inner peace, etc. One more thing. One does not have to study the martial arts in a formal setting to have obtained a significant degree of fighting expertise. I encountered quite a few criminals, felons, that demonstrated ample fight expertise. These guys are violent career criminals not merely because they are violent, but because they are 'good' at violence and utilize it regularly as a means of obtaining an income. To assume the threats you encounter will only be presented by unskilled assailants, is to increase the likelihood of being found face-down in a gutter one day. note: boxing and wrestling are indeed martial arts. Sport-oriented, but just as much martial arts as bjj, judo, sport-tkd, muay-thai, kickboxing, or any of the other multitude of 'sport-oriented' martial studies. To think otherwise is to dismiss European studies in combat as irrelevant, when in fact they are actually quite formidable.

Colored belts were a creation of European practitioners of 'Asian' arts. Prior to that, in 1889 Jigoro Kano (founder of Kano ju-jutsu, aka: judo) introduced black and white belts as a means to differentiate students from senior students (instructors/asst instructors). He, in turn, wore a double-wide white belt. It is said he adopted the practice of white/black belts from other sports in Japan; specifically that of swimming.

Well, on that run, it was derived from a sport-oriented martial art.... judo, and adopted techniques from two other sport-oriented martial studies.... sambo and European wrestling, so it really didn't 'turn' into a sport-oriented martial art. It always was one.