nine_weapons

judo, tkd, sumo, kendo, kyokushin... all have a sportive aspect. What of these?

not necessarily. The first civilization may have been peaceful. The second may have been barbaric, so the first developed a fighting style to fend them off... Like I said, nobody is really sure.

I have never heard savate termed as kickboxing. muay thai, thai boxing, thai kickboxing and kickboxing are all used interchangeably in the US. Yeah, (american) kickboxing and muay thai are two very different entities, but I don't really hear or see anyone complaining about using the same name for both. It used to irk me, but I got over it.

I don't necessarily think that training methods and styles are related. I think that certain styles have just trained a certain way for so long, that they are now associated. Case in point, I practice TKD. Therefore, just about everyone that would encounter me in sparring, competition, or whatever, would probably assume that I would: a) kick a lot, and kick to the head; b) not punch to the head; c) have no knowledge of how to grapple (which, unfortunately, I don't, at this time). However, I could alter my training methodologies to included these missing venues, and improve my fighting abilities. I could change the methods, but keep the style. It is just a matter of changing the way people view it. Of course you could. But it is not part of the style's built in training methodology, which is my point. sport styles have a training method already built in and designed to prepare you for said sport. kung fu, for example does not have the built in structure to gear you up for full contact fighting. If you look at many of the san shou clubs and how they train, they train like thai boxers. Some of these schools are san shou only - they don't teach a particular style of kung fu - either that or they offer seperate classes. the style has a HUGE influence on the training methods, though yes, you are free to change those training methods at any time.

That would raise a red flag with me.

this is what I was taught. However, I was also taught the same thing in karate, even though we chambered at the hip.

you trained at a jkd school that told you to chamber at the ribs? the schools I have either trained in or seen advocated keeping the hands by the face, like a boxer.

my understanding is that muay boran really isn't that old in itself. Muay boran is the name of a new style - a style which is an attempt to recreate the old styles, which have been lost over time. What is left of muay lon lon, muay lopburi, muay chaiya etc. has been combined into what is now being called muay boran. However, yeah, the old styles were all very similar. cambodia, burma, thailand, laos, vietnam, etc were all very close and thus had similar styles. Another one that many people have never heard of is called golden village boxing(kmer). Tomoi (malaysia) is another. there are probably some clips on youtube. the million dollar question is which one came first - and because of the loss of records, that is something nobody is really sure of.

IMO, other than cultural preservation, there is no reason the names cannot be spoken in english, other than maybe for shortening. saying o uchi gari or shortening it to o uchi is faster than saying "major inner reap", for example. As a teacher, you should be able to convey to your students and mindset that may have been more apparent in the original name. that makes me wonder though... if you go to china or japan and learn western boxing, do they teach it in english or in their language? I am betting they teach it in their language.

In china... that's great for china. not so great for anyone outside of china, no? And even in china, not all schools teach it. I know a couple of people in chine training shuai chiao and taiji and said they were disappointed by a lot of what they were seeing over there... two man sets are not spontaneous... you aren't really developing fighting skill there, just reacting in a 'dead' drill. that is only part of the equation. two man drilling is not sparring, and is not meant to teach you how to fight, nor is push hands - these are drills that sharpen attributes which are necessary in fighting.

so technically, "ain't" is a real word and is grammatically correct? No. It's slang... incorrect, but people use it. Same goes for anything. Just because a person does it doesn't make it right, just means it works for said person.

I've seen dekkers bob and weave I'm sure. I'll look for a fight when I have time. our sister school is a dutch school - a gym called mikenta - they put on a show in europe called viking fight. Anyway, I didn't say it wasn't risky, but it's not a guaranteed knee to the head either, if done properly.

nah, that's really not that fast. if you look at the posted times in grade, it's avtually about average. I will go to the ji site and see if I can find any of the time in grade stuff.

1. not all cma schools teach san shou. Heck, not even all of them spar. And of the ones that do spar, the sparring is sometimes either point style or continuous. Neither of those are sufficient for full contact training and fighting. 2. there are nuances of the ring that need to be trained regardless of being able to "hold your own". In addition, you have to train for the fight - that includes everything from training for a specific opponent (if you know who he is) to training for the length of the rounds so that your timing doesn't get messed up. Notice that I am speaking about training for the ring, what a person thinks they can do in the street is irrelevant to my post. it's the training methods and the style. Then the practitioner. The person that teach you is teaching according to his style, no? whether he is good or bad, the practitioner is teaching you a style. Everything you are doing is based on that style. But actually, we can classify it two different ways. for the ring: training methods style pracitioner for the street: training methods practitioner style IMO, anyway.

hard to soft, soft to hard. palm a hard area, punch a soft area. Of course, under a high stress stimulus, most of us won't remember that and will use one or the other, not both. That said, I prefer the punch.

because I have an article somewhere that says it. the article also calls him him the father of modern pankration. It then goes on to say that mu tau is what he teaches based on his muay thai, savate and grappling. Oh well.

you aren't really giving us much to go on... what is his name? what style does he teach? have you seen any of his classes?

I don't think underestimation is the issue, it's demonstrated effectiveness - notice how in this day and age, most of the "kung fu success stories" revolve around "master x was undefeated in 100 challenge matches", or "my teacher says he has never lost a street fight", etc. stories that are unverifiable. But whenever you actually SEE kung fu, they are losing. (keep in mind that the mainstream public has no idea what san shou is, where there are cma winning) I will defer this to your next statement... THAT is why competition is important. today, as I stated before, the success stories of cma revolve around unverifiable claims. As such, you can't really weed out the good teachers from the bad ones, in the sense of who can really fight and who can't. sport fighting styles don't have this problem. competition will weed out who is good and who is not as good. And many venues now keep records that you can look up online. many people today put their fights online also, so that you can actually see them fighting. competition is by no means everything, but is helpful in MANY ways.

you are absolutely correct. But training methodology can be changed. It HAS to be changed if they EVER wish to compete in these events. And it's not really a drastic change. it's not the person, it's actually more of the style - you stated that yourself above in so many words... CMA does not train properly for the ring, as you said - that is a style issue, no? Even if a person did want to compete using kung fu, the first thing he would have to do is change his training methodology, which was directly influenced by the style he trains. That doesn't mean kung fu sucks, it just means they don't train properly for full contact venues. Any good martial artist should be able to adapt to a situation. what style you train shouldn't dictate that. fighting in general is only part of the picture for ANY ma - that is not unique to kung fu.

by that logic, housing should be free. Why should I have to pay to keep a roof over my head? I mean, I have to live somewhere, right? here's a question though... the thugs that beat you up on the street - where did they learn? how much did they pay? hmmm.....

1. it HAS to cost a lot. it's not about being commercial, it is about making a living. It is great to live in a nostalgic place where people teach simply to pass on the art, but the reality is that many people teach either to make a living or to supplement their living, and you cannot do that by teaching for free. 2. in the "originating countries" back in the day, what else did they have to do? what was the economy like? what is the economy like now? How many teachers are there compared to in the US? 3. There ARE low cost alternatives. check your local rec center or YMCA. sometimes you can find goldmines there. In my city, we have a 3 time national champion judoka who teaches for $10 a month at a rec center in the hood. At another rec center we have MMA classes being taught for free. 4. baseball is our national pastime. basketball is probably second. Of course such things will be provided for free. If you want more martial arts taught economically, be proactive about it. when I was in college, we started our own MA club. we made a charter and had the school to fund it. Do something similar. talk to local instructors and see if any of them would be willing to teach classes at local rec centers and YMCAs. you may find assistant instructors who would me more than willing to try and head up their own program. Keep looking. If you can't find anything, be proactive.

muscular size is probably the most awesome intimidating factor there is. size and a cold stare.

I missed where I said that it doesn't work for some people... where did I say that? the thread question is "is 'bouncing' while sparring wrong?" and the technical answer, as I stated is yes. what people do as personal preference is beyond the scope of the question.

from a technical perspective, bouncing is wrong.

127.0.0.1 - I like that sig. As for the topic, learn groundfighting. spend a lot of time rolling with the guys in your class who have grappling experience. if you don't know what they are doing, how can you counter it? Chuck has an awesome ground defense - but he was also one of the best wrestlers in the US and had 7 years bjj experience.