White Warlock

They learned the groundgame to be able to 'defend' against it, but most have not specialized in it, and thus know just enough to 'get out of there,' except when they go against someone who is a 'specalist' in groundfighting... then they find their escape skills wanting. Just to clarify, by posing this "can you name one" argument, you are creating a straw man. That was not what i was presenting in my earlier post, nor could what i wrote be inferred to suggest such. Therefore, you presented this 'task' for me to complete, of finding a competitor nowadays that doesn't know groundfighting defense, as the qualifier to my arguments... but they are unrelated and thus your argument, in retrospect, is invalid. He's not all that interested in names. He calls his DVD/video set "Combat Aikido" to make it clear that it's martially effective. But he's said that when you pare things down to their essence, it's the same whether you call it Kung Fu or Aikido. ... You can see a lot of clips of his fights and teaching in the Videos section of aikidog.com On that note, and also in response to Daedulus' post, i refer to an earlier KF article: Lost in Time - The Modern Way

Alright... Aikido has powerful strengths, as does bjj. Skilled practitioners play to their strengths, not their weaknesses. I applied aikido principles almost exclusively when i worked in a mental health center for a little under 4 years. Why? Because it worked and because it applied to the circumstances. We were not allowed to 'hurt' the patients (or land on top of them... any finishing holds had to be from the side or from the bottom) even though they had 'the law' giving them full protection from prosecution for battery or murder. Insanity plea, certified by the facility's own doctors. So, what i'm saying is, aikido does work, and quite well, under the appropriate circumstances. As does bjj. The major determinates are: rules of engagement, conditioning/training of practitioner, conditioning/training of adversary(ies), setting, dependencies, cross-training (for exposure). I agree with Environman that one doesn't necessarily have to 'master' a technique in order to learn how to properly defend against it, or recognize it early on, and thus counter it. However, i agree with Daedulus that any defiency in knowledge can be exploited.

Anything with the 'intent to deceive' the consumer should be frowned upon. Now, if they say something like, "we have our own little organization, to keep our school heritage alive" then i would respect that, but what i bumped into was a guy blatantly posing the organization, which honored him with an 8th degree black belt, as an international organization. The truth was, he created the organization, gave himself a rank of 8th degree through that organization, and 'claimed' to have two other schools (allegedly his schools) outside the U.S.. One in Colombia and another i believe in Nicaragua. I had a friend in Colombia who went to the address listed for that school... doesn't exist. Anyway, he posed the organization as international by claiming such. So, basically, Caveat Emptor... "Buyer Beware."

http://www.shaolinusa.com/shaolin4.html I rest my case

Well, silly drama to say the least. On one point, your grandmaster could put his foot down on all of this. Teaching kids to steal, encouraging such, is a criminal offense commonly called, "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." Stupid law, but if what you are saying is not fabricated, or exaggerated, i'm sure it would apply.

Well, i haven't competed since the 80's. In real life confrontations, people don't prep like that, so it's only a problem for competition.

There are a few thoughts here. One is that if one of them were a groundfighter, as soon as they fell to the ground, that's where it would stay. People get up because neither opponent is comfortable on the ground. As to the shift in MMA competitions, it has to do 'directly' with the shift in rules that penalize groundfighters for not being 'entertaining' enough. Check out the rules and check out how they break a clinch on the ground if they aren't striking at each other. Yet, a very skilled groundfighter doesn't need to strike, except as a means of distraction so as to setup a lock or break. This shift in the MMA competitions was done for 'money.' They abandoned the 'martial artists' and went for the media draw... the mass of ignorant spectators that just want to hear flesh being pounded, blood spurting, and bruises and welts. Ask the originals. Ask the Gracies, the Shamrocks, Severn, and others. They all have indicated the same thing.

Studied high school and collegiate here, yes... it is very effective at controlling, manipulating the opponent. No, it does not have finishing techniques because in training, your goal is to pin the person on his back (the exact opposite of what you want to do in a real fight, or in a NHB). It is one of the best, if not the best, for conditioning, and conditioning is key. Absolutely essential. However, the weaknesses are obvious. Wrestlers don't practice with consideration for locks, chokes, appendage breaks (as in fingers), or strikes, so if someone mixes any of that in, their game is disrupted. In many cases they either fall full victim to such things, or they lose focus and break off until they can re-evaluate. In some cases, they become more aggressive, and try to resort to similar tactics while still maintaining their wrestling actions. But, without cross-training, they just can't go there. Still, the base of wrestling is powerful, and combines well with just about any system to strengthen a fighter... make him more well-rounded. And, to clarify, we're NOT talking about the stupid WWF 'all-show, no-go' wrestling so popularized by Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant. Most everything they do... doesn't work in a real confrontation.

I agree with Hansen. Sorry Daedalus.

yes, that too.

No, i was not being sarcastic. I was noting how everyone just took it for granted and didn't care to mention it. It's like the habits some martial artists get into, but fail to teach. They do it without thought, and thus fail to communicate what they do that is so crucial to their effectiveness.

Follow me here: Power (symbol: P) is the amount of work done per unit of time. Work (abbreviated W) is the energy transferred by a force to a moving object.For these discussions, we are referring to mechanical energy in the form of kinetic energy: Kinetic energy is the portion of energy related to the motion of a body and is equal to the integral of the dot product of the velocity of a body and the infinitesimal of the body's momentum. Velocity (symbol: v) is a vector measurement of the rate and direction of motion. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed. Speed (symbol: v) is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, expressed as distance moved per unit of time.- Wikipedia So, yes, speed was discussed. I referred to it in a previous post by mentioning 'quickest' and such other words. Others also mentioned similar. Basically, speed, as well as distance, time, and force, are factors in the determination of power. More importantly, however, acceleration is a factor in the generation of power. So, what you are more likely referring to is acceleration. It seems, in your system, that power and range are being given negative connotations in their definitions, whilst speed, technique, and flow are being given positive connotations. In truth, you're debating semantics, not concepts. As noted earlier, you are referring to acceleration. Acceleration is defined technically as, "the rate of change of velocity of an object with respect to time." Also, you are not giving credit to body mechanics and the generation of power by utilizing positioning (related to technique). Congratulations. Well, i don't think i posed any delineations, nor did i see anyone else do so. Straw man? Anyway, the hand, fingers and toes are 'hard targets,' and thus they influence the decision-making process when it comes to choosing your targets to assault. They are hard targets because they are small, at the end of rapidly moving limbs, and require more than merely a 'strike,' but a grab and then a pull, bend, or wrench. When referring to nearest target (which i don't recall anyone putting it that way... but i'll run with it), it is usually in reference to 'striking.' Specifically, linear strikes, which are the 'quickest' assault actions that can be committed, being that they follow the straight-line theory (yes, you can argue that one if you want to). However, because you noted 'joints,' i'm given the impression you are referring to the less precise, more time-consuming, and prerequisite act of grabbing, for the purposes of a break, manipulate, or lock. The problem here is that going directly for a joint is not the 'most direct,' nor the 'quickest' action to take, and if you are dealing with someone who is just as quick... he could counter, by straight-line striking you on the nose.

well thanks for your help and everybody elses help, I think this kind of helped me mature a little bit about the situationAhh, there you are... growth. And np, glad i and others could help.

Umm... no more shaolin monks. There are still 'buddhist monks' that don't practice wushu, wushu practitioners that pose as buddhist monks, and buddhist monks that practice wushu. However, shaolin monks no longer exist, except as a marketing ticket. I think that's the second time i've said this on this thread. Odd, eh?

Hehe, yep.

better yet, find out if they 'created' the organization, and it consists of them and their instructors. Yes, i bumped into one of those.

And your response by researching it was appropriate Pat. The kneejerk response is to either automatically dismiss it as a joke, or to automatically believe it. Which reminds me of when i would tell people about the children who are enslaved in western Africa, on cocoa fields, which for a time were contracted with both Nestle' and Hersheys. The most common response to that was, "I like chocolate." I.e., turn something disturbing about our society's exploitation of 3rd world workforces into something they could laugh at.

If it is a fact, yes.

Hehe, i think he could double for Mario Peeples.

Ovine, yes. Goeff Thompson coined the phrase, but the concepts have been around for quite a long time. In fact, i underwent a 'formal' course called P.A.R.T. (which i later instructed) back in 92' (Goeff's book, The Fence was initially written/published in 1998?) that included pretty much what Goeff presents in that book, albeit, P.A.R.T. was geared towards use for medical/mental health facilities, and thus was not directed at 3 second fighting, but at de-escalation. Anyway, there are 'some' things in The Fence that i do not agree with. It is a popular thought, the idea of putting your hands generally in front of you (a main component in Goeff's fence, and also of P.A.R.T.) to ensure a space between your opponent and you, but i don't like it. I'll get into the specifics as to why i don't like it at a later time.

Hehe, i have met over one hundred of my relatives, not one studies 'any' martial art. My dad, who boxed at his club during the 50's, was the only other student that i know of. Go figure, eh?

Hehe, never had a problem.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Game/5011/chelu.html Here's some videos of his son, who holds a 10th degree in that system. http://www.masonkarate.com/Movie1.ram http://www.masonkarate.com/Movie2.ram Now, my comments: His son focused on forms competitions, with the present goal to get into movies. I have no idea if that is the totality of Che-lu, as there simply is not enough information provided. On the other hand, he's a tad young to be holding a 10th degree (25 years old).

Yeppers, saw that years ago. It takes advantage of people's kneejerk response to things and does make a great social statement.

Yes, there were/are some lawsuits and criminal charges posed to Tiger Schullman's schools, the specifics of which i'm now fuzzy on. All that i recall on this subject causes red lights to flash, so my advice would be to find somewhere else. There are plenty of posts in here with people asking what to look for in a school. You might want to review some of those, lest we have to regurgitate our old posts.