PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Form of Combat



Ultimatewingchun
11-20-2007, 01:15 PM
BJJ?
Muay Thai?
Judo?
Boxing?
Kickboxing?
Sambo?
Greco Roman Wrestling?
Catch Wrestling?
Escrima?
Karate?
Wing Chun?
Pankration?
Krav Maga?
San Da?
Japanese jiu jitsu?
Weng Chun?

Or some mix of 2 or more styles that covers every range of fighting? (Like someone once said: "He brought a knife to a gun fight!")

Don't think like a Wing Chun guy. Or a BJJ guy. Or a Karate guy.

Just use your brain.

What do you think is the ultimate form of (unarmed) combat?

sanjuro_ronin
11-20-2007, 01:19 PM
You'd have to cross train because no one art has the solution to all of combat's problems.

sanjuro_ronin
11-20-2007, 01:21 PM
In THEORY, if it still existed, it would have been the military version of Pankration.

Lucas
11-20-2007, 01:23 PM
IMO:

You definately need knowledge of submissive and wrestling to get a good scope of combat, in addition to a good striking art or two.

In other words, MMA.

Dont think MMA sport combat format, take MMA in a literal sense. Mixed Martial Arts.

In addition to getting a full plate and trying to cover as many of your combat basis as you can, no self aquired system of martial arts will help you if you are not mentally aware. Know your surroundings, intentions of others, trust yourself, and know what your strengths and weaknesses are.

Now this question would also depend highly on what angle you pose this from.

From a sport fighter?

Law enforcement?

Self Defense of yourself and family/friends?

IMO, these will change the requirements as to what you will want to focus on. Many of the skills will be transitionary, but your emphasis will vary.

Ultimatewingchun
11-20-2007, 01:26 PM
Interesting point about Pankration. It has made a rebound in recent years - but there is some dispute and scepticism about how much it actually mirrors the original military version of the Greek fighting art.

...................................

"Dont think MMA sport combat format, take MMA in a literal sense. Mixed Martial Arts."

***EXCELLENT POINT, Lucas.

Sihing73
11-20-2007, 01:30 PM
Hi Victor,

I noticed Wing Chun was listed twice, is that a hint ;)

I think that everyone would have their own favorites of course, but some of ones choices would depend on the area one lived in and the environment. One should train for the threats one is most likely to face in a normal day to day living situation.

Having said that for me I find that Wing Chun and Pekiti Tirsia compliment each other very well and each provides resources which the other does not have. It is interesting that in the Pekiti Tirsia system of 64 attacks which could be considered a form, there are all of the subsets of Break In\Out, Sequidas, Tapping etc. Thus if you practice the 64 attacks you are also practicing the entire subsets as well. This includes training in various ranges and footwork.

Combining PT and WC broadens the range and teaches one to vary attack from high to low etc. Anyhow this works for me and makes me happy.

sanjuro_ronin
11-20-2007, 01:31 PM
Interesting point about Pankration. It has made a rebound in recent years - but there is some dispute about how much it actually mirrors the original military version of the Greek fighting art.

...................................

"Dont think MMA sport combat format, take MMA in a literal sense. Mixed Martial Arts."

***EXCELLENT POINT, Lucas.

Modern pankration is MMA, its a recent creation and there is nothing wrong with that.
The original MILITARY version ( yes it was different than the sport version) one can only speculate about it.
I have never been a big fan of mixing MA, preferring to cross train rather than Mix.
I believe the "core" of the systems tends to get diluted when you mix them rather than cross train in them.

Phil Redmond
11-20-2007, 01:43 PM
Hi Victor,

I noticed Wing Chun was listed twice, is that a hint ;)
Wing Chun is different from Weng Chun. ;)

Sihing73
11-20-2007, 01:45 PM
Wing Chun is different from Weng Chun. ;)

My Bad Phil,

Just consider me a victim of our Public School System :D

Ultimatewingchun
11-20-2007, 01:45 PM
"I have never been a big fan of mixing MA, preferring to cross train rather than Mix.
I believe the 'core' of the systems tends to get diluted when you mix them rather than cross train in them." (sanjuro)


***THIS IS a big subject, imo. I believe in crosstraining at first. As you said, the core of one or more of the systems you study can get too diluted if you're not careful. But there comes a point where I think it's important to learn how to truly mix them at some particular range of fighting. Like learning how to use punches when on the ground to set up submissions...

without cheapening the way those strikes should be thrown.

For example, in today's MMA "sport" world - there are a lot of guys who can't punch (or block) with any real high level skill at all. (ie.- the way a really skilled boxer, Thai boxer, kickboxer, wing chun fighter, etc. is specifically trained to do it).

The same with certain wrestling/grappling escapes and reversals when one is in a difficult position (ie.- mount, cross chest, when someone has taken your back, etc.) Lots of mma guys don't really seem to have much skill in these situations at all).

It seems to me that quite often much of the training short-changes certain aspects of these various arts in order to quickly turn out a "finished" mma product.

sanjuro_ronin
11-20-2007, 01:51 PM
I think the mixing is what used to be called "customizing" even 'creating" a style, back in the olden times ;)

t_niehoff
11-20-2007, 01:54 PM
I don't think it is a matter of styles or arts at all.

Assuming that a person wanted to be a well-rounded, empty-hand fighter, my view is that they should aim to be competant in stand-up, clinch, and ground. The styles or arts they choose is IME not that significant -- all sound, realistic methods (and not all methods/arts/styles are sound) draw from the same fundamentals. More important than the style or art is (1) the training method and (2) your training/sparring partners. So my advice would be to choose people over styles -- instructors who are the "very good" in terms of (proven) fighting skill using their method and training/sparring partners who are also "very good".

sanjuro_ronin
11-20-2007, 01:58 PM
I don't think it is a matter of styles or arts at all.

Assuming that a person wanted to be a well-rounded, empty-hand fighter, my view is that they should aim to be competant in stand-up, clinch, and ground. The styles or arts they choose is IME not that significant -- all sound, realistic methods (and not all methods/arts/styles are sound) draw from the same fundamentals. More important than the style or art is (1) the training method and (2) your training/sparring partners. So my advice would be to choose people over styles -- instructors who are the "very good" in terms of (proven) fighting skill using their method and training/sparring partners who are also "very good".

Would you go to a shotokan school to learn to clinch ?

anerlich
11-20-2007, 02:15 PM
As one of my instructors (of an eclectic system) said:

There is a best martial art for everyone. However the particular best MA may vary from person to person.

t_niehoff
11-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Would you go to a shotokan school to learn to clinch ?

Of course not.

What I am saying is that instead of looking at it from a which-art-is-best perspective (which is a pointless and meaningless exercise IMO), that you look for the best people you can find to teach you (and train/spar with) in stand-up, clinch, and ground because the quality of the people and the training you do is more important than the style/art. It goes without saying that someone can have great stand-up and no ground, so it would be silly to go to them for ground.

Askari Hodari
11-20-2007, 02:36 PM
I also believe that this varies by person (including physiological and psychological factors) and context/objectives (urban survival, military combat, sports fighting, etc.). I think that some styles are better at certain things than others. I wouldn't for instance go an learn Karate if I wanted to hone my grappling skills. Clearly Judo, Ju-Jitsu, or Sambo would be more useful for this. I wouldn't go and study Tai Chi to hone my stick fighting skills. Its not to say that studying these other arts wouldn't produce indirect benefits, but if maximizing combat effectiveness is your objective then you must train appropriately.

Personally, I too prefer to mix arts. So I think a good blend is Judo, boxing, and Muay Thai. Another could be Wing Chun and Judo. One should ideally strive for comprehensiveness. This might consist of competency in striking (boxing, WC, MT), mobility in footwork (Capoeira, boxing, etc.), stand-up and ground grappling (Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Catch wrestling, etc.), and weaponry (Naboot, Kali, etc.).

Ultimatewingchun
11-20-2007, 03:23 PM
Btw, the "loaded" style listed on the first post was Sambo - since it covers striking, kicking, clinch, and ground. (It was purposely conceived as a mixed martial art back in the early 1900's). The Human Weapon episode on the art was very impressive. And I have a Russian born student now who recently gave me a dvd of a KGB vs. Military sambo tournament done in Russia a few years ago.

Those guys are very good all-around fighters.

stricker
11-20-2007, 03:33 PM
the ultimate martial art is YOUR martial art. simple, break combat down into 3 areas to address :

grappling
striking
weapons

to learn how to grapple do bjj, judo, wrestling, sambo, gi, no gi, whatever, do all of them. work the ground and standing. grapple with anyone and everyone, compete in any format.

to learn how to strike box, thai box, do k1/kickboxing. again, spar anyone and everyone, compete in as many formats as you can.

to learn weapons, same applies...

prepare physically and psychologically. improve how you move, lift weights, stretch, do yoga, gpp and conditioning, meditate and all that **** if it floats your boat.

if your into 'the street' maybe study some body language ****.

some areas cross over, eg thai boxing has great standing grappling (clinch). the principles and fundamental skills across arts cross over to a huge extent, although there are always technique differences based on format.

bring all your threads together, in MMA (or dog bros style for weapons).

its not necessarily about MMA itself, its about being a martial artist. that said, if your not thinking MMA, well, what the hell are you doing...

go open source, dont tie yourself into (tm) martial arts or affiliate yourself to a style or a guru. thats just identity theory and ego bull****. take responsibility for yourself.

thats my martial art.

i'm there with the grappling part, i have my base art sub wrestling, but i'll put on a gi, do judo, do sambo, wrestling, whatever, i'll roll with anyone or compete any format, its all good. not there with the striking part yet, i'll show up at any boxing or thai boxing etc gym but i wont quite bang with anyone. weapons, i'm a complete newb.

Graychuan
11-20-2007, 03:34 PM
Btw, the "loaded" style listed on the first post was Sambo - since it covers striking, kicking, clinch, and ground. (It was purposely conceived as a mixed martial art back in the early 1900's). The Human Weapon episode on the art was very impressive. And I have a Russian born student now who recently gave me a dvd of a KGB vs. Military sambo tournament done in Russia a few years ago.

Those guys are very good all-around fighters.

Now THAT would be one helluva dvd to watch. Even if it isnt 'instructional'. Anyone that understands fighting could pick something up Im sure.

~Cg~

Wayfaring
11-20-2007, 03:55 PM
What do you think is the ultimate form of (unarmed) combat?

I don't think there is an ultimate form of unarmed combat. Only ultimately prepared unarmed combatants.

stricker
11-20-2007, 04:03 PM
You'd have to cross train because no one art has the solution to all of combat's problems.IMO cross training is more important than that, its important for its own sake. seeing the same fundamentals from different angles, comparing differences in approach...


I have never been a big fan of mixing MA, preferring to cross train rather than Mix. I believe the "core" of the systems tends to get diluted when you mix them rather than cross train in them.agreed.


***THIS IS a big subject, imo. I believe in crosstraining at first. As you said, the core of one or more of the systems you study can get too diluted if you're not careful. But there comes a point where I think it's important to learn how to truly mix them at some particular range of fighting.imo its a cycle. study MMA, see that hand striking (boxing) is involved. train boxing with boxers, integrate new skills into mma. repeat. each cycle brings a level of refinement... it also allows you to concentrate on one thing at a time.

i dont see it as 'mixing' thats just a horrible word, its more experiencing the same thing (eg grappling or striking etc) from different angles, to progress yourself.


Like learning how to use punches when on the ground to set up submissions...
without cheapening the way those strikes should be thrown.

For example, in today's MMA "sport" world - there are a lot of guys who can't punch (or block) with any real high level skill at all. (ie.- the way a really skilled boxer, Thai boxer, kickboxer, wing chun fighter, etc. is specifically trained to do it).

The same with certain wrestling/grappling escapes and reversals when one is in a difficult position (ie.- mount, cross chest, when someone has taken your back, etc.) Lots of mma guys don't really seem to have much skill in these situations at all).:rolleyes: no one said all mma fighters are technical masters in every area. sure most mma fighters are lacking in one or more area of expertise, and someone who IS a real expert in that area can make them look a fool, but please... your the guy who talks about wrestling and grappling but has never wrestled or grappled anyone outside your little club arent you?


It seems to me that quite often much of the training short-changes certain aspects of these various arts in order to quickly turn out a "finished" mma product.yeah a lot of people fall for that, the urge to get in the cage and fight when they havent fully prepared in every area... its a problem all mma fighters have to deal with. better someday than never.

stricker
11-20-2007, 04:06 PM
Btw, the "loaded" style listed on the first post was Sambo - since it covers striking, kicking, clinch, and ground. (It was purposely conceived as a mixed martial art back in the early 1900's). The Human Weapon episode on the art was very impressive. And I have a Russian born student now who recently gave me a dvd of a KGB vs. Military sambo tournament done in Russia a few years ago.

Those guys are very good all-around fighters.i think that's "Combat Sambo" theres a few different sub-styles of sambo, its mainly a grappling style with lots of leg locking.

you didnt put systema on the list

Liddel
11-20-2007, 06:05 PM
Id say BJJ and British CQB.

Thats my unbias opinion.

My Bias opinoin would be VT, BJJ and CQB.

Ive found each ones leans on the other very well, through trying myself and seeing others that have deep knowledge & experience in each. :cool:

It covers all the bases IMO...

DREW

sanjuro_ronin
11-21-2007, 05:27 AM
Of course this is a mute discussion, Shinanju trumps all !
:D

g-bells
11-21-2007, 02:13 PM
It's not the style,but the fighter!!!!

one needs to versed in all ranges to be able to completely defend themselves

just my 2 cents

ittokaos
11-21-2007, 05:26 PM
Well I guess its time to add my 2 pennies to this MMA discussion. Instead of wasting your time trying to find out what the"ultimate style" is (and calling your style good but still "sucky"), why not try to find out why your style is the way it is and whether or not your style already has these "missing elements" in them.

You probably all have forms. Chances are, you are not all Masters of your respected arts. That being said, maybe you don't know everything contained in your forms. Also, maybe your teacher doesn't know everything about the style.

If that may be the case, then you may be looking for no reason. A style of fighting was probably used for hundreds of years and has worked just fine during that time so why is it not working for you? Is it because grappling is a new invention that is devestaing the MA world?

No, you are just too lazy to dig a little deeper. One thing that must be realized is yes, some styles (very few) are incomplete(in the sense that they have no grappling) but there is always a reason for this. Grappling has always been around and these arts all survived so what's the problem?

All styles that, for whatever reason, have no grappling still were formidable against grapplers. If you don't do it then find a way to fight it. Stop mixing arts that weren't meant to be mixed. You just end up doing a disservice to those styles and you end up not being that good at any of them.

I do think that one should train against other styles but stop trying to compare to find out which is better. You are the one who sucks! You should be trying to find out why and not why your style does! Fight against other styles to find out why they are beating you and how you can USE your style to beat them. If you can't do it then find a new teacher and train harder.

Take your forms apart piece by piece. The movements and techniques are most likely there so take the time to look. We don't really use martial arts for survival anymore. You have the time. If you don't care, then ok, move on to something more fun.

Try Football :P.

One arguement is that all martial arts were created to fight against similar styles so they cant compete against newer mixed styles. That is a load of crap! Let's just look at Japan and China. People from all around both countries fought each other and their styles were completely different. Mizongquan and SPM are 2 different styles is just about everyway yet both arts have survived against many other arts.

The face of fighting has not changed. It is just now filled with ignorance and impatience.

In Japan(inc Okinawa) the face of fighting was mainly(to the best of my knowledge) Jujutsu on one end and Karate on the other. One is primarily striking and the other is primarily grappling. Yet, both still exist, even though both fought each other on a fairly regular basis.

So nowadys we have a cage and spandex and frat boy douche(ness) so the fighting has become dramatically changed? No! Fighting is Punches, Kicks, Wrestling, and Joint locking. These things have alway been around and will most likely never leave. One should rely on principles instead of techiques. If you understand the principles then the techniques will come to you. If you rely on techniques you will always be trying to mix.

Keep the change.

I hope this helps

WF

Ultimatewingchun
11-21-2007, 09:36 PM
Since you're new here, it would seem, ittokaos - let me bring you up to speed.

It wasn't my purpose when starting this thread to try and actually get people to name what they thought was the one-and-only specific ULTIMATE FIGHTING ART.

Although naming a combo of 2 or more arts in conjunction with each other as the "ultimate" mma or hybid style - that's cool. :cool: :D

It's still an "opinion" - but a legitimate one, I believe.

But I worded it with a bit of trickery in mind. Since if anyone said that such-and-such (one particular style) was the ULTIMATE ONE - they would have gotten slammed. Ouch! :eek:

;) ;) ;)

LoneTiger108
11-22-2007, 02:28 AM
All styles that, for whatever reason, have no grappling still were formidable against grapplers. If you don't do it then find a way to fight it. Stop mixing arts that weren't meant to be mixed. You just end up doing a disservice to those styles and you end up not being that good at any of them...

...Take your forms apart piece by piece. The movements and techniques are most likely there so take the time to look. We don't really use martial arts for survival anymore. You have the time. If you don't care, then ok, move on to something more fun.

Try Football :P...

...So nowadys we have a cage and spandex and frat boy douche(ness) so the fighting has become dramatically changed? No! Fighting is Punches, Kicks, Wrestling, and Joint locking. These things have alway been around and will most likely never leave. One should rely on principles instead of techiques. If you understand the principles then the techniques will come to you. If you rely on techniques you will always be trying to mix.

Keep the change.

I hope this helps

WF

Well, how refreshing to see a newcomers POV. Probably some of the best little clippets of writing I've seen here in a while. Honesty travels far! Thanks WF

AmanuJRY
11-22-2007, 08:29 AM
Bartitsu and WC....:cool::D

ittokaos
11-22-2007, 09:35 AM
It's been over 6 mths but I guess that I am new to the WC forum.

Anyway, I was just upset because of the constant laziness and whining that are constantly on this or other forums(DRAGONSLIST!!!!!). It still suprizes me how many people have given up on their kung fu for fighting(when they clearly state that they do this and that and are proud of it) on a kung fu forum. It just seems like no one has any pride in what they are doing any more and they think that the easier way (mixing until you can figure it out)is best.

Kung Fu=Hard Work.*

*Just in case we forgot.

Mixing styles happened in the past (my style for instance was mixed)and they worked quite well but these mixers were masters of their respected styles before the mixing and had great insight on what worked. Today, anybody and everybody is mixing for no reason other than they just dont care enough to try. They think this will lead them to greatness but it only limits their potential. It's sad.

Redrooster
11-22-2007, 08:01 PM
In order to begin this discussion properly you really need to define in what

context the combat would be in. Street situation or a staged match to begin with.

Then, if its staged match you must consider the rules involved. the rules dictate

the effectivness of the styles involved. Look at the UFC for example. Very different

fighting now as opposed to the fights in the begining. BJJ dominated the early

fights, but not so much now. Its often said that the competition caught up with

them but thats not true, the rules changed reflecting a desire for a faster more tv

viewer friendly pace. Using gloves favors the striker, people forget that gloves

were brought into western boxing by the one and only John L. Sullivan who was

tired of breaking his hands on the heads of his opponents. This was in fact a

favorite defensive technique of the old bare knucklers,they ducked into a blow

knowing a fist on the top of the head is a broken fist. Additionally the restarts in

UFC now do not allow the BJJ guys to wait for a mistake which is their stock and

trade. Rules of a match dictate the form that will be dominant.


In a true street situation is another story. I wouldnt want to be a BJJ on the

street. Fighting from the bottom where objects could be grabbed and smashed

into your eyes etc.. isnt very appealing, I wont even go into biting, fish hooking

and the like. I suspect strongly that is why Jigoro Kano wasnt so keen on the

ground fighting aspect of some Jujitsu like that of Maeda ( the real father of BJJ)

was based on, even though in matches they often got the best of the Judo guys.

Despite being thought of as a sport, judo is an effective street art. Being thrown

onto an asphalt parking lot outide the local watering hole will end a fight right

now.

So....the ulitmate form of combat?

Matches, depending on the rules :

Modern hybrid MMA

BJJ

Pankration style

Street:

London prize rules boxers. This is bareknuckle hands and Cornish wrestling

throws which are similar to judo. These guys were Baaaaadddd !

Muay Thai

Wing Chun

Hapkido


My 2 cents worth...


RR

Ultimatewingchun
11-22-2007, 10:10 PM
Very good post, Redrooster. Interesting choices for ultimate arts:

"Matches, depending on the rules :

Modern hybrid MMA

BJJ

Pankration style

Street:

London prize rules boxers. This is bareknuckle hands and Cornish wrestling

throws which are similar to judo. These guys were Baaaaadddd !

Muay Thai

Wing Chun

Hapkido"

***Although I personally would rank catch wrestling and sambo ahead of both BJJ and pankration for "matches". Although your choices are good. And I would have put Muay Thai in the same mix for matches. (Not that Muay Thai couldn't work well on the street - because I'm sure it does).

Btw, you mentioned that you suspect Kano wasn't as keen on groundfighting as Maeda was. But Maeda was one of his top students. So I suspect that the BJJ preference for groundfighting was more a Helio and Carlson Gracie thing than Maeda.

Especially Helio, since he was a very small man - and by now we all know about the famous Gracie emphasis on the guard position, which Rickson once referred to in an interview as "the heart of the fight."

Clearly much was eliminated by the Gracie's that existed within the judo that Kano taught guys like Maeda - and much was emphasized that might not have been emphasized by men like Kano and Maeda. Another ground position that's hardly ever (I mean almost never) used within BJJ is the scarf hold (known as the head-and-arm position within wrestling circles)...

although it's always been used right to this day within judo and Japanese jiu jitsu circles.

g-bells
11-22-2007, 10:37 PM
i stand by my first post but why no mention of Jeet Kune Do?

Ultimatewingchun
11-22-2007, 11:00 PM
Not enough qualified people teaching it.

We could argue all day long about it's strategies and techniques being outdated (how useful is lead sidekick, anyway?)...but over time if enough people were seriously trained in it and opened schools - and with some sort of competitive sparring venue either of its own or having its guys enter other venues (or both)...

I think JKD's reputation as a fighting art could have been bigger than what it is now. After all, it's whole philosophy was that of always looking for ways to stay up to date, innovate, realistic training/sparring, etc.

jesper
11-23-2007, 02:01 AM
Because JKD was never intended to be a style. It was a state of mind or way of thinking if you like

LoneTiger108
11-23-2007, 02:03 AM
I thought JKD was 'just a name' used as a label, not something that is 'stylized' as such, so it would generally be hard to have anybody qualified to teach as there is no common ground really.

Very similar to Wing Chun, a name/label to an idea of continual learning and progression.

Talking of which, I can teach the straight line methods or as Bruce would say the 'Intercepting Fist' theories! As this is a key Wing Chun method. But what makes it JKD?

Honestly, I think its all ego. Its just somebody relaying Brucies 'original' thought or practice to others, and mostly claiming to be the only one Bruce taught that way to. Sounds familiar really doesn't it, which is why I believe he was so against even giving it all a name for namesake.

As to my opinions here, Utimate Form of Combat? My bias will always lead me back to Wing Chun! But which family or Sifu? I've still to see...

Ultimatewingchun
11-23-2007, 10:37 AM
It's both a concept and a style:

Power hand always forward
Very shifty/dynamic footwork
Main weapons are the straight lead punch
the lead sidekick
Use of the Centerline drawn down your lead shoulder/chest area
Trapping at close range

etc..

But the ETC. was suppoed to be the key to the whole system wherein new principles, stratgies, and techniques could always be added (ie.- throws, locks, groundgrappling)...based upon necessity - so that your opponent's game will always determine how you will fight him - so you're never "stuck" in your own preconceived notions as to how the fight should go.

Also:

The JKD training methods - use of bags, mitts, shields, protective gear so that LIVE drilling and full contact sparring are always in use...these were the things that the system was designed to be about at the time.

Redrooster
11-23-2007, 01:10 PM
"Btw, you mentioned that you suspect Kano wasn't as keen on groundfighting as Maeda was. But Maeda was one of his top students. So I suspect that the BJJ preference for groundfighting was more a Helio and Carlson Gracie thing than Maeda."


Kano kicked maeda out of kodokan because he took matches with other

disciplines. Maeda also used ground fighting Jujitsu techniques that were not part

of the Judo canon.

I suspect however there was a strong sense of pride in Kano that was not

expressed when it was all said and done. Maeda fought all across Europe for

several years only losing a couple of matches at Catch wrestling style

tournements and those were to heavyweights as I recall.

Catch wrestlers should definately be mentioned here that was my bad. The

problem in the past for catch wrestlers is that the gaurd and such from BJJ are at

odds to their style and being in the gaurd would result in a loss in their

tournaments as it would be a pin. Give them time to learn the submission fighting

rules and they would surely flourish, they are great fighters. people forget that

up until about a hundred years ago catch wrestling matches drew the same gates

as boxing matches. Unfortunately the rumors of fixed championship matches like

the Gotch - Hackenschmidt match led to the swift demise of real matches and

the rise of "pro wrestling" as we know it today. It is also why all pro sports are

EXTREMELY sensetive to charges of games or matches being fixed. I personally

believe this is part of the decline seen in boxing in recent decades.

The reason I didnt speak of JKD is that this thread asks about the ultimate FORM

of combat. Bruces vision for JKD is to go beyond form. Bruce drew a great deal of

philosophy from Taoism. An anology I like to use that reflects what Bruce was

getting at is this. A musician learns to play by learning to read music and use

proper physical technique. As their skill rise they can play well alone, then with

others, all following their respective musical parts as provided by the sheet music.

If the skill level rises to the highest level they throw away the sheet music and

can rely on their ear, it has become part of them and the concerns of reading the

sheet music and thinking about the physical are long gone. They are able to play

Jazz for example in a impvisational manner. Improvisation is the musical equilalent

to the formlessness Bruce was talking about. You are simply reacting to what is

in front of you,not relying on technique or thought. In Taoist terms this is getting

things done without "doing".

I think this was more than two cents worth, maybe a nickels worth.

RR

Dan_chi_sau
11-23-2007, 01:16 PM
You dont have to read music to be able to play well....take from that what you will.

sanjuro_ronin
11-23-2007, 01:19 PM
"Btw, you mentioned that you suspect Kano wasn't as keen on groundfighting as Maeda was. But Maeda was one of his top students. So I suspect that the BJJ preference for groundfighting was more a Helio and Carlson Gracie thing than Maeda."


Kano kicked maeda out of kodokan because he took matches with other

disciplines. Maeda also used ground fighting Jujitsu techniques that were not part

of the Judo canon.

I suspect however there was a strong sense of pride in Kano that was not

expressed when it was all said and done. Maeda fought all across Europe for

several years only losing a couple of matches at Catch wrestling style

tournements and those were to heavyweights as I recall.

Catch wrestlers should definately be mentioned here that was my bad. The

problem in the past for catch wrestlers is that the gaurd and such from BJJ are at

odds to their style and being in the gaurd would result in a loss in their

tournaments as it would be a pin. Give them time to learn the submission fighting

rules and they would surely flourish, they are great fighters. people forget that

up until about a hundred years ago catch wrestling matches drew the same gates

as boxing matches. Unfortunately the rumors of fixed championship matches like

the Gotch - Hackenschmidt match led to the swift demise of real matches and

the rise of "pro wrestling" as we know it today. It is also why all pro sports are

EXTREMELY sensetive to charges of games or matches being fixed. I personally

believe this is part of the decline seen in boxing in recent decades.

The reason I didnt speak of JKD is that this thread asks about the ultimate FORM

of combat. Bruces vision for JKD is to go beyond form. Bruce drew a great deal of

philosophy from Taoism. An anology I like to use that reflects what Bruce was

getting at is this. A musician learns to play by learning to read music and use

proper physical technique. As their skill rise they can play well alone, then with

others, all following their respective musical parts as provided by the sheet music.

If the skill level rises to the highest level they throw away the sheet music and

can rely on their ear, it has become part of them and the concerns of reading the

sheet music and thinking about the physical are long gone. They are able to play

Jazz for example in a impvisational manner. Improvisation is the musical equilalent

to the formlessness Bruce was talking about. You are simply reacting to what is

in front of you,not relying on technique or thought. In Taoist terms this is getting

things done without "doing".

I think this was more than two cents worth, maybe a nickels worth.

RR

Paragraphs are your friend.
And what Maeda know of newaza was Kodokan, unless you know otherwise ?
Fact that he was open to learning and adapting from anything is what made him such a great fighter.

g-bells
11-23-2007, 01:54 PM
Not enough qualified people teaching it.

We could argue all day long about it's strategies and techniques being outdated (how useful is lead sidekick, anyway?)...but over time if enough people were seriously trained in it and opened schools - and with some sort of competitive sparring venue either of its own or having its guys enter other venues (or both)...

I think JKD's reputation as a fighting art could have been bigger than what it is now. After all, it's whole philosophy was that of always looking for ways to stay up to date, innovate, realistic training/sparring, etc.

thanks all, as for it being outdated, i would'nt say that, because as an individual training in JKD my jkd is;nt the same as anybody else's jkd. you have a base/foundation then it's up to you to find your own way.

side kick- not practical unless the circumstances are just right, but how often does that happen.

i have used it in a real life encounter , was jumped in a bar bathroom, and came out walking while the other guy was carried out, so to say it's only a way of thinking/way of life is wrong

i'm not saying it's superior to anything, but for me it works!!!

Redrooster
11-23-2007, 02:56 PM
"Paragraphs are your friend."

Hehehe yeah I know..... No form JKD writing?

"And what Maeda know of newaza was Kodokan, unless you know otherwise ?"

No I think he was using Jujitsu techniques outside of the kodokan canon in addition to The strong Judo underpinnings.

"Fact that he was open to learning and adapting from anything is what made him such a great fighter."

I agree 100% . He was great. It was just that his goal of being an unsurpassed fighter was not in total alignment with kanos ideas of running his school.

RR

Ultimatewingchun
11-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Jesus, Redrooster...your post #138 is almost word-for-word like something I was posting here about 3-4-5 years ago.

No wonder I liked your first post on this thread! :D :cool:

Btw...As I'm very big into catch wrestling (started following it in 1963)...and I've read about Maeda in several places - but never read that his wrestling in Europe (under the name of Count Koma) was against heavyweights, per say. I know that it's been said the only 2 matches he ever lost in his life were against 2 different catch guys while in Europe - but never heard anything about weight categories.

Do you have any links for me to look into about that?

Very curious.

sanjuro_ronin
11-26-2007, 06:59 AM
"Paragraphs are your friend."

Hehehe yeah I know..... No form JKD writing?

"And what Maeda know of newaza was Kodokan, unless you know otherwise ?"

No I think he was using Jujitsu techniques outside of the kodokan canon in addition to The strong Judo underpinnings.

"Fact that he was open to learning and adapting from anything is what made him such a great fighter."

I agree 100% . He was great. It was just that his goal of being an unsurpassed fighter was not in total alignment with kanos ideas of running his school.

RR

Most of the Judoka od maeda's day were "cross trained" judoka, they came into the Kodokan already with JJ under their belts, I assume Maeda was the same, though I don't know where he woudl have learned his Ne-waza or where he came from originally....
Kano was very much for fighting, just not in a public way as much as he was in a "fight to train" way.
I don't think he would have been to keen on the over emphasies of competition that later took over Judo.
I think that, if Maeda had been more of a 'warrior-scholar" things may have been different.
Still, every victory for Maeda was one for the Kodokan.
Sometimes we forget that Kano's Judo was very effective.

Ultimatewingchun
11-27-2007, 09:10 PM
In my opinion, is any amalgam of systems (although Sambo, for example, could fit the bill as one system)....that includes all of the following:

1) All fighting ranges are trained regularly (standup striking/kicking - fighting in the clinch - fighting on the ground...which includes submissions, escapes, and reversals).

2) Is geared toward actual street combat first-and-foremost - as opposed to sport rules and tactics being first and foremost, ie.- how to win on points, or how to win in a limited context like chi sao only, striking only, grappling only, body shots only, etc....stalling, ie.- dancing around with your footwork, lay and pray when caught in guard, excessive use of guard, ie.- if you're not winning this encounter within about 20 seconds after putting him in guard it's time to get out of there as fast as you can - since if it's real encounter too many things can go wrong while you're down on your back.

3) Covers quite a bit of street tactics, ie.- use of environment and makeshift weapons, dirty tactics such as gouges, hair pulls, groin attacks, head butts, rips and fish hooks, etc.

4) Unarmed defenses against knives, clubs, bottles, bats, etc. are being trained constantly - as are throws, takedowns, and striking finishes once he's down.

5) Training against multiple opponents is part of the regularly scheduled program.

6) Weapons training with basic stuff (ie.- use of a knife, a stick, two sticks, an umbrella or pole of some sort, etc.).

7) Strength and conditioning is also a big part of the regularly scheduled program.

8) Very frequent hard competitive sparring/rolling against skilled opponents/partners.