cheung bo lineage

[Pacman]

No, you dodged it like every other time people ask you to go into any detail regarding what you spew out here. Then you tried to make it about me, again trying to hide the fact you really don't have an answer?

In attempt to further productive conersation, I'll ask it a third time. What specifically are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? The ones you mentioned here.

I assume you speak from at least some experience of your own. Since you brought it up, you should be able to give at least one example. So far, you haven't given any - it's really a simple question.

fundamentals are Muay Thai and Brazilian Jujitsu

[t_niehoff]

No, you dodged it like every other time people ask you to go into any detail regarding what you spew out here. Then you tried to make it about me, again trying to hide the fact you really don't have an answer?

I've already given you a detailed answer. I can only assume you are bright enough to understand it.

To repeat it:

"Functional martial arts are those arts which have adopted sport-specific training methods: they do in practice/training those things they will do in fighting as they will do them (same context, same resistances, etc). In other words, their practice "looks" just like their target activity -- since they are practicing their target activity. This training approach has (over the past 100 years) proved itself to be vastly superior to the traditional martial art training model.

While the training method and the fighting approach are two separate things (you could, for instance, train western boxing like a TMA), the training method will affect the art. Sport specific (functional) training will weed out inferior technique and only those things that continue to work under realistic conditions will be retained or developed. Whereas the TMA training model doesn't do this and promotes fantasy."

Try reading it, then thinking about it. I know you're not used to really thinking about things, but try. You might find it a useful activity.

You wanted to know "For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?" I'm not going to give you a list of every fundamental. But, if you look at the functional martial arts as I defined it above, you'll see that they all share the same fundamentals in stand-up, clinch, and ground. In other words, all functional ground arts share the same fundamentals, all functional stand-up striking arts share the same fundamentals, etc. Why? Because when you really DO IT (fight as part of your training), you find those things that really work under the really high pressure of fighting. And they are the same few things. You can practice all kinds of funny walks but when you run full-out and fast and hard as you can, everybody does pretty much the same thing. And it's not only how our body works, but also you are facing the same problems. So, since our bodies function in very limited ways under high levels of stress and we are facing the same problems, it follows that you get the same fundamental answers. All functional methods share those same things that work well under the pressures of fighting.

Now, when people aren't fighting as part of their training, and so aren't having to deal with those pressures, they begin to adopt various things -- theory, techniques, concepts, etc. -- that simply won't work. They can do them when not hard-pressed, when not fighting, and assume that when and if they ever need to, they can "ramp it up". It doesn't work that way. But since they are not fighting, they begin to fantasize, speculate, and imagine "the most effective, efficient, and practical" ways of doing things. And that's when they begin to "look" and sound differently.

If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals of ground grappling, with the various arts just emphasize them differently. It's the same wtih good stand-up and with good clinch.

In attempt to further productive conersation, I'll ask it a third time. What specifically are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? The ones you mentioned here.

I assume you speak from at least some experience of your own. Since you brought it up, you should be able to give at least one example. So far, you haven't given any - it's really a simple question.

I only speak from experience. And I've given you an answer.

[JPinAZ]

I'm not going to give you a list of every fundamental. But, if you look at the functional martial arts as I defined it above, you'll see...

You haven't even listed one (or can't).. Then you say yet again to look elsewhere...

I only speak from experience. And I've given you an answer.

Who's experience? Obviously not your own since you always point somewhere else. And you're right you have given me an answer, but still not to the original question. Good talk

[t_niehoff]

You haven't even listed one (or can't).. Then you say yet again to look elsewhere...

You must be a moron. Either that or you just have no reading comprehension skills. I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art -- and, not only that, I listed some: "If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals . . . . "

Seriously, how f##king stupid can you be?

Who's experience? Obviously not your own since you always point somewhere else. And you're right you have given me an answer, but still not to the original question. Good talk

Another moronic comment. I speak from my own experience, but I also refer to the experience of others who are more experienced than I (like proven fight trainers, sport science experts, etc.) -- and tell people to seek out genuine experience themselves.

[Wayfaring]

For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?

For the purpose of furthering discussion we could look at these as:

1) Striking - using hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulders, skull, etc. to inflict damage upon an opponent.

2) Footwork - movement to control distance, facing, and target availability in some fashion w/r to an opponent.

3) Takedowns - technique to move an opponent from a standing or kneeling position to the ground. I'm including standing clinch work in this category.

4) Groundwork - techniques on the ground to either attack an opponent or defend to return to feet.

Fundamentals would be a combination of one, more, or all of the above.

Also, to further discussion I will highlight that JP has trained in western boxing - only reason I'm bringing it up is to clear up unfounded assumptions.

[t_niehoff]

For the purpose of furthering discussion we could look at these as:

1) Striking - using hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulders, skull, etc. to inflict damage upon an opponent.

2) Footwork - movement to control distance, facing, and target availability in some fashion w/r to an opponent.

3) Takedowns - technique to move an opponent from a standing or kneeling position to the ground. I'm including standing clinch work in this category.

4) Groundwork - techniques on the ground to either attack an opponent or defend to return to feet.

Fundamentals would be a combination of one, more, or all of the above.

Also, to further discussion I will highlight that JP has trained in western boxing - only reason I'm bringing it up is to clear up unfounded assumptions.

That's not what I am talking about. If you read my posts, that would be clear.

Having done some training in boxing doesn't necessarily mean anything. That's like saying someone once took a science class. So what?

[Wayfaring]

That's not what I am talking about. If you read my posts, that would be clear.

I read them. I was still unclear on whether you meant fundamentals in the context we're talking about them as actual fighting techniques or whether you were referring to the fundamentals meaning the methods of training.

I mean, you're talking a lot about 'fundamentals in clinch', 'fundamentals in striking', etc. but you never get down to actually saying what these fundamentals are other than all functional arts share them and saying you have to go train them to find out. I train them and I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure if we were fighting / sparring / etc. these would all come out, but instead we're talking on the internet so we kind of have to spell things out more.

[t_niehoff]

I read them. I was still unclear on whether you meant fundamentals in the context we're talking about them as actual fighting techniques or whether you were referring to the fundamentals meaning the methods of training.

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

[Yoshiyahu]

What about TCMA's that incoporate hard sparring in their curriculm?

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

[JPinAZ]

I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art -- and, not only that, I listed some: "If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals . . . . "

The question, for the FOURTH TIME was: "what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?"

You never listed even one of these 'fundamentals' you keep referring too until Dave joined the conversation and gave a list of his own. (thanks dave for helping clarify the question further)

Now you're saying "I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art ". I didn't ask for that, but thanks for the info. And you say I can't read...

Another moronic comment. I speak from my own experience, but I also refer to the experience of others who are more experienced than I (like proven fight trainers, sport science experts, etc.) -- and tell people to seek out genuine experience themselves.

The probelm here is you assume to know something about everyone even when you haven't met them, nor know anything about thier training methods. Further, I refer to my own results through my own hard work, not talking off the sweat and tears of others. Obviously this is where we differ..

[Wayfaring]

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

I'm starting to understand you there. So on the ground bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling guys all have functional fundamentals. There are some marked differences - like judo guys typically don't have as good ground skills (newaza) as BJJ guys, and because of pin and standup rules in judo competitions they tend to do certain things like go to their stomachs a lot. Judo guys have better takedown throws. Sambo guys have better fundamentals attacking legs usually than bjj. Wrestlers have a more developed top game and are used to competition more but usually have sucky guards and have better takedowns. bjj guys excel in fighting off their backs usually - better guards and have fundamentals that pertain to that - like inverted guard/tornado rolls. But all of those fundamentals are developed functionally, even if they are a little different.

Clinch fundamentals kind of have 2 approaches I've seen - the greco approach and the muy thai clinch. They are kind of different in what they are trying to do - the greco approach is gearing towards the takedown, and the thai is holding to strike - like Buakaw's clinch singlehandedly changing rules for thai matches due to his skill there. I would actually say there are different fundamentals there. But both functional.

Stand-up fundamentals have elements in common too but there are varied approaches to that too, even all those developed functionally.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

Yes - agreed there on functional training. That's the appeal to me in functional training or the "aliveness" factor - instant feedback and training on how to adjust any technique to work against 100% resistance. I also like the conditioning element for health reasons.

I don't know if you can totally generalize all TCMA's together as non-functional. Now even in the WC world which in general has probably degraded to less functional training methods all the legends of fighting going back to the Hong Kong days - they probably did fight more. There was little legal consequence for scrapping, and it was a common occurance for someone to go into a kung fu school and challenge the teacher, or for two students from rival schools to duke it out somewhere. I'm not aware of much video available to be able to critique fighting skill though as compared to today.

I think I can paraphrase what you're saying overall too. Training functionally and alive produces a certain set of fundamentals that you can notice regardless of the art trained. Many times these are missing in people who don't train this way.

[Pacman]

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

Fighting in my TCMA is extremely important, but if all you do is throw on some pads, get into a ring with someone else and try to knock each other's head off you aren't going to progress much.

therefore we do sparring drills too

anyways, you listed ground fighting "fundamentals". what are some "fundamental" movements for standup fighting?

[reneritchie]

There's a great story about Ayoob (sp?) creating his stress-fire combat shooting programs. Traditional shooting approaches required a complex 9-point body alignment that didn't hold up under the stress conditions typically faced in lethal encounters. i.e. trained shooters would miss even at incredibly short range because their arms would shake, adrenalin would dump, and they couldn't produce consistent, reliable application.

Ayoob simplified things down to a 3-point alignment, using alignment mechanics that were far more reliable under stress. The results looked very impressive.

Flashback - Kano, when vying for the position as instructor to the police forces, had to ready his team to compete against many other jujitsu coaches in Japan. Instead of teaching them "deadly" techniques they could never practice on each other with any degree of realistic resistance, he simplified. He removed anything that couldn't be trained safely, yet repeatedly and applied against an unwilling, skilled, resistive opponent. Rather than making the art "less deadly" due to missing so-called death techniques (or whatever), they attained similarly impressive results.

Flashback - Did the red junk boat actors, having to use their art to survive, attain a similar realization about simplicity and realistic, progressive, systematic training? Is that why WCK geometry is what it is? If we remove the mystic mumbo marketing jumbo and try to sweep away the return-to-complexity succeeding generations of humans often find necessary to re-impose on martial arts as they become further removed, is it possible? I think so.

Fundamentals aren't martial arts specific, nor are they specific to martial arts. Stepping back, there seems to be readily discernible patterns to those who "discovered" how to teach functional skill to large groups of people (individuals don't count -- natural ability is too easy a distraction).

When I look for a coach, I seldom if ever care what story they have or even how good they are. I look to how efficiently they can make me good. The best coaches I've found make improvement almost immediate, and can get you doing what they can do very quickly. And they all tend to use the same or at least very similar methods to do it.

[Pacman]

It's not subjective at all. The whole tenseness-relaxation "issue" is really nonsense. It's not a matter of tenseness or relaxation; it is, rather, a matter of familiarity. When you see good, successful athletes doing something, they are doing it "correctly". And you can't do it successfully if you are too tense or too relaxed.

what i am talking about has nothing to do with fimiliarity.

literally...their bodies are tensed. flexed. tightened. hardened. thats what i am talking about

If you want to develop fighting skill, you need to train like a fighter. To do that, look at how good PROVEN fighters train.

if you want to fight like your PROVEN fighters then yes train like them. but there are other ways and you discount them without even understanding them.

its really sad because you really really think you have it all figured out.

[bennyvt]

man I only asked about a video and its now a three page discussion of functionality.
No one uses fighting in their training. Everyone uses some aspect of a fight and ties to make it as real as possible. BJJ guys "roll", Boxing and mt spar, VT does chi sao etc. Each has had to make a set of theortical rules that change the exercise that they do. If you are saying that if you dont fight as part of your training then you cant fight. Then the only people that could say they can fight would be those that fight on the street all the time.
Im a strength and conditioning coach (with a emphasis on functional training)and it seems like people are just using lots of functional )catch phrases" without knowing what they are talking about.