What do you think?

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL @ thinking your pretend training is going to prepare you for "teh str33t".

The ring is not everything, but it is far better than the pretend training that 99.9% of all TMA practitioners do.

I was thinking the same about you. LOL I hurt your little feelings and exposed how ridiculous you are. That's classic.

[Knifefighter]

Why would my feelings be hurt by some clueless, anonymous WC guy on a message board?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Why would my feelings be hurt by some clueless, anonymous WC guy on a message board?

anonymous Yes! as are you. Clueless no. I am sure that you can't handle being wrong which you obviously are. You haven't made a case based on logic or technique. All you have managed to do is provide us with some vague generalities. Now you are just angry because you have been exposed as a disgruntled ex-WC practitioner who doesn't have a clue about integrating his previous WC training with modern training.

[Knifefighter]

anonymous Yes! as are you. Clueless no. I am sure that you can't handle being wrong which you obviously are. You haven't made a case based on logic or technique. All you have managed to do is provide us with some vague generalities. Now you are just angry because you have been exposed as a disgruntled ex-WC practitioner who doesn't have a clue about integrating his previous WC training with modern training.

Actually, I've integrated WC into training for 30 years now. The difference between you and I is that I have mixed it up full contact in boxing, kick-boxing, wrestling, stick fighting, nhb challenge matches, MMA, street fighting, and BJJ/sub-grappling so I actually have extensive experience with what works in various environments and what doesn't work.

Unlike you, I've done both the ring and the street so I know what works in each, what doesn't, and what is transferable between one and the other.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually, I've integrated WC into training for 30 years now. The difference between you and I is that I have mixed it up full contact in boxing, kick-boxing, wrestling, stick fighting, nhb challenge matches, MMA, street fighting, and BJJ/sub-grappling so I actually have extensive experience with what works in various environments and what doesn't work.

Unlike you, I've done both the ring and the street so I know what works in each, what doesn't, and what is transferable between one and the other.

Same here, I am just not a crybaby.

[Knifefighter]

Same here, I am just not a crybaby.

Really? You have extensive competition experience? Please expound on that.

Actually, you are a crybaby with the way you go on and on about how the ring is not the street when nobody even said it was in the first place.

[goju]

yes everyone knows who dale franks is
...uh

[HumbleWCGuy]

Really? You have extensive competition experience? Please expound on that.

Actually, you are a crybaby with the way you go on and on about how the ring is not the street when nobody even said it was in the first place.

I would be happy to just as soon as you make a reasonable case for you points. From what I understand, a lot of your debates come down to you trying to lay out your resume, but what I would like is for you to address my points with a reasonable level of specificity instead of acting like I give a rats about your insults and tough talk.

[t_niehoff]

I would be happy to just as soon as you make a reasonable case for you points.

Well, I have made a reasonable case for the same thing Dale is saying. When you train good, solid fundamentals you don't need junk, as junk is only training to fail.

Your whole argument basically boils down to 1) fighting on the street is different than fighting in a ring (yeah, we know - but good solid fundamentals will work anywhere); and 2) you've been able to pull of junk against scrubs (yeah,we know - but so what? learning and practicing unsound junk only takes time away from the practice of the good, solid stuff, is self-limiting, and starts with underestimating your opponent).

Then when this is pointed out, you begin with ad hominem attacks (I'm only saying this because I am "disgruntled"). No, I am only saying these things because they have have been proved over and over again.

Good, solid fundamental fighting skills will work anywhere: on the street, in the gym, in the ring, etc. OK, but how can we know what is and is not good, solid fundamentals? By looking at what works against really good fighters -- since you're not going to be able to make junk work against them. Working/saprring with proven, good people exposes crap. This isn't rocket science, this is true in any sport or athletic activity.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I have never written a single sentence against a strong program to develop fundamentals in the manner practiced by mma fighters as I am a believer in that style of training. If I lived in your town, I would probably be at your gyms training.

Here is my point. If you practice WC trapping at all then you practice junk techniques. Very few traps work very consistently against crisp punches but how nice are they against stiff karateka and street fighters?

[m1k3]

Interesting because I never said such a thing anywhere at any time against improving ones training. You took one sentence out of context and made a straw man out of it. Albeit, not a very good straw man. I am not speaking against the modern, I am speaking against people who irrationally dismiss the old.

Sorry but I have to disagree. In your original quote:[QUOTE] Disgruntled is about having an irrational hatred of traditional and irrational liking for the modern./QUOTE] you are presenting them as being different. Yet traditional techniques for training that work are are carried forward into a modern program. They are carried forward simply because they are proven to work and for no other reason. If they have not been carried forward in modern training programs it is because they are not particularly effective or something better has replaced them. I don't find anything 'irrational' in that process.

There are too many schools that train the way they do simply because that is the way it was always done, or if it was good enough for [name grand master here] its good enough for me.

[t_niehoff]

I have never written a single sentence against a strong program to develop fundamentals in the manner practiced by mma fighters as I am a believer in that style of training. If I lived in your town, I would probably be at your gyms training.

I never said that you did. But certainly chin na is not a solid, fundamentally sound method. And my point is that if you learn and develop fundamentally sound stuff, you don't need junk and wouldn't want to waste your time practicing that stuff (even though you may be able to use it against scrubs).

Here is my point. If you practice WC trapping at all then you practice junk techniques. Very few traps work very consistently against crisp punches but how nice are they against stiff karateka and street fighters?

Lots of people teach and practice all kinds of unrealsitic things. That's why I started this thread with "If you're not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail."

[HumbleWCGuy]

[QUOTE=m1k3;980623]Sorry but I have to disagree. In your original quote:

Disgruntled is about having an irrational hatred of traditional and irrational liking for the modern./QUOTE] you are presenting them as being different. Yet traditional techniques for training that work are are carried forward into a modern program. They are carried forward simply because they are proven to work and for no other reason. If they have not been carried forward in modern training programs it is because they are not particularly effective or something better has replaced them. I don't find anything 'irrational' in that process.

There are too many schools that train the way they do simply because that is the way it was always done, or if it was good enough for [name grand master here] its good enough for me.

That statement is a definition for a type of person not a statement against the modern. I agree with what you are saying about techniques being carried forward from the old into the new training format. That has to be true because many techniques are as old as fighting. My view is that the disgruntled person irrationally dislikes techniques from arts that haven't made transition into a modern format. It's easy enough to pluck techniques out of the traditional format and train them in a modern way but for some reason that doesn't happen.


Also, I see a lot of chin na in the phillipino knife fighting disarms, but because Ron Balicki did it, it was, "good stuff!" If some random Chinese master did the same thing, "it's crap!"

[HumbleWCGuy]

Lots of people teach and practice all kinds of unrealsitic things. That's why I started this thread with "If you're not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail."

To be honest, irrespective of the techniques that I am practicing, I have never used a traditional style one step sparring or stiff training. I have always trained out of movement and strove to make whatever techniques that I am training as effective as possible. Forms might be the exception.

Sure I have a few traps that I like and can pull out on anybody along with certain chin na techniques. I just try to be honest with myself and my students. I tell them that as of yet certain things seem to work best against less skilled opponents, but I want to teach it to you because there is too much payoff to not have it in that environment.

[t_niehoff]

To be honest, irrespective of the techniques that I am practicing, I have never used a traditional style one step sparring or stiff training. I have always trained out of movement and strove to make whatever techniques that I am training as effective as possible. Forms might be the exception.

That's good -- but using "alive" training is only half of it; equally important is the qulaity (skill level, attributes) of the people you are training with (sparring). The latter seems to be something often overlooked. Training good stuff (like BJJ for example) with realistic training (rolling) is great, but you need to do that with skilled grapplers,

Sure I have a few traps that I like and can pull out on anybody along with certain chin na techniques. I just try to be honest with myself and my students.

Here's the thing, if you are realistically training (sparring) against skilled people, you don't need to be honest -- in fact, no one, including your students, needs to even know your views: they can see for themselves what works and what doesn't work.

This is one of my favorite posts from one of my favorite blogs:

http://caneprevost.wordpress.com/200...ull****-meter/ (apparently bullsh1t spelled correctly needs to be in the link to work and this forum won't let me post that -- so manually change it)

He begins with, "I always tell students that anywhere from 5 to 95 % of what I say and teach in class is bullsh1t. It’s their job to sort that out for themselves."

Exactly!

I tell them that as of yet certain things seem to work best against less skilled opponents, but I want to teach it to you because there is too much payoff to not have it in that environment.

You still don't seem to grasp that good, solid fundamentals work - and work consistently, reliably -- in any realistic environment. The payoff for junk is NOT superior to solid stuff, it's considerably less. Junk isn't better for the "street", junk only works on the street because your opponent MAY have little skill or be surprised. But solid fundamentals work better on the street too for the same reasons. The difference is, however, that solid fundamentals don't RELY on those factors.