Wing Chun "defeats" MMA

[Wayfaring]

http://www.history-of-armor.com/index.html

[t_niehoff]

The martial battlefield isn't imaginary, it's a place in warfare where many men died every day. This went on for what? the last X thousands of years before the rifle took over the battlefield? These soldiers had to train day in and out at fighting because their lives literally depended on it.

Yes, soldiers fought for thousands of years on the battlefield. And they trained to fight. But -- and this is the significant "but" -- that doesn't mean that HOW they trained produced particularly good results.

As I said, the traditional japanese jiujitsu was developed/used on the battlefield. It was trained by professional soldiers, the warrior class (samurai). Yet, when Kano took those arts and changed how it was trained (by adopting a western sport approach), his guys completely destroyed the traditionally trained fighters.

And this scenario is repeated every time a traditional art adopts a sport approach. Because sport is a far superior way of training. And it produces far superior results.

So while the soldiers were training the best way they knew how (at the time) -- they didn't know about the sport approach -- their way of training wasn't particularly good. And since everyone was using the same poor way of training, the training was relative (I train poorly and you train poorly), and the results relative. Today, however, when you see sport-trained fighters meet traditionally-only trained fighters, the training isn't relative (two poorly trained people fighting) but a well-trained fighter meeting a poorly trained fighters. Which invariably leads to a Maoshan-Nakmeezy.

Do martial battlefields exist in the same way today? Heck no (obviously). Are 99.99% of people who train martial arts going to be there? Also Heck no.

The strategy will be different when you have no choice but to commit to fighting or dying. A civilian arts' focus is far different, it's more about surviving and getting away than eradicating the enemy or die trying.

I don't know what a "civilian art6" is -- since there are all kinds of "civilian arts."

The issue here isn't whether something is civilian or military but rather how we (as human beings) best develop high levels of physical (fighting) skill. The answer is through the sport approach since it is performance-based.

MMA is both a style of fighting and a ruleset. Same as Judo or Boxing.

MMA is a sport and a ruleset. But it is not a style, since you can do anything you like -- there are no fixed/limited techniques like there are in judo and boxing. Much in the same way submission grappling is a ruleset/sport but is not a style (you can train any art/style that you want or mix-and-match or whatever).

Funny you should choose to keep picking on Maoshan. Good or Bad, at least he has some videos out there. Where are yours Terence?

I don't make videos of myself. There are already far too, too many videos of WCK "practitioners" out there (let mes how you the SNT and chi sao one more time!). Also I'm not so delusional as to believe myself to be some authority or some noteworthy example demonstrating to others how things "should" be done. As I have repeatedly said, I'm not that good. And I think that the making of videos should be left to people who have proved themselves (by fighting) to be really, really very good.

[Eric_H]

As I said, the traditional japanese jiujitsu was developed/used on the battlefield. It was trained by professional soldiers, the warrior class (samurai). Yet, when Kano took those arts and changed how it was trained (by adopting a western sport approach), his guys completely destroyed the traditionally trained fighters.

And this scenario is repeated every time a traditional art adopts a sport approach. Because sport is a far superior way of training. And it produces far superior results.

It is inarguable that Kano's Judo shocked the ju-jitsu world. However, were the Ju-Jitsu people he faced ones that trained it like professional soldiers? (It's original intent?) Did they have the experience is using it in life or death scenario? Did they treat the encounter like a life or death scenario? If not, on any of the above, it's no wonder the Judo guys won. There is certainly something of value in that for both sides.

So while the soldiers were training the best way they knew how (at the time) -- they didn't know about the sport approach -- their way of training wasn't particularly good. And since everyone was using the same poor way of training, the training was relative (I train poorly and you train poorly), and the results relative.

Sports are limited by their rules, if you don't train to work within that ruleset to your maximum potential, someone who does will likely destroy you. That's just common wisdom.

Today, however, when you see sport-trained fighters meet traditionally-only trained fighters, the training isn't relative (two poorly trained people fighting) but a well-trained fighter meeting a poorly trained fighters. Which invariably leads to a Maoshan-Nakmeezy.

Predominantly, sport trained fighters are winning. There's no argument there.

I don't know what a "civilian art6" is -- since there are all kinds of "civilian arts."

The issue here isn't whether something is civilian or military but rather how we (as human beings) best develop high levels of physical (fighting) skill. The answer is through the sport approach since it is performance-based.

Clarifying again, the difference in mindset. Things that are appropriate for a wartime art may not be applicable for a peacetime art. I am reminded of a recent news story in which marine who on getting home from Iraq ended up opening fire with a rifle on his neighbors for harrassing him and brandishing weapons. That is an absolutely appropriate battlefield response, it is not however an appropriate civilian response. That's why cops don't train the same as the army.

MMA is a sport and a ruleset. But it is not a style, since you can do anything you like -- there are no fixed/limited techniques like there are in judo and boxing. Much in the same way submission grappling is a ruleset/sport but is not a style (you can train any art/style that you want or mix-and-match or whatever).

There are limitations on technique, otherwise there would be no rules and MMA would not be legitimized as a sport. You "can" mix and match whatever you want, but predominantly the rule set favors boxing/kickboxing, wrestling, and BJJ. Are they valid arts? Yep. Are they going to look more valid competing under favorable rule sets? Yep.

I don't make videos of myself. There are already far too, too many videos of WCK "practitioners" out there (let mes how you the SNT and chi sao one more time!). Also I'm not so delusional as to believe myself to be some authority or some noteworthy example demonstrating to others how things "should" be done. As I have repeatedly said, I'm not that good. And I think that the making of videos should be left to people who have proved themselves (by fighting) to be really, really very good.

By your logic then, only Geroges St. Pierre and Anderson Silva should be making videos. There's nothing wrong making videos and showing where you are at in developing fighting skill. There is something wrong claiming to be an authority on fighting if you don't have a decent record professional/amateur/whatever. FWIW, I don't see Maoshan claiming to be an authority.

But you are right, the world doesn't need any more SNT videos...ugh...

[m1k3]

Eric, T., did either of you ever serve in the military? Just curious.

[t_niehoff]

It is inarguable that Kano's Judo shocked the ju-jitsu world.

And whenever traditional arts have adopted the sport-model, they make rapid and huge advancement in technique, skill, etc.

However, were the Ju-Jitsu people he faced ones that trained it like professional soldiers? (It's original intent?) Did they have the experience is using it in life or death scenario? Did they treat the encounter like a life or death scenario? If not, on any of the above, it's no wonder the Judo guys won. There is certainly something of value in that for both sides.

What difference does that matter? Do you believe that people suddenly -- and magically -- have more fighting skill or more conditioning when it becomes a fight to the death as opposed to a sporting contest?

Sports are limited by their rules, if you don't train to work within that ruleset to your maximum potential, someone who does will likely destroy you. That's just common wisdom.

Yes, sports are limited by their rules. So what?

People are limited by their performance ability. The sport model (of functional training) vastly increases our potential performance ability (how good we can become). It's not so much a matter of what possible things you may be able to try to do but how well you can do whatever it is.

Predominantly, sport trained fighters are winning. There's no argument there.

Except in rare cases, they always win.

Clarifying again, the difference in mindset. Things that are appropriate for a wartime art may not be applicable for a peacetime art. I am reminded of a recent news story in which marine who on getting home from Iraq ended up opening fire with a rifle on his neighbors for harrassing him and brandishing weapons. That is an absolutely appropriate battlefield response, it is not however an appropriate civilian response. That's why cops don't train the same as the army.

This is a red herring. Of course how we behave in wartime or when fighting for our life will not be appropriate for sport. What has this to do with anything?

How can we best develop fighting skill? That's the issue. How we behave with that skill is something else.

There are limitations on technique, otherwise there would be no rules and MMA would not be legitimized as a sport. You "can" mix and match whatever you want, but predominantly the rule set favors boxing/kickboxing, wrestling, and BJJ. Are they valid arts? Yep. Are they going to look more valid competing under favorable rule sets? Yep.

Of course there are limitations on technique if combative sports. That's precisely one of the important things that makes the sport-model superior. The sport-limitation of only including in the sport those things that we can really and truly do (perform) both in practice and in competition, is what permits us to develop high levels of skill (since we can then really practicing doing them just as we will do them).

For example, how can you really practice poking your opponent's eyes? You can't. If we did, we wouldn't have training partners very long. So the sport way of thinking is why include something (like poking the eyes) that we can't really practice and so can't really develop much in the way of skill doing (since we never really do it)? Why not instead just practice doing those things we can really practice, and so get much better at those things. Then when you fight some traditional guy who is trying to poke your eye but has very little skill (since he never could really practice doing it), you punch his lights out since you've been really practicing punching people's lights out.

By your logic then, only Geroges St. Pierre and Anderson Silva should be making videos.

They certainly could make videos. But I'm not saying only them -- but that anyone who does be very highly skilled.

There's nothing wrong making videos and showing where you are at in developing fighting skill.

Well, if people want to make fools of themselves on video, that's their prerogative. But just because they want to do that doesn't mean I should.

There is something wrong claiming to be an authority on fighting if you don't have a decent record professional/amateur/whatever. FWIW, I don't see Maoshan claiming to be an authority.

Most people don't explicitly claim to be authorities. He teaches (and uses the title "sifu" to identify himself). He shows others how to do ba gua

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEfW40rNB5c

But you are right, the world doesn't need any more SNT videos...ugh...

I'm glad we agree.

[SoCo KungFu]

I don't know why people keep going back to the "battlefield" argument. Its over the top ridiculous. You want to know the truth about "battlefield" training? Its sucks monkey ****!

They didn't have military like we do today. You know, where we actually try to preserve our own numbers and such. You all seem to be under this myth that warriors of the past were these highly trained kung fu killing machines. They were f'n peasants and slaves! They get conscripted into a regional force, given mediocre equipment and some rudimentary training and thrown in large numbers at other unequipped, rudimentary trained peasants and slaves. They weren't warlords bent on domination. They were scared ****less they were going to die. Which was quite likely to happen and why there was so much turnover in militaries of past.

Ironically, these well trained generals and warrior classes and nobles spending all their life training and all that nonsense, they were the commanders and strategists. They were the ones LEAST likely to actually engage in physical combat...

Look at how the combat actually transpired. Archery, cavalry, infantry. Pretty much the same concept where ever you went. Generals in the back, the armies were just fodder for the most part. They weren't highly trained or equipped, because they were expected to die. Victory meant either outnumbering your enemy or enacting a strategy that allowed you to allow more or your numbers to engage less of their numbers at any given time.

This is why "military" training is so crappy for civilian use. Even today, yes we actually train soldiers in this day and age. Because we try not to lose large numbers in fighting. Its common for a soldier to live their time and retire. But even still, we use team tactics. Its not a 1 on 1 fight and its (mostly) from range. And that team involves much more than just grunts, we're talking armored infantry, air support, etc. Last time I checked I wasn't carrying a radio around to call in airstrikes on muggers. I do have some friends in CCT, maybe they'll let me sign out some of theirs.....

You guys have this romanticized image of image of what the battlefield used to be like. Its not what you all think.

The only thing close to what you guys are talking about would be the Roman legions or the Spartans. And that's because they're society was built around the ideal of warrior citizens as opposed to raising armies.

[Eric_H]

What difference does that matter? Do you believe that people suddenly -- and magically -- have more fighting skill or more conditioning when it becomes a fight to the death as opposed to a sporting contest?

No, i think people will inherently build more skill if they are training like their life depends on it. That's one of the cool things about sport fighting, you face a physical test every so often so it's harder to slack off. In addition if a fighter treats the confrontation as something you don't walk away from, they are likely to fight differently.

Yes, sports are limited by their rules. So what?

To reiterate again, someone more versed in a specific style of competition will have an edge in their chosen rule set.

This is a red herring. Of course how we behave in wartime or when fighting for our life will not be appropriate for sport. What has this to do with anything?

You just said that it didn't matter if someone if someone is fighting for their life or not. So which is it? Or are you talking out both sides of your mouth again?

How can we best develop fighting skill? That's the issue. How we behave with that skill is something else.

AHHH. So you do agree there's a difference in the mental part of how a person engages a situation. That's the point. Although seperate from the skill building it has a big effect on the application and choice of skill to apply

For example, how can you really practice poking your opponent's eyes? You can't.

It's pretty easy, practice landing a punch to their eye. Then practice a similar shaped attack that uses a finger poke. Logically if you can land the punch you can land the poke. What's the big deal with that? There was an MMA fight on CBS where it was stopped because the one guy poked the other's eye as the fighter's hand was medically incapable of forming a fist when he threw a jab. It may not be "teh superz d3adly 3y3 poke" of legend, but it was a fight ender.

Most people don't explicitly claim to be authorities. He teaches (and uses the title "sifu" to identify himself). He shows others how to do ba gua

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEfW40rNB5c

Bagua's a big art. FWIW, he may not have good fighting skill, and potentially should not be preaching how to fight with it. However he may be able to teach body mechanics or philosophy/strategy that can be used in bagua style fighting. Ergo, he can be qualified to be a coach in certain areas of the martial art, but not the whole thing. Sad thing is, you don't know who has what when they hide behind the "Sifu" title.

I'm glad we agree.

Hell sure must be frosty today

[Eric_H]

They didn't have military like we do today. You know, where we actually try to preserve our own numbers and such. You all seem to be under this myth that warriors of the past were these highly trained kung fu killing machines. They were f'n peasants and slaves! They get conscripted into a regional force, given mediocre equipment and some rudimentary training and thrown in large numbers at other unequipped, rudimentary trained peasants and slaves. They weren't warlords bent on domination. They were scared ****less they were going to die. Which was quite likely to happen and why there was so much turnover in militaries of past.

Ironically, these well trained generals and warrior classes and nobles spending all their life training and all that nonsense, they were the commanders and strategists. They were the ones LEAST likely to actually engage in physical combat...

I know wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but it's readily available, from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...hina_(pre-1911)

Early Chinese armies, such as that of the Shang and Zhou, were based on chariots and bronze weapons, much like their contemporaries in western Asia and Egypt. These small armies were ill-trained, poorly equipped, and had poor endurance[5] However, by the Warring States Period, the introduction of iron weapons, crossbows, and cavalry revolutionized Chinese warfare. Professional standing armies replaced the unreliable peasant levies of old, and professional generals replaced aristocrats at the head of the army.[5] This occurred concurrently with the establishment of a centralized state that was to become the norm for China. Under the Qin and Han Dynasties, China was unified and its troops conquered territories in all directions, and established China's frontiers that would last to the present day. These victories ushered in a golden age for China.[6]

Look at how the combat actually transpired. Archery, cavalry, infantry. Pretty much the same concept where ever you went. Generals in the back, the armies were just fodder for the most part. They weren't highly trained or equipped, because they were expected to die. Victory meant either outnumbering your enemy or enacting a strategy that allowed you to allow more or your numbers to engage less of their numbers at any given time.

I was under the impression that commanders typically fought in the front until later in history when they figured out having their commanders die all the time was probably a bad idea. That may be western strategy though, I'll have to research some more. I'm unfamilliar with the chinese tactic in regards to leadership placement in army situations.

This is why "military" training is so crappy for civilian use. Even today, yes we actually train soldiers in this day and age. Because we try not to lose large numbers in fighting. Its common for a soldier to live their time and retire. But even still, we use team tactics. Its not a 1 on 1 fight and its (mostly) from range. And that team involves much more than just grunts, we're talking armored infantry, air support, etc. Last time I checked I wasn't carrying a radio around to call in airstrikes on muggers. I do have some friends in CCT, maybe they'll let me sign out some of theirs.....

As mentioned above, the advent and common use of the rifle changed tactics significantly, nobody is arguing that.

The only thing close to what you guys are talking about would be the Roman legions or the Spartans. And that's because they're society was built around the ideal of warrior citizens as opposed to raising armies.

See above in reference to professional standing armies.

[Wayfaring]

No, i think people will inherently build more skill if they are training like their life depends on it. That's one of the cool things about sport fighting, you face a physical test every so often so it's harder to slack off. In addition if a fighter treats the confrontation as something you don't walk away from, they are likely to fight differently.

IMO seeing people do their 6 week training camp for a fight and participating in some of that training, I do not see how that is significantly different than it would be if their life depended on it. In many ways it is similar motivation, as their livelihood depends on it.

Either way that is a far cry from how people train who talk about the arts they practice as too deadly for sport, or have some form of rationalization along those lines - such as people who claim they train for life and death situations, not for sporting fights.

I have yet to see someone who claims that who trains with anywhere near the intensity and dedication as one of the fighters in their 6 week training camps do. Nutrition, 2 a days 5 days a week, 1 a day 1 day, 1 day off, conditioning, technique, sparring, etc.

I have seen a number of those life and death mentality people try and train with amateur and pro fighters. With very few exceptions, life and death translates usually to a maximum of 90 seconds, or until someone gets hit really hard.

[t_niehoff]

No, i think people will inherently build more skill if they are training like their life depends on it. That's one of the cool things about sport fighting, you face a physical test every so often so it's harder to slack off. In addition if a fighter treats the confrontation as something you don't walk away from, they are likely to fight differently.

Again, you are missing the point. ONLY realistic training develops realistic skill. Doing unrealistic training, even if your believe your life depends on it, won't develop realistic skill. Sport training is realistic -- you practice really doing things just as you will do them against a genuinely resisting opponent (you really play the game). Things that work, you keep; things that don't you discard. Because you continually face realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc. you develop skills to deal with realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc. This is what keeps you on the realistic road. Unrealistic training (where you are not facing realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc.) permit you to get away with all kinds of nonsense that won't really work under realistic conditions, so you begin to detour from the realistic road -- and the longer you do it, the further you go off into fantasy land.

To reiterate again, someone more versed in a specific style of competition will have an edge in their chosen rule set.

Sure, and that's because they develop greater skills.

You just said that it didn't matter if someone if someone is fighting for their life or not. So which is it? Or are you talking out both sides of your mouth again?

Why the smart ass? I thought we were having a decent conversation.

Having a skill and choosing how to use it are two different things. For example, I can be skilled at submission grappling, and in sport, I choose to stop when my opponent taps whereas if I am fighting for my life I choose to break my opponent's arm. Same skill, but how I choose to use it varies with the circumstances.

So, how do I develop the skill to break someone's arm? The evidence overwhelming proves it is through sport-style training.

If I have to train to fight for my life, should I choose the most effective way to develop skill or do something else?

AHHH. So you do agree there's a difference in the mental part of how a person engages a situation. That's the point. Although seperate from the skill building it has a big effect on the application and choice of skill to apply

Of course. And you agree that your mental aspect (whether life or death or sport) is separate from the skill building. That's my point. How we best -- most quickly, most effectively, and the levels that we can attain -- come from the sport-model of training.

Without skill, the mental aspect really isn't significant -- you want to break his arm, but won't have the ability to do it.

It's pretty easy, practice landing a punch to their eye. Then practice a similar shaped attack that uses a finger poke. Logically if you can land the punch you can land the poke. What's the big deal with that?

Do you see that this is a theory -- you BELIEVE this should work. In sport, you really DO it-- whatever it is -- not do one thing in the hope that you will be able to do something else (which is the definition of poor training). And by really doing it (under realistic conditions), you develop high levels of skill in doing it. You know it works because you are already doing it under realistic conditions.

And your theory -- like all theories -- fails to take into account numerous aspects. For example, like the probability of getting your fingers broken (by your opponent blocking your strike, by missing and hitting his skull, etc.) or how extremely difficult it is to hit a small, moving target like the eye when your opponent is trying to knock your head off, etc.

There was an MMA fight on CBS where it was stopped because the one guy poked the other's eye as the fighter's hand was medically incapable of forming a fist when he threw a jab. It may not be "teh superz d3adly 3y3 poke" of legend, but it was a fight ender.

Sure, accidents happen. People (including scrubs) hit holes in one. People hit basketball shots at the buzzer from the other end of the court. People hit winners off the "wood" of their racket. Etc. Should they rely on these things? The issue isn't whether someone has done something or can possibly do something but whether it is a high percentage move, what are the risks (is it high risk or low risk), can you effectively train it by really doing it, etc.

Bagua's a big art. FWIW, he may not have good fighting skill, and potentially should not be preaching how to fight with it. However he may be able to teach body mechanics or philosophy/strategy that can be used in bagua style fighting.

How can he teach a skill that he doesn't have (know how to do)? If you are a terrible boxer, do you think that you should be teaching others how to box? Should bad golfers be coaching others on how to play golf?

Ergo, he can be qualified to be a coach in certain areas of the martial art, but not the whole thing. Sad thing is, you don't know who has what when they hide behind the "Sifu" title.

I agree with you to an extent. I think a bad golfer can teach a beginner the basics of the game -- with the understanding that I am a terrible golfer and this is just a low-level intro. This happens in all sports.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you do some more research, you will find, for example, that when Kano took traditional japanese jiujitsu (those so-called "battlefield tested" arts) and adopted the western sport-model to it, his new jiujitsu, judo, completely devastated the traditional arts. The same happened when the sport model was adopted by swordman in Japan.

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.
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.
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.

[Eric_H]

Again, you are missing the point. ONLY realistic training develops realistic skill. Doing unrealistic training, even if your believe your life depends on it, won't develop realistic skill.

I didn't miss your point, I agree with your statement above. We're arguing different points.

Sport training is realistic -- you practice really doing things just as you will do them against a genuinely resisting opponent (you really play the game). Things that work, you keep; things that don't you discard. Because you continually face realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc. you develop skills to deal with realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc. This is what keeps you on the realistic road. Unrealistic training (where you are not facing realistic energy, resistance, attacks, defenses, etc.) permit you to get away with all kinds of nonsense that won't really work under realistic conditions, so you begin to detour from the realistic road -- and the longer you do it, the further you go off into fantasy land.

Sport training is realistic in the contexts of sports only. Just like with Kendo, you can build a lot of the same body mechanics and high percentage techniques that go into being a swordsman, however doing kendo is not the same as fighting with a real sword.

By the same logic, doing Judo where you pin the guy is not the same as throwing him on to his head and breaking his neck. Can Judo help you build skills that help you to do so? Yes. Does it build that specific skill? No, it's too dangerous for sport. At the end of the day, there's more in common than apart with throwing the guy to pin vs kill, but they're not the same.

Why the smart ass? I thought we were having a decent conversation.

Terence, you do have a history of making comments from one side and then the other. I remember a Chi sao thread that i think somebody linked in their sig all about that. Just bustin' yer balls man, lighten up.

Having a skill and choosing how to use it are two different things. For example, I can be skilled at submission grappling, and in sport, I choose to stop when my opponent taps whereas if I am fighting for my life I choose to break my opponent's arm. Same skill, but how I choose to use it varies with the circumstances.

See that's kind of the different points we're arguing. You achieved in sport the ability to gain the superior position. By your own argument, since you haven't actually trained to break his arm with it, how do you know you can do so under pressure/resistance/etc? YOU CAN'T! You can only guarantee you can achieve a superior position under pressure/resistance which makes breaking or submitting much easier.

If I have to train to fight for my life, should I choose the most effective way to develop skill or do something else?

The Key is to both train what you can safely, and then do supplemental training that makes the dangerous stuff easier. If you're really going to do finger strikes, training them to be able to take impact, to break arms, snapping twigs that are resistance similar to human arm, cutting through tatami that has resistance like human skin+bone, etc. You have to find a substitute when the stuff is too dangerous to get you as close as you can. Sports don't do that.

Of course. And you agree that your mental aspect (whether life or death or sport) is separate from the skill building. That's my point. How we best -- most quickly, most effectively, and the levels that we can attain -- come from the sport-model of training.

For superior position training and non-lethal/breaking/puncturing techniques, I cannot argue, it's true.

Without skill, the mental aspect really isn't significant -- you want to break his arm, but won't have the ability to do it.

Eh, that is arguable. I'd rather fight a skilled guy who doesn't want to fight than a strong unskilled one who really wants to kill me. Old chinese saying has it that first is spirit, then conditioning, and then skill come in order of importance when dealing w/ hand to hand fighting. I agree with it.

Do you see that this is a theory -- you BELIEVE this should work. In sport, you really DO it-- whatever it is -- not do one thing in the hope that you will be able to do something else (which is the definition of poor training). And by really doing it (under realistic conditions), you develop high levels of skill in doing it. You know it works because you are already doing it under realistic conditions.

And your theory -- like all theories -- fails to take into account numerous aspects. For example, like the probability of getting your fingers broken (by your opponent blocking your strike, by missing and hitting his skull, etc.) or how extremely difficult it is to hit a small, moving target like the eye when your opponent is trying to knock your head off, etc.

Sure, accidents happen. People (including scrubs) hit holes in one. People hit basketball shots at the buzzer from the other end of the court. People hit winners off the "wood" of their racket. Etc. Should they rely on these things? The issue isn't whether someone has done something or can possibly do something but whether it is a high percentage move, what are the risks (is it high risk or low risk), can you effectively train it by really doing it, etc.

He actually nailed him in the eye a number of times, but the one that really connected ended it. Being he was a fighter in EliteXC, I don't know if you can legitimately call him a scrub, he may not be in the top, but to be able to fight in a national promotion like that he's got to be above scrub level.

IF I am able to land a jab effectively, AND IF my fingers are toughened up enough not to break should i miss, what makes you think it's not a valid technique? Is it lower percentage? Sure. CAN I do it? Absolutely. IF you are focused on ONLY the highest percentage technique is this a bad choice for you? Yeah. But it's the gamble of lower percentage vs increased damage.

Going back to our earlier battlefield discussion, if you HAVE to take your opponent out quickly because of extra factors (he has buddies coming, you have to cover for your buddy who just got injured, or whatever) you combine your HIGHEST PERCENTAGE with the most potential for INCREASED DAMAGE. That's only logical.

How can he teach a skill that he doesn't have (know how to do)? If you are a terrible boxer, do you think that you should be teaching others how to box? Should bad golfers be coaching others on how to play golf?

A boxer who went 0-15 could still be able to teach mechanics on how to throw a proper jab. I wouldn't keep him around for sparring though.

[Hardwork108]

Why are you here when you could be living in Tibet and meditating under cool mountain stream waterfalls and washing the sandals of your "authentic kung-fu teacher"?

Simple answer: "Dodging bullets" here in Colombia, relaxes me more.

Secondly, reading clueless posts such as the one you made above, proves to me, and everyone else who reads them, how much out of touch and lacking in TCMA knowledge, some of you MMA-ist/Cross trainers, really are.

You seem to think that anyone who "dares" to defend the TCMA methodologies, therefore and at least to some point, disagrees with the MMA approach, in a TCMA FORUM, must be automatically labeled a kung fu cult member.

Really, you and your MMA brethren are the ones who should be meditating in Tibet, for the sole purpose of getting in touch with the remnants of your punch drunk brains.

[Wayfaring]

You seem to think that anyone who "dares" to defend the TCMA methodologies, therefore and at least to some point, disagrees with the MMA approach, in a TCMA FORUM, must be automatically labeled a kung fu cult member.

Hmm. I didn't mention or think anything of the sort regarding labeling people a "kung fu cult member". Why? Does that describe you?

I don't see what seems to be the big deal that's causing you to be all huffy about "TCMA Methodologies".

Can't you train to fight realistically AND meditate under your cold waterfall on your lunch break?

[Hardwork108]

Hmm. I didn't mention or think anything of the sort regarding labeling people a "kung fu cult member". Why? Does that describe TCMA cultist.

Actually, what you say describes YOU as a MMA cultist.

I don't see what seems to be the big deal that's causing you to be all huffy about "TCMA Methodologies".

I am not the "huffy" one, it is you. All I do is post in a TCMA forum, while I practice the TCMAs, meaning, that I have a reason to be here, because I have a point of reference.

So, it is you, and the likes of you, who feel obliged to come into this KUNG FU Forum, and get "fluffy" about the "functionality" of your MMA methodologies.

Again, you and your kung fu-clueless MMA-ists, are the ones who are "trespassing" here, and are over your heads, I might add, not the other way round!

Can't you train to fight realistically AND meditate under your cold waterfall on your lunch break?

All those who train in genuine TCMA schools, learn to fight realistically.

YOu would have known that fact, if you had experienced genuine kung fu training.....