Disqualifications in MMA are Reality on the Streets

[sensei8]

Try yourself out in a prison, fighting somewhere like in El Salvador; then tell us how you got on with the resisting theory.

Interesting suggestion....

Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter.

You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies

"These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON"

I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are....

So you are saying that, the best fighters are cage fighters due to practicing resistance training with each other; whereas traditional martial artists are below them in every way, skill wise due to this reason?

I know that this question isn't directed to me. I apologize for my perked up ears on the bold type above...

I'm a traditional MAist, and I'm not below anyone; I can not, and I will not subscribe to that, nor will my resolve subscribe to that either. Shindokan is all about resistance training from day one.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make...

Which is what? So I can better understand your point.

Shindokan's resistance training, as I've mentioned here at KF often times, is barbaric, at best. Our resistance training is not for everyone due to the way that we teach it to our students; raw as raw can be, without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Everything is expected on both sides of the resistance. Both sides, as the command of the CI, resist each other from the onslaught of the starting point of the drill.

I hold your right wrist, with my left hand...what happens after that is a barbaric form of tug-of-war, in which, the fights not over until a deciding winner has emerged. With Shindokan, it's not the fight, but the escape to freedom, that's most desired. In that, if you escape from me, and you do not flee when you had the chance, then the fight continues. The battle of resolve begins and ends with heart!!

Toy with me during resistance training, I'll guarantee you that you'll not do that again.

One step and so on are fine tools, but with the addition of effective as well as believable resistance training, discoveries are in the horizon. Just short of stomping a mud hole in you, our method is cruel and unapologetic, but for a reason, and not for a season.

Shindokan is traditional, and we're below no style...no practitioner!!

Edited August 13, 2017 by sensei8

[TJ-Jitsu]

Try yourself out in a prison, fighting somewhere like in El Salvador; then tell us how you got on with the resisting theory.

Interesting suggestion....

Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter.

You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies

"These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON"

I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are....

So you are saying that, the best fighters are cage fighters due to practicing resistance training with each other; whereas traditional martial artists are below them in every way, skill wise due to this reason?

I know that this question isn't directed to me. I apologize for my perked up ears on the bold type above...

I'm a traditional MAist, and I'm not below anyone; I can not, and I will not subscribe to that, nor will my resolve subscribe to that either. Shindokan is all about resistance training from day one.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make...

Which is what? So I can better understand your point.

The single most important thing as it pertains to learning how to fight is training with fully resisting partners.

[Alan Armstrong]

All martial art styles practice some type of resistance, the difference is in the intensity and for their intents.

No matter what is said here, each fight depends on the individual.

The difference between amateurs and pros is one gets payed and the other doesn't; this is true for most professions.

Everyone starts off as an amateur and can progress to the pro level; the next level.

There is no such thing as a bad fighter, either a person is a fighter or is not ready to be one, those that loose all of their fights are not fighters.

One of the beauties of martial arts is that to talk the talk one needs to walk the walk.

There will always be someone that can beat you, this applies to everyone.

It is very easy to shot arrows down when standing on the high ground; it's when there is no more arrows to shoot, is when it quickly becomes a disadvantage.

[MatsuShinshii]

I haven't checked this post in a while. Looks like we are still stuck on styles or training within those styles.

I guess based on the last few posts the topic is how one style trains compared to another.

Who cares? In the early 70's to the mid 80's most MMA fighters would have walked out of a traditional dojo siting that it was too barbaric. No one left with out a bruise or two at minimum. A busted lip, broken nose, broken fingers, bones, etc. were not out of the question and more normal than one might expect. There were no gloves or pads just knuckle on bone. Now most have gravitated away from this practice siting the loss of students or the liability and law suits that would follow. However now you have MMA gyms in which most walk out with bruises all over again and it is perfectly acceptable because... the student expects this type of training.

But what does any of this really prove? In the end your art, style, teacher and peers will be no where to be found and it will be down to you and your personal skills and knowledge. We want to say MMA is the best and all else fails short? Go ahead. It makes little difference because what most here are arguing is the art. The art is perfect and as it was created was the most effective way to fight.

The art is not to blame if a fighter studying it loses. It's that students teacher and the methods by which they teach the art to the student. Is it watered down? Did they replace components of the art with techniques from other arts? Do they understand the methods and applications well enough to even pass them on to their students? Did they just giove rank to their students because they paid? Did they lower requirements? Etc.

Lets not forget the one important factor... the student! Are they lazy and only put forth a minimum of effort? Are they not naturally athletic? Are they weak, slow, not able to take a hit? etc. etc. etc.

The point is it boils down to one factor in the end. The individual fighter. If they train as they would fight and they normally face off with other weight classes, other skill levels, etc. etc. then they should be able to hold their own with the art they study. Again the art was developed as a means of defending ones life in battle when they lost their weapon. On this basis alone the art is effective as it was used in battle and the victor walked away after utilizing it. Are their weaknesses? Yes. All arts have weaknesses. Ours is ground fighting. However that is because it was developed for the battle field. A ground fighting art like Jujutsu is weak when on the battle field because if you go to the ground with multiple opponents around the chances are you're done, no matter how good you are in effectively submitting an opponent. It's hard to submit someone when two others are raining down blows while your tied up with your opponent.

So arguing arts/styles is all good and well but in the end it boils down to the individual and how well they apply the art they studied.

As in my last post I go back to the fact that if Royce Gracie were someone less proficient we wouldn't even be talking about comparisons between MMA and other arts. The UFC and thus MMA wouldn't exist. But because the individual was highly trained within his art and was able to withstand the punishment he did before getting the submission, we now are comparing arts when the only reason we are is due to the individual fighter.

Lets face it, there will always be a next best thing but if you really look at it for what it is, it's sound techniques, pure and simple. Most of which came from traditional arts to begin with. There are very few new techniques/applications because the ones that already exist are the ones that work. Have some been modified? Sure. Could you say they have been improved? Some have.

Now...what happens if your teach all of these techniques to someone that is not naturally gifted or has a glass jaw or has no will to win? Lets say he gets destroyed by a fighter from a traditional art. Is that art now null and void because that person lost? Does that mean that the traditional art is the best? No. It means that the winning fighter was able to utilize what they were taught and was able to beat the other with it. Reverse it. Reverse it again. Get where I'm going with this?

This goes back to the point that the arts are efficient but the individual using it may not be. Don't argue comparisons when it comes to the arts themselves because as we all have seen, some can walk into the cage and dominate even though they are from a traditional back ground. It comes down to the individual not the art.

As far as training goes. I have to side with the MMA guys when it comes to modern Karate training in the majority of arts/styles/schools. Contact is a dirty word that shall not be spoken in the Dojo.

The old days of badges of honor (bruises, broken nose, busted lip, broken fingers, etc.) are a thing of the past in most schools. The most one gets now days is an abrasion from a leather padded glove or a few sore muscles from standing in a line with the rest of class throwing a hundred reverse punches.

Training in most schools compared to a MMA gym is a joke at best when it comes to actual reality training.

I'm sure as a Karateka I'll get blasted for saying this but the truth is the truth. If not, when is the last time you walked into a Modern Karate Dojo and saw the students set loose on each other? And I'm not talking point Kumite, I'm talking full power (with control) full on, all out testing of individual skills. CONTACT with RESISTANCE?

I'll answer for you. You haven't.

[side bar] - I'm not talking about schools that still teach old school "traditional" methods. Most old school arts still employ hard training methods and test a technique or application for it's effectiveness in a real situation.

[Alan Armstrong]

I haven't checked this post in a while. Looks like we are still stuck on styles or training within those styles.

I guess based on the last few posts the topic is how one style trains compared to another.

Who cares? In the early 70's to the mid 80's most MMA fighters would have walked out of a traditional dojo siting that it was too barbaric. No one left with out a bruise or two at minimum. A busted lip, broken nose, broken fingers, bones, etc. were not out of the question and more normal than one might expect. There were no gloves or pads just knuckle on bone. Now most have gravitated away from this practice siting the loss of students or the liability and law suits that would follow. However now you have MMA gyms in which most walk out with bruises all over again and it is perfectly acceptable because... the student expects this type of training.

But what does any of this really prove? In the end your art, style, teacher and peers will be no where to be found and it will be down to you and your personal skills and knowledge. We want to say MMA is the best and all else fails short? Go ahead. It makes little difference because what most here are arguing is the art. The art is perfect and as it was created was the most effective way to fight.

The art is not to blame if a fighter studying it loses. It's that students teacher and the methods by which they teach the art to the student. Is it watered down? Did they replace components of the art with techniques from other arts? Do they understand the methods and applications well enough to even pass them on to their students? Did they just giove rank to their students because they paid? Did they lower requirements? Etc.

Lets not forget the one important factor... the student! Are they lazy and only put forth a minimum of effort? Are they not naturally athletic? Are they weak, slow, not able to take a hit? etc. etc. etc.

The point is it boils down to one factor in the end. The individual fighter. If they train as they would fight and they normally face off with other weight classes, other skill levels, etc. etc. then they should be able to hold their own with the art they study. Again the art was developed as a means of defending ones life in battle when they lost their weapon. On this basis alone the art is effective as it was used in battle and the victor walked away after utilizing it. Are their weaknesses? Yes. All arts have weaknesses. Ours is ground fighting. However that is because it was developed for the battle field. A ground fighting art like Jujutsu is weak when on the battle field because if you go to the ground with multiple opponents around the chances are you're done, no matter how good you are in effectively submitting an opponent. It's hard to submit someone when two others are raining down blows while your tied up with your opponent.

So arguing arts/styles is all good and well but in the end it boils down to the individual and how well they apply the art they studied.

As in my last post I go back to the fact that if Royce Gracie were someone less proficient we wouldn't even be talking about comparisons between MMA and other arts. The UFC and thus MMA wouldn't exist. But because the individual was highly trained within his art and was able to withstand the punishment he did before getting the submission, we now are comparing arts when the only reason we are is due to the individual fighter.

Lets face it, there will always be a next best thing but if you really look at it for what it is, it's sound techniques, pure and simple. Most of which came from traditional arts to begin with. There are very few new techniques/applications because the ones that already exist are the ones that work. Have some been modified? Sure. Could you say they have been improved? Some have.

Now...what happens if your teach all of these techniques to someone that is not naturally gifted or has a glass jaw or has no will to win? Lets say he gets destroyed by a fighter from a traditional art. Is that art now null and void because that person lost? Does that mean that the traditional art is the best? No. It means that the winning fighter was able to utilize what they were taught and was able to beat the other with it. Reverse it. Reverse it again. Get where I'm going with this?

This goes back to the point that the arts are efficient but the individual using it may not be. Don't argue comparisons when it comes to the arts themselves because as we all have seen, some can walk into the cage and dominate even though they are from a traditional back ground. It comes down to the individual not the art.

As far as training goes. I have to side with the MMA guys when it comes to modern Karate training in the majority of arts/styles/schools. Contact is a dirty word that shall not be spoken in the Dojo.

The old days of badges of honor (bruises, broken nose, busted lip, broken fingers, etc.) are a thing of the past in most schools. The most one gets now days is an abrasion from a leather padded glove or a few sore muscles from standing in a line with the rest of class throwing a hundred reverse punches.

Training in most schools compared to a MMA gym is a joke at best when it comes to actual reality training.

I'm sure as a Karateka I'll get blasted for saying this but the truth is the truth. If not, when is the last time you walked into a Modern Karate Dojo and saw the students set loose on each other? And I'm not talking point Kumite, I'm talking full power (with control) full on, all out testing of individual skills. CONTACT with RESISTANCE?

I'll answer for you. You haven't.

[side bar] - I'm not talking about schools that still teach old school "traditional" methods. Most old school arts still employ hard training methods and test a technique or application for it's effectiveness in a real situation.

Well done MatsuShinshii very much appreciate reading your comments, they are accurate and straight to the point. Thank you!

[Tempest]

Dag nabbit Matsu, you are making me think. And work. Now I have to go through this point by point to sort what I agree with from what I don't.

I haven't checked this post in a while. Looks like we are still stuck on styles or training within those styles.

I guess based on the last few posts the topic is how one style trains compared to another.

Who cares? In the early 70's to the mid 80's most MMA fighters would have walked out of a traditional dojo siting that it was too barbaric.

I am gonna stop you right there bro. No they wouldn't. That is what attracted people TO those arts in the first place. That sort of thing leaving is one reason the students left. People tend to understand nonsense, even if they can't articulate WHY it's nonsense.

No one left with out a bruise or two at minimum. A busted lip, broken nose, broken fingers, bones, etc. were not out of the question and more normal than one might expect. There were no gloves or pads just knuckle on bone. Now most have gravitated away from this practice siting the loss of students or the liability and law suits that would follow. However now you have MMA gyms in which most walk out with bruises all over again and it is perfectly acceptable because... the student expects this type of training.

Of COURSE they expect this type of training. Fighting is an inherently dangerous activity. If someone is not closing to contact and thinks they can fight, they are deluding themselves and their students.

But what does any of this really prove? In the end your art, style, teacher and peers will be no where to be found and it will be down to you and your personal skills and knowledge.

This is good stuff here. Totally agree on this point.

We want to say MMA is the best and all else fails short? Go ahead. It makes little difference because what most here are arguing is the art. The art is perfect and as it was created was the most effective way to fight.

Yes, technically the art of the gun is the most effective way to fight for an individual. For groups it is the art of the nuke. That said, what we are talking about is training methodologies that don't help students in the conflicts that actually happen to them.

The art is not to blame if a fighter studying it loses.

If the art promotes training methods that aren't helping, it is at least partially to blame.

It's that students teacher and the methods by which they teach the art to the student.

This is more good stuff. Still in agreement here.

Is it watered down? Did they replace components of the art with techniques from other arts? Do they understand the methods and applications well enough to even pass them on to their students? Did they just giove rank to their students because they paid? Did they lower requirements? Etc.

Other than judging by the pedigree of the art, how the $$$$ is a new student supposed to judge those things? That is why performance in actual fights is so important.

Lets not forget the one important factor... the student! Are they lazy and only put forth a minimum of effort? Are they not naturally athletic? Are they weak, slow, not able to take a hit? etc. etc. etc.

Maybe this is true if one student loses, but many others prevail with similar preparation. But, if most students from a given system fail in a given endeavor, the issue is not with the students any more.

The point is it boils down to one factor in the end. The individual fighter. If they train as they would fight and they normally face off with other weight classes, other skill levels, etc. etc. then they should be able to hold their own with the art they study. Again the art was developed as a means of defending ones life in battle when they lost their weapon.

This is not actually true of many, if not most, martial arts. In fact the only one I KNOW for a documented fact that it is true of is Japanese Jujitsu and possibly German Ringen.

On this basis alone the art is effective as it was used in battle and the victor walked away after utilizing it.

No it isn't. The important part is what it can help a student walk away from tomorrow. Not what someone 150 years ago walked away from then.

Are their weaknesses? Yes. All arts have weaknesses.

Still in agreement with this.

Ours is ground fighting. However that is because it was developed for the battle field. A ground fighting art like Jujutsu is weak when on the battle field because if you go to the ground with multiple opponents around the chances are you're done, no matter how good you are in effectively submitting an opponent. It's hard to submit someone when two others are raining down blows while your tied up with your opponent.

I here this a lot, yet still the all of the U.S. special operations forces are training in BJJ, or some variation of it, for their close quarters training. Somewhat modified to their needs, yes, but still the same idea. The Brits are fans of Judo. With respect, NO ONE I am aware of is currently using Karate.

So arguing arts/styles is all good and well but in the end it boils down to the individual and how well they apply the art they studied.

As in my last post I go back to the fact that if Royce Gracie were someone less proficient we wouldn't even be talking about comparisons between MMA and other arts. The UFC and thus MMA wouldn't exist. But because the individual was highly trained within his art and was able to withstand the punishment he did before getting the submission, we now are comparing arts when the only reason we are is due to the individual fighter.

Did you watch UFC 1? Royce is not using anything that is "highly trained", and he never has to "absorb punishment", because his opponents are clueless about how a fight changes when your opponent decides to control you and not hit you. He destroys people because they are clueless.

Lets face it, there will always be a next best thing but if you really look at it for what it is, it's sound techniques, pure and simple. Most of which came from traditional arts to begin with. There are very few new techniques/applications because the ones that already exist are the ones that work. Have some been modified? Sure. Could you say they have been improved? Some have.

Now...what happens if your teach all of these techniques to someone that is not naturally gifted or has a glass jaw or has no will to win? Lets say he gets destroyed by a fighter from a traditional art. Is that art now null and void because that person lost? Does that mean that the traditional art is the best? No. It means that the winning fighter was able to utilize what they were taught and was able to beat the other with it. Reverse it. Reverse it again. Get where I'm going with this?

The issue I have with this is that part of the training is not just to teach the techniques but also to instill certain attributes in people. Like comfort in uncomfortable situations, like being able to deal with speed, aggression, and INTELLIGENT, ACTIVE resistance. All of the pieces of victory. If you are not giving your students these elements, you are doing them a disservice.

This goes back to the point that the arts are efficient but the individual using it may not be. Don't argue comparisons when it comes to the arts themselves because as we all have seen, some can walk into the cage and dominate even though they are from a traditional back ground. It comes down to the individual not the art.

This is true, but misleading as you go on to clarify in your next statements. If you had a young adult with no training right now, and they couldn't train with you, where are you going to send them?

As far as training goes. I have to side with the MMA guys when it comes to modern Karate training in the majority of arts/styles/schools. Contact is a dirty word that shall not be spoken in the Dojo.

The old days of badges of honor (bruises, broken nose, busted lip, broken fingers, etc.) are a thing of the past in most schools. The most one gets now days is an abrasion from a leather padded glove or a few sore muscles from standing in a line with the rest of class throwing a hundred reverse punches.

Training in most schools compared to a MMA gym is a joke at best when it comes to actual reality training.

I'm sure as a Karateka I'll get blasted for saying this but the truth is the truth. If not, when is the last time you walked into a Modern Karate Dojo and saw the students set loose on each other? And I'm not talking point Kumite, I'm talking full power (with control) full on, all out testing of individual skills. CONTACT with RESISTANCE?

I'll answer for you. You haven't.

[side bar] - I'm not talking about schools that still teach old school "traditional" methods. Most old school arts still employ hard training methods and test a technique or application for it's effectiveness in a real situation.

I agree with all of your points at the end, except for your side bar. Outside of moving to Kentucky, where can I find these so called "Old School" dojos I have heard so much about? I have been to several Karate and TKD schools and have yet to see one.

[MatsuShinshii]

Dag nabbit Matsu, you are making me think. And work. Now I have to go through this point by point to sort what I agree with from what I don't.

I hate when that happens. and before I start I will apologize for cutting my quotes out. I couldn't figure out how to insert my comments and maintain the previous posts by you and my previous. The quotes weren't in the right places and my un-techness got the better of me. I hope this is legible. So advanced apologies if this makes this too hard to follow.

I am gonna stop you right there bro. No they wouldn't. That is what attracted people TO those arts in the first place. That sort of thing leaving is one reason the students left. People tend to understand nonsense, even if they can't articulate WHY it's nonsense.

Ok. I'll concede that. I guess there is a reason one seeks out MMA just like we sought out Karate then. I have to agree with your point of folks leaving Karate because these training methods left. However living though those earlier years I will be the first to say that it did cross the line into barbarism from time to time and go a little too far. There is nothing wrong in my mind when it comes to contact. It allows the student to learn a few things about themselves that you do not learn playing patty cakes. One it teaches them that you can move on past getting hit or even rocked. Two it takes the fear factor out of being hit. Three it allows them to build confidence in what they are doing because they see the effect on someone else. I personally feel that hitting and being hit teaches us things that an instructor can never teach us. All the oral and written communication in the world will never teach you how YOU will react when you get rocked or are under extreme pressure with an opponent that won't let you catch your breath.

Of COURSE they expect this type of training. Fighting is an inherently dangerous activity. If someone is not closing to contact and thinks they can fight, they are deluding themselves and their students.

Agree with this 100%. It's the missing factor in most modern Dojo.

Other than judging by the pedigree of the art, how the $$$$ is a new student supposed to judge those things? That is why performance in actual fights is so important.

Agreed. However this goes into other posts about spotting McDojo's or schools that are more interested in trophies rather than teaching their students to defend themselves/fight.

Maybe this is true if one student loses, but many others prevail with similar preparation. But, if most students from a given system fail in a given endeavor, the issue is not with the students any more.

To a certain point I'll agree with you. However take Karate since you have pointed this out specifically, if the art has been watered down then the students learning the art will have a watered down version of the art. It does not detract from the original art nor speak to the original arts effectiveness. It speaks to a version or an organization or the individual instructor but not the art.

I will be the first to admit that the art of Karate in many cases has been watered down. This is due to many things that I have spoke to in previous posts. Irregardless of this the original intention of the art was combative. Yes many do not teach this aspect or it is not the main focus. Many prefer tournament fighting (which IMHO is useless and means absolutely nothing and does not prove a TRUE winner) and these same schools change the very things that contains the combative techniques to make it appealing for judges and crowds, the Kata.

So yes you have a valid point. But the mistake made is judgement of an art based on a student, teacher or organization. This would be akin to judging BJJ based on a phony frauds students all loosing to non-trained challengers.

Is it the art or the organization/teacher who taught the individual? Me thinks it's not the art.

This is not actually true of many, if not most, martial arts. In fact the only one I KNOW for a documented fact that it is true of is Japanese Jujitsu and possibly German Ringen.

Well I have to correct you with a few historical facts. First I'll start with my own chosen art of Karate. Karate was created through years of tried and tested methods and of different arts that were in turn tried and tested in battle. Ti (Ti'gwa) was utilized by the Okinawan's to defend themselves and their home land. Later Muay Boran was incorporated into the art which was another tried and tested art in actual combat. Muay Boran to Muay Thai is like Jujutsu to Judo. One is combative and the other is a sport.

Since the next progression would be the inclusion of Chinese arts I will just say that the Chinese arts (Quan Fa) developed as a direct result of conflict and as a way to defend. The earliest inception of the Chinese martial arts was before Japan, Thailand, Brazil, or most other countries had even developed a systematized method of fighting.

I could go into depth here but it boils down to history which is easily obtainable through oral to written or written documentation of each country and their fighting traditions. And yes even the internet can offer good documentation if you can sift through all of the biased gobbly goop.

No it isn't. The important part is what it can help a student walk away from tomorrow. Not what someone 150 years ago walked away from then.

I can see your point but... I have to bust that modern day bubble. 95% of what we practice and train in today was developed 150+ years ago. Have there been improvements structured more to todays fighters? Yes. Have new methods been invented? Some. But guess what! Most of what me , you and pretty much everyone on this forums learns was developed 150+ years ago.

The techniques and applications that have been passed down are still being utilized and taught today. Yes by modern arts and yes by modern teachers but what they are teaching is not new minus a technique here or there.

Need proof? Lets take BJJ. I know I'm the last person to speak about this art as I have never trained in it but stay with me, how many techniques and applications are new? I don't actually know to be honest so you or someone else will have to answer this. However speaking strictly of throws and based on my Judo background not much has been developed that was not developed back them. Maybe little changes but the core is still the same. If you really want your mind to be blown check out Jiao Di or it's modern component Shuai Jiao. Way older than Judo, not sure of Jujutsu, but the throws are relatively the same. And it's over 5000 some odd years old.

The point is the techniques that MMA or any other art utilizes was created and passed down. It may be modernized to meet a new type of fighter or fighting method but the techniques are still sound.

I here this a lot, yet still the all of the U.S. special operations forces are training in BJJ, or some variation of it, for their close quarters training. Somewhat modified to their needs, yes, but still the same idea. The Brits are fans of Judo. With respect, NO ONE I am aware of is currently using Karate.

As a Marine I can say you are right. However this is a last resort. If you have been in actual combat the last thing you would ever want to do is to tackle someone and attempt to submit them or attempt a strangle hold. The longer your struglling on the ground the more vulnerable you are to other combatants and the more vulnerable you are to that same guy pulling a knife or another weapon while you struggle to apply a technique. The focus is on speed. Take out the threat as effectively, efficiently and as quickly as humanly possible. Rolling around on the ground with the enemy leaves you very vulnerable to another enemy. Judo is utilized in most military for its effective methods of taking the enemy from a standing position where they pose a threat to dumping them on their heads in a very vulnerable position where you can follow up with your rifle or pistol to dispatch them or if these have been dropped or stripped from you your K-bar (Knife). the point is on the battle field you use whatever is most effective for a given situation. And yes if you are taken down by the enemy in CQC then Jujutsu is the preferred method of defense and this makes all the sense in the world to me. But it woulod not be the first means of methodology against the enemy unless you have the time to roll around with one combatant.

As far as Karate goes, no your right the art as a whole is not taught. Components however are. But even if they were not does that alone make it ineffective? Not in my mind.

As a side bar - I used to teach my students the skills I learned in the Corps from H2H and CQC. It's very effective. But it's also very much akin to Karate in that it contains elements of striking, throwing, locks, throws, etc. In fact some are like for like. Wonder where they got these? Well I hate to tell you but most arts that influenced Karate also influenced other arts. In fact Karate influenced other arts too. Yep, that's right, good old Karate and arts like it are within other arts and have influenced other arts. Even some that you might have taken in your MMA pursuits. Mind Blown? Duct Tape works pretty good.

Did you watch UFC 1? Royce is not using anything that is "highly trained", and he never has to "absorb punishment", because his opponents are clueless about how a fight changes when your opponent decides to control you and not hit you. He destroys people because they are clueless.

I would disagree. In those days it's something that very few if any had ever seen and the techniques used are very sophisticated. He also trained to fight and get his families art out into the public eye. I would call him highly trained for that time and day. We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I would also disagree that he took no punishment. Yes I've watch all of the UFC's since the beginning and he has been struck, head butted, you name it while being very patient to get his submissions. At least this is my memory of it. I guess I'll have to break out the library of VHS tapes and DVD's in my library and re-watch them. Maybe my old mind is remembering it all wrong.

The issue I have with this is that part of the training is not just to teach the techniques but also to instill certain attributes in people. Like comfort in uncomfortable situations, like being able to deal with speed, aggression, and INTELLIGENT, ACTIVE resistance. All of the pieces of victory. If you are not giving your students these elements, you are doing them a disservice.

You are preaching to the choir. I agree 100%. And again most Dojo do not engage in this type of training. They may have at one time when it was an accepted training practice but due to trying to meet the whims of the masses and trying to avoid liability and law suits most if not all have gravitated away from this.

To be put into a situation where you feel under duress and are forced to deal with this, to calm yourself and to think clearly and critically under pressure is the only way in my mind to know what you will do in a real confrontation. Putting students against others of varying weights, strengths, speeds, temperaments, and skill is the only way one grows and gets better. It's also the only way one develops the confidence to be able to know what you're capable of and also to know your weaknesses so that you can work on them.

If your never put into a situation where you realize there is nothing you can do and you have nothing within your wheelhouse that will meet the threat, how will you ever know what you have to work on? Getting your brains kicked in on the streets? Not really a smart way of training.

This is true, but misleading as you go on to clarify in your next statements. If you had a young adult with no training right now, and they couldn't train with you, where are you going to send them?

Actually my answer might surprise you. I wouldn't send them anywhere.

I believe that whats right for me is not necessarily right for anyone else. This goes for arts, teachers, organizations, the whole enchiladas.

I would simply tell them to try out as many things as they could and find what works for them. Not everyone is cut out for MMA just like not everyone is cut out for sport Karate. Yep that one would be me.

To say I would recommend what I call old school would be dishonest as it is not for everyone. To say I would recommend MMA would be equally dishonest as it is not for everyone either. It's up to the individual to discover what works best for them and fits their individual needs. I am not of the mind set that one thing fits all nor am I of the mindset that there is one art that is perfect for everyone. This IMHO is not fact.

I agree with all of your points at the end, except for your side bar. Outside of moving to Kentucky, where can I find these so called "Old School" dojos I have heard so much about? I have been to several Karate and TKD schools and have yet to see one.

I use "old school" only to demonstrate arts that are still teaching the original methods without the influence or changes made by Itosu or the Japanese. I also use it to differentiate between these arts that call themselves traditional when what they mean by traditional is by Japanese standards. I also use this to differentiate between the McDojo's that call themselves or what they do traditional.

Traditional is a loose term now days and is used to describe arts and schools that are anything but. So I use "Old School", or if you prefer a Japanese term "Koryu", to describe the original intent or as close as you can get to the original intent and to separate those styles that have held true to the COMBATIVE (Jutsu) nature of the art over the new Kumbaya, peaceful, meditative, yogaesque, sport nature of what I would call modern Karate Do.

You don't have to travel to Kentucky to find old school dojo's. There are still arts that go straight back to the founders with little or no influence.

Having said that all styles/arts of Karate have these roots and if one were to look at the Kata it can be found very easily. As for instructors and individual schools and what they teach and how they teach, well that is something that I can not help you with.

Old school simply means, in my words and my definition, teaching the art, ALL of the art. That means those dirty little tactics like head butting, Yes eye gouging too , striking targets like the brachial plexus, hyperextension of joints like the knee and elbow (I know these are Jujutsu techniques but they are also Qin Na and Muto techniques), etc. It means teaching the applications of the Kata and tying them to the arts that they came from and practicing these as individual applications like Muto (grappling, throwing, sweeping, balance breaks, etc.), Ti'gwa and Tuidi (Joint locks, chokes, dirty fighting, etc.), Chibudi (the targeting of weak points and cavities within the body such as arteries, veins, ligaments, tendons and nerve centers), Buki'gwa (learning to utilize weapons [not for the purpose of using said ancient weapons today but to understand how to use them to compliment your empty hand techniques and also to understand the use so that a modern weapon could be substituted]), Ti (percussive art of hands, arms, legs, feet, elbows, knees, head and any other part of the body that can be made into a natural weapon), understanding of anatomy, body and natural weapon conditioning, understanding of the arts that make up Toudi (Karate), understanding of it's history and yes even a little understanding of the language. This and many more things define old school as old school or what we should consider traditional. But I won't go down that road again.

Look, I'm not by any means saying that Karate or any other art is the end all art to learning to defend yourself. Again it's what ever fits the individual. Wrestling by itself is a great way to take someone down and to control them once your on the ground. However if you get rocked coming in for the take down it would be ineffective. Karate is, IMHO, a great and very effective means of defending oneself and again, IMHO, well rounded. However if I'm taken to the ground by someone that is skilled in Ne Waza I'm pretty much going to get pummeled into the ground which is why I did not mention our very weak Ne Waza above in my description of Old School.

All arts have weaknesses and strengths but if one were to capitalize on the strengths the weaknesses are minimized. Not negated. Yes if a hundred fighters from one art are destroyed in lets say the cage, one could make the logical conclusion that the art is ineffective. However what if one person from that art goes to the top? What then.

I still say the art (and I mean most original arts developed as a means of self preservation) is perfectly effective and that it's the individual that looses and not the art.

Having said this I will also say I have no art in my mind that stands out as the best. In my mind they all have value and it is up to the individual to learn and maximize that value.

Hypothetical question; Lets say that someone were to study TKD (picking an art I have not studied so it's purely for arguments sake) and become proficient, no very proficient, in the art. They maximize their speed, learn how to maximize their power and learn to maximize their foot work. Now lets say that they become so proficient in this art of striking and develop their speed to greater ranges than thought possible. Now lets say they step in the cage with the best grappler that BJJ has to offer. But the TKD guy is exponentially faster than the grappler and the grappler can not get ahold of him to implement what he was taught. The TKD guy is free to strike the grappler at will and ends up knocking him out. Does this negate BJJ?

No reverse this hypothetical question.

The art is sound based on sound tried and tested techniques and applications. Is the art to blame?

Training is, as you have said, key to an individuals success in a conflict.

So if teacher A does not practice good sound training practices as pointed out by you above and their student walks into the ring/cage/street and gets destroyed we can't say it's the art. I understand that 90% or maybe even higher of schools do not employ sound training practices but this again does not negate the effectiveness of the art.

Lets apply your training practices to (use an art you feel is unfit for the cage or street defense). What then? What if that art defeats all other arts that had been used. Does this prove that this art is the best for fighting/defense?

No, as you said it boils down to training and I have said it boils down to the individual. Lets face it there are those that wouldn't raise a hand to defend themselves and no art in the world would change that. Mentality plays a HUGE role in fighting. Like the expression goes "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog". I strongly believe this.

I am not a large individual (6'2" and 205 lbs) and have, in my ill begotten, mislead, rowdy youth had my fair share of brawls with much larger opponents of all sort of back grounds and experience. The difference was always resolve and mental attitude that got me through most of the fights with me walking away and them not. That's not to say my mouth didn't write checks my butt couldn't cash either.

My point is any one individual can and will be beaten. It happens with all fighters at the top of their game. In fact I don't know of one that reined for ever, undefeated. So what can you afford their demise? Was it the art? The training? The individual that fought them? Their art? or was it the individual themselves.

I feel that the individual (either the defender or challenger) is 50% and 50% is their training.

I do not think that one over rules the other when your talking about the top contenders. If your talking solely about the average guy in a local dojo I would agree that training will be the difference but mental attitude, natural ability also play a crucial role.

[MatsuShinshii]

Tempest,

I think we are saying the same thing but in different ways.

So having said that I will say this last thing.

I do not agree with the fault lying with the art. However I absolutely agree that training is key, especially reality based training against resisting opponents that pressure you. I also will agree with your statements that it's hard to find this within a typical Karate Dojo.

In fact I will even go as far to say that my own art is not like it was 30 or 40 years ago. But heck I'm not what I was 20 or 30 years ago either.

The point is we as martial artists shouldn't get caught up in the argument of what style or art is better. It matters little when your top fighter falls from the pedestal. The art that you love is, in your mind, the perfect art because it works for you. This is the very definition of a good and effective art. If it works for you then it's effective.

This and the point is null and void when you take into account that very few fighters these days study ONE art.

Everything changes with time. New generations with new idea's have the largest impact. What you love today may not be the same tomorrow.

Blah, blah, blah, and some more sentimental gobbly goop. Lets just train and agree that our beliefs of what is effective and the reasons that an art is not considered effective is due to things personal to us and that we may not agree on all things but we do agree on a few.

Good enough reason to have a beer! Ok I will.

[sensei8]

I'm a very firm believer that the practitioner is at fault, and not the style!!

The style that YOU, whomever YOU is, are in right now...it's solid, it's effective....but are you?? If not, then the blame might be as close as the nearest mirror.

[singularity6]

I'm a very firm believer that the practitioner is at fault, and not the style!!

The style that YOU, whomever YOU is, are in right now...it's solid, it's effective....but are you?? If not, then the blame might be as close as the nearest mirror.

Yes!! This pretty much sums it up.