AndrewGreen

Maybe there is a reason that for that? Their haven't been any Tae Bo experts either... Shotokan practitioners have competed, just not well enough to get to that level of competition

i have fought (sparred) against a Shotokan stylist and he was nothing to me. lol to me Shotokan is not that good for self defense, its good for show though.im not trying to bash Shotokan here im just stating my opionin. - Complete with spelling mistakes

Yes. It can, depending on how you train and what you started with. But you'd be better off training what works for you, in all ranges. Not a classical style based on patterns and tradition. But you can't know all the rules if you play by a restrictive set. Knowing the rules to monkey in the middle does not mean you know all the rules to football. If you want to get good at football, play football. Bruce saw WC as a partial system based on patterns that had become stylized. I agree, it is. That doesn't make it bad, it just means it won't work for what I do. For someone else wanting something different it might work.

Bruce has had more bad history written about him then just about anyone...

Those can be anywhere from 6 - 8 th dan. Generally they are not worn except at association events. (AKA candy cane conventions ) So ask... Many TMA instructors won't spar in front of their students. Unless you see him do it in class regularly he probably doesn't do it, so it might not be that impressive.

Maybe a Mixed Martial Arts school. a submission grappling school, wrestling, or Judo. Grappling will let you compete full out without the facial damage. Going MMA you might be able to train with strikes/kickboxing but compete in just grappling if thats what you want.

Style and method are same thing, I think u mean it is a concept... Words are so confusing sumtimes LOL! Only if you make them confusing. "Style" is not the same as "method" A style can have a method, and a method can have a style but they are not the same word. JKD is a method for developing yourself as a individual martial artist. The method contains many principles and concepts. But it just becomes a meaningless word game and as soon as you start worrying more about making the thing fit the word rather then the word represent the thing you've missed the point of the word, which is to represent the thing, but is not the thing itself.... My head hurts now...

Not heard of him. There are many isshin ryu branches, many of which gives out that sort of award.

How about a art that integrates both striking and grappling?

Where in Manitoba are you?

Karate uniform = adapted Judo uniform (lighter material)

Both integrated. I'd rather be in a clinch or on the ground, but that doesn't mean I won't strike from there. Reason: I'd rather not get hit more then I have too. "And my solution to this problem? Cross train." No, that will teach you striking and grappling, but not how to integrate them into one.

A little...

A little...

It's really not that impressive, just a few techniques. Couple escapes, wrist locks, arm bars and a throw, nothing you wouldn't see on a basic jujitsu video. He went throw the 14 kata then had a "Kumite" section where he did some applications hand, bo & tonfa. Isshin ryu, as taught by Shimabuku, was primarily a striking art according to everything I've gotten from anyone who trained with him.

Standup grappling yes, ground grappling no. Shimabuku was videotaped using grappling techniques in 1966 so trying to say there are none is silly. But it is primarily a striking art.

fireka, Gracie JJ came before Brazillian JJ Carlson Gracie Sr founded BJJ, But only members of the Gracie family and affiliates can use the Gracie name. There have been a few legal battles over it, but not being a BJJ practitioner I haven't paid much attention. Most of the Gracie's do have a loss to their name, Royler just tapped out to Eddie Bravo (who is a BJJ stylist) Sakuraba has beaten 4 of them. Yoshida beat Royce... Whether he should have or not is questionable, the ref made a bad call. There are more losses then that. But there is a common theme, all those guys have an extensive grappling background. Look around, the same sort of superiority issues exist in Isshin ryu, you just demonstrated that claiming you are sure Shimabuku would beat them. What top level fighter did Shimabuku ever beat? So how can you make a claim like that? Every style claims it is the best. The Gracie's are one of the few groups that will step up and defend that claim. They are responsible for bringing the importance of ground work into focus. Despite being poor loosers at times and a little arrogant at other times, they have earned a lot of respect.

Again, we have different goals, not everyone is like you. I might be on the national soccer team, who cares if it doesn't help me in a fight? Believe it or not, some of us do these things for sport, instead of fighting ability. Some people just love to box. Others love to kickbox. Some love to do capoeira and others love to play tennis. Not everyone takes martial arts in order to become the best fighter in the world. I agree, and adressed that. But the point is that if the talent pool sucks, being champion doesn't mean you are any good, or as you put it a "master" Which makes your Jack of all trades vs master of one question meaningless. Boxing has far more then 10 techniques. Thats like saying you know how to play Chess because you know how all the pieces move. It is a very complex sport. One of its main draws as a spectator sport is that anyone can easily understad enough to be able to understand who is winning and who is loosing. If you understand the sport at all you will be able to see that it is not just 10 techniques. If you have my goals and are not doing something similar to what I am doing, I believe you are missing something. Safety is always important, what you described is not safe. And therefore stupid, even if only from an insurance/liability point of view. That (being safe) is not their goal. They prefer to have the danger edge involved. There are lots of sports in this world that are plain dangerous and you should only partake in them if you accept the risks. If you wouldn't do such a sport, doesn't mean they are stupid. It just isn't your thing. And they are made as safe as possible within the confines of that sport. But I don't say it makes one a better fighter than the other. You on the other hand had the argument why would anyone study the incomplete art because it would loose to yuor art. Nope, reread everything. I will say that you should study a complete art or you will loose. Of course completeness is dependant on what you're goal is. TKD is complete for TKD competition, what I do is not complete by TKD standards, but it has a lot of useless stuff. Boxing is complete for Boxing competition, what I do is not complete by Boxing standards, but it has a lot of useless stuff. Neither are complete for what I do, both have a lot of extra stuff. You keep trying to argue against something that no one is saying. My claim: You question is misleading at best as MMA is one thing, not more then one thing, and does not take any less time to get to a high level then any of the styles that focus on less ranges. The number of hours needed is not really less. For that reason your question of master one range or train all ranges to a lesser degree is meaningless. It is not about training 3 different things, it is training one thing which utilizes all ranges. They are different skill sets, not better or worse (except for towards different goals), not more or less complicated, not harder or easier, just different. I don't know how much simpler I can make that for you, but you seem to have a hard time with the concept.

Point sparring doesn't count for that goal though. Most do, but many wait years before you can and don't do it often. When it is done it is point sparring, which outside of a karate environment is not that usefull. Kyokushin is an exception because of the WAY they spar. Also note the MOST, Judo does, kendo does (although very restrictive), sumo does, karate does. But there are many other japanese schools. and karate is Okinawan

Actually its MIXED martial arts, and it is just a name. Came about from the first UFC's, where it was a mixed martial arts competition. There where karate guys, wrestlers, BJJers, Sumo guys, boxers, etc. While no longer really accurate, it stuck, oh well. Don't make a big fuss over it, its just a name. No, it is one art which contains elements which are found in many others. Is karate boxing + TKD + Jujistu? It contains punches, kicks and grappling doesn't it? No it wasn't. He asked if you'd rather be a master of one style, or a jack of all styles. I said MMA is one style, it just has a misleading name. Just an analogy, don't read into it too much. You can divide any of those into different pieces as well. Long Jump Approach - Pawns Takeoff - Knights In flight - Bishops landing - Queen Learning one piece won't make you a good Long jumper, you need all. Lets go triathalon though. Do you need to be a top runner and a top cyclist and a top swimmer to win? No, you have to do all, but you wouldn't have to be able to win each race against people that train just for that element. But you would need a basic understanding of what the other pieces do. I never said specialization is bad in what I do, I just said that for what I do you need all of it. Look at MMA fighters, they all have specialties, but they all have a good grasp of the other aspects. Take TKD, you can specialise in round house kicks, thats fine. But if you have no experience with any of the other kicks you will get beat, even if your round kick is a lot better then the other guys, he has more tools to use.

Yep, its all about training methods and teaching methods. For my goals it is as complete as I can make it. Not at all, what your goals are define what is complete for them. Doing what I do with the goal of competing in Olympic TKD is not good training, what I do is incomplete for that goal. Sure, force them to do what I do. Works the other way around too. Subject to TKD rules I would get beat by a low level practitioner because he could take advantage of my arts incompleteness for that goal. There are things I don't do for what ever reason that would work in "real" fighting. Someone how did them in training could use that against me. Doesn't bother me, thats not why I train. Actually that seems to be what you are arguing. Our style is simple and incomplete so that you can master it quickly. No style can be mastered quickly. But what I do can be learnt well training 2-3 times a week within a year or two. Not UFC level, but well enough to have fun and be able to beat new people without training fairly easily.

Name one olympic level TKD practitioner that picked it up in a few years doing it 3 x a week. What good is being the champion of a group that lacks any high level talent. A MMA group could start up and crown a world champion at a low level, that doesn't put him at the level of UFC or Pride champions. No, it isn't. But shootfighting can take you to a much higher level in the long run. Shootfighting has simple and straight forward basics too, and if you have a decent instructor those are what you learn first. But it has the option of going into much greater depth if you want to, but not everyone will want to. Well that depends a lot on the school For example, in the town I live, there's only one MMA school. They do a style of freefighting, where usually use no gloves or any shields and full contact. In their sessions, it is common that you can't recognize which one is which after the session is over. They are all bloodied and bruised. To me their stuff seems very dangerous, and very "hardcore". But I know not all MMA schools are alike. That is the problem with MMA, there's no standard so who knows if we are talking about different kinds of MMA altogether. I do know some MMA schools for example don't allow punches when on the ground. Or some punches. That is a whole different game. If you are allowed to use knees, headbutts, bareknuckle fists and elbows on any part of the other guys body even on ground, it is going to be very dangerous. If you wear gloves, or prohibit punching on the ground, or whatever, the danger level decreases. Very Stupid in my opinion if your description is accurate. All of those can be trained safely. Perhaps what I should have said was that it doesn't need to be dangerous.

In which events did this happen? I don't recall ever seeing a karate guy beat a grappler in any event, could you give me some references please.

I understand what you are saying perfectly Kirves, but I also think it is not a fair question. It takes no more time to become a top MMA guy then a top boxer. Your reasoning just doesn't hold up as there is always more and less complete arts. Should a kickboxer only box because their are less skills, if his goal is fame? Less techniques does not equal easier to get really good at. I do agree that you should do what is fun, BUT you seem to be misrepresenting MMA. Anyone can learn to do it, it is not more complicated, it is not more "hardcore", it is not more dangerous, it is not harder to learn. It does have more variety though

No, just knowing boxing is not a master of one from my perspective, it is partial knowledge, it is incomplete. I'm a master carpenter but I only know how to use a hammer. If you can only use a hammer you are only good at hammering and any low level carpenter will be able to build more things then you. Like boxing, you cannot be a top level boxer with only a jab. Doesn't matter how good your jab is you'll loose. You are not a good boxer, you are a good jabber. Someone with half your skill and all the punches will mow you down. Same for martial arts, if all you can do is box, fine, but that is incomplete. Anyone with a basic understanding of clinching and shooting will take you down and remove your ability to box. Not a master, partial knowledge from my perspective. And even without as good of boxing skills you can out box a boxer. Watch Randy Couture out strike superior strikers. How can he do that? Because he can clinch and he can takedown and he can sprawl. Those other skills come into play when boxing outside of a boxing environment. Your stand up skills are only as good as your ability to stay on your feet. Your ground skills are only as good as your ability to stay on the ground. Doesn't matter which skills you want to use, you have to be able to get and stay somewhere you can use them. And you can't do that without knowing those other ranges. The skills all work together as one. Focusing on one aspect will teach you that aspect in isolation. A good boxer in boxing might not be a good boxer in MMA.