Tempest

This one was decent. It showed a lot of sparring, some good drills, and a lot of movement that made me think the students sparred, at least somewhat regularly. As well as some pretty decent physical conditioning. Overall, pretty neat stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwXlh1zugpA&t=17s Much cooler demo IMO. The issue is, though, what's better than EITHER of those demos is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvSgiMuK_3Q Why? Because it isn't rehearsed or cooperative and the participants are actively resisting the techniques being applied. Training in a rehearsed demo only teaches you how to fight against a rehearsed opponent. It doesn't matter what techniques you have practiced if you can't deliver them when it's go time. This tends to be what happens when most Chin Na or Kung-Fu guys fight against people with Judo/Jiujitsu training: Not because of techniques, but because of training methods. Again I refer back to this: http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

"Rou dao" or "rou shu dao" (soft techniques) which generally refers to the techniques deemed safe for sparring and/or training purposes. Also known as those techniques that we know actually work. But, lets leave that aside for the moment. 1st: Unless you are fighting against small children, you are not going to be able to just grab and tear someone's major muscle groups. Just doesn't work. Try it against an actively resisting opponent some time and video it. I would love to see the results. 2nd: Joint locks. Those are a thing. We do them A LOT in Judo/Jiu-jitsu. In fact, we get good enough at them to do them from all sorts of positions, and to understand when you can and cannot apply them. I have seen Chinese Martial Arts coaches with students in MMA fights yell at their students to attempt to apply a submission from bottom mount that simply cannot work from that position. 3rd: This is air chokes and really tight pins. Have you ever been pinned under a REALLY good Kesa Gatame? It is uncomfortable to say the least. Once again though, it is about training methods, not techniques. 4a: There is no such thing as Chi 4b: Proper strangles are a thing. Surely you are not suggesting that Judo/Jiujitsu doesn't contain a full variety of these? 5: Once again, also known as the only techniques we know work. I feel that this podcast has the correct way of it: http://www.grapplearts.com/cults-comets-critical-thinking/

I don't think it is possible to teach EVERYTHING you know, as if you are really pursuing the art actively, you are constantly learning more. That said, I tend to teach to the curriculum until students have a good grasp on the basic form of a technique, then it is all about personalizing it to that student. Part of the reason for this is that I want each student to find their tokui waza, their favorite technique.

Really? Ok, perhaps we are missing something here. Where is the evidence that those trained in Chin Na are "paid professionals"? This is an extraordinary claim, and as such needs some evidence to back it. On the other hand, we have this from my home town: Now, professionals in use of force train in all sorts of things, but that said, the purpose of unarmed combat skills of all sorts, with the police, is to enable the subduing of a subject without harm to themselves or the officer, or in extreme situations to allow the officer to fight to his tools. We issue police tools for a reason. That said, there is no training that guy could have had that would have guaranteed success against a loaded gun in hand. There simply isn't. Judo/Jiu-jitsu gives you as good a chance as you are going to get, but really it isn't that good. The correct solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The police would likely not have tried to disarm the suspect for exactly the reason demonstrated by that instructor. Most of them would have had far LESS of a chance of pulling it off, so they would have ordered the subject to lay down his weapon, and if he failed to comply and made any threatening move they would have shot him.

Breaking an opponents spirit is far preferable to breaking their body. If I can control someone in mount or back mount and slap them around and they can't escape, then it demonstrates effectively that I could kill or cripple them without much more effort, without the need to really do so. It should be obvious to anyone caught in bottom mount, or back mount, without an intelligent solution to the position, that they have already lost, but some people are stubborn and need to be shown the error of their ways. So, a slap or an elbow or a GENTLY applied arm-lock or choke, is a good reminder that no amount of ferocity or "wanting to" or spirit or anything other than an intelligent, practiced, trained response, is going to get them out of their predicament.

Interesting, so your theory seems to be that Chin Na is not marketable because it is "Too Deadly"? I really hope I am misunderstanding you, because that entire line of reason is so faulty and proven to be so to such an extent, that refuting it YET AGAIN would just be an exhausting waste of time. So, assuming that is not what you are saying, I would ask what you mean by Jujitsu being incomplete? Just because I have the option to CHOOSE whether to kill or cripple someone, doesn't even so much as imply that doing so isn't an option. In fact, it is even more of an option because I have the choice and my opponent doesn't. The reason Jujitsu is called the "gentle art" is because it is gentle compared to swords, spears, bows, and guns. If anyone really thinks it is all that gentle, when trained correctly, I invite them to show up and train for a bit. I assure you that will dispel any such notions.

Aha, now we are getting somewhere. Now, of the sources you have posted, only this one: http://judoinfo.com/judohistory/ Attempts even the lightest amount of academic rigor on the early origins of the art, and has this conclusion to it: "What may be considered as a strong proof against the above mentioned views is that both yawara and toride are referred to in a book styled “Kuyamigusa ” (My Confessions) which was published in 1647, twelve years prior to the immigration of Chin Gempin. Moreover, the term kumiuchi is often found in still older books. These records afford ground for believing that jujitsu prevailed in Japan at a much earlier period. Further, the Takenouchi school, which is acknowledged by the majority of jujitsu professors to be the oldest of the kind, was founded in 1532 by Hisamori Takenouchi. It is therefore indisputable that that school was in existence long before Chin Gempin ever set foot on this land. All these considerations go far towards confirming the claim of the third view, that jujitsu is indigenous and not foreign. It is true that the terms jujitsu, yawara, etc., are quite modern, but the art, in its initial stages, can be traced as far back as 24 B.C. In that year, so the record goes, Emperor Suinin ordered two strong men, Nomi-no-Sukune and Taima-no-Kuehaya, to wrestle in his presence. After fighting, which consisted mainly of kicking, the former gained the ascendancy and finally broke the ribs of his opponent. Elated by his success, Nomi went the length of trampling upon and breaking the loins of his vanquished competitor, which ended fatally to the latter. This record is generally accepted as showing the origin of wrestling in this country. Considering, however, the fact that Kuehaya was kicked to death, it seems that the contest partook more of the nature of jujitsu than that of wrestling." Which seems to give rise to the view that I stated earlier, which is that although there is some chinese influence, as there is in all things Japanese from the middle ages, due to their obsession with Chinese culture and thought, the origins of the fighting arts that became Jiu-jitsu are quite local to Japan, and are more tied up with local weapon arts and wrestling styles than with foreign influences. Which, to note, is something you will find just about everywhere that has a true native martial culture where the fighting arts are a derivative of the military training. At least through the middle ages and in to the renaissance. Northern Italy, the Germanic States, Japan, Ireland, North and South America, the list goes on and on. Which segues nicely in to my point to Matsu about the origins of martial arts as a whole.

Go if you wish. I wasn't insulting you. I was addressing the points you raised by directly replying to them and interjecting both my commentary and supporting documentation and evidence which is a habit I will continue. That said, you started this thread with a post that made some dubious at best claims, and I addressed them. You then replied to that, asking about techniques and space for the grappling of CMA, and I addressed that. You then made a comment about the popularity of Judo and Jiu-jitsu being related to marketing. I took issue with this as I believe it to be incorrect and provided my evidence and opinion as to why. You ignored that and called it irrelevant. I then addressed the other point you made about comparison of Chinese military martial arts with linked evidence. You have now called it irrelevant and are storming off apparently because Matsu made a snide, but not incorrect, comment. Now, if you want to discuss the specifics of technical approaches between different styles of grappling, you still have failed to address my main point in that area, which is, and will always be, that aliveness is the key. Training against an intelligently resisting opponent that is trying to apply their techniques at as close to full speed and power as possible is the best way to train, well, I think anything, but I can PROVE it for the case of grappling.

Why not? There shouldn't be any more problem with marketing the one than the other. In fact, with the in-place, and sometimes government sponsored, at least in China, market for Chinese MA, it should be fairly easy to market. The only issue I can see is that you have things like this happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUOXGQ0MqP0 Here we have a CMA "master" making the challenge to an MMA fighter and then getting his clock cleaned. Or you have this idiot trying to block punches with his chi: https://tinyurl.com/ycvtk2e3 If CMA have a marketing problem, it's in the amount of people claiming to be doing them that are not doing anything with any martial validity to it. Poor examples of videos, funny, how these have no bearing on this subject; except avoiding the facts of grappling history.Could just as well put some Harry Potter links, for all the difference it makes. I did offer to compare with the Chinese police and military grappling disciplines but obviously, there is no interest in reality only fraudulent chi masters. Ok, you were the one that raised the point of marketing being the issue with Quin Na. I was simply addressing that point as I don't think it is valid. You still haven't addressed my question as to why you think marketing is an issue for CMA? Now, that said, let's address your next point, which is a comparison of of Chinese military martial arts. As far as I know, the martial arts that are used and taught by the Chinese military units are variations of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanshou Now, looking at one of that arts most skilled and decorated competitors, this guy: http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Cung-Le-14883 He has an impressive competition record, and if I remember correctly did serve in the Chinese army for a bit. That said, I have watched him fight and he has not won with or really used high level grappling even once in his professional career. I would describe him as a very skilled Chinese kick-boxer with at best limited grappling experience.

Why not? There shouldn't be any more problem with marketing the one than the other. In fact, with the in-place, and sometimes government sponsored, at least in China, market for Chinese MA, it should be fairly easy to market. The only issue I can see is that you have things like this happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUOXGQ0MqP0 Here we have a CMA "master" making the challenge to an MMA fighter and then getting his clock cleaned. Or you have this idiot trying to block punches with his chi: https://tinyurl.com/ycvtk2e3 If CMA have a marketing problem, it's in the amount of people claiming to be doing them that are not doing anything with any martial validity to it.

Perhaps. It depends on the training methodology. See, the thing that more than any other factor that has lead to the dominance of certain grappling systems over others is simply the fact that we practice at full speed against intelligently resisting opponents. Simply that. It is more important to be able to perform a technique under the duress of full speed sparring and/or competition than it is to "know" a "deadlier" or "more dangerous" technique. What you know is useless in a fight compared to what you can do. And what you can do is determined not by mindset or meditation, but by what you HAVE done under as close to realistic conditions as possible and your physical condition.

Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work. Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish: Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions. First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts. Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well. Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors. Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing. Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research. I appreciate the info Tempest. One thing I have to clarify (actually two but they are related) is that the Okinawan's indigenous art of Ti or Ti'gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which was the combative predecessor of Muay Thai. I agree that Muay Thai is more civilianized as it is the sport form of Muay Boran. My understanding of Muay Boran and Okinawan arts is that they as well as most combative forms were practiced/derived along with the use of weapons. Most arts were. I actually have a theory that goes hand in hand with your statements above. Most grappling arts were used/developed (mostly but not all) by warriors that wore armor. Striking arts were used/developed by warriors that did not wear armor. The reason I have this theory is that if you look at Jujitsu it was developed by the Samurai who wore armor. If you look at Muay Boran or Ti or Toudi (Karate) they were developed by warriors that did not wear heavy armor. You would not punch a man wearing armor as you would injure yourself. However by throwing your opponent to the ground he becomes vulnerable. However I do have to point out that even striking arts utilize grappling. Ti when hand in hand with Tegumi , Quan Fa (Gung Fu) went hand in hand with Jiao Di and Qin Na. I'm sure the list goes on and on. However the difference is that they did not wear armor and striking techniques are much more effective. Again just a personal theory but more or less goes hand and hand with your's. Certainly a good companion theory to my own. There are, however, a couple of points that I would like to make. 1. Those warriors that did not wear armor were, generally speaking, not always, but usually, some type of civilian group, or were VERY poor. People that can get armor, usually get armor. Armor is good. It works REALLY well. 2. Muay Boran particularly includes a LOT more grappling and takedowns than Muay Thai does, and if you go back even further along that developmental chain to the Cambodian native art of Pradal Serey, you get even MORE grappling and more weapons work. My theory holds that the more an art is used in a civilian dueling context, the more weapons work is replaced by unarmed striking in the arts development because if you are an armed warrior, WHY would you hit someone with your hand or foot when you have a perfectly good weapon to hand. And for those arts that are about "What if I don't have my weapon?" Well then, you DEFINITELY will need to be grappling as your first order of business will be disarming someone else and taking THEIR weapon. Strikes would be simple and direct and generally delivered AFTER your opponent is in no position to defend them effectively. To see an example of this, look at the striking in Jiu-Jitsu. We actually teach striking, in some schools fairly early on, in others later, but it is almost NEVER taught as a comprehensive system the way boxing and Muay Thai are. No ring control footwork, no subtle combinations, very little head movement. Just put your opponent in a position they cant defend and then hit them. And even then, you are generally only hitting them to stop them defending something else you are doing that will actually end the encounter.

Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work. Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish: Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions. First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts. Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well. Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors. Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing. Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research.

Errhmkay, well if you like. Of course I can show you a historical text from the ancient greeks that clearly describes a rear-naked choke with the hooks in. The guy doing the choke killed the other guy but lost the match because he actually tapped to a footlock his opponent had on him at the time which actually broke his foot according to the account. There is egyptian artwork from at LEAST 2000 B.C.E that shows techniques as complex as what we would call uchi-mata. This stuff is as old as mankind, and likely as widespread. There are many sources for it and trying to link any of them together to a cohesive whole is a lifelong work in and of itself. That said: Do I believe that Chin-Na practice had some influence on the development of Japanese jujitsu and in turn all of its descendant arts? Why yes, yes I do. So did varrami, silat, and a few others. The historical record does not support pointing to any one martial art as the direct "parent" of Japanese Jujitsu, but rather more a collection of fighting experiences that are comparable to the development of certain wrestling styles in Europe. I will write more on this later, but I gotta go train now.

Rules are great as long as all sides abide by them. This is seldom the case. Many rules have been past to make war less horrific but it always boils down to one persons personal ethics, morals and humanity. So in effect the rules for all only matter if the rules for one coincide with them. Not only do both sides have to agree to abide by them but it comes down to one soldier at one instant in time and one act and the decision made at that time. Throughout history the rules have been circumvented in individual acts. Rules are there to keep honest moral people from becoming dishonest immoral people. They do little when it comes to those without that same moral compass. I mostly agree with this, and with Bushidoman as well. But, like I said before, freeing yourself from rules is not some kind of super power that will suddenly let you do things under an Adrenal Stress Response that you haven't practiced under those conditions. Regardless of one's beliefs on the matter, there is a reason that most people whose job it is to do violence to other people on a regular basis, and who are skilled and experienced in that job, and who train regularly, all pretty much train in one or more of the "Combat Sports", because by choosing, for training and development and even competition purposes, to act within a specific set of rules, you avoid the training scars that come from having to lower the contact level and reduce the movement speed for certain techniques. I can absolutely SLAM someone with a Harai Goshi in training, on the mats, at full speed and power and land on them with my full 220lb bodyweight. This is safe and can be practiced a LOT till it is an automatic response to certain stimuli. Thing is, if I do this to someone on the street, on concrete, who doesn't know how to fall, I can pretty much guarantee that it is more likely to be a fight ender than any number of eye-pokes, groin-strikes, or throat punches or even just regular punches unless I trained boxing regularly. The key to developing something effective is aliveness because it leaves the least damaging training scars. This is something even the military has realized with it's weapons training now. Scenario training and exercises are being made as realistic as possible to reduce training scars for people going down range. If you are training for self defense, you owe yourself no less in terms of training. The proven most effective way to simulate the adrenal stress response, physical demands, and mental resilience requirements of a physical altercation is combat sports training and competition. Choosing to limit yourself within the rules enables a higher level of performance than would be available to someone who didn't put the effort in to, as it were, 'learn to color inside the lines'.

Sure. Technique names and some basics of the language at least. In my more arrogant and self indulgent moments I joke that I am trained to kick your *censored* in 6 different languages. Between German, Italian, Japanese, Irish, English and a smattering of other things... it gets complex quickly. I think it is important to understand the context in which martial arts develop, to better understand how they should be done correctly.

A LOT of it was disrespected, but that being said that doesn't mean that if you are an american soldier on a battlefield you can choose to do so. And even so, genocide is largely a function of having one group with one set of rules and another group with a different set of rules. In order to commit genocide, you must dehumanize the target to make it ok to act this way towards them. And even then, there are always consequences to such things. Freeing yourself from rules is not some kind of superpower in a fight any more than robbing banks is some kind of great get rich quick scheme.

I've got some of the reproduced fechtbuchs. Love them. Absolutely love them. If I had a place to train around here, I'd do it. Well, if you ever get down to Wichita, look up a guy named Robert Trudeau. He is a former training partner of mine. Also look up a guy named Chris Holzman, probably the best military saber guy I have ever known. I am unaware of any HEMA specific groups in Hays, but also look in to your local SCA group. At the very least you will find sparring partners there.

Happy Birthday, Bob! Hope it's a great one.

One round.LOL I deserved that!! Let me reword my question, if I'm capable... Just how long do we truly believe that that type of business model would last?? Well, if we consider the Romans, potentially a couple of centuries if we could get the whole slavery/fame thing worked out. Seriously though, no one has EVER fought with absolutely no rules. There are always rules, we just may not always know what they are. For instance, on a battlefield there are rules of engagement, and rules of strategy that dictate the movement of troops. In the largely mythical "street fight", there are rules of law, but also social rules that must be obeyed or there will be consequences. The presence of rules merely modifies the implementation of the art for a given encounter. Unless the rules are so restrictive that they prevent CONTACT, there is nothing about having rules that makes a fight less real or less realistic.

Good points Bushido_man96. TOPIC Disqualifications in MMA are reality on the streets Is this a true and fair statement? Here are some disqualifications in mma, to make your judgment by I would say yes, but not a statement that you can draw many conclusions from. I could just as easily say that disqualifications in Boxing are reality in Judo or vice-versa and while it would be a true statement, it wouldn't be one that adds much value to a discussion because I can't draw any directly useful conclusions from it.

Ok, I have addressed this before, but here we go again. To produce real skills that you can effectively reproduce under stress conditions, the training method is more important than the technique. Thankfully, the answer is not terribly difficult to come by. http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/ There. There you go. There is the answer to producing these "hands on skills" that you are talking about. No thinking required on this one. I just handed you the answer to the test question. If you want it explained in a different way, then try this: If you can successfully execute a technique against an intelligently resisting, training opponent who knows what you are trying to do and is actively trying to stop you, then you can generally run through the people who are NOT trained to that standard like they were made of paper. There are many reasons for this, from athletic development that comes from this kind of training, to the better sense of timing and spacial awareness that you develop, but the bottom line is that alive training is the secret to developing real usable skills.

WOW Tempest, 10 out of 10 for your answer But does every maist know this? No. But not every martial art is attempting to accomplish the same thing in the same way. I don't necessarily need to off balance someone to stab them with my rapier. It makes it more effective, but it isn't necessary. In Judo, and Jiu-Jitsu though, it is a fundamental part of what we are doing, so in that context it becomes paramount.

Considering it's literally the main thing we are trying to accomplish? I would say it's pretty important.