JerryLove

Joe, I agree with you. jujitsufighter... I'm unclear. Either you faught how you trained and your Karate failed you, or you did not fight using Karate and it was the training that failed (we cannot judge the effect of the Karate, as it was not used). This is pure supposition submitted as fact. I doubt sincerely you have any reasearch to determine weather said arts are waxing or waning, much less why. Certainly, that is not the classic reason for the popularity of an art; look at the owrlds most popular (TKD) I'm afraid I do not udnerstand this sentance. He's not winning these days huh? Wonder why? BTW, Jujitsu, Boxing, Muay Thai, and Wrestling are all "traditional", at least in terms of age.

If it's the same as last years, their ninja guy was horrable. I love (sarcastic) where the two "samurai" leap out form behind a bush and obligingly stand there about 10 seconds while the nija guy, ignoring his sword, goes from the "magic powder" at the bottom oh his scabbard to eventually thow at them. That said, it would be a mistake to think that the rankings are in some way tied to effectiveness. They are, as mentioned by someone ese, a mixture of popularity, perception, and appeal.

I thnk the NHB fighters fight very much the way they train. Intensity is not what is trained, but targets, follow-through, techniquesm, responses, etc. Look at the difference between Randori and single-step sparring and how it effects the ability to follow up. Look at the distinct lack of the use of techniques not trained, even in early NHBs when it was allowed by rules. I have no dobt that when the adreneline goes, yuo are goting to move faster, harder, and with more intensity than wn you train. Heck, most of us can relate personal experience there. My other personal (and observational) experience is that you do the things you have drilled in. If you've drilled in that your head is not a target, you don't protect it. If you've drilled in to pull your hit, you pull your hit. If you've drilled in a cooperative opponent, you expect cooperation.

So in what part of India can I see indian kali?

Yes, it's an easy problem for even the best of schools. I know I've had issue more than once with people not offering sufficient resistance. One problem is that we must train in degrees. You are teaching someone a techniquem you are not going to try your best to defeat it, because you will. Unfortuanately, this trains in even the best of us compliance; and that does not help when testing. Drawing the line between over-cooperation and over-competition (defeating the technique base on superior knowledge of what is going on) is a fine draw indeed. A realiztic understanding of what is done through cooperation and what despite resistance is a terriffic goal.

Sounds like a great way to practice getting beaten up. Speed. Let's put that statement in the context of TJS's comment (which I originally replied to) "I agree , good points. If you have never been hit you proabably wont be prepared when someone clocks you witha good one right off the bat. " How does light conact sparring better prepare one to be hit (do you feel)? In regards to that, what does it accomplish other than offer what a light-contact hit feels ligh through padding? I'm not opposed to sparring. I spar every class. I don't agree with some of what has been said in regards to it. So you don't believe "you fight how you practice" is a true statement?

If something does not address this (all ranges, with and without weapons), it is not a fighting art IMO. It's a sport with fighting applications. That does not make sense. let's look at a quote from the KravMaga.com history page.. udner 1964... "Imi devoted his time and energy to adapting KM to everyday life. " Notice "adapting". One does not adapt an art to do what it was initially designed for. Every history I have ever seen says KM was created on commission of the State of Isreal for use my millitary personell. To make an art for a target audience (soldiers engaged in HTH) and then *not* tailor the art to those people is insane. If KM was not designed specifically for young, fit adults, then Imi is an idiot for not designing to task. I don't believe he is an idiot, I believe he deisgned to task. I believe you are talking later additions and modifications and assuming they are inherent in the base system. You seem to think my statemnts are an attack on KM that you need to defend. As such, I don't believe you are taking an impartial and honest look at your art or what I am saying about it. Don't straw-man my argument. I never said "only works for", I said: "I don't care about "defeating the larger attacker" or defence when you are old, or movements anyone can do... all my trainees are oung and in excellent shape." And by inference indicated that KM would take the same approach. I'm not commenting weather this is the case with KM in particular.. but I have seen in many arts many "resisting" opponents that offer nothing but a token struggle. I'm reminded of the guy who is the guniepig for much of the nono-leathal weapons experimentation. I've watched video where he gets sprayed with pepperspry and falls down. I've seen a 12-year old fight right through the stuff. Try this experiment. Tell your resisting attacker "if you can win, you get 1 million dollars" (obviously, this is not liekly to be taken seriously, but try to give him that mmind-set, that motivation to win). See if suddenly the whole game changes. If you consistanly win against a 'resisting attacker", then he is not really trying.

Ok. I think we are of a similar mind here. I do agree that sparring is an important tool. I even had a solution for the throat and eye hit issue .

So you have a 75-year-old man come in and you want to put him in the ring and have him get hit? Or do I misunderstand your intent? What about arts (say KM) which are full of rather decidedly unplesent hits (forearm to the throat). Do you recommend those in sparring so one knows what it feels like? Or do you recommend sparring in a manner differnt than you train. But perhaps I assume to much about what you ment. Could you please clarify?

I was with you right until you said "rounded". What I have seen KM teach was not terribly rounded. Let's assume you are making an art for the millitary. I don't want anything that requires a long time to train, or upkeep; I also don't care if it has anything new to offer after a yearr, that's not what the focus is. I don't care about "defeating the larger attacker" or defence when you are old, or movements anyone can do... all my trainees are oung and in excellent shape. I don't care much about being rounded... the scienerios are pretty straight-forward. I don't care about level of force, I'm training people whose job is to kill things. At the risk of getting in the same battle with the same people, I have not seen that your claim that it is well rounded is supported. It seems to be a well-designed millitary art. If you are taking it and enjoy it, more power to you. I'm sure it's effective. It is not all things to all people, and it is not particularly well rounded (that I have witnessed).

I've seen a person with no drugs, and just for the purpose of a demo, have a hand-tazer applied to his arm and turned on. With it on he drew a pistol, chamberd, fired and hit a target with 3 rounds... I've also seen everything from women to 12-year-old children corss a room after being sprayed with mace and mock-attack someone with a knife. My faith in these weapon's ability to end a fight is low. Thanks for the info on KM. I had agreed with your "agree to disagree" post (my later posts actually were in support of KM for a police art), but may talk with him. Since I am more 'discussing" than "wondering", it's unlikely that I will go to another board for this discussion in particular.

There is also te added problem of charletines. But just as quack-medicie does not mean the doctors are fake, neither does Quack Qi work devalidate the legitmate stuff.

Not really, no. But I was not dicussing training but intent. Much of my opposition to the recommendation of KM for this work, over other arts, is based on the intent of the training (to inflict damage). Krav (unless it's poorly designed, and I do not believe that) will be choosing techniques and stratigies that work well when in gear (as it is expected that they will be in gear if they fight). This would seem to be a "positive reason" from suggestin KM would be a good plice art.

This is actually a good selling point for KM. KM is definately intended to work under these conditions (being designed for soldier use). If you were comparing Jujitsu to (say) Capoeria, you would be offering an excellent reason to exclude Capoeria. Of course if that's just offerd as a "Jujitsu is well suited" affirmation, I agree.

This is exactly my point. When you train a martial art, you are training instincts. You will fight how you train. The whole point about 'training instincts" is that under stress, you will not neccessairily make complex decisions... you will act how you are trained. So, back to the image example.. I'm trained to elbow someone in the throat. I've chased a suspect down, my adreneline is going, he resists and the first thing I do is elbow him in the throat. This is not a good response to train into an officer. This is not an allowed response to the situation. To say "we can have him exclude a large element of what we train under stress it not only to deny the entire reason fro trainign stress-response, it is to say "this is not a good choice in arts". But what can we say? That an art which trains to throw knees from the clench is not the best art for someone to do kickboxing. You seem to be trying to defend your art. this is not about attacking or defending KM, this is about suitability. That said, I could be wrong, but I don't feel that you have offered a good argument that I am.

I feel that farm more phyical confontations are with drunkn and disorderly than with life-threatening situations. I feel that Jujitsu (for example) is far more an art suitable for defending deadly situations than KM (which focuses on repeated striking of face / throat / groin) is a suitable art for normal operations. the topic title is "which arts are well suited for a police officer." This makes an obvious infrence to the differences between police needs and the needs of others (or "for police" becomes redundant). So, what is different about police needs? Police will need to involve themselves in non-deadly fights that civillians would avoid. Police need to forcibly restrain without injury resisting people. Police need to work on protection of civillians and retention of a weapon that is not in use. Tell me how said elbow is a good example of KM excelling at these needs over other arts. Tell me how an art with such a focus is a good art (as opposed to say, jujitsu) for someone who'se primary need is the bringing down and control of someone simply struggling to run away. It is not.

I think that you fight how you practice. Look at much of what KM talks about in reagrds to limited thinking in high-stress envyronments. If you are traing to elbow faces, you will elbow faces. If you elbow faces as a police officer during general arrests and scuffles, you are using too much force. If you are advocating that you teach entirely different sets of techniques for specifica situations, then you are making an art ill suited for LE traning because of it's complexity. You are also (again) defying much of the mandate under which KM claims to operate.

There is a saying about the jack of all trades being the master of none. You are right back into my original issue. 1. KM is specialized for high-violence and not suited to police work. 2. KM is specialized for police work and not suited to high-violence. 3. KM is scitzophrenic and teaches inconsistant levels of force. 4. There are two disctinctly seperate arts which should be treated seperately. A KM which is appropriate to police work (and would run quite contrary to the "elbow-to-the-face" in the photo) would be utterly deviod of almost every technique and philosophy I've ever seen KM teach. Shy of coming out and showing me the KM that you are thinking of, so that I can see it as both effective and approppriate, I don't think we will agree here.I think Kali is not coming up here much because it's generally not a good / obvious choice for the situations at hand. It's quite oriented on the attack, and striking. Police work deals with level-of-force issues that I don't see intigrating easlity into a kali program. Of course, It's possible I'm only seeing one aspect of Kali... but it's certainly the aspect most redaily displayed.

There is a saying about the jack of all trades being the master of none. You are right back into my original issue. 1. KM is specialized for high-violence and not suited to police work. 2. KM is specialized for police work and not suited to high-violence. 3. KM is scitzophrenic and teaches inconsistant levels of force. 4. There are two disctinctly seperate arts which should be treated seperately. A KM which is appropriate to police work (and would run quite contrary to the "elbow-to-the-face" in the photo) would be utterly deviod of almost every technique and philosophy I've ever seen KM teach. Shy of coming out and showing me the KM that you are thinking of, so that I can see it as both effective and approppriate, I don't think we will agree here.

So they took an art which they freely admit violates "use of force guidelines" and was inteded for "take no prisoners" (their words) encounters and modifited it into an art appropriate for law-enforcement? When such drastic modifications occur you end up with two likely results. An art very poorly suited to the taks at hand, or an art very unlike the completely different art whcih shares it's name. Nice pictur of an elbow-strike to the face as their example of a proper-force technique to train officers

I concur. From what I know of KM, it's well suited to it's intent. A short-course to pprovide a healthy, aggressive soltider with basic unarmed attacks. It's focus on inflicting damage and de-emphasis on restraint and control would seem to make it a poor candditate for police.

There is a southern Chinese art called "Kuntao", there is a group of Chinese/Indo arts called Kuntao Silat, and there is a Phillipino art called Kuntaw. With no intention of hunting flames, I've not seen the really-great Kempo guy that I gound as impressinve as the reallygreat Kuntao Silat guy... But then, I've met more of the latter group.

I agree with you. Perhaps my understanding of BJJ's stand-up work is in error. Since Many of the stories I hear involve fightst that remained upright (Rorian's story against mulitple attackers on the beack), I'm assuming that BJJ is a good art for people who want to avoid the ground as well. Also, I agree whole-heartedly. I would never consider the ground a desireable place to be (some odd circumstances aside) and retract my suggestion for BJJ in this instance.

BTW, the counter to this is to pull his head down and in when he is trying to pull yours to knee.

Of course, I agree that a single clip is not a good jude of an art or idea.. but it is all I have to work from here. I do not agree that there really is a good reason to back up. I believe you lost a great deal of potential control when you did, and the only reason you succeeded in the grappe was because of a poor / cooperative attacker. No, many of the people you arrest will not be expert grapplers. The issue here is that what works on an expert will work on an ameture; but what works on an ameture will not neccessairily work on an expert. I beleive firmy you should, unless ther eis reason not to, train for the worst winnable case. Nor am I criticizing the opening position; I think you start in a very good spot. You've moved out from in fron of your perp, vou've engaged him, you are facing him directly, you have good control points on the arm (with both the cuff and the elbow). I think that your starting position is modern and appropriate, I think your wrist lock dates abck to counter-grappling for sword-wilding people. If I had a Katana in my hand and he grabbed my wrist, I might agree with the retreat and turn you did; I don't think it's ideal in the given situation for the reasons I outlined above. It would not take an expert to overcome your response, just a controlled and aggressive attacker. That said, i will not presume to tell you what does and does not work. You tell me that's usually effective and I believe you. I am not a police officer but I have both trained them and trained under them fr HtH. I do think that there is a fixable issue in the shown clip with regards to the wrist-lock / takedown portion. It is, of course, my opinion.