Wing Chun "defeats" MMA

[t_niehoff]

I think you need to do some better research there...
Kano Judo was a combination of Kito-ryu and Tenjin-shinyo ryu, to TMA and the only difference was that Kano's fighters were better, period.

WHY were Kano's guys better? Because of their training. Because Kano took traditional jiujitsu and adopted the sport-model to his training -- making it performance-based.

And that's why even today, judo guys dominate traditional jiujitsu guys when their best go head to head.

At that time, pretty much everyone trained the same way:
Grappling and throwing were "freestyle" and striking was controlled because of the "too deadly" stigma.

And the traditional jiujitsu schools continue to train like they did -- and how do these guys perform in grappling, throwing, fighting contests?

As for kendo, you need to read Draegers Modern Budo and Bujutsu where he mentions an episode that was a challenge match between a TMA kenjutsu guy and 3 "modern Kendo guys ( It was the "passive style" VS the "aggressive or active style") and see what the Kenjuka did to them.
Of course the difference was that the modern kendo guys were used to "sticks" and the kenjutsuka was used to a real blade.

So, do you think that one incident is solid proof (versus, for instance, the overwhelming domination of judo over other traditional jiujitsu) of how good a particular training method is?

You may want to look into how modern kendo began -- and how the commoners who took up sword practice and adopted the modern sport methodology overwhelmingly defeated the traditionally-trained samurai when joint tournaments were held.

[sanjuro_ronin]

WHY were Kano's guys better? Because of their training. Because Kano took traditional jiujitsu and adopted the sport-model to his training -- making it performance-based.

And that's why even today, judo guys dominate traditional jiujitsu guys when their best go head to head.

Actually, Kano training was base don his training in Kito-ryu and Tenjin shinyo ryu, to TJA and the training he use din Judo was the same one, he "invented" nothing in regards to that training.

And the traditional jiujitsu schools continue to train like they did -- and how do these guys perform in grappling, throwing, fighting contests?

The problem was on what was prioritized and most TJJJ focused on the "too deadly" and on Katas.

So, do you think that one incident is solid proof (versus, for instance, the overwhelming domination of judo over other traditional jiujitsu) of how good a particular training method is?

You may want to look into how modern kendo began -- and how the commoners who took up sword practice and adopted the modern sport methodology overwhelmingly defeated the traditionally-trained samurai when joint tournaments were held.

I think you need to read up on the context of those matches.
The sport guys "out pointed" the kenjutsuka's, they played the game better, a game the kenjutsu guys didn't know.
The tapped and poaked with sticks and got in quick points over the "kill shots" of the kenjutsu players.

This is a bad example for you T, it's like comparing point sparring with kick boxing:
Put the KB in a point environment and they will be eaten alive by points.

[t_niehoff]

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/04/ex-ufc...n-texas-video/

[goju]

aren you a judo guy sanjuro?

t this is where you roll over and present your belly in submission

[t_niehoff]

Actually, Kano training was base don his training in Kito-ryu and Tenjin shinyo ryu, to TJA and the training he use din Judo was the same one, he "invented" nothing in regards to that training.

I didn't say he "invented" anything -- just that he adopted a sport-model approach. Is judo a sport? Are any other traditional jiujitsu schools sports? Which, judo or any other traditional jiujitsu schools, dominate the others?

If Kano kept doing things as he had been trained, his guys wouldn't be any different than the traditional guys.

The problem was on what was prioritized and most TJJJ focused on the "too deadly" and on Katas.

That's what comes with unrealistic-type training, and why when you do realsitic (sport) training, you stop focusing on things that don't work.

I think you need to read up on the context of those matches.
The sport guys "out pointed" the kenjutsuka's, they played the game better, a game the kenjutsu guys didn't know.
The tapped and poaked with sticks and got in quick points over the "kill shots" of the kenjutsu players.

This is a bad example for you T, it's like comparing point sparring with kick boxing:
Put the KB in a point environment and they will be eaten alive by points.

The trouble is that you are *assuming* that these would be "kill shots" and that they could get them in in a "real" sword fight. Was anyone killed? No. So it is just another theory (sure they hit me at will, but in a "real" sword fight I'd blah, blah, blah -- TMAists always have excuses why they were beaten). Maybe, just maybe, in a "real" sword fight getting repeatedly hit (out-pointed) with a sword, even with non"kill shots" -- to places like the wrist/arm -- might stop you from being able to pull off any "kill shots" (they were able to do them in the sport since all the points didn't really injure them -- for example, I take 10 hits before I can get in my "kill shot").

Actually, the kendo is more like the kickboxing (as both practice realistic training - or as close to realistic as you can get with a sword), and kenjutsu more like point sparring (as both are unrealistic). I can just hear the point sparrer say "yeah, the kickboxer hit me a lot, but he's lucky that I pull my punches because in a "real fight" blah, blah, blah".)

[sanjuro_ronin]

aren you a judo guy sanjuro?

t this is where you roll over and present your belly in submission

Shodan in Judo, yes and also some experience in Kendo and Shinkage-ryu kenjutsu.
T's points are valid, but I think he makes too much of the kodokan matches, as do most Judo guys too by the way and he is taking the Kendo thing out of context.

[t_niehoff]

aren you a judo guy sanjuro?

t this is where you roll over and present your belly in submission

Judo was my first martial art.

And BJJ comes from judo.

Go away and come back when you have something substantive to add.

[Eric_H]

Of course it is not the same. But the SKILLS you will use are the same.

You do understand that you can't really train realistically with "real" swords. People would end up injuring and killing each other very quickly, and you'd never develop much in the way of skill. The shinai permits people to realistically train (move with full power) and so develop realistic skills.

It's the same "principle" with empty hands -- boxing is not a street fight. But the skills you develop via boxing are realistic skills and will "work" in any realistic situation.

Boxing won't work if someone tackles you, that's realistic but it's outside the context of the rules of that particular sport. Does it give you a method for landing string strikes and footwork? Of course.

Obviously I understand you can't train with real swords, any reasonable person would, but to claim that you can become the highest skilled swordsman you can with only kendo training is fallacy. There's a lot more to being a swordsman than just the high percentage techniques because they're don't cover every situation. Just the common ones.

The whole idea of throwing him on his head and breaking his neck is a fantasy. Except in rare accidental cases, it won't happen. So training to do something that will never work is a waste of time. Instead, train to throw him by really throwing him. Kimura was feared for his osoto gari -- he gave his randori partners concussions.

It's not a fantasy, look up Shuai Jiao. Most of their throws are designed to try and get a break/knockout or kill out of em. Ju Jitsu was as well at one point.

If I lift you over my head, do you think I can say that I know that I can drop you?

No. You don't. You have achieved the superior position of having me above your head, but nothing says I can't reverse the position. Are you really trying to use the Ultimate Warrior's WWF signature move as an argument here? C'mon Terence, you're better than that.

You can know because you feel it. People tap because they "know" (feel it) that they will get choked out or have joints broken. Even then, people sometimes don't tap (thinking the angle is off or the pressure insufficient or whatever) and injuries happen. I've been choked out, and have choked people out. I've had my arm pop, and popped some people's arms. I had my knee dislocated. From this experience, I know a kimura will wrench a shoulder or a RNC will put you out.

In context of the sport and many real life situations you are right. However outside the context of the sport things like small joint manipulation can affect your ability to maintain that RNC. As i said before, I agree that high percentage techniques are just that - High percentage. But in a sport context they do not always factor in the totality of the situation, can you agree with that statement or not?

Much of the dangerous stuff is really just training to fail. People who train finger strikes, for instance, are really just training to get their fingers broken. They are training to fail.

You are disregarding the statement about training fingers to take impact and not break on a miss. Is it a bad idea to use them otherwise? Of course. If you can stab through bamboo like some kataeka train to do can you use them without risk of self injury? Of course.

The argument is not if you CAN injure yourself with a technique - almost any striking technique done wrong can hurt you - its if you can consider it a valid option under specific circumstances. I'd say that you can.

What's with this "no-lethal" stuff?

By your own admission you are training non-lethal techniques, so as you have not trained them, you cannot possibly believe you would be able to land them under pressure. You consider many lethal techniques to be a fantasy, I do not.

Skill and conditioning works. How you use those skills is up to you.

Much of those old chinese sayings (like Calgon) are nonsense.

So an ancient chinese saying that says you should pay attention to spirit, conditioning and skill is nonsense, but when you say it it's perfectly valid?

This is typical TMA-type thinking -- IF this and IF that, then I BELIEVE . . . The answer is: that's all THEORY. So, when it comes to fighting for your life (as you can't do this stuff in sport), are you going to bet on a theory? Or, are you going to use what you KNOW will work because you've done it for real thousands of times?

Terence, that isn't the argument and you know it. Situationally, you may have to do things that aren't ideal - welcome to both life and combat. If what you KNOW isn't suited to a situation, you're in trouble. So tell me then, what would you do in the situation I described? Use your high percentage jab that you know is not likely to take your opponent out of the fight? We don't really see finger strikes in Yip Man WC until Biu Jee, which is typically only for emergency situations. Having to do extra damage at extra risk is an "emergency situation."

IF YOU ARE NOT ALREADY DOING IT, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT (certainly not consistently).

True, but nothing says you cannot get reasonably close.

There is a real question about the increased damage (I've been poked hard, accidentally, in the eye several times and, while one time I had my retina detach - and had to get laser surgery - I still finished my training that evening). And the other aspect of low percentage is that it has a very good chance of failing, and when it fails, it leaves you exposed -- so not only don't you do something effective to your opponent but now you leave yourself open to having something done to you.

I am sorry to hear about your injury. I hope it has healed up. Would you say you were still 100% as effective with your eye jacked up? What did your training partner poking you in the eye leave him open for specifically?

So your theory is when really in danger, not to do what you train doing, that you know will work, that gives you your best (highest percentage) chance, but to do something that is low percentage, that you never really train, and so has a much smaller chance of working in the HOPE that not only will it work but that it will work better (increased damage)?

I never said it was something you hadn't trained. A jab that you have trained to effectiveness + fingers you have conditioned to take impact can be used as a weapon similar to a jab with potential to increase damage, but also potential to just stub your fingers if you are not accurate. It's a gamble, but all fighting is. Training to get as close as you can to the actual situation reduces that risk.

So the argument remains: You are in a situation that requires you to eliminate an opponent quickly do you:

A) use a technique 95% likely to land that has a %15 chance of taking him out OR
B) use a technique 70% likely to land that has a 70% chance of taking him out.

Choice is yours, i know which one I'd go for.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I didn't say he "invented" anything -- just that he adopted a sport-model approach. Is judo a sport? Are any other traditional jiujitsu schools sports? Which, judo or any other traditional jiujitsu schools, dominate the others?

If Kano kept doing things as he had been trained, his guys wouldn't be any different than the traditional guys.



That's what comes with unrealistic-type training, and why when you do realsitic (sport) training, you stop focusing on things that don't work.



The trouble is that you are *assuming* that these would be "kill shots" and that they could get them in in a "real" sword fight. Was anyone killed? No. So it is just another theory (sure they hit me at will, but in a "real" sword fight I'd blah, blah, blah -- TMAists always have excuses why they were beaten). Maybe, just maybe, in a "real" sword fight getting repeatedly hit (out-pointed) with a sword, even with non"kill shots" -- to places like the wrist/arm -- might stop you from being able to pull off any "kill shots" (they were able to do them in the sport since all the points didn't really injure them -- for example, I take 10 hits before I can get in my "kill shot").

Actually, the kendo is more like the kickboxing (as both practice realistic training - or as close to realistic as you can get with a sword), and kenjutsu more like point sparring (as both are unrealistic). I can just hear the point sparrer say "yeah, the kickboxer hit me a lot, but he's lucky that I pull my punches because in a "real fight" blah, blah, blah".)

First off, Kano training was typical of whathe did in the Kito and Tenjin shino ryu dojos.
He didn't invent or make judo a "sport" at that time, it came much later.

As someone who has done BOTH Kendo and kenjutsu I can say that Kendo is more like point sparring than anything else ( it is a point based system) and that kenjutsu, though done via forms, is far more realistic then kendo and ANYONE that has ever held a real sword, a bokuto and a shinai can tell you why.
The fact that kendo is free style is irrelevant because so much of kendo is shinai oriented.

I would gladly trade hits with my bokken VS anyone's shinai and tehn we can see which was a "killshot".

[goju]

Judo was my first martial art.

And BJJ comes from judo.

Go away and come back when you have something substantive to add.

oh boy another art you trained in for two weeks in and think your qualified to speak about! wipee doo!

[Frost]

I think saving your life, is its own 'reality'....going into a guard on the bjj minds set for 20mmin is unrealistic.....they altered UFC fights after seeing guys [gracie] doing 20 min responses to being taken down....in a bar fight thats 'your life' 20 seconds will determine if you have permanent brain damage nor not... the cage is an illusion, whereby you have a 'sporting' exchange. Weights are equal,everything is equal....sporting... thers is no weapons in the mix, no extra opponent , your always fighting ONE guy..easy, who needs MA for that ?



doesnt exist in the real world....real you think real is 1 on 1 in a gym with gloves..etc, ?

wrong...your f u c ki ng delusional.....bad men, [comma], will kill you.................

well considering the amount of street fights and true NHB fights the gracies had in brazil im sure they figured this out too...but i suppose you could always go into one of their schools and tell them they know nothing about real street fighting and show them what the are missing out on

and whilst the cage may not be real its most realistic than 90% of the toof top fights over in hong kong that the wing chun crowd are so proud of

[t_niehoff]

Boxing won't work if someone tackles you, that's realistic but it's outside the context of the rules of that particular sport. Does it give you a method for landing string strikes and footwork? Of course.

This is another red herring. Boxing develops a certain set of skills. Those skills you can use in the appropriate situations regardless of whether it is street, sport, or whatever.

Obviously I understand you can't train with real swords, any reasonable person would, but to claim that you can become the highest skilled swordsman you can with only kendo training is fallacy. There's a lot more to being a swordsman than just the high percentage techniques because they're don't cover every situation. Just the common ones.

First, how do you KNOW what it takes to be a high level swordsman? You don't. You only have a theory. And that theory is based on zero actual experience. So all your speculations are empty.

Second, how can you develop realistic skills without realistic training?

It's not a fantasy, look up Shuai Jiao. Most of their throws are designed to try and get a break/knockout or kill out of em. Ju Jitsu was as well at one point.

And people used to believe in dim mak too!

It doesn't work. It never did. Chang Dong Sheng, the greatest of all SJ fighters, never did any of that stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsakrgK0h6Y

No. You don't. You have achieved the superior position of having me above your head, but nothing says I can't reverse the position. Are you really trying to use the Ultimate Warrior's WWF signature move as an argument here? C'mon Terence, you're better than that.

You can possibly reverse any position (Rickson getting suplexed and taking the back from mid-air comes to mind), that's not the point.

In context of the sport and many real life situations you are right. However outside the context of the sport things like small joint manipulation can affect your ability to maintain that RNC.

No, they don't. That stuff simply doesn't work. And this illustrates what I mean by how many TMAs train to fail -- they teach stuff like that instead of how to really escape a RNC.

As i said before, I agree that high percentage techniques are just that - High percentage. But in a sport context they do not always factor in the totality of the situation, can you agree with that statement or not?

I think the statement is pointless. Sport is concerned with what works (and what they can see works through actual performance).

You are disregarding the statement about training fingers to take impact and not break on a miss. Is it a bad idea to use them otherwise? Of course. If you can stab through bamboo like some kataeka train to do can you use them without risk of self injury? Of course.

No. This is another *assumption* on your part. It's like "if you can break a brick, then you can . . . " No. It's not the same. Have the karateka try it in realistic sparring and they will get their fingers broken. Facing a dynamic situation where someone is fighting you is not the same as hitting something in a static situation where your opponent is not trying to injure you.

The argument is not if you CAN injure yourself with a technique - almost any striking technique done wrong can hurt you - its if you can consider it a valid option under specific circumstances. I'd say that you can.

Of course accidents can happen doing the best of things. That's not the point. What is the point can I do whatever it is consistently under realistic fighting conditions without getting hurt? Or, will you consistently get hurt?

You say that you believe you can strike with the fingers because you want to believe it, not because you are already doing it.

I KNOW that I can strike with all my power with my fist and not get hurt -- I know this because I do it all the time, I hit things, including actual opponents, all the time. That's not a theory or a hope or what I'd like to believe, it is true and I know it from actual experience (performance).

By your own admission you are training non-lethal techniques, so as you have not trained them, you cannot possibly believe you would be able to land them under pressure. You consider many lethal techniques to be a fantasy, I do not.

The whole lethal/non-lethal distinction is meaningless. I can put a RNC on you, choke you out, and keep it on until you are brain dead. Is the RNC a lethal or non-lethal technique?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there are some so-called lethal techniques, OK? How can you train them? You can't go around killing people. So you can only practice them by not really doing them. And so you never really know if they work or not. Moreover, you can never get very good at them since you never really do them.

Finally, why would anyone want to learn such things?

So an ancient chinese saying that says you should pay attention to spirit, conditioning and skill is nonsense, but when you say it it's perfectly valid?

No, I'm saying that I don't buy into it simply because it is an old Chinese saying. IME conditioning and skill work hand-in-hand, and that "spirit" comes into play IF you have conditioning and skill in place.

Terence, that isn't the argument and you know it. Situationally, you may have to do things that aren't ideal - welcome to both life and combat. If what you KNOW isn't suited to a situation, you're in trouble. So tell me then, what would you do in the situation I described? Use your high percentage jab that you know is not likely to take your opponent out of the fight?

Your question is essentially: so you know your jab won't stop him, don't you think that you should try something else that you've never really done to try and stop him? Something that is low percentage, high risk, and may not even work if you pull it off? No. That's only going to make things worse.

Here's an idea -- why not instead of using a jab, use a tool that you KNOW from experience has good stopping power?

We don't really see finger strikes in Yip Man WC until Biu Jee, which is typically only for emergency situations. Having to do extra damage at extra risk is an "emergency situation."

There are no finger strikes in the Biu Jee form.

True, but nothing says you cannot get reasonably close.

Training X to do Y is a great way to fail.

I am sorry to hear about your injury. I hope it has healed up. Would you say you were still 100% as effective with your eye jacked up? What did your training partner poking you in the eye leave him open for specifically?

When I got poked in the eye and had my retina detached, it was while sparring and I didn't lose a beat (although it hurt, but then getting hit often does!). In fact, I didn't even know anything was wrong until later that night when I was walking my dog (it was dark) and kept seeing flashes. Then I did an internet search and took off to the ER. The poke was unintentional.

Let's say that you have a punch (a straight punch, for example) that is so weak that it can't really hurt your opponent. It's really no threat. In fact, your opponent wants you to throw it since that means you are not throwing more effective attacks. Do you think your straight punch is leaving you open? Do you think your opponent is salivating in the hope you keep throwing it?

I never said it was something you hadn't trained. A jab that you have trained to effectiveness + fingers you have conditioned to take impact can be used as a weapon similar to a jab with potential to increase damage, but also potential to just stub your fingers if you are not accurate. It's a gamble, but all fighting is. Training to get as close as you can to the actual situation reduces that risk.

This is your THEORY. You believe this is true, but you don't KNOW from experience it is true. All it takes is to give someone goggles, and spar full out. After you get your fingers broken, then you'll know.

Yes, fighting is a gamble, and we increase our odds by effectively training for it. And that means using things that we KNOW work, and practicing those things under realistic conditions.

So the argument remains: You are in a situation that requires you to eliminate an opponent quickly do you:

A) use a technique 95% likely to land that has a %15 chance of taking him out OR
B) use a technique 70% likely to land that has a 70% chance of taking him out.

Choice is yours, i know which one I'd go for.

Here's what I would do -- C) use a technique that I know is high percentage and has a good chance of taking him out.

And, btw, your whole question is purely speculation and fantasy (and reflects TMA-thinking at its "best"). We know what things are high percentage from actual performance (when people fight, these things occur most frequently). It's is based on observation, not speculation or imagination. What is the percentage of landing a finger jab to the eyes? How do you know it is 70%? Are you already doing that in fighting? No. It's pure guesswork on your part. What the likelihood it will "take him out"? Again, you have no idea. What if it is only 10%? What are the chances of you injuring yourself? Again, you don't KNOW. So you don't know what your chances are of landing it or what your chances are of it having any significant effect on your opponent or your chances of not getting injured by attempting it.

Whereas the significance of performance-based training is that you are actually performing it (whatever it is), and you see if it works, how often it works, what happens when it doesn't, etc.

[t_niehoff]

oh boy another art you trained in for two weeks in and think your qualified to speak about! wipee doo!

You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in judo -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you don't even train).

[monji112000]

I didn't say he "invented" anything -- just that he adopted a sport-model approach. Is judo a sport? Are any other traditional jiujitsu schools sports? Which, judo or any other traditional jiujitsu schools, dominate the others?

If Kano kept doing things as he had been trained, his guys wouldn't be any different than the traditional guys.

Its common knowledge that Kano streamlined what he took from each school he learned from. He trimmed the fat, and made a hybrid style that was more effective because it has less BS. The smartest thing he could have ever done was force it to be a sport. IE have people actually do what they work so hard at for real.. with live people trying to not let you do whatever you want...

The mistake judo as a whole did was all the BS rules that have been and continue to be placed on the sport. Thats why its a dieing sport. JMO

[sanjuro_ronin]

The mistake judo as a whole did was all the BS rules that have been and continue to be placed on the sport. Thats why its a dieing sport. JMO

Dying sport??
Since when?
The rules they made, they made to make it more competitive for ALL, agree or disagree with them, it has done just that.