Kung Fu's Advantage Against Ground Fighters

[apeters28]

Ok, i'm sure you guys will let me know if i'm way off here, but me and Shifu often times discuss how a CMA practitioner would do against a BJJ style. Now granted the Monks trained for more warlike situations as opposed to one on one, however, in most styles pressure points are very common and a very good weapon. A real skilled Kung Fu practitioner (not saying i'm one) could easily take advantage of a man diving at his legs trying to take him down by hitting him with pressure points shots to the temple as well as other parts of the head. If someone gets hit squared in a pressure point used for a destructive purpose, they aren't going to be able to continue trying to take me down (UFC however doesn't allow pressure point strikes). It would take a highly skilled practitioner to hit a target that small, or to just be that precise, however, a true master would use this, and therefore have a great weapon against ground fighters.


Any comments?

[Black Jack]

Oh boy,

Kung Fu's Advantage against ground fighters:

"To curl up in a ball and scream":D

What warlike situations did the monks train for? The best bet and its been said by better here, is that to learn to defend against groundfighting, you need to practice groundfighting.

[ewallace]

Answer this: Do you train to defend against a takedown as much as a grappler trains to take a person down. If the answer is no, you might have a surprise waiting for you if you fight a grappler.

[ewallace]

I shall call this right now....Troll.

You lose.

Have a great day and God bless.

[DragonzRage]

Hi. I understand the theory behind what you are saying, but I do not feel that it has proven to have much validity in actual practice. Pressure points have been allowed for decades in many MMA/NHB competitions such as Vale Tudo in Brazil (and plenty of kung fu guys have fought in Brazil). I have never seen pressure points win any fights. I've had all sorts of people demonstrate pressure point techniques on me and I've yet to find one who could actually do anymore than annoy a strong resisting opponent. Not saying its impossible, but I am saying that pressure points have yet to be proven effective in realistic application, from what most of us have seen. But to be fair, I guess we haven't seen very many experts in pressure point fighting in modern competition so perhaps it hasn't been given a fair chance yet. The only specific examples I can think of are in two earlier UFCs: Ryan Parker, a black belt in Okinawan Te and an alleged expert in pressure point striking fought Judo champion Remco Pardoel. And Baguazhang fighter Thomas Ramirez also claimed knowledge in such techniques when he fought Don Frye in UFC 8(?) Ramirez didn't get much of a chance to demonstrate his knowledge in that area, as he was KO'ed seconds into the fight. Parker's fight on the other hand, was long and drawn out and very close range. You can actually see him attempt his techniques repeatedly, to no real effect. Pardoel controlled the fight 100%. But then maybe Parker wasn't any good.

[Tigerstyle]

What's wrong with learning to sprawl? :) It directly addresses a skilled (and non-skilled) takedown attempt, and it's not a terribly difficult technique to learn.

"And Baguazhang fighter Thomas Ramirez also claimed knowledge in such techniques when he fought Don Frye..."

For the record, I think Ramirez's style was billed as "Pa Kua Chan" and it was listed as a "hybrid style". Like maybe he was trying to say it was not the same as Baguazhang (or that the UFC people didn't know what Ba Gua was :p ). He said he was undefeated in hundreds of streetfights. If he counts pushing people out of his way at the buffet line as fights then I absolutely believe his claim. Well no matter, "The Predator" made him a footnote in history.

[Dark Knight]

"Answer this: Do you train to defend against a takedown as much as a grappler trains to take a person down. If the answer is no, you might have a surprise waiting for you if you fight a grappler."

This is an easy answer.

If you want to beat a grappler train to beat one.

[Ryu]

If you want to know if you can beat one, go fight one. Don't just talk about it.

[Xebsball]

"(and plenty of kung fu guys have fought in Brazil)."

Really, probably not. Name the fighters if you know.
BTW, the Gracies were unkown outside Rio until a few years before the UFC.

[apeters28]

Ryu I was simply talking theory. I didn't say I coudl do it, and i didn't take ne thing away from BJJ. All I said is that it was tool, just like u. So don't be a pr!ck all the time ok

THANX

[joedoe]

But that is exactly the point. In theory, I could beat every fighter in the world. In practice it is a whole different matter. You can talk about what you could do all you want, but unless you try it that is all it is - talk.

[Zapf Dingbat]

blah blahblah blah F.UCKING blah


Every time I come on this board it's always "OMG STRIKERS VS. GRAPPLARS!@!@#! IAM TEH BEST I WIL TAEK YOU DOWN WITH TEH ARMBAR AND A FLYING NUTSAC!@@111 ^_____^"


Bah.

[Merryprankster]

Zapf- if you don't like it, don't read it.

apeters-Theories are only useful if they can be applied. Ryu is NOT being a *****. He's saying if you want to beat a grappler, go train against one--don't work from theories--do it. There's nothing *****like about that, in my mind.

[apeters28]

AWWWWW...ok you people think i'm talking about myself. I probably couldn't do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.

[raving_limerick]

Originally posted by apeters28
AWWWWW...ok you people think i'm talking about myself. I probably couldn't do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.

Does he do empty force too, as well as birthdays and bar-mitzvahs? :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by apeters28
AWWWWW...ok you people think i'm talking about myself. I probably couldn't do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.

You know he could? Has he, or is this still theory?

I know my sifu could too - he could beat any fighter in the whole world :D

[Serpent]

My sifu would kick your sifu's a$$!

[SifuAbel]

Yet another quality thread on KFO.
Yet another reverse troll trying to get the grapplers to dis' kung fu.
Yet another............
Yet another............
Yet another............
Yet another............
Yet another............
Yet another............
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's so easy to rabble rouse here.

[scotty1]

"It's so easy to rabble rouse here."

Yeah, and you always reply.

To be fair to the lad, its all very well saying "go do it" but we are on an internet forum, so if we're here, we're talking theory.

I do agree that these things have to be road tested. But I don't think people should be lambasted for theorising on an internet discussion forum. Although this has been done to death.

[jon]

Im gonna cry foul in a harsh like mannor.
This post is a troll, your trying to be nice but this is obviously a troll. Proof is no further away than your profile...

"I'm a 17 year old high school student who holds a black sash. The style of Kung Fu I practice does a lot of hard full contact sparring, and is very traditional. "
* Your 17 and have a black sash in Kung fu which is traditional. Yep im believing this about as much as im believing im gonna kick some Gracie ass when i can afford a plane ticket.

Read my post which is nearly exactly the same but done in a serious mannor and not a troll. I stated clearly i was taken to the ground by surpise whilst chatting with someone else. In a self defence situation where does that leave you? No time for hitting any five cent peice size targets moving like lighting out of your sight. Only time to hit the floor and scramble like heck.

In all honestly blow all your preasure points for one dead simple reason. You MAY simply miss and be easily distroyed, if you rely on palor tricks i would not expect to be winning any fights.
Im sure preasure points work but im yet to find anyone who thinks there the be all and end all of fighting. At least no one who wasnt trying to sell me anything.

This post is a troll...

[apeters28]

GUYS!!!!

The only martial art I have ever done is Kung Fu, and I'm obsessed with it. I don't post on here very much, and I really don't have that much interest, or really care if someone rips on Kung Fu or not on a message board. Why can't anyone respond to my message without calling me a troll? This is a message board, and I had this question in my head so I wanted some input from other martial artists. What now we're so paranoid we have "reverse trolls"? I mean what kinda people have that much time or energy to put into making kung fu look bad. This is my only name.

[chingei]

Originally posted by apeters28
AWWWWW...ok you people think i'm talking about myself. I probably couldn't do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.

have you seen him do it, in a violent conflict?

[chingei]

Originally posted by Tigerstyle
What's wrong with learning to sprawl? :) It directly addresses a skilled (and non-skilled) takedown attempt, and it's not a terribly difficult technique to learn.



but it is terribly difficult to pull off against a skilled grappler

[jon]

apeters28
My appologies for the troll comments, i will do my best to give you a decent answer.

"A real skilled Kung Fu practitioner (not saying i'm one) could easily take advantage of a man diving at his legs trying to take him down by hitting him with pressure points shots to the temple as well as other parts of the head."
* Very true but doesnt account for several important situations.

1 What if your taken by suprise and dont have a chance to apply preasure points.

2 What if your drunk or tired or in any other state where by accuracy of that kind would not be possible.

3 What if your simply not that good yet, should you wait untill you are before learning how to deal with a grappler or groundfighter?

4 What if your attacked by someone you know, say your girlfriends jaded ex and its a party infront of all your friends. You should you smack him in the temple if he attempts to tackle you in a drunken rage?

5 Simply what if you try and miss and they manage to get though taking you to the floor?

There are to many variables to say you cant be taken down or could never get into a groundfight. The truth is the best way to deal with this sort of attack is to simply train defending it.
One of the great things about grappling is unlike striking its quite easy to test and refine and sus out what does and does not work.
Just get some friends around and try figuring out different ways of dealing with someone attempting to take you down to the floor.
The when you get on the floor why stop there?
Seriously why bother trying to find excuses why you dont need to learn something? If you dont WANT to learn then thats one thing but dont kid yourself about the consequences. I dont exactly LIKE stance training but it doesnt mean i dont understand its benifit and practice it anyway.
Hope that was a little more use to you.

[Ryu]

but it is terribly difficult to pull off against a skilled grappler


That's absolutely not true in my opinion. A sprawl can be used against very good grapplers (I have done so myself). Yes you need skill in it to pull it off, but that goes for anything.

apeter,
You have to realize that posts like these are seen as trolls because of the nature of the comments in them. If you want a true response, this is what people will say.

You and your sifu are discussing theory on how to beat a grappler. Neither of you have tried these techniques out on a good grappler, but you insist that your sifu can beat them all up. This is a logical fallacy because you have never seen him do it, and he probably hasn't done it in real life either. To simply talk about what "should" happen is not going to overlap what "will" happen unless you honestly train for it.
One of the absolute number one reasons people lose to grapplers is because everyone who doesn't understand the art UNDERESTIMATES them. They think they will fight in a certain way, and suddenly when the real fight happens they find themselves in a helpless situation for which they have no skill or understanding to escape from.
If your sifu is teaching you how to defeat grapplers, he better have proved his theory in the past, and continue to test it. Otherwise he is giving you false confidence. I can beat 'grappler" too.....but I do it with grappling knowledge, well practiced escapes, etc. Understand that saying and doing are two different things. You can't fall into the trap of not testing your martial arts theories.

Ryu

[red5angel]

Whether it is a troll or not, it can be a very good question for someone who isnt sure of how these things may or may not work.

I think first of all apeters, you have to watch that what you say isnt absolute, there are no absolutes in the martial arts. What you say could and could not be considered correct.
For instance, if I am a kungfu master and I face off against a mediocre grappler, I may be able to hit him where it counts before he tackles me.
If I were a mediocre kung fu guy, and was facing a well trained grappler, I am probably a dead man.
The ultiate point is this, you should train for all the eventualities. If you are confident you can take a grappler with one shot, then good for you! But, you should also train for the idea that you might miss, of he might be just enough to get through you and take you down. THEN what do you do?
This works in reverse as well, any grappler who doesnt train to handle that first shot ( and I will concede this to you grappling maniacs :) you guys train much harder at this then we strikers do at grappling) can get himself into a lot of trouble.
Your fighting strategy should include all ranges and as many possible situations as possible. You dont necessarily have to go to another art to lfill in gaps so much as study with another art to understand how to applky your own skills.

[apeters28]

Thank you redangel, that was the best reply, and thats all i meant. I was talking about using it as a tool, not an absolute, and it may not always work. But it is a defense against a grappler, and it is possible.

[apoweyn]

apeters,

"A real skilled Kung Fu practitioner (not saying i'm one) could EASILY take advantage of a man diving at his legs trying to take him down by hitting him with pressure points shots to the temple as well as other parts of the head. If someone gets hit squared in a pressure point used for a destructive purpose, they AREN'T going to be able to continue trying to take me down."

it's this sort of statement that are getting you into hot water here. let's assume for a moment that pressure points work. the 'fact' that the technology exists doesn't make it EASY to apply. this sort of argument generally devolves into a discussion of what 'superior practioner of style X' would do to 'inferior practitioner of style Y.' because if you AREN'T assuming that 'practitioner of style Y' is inferior, why aren't you figuring in that they might have countermeasures in mind for these pressure point strikes? (precluding the EASY use of them to your advantage)

anyone worth anything is going to have their own tactics going as well. so if this is only a theoretical exercise, we could go back and forth for days just what we'd do and how. and that wouldn't bring us any closer to reality than we are now.

could you drop someone with a pressure point strike before they take you down? presumably, yes. would it be easy? no. it would be reliant on good timing, aim, form, etc. just as the opponent's attacks, countermeasures, etc. would be. and we can't fully know and/or improve upon those variables without practice.


stuart b.

[apeters28]

Thanx apoewyn, good response

[apoweyn]

no worries, apeters.

stuart

[PJO]

I understand what apeters is trying to say. I think that pressure points have there place as a tool and not an absolute. For me a pressure point strike is not intended to take the person out but to buy you just a little more time to do something else. As said before though if you are taken by suprise it is very difficult to apply.

[gazza99]

One should be versed in ALL ranges of fighting, its a given that being a good striker can help you on the ground, and that being good with applying locks and holds on the ground can also be used standing.

Its about realisim in training, shock and suprise, the adrenal dump. You may be as accurate as all hell with striking the tempal for expl. but when under duress you cannot even hit the person!

I for one would not rely on a pressurepoints (despite my website...www.pressurepointfighting.com) to save me against a grappler, I would rely on timing, speed, agressivness, and principle of movement. I have also have learned to sprawl, amongst other various things. I am lighting fast and EXTREMELY accurate, even under stress, I have gotten lucky in the past and hit a few points in fights. However, had I missed the points the stikes were hard enough to damage the person anyhow. Many points are in obviously nasty places...neck, back of the head..even the eyes..etc.. but enough power should be put out that the location of the stike is not as relevant.

A few months ago I had the chance to roll with a really good grappler! He had rolled with the gracies, done various shootfighting matches in other countries, been a prison guard, a bouncer..etc... It was a great experiance to get pounded on the ground!!! Very quickly I was able to adapt on the ground, at first it was uncomfortable, but after awhile I got used to it. This guy can bench press 400 pounds! Strength does help on the ground!! But the average joe isnt going to be an olympic class weight lifter, and BJJ player. We also found that whils standing I may have been able to stop his shoot if I simply attacked him when he started moving in. He was astoundingly quick, so I had to move as soon as he came in range and faked, or started to move down. If I could intercept this I had a chance to put an elbow..forearm in his throat or some other technique. But if I were to flinch at all or move back he would have easily taken me to the ground.

Regards,
Gary

[MrBob]

Originally posted by apeters28
Ok, i'm sure you guys will let me know if i'm way off here, but me and Shifu often times discuss how a CMA practitioner would do against a BJJ style. Now granted the Monks trained for more warlike situations as opposed to one on one, however, in most styles pressure points are very common and a very good weapon. A real skilled Kung Fu practitioner (not saying i'm one) could easily take advantage of a man diving at his legs trying to take him down by hitting him with pressure points shots to the temple as well as other parts of the head. If someone gets hit squared in a pressure point used for a destructive purpose, they aren't going to be able to continue trying to take me down (UFC however doesn't allow pressure point strikes). It would take a highly skilled practitioner to hit a target that small, or to just be that precise, however, a true master would use this, and therefore have a great weapon against ground fighters.


Any comments?

Just Curious, What would you do if the guy decides to take you do down from the clinch?

[chingei]

Originally posted by Ryu
but it is terribly difficult to pull off against a skilled grappler


That's absolutely not true in my opinion. A sprawl can be used against very good grapplers (I have done so myself). Yes you need skill in it to pull it off, but that goes for anything.



if you can sprawl your way out of a shot, there was something wrong with it in the first place, or your opponent is physically weak.

[Ryu]

Ching,
You sprawl before the shot penetrates. You don't wait for him to grab your legs and take you down and THEN try to sprawl.

And also you can sprawl your way out of a shot even if the wrestler makes contact. It happens in wrestling matches all the time. But the way to "sprawl" is to NOT let him get your legs. Sprawling is a timed technique that has to be practiced with wrestlers over time.

Ryu

[apoweyn]

chingei,

"if you can sprawl your way out of a shot, there was something wrong with it in the first place, or your opponent is physically weak."

couldn't you say that about absolutely anything? if someone blocks a kick, then clearly there was something wrong with the kick. well, yeah, obviously. it wasn't fast enough, strong enough, etc.

but by the same token, you could just as easily say that there was something RIGHT with the defense (be it a block, sprawl, etc.).


stuart

[Tigerstyle]

What apoweyn said.

[chokeyouout]

Pressure point fighting.I think bigfoot holds the red sash in that art.

Boxers box,wrestlers wrestle,jiu jitsu rolls and kung fu screams really loud from the fetal position when in the cage.

[Merryprankster]

chingei,

you're wrong.

regards,

james

[scotty1]

Chokeyouout - shut up or say something constructive, troll.

[MA fanatic]

I have a suggestion: Why doesn't your Sifu just try and challenge one of the gracies. If he wins, he can actually make some money. I think the going rate is (well was a few years ago atleast), 5000.

Dude: Here is the truth which had been tested in the United States since 1993 and in Brazil for over 70 years...Pressure points don't work.

As a matter of fact UFC permits pressure points. They are used all the time. Grapplers are very familiar with pain points, pressure points, neurological shut down points, and strangulations. Hell, UFC had a pressure point expert from Kyoshu Jitsu (Okinawan pressure point art) fight. He got destroyed in less than three minutes by an equally weighed Remko Pardoe (a JJ / Judo competitor from Holland). I personally have just rolled with some guys from a local Hapkido school who have been told that pressure points are Hapkido's answer to BJJ. They tried and all got choked out, neck cracked, ankle locked and armbared. And, I'm not even that good. Had they grappled or fought NHB with some of my training partners who actually have some fights under their belt, they would have been beaten bad.

When UFC first developed the pressure point rule, it had nothing to do with meridian strikes, and/or Dim Mak. You can use those and most commisioners wont even know what you're doing. Also some guys were continueing to eye gouge, and fish hook. So UFC had to step in. As for people getting hit in the temple, jaw, groin, knee cap, neck, throat, etc. that still happens and the fight usually doesn't stop. Those techniques may work marginally well on an untrained street apponent, but against someone trained, they simply don't work. Just two weeks ago I sparred with someone who insisted that he could hit me wiht a low side kick to the knee in an NHB fight and it will "all be over." LOL No it wouldn't. Those techniques simply don't work. It is a myth.

Speaking of Myths: No one had ever seen a Shoaline fighter. They are stories told in books. Wake up dude. If they did exist, they don't now. Why don't they exist, because what ever they practiced is outdated. Life moves forward and people adapt. Practicing Kung Fu just to be like people who haven't existed in generations, is silly. If these legends existed, they didn't train like you, sleep like you, eat like you, live like you, think like you, etc. etc. You're paying your instructor your monthly fees for a few classes a week, while these guys (according to legend) trained 10 hrs a day for free.

I still say, masters of BJJ, Sambo, Judo, Pankration, Shooto, Muay Thai, etc. have stepped in and tested their techniques in the ring. Why can't those deadly Kung Fu masters who talk the talk, not step in and test their techniques. They wont because they cant. They know how to respond to students who ask them, "sifu, how would we do against a bjj fighter, or how would you do in NHB." Standard responses:
1) I have nothing to prove.
2) I don't want to make the Gracies rich (lol silly).
3) I only fight and train to fight to the death.
4) My techniques are much too deadly to be used as sport.
5) The monks trained for life and death, they would have laughed at NHB (perhaps, or they...assuming they wanted to learn effective fighting, would have been enrolled in a bjj studio incorporating grappling into shoaline).
6) UFC has too many rules. I would need rules where I could eye gouge. (Trust me, you dont want to fight a grappler permited to eye gouge or bite. Chances are, you'll be the one blind and torn to shreads).

Important thing to NEVER FORGET: AS MANY TECHNIQUES AND TRICKS YOU THINK YOU KNOW AGAINST GRAPPLERS, GRAPPLERS KNOW JUST AS MANY WAYS TO HANDLE STAND UP FIGHTERS. ACTUALLY, THEY HAVE PROVEN THAT THEIR STYLE OF FIGHTING IS EFFECTIVE AGAINST CMA. CMA (IN THEIR PURE FORM...) HAVE YET TO PROVE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ON THE NHB ARENA. WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY DIRTY ACTION. HAD RICKSON (OR MANY SUCCESSFULL NHB FIGHTERS WATNED), MANY PEOPLE COULD HAVE HAD THEIR NECKS BROKEN OR LIMBS SHATTERED.

Until the day when CMA guys will set foot in the ring, its all just talk from their side and work from those who cross train.
MA fanatic

[MA fanatic]

I have been to many pressure point seminars. One of my friends is affiliated with the Dillman organization as well as some other Kyoshu and Ryuku Kempo organizations (names not mentioned on purpose). Anyway, I have never seen pressure points work against anyone who is trained, trully resisting, trully attacking and not just allowing the so called sensei or sifu just work the move, and someone who is of superior strength. I have seen some people get KOd by pressure points at seminars who are:
1) Believers.
2) Stand their expecting to be hit while instructor explains what he will do to student (student is half KOd before being touched from anxiety).
3) No one ever resists. I was at a Dillman seminar where a local Kyukshin karate, muah thai, and bjj instructor who is 5'5 145 (well known so name mentioned) asked to be KOd. Dillman couldn't do it after trully whacking the guy hard. Finally stating that "some people are just no suseptable to pressure points."
4) Out of shape.
5) Con artists who travel with the so called master (who are his students)

MA fanatic
PS I wish CMA guys would realize that pressure points are no secret to grapplers. Grapplers have been using pressure points (some I'm sure even KF masters haven't seen) for centuries.

[red_fists]

PS I wish CMA guys would realize that pressure points are no secret to grapplers. Grapplers have been using pressure points (some I'm sure even KF masters haven't seen) for centuries.

Oh, most of us are aware of that.

And where do you think your grappling skills come from??

From CMA and are simply a subset taken from standard CMA and perfected in a stand alone matter.

Peace.

[dezhen2001]

CMA covers a wide variety of different styles and systems, so you can't really make a blanket statment like that. Some are mainly 'stand up', others have more 'standing grappling' etc. Most styles of gong fu at least have some Qin na grappling skill, some more than others. Look at the likes of Taijiquan, lots of grappling and locking, throwing etc. there as well as percussive striking.

'Pressure Points' are not really some mystical thing. Just a science of using the bodies weaknesses to gain an advantage. Many styles who don't even acknoweledge them use certain areas on the body to control, lock someone etc.

david :)

[scotty1]

Just one thing MA Fanatic:

"Just two weeks ago I sparred with someone who insisted that he could hit me wiht a low side kick to the knee in an NHB fight and it will "all be over." LOL No it wouldn't. Those techniques simply don't work. It is a myth"

You're telling me a low side kick to the knee "simply doesn't work"? That a low side kick to the knee is "a myth?"

Are you kidding me? I am telling you right now, if you are stood in front of someone and they throw a powerful side kick that connects with your knee at the right angle, your knee is no longer in use.

But I would agree that strikes against grapplers need to be high percentage, reliable techniques.

[MA fanatic]

First: Wrestling is a CMA. Judo is a CMA. BJJ is a CMA. Pankration is a CMA. Sambo (there are several systems of sambo) is a CMA. Boxing is a CMA. Mauy Thai is a CMA. There are other CMAs which have tested their skill on the NHB arena.
All the arts above have a rich history, numerous techniques, endless depth of knowledge of anatomy and phisiology, and tend to promote discipline, as well as physical and spiritual growth.
Sure many techniques we see in the NHB are take from CMA. As a matter of fact, give about 100yrs, and you'll see NHB fighting being talked about as a CMA. Arts like Pankration and various forms of wrestling may have a history dating back further than Kung Fu.

Did I stand in front of a side kick to the knee? NO of course not. I didn't say that a side kick couldn't break the knee. As a matter of fact what I said was, was that certain techniques have a highter percentage of working against untrained apponents. The slidding or skipping side kicks to knees have been attempted many times in mma (it has been tried by high ranking karate experts on Royce, Marrio Sperry, Mark Kerr, Shamrocks, etc. etc.). It is also a legal technique in bare knuckle karate tournaments I have seen (shidokan, and a couple of others which happen in IL.). I have yet to see it work on someone trained. Most would easily side step (as a matter of fact, most would side step as a reflex because trained fighters can see a side kick miles away) and take you down upon you withdrawing the leg. The side kick thrown at any part of the body has a low percentage of working against someone trained in fighting. Once again, don't take my word for it, just try it against a skilled grappler in sparring. You'll be on the mat the second you throw the kick
MA fanatic

[Merryprankster]

For those of you who missed it, MA Fanatic was being sarcastic about the "everything is CMA," portion of the thread.

We get tired of hearing "It all started in China, so it's all CMA," as much as you get tired of hearing "Grapplers wipe their arses with strikers."

[LEGEND]

REDFIST grappling is CMA??? Hell I thought it was ROMAN??? **** does CHINESE are everywhere!!!

[dezhen2001]

i think what Red Fists and i were trying to say is that there is grappling in CMA. We were not talking about history etc.

No worries :)

david

[red_fists]

Legend.

Grappling exists in all Cultures.

[Ryu]

It was the Greeks! :D

[Xebsball]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah bjj blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah mma blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah UFC blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah gracie blah blah blah blah blah

KFO needs some porn.

[chokeyouout]

My internal gas style will defeat any man with a functioning olfactory system!troll away trollers!

[NorthernMantis]

chokeyouout-

Don't be fool and stop acting so childish. I held my own againts a wrestler before. Not only that a friend of mine's has previously participated in Pankration and has done well thank you very much.


Why don't they exist, because what ever they practiced is outdated.

MA Fanatic-

How in the world is elbowing someone in the ribs or punching them in the face outdated? Answer me this hotshot.I have traded hands with a boxer and awrestler without using any pressure points and I did pretty well agints them. How come it worked there? If there were no guns back in the day and the only thing that people could do was to was to fight barefisted or gang up on somone with blades to cut them up make it less effective than now? Have a bjj guy go up againts double broadswords and see how well he does.


Speaking of Myths: No one had ever seen a Shoaline fighter. They are stories told in books. Wake up dude. If they did exist, they don't now Most monks don't even practice kung fu.If you stopped being so ignorant and did some research you would know better about kung fu.


Dude: Here is the truth which had been tested in the United States since 1993 and in Brazil for over 70 years...Pressure points don't work.

If it's so tested then how come there was a guy from Brazil posting here about a year ago about how a bjj player picked a fight with a contstruction worker and got pummeled and couldn't take the guy down to the ground?


Pressure points don't work.
Kung fu does not rely on pressure points and if you think that you are talking out of ignorance. Not only that I can tell you why a lot of pressure points don't work. Mainly because most of the schools are fakes and when a muscle becomes tense it hides the nerve.


Just two weeks ago I sparred with someone who insisted that he could hit me wiht a low side kick to the knee in an NHB fight and it will "all be over." LOL No it wouldn't. Those techniques simply don't work. It is a myth.

A friend of mine's and his friend went to a judo school because one wanted to try it. In class the sensei tried to throw the bigger of the two and the guy just fell on him. Grappling must be a myth also, right?

My cousin who's was taking highschool wrestling at the time that I met him claimed that my kung fu was fake and that he could take me down. Well he tried and couldn't get me to the ground. Wrestling is a myth then right?

See what i'm trying to say? Just because someone is bad it doesn't mean you should group everyone else into the same area.


CMA (IN THEIR PURE FORM...) HAVE YET TO PROVE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ON THE NHB ARENA.

Heard of George Crayton?


Why can't those deadly Kung Fu masters who talk the talk, not step in and test their techniques.

How do you know they haven't? How do you know they haven't gone out into the streets and proved it there or anywhere else?


Those techniques may work marginally well on an untrained street apponent, but against someone trained, they simply don't work.

Wasn't there an 8step mantis student that went into UFC 5 or 6 and headbutted aguy and made him bleed alot? Did that move not work then?
When UFC first developed the pressure point rule, it had nothing to do with meridian strikes, and/or Dim Mak

Will you people shut up about that!?! I'm sick and tired about people whining about Dim Mak. Dim Mak and and all of the disrespectful people in this world can kiss my skinny Latino butt!
Even if dim Mak exists do you think they're going to show it to the general public?

Next time do some research about kung fu before making dumb comments. At least i have been doing some research on droundfighting.:rolleyes:

[fightfan]

LOL!
:D :rolleyes:

[dre]

Northern Mantis : Ditto. Lol very nice.

"Will you people shut up about that!?! I'm sick and tired about people whining about Dim Mak. Dim Mak and and all of the disrespectful people in this world can kiss my skinny Latino butt"

Ditto that too.

"Even if dim Mak exists do you think they're going to show it to the general public"

Some recent medical evidence has come out to substantiate some Dim Mak. Has anyone heard of a rare condition called "Comotio Cordis"(sp?).

[Zapf Dingbat]

Originally posted by Xebsball
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah bjj blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah mma blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah UFC blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah gracie blah blah blah blah blah

KFO needs some porn.

I'm with you.

[MA fanatic]

Mantis: Colorful name.

First of all, if you had actually read the entire thread as apposed to just getting pist off at my posts, you would have noticed that me mentioning anything about pressure points was a direct response to someone writing that DIM MAK (meridian strikes) was Kung Fu's answer to grappling. I was responding. I have studied Kung Fu in the past and do realize there is more to the art than pressure points.

As for your accomplishments against grapplers, good for you. I can tell you twice as many stories about grapplers taking down accomplished Kung Fu school owners with ease. I can even include scenarios where I have taken down and KOd KF guys. Before I even started grappling I KOd a Praying Mantis school owner with a jump spinning back kick to the ribs. Can I do that with all KF guys? NO. Can KF guys and other CMA guys beat me? Sure. Can that same guy on another day beat me? Of course. I just timed him and got in a hit. Same could have happened to me had we sparred a day before or day after. Who knows? It is consistancy which counts. And, consistantly, CMA guys have lost in NHB matches.

As for techniques being outdated. I think you know perfectly well, what techniques, fight approaches and traditional training I am talking about. I have been around martial arts long enough to know what will work, what is pure bs, and what is an instructor's way of conning his/her students. Of course punching, elbow striking, and numerous other fundamental combat techniques are never outdated. But, certain forms, fight strategies, stances, conditioning exercises, self defense techniques, exotic strikes, etc. etc. are just that OUTDATED. We can go into the history of the development of various techniques, but that would take an entire new thread.

As for grappling being CMA (classical martial arts), they are. Most martial arts historians would agree. What, you think martial arts came from Asia only? Do you actually buy into the garbage some (not all) Kung Fu masters would want you to believe that all arts came from China or India (Bodhidarma being the founding father). Please! Tell me you're smarter. There were arts practiced by Romans, Egyptions, and Greeks around the same time if not earlier. As for Sambo, Judo, and BJJ not being classical martial arts... THEY ARE. They have everything KF does and even has scientifif research to back up it's techniques. BJJ, in fact, is older and has a richer history than TKD, and/or Hapkido (for example).

As for Kung Fu masters being effective on the street? I'm sure some are. Just as some grapplers are effective. But, there are KF masters who would have the floor wiped with them by a street thug. We're not talking about that now. The subject of the thread was KFs answer to grappling. My answer, try all your answers against a competent grappler or in the NHB ring. Once again, so far we haven't seen any CMA guys do well. Actually, grapplers have dominated with ease.

I'm not sure which part of my post got you angry the most. I think it was hearing the truth.
MA fanatic
PS AS for that BJJ guy who got into the fight with the construction workers, that was a member of the Gracie family. I think the actually story which was published and witnessed was that he had fought 3 guys, beat all of them, got taken to the ground by one and broke the guys arm. He won. I don't want to mention names, but it was the same guy who you can buy a video tape of fighting off 5 guys in a Las Vegas casino after they attacked him (not sure the cause of the fight.) I can also bring up stories of William Cheung (WC grandmaster) being taken down and beaten on the mat by a novice grappler. Or a Kung Fu master who wrote in Black Belt magazine about a time when he was beaten to virtual death by two guys (one had a crow bar). I can also list numerous stories of Kung Fu, Karate, Kempo, Okinawa Te, Kung Fu san Soo, TKD, Hapkido, etc. etc. guys who have taken on the Gracie challenge and are recorded being b..ch slapped by grapplers (that is all on tape). Don't digress from the point of the main thread. If you want to site fights where CMA did good against pure grappling, I have much more recorded and witnessed material. As for history of grappling and or dating of techniques, that is an entire different thread. .........OK have to go to work.
MA fanatic

[scotty1]

"As for Sambo, Judo, and BJJ not being classical martial arts... THEY ARE. They have everything KF does and even has scientifif research to back up it's techniques."

I hope you're not talking technically, because there is NO WAY that those three arts have the striking repetoire of Kung Fu.

But I agree with your sentiments regarding Kung Fu proving itself against grappling. Hasn't been done yet, conclusively, in a public venue in the same way that grappling has been proved to work against TMA.

[jon]

Hang on, hold the phone...
I got this all figured out here look.

"Kung Fu's Advantage Against Ground Fighters"

IS
Training against them:rolleyes:


Seriously this arguement should be put to bed nicely.
This is SUCH an obvious case of anyone who is suprised by something they had never properly trained for will be a a nasty disadvantage.
The exact same could be said for a BJJ guy who had never trained any striking but only done a little mat work.

The plain fact is if your both standing then the groundfighter is playing your game, if they cant handle themselfs on there feet they WILL lose. If they take you down, your in there world. If you cant escape you WILL lose.
If either of you actualy bother to train for both situations what do you think will happen? Both fighters will make a dedicated attempt at keeping the game within there own boundarys.


Eye pokes and preasure points souldnt be the issue here, its simple training and what you are prepared for.
Im getting REALLY sick of the preasure point and eye gouge arguement. In some ways fair enough but it neglects that these techniques are then open to both partys.

Real fighting is not playing but then again if you dont 'play' you cant ever get much expereince in taking a hit and giving one back.
I will put my money on the guy who fights under any conditions than the guy who claims to only fight to kill.
For me ill happily test my skills no matter, if i lose well - i just lose
:(
Advantage disadvantage hight weight gloves none its all the same really. On the street i got no choice so why limit my training?

[guohuen]

Wow! "Shaped dragon and looking monkey, sitting tiger and turning eagle" Jon, how long has that been in your sig? That's one of the most profound things i've read in a long time.

[jon]

"Shaped dragon and looking monkey, sitting tiger and turning eagle"
Yeahs its a great poem.
Its part of the Bagua classics, my other is from the Tai Chi classics.

It refers to Bagua VERY nicely and also to can refer to many other arts. Its also a PAIN to translate and thats actualy my own 'rough' translation. For eg the 'looking monkey' can refer to both how you actualy 'view' things, as in alert like a monkey but there are also various postures that require shall we say a monkey mind;)
Shaped dragon is similar, still i wont try and break it down it will lose its mystic and im in no way qualified to really do so.
Im glad someone picked up on it though, i loved it as soon as i saw it :D

[scotty1]

Well said, that was an excellent summation of what I believe to be the situation.
Hopefully now we can let this topic DIE.

[NorthernMantis]

MA Fanatic

Sorry about that I was tired of all the style vs style debates that I went of the edge, plus the lack of sleep got me irritated. My apologies. Don’t pay attention to that ramble. This bug needs some sleep.

[Mantis9]

I would like to echo Jon statement. As PM exponent, I have been 'beaten' while training by the likes of BJJ practioner, Boxers, WC, JKD, wrestlers, and other PM. I practice PM. I don't practice any other styles. However, with a firm foundation in PM and an open mind, I don't mind being beaten. I mind not improving.

KF masters, as well as other masters, have come upon inovation to their styles. Wong Long, founder of PM, knew 17 other style before discovering that PM in the grass. I see myself as no different. The PM answer to groundfighters will come and it will be a PM answer.

As for the UFC and its cousins, I have no doubt that some time in the future, KF will make a good impression upon the fighters and viewers. If and when that time comes, people will be jumping fences, calling BJJ stupid or ineffective. (I know it seems a silly statement now!) This, of course, is not true. And I hope that when the fashionable becomes unfashionable, I can see its supstance.

I fully respect and acknowledge the prowess of groundfighters and look forward make their acquintance and learn the KF answer to the problem they present.

Good training.

[dre]

I think you need to chill a little on the "fake masters" thing. .

Fisrt of all : I go to a closed-door school , there are about 4 or five students here , we train quite hard , there are no whiners , and we all got in by being recomended ,not by asking.

We do quite a bit of the older-style exercies ( Iorn palm with hitting walls, etc) and conditioning that are not appropriate with more commercial schools.

There have been THREE ocasions where an individual , has decided to "test" one of our Sifus. All three got their asses badly beaten. BADLY.

One of the three guys tried a shoot (looked like a double leg). He was thrown into a brick wall (head first). Not all masters are fake. So if you're going to "de-bunk" someone, make sure the "fake" is an actual fake. . .

The other two were : regular punch , and one guy picked up a staff and took a swing with it(!).

[chokeyouout]

If it's so tested then how come there was a guy from Brazil posting here about a year ago about how a bjj player picked a fight with a contstruction worker and got pummeled and couldn't take the guy down to the ground?


I was having fun.When I read 50th hand internet gossip being used as a premise I laugh even harder.Fire away mantis.

[Unmatchable]

It is in my opinion in the early UFC's they put in wankers, nothing else. I also saw the fight with Sakuraba and Gracie. And it looked to me as Sakuraba was defending being taken down, and was using just strikes and hits standing up. A new person to this forum might see only one thing. To train in bjj because it is the best. I know many people training in various martial arts, that I doubt it would be easy to take them down. By the time it happened, most likely the opponent would be laying on the ground beaten. Reception on success is not so easy, and takes a little longer than what you think. i also think that there are alot of people who agree that mma doesn't have ideal technique, and there are facts to this, that you can't throw away. Besides this I think some of you promote too badly other people who won. Besides this, I have a question. Why in BJJ are there still elements Taja?

BTW, I heard that "Gracie family was challenged by a famous internal (Tai Chi) martial artist from Germany yrs. ago (soundly and on magazines); after checking out they refused to fight even when they were loudly offended as cowards over and over."

[NorthernMantis]

Originally posted by chokeyouout
Fire away mantis

[ Looks at firearm in temptation...]:D

lol Nah, sorry guy, but what you saw was once in a full moon type of thing. Lots of things contributed to it--- like lack of sleep, stress over school, painfull canker sore in my mouth. Those posts were just enough to set me off. Hey it's cool now. I'm back to normal:cool:

[chokeyouout]

No worries.Me always stressed.

[Merryprankster]

Unmatchable--

I highly doubt that an "internal master," challenged the Gracie's seriously. Provide some proof and perhaps we'll believe you. By proof I mean something substantial, not he-said, she-said. Provide both sides of the story. We KNOW the Gracies accept challenges because they've been do it for years and have the habit of taping the **** things. So I'm a little more ready to believe their statements about challenges. An unidentified internal master is hardly something to take seriously, however. Catch my drift?

Taking somebody down who doesn't train often against people who are GOOD at taking others down, is the easiest person in the world to drop. It's no different than hitting somebody else--you have to train for that too. You get good at what you train at. Some people here, like Water Dragon, would probably be very hard to take down. Some of the WC guys would probably be easy.

I don't know what Taja is, but since you are apparently a Taichi man, I'll assume it was a misspelling.

Since sensitivity seems to be such a big part of Taichi, I'll just tell you that you're looking at it through "taichi" glasses. Sensitivity is sensitivity is sensitivity. Judoka have it, wrestlers have it, sambists have it, BJJer's have it, and apparently, so do taichi men. You get it through experience and hard work on the mat, learning to read subtle weight shifts or else this stuff never works, no matter how many techniques you learn or how well you do it in static drills.

lastly, you're a troll. Enjoy your status.

[apeters28]

I get sick of people calling people trolls simply because u don't believe them or don't agree with them. You assume because you have this huge BJJ bias that all of their practitioners are untouchable by strikers. Now this is just your opinion and I respect that, but i don't think I should call u a troll for this opinion even though this is a kung fu forum. Grapplers aren't unbeatable, and neither are strikers. As far as who has the advantage? well i think its the person not the art.

[Fighter]

One of the Gracies challenged probably the best boxer in the world pound for pound, Roy Jones Jr. I don't know which one it was but he challenged him because Roy Jones always says he is the best fighter pound for pound and offered Roy Jones $5000 for every minute Roy survived in a cage match. Roy then countered and said "that's fine but lets have a second match in a boxing ring with boxing rules, I bet I'll knock you out in 30 seconds." Apparently the Gracies never got back to him. And if anyone knows about boxing, Roy Jones would knock all the Gracies out in a boxing match, his speed and power at his weight is amazing. I wonder how come the Gracies never challenged Mike Tyson?

[MA fanatic]

Mantis: NO need to apologize. This is the internet. NO one actually takes this seriously. I think we're all on here when we pretty much have nothing to do.

AS for REAL MASTERS: I never said that real masters don't exist. My posts attacked BS masters of which there are plenty. If you practice in some closed school, which is sort of strange to begin with, good for you. If your master is great? Great. I'm curious as to who actually goes into closed schools challenging some secret society sifus. LOL But, whatever. I'm just kidding around. Where I live we have had our share of secret societies and secret techniques. I haven't fought anyone from such schools. Have met a few guys, but two out of three told me they were too deadly to spar with me. I told them that I would be able to care for myself, but they refused. The other guy I met from a closed, by invitation only school (actually it wasn't by invitation, it was one of these schools you had to pass an interview to get in), just wasn't interested in sparring. Neither was I. We talked, exchanged some techniques and went home. I still say, that in order to regain respect, the Asian arts have to step forward and defeat some of the ecclectic fighters out there. I think the NHB competitions went beyond bjj. We don't even see pure bjj guys anymore. Most, including the Gracies, have cross trained with some of the best stand up fighters in the world.

Some of you mentioned old masters being inovators. That is exactly what they were. We're living in the Golden Age of martial arts where we are exposed to all arts, from all over the world. Hell, we can have some of the greatest masters come to our homes via internet and video, and our towns via seminars. Don't you think that had some Shoaline monks been around, they would love to study grappling from masters of grappling? Of course they would. Even traditional Gichin Funakoshi wrote in his autobiography that Okinawan wrestling had helped him most in Karate. Instead of looking and hoping for an answer from one's own style, why not go to the others. Grapplers do it all the time. They are not that bound by loyalty to one style, one master or tradition.
MA fanatic

[MA fanatic]

Fighter: Your thread makes no sense at all. I know about the Roy Jones challenge. The offer was to fight NO RULES. That way each fighter would force the other into his FIGHT GAME. Fighting Roy Jones by boxing rules, yes he would KO the Gracies. But, let Roy put on a grappling gi and fight by grapplers rules, he would be tapped out and/or choked out, and/or killed in less than 30 seconds.

Royce also challenged Tyson. Tyson declined simply because he wouldn't fight for 100,000 that the Gracie family put up. And, rightfully so. He makes millions even if he loses. Why would he train for an unfamiliar fight game and riks getting hurt for what are pennies to him.

I think you're missing the point Fighter. When you fight, it is your duty to MAKE the other fighter fight your fight. NOT ASK HIM TO FIGHT YOUR FIGHT.
MA fanatic

[Shooter]

Yes, this is a Kung Fu forum.

It seems to really bother some people to know that Tai Chi has as much martial truth to it presently as it did back in the day. The opponents of Tai Chi here should be happy that its players are exploding the myths that so many people have been tricked into believing. The same myths the opponents have ridiculed, yet fixate on in formulating their own misunderstanding. :p

When things are brought to light for them, they say things like "sensitivity is sensitivity is sensitivity" "pomme de terre - potato"

...Tai Chi is judo is bjj...the same balance of shuai-chiao and chin-na... :p

[Merryprankster]

You haven't been here very long, have you? I think you'll find that I don't have a "bjj bias." I do have a bad training bias. I have a bias against "sifu says." I have a bias against unsubstantiated claims.

I happen to be a bjj guy. Also happen to be a (poor) boxer and an ex wrestler. I also visit my girlfriend's Kenpo school on occasion.

Lets review what I said:

1st, Unmatchable made a claim that is so far unsubstantiated. Past evidence indicates the Gracies take challenges on a regular basis. I said to show us proof, and that includes both sides of the story--it's similar to the adversarial law system. Both sides present their cases, a third party makes a decision. I fail to understand how this is a BJJ bias. I happen not to think the Gracies are "it." But they do have substantiated claims when it comes to challenges, rather than being "an unidentified internal master." I require some exposition before I take this stuff seriously.

2nd, I said that taking people down who don't regularly practice takedown defenses against people who are good at takedowns is easy. Water Dragon is a chinese style grappler with taichi experience. He would probably be hard to take down. Other schools really don't get into takedown defenses all that much. If you don't practice it, you aren't going to get good at it. I fail to see how this is BJJ biased, especially since BJJ is known for miserable takedowns. I'll trot out the Mo Smith example yet again. He sucked at takedown defenses, and lost a lot. Then he worked on his takedown defenses, heavily, and his ground escapes, and (whaddya know?!) started knocking people out instead of losing. But he didn't do it by practicing takedown defenses on other kickboxers... he did it by practicing his defenses on wrestlers who were good at takedowns.

3rd--He claimed that there were "still" many elements of Taja (which, for lack of explanation, I'm assuming is a misspelling) in BJJ. This smacks of the "well, it's all Taichi," claim. Rediculous. Taichi doesn't have a patent on sensitivity. It's a quality that is cultivated in many arts or your success is poor. My ability to read weight shifts in boxing is good because of the sensitivity I developed wrestling. Hardly Taichi--the point is that good principles are good principles and don't necessarily have anything to do with being derived from another art.

Shooter--how many times do I have to say the above before it sinks in? I don't think Tai Chi is ineffective. I don't think it has no martial value, I don't think that it's an exercise for old people, but it's "not all Tai Chi," any more than the "corn grinding chi kung," you once described is a punch from boxing. Absolutely you are going to see analogous principles and ways of movement between arts because good principles carry over from art to art. But to turn around and say "it's Tai Chi," is indefensible. You might be able to understand what's going on in other arts, because of your Tai Chi, but that doesn't make the art, its combat strategy, its methods of teaching or its practice, Tai Chi.

And if you're really calling me a troll, I respectfully request you get your head out of your ass.

As for the troll claim, read his Judo beats BJJ post. This is just an extension of the silliness.

[chokeyouout]

Ralph challenged Roy Jones.I don't think they ever spoke or negotiated anything.If Michael Jordan declines to enter a tennis match against Lindsay Davenport is MJ the worse athlete?

[Xebsball]

I dunno about the Gracie challenges and all today.
Cos if you think of it, there is plenty of pro mma fighters that could defeat them today.

[Merryprankster]

Chokeyouout and Xebsball are correct :)

[dre]

MA Fanatic :
"AS for REAL MASTERS: I never said that real masters don't exist. My posts attacked BS masters of which there are plenty."

Oh there are, too many, there another problem. MMA has it's share of fakers too , to a degree. As the dbouter that I am, I have to say I sincerly hate the fakers , wherever they come from.

"If you practice in some closed school, which is sort of strange to begin with, good for you."

Not really. "Closed Door" to use the Chinese phrase, is just the old way that the arts were passed on , usually in private, between friends, family, and other martial artists. It's kind of an envirment for someone whose already had a backround in something , or who is willing to work, real, real hard. It's also an envirmnent where everyone is focused, whiners or lazy people are booted very quickly. Classes usually cost next to nothing ( I pay VERY little) and are long. We do not wear uniforms ( I dunno about other closed schools. . .)

"I'm curious as to who actually goes into closed schools challenging some secret society sifus. LOL But, whatever."

*******es. lol, thats who. Seriously, Well our Master is a fairly small guy , not, what you'd call intimidating , so he's naturally suspect by someone whose out to test. This man has done other martial arts as well , Judo (10 yrs I think) ,Kempo , Eagel Claw. He has a pic of himself when he was 13 in his first shaolin class . . . it's a black and white photo. . . He's good.

"I haven't fought anyone from such schools. Have met a few guys, but two out of three told me they were too deadly to spar with me. I told them that I would be able to care for myself, but they refused. The other guy I met from a closed, by invitation only school (actually it wasn't by invitation, it was one of these schools you had to pass an interview to get in), just wasn't interested in sparring."

Interesting point : BJJ , JJ and almost all arts, in their early years (Only Kf, appaerently kept the tradition long) had these sort of "closed schools" where people (who were willing to work hard)would gather in an instuctor's home to do their thing. Another thing is that our sifus aren't very shy about sparring , if you want to fight 'em all you have to do is ask. I've never heard the "too deadly" excuse from them, they just want a release form.

"Neither was I. We talked, exchanged some techniques and went home. I still say, that in order to regain respect, the Asian arts have to step forward and defeat some of the ecclectic fighters out there."

I agree 100%.

"I think the NHB competitions went beyond bjj. We don't even see pure bjj guys anymore. Most, including the Gracies, have cross trained with some of the best stand up fighters in the world. "

Well , MMA is mixed martial arts by definition. . .

"Don't you think that had some Shoaline monks been around, they would love to study grappling from masters of grappling?"

I think they'd invent their own system actually , then burn down your school (they liked to do that , so I read). They were constantly attacking eachother's Monasteries. . . Counter-productive if you ask me.

Hey but don't accuse me of super-loyalty , I'm tryin. I've never sparred a BJJ man in my area, but I dislike the BJJ'ers in my area so strongly that even if I was Mike Tyson I still wouldn't touch one (let alone ear-bite) . . .

*****Important note - Apparently the Mental Retardation/Idiocy that charitarizes most BJJ'ers in my area DOES NOT extend to Classical ju Jitsu , yesterday I (totally by chance) met a JJ'er that was very nice , and more importantly not a pompass.


MA fanatic [/B][/QUOTE]

[Unmatchable]

I never stated that learning how to counter grappling, and being taken to the ground is a bad thing. Actually if you want to be succesful at all ranges, and against all opponents you should know how they fight. I believe that cross training can be benefitial. But there is a flaw to it. People learn a bunch of principles from many styles, and get confused in a real fight. they don't know what to use, and forget often many points. In the old days, the student would master one style, before moving on to another. Which is what I recommend. That's what I like about Tai Chi, and kung fu in general. They are well rounded arts with chin na striking, grappling etc. (some more than others). Real Tai Chi is rare now a day, but the real masters are historically unbeatable. All you need to do is master one style, and learn to adapt to others. That's the Game.

BTW, mostly two guys on the ground in a real fight don't go for submission, they don't wrestle. One guy pounds, and the other guy covers praying for a gap or god to save his ass. Often adrelinine rush becomes high, and they will do anything to get off the ground. Including biting, scratching, poking eyes, etc.

The truth is I don't have interest at all to learn how to fight on the ground. But I do to learn how to counter people that train on the ground. But what works for me might not work for you.

BTW the internal guy who challenged the Gracies I heard was Peter Ralston. A Tai Chi guy who has fought in full contact tournament in the last 40 years.

[Merryprankster]

Unmatchable--It's possible I was hasty in calling you a troll. Your post actually makes sense. I apologize.

The gist of what you are saying is more or less correct...and I think you are misinterpretting "mixed martial arts." Notice the most successful fighters--they all have a SOLID base in something. Serra is a BJJ black belt. Couture was a world-class greco-roman wrestler. Mo Smith was a world class kickboxer. Then you tack on the bits and pieces you need to adapt to other styles of attack. That is the way most people train--they might train two things at a time, but they will be so completely different, that it's hard to mix them up--like boxing and wrestling or BJJ and Muay Thai.

As far as groundfighting, I'm of the opinion that you are wrong--you'll do what you are trained to do, just like you would standing. If you've done nothing on the ground worth mentioning, then yeah, your groundfighting defense consists of curling up in the fetal position while the guy on top is pounding you, and you desperately try to roll away or get up somehow. All of us who have done groundfighting of any sort have had to deal with the "fish": The new guy that flops around like a maniac, is all knees and elbows, and is desperate to get away, so dealing with somebody who's got no clue and is adrenaline dumping is a familiar sensation.

If however, you are trained to execute a knee and elbow escape, obtain the guard position, sweep and/or submit your opponent, then that's what you're going to try and do. You'd be surprised what certain guard positions can do to the ability of a person to punch properly.

Thanks for the info. I will check out the claim.

[Shooter]

Merryprankster, what are you talking about? How does a Kung Fu player's comments on Tai Chi, on a Kung Fu forum make them a troll? That's the point I was making.

How long have you trained Tai Chi? Have you ever done Chi Kung in my school? How do you know what corn-grinding's about if you don't know it? How do you know it isn't all Tai Chi if you don't know it? You're telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about despite the fact that I have lots of boxing, MMA, and sub-wrestling experience (I've even graded in BJJ). In this case, you are the one making statements based on nothing more than assumption. (who's got their head up their ass?) Either that, or you're deliberately making "unsubstantiated" statements just to get a response. We all know what that's called :)

[Merryprankster]

Shooter--

You're welcome to continue deluding yourself--and I'm not referring to your training or coaching methods--you've said you have trained fighters with Tai Chi principles, and I have no reason to doubt you. I'm referring rather, to your habit of referring to everything as being Tai Chi. It's not.

Because you choose to understand combat in terms of tai chi principles, many of which are common themes in other martial arts does NOT make everything else tai chi. Sorry.

Now, the disconnect might be coming here-- I think of Tai Chi as an "art," you think of it as a set of principles. I happen to disagree with you, but if you're working with THAT definition, then I can see how you can legitimately claim "it's all Tai Chi," because then the framework for application of those principles (which you seem to call Tai Chi) is irrelevant.

If, however, you define Tai Chi as an art, with a set of things to learn and an integral strategy that defines it from other things, and not just a set of principles, then you're simply wrong. Example--the principle of "sensitivity," is found in many different styles--it doesn't "belong" to BJJ or Judo or any of that. I would never call sensitivity "A principle patented by BJJ." That's a meaningless statement. However, there is a certain fight strategy in BJJ, namely "position before submission," whereas catch wrestling tends to hit their holds from anywhere. These shape the way you learn and execute.

I stand by my original statements, the essence of which were simply: Calling something Tai Chi doesn't make it so. Just because good principles cross boundaries, and you happen to understand and teach those principles in terms of Tai Chi doesn't make the distinct arts "all Tai Chi." UNLESS Tai Chi is the principles themselves and not a specific "art."

I don't have to know squat about tai chi to make that statement.

PS--I think you misread the corn grinding chi kung bit--YOU told ME that I would have said it looked like a boxer's hook. My point was that I would never tell you "oh hey, that's a boxer's hook, and that's where you got it from, end of story." The hook doesn't necessarily belong to boxing, any more than sensitivity belongs to Tai Chi.

[Fighter]

Apparently your comparing apples to oranges.Your analogy of MJ(basketball)and Lindsey Davenport(tennis)is what I mean.At least when I compared Roy Jones Jr. to Royce they both FIGHT for a living, understand. No hard feelings alright.

Also MA Fanatic, if Mike Tyson could knock out people with one punch wearing an 8 ounce glove, what would happen if he were to land on one of the Gracies wearing that bicycle glove that the UFC has? Mike Tyson would put any of the Gracies in a coma.I think your overestimating the Gracies and underestimating Tyson's power. Especially if there was no rules Mike Tyson would still win IMHO. Tyson is crazy, he has been in plenty of street fights in his life living in the Bronx. Also that takedown won't work against Tyson, he has tree trunks for legs. Do you really think Royce could beat Tyson? Which one would you think will happen first, Royce taking Tyson down or Tyson hitting Royce with a hard shot? A punch from a grappler is nowhere near the power from a punch by a pro boxer like Tyson or Lennox Lewis. You may say if Royce takes down Tyson he would win, but I could also say if Tyson lands just one punch Royce will lose. Also are you going to use BJJ if you were fighting multiple opponents?
The last place you want to be is on the ground in that situation.

The last thing I want to say is I think people overrate groundfighting too much. I know from personal experience because I fought a grappler and he thought groundfighting is the answer to everything. This is before I started to learn JKD. The guy couldn't catch me to try to take me down. I just boxed circles around him and I wasn't being fast, I just used the basic footwork from boxing and in the process I was landing hard shots to his face. I knocked him down when I landed a simple one-two combo. His pride was hurt more than his face because after the fight, he called the cops and pressed charges against me. Of course I was guilty of assault and battery because I was the only one who actually landed any blows. I served 2 months in county jail and that ****ed me off big time.

I lost almost all my respect for people taking challenges then. If you challenge somebody and get beat, take your beating like a man, don't look like a wimp and call the cops to save face and get the last laugh, that's not right. The point I'm trying to say is grapplers should work on their stand up game just as much as they do their groundfighting. The guy that I fought didn't know the basics of slipping punches, bob and weave under punches, move left to right, etc. He just kept coming staight forward trying to shoot and followed me around. He also made the costly mistake of pulling straight back from my straight right hand. Ask any trainer in boxing and he'll tell you the same thing, never pull straight back from punches, move left to right instead. So lets try to end this in a peaceful way ok. The person who wins the fight is the one who lets their opponent play their game.

BTW-I know I would get my ass beat if I fought a pro grappler, no doubt.:D
If a grappler had the same skills as a pro boxer(footwork,lateral movement,good defense, sit down on punches, etc.) combined that with his ground game, he would almost be unbeatable. But I haven't seen that in the UFC. The punches that BJJ people throw are sloppy if you ask me. They are telegraphed, not as crisp and sharp as they could be, don't put their legs into their punches just use arm strength, etc. If I offended any grapplers out there I apologize. This is only an opinion and what I have observed.

[Shooter]

I think of Tai Chi as an "art," you think of it as a set of principles. I happen to disagree with you, but if you're working with THAT definition, then I can see how you can legitimately claim "it's all Tai Chi," because then the framework for application of those principles (which you seem to call Tai Chi) is irrelevant

The bottom line is that I donÕt define Tai Chi like that. Please don't speak for me in saying what i think it is or isn't. I have a level of understanding - ThatÕs it. I understand Tai Chi as being a martial system based on a set of ideas which are transcendent among all aspects of living and being. IME, making distinctions does nothing but define and impose limits. Everyone understands it on their own level. YouÕve outlined your understanding, and I respect that. IÕd suggest actually taking a year or more in some lessons first though. :)


the principle of "sensitivity," is found in many different styles--it doesn't "belong" to BJJ or Judo or any of that

In regard to Tai Chi, sensitivity isnÕt a principle - ItÕs an attribute.


Calling something Tai Chi doesn't make it so. Just because good principles cross boundaries, and you happen to understand and teach those principles in terms of Tai Chi doesn't make the distinct arts "all Tai Chi." UNLESS Tai Chi is the principles themselves and not a specific "art." ...I don't have to know squat about tai chi to make that statement.

I donÕt think you understand what I mean when I say ÒItÕs all Tai Chi.Ó Again, youÕre making distinctions based on what you think you know.


However, there is a certain fight strategy in BJJ, namely "position before submission," whereas catch wrestling tends to hit their holds from anywhere. These shape the way you learn and execute.


My point was that I would never tell you "oh hey, that's a boxer's hook, and that's where you got it from, end of story." The hook doesn't necessarily belong to boxing

These two statements underline what I say about transcendency...Tai ChiÕs shuai-chiao and chin-na can be applied from either a ÒBJJÓ or ÒCatchÓ approach. The same can be said for corn-grinding in regard to hitting, jamming, bridging, seizing, whatever. ItÕs all tactical movement on one level. But corn-grinding (and lots of other Chi Kung which is practiced in my school) goes much deeper than just tactical movement.

If IÕm delusional in my understanding of Tai Chi, then how much more delusional are you? :p

[chingei]

Originally posted by Fighter

Tyson is crazy, he has been in plenty of street fights in his life living in the Bronx. Also that takedown won't work against Tyson, he has tree trunks for legs.

If one could survive long enough to get in tactile range, Tyson would be taken down easily

('course if he hits you....sayonara)

[chingei]

Originally posted by Fighter

The last thing I want to say is I think people overrate groundfighting too much. I know from personal experience because I fought a grappler and he thought groundfighting is the answer to everything


you fought 'a grappler' and 'groundfighting' is overrated?

[Tigerstyle]

Besides all of the accusations of "trolls", I like this thread. There are some good points from lots o' people here :) .

"...but the real masters are historically unbeatable."
That's a pretty bold statement. Is there any solid information to back this up?

"All you need to do is master one style, and learn to adapt to others."

I like that approach. I also think plenty of "cross-trainers" and "MAists" train that way as well. The good ones, at least. ;)


"If a grappler had the same skills as a pro boxer(footwork,lateral movement,good defense, sit down on punches, etc.) combined that with his ground game, he would almost be unbeatable. But I haven't seen that in the UFC. The punches that BJJ people throw are sloppy if you ask me. They are telegraphed, not as crisp and sharp as they could be, don't put their legs into their punches just use arm strength, etc."

Fighter,
As for your first comment, I agree (I think many people agree as well). Pedro Rizzo is a Thai boxer with some BJJ (and Capoeira :) ) training and he does very well in MMA events. He even KOed his last opponent with a very nice "bread 'n' butter" jab/cross combo in the last UFC. Vitor Belfort is a BJJ black belt with some boxing background (I think he wants to box in the Olympics or something). He also has a good MMA record. There are plenty of others to note as well, Igor Vochanchin, Vanderlei Silva, Bas Rutten, etc..

Your second comment: I would say "many" BJJ people (or grapplers) throw sloppy punches in the UFC (or they barely punch at all). There are some BJJ guys with solid striking ability. BJ Penn, and again Vitor Belfort, for example. The recent trend in MMA, though, has been to address those weaknesses in your training to better prepare yourself. A couple of good examples are Mark Coleman and Randy Coture.

Coleman used to "hammer" on people like the Incredible Hulk, and would generally gas out if he kept punching people. Not too long ago, he put in lots of work to improve his striking ability and it shows. What he does now is take his opponent to the ground and punish them :eek: with his strikes from a dominant position.

Coture used to be an "arm puncher". IMHO, I thought he punched like a sissy (but I would never tell him that :o ). Recently, he trained with Maurice Smith to improve his striking ability and he has made vast improvement in his punching ability.


Merryprankster,
Don't worry about Shooter. Just let him float around in his "It's all Tai Chi" mysticism and grind corn all day (j/k of course, Shooter :p ).

[Tigerstyle]

I just wanted to say a couple more things.

"I think people overrate groundfighting too much. I know from personal experience because I fought a grappler and he thought groundfighting is the answer to everything."

Groundfighting advertised as being the "be all, end all" is way overrated, but I think it's also very underrated as far as what it can offer.

I think "groundfighting" is more than just takedowns/avoiding takedowns and submissions. Learning to fight on the ground includes how to position yourself to gain an advantage or decrease an opponent's advantage when you're on the ground. It also teaches you how to get back up when someone is trying to keep you down (very important).


Secondly, I agree Tyson is crazy, but I think a trained grappler would have a good chance against him. If they get past his punches, Tyson probably wouldn't bite on those gnarled cauliflower ears, because he doesn't seem like a guy that eats vegetables :p .

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Unmatchable
BTW the internal guy who challenged the Gracies I heard was Peter Ralston. A Tai Chi guy who has fought in full contact tournament in the last 40 years.

I call Boosheet on that one... Another of about a million urban "I beat the Gracies" myths.......

This guy never fought there. I was at the Gracie Academy for years and watched many challenge matches go down. The policy of the matches was that the winner of the match kept the video tape. If this guy (whom I never heard of in all the years I was there) beat any of the Gracies, he would have taken the tape with him and would be pretty famous.

[Fighter]

I put grappling in the same category as groundfighting. All I know the guy I fought tried to take me down to the ground, but he didn't. I fought my game plan and won. He wound up calling the cops on me and I went to jail for it. For the sake of arguement lets say any person who practices BJJ or CMA could almost beat any streetfighter. It seems to me this is turning into a p/issing contest. Any martial art is better than nothing, whether its BJJ, CMA, boxing, kickboxing, JKD, etc. They are all good compared to people streetfighting. I didn't try to offend anybody here alright. I just would like to see more BJJ people have a better stand up game. Tigerstyle even pointed out that many BJJ practioners don't know how to throw good punches. This is my last post in this thread. If you want to have the last word than so be it.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Fighter
All I know the guy I fought tried to take me down to the ground, but he didn't. I fought my game plan and won. He wound up calling the cops on me and I went to jail for it.

Sorry, gotta call Boosheet again. You had a mutual confrontation, he was trying to take you down, you were trying to stay away to keep him from getting you, and landed a couple of blows while doing so? You went to jail and nothing happened to him? You are either lying or you had the world's stupidest attorney.

[SifuAbel]

Even worse, It could have been the Public Defender. Thats like not having one at all.

[Fighter]

Obviously you don't me knifefighter. The guy lunged at me twice and when he got up from the second lunge, I nailed him with a one- two. Here in Florida just because you have a mutual confrontation doesn't mean nothing could happen to you. The guy got away with nothing because he never physically hit me. I'm the one who hit him, thus I was charged. In Florida they don't care if you agree on a fight, assault is still assault. The officer asked the guy if he wanted to press charges and he nodded his head yes. Because of that stupid incident I have a record now. Also I didn't have an attorney, I don't have the money to afford one, I just had a public defender and accepted a guilty plea. It seems to me you don't like to hear when a shooter gets beat. The state of Florida is hard on people especially when it comes to fighting. Here in Florida even if you hit a guy in self defense that guy could still press the same charges as you would. You're trying to stir up s/hit when you don't know anythng about the person. The one who you should call bulls/hit is on MA Fanatic, where he claimed he beat a PM master with a jumping spinning back kick to the ribs. Sounds like your a troll. This is my final post in this thread. Everything you say Knifefighter I could also say bulls/hit right? But I won't because I think people who say stuff on the internet should be truthful in what they say. You don't live in Florida, I do, therfore I know the law. I bet you also don't know if you use martial arts in self defense in California you could look at some prison time.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Fighter
The guy lunged at me twice and when he got up from the second lunge, I nailed him with a one- two. In Florida they don't care if you agree on a fight, assault is still assault.

The officer asked the guy if he wanted to press charges and he nodded his head yes.


Also I didn't have an attorney, I don't have the money to afford one, I just had a public defender and accepted a guilty plea.

Here in Florida even if you hit a guy in self defense that guy could still press the same charges as you would.



The point of the assault was exactly the one I was trying to make. The guy assaulted you by coming after you. If you nailed him as he was trying to take you down, you acted in self-defense.

The officer would have also asked you if you wanted to press charges.

By the way, public defenders are attorneys, something you would probably know if you had one defending you.

And yes, the guy could press charges, just as you could. That is why the officer would have also given you the option of filing charges against him.

Sorry, I just don't think your story adds up. I still think it's Boosheet, not because you might have nailed someone trying to shoot in on you (there are definitely some grapplers with crappy shots), but because the rest of your story sounds fishy.

[Merryprankster]

Tigerstyle--

I don't think Shooter is all about mysticism. He's quite clearly of the "fighting mindset," and I respect that.

The argument we are having, is in my mind, one clearly about semantics. My essential problem with it is that I'm trying to pin him down and he's attempting to make this "nebulous thing," out of it... a tautology, essentially.

And with that, Shooter, I offer this:

you wrote the following in response to a couple of things I pointed out:


These two statements underline what I say about transcendency...Tai ChiÕs shuai-chiao and chin-na can be applied from either a ÒBJJÓ or ÒCatchÓ approach. The same can be said for corn-grinding in regard to hitting, jamming, bridging, seizing, whatever. ItÕs all tactical movement on one level. But corn-grinding (and lots of other Chi Kung which is practiced in my school) goes much deeper than just tactical movement.

The bold stuff is EXACTLY my point. I more or less said the following:

IF tai chi is a set of principles then they can be applied in any framework. The tactical level stuff might vary depending on the framework, but the principles remain. THEN you can claim "it's all tai chi," because you're defining tai chi as a set of universal principals that apply across frameworks.

OR

IF tai chi is an ART with a specific combat strategy behind it, accompanied by a set of techniques designed to nullify other combat strategies and impliment its own, then it can't "all be tai chi."

What you have said above indicates that you are in the first camp; namely that tai chi transcends stylistic considerations and framework boundaries because it's not an "art," its a set of combat principles with different applications/responses depending on the framework/situation.

That's what I'm trying to nail down. Is it an art, or a "transcendent," (what an ARROGANT word) set of principles?

[dre]

Originally posted by Knifefighter


I call Boosheet on that one... Another of about a million urban "I beat the Gracies" myths.......


So anyone who bests a Gracie is Mythical? Hero worship, much?

MA Fanatic : "MA Fanatic, where he claimed he beat a PM master with a jumping spinning back kick to the ribs."

Ether you're a faker or the "master" was, ether in entirely possible, we have a bunch of fakers in our particular lineage. Who was the master?

"but the real masters are historically unbeatable"

No one is unbeatable.

Fighter : "I put grappling in the same category as groundfighting"

It's not, really, I can grapple, but I can't really groundfight well. It would be more fair to say CMA is Standing, (mostly) while others are ground.

"It seems to me this is turning into a p/issing contest. Any martial art is better than nothing, whether its BJJ, CMA, boxing, kickboxing, JKD, etc. They are all good compared to people streetfighting."

I can agree with that. Something is better than nothing.

"I just would like to see more BJJ people have a better stand up game."

Yeah, whats the use if you get punched in the face before you get a chance to grapple.

[Unmatchable]

by the way, interesting quote I read recently:

"Mas Oyama had no problem with grapplers, and was known to do a bit himself, but he "had his eyes opened" by a Taiji player in Hong Kong who soundly defeated him (the only fight he admits to losing). The old Yang players had extremely strong short power, so an attempt at grappling wouldn't be the wisest thing. Also the Gracies have been known to choose rules that favor them, and when they lose they have on occasion chosen to jump the victor on the street. Walid Ismael was jumped by two of them after defeating one of the brothers in a jiu jitsu match, and he landed unanswered elbows on the faces of both of them... witnesses report he was the victor on the street as well as in the ring."

[Merryprankster]

Mas Oyama had no problem with grapplers and did a little himself eh? Well, that might be why he had no problem with grapplers :)

dre--

I don't think anybody here believes that BJJ or the Gracies are the end all be all. You know, it's funny. Most of the MMA types are not Gracie jock-riders...but everybody seems to think they are--in much the same way that many MMA'ers think that all "traditional," martial artists never actually get together and hit each other.

Most MMA types look at the Gracies simply as people with a strong history of competitive fighting who managed to do some pretty cool things. There's certainly not a lot of hero worship about them. For instance, Rorion Gracie is frequently derided for the Torrance Academy's "pure water," argument--that the ****her you get from the source (that being Helio Gracie and Rorion Gracie and TA's association of instructors) the "muddier the water," ie, the worse the jiujitsu is. The status of Rickson's fighting abilities is constantly debated, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no "reverence," for the Gracies...what they did and do is pretty neat, but they're just people, all the same.

Anyway, knife's point is that you don't accept unsubtantiated claims like that. Maybe the person in question "beat a Gracie." But I'd require some proof. A newspaper clipping, a video tape, etc. Hearsay from an e-mail without verification or a letter from an interested party passed down in some way doesn't cut it.

[MA fanatic]

I think people are misunderstanding my posts. I, along with many bjj practitioners, do not believe that ground grappling is the answer to all street fights, and NHB fights. As a matter of fact, I would estimate that more groundfighters cross train in standup than standup fighters cross train in groundfighting. Ground grappling is one demention of fighting. That is it.

NOW AS FOR MY POSTS: The thread was designed to offer Kung Fu's answers to ground grapplers. I say, that in order to defeat ground grapplers, one should actually go up against ground grapplers. ONe should learn from them and the science behind their techniques. Simple handy dandy tricks and moves taught in CMA schools will most likely fail. There is nothing wrong with cross training. One must often go beyond his or her main art to find answers, because no art has them all.

MA fanatic

[dre]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
dre--

I don't think anybody here believes that BJJ or the Gracies are the end all be all. You know, it's funny. Most of the MMA types are not Gracie jock-riders...but everybody seems to think they are--in much the same way that many MMA'ers think that all "traditional," martial artists never actually get together and hit each other.

Most MMA types look at the Gracies simply as people with a strong history of competitive fighting who managed to do some pretty cool things. There's certainly not a lot of hero worship about them. For instance, Rorion Gracie is frequently derided for the Torrance Academy's "pure water," argument--that the ****her you get from the source (that being Helio Gracie and Rorion Gracie and TA's association of instructors) the "muddier the water," ie, the worse the jiujitsu is. The status of Rickson's fighting abilities is constantly debated, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no "reverence," for the Gracies...what they did and do is pretty neat, but they're just people, all the same.

Anyway, knife's point is that you don't accept unsubtantiated claims like that. Maybe the person in question "beat a Gracie." But I'd require some proof. A newspaper clipping, a video tape, etc. Hearsay from an e-mail without verification or a letter from an interested party passed down in some way doesn't cut it.

No, it dosen't but I don't think it's unlikey that it's untrue. Why is it that the Gracies always get the benefit of the doubt? Kimura soundly beat Helio , but I still hear it argued (byt BJJ'ers in my area) that he was the loser. So even if you actually WIN you will still be called a LOSER by some revisionists.

I don't think it's the Gracies in particular, but it's just that people @ the top tend to say @ the top , perpetuating their own myth.
Becides, I bet there are plently of Gracie defeats, I mean, how many people are in that family? Thye can't all be perfect fighters. They all can't even be GOOD fighters. Not everyone is made for it.

The Bjj'ers here (although not CJJ) are total **** sukas for the Gracies ,one of them goes down to Brazil regularly , I think he goes to Bahia. . .

[Merryprankster]

They get the benefit of the doubt because most have them have shown, one way or another, that they are capable fighters. The fights are documented--you can see them on video, you can find old newspaper clippings, etc. In other words, past history indicates that "kicking a Gracie's ass," isn't the simplest thing in the world, and therefore more unlikely than, say, seeing Mickey Mouse at Disney World. Even Rorion, who is not well known for his skill as a fighter, has knocked around a bit.

Could a random guy on the street have beat a Gracie? Sure.
Is it LIKELY? I personally don't think so. If somebody said they kicked Tyson's ass, wouldn't it immediately raise questions of legitimacy?
DID it happen? I don't have the answer to that, hence the need for some proof.

"The Gracies" have certainly lost though, that much is true. As for the "victory for Helio," that's just stupid. He got his butt kicked by Kimura, and badly. But, considering the weight differential, and the fact that Kimura was probably judo personified, Helio did well, and Kimura praised him for fighting spirit. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Helio lost.

As far as training with the Gracies, and going to Brazil, I wouldn't necessarily call that being a **** sucka. If you were a WC guy and had the opportunity to train with Yip Man, wouldn't you? I realize he's not around, but you catch my drift....

And I think you mean he trains at a Gracie-Barra school. That team is bad-ass and produces top competitors, so I can't say I blame him.

As far as whether or not all the Gracies are good fighters, it's clear that some are better than others... but I can't think of any off the top of my head that aren't at least well-skilled. And that is probably knife's "boosheet," call.

But again, that doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Shooter]

Merryprankster, you're outlining different sets of criteria and then asking me to choose between them. Your fixation on "this" or "that" isn't in accord with what I understand. I won't define Tai Chi on your terms. I've already explained it to you in my last post.

If it's nebulous, it's because you have no clue. How could you be expected to? How long have you studied Tai Chi? Have you ever practiced Chi kung in My school?

The burden of proof isn't on me when I say it's all Tai Chi. You don't even know what I'm talking about. Funny how most every Tai Chi player I've ever talked to does. not just funny, absurd even... :p

[dre]

MP - My point is that it's not impossable. They aren't unbeatable gods ,but human. And anyone can be KO'ed.

Hero Worship = EVIL!

"As far as training with the Gracies, and going to Brazil, I wouldn't necessarily call that being a **** sucka. If you were a WC guy and had the opportunity to train with Yip Man, wouldn't you? I realize he's not around, but you catch my drift....

And I think you mean he trains at a Gracie-Barra school. That team is bad-ass and produces top competitors, so I can't say I blame him. "

I don't know if he ever trained with any of them , but I know he goes to Brazil. By Bahia, I mean the Brazilian City of , Bahia, I think that's where he goes. He also has the Brazilians come up to NY , but I don't know anything further. (I know some of his fam).

If I had a chance to go study with some authority in a big style I would (probably no matter the style). Be it Tai Chi or MT , if the teacher is agood effective one, he'll teach Good, effective fighting.**

** Side note, theres an actual Water Boxing Grandmaster who teaches in Chicago I hear. . .

[Unmatchable]

Wai Lun Choi's Chinese Internal Arts
2054 West Irving Park Chicago, Ill 60618
773-472-3331
773-472-6031 fax
You can also view the lineage holder certificate from Chen Yik Yan to Wai Lun Choi at http://www.standingpost.com/choibio.html

Wai Lun Choi claims to be the lineage holder for the entire style, but I dont know enough about it to know for shure. There are a number of teachers in the states . There is a teacher in San Francisco, but he does not advertise, so he only has a small number of students. Both individuals learned in Nanking, from what I understand, so there may be some relation between the two. I have never inquired with either one.

There is also one very good teacher in Maryland/DC, but he is very selective about his students. And finally there was also a school in Chinatown NY for a number of years which was "closed door" (i.e. by referral only, no caucasians).

[Merryprankster]

Essentially, the conversation boils down to this:

I claim that "it's all tai chi," seems pretty silly to me. I outline why I think it's silly (exposition).

You claim it's all tai chi--but provide no definition of tai chi... or even a definition of YOUR understanding of it.

In response, I ask how what you say is true.

You tell me that it is because it is what it is repeatedly (lack of exposition).

That:

1) Places the burden of proof on you.
2) Is a tautological argument

In a nutshell, I'm asking you "How is this all tai chi?" And I keep getting the same response: "It just is."

It's like saying we know God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is right because it's the word of God.

Heck I'll even plug the words in for you:

It's all Tai Chi because Tai Chi transcends "style" and it transcends "style" because it's all Tai Chi.

So let me try again by both narrowing the scope of the question and increasing the freedom of your response.

What is your personal understanding of Tai Chi that leads you to believe "it's all Tai Chi." My... aren't WE the subjectivist today...:rolleyes:

[Shooter]

I don't believe in "styles" beyond the individual.

I've never said; "It just is"

How long have you studied Tai Chi? Have you ever done Chi Kung in my school?

[Merryprankster]

Nope, you're right... you never said "It just is." That's a boiled down version of the responses I'm getting--just like the following, which I'll repeat in yet another way:

You: "It's all tai chi."
Me: "Why?"
You: "Because."

I was using "style" in it's common usage substitute art or system or framework if that matches up to your thinking. For a man who dislikes definitions, you sure mince words!

To answer your questions:

1. About 7 years--it's all tai chi, remember?

2. I've never done Chi Kung at your school. Don't change the subject. This isn't about me doing Chi Kung at your school. This is about you answering the question.

So answer the question posted previously--which I have phrased in a subjectivist manner so that it allows you to answer in any way you wish--instead of begging it.

[Shooter]

1. About 7 years--it's all tai chi, remember?

It's only "all Tai Chi" if you understand the ideas, so I'll take that as a no.


2. I've never done Chi Kung at your school. Don't change the subject. This isn't about me doing Chi Kung at your school. This is about you answering the question.

Changing the subject? That is the subject. If you had done Chi kung in my school, you wouldn't be having this dilemma.

I'll continue to state what I know. I know what you know. You obviously don't know what I know. I think that gives me a clear advantage over you in keeping with the topic of this thread. :)

Why don't you start a thread asking the forum what you're asking me? You might get the answers you're looking for.

[Merryprankster]

Yep, pretty much what I figured you'd answer.

It's all CMA... sheesh, just like every person in the fight game is using "BJJ," regardless of where they learned ground tactics, according to Helio Gracie...so every win is a win for BJJ!

You know what this is? It's questioner vs true believer. Same **** thing:

"That's the way it is."
"Oh really? Why? What makes you say that? How did your understanding come to be that way?"
"Well, if you learned what I knew, and did the same things I did, you wouldn't be asking that question, it wouldn't even be a problem."
"Gee, that was particularly uninformative. Glad I asked."
"Well, it can't be expected to make sense to the unenlightened...if you only KNEW..."
"Ah yes, funny that... Well, cheers."

Again to emphasize--I have no doubt that you and your students have clear martial ability--and I have no problem with Tai Chi... I directed one of my best friends to EBM Kung Fu Academy in Oakland because it was clearly the best place within striking distance for her. It's run by Brent Hanby and Adam Caldwell--no strangers to fighting, they have one of the better San Shou teams in the nation, to my understanding--and they have her on a steady diet of Tai Chi.

I imagine she is currently on the path to ascension as we speak.

[MA fanatic]

I recently had the chance to take a few seminars from a guy who trains at the Gracie Bara School in Brazil. You're right, those guys are bad asses.

As for Gracies being worshiped by MMA, NHB, and or other grapplers, that is not true. Perhaps some of you live in areas where little bjj clubs sprouted with some young highschool age guys who claim to be the best. Listen, I trained at the Gracie academy, and encountered the most mild mannered humble people I have ever met. The only difference is, that training in BJJ is very competitive. People are urged to test their skills against other students and other schools. Training encompases self defense, grappling and Vale Tudo type fighting. As for Gracies being all good. Well, here is a simple answer. Most start martial arts training at a very early age, and practice 6 - 7 days a week, for several hours a day. Wouldn't you be good? It is their bread and butter. Their names and business depends on staying on top of the competition. Have they lost? Sure. They have lost in NHB and in Sport JJ, and in Grappling competition No Gi rules. Most just take their loss as a loss, and go back to training. Take Renzo, he had his arm broken by Sakuraba, and publically announced to an audience of 10,000 that Sakuraba was the better fighter. Yet, Renzo continues to fight, sometimes win, and sometimes lose, but always trains. I think the Gracies should not be worshiped, but should be an example to other martial arts masters. They test their skills against other styles and schools. They also test their skills against masters of their own art. They are also open to challenge matches, and openly grapple with anyone at the end of each seminar. They don't tell tall tales of linneages, historical mythical masters, etc. etc. They tell you their name, and register to fight. Do they lose? Sure some do. But that is not the point.
MA fanatic

[Merryprankster]

...And, while I'm thinking about it...


You say it's all tai chi.

I said in a previous post that if you choose to understand all this in tai chi terms, that's great. But that doesn't make everything tai chi.

But you still insist it's all tai chi.

SO,

Is it all tai chi, regardless of my personal perceptions? IE, an objective reality?

Or is all tai chi, if my personal perceptions make it so? IE, a subjective perception.

See, the problem is that if "it's all tai chi" is an objective reality, then that property is independent of my understanding of Tai Chi.

However, you have now claimed that it's only "all tai chi" if I understand the tai chi ideas behind it, and interpret things via tai chi ideas.

So, which is it?

Am I doing tai chi but I don't recognize it?
Or am I only doing tai chi if I've practiced tai chi before?

[Archangel]

"It's only "all Tai Chi" if you understand the ideas, so I'll take that as a no."

Shooter, what are some of the ideas you are referring to.

[fightfan]

MA fanatic, very well put!

[dre]

Originally posted by Unmatchable
Wai Lun Choi's Chinese Internal Arts
2054 West Irving Park Chicago, Ill 60618
773-472-3331
773-472-6031 fax
You can also view the lineage holder certificate from Chen Yik Yan to Wai Lun Choi at http://www.standingpost.com/choibio.html

Wai Lun Choi claims to be the lineage holder for the entire style, but I dont know enough about it to know for shure. There are a number of teachers in the states . There is a teacher in San Francisco, but he does not advertise, so he only has a small number of students. Both individuals learned in Nanking, from what I understand, so there may be some relation between the two. I have never inquired with either one.

There is also one very good teacher in Maryland/DC, but he is very selective about his students. And finally there was also a school in Chinatown NY for a number of years which was "closed door" (i.e. by referral only, no caucasians).

Yeah, I go to a closed door myself, ther're a pretty good breed of school ,.and they aren't particular to CMA anyway. This whole water boxer myth seems to be a pretty strange "living legend" a whole style almost dying out. . .

[Shooter]

Archangel, mopping a floor, planing a door, not falling on a patch of ice, is all Tai Chi. Two people carrying a large freezer up a flight of stairs, or operating a two-man saw is Tai Chi.

Ward-off and Roll-back is the main movement of mopping a floor. Press and Roll-back is the main movement of planing a door - These examples don't just apply to structure and posture, but more importantly, to energy. If, in planing a door, the person pushes too hard, the plane-iron bites too deeply and the plane binds. With the right amount of pressure, the work is almost effortless (equilibrium). A different eqilibrium applies to two people carrying a freezer or sawing wood. One pulls while the other pushes - Yin and yang working from a central axis...balance, harmony, relaxation, listening, changing, adapting, accepting, yielding, redirecting, sticking, following,...

Tai Chi Chuan's methodologies of organizing and managing its movement, structure, and energy management principles along the lines of these ideas are what make it all Tai Chi. The process and synergy of that organization is what makes Tai Chi distinct among other IMAs on one level. On another level, Tai Chi begins to transcend distinction and becomes universal.

In a broader sense, nature is Tai Chi. The practice of what is called "Tai Chi Chuan" is a method of establishing one's role as a complimentary, interactive component of their natural environment - The human aspect of living, being, fighting, whatever...

So, it's not as simple as labeling things "this" or "that" - "either" "or."


Merryprankster, I can only read your comment to Tigerstyle as meaning that you plan to Òpin me downÓ instead of actually trying to understand whatÕs being written. WeÕve moved from you trying to first define Tai Chi for me and expecting me to make a choice between your two narrow, uninformed views.....to now, where you are trying to make me draw distinctions between things which are actually both and the same from a ÒTai Chi perspective.Ó

Are you just not able to comprehend (accept?) the fact that Tai Chi players see their natural world as being all Tai Chi?

How arrogant of you to think that youÕre going to undo the most fundamental aspect of Tai Chi ChuanÕs martial premise by Òpinning me down.Ó

[Dragon Warrior]

The best way to avoid being taken to the ground, is to train with fighters who specialize in taking you to the ground. In fact, the best way to learn how to defend against takedowns is to master them yourself. Same goes with grappling. If you dont want to grapple in a fight, you should learn how to grapple, then when you get taken down you know how to escape and get out of that situation.

I am a kung fu practitioner and i still practice groundfighting and takedowns. i dont see why a kung fu stylist is labeled as not doing so. Not only do i practice my grappling, but i roll on the mat with bjj guys as much as possible, does that mean i dont train kung fu. I just want to make sure i can defend myself against bjj stylist in their game. I suggest anyone who is serious about fighting do the same thing.

Also, whoever said that a sidekick to the knee is ineffective has no clue about what they're talking about. A sidekick to the knee is a quick and effective way to win a fight. It may be harder to land on a trained fighter than a roundhouse kick to the thigh, but that doesnt mean that it is ineffective, ecspecially in the street. If Sakuraba can land spinning back kicks in the NHB, then it isnt to hard to land a sidekick to the knee.

[Shooter]

Dragon Warrior, I agree...

Our Tai Chi Fast Wrestling is as involved as any grappling system.

I recently saw a NHB fight between an 18 y/o first-year Tai Chi kid and a 28 y/o Team Quest fighter who had at least 10 years of wrestling and was a decent striker. The Team Quest guy couldn't take the Tai Chi guy down once in a 10 minute match. It was a good example of how Tai Chi focuses on not thinking...just maintaining a relaxed mind and applying the training from moment to moment.

The Tai guy's advantage was his understanding of everything that the Team Quest guy was trying to do. But the Team Quest fighter didn't understand Tai Chi's positional strategies of ring-control and how they work in conjunction with the 5 Steps and 8 Gates. Those things, coupled with the Tai Chi guy's "mystical corn-grinding" were enough to win him a decision. Go figure, eh Tigerstyle?

If I ever get some footage, I might post clips so Water Dragon can critique his performance.

[joedoe]

That is just wrong. :mad:

[fightfan]

Nice knowing ya Zapf..... well not really!:mad:
If thats not a bannable offense I dont know what is...

[Merryprankster]

Shooter--I was trying to pin down what in the sam hell you actually meant when you say "it's all tai chi." I'm not trying to back you into a corner, but when people don't actually provide an answer with any real meaning or insight into what it is they are talking about, then I keep at it till I finally get something.

You have a great propensity for talking around an issue rather than getting to the heart of it. However, you finally actually did it. I don't know why it took you so long.

You said it--finally:



Are you just not able to comprehend (accept?) the fact that Tai Chi players see their natural world as being all Tai Chi?

How arrogant of you to think that youÕre going to undo the most fundamental aspect of Tai Chi ChuanÕs martial premise by Òpinning me down

This, (FINALLY!) is your understanding of tai chi. Great! Everything you have ever written in this thread is logically consistent if you start from this assumption, including your incredible annoyance with me, a person, who absolutely insists on understanding the underlying premise behind somebody's train of thought before going anywhere with it.

Two Questions for you, and I come by them honestly:

1st--You said that Tai Chi players see the entire natural world as Tai Chi. Are people who are NOT Tai Chi players somehow missing the boat, or are they just seeing things differently?

2nd--If a Tai Chi player happens not to see the entire natural world as Tai Chi, are they missing the boat, or are they just seeing things differently?

It should be clear by now that I happen not to agree with you, but at least I finally 'get' (however unworthy, uneducated, and incomplete my pathetic understanding might happen to be, I beg your humble pardon) your point of view.

Oh, I know I won't really understand until I spend some time learning Tai Chi, and then, perhaps, the enormous impact of what you say will ring it's chord of ultimate truth, and I shall be enlighted. Then again, neither the Bible, the Koran, nor any of the cult literature I've been exposed to has had that effect, so I'm probably just screwed. Perhaps, if I get transfered to San Fransisco and have a chance to train with my friend in Oakland, I will be able to report back to you that it is, in fact, all Tai Chi.

Now I would like to say one thing: you're right--it would be arrogant of me to think that I could undo Tai Chi. Tai Chi is far bigger than me or this discussion (argument?). Fortunately, I was only trying to make some sense out of what YOU think Tai Chi is rather than attempt to dismantle a system. In case you somehow think that I was being willfully obtuse, note that Archangel had a similar question, so I don't think it was improper of me to keep asking, even if I did, as one of my previous bosses once liked to say "keep slamming my d!ck in the drawer."

As far as the delivery, I'm sorry you didn't like it. I often find people get frustrated when I insist on an actual answer.

Finally--congratulations on the success of your Tai Chi Fast Wrestling program. Tai Chi players should be thanking schools like yours for showing what Tai Chi CAN be if properly understood and applied.

BTW, if the "mystical corn-grinding," was a dig at me, then you've certainly misdirected the comment. As I recall, I never even hinted at anything of the sort.

[David Jamieson]

zd- please refrain from doing that again.

As for the topic...

What advantages does Kung Fu have over grappling.
The question asks what techniques are available and trained in the Kung fu fighter's arsenal that will deal with a rush /grab/ push takedown followed by a mount and strike.

I have noticed that a few of those fighters who prefer the ground because of their knowledge of the angles there have no great preference for getting to the ground. They are persistent in their pursuit to get inside and get a hold of you where they have all the leverage to go down.

Striking is used to get to the position inside, but not typically used by the groundfighter once inside, or at least not until they hold the dominant position.

When on the ground, the groundfighter, depending on level of ability and knowledge, will have been trained in various positions of attack, angles, leverage, etc. Otherwise known as techniques.

The Kung Fu fighter has generally learned a style or two of chinese boxing methods, kicking, joint locking, releases, etc.
Truthfully, in chinese martial arts overall there is not a lot of time spent in various clinches on the ground. The Kung fu fighter seeks to avoid being taken to the ground.

If a Kung Fu fighter wants to compete in events that are considered the popular standard of what full contact martial arts are then they will need to adapt to the rules and environment of that venue. They will need to add to what they are doing.

Not surprisingly, this can be done with further exploration of chinese martial arts. The keys to groundfighting may not be in the particular style you practice, even though they are included in the larger embodiment of a Kung fu styles as a whole.

In sport is is advised to study your opponent to learn his style. This is more than true of those that seriously compete. Watch, then train to avoid or defeat your opponents strongest techniques. Ahhhh, the wonders of videotape.

anyway...blah blah blah

peace

[JusticeZero]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Shooter--I was trying to pin down what in the sam hell you actually meant when you say "it's all tai chi." I'm not trying to back you into a corner, but when people don't actually provide an answer with any real meaning or insight into what it is they are talking about, then I keep at it till I finally get something....
...Two Questions for you, and I come by them honestly:

1st--You said that Tai Chi players see the entire natural world as Tai Chi. Are people who are NOT Tai Chi players somehow missing the boat, or are they just seeing things differently?
I see a lot of Capoeira in the natural world nowadays, myself. More than I did a month ago, certainly. I would presume an Aikidoka would see a lot of the world in Aikido-colored terms.

What do you practice? Does it have greater and more overarching principles that you can look at in nature? I think this is a property of the more philosophical and esoteric arts. Since the techniques are more closely based on principles, one has to learn how to see attacks in more abstract terms, I would think - at least, that's how I start to feel when i'm actually doing well. There are several layers that I have yet to uncover in the heat of action, though. Still, when one has trained oneself to see attacks and counters in philosophical principles, one can see attacks and defenses in other abstract places.

[Shooter]

JusticeZero, very well put. Nice quote, BTW.


Merryprankster, thatÕs hilarious. Thanks for the kind words though.

My propensity to beat around the bush is intentional and important in communicating the scope of this topic. I have no personal stake in it.

It doesnÕt matter what I think Tai Chi is. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with me or what I understand. Tai Chi is what it is.

As for your other questions;

No offense, but youÕre either a troll cloaked in ignorance, or an idiot cloaked in arrogance. DoesnÕt matter to me one way or the other. ItÕs cool. Which ever you are, youÕre not an annoyance - YouÕre an opportunity to explode some common myths and misconceptions. Thanks for playing. :)

[Merryprankster]

No offense, but youÕre either a troll cloaked in ignorance, or an idiot cloaked in arrogance. DoesnÕt matter to me one way or the other. ItÕs cool. Which ever you are, youÕre not an annoyance - YouÕre an opportunity to explode some common myths and misconceptions. Thanks for playing.

Or, alternately, I'm somebody who simply disagrees with you, but at least I finally can understand, conceptually, why you think the way you do.

As far as the arrogance goes--"it's all tai chi," is pretty arrogant, especially when people who've never dealt with it or heard of it have worked hard to perfect arts! It could have been solved rather simply if you'd just explained your point of view in the beginning rather than make me try and drag it out of you. What would you say if I said "It's all BJJ?"

My point is that if you see the world in Tai Chi terms, then I'm glad it works for you and your students. But if you hold it to be a "truth," rather than an "understanding," then you're working off a definition that I find indefensible, and therefore, unpalatable.

As far as exploding myths, conceptually, I don't think you've done a **** thing. You've managed to muddy the waters a bit and call somebody whose opinion you don't think much of an idiot. Hardly much of an accomplishment. Your real work is being done by creating competant fighters who can spread the good news.

Where is your school? Disagreements, trolls, and idiots aside, if I'm ever in the area, it's clear you've got good things to teach.


Justice--I don't "see BJJ in the world." You are absolutely right, however, that we all have different colored glasses. I'm sure that the lack of philosophy and esoterism somehow makes the boxing, wrestling, and BJJ I do inferior, and probably somehow reduces my "understanding," of life, the universe and everything, but I don't associate the martial arts with everyday things, and certainly not with natural philosophy (classical meaning). My understanding of combat principles and movement is, of course, shaped by the things that I do, but I would never go as far as describing door opening in BJJ terms.

Heck, I find such concepts as "warrior spirit," or "way of the warrior," or "leading a martial life," to be anathematic, so the possibility of me drawing analogies between martial arts and everday existence is slim. Martial Arts is something I do, not a way in which to define/explain myself or the world around me.

Also--side note--"tai chi 'is what it is...'" remember that bit about tautological arguments....

[gfhegel21]

I just want to hear more about this tai chi guy, with one years' experience, that schooled, supposedly, somebody from Team Quest with >10 years experience.

Oh, and also, I'd like to hear more from you, kung lek about grappling. You seem to have a good understanding of it, but also seem to hint that knowing grappling is only relevant for "sport" applications such as MMA.

Do you mean to imply this? In other words, do you think that if you don't compete in MMA, but want to be a complete fighter, it is unnecessary to train in standup and ground grappling?

[Archangel]

First off, you are a pontificating little twit; Merry Prankster is too nice of a guy to say it, luckily I'm not. With your avoidance of any direct questions it's obvious that you're either grandstanding or talking out of your ass.

What you call "Tai Chi" is in actuallity basic physics, principles of dynamics and motion. Tai Chi Chuan masters were not the first to discover them or learn to utilize them. Wrestling contains these principles as well:

****zer, lateral drop - redirection of force

Over under hold - equilibrium

So in fact you are incorrect in saying that it is all Tai Chi, If you said that it's all physics than I'd have to agree.

[Shooter]

What would you say if I said "It's all BJJ?"

I'd respect that...Kano's Judo is very similar to Tai Chi. His lecture, "The Contribution of Judo To Education," points to a philosophical view which closely corresponds with that of Tai Chi.

BJJ hasn't fallen that far from the tree. If anything, I'd say it's evolving more toward Judo's original model all the time. So, it's not unthinkable for a serious studentof Judo and/or BJJ to model their lifestyle around the ideas and principles they put to practical use in the dojo. That comes full-circle to what Kano believed Judo would impart to its players.


But if you hold it to be a "truth," rather than an "understanding," then you're working off a definition that I find indefensible

Indefensible? You sure about that?

[Merryprankster]

Yup.

But you have to understand--it's because I disagree with the first premise, which appears to be "the natural world is tai chi," so any argument with that as its postulate is going to fall flat for me.

If it's a personal understanding ie "the natural world can be understood through tai chi," then I can agree with that statement, because, hey, if it works for you, run with it.

In other words "truth," vs "understanding."

Like I said shooter---I don't have a problem if it's all subjectively tai chi. I have a great issue with it being an objective reality because that really IS arrogant, just as if I were to say, "Everything everybody does is BJJ, it's just that they don't really understand that yet."

[Shooter]

Merryprankster, fair enough.

Your persistence in "choice-1 or choice-2" are what compelled me to read these as trolling-idiocy. :) It's not about "this or that."

It's all Tai Chi...

[Merryprankster]

I'm fully aware of the "fallacy of the dilemma."

That's why, once I got an inkling of the issue, I immediately shifted into trying to find out what you were talking about (objective vs subjective) so in a way, it's still this or that, but once it goes subjectively, the door is open for more than yes or no.

I'll agree it's all tai chi if you are talking about a subjective way of understanding things vice an objective reality :)

[Black Jack]

Is it just me or has MerryPrankster got this new super-duper calm zen thing about him of late?

I wish I had some of those pills, maybe it would quell some of the irish in my blood, that or maybe the guy just gets laid alot:D

Peace

[beautifulvaley]

JF hegel21 so WHat you want to know I'm the 18y/o

The fight went the distance and lots of blood was spilled[ I have a towel at home with my trophy smeared with his blood ] none of it mine. i ate some knees within the fight but that was all. I took him down at the begining of the match and controlled, stood back up ........................... I was never taken down............ I also landed some sweet elbows to his back in the sprawled position. My grinding corn came into play every time he came into shoot [ hook hook} At the end of round one i almost threw him out of the ring . I'm not good at explaining but I can answer your questions

oh yeah it was Jeremiah Cram fighting Jason Sagal

[Merryprankster]

What event was it?

Is there a website?

[beautifulvaley]

road house rumble

www.mixedmartialarts.ca

[Merryprankster]

Last Question, I promise :)

Do you know specific school he trained out of, and do they have a website?

And congrats on your win, BTW :)

[beautifulvaley]

Team Quest [nowebsite that I'm aware of]



[inside joke

Hi I'm Jeremiah Cram

I'm Jason Sagal I train with Randy Coutour

Narf Narf]

will not explain

[Shooter]

Portland, Oregon

[beautifulvaley]

oops I forgot to say that Tai Chi kicks ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

to get pumped up for fighting I listen to flutes and eagles

[Merryprankster]

Wow. If he said that, he deserved a beating. What a schmo. As if who you train with means you'll necessarily do well.

Also, they have his training listed as "kickboxing," but he was a wrestler? Confused... of course, minor events are known for screwing things like that up :)

[beautifulvaley]

yeah he's a grappler check out his ears man, there not made out of broccli dude

not sayin he's the only one with them

Narf Narf

[scotty1]

"My propensity to beat around the bush is intentional and important in communicating the scope of this topic. I have no personal stake in it.

It doesnÕt matter what I think Tai Chi is. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with me or what I understand. Tai Chi is what it is. "

Man you have the most irritating writing style I've read for a little while. You'd make a good politician.

Congrats to you both on your win though. Thats a cool website, like the videos.

[gfhegel21]

Agree with merryprankster, Jeremiah, congrats on the win! You did something that everyone should respect.

I apologize for my skepticism; I'm sure you can understand, it's not everyday somebody from tai chi does well in a mma event, even an amateur one.

Will you be fighting again soon? Could you explain how you applied tai chi concepts and techniques? (I don't know what "grinding corn" is).

Congrats again!

[apoweyn]

shooter,

"It doesn't matter what I think Tai Chi is. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with me or what I understand. Tai Chi is what it is."


nonsense. unless you're suggesting omniscience, you can only train according to YOUR UNDERSTANDING of taiji. and if you see everything as taiji, then by definition, we're discussing your perceptions.

taiji is either 1) an eternal ideal that somehow exists independently of the imperfect manifestations of it or 2) only as real as the performance of it by its various players.

either way, merryprankster is not having a discussion with taiji. he's having one with you. if you claim that your perceptions and understanding of taiji represent the fact that 'taiji is what it is', then presumably every other taiji player will manifest the same answers. and there will be no dissention in the taiji community. is this the case?

otherwise, the suggestion is that you, of all taiji players, are the mouthpiece for what taiji truly is.

if neither of these are true, then clearly we are dealing with your interpretation, opinion, and understanding of what taiji is. and merryprankster's line of questioning becomes perfectly valid.

---

now, here's my problem with statements like 'it's all taiji': it's a shortcut. and while it might hold much meaning for you, it shows either an unwillingness or an inability to convey that meaning to others.

perhaps the world is based on principles that can be described in various ways ('it's all taiji', 'it's all physics', it's all capoeira'). but if we're trying to understand something, or help someone else to understand something, we're better served (in my opinion) by breaking something down to it's component parts and putting it back together. that's impossible to do if we take cognitive shortcuts like 'it's all taiji.' we find a buzzword that saves us the trouble of reasoning things out. and i think that's a mistake. particularly when someone is specifically asking you to break it down further than that.

if you want to express it to yourself that way, then fine. but if someone asks you to do more, don't call him a fool for doing so. his attempt to understand is simply more earnest than your attempt to help him do so.

what if i described my world view as being 'all adharma.' and you said, 'what's adharma?' or even 'what do YOU mean by adharma', and i said 'it doesn't matter what i mean; adharma is what it is.'

that's daft. of course it matters what i mean by adharma. regardless of what it truly is, if i'm the one expressing it, and i'm taken to be an imperfect example of 'the big idea', then my expression is also imperfect and therefore a candidate for further analysis and testing.

unless of course, i'm stupid, arrogant, or some cunning combination of the two.

:rolleyes:


stuart b.

[scotty1]

Ap and Merry, philosophical tag team extraordinaire!!

[apoweyn]

either that, or we're the same person. check the IP addresses.

:D

[beautifulvaley]

there is no technique in tai chi that I'm aware of. grinding corn is just grinding corn. ie making corn flour
The way I applied tai chi [not wanting to use the word applied by the way] was not thinking just doing. Yes I am fighting soon Ucc 9

can't you see It's all tai chi

Narf NArf

[Shooter]

If a tree falls....

The objective reality is, a falling tree makes a sound (waves passing through the air) regardless of whether you hear it or not. If I heard the tree fall, and you didnÕt, does the same reality exist for both of us? You can deny or accept my claim, but it had nothing to do with me. It just was. Of course, in this case, youÕd be careful because your own experience is that things make sounds when they fall over. There's no reason for the same caution to be taken in questioning my claim that it's all Tai Chi, but that doesn't change the objective reality. It has nothing to do with me. It just is.

[Braden]

The tree-falling problem, while often made out to be a deep philosophical paradox, is in fact a simple example of a basic semantic argument seeming deeper than it is. Although maybe that is, ironically, rather suited to this thread.

The tree-falling problem has nothing to do with subjective versus objective reality. On the contrary, the answer depends simply on the operational definition of 'sound.' If we are defining 'sound' as a physicist might, as waves passing through the air, then yes it makes a sound even if no one hears it. If we are defining 'sound' as a philosopher might, as a phenomenological element; or as a neurologist might, as a certain activation of the central nervous system; or as a psychologist might, as part of a certain behavioral process, then the tree does _not_ make a sound if no one is around.

I guess you could argue that what's really being asked is "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does a tree actually fall in the forest?" which admittedly would be a deeper problem related to reality. But that is, however, _not_ what the riddle is asking.

I swear I didn't just try to change the topic. I swear.

[Shooter]

-last post edited-

thanks, Braden...

[Merryprankster]

Braden, your discription of the tree analogy is SPOT ON... and that's precisely what I'm trying to say:

The objective reality of the tree falling in the woods is that the sound is produced.

The subjective perception is that it does not as nothing was there to register the sound.

In much the same way, if "It's all tai chi," is an objective reality, then it's all tai chi regardless of subjective perception (or lack thereof).

If "it's all tai chi," is a subjective perception then that perception varies from individual to individual. Just beacuse it's Tai Chi for shooter doesn't mean it can't be physics for a Science Teacher, etc. They might be talking about the same thing but from a different framework for understanding it.

Is it semantics? Perhaps--but it's an important distinction because it affects valid lines of argument down the road.

[apoweyn]

shooter,

no offense, mate. but saying, 'it's all taiji' is an analogy, essentially. and it's not likely to be cleared up with ANOTHER analogy.

what you're saying is that everything adheres to a given set of principles, yeah? and, for you, that set of principles has been embodied in taiji. for someone else, that same set of principles might be embodied in physics, aikido, or God.

but it's bloody difficult to tell when we maintain an inability to strip away the buzzwords and explain what we actually mean by statements like that. if i say, 'it's all God', does that help you? you don't know whether i'm christian, jewish, or muslim. you don't know whether i'm using the term God in some less traditional manner. in short, as you and i haven't shared an experience of the word 'God', using it to elucidate a point is meaningless.

so if you're going to try and clear something up by insisting that 'it's all taiji', please be prepared to explain what that means. if you're not prepared to do so, then why bring it up? so that the people who already understand and agree with you will understand and agree with you?


stuart

[scotty1]

"no offense, mate"

Do Americans say 'mate?'

I've noticed it occasionally but it sounds funny with your accents.

WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT OK?!!!?!:mad: :mad:

ITS NOT YOURS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

And you can't have 'wanker' either. :) :D




Sorry, just a bit of light relief.

Shooter, I think what they're trying to say is that you're not making sense.

[apoweyn]

nope. they don't. but i'm not american. i was born in brackley. northamptonshire. i moved to the united states in 1981.

wanker.


:)



stuart

p.s. you're right about one thing though. i do have an american accent, by english standards. and a SLIGHTLY english accent, by american standards. which i try desperately to bolster by strategically using words like 'castle', 'schedule', etc.

:D

[sticky fingers]

what about a r s e and a r s e hole?
Aren't americans supposed to spell them a$$ and a$$hole?

[apoweyn]

yep. but the british spelling has caught on here probably because it doesn't get automatically edited by the system. so far. [shhh]

[Merryprankster]

Stuart,

You're making people think. Stop it.

[red_fists]

Talking about english.

There are multiple english languages being taught here.

Eigo = British English.
Beigo = Uhmurikan English.

Funny think is that many Uhmurikan Tachers come from a weird place called Texas, nobody can understand them.
:p :p

[scotty1]

LOL@Red Fists!!

"SLIGHTLY english accent, by american standards. which i try desperately to bolster by strategically using words like 'castle', 'schedule', etc. "

For the chicks, yeah?

So you ARE English, living in America right?

Do you think of yourself as American or English?

Oh wait, I think I see something over there, off in the distance...

...Ah. Its the discussion topic.

:)

[apoweyn]

merryprankster,

i'm a horrible monster and i pray for death. :)


scotty1,

yep, for the girls. ironically, my english accent faded long before i was even marginally equipped to handle the attention it garnered from the ladies. one of life's terrible ironies. oh, sure, i got a lot of attention in the "do you like me? check the appropriate box" phase. but man, i wish i still had the accent. (of course, i'm engaged now, so there you have it.) :)

i consider myself english, though other people (americans) have argued the point with me. i'm proud to be living in america. and i love it here. no question. but i'm proud of where i came from too. so it's important to me to never forget that. know what i mean?

perhaps that sounds daft to a guy who's still living in england. i don't know. but long story short, i do still consider myself english, yes. born in england, lived there until 10 years old, and raised in an english household. still a british citizen, actually.

but i live in america. and rest assured that that's no small thing. i'm very thankful for that too.


stuart 'fence sitter' b., reporting from the colonies. over and out.

[Bolt]

Let's see here ... English ... Umerikhan ..... ok, mother born in USA, Grandfolks born in Mexico (plenty of relatives still in Mexico), Me= born in USA ..... am I Mexican or American ? I consider myself American. Had I been born in Mexico it might be different. Born in England ... you'd be English (grant it, dual citizenship - call yourself what you want) .... the question remains .......
can an English Kung Fu expert take down the Mexican grappler ???
Ok, ok .... bad humor here !
... * I * think the bottom line is the individual. Your art/style won't fail you - will you fail your art ?




...I'm moving on now (rambling to myself)....