My Confession

[Knifefighter]

not entirely true - you can see changes in neuromuscular function based on passive observation; for example, if u test your hamstring lengths and then intently watch someone stretch their hamstrings, and retest yours after, you will have an increase in your own range; you can also just imagine yourself stretching your own hamstrings and get an increase in flexibility; this isn't voodoo, it's actually pretty straight forward neuromuscular physiology - in the same vein as how you can stretch or strengthen the more flexible or stronger side and see immediate gains in the tight and weaker side;
also, we know that one can improve a relatively complex motor skill such as making a jump shot by mental practice alone; therefore, one could conjecture that watching someone take a jump shot could imprint a motor pattern of that activity that could be reasonably replicated under certain parameters (repeated viewing, focused as opposed to casual observation); now, of course, this is not the same thing as performing a skilled activity in a contextually complex environment; meaning that visualizing a jump shot is not the same as taking a jump shot in a live game, analogous to performing a sprawl in a controlled vs. uncontrolled environment; however, it's also a matter of degree - if you take someone who his innately athletic, and has experience functioning in a random environment that isn't too dissimilar (which is certainly open to argument as to what constitutes similarity in motor skills), he could conceivably apply a given technique against a moderately skilled opponent, having only watched it; now, take the average guy with limited experience, and he might also be able to do the same, but of course, it would likely have to be against someone not that experienced; but the point is that given the connection between the neuromuscular and visual system, it's not completely inconceivable that skilled motor function can occur under certain conditions based purely on visual experience with that skill

Agreed Just as is seen in unilateral strength training resulting in strength gains in the untrained limb.

That being said, I've grappled with hundreds of novices who have also watched grappling. If it helped them, it was pretty insignificant. Even if one has seen it, without understanding the basic principles, the skillset is too complex to keep him from making basic mistakes and getting finished (i.e. don't push up when mounted, don't leave on arm in and one arm out in the guard, don't drop the head when doing takedowns, etc).

[taai gihk yahn]

Agreed Just as is seen in unilateral strength training resulting in strength gains in the untrained limb.

you might be interested in checking out this guys website - he's systemized this concept to be applied in a rehab context; it's a nice approach, works very well w/a lot of folks (a lot more so than the typical PT silliness you see out there);

That being said, I've grappled with hundreds of novices who have also watched grappling. If it helped them, it was pretty insignificant. Even if one has seen it, without understanding the basic principles, the skillset is too complex to keep him from making basic mistakes and getting finished (i.e. don't push up when mounted, don't leave on arm in and one arm out in the guard, don't drop the head when doing takedowns, etc).

clearly this is an example of where whatever advantage might be conferred by visual familiarity will be negated by the context, given that your experience is so significant it obviates the rudimentary pattern; to see the difference, you'd have to pit novice against novice w/all attributes being equal;

[sanjuro_ronin]

Agreed Just as is seen in unilateral strength training resulting in strength gains in the untrained limb.

That being said, I've grappled with hundreds of novices who have also watched grappling. If it helped them, it was pretty insignificant. Even if one has seen it, without understanding the basic principles, the skillset is too complex to keep him from making basic mistakes and getting finished (i.e. don't push up when mounted, don't leave on arm in and one arm out in the guard, don't drop the head when doing takedowns, etc).

POR is crucial here (point of reference).
Someone with a judo back ground can pick up a lot of BJJ ( as an example) from videos, just as a shotokan guy can pick up TKD.
Of course this depends of the person, many people WATCH instructionals and have no idea HOW to use them.
Of course some instructionals just suck while others are very good and focus not so much on "teaching" but on making clear key points of what NOT to do and what to do.

[Frost]

I did not say that. Addditionlly, KF's post is practically the definition of innovation, which I'm sure he'd agree with, when he isn't busy trolling kids.



Yes, I am wrong saying what I never said.



Their focus just don't tend to be the same, that seems to be pretty fundamental.



Jesus, how many things have I said here without saying them?



I get you on this one now, but it seems like the rules were made for the style, not the other way around. In otherwords, you were rewarded for following the focus of a preexisting style by the point system in order to ensure that practitioners could use that style. The style didn't sprout from the point system, the point system came from the style.



How is that not a fundamental difference? At best, using this, you could argue that bjj is a style of judo, but that still leaves it as distinct from the other styles.

At this point, aside from having to answer things I never said, and arguing tangential points, I had completely forgotten about Brian Jacks, so thanks.

So what was your point originally then, because you came into the arguement when dale was mocking someone for making up ground fighting with no experience in that field

Here’s what dale said and your reply
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Knifefighter
LOL @ developing your own techs for groundfighting...

So the Gracies invented nothing?
Knifefighter
The Gracies took an established grappling system and added to it from a variety of sources. They also took one aspect of it and based their strategy around that single aspect. They also took specific techniques and positions and made those more specialized for their strategies and tactics.

To which you started to argue judo and BJJ are nothing alike

Judo as it was mostly used at the time and bjj did not resemble each other. That the moves did is one thing, but the styles as they were used absolutely did not.

If you didn't mean that, if you didn't mean to imply that the Gracies made up BJJ or you were not arguing with dale when he laughed at people making ground fighting up without any skill in that area then you should be clearer

And the fact is judo and BJJ are the same art with different competition rules which has led to them specialising in different areas...what is so hard to understand about this. The judo curriculum includes all the BJJ subs and positions but since they don’t emphasize them as much in competition (although this is changing now) it does not look as fluid on the ground. BJJ includes all of judos throws, but because it doesn't score heavily on the takedown and always more gripping choices it doesn’t look the same as judo standing..... Just as no gi BJJ looks different from Gi BJJ because of the rule and clothing changes but they are still fundamentally the same arts

[Knifefighter]

The basic fact is that you can't "make up" a functional system unless you already have significant background in the area the system applies to.

Most of us have seen this in action when the kung fu guys with no ground experience started pulling "ground fighting" out of their forms and started teaching it to their students. All they ended up with was guys who were still clueless on the ground.

[KC Elbows]

To which you started to argue judo and BJJ are nothing alike

The quote you use doesn't even support your interpretation of it. I directly say that the techs are similar, but that, AS THEY WERE USED, the styles were not necessarily so. If similar techs make things the same style, then all grappling would be considered the same style, and it's not.

If you didn't mean that, if you didn't mean to imply that the Gracies made up BJJ or you were not arguing with dale when he laughed at people making ground fighting up without any skill in that area then you should be clearer

No, you need to read closer. I wasn't suggesting they made up the techs from air ever, not once. I suggested they innovated, which made their style distinct enough to be considered a style. Granted, a style of judo, you've convinced me on that.

And the fact is judo and BJJ are the same art with different competition rules which has led to them specialising in different areas

I've already answered this. You are wrong. The competition rules were defined by the desired approach to fighting, not vice versa, in both cases. That competition then further informed things is incidental to this point, the style did not rise from the competition rules, it rose from the preferences and skills of its founders and the need to create a format to work those skills.

...what is so hard to understand about this.

Condescending doesn't make your point correct. Where is your evidence that the Gracies designed a competition format that then created the focus of the style on ground work? Clearly it is the reverse, they, from experience, wanted a format that worked the principles and techniques they were espousing.

The judo curriculum includes all the BJJ subs and positions but since they don’t emphasize them as much in competition (although this is changing now) it does not look as fluid on the ground.

How can two fundamentally identical things become more fundamentally similar? I'm not wanting to be disrespectful here, you're the one wishing to pursue an unnecessary condescending tone here, but you make some good points, then lose them with bad arguments like this. Is your fundamental point that there is no such thing as styles, that if Group A does X as a primary focus and Y as secondary and Group B does Y as primary and X as secondary, that there's no fundamental difference just because they both use the same letters of the alphabet, yet find the opposite ones most worthy of focus?

Universally, bjj guys focus more on the ground than anything else, judo guys might or might not. That's a big enough difference to call it fundamental, period. The narrow focus of bjj will always produce fighters who fight like bjj fighters, the broader focus of judo will only do so on occasion as an incidental. I'm pretty sure, if asked what style they do, bjj guys don't usually say judo. Are they wrong and you're right?

[KC Elbows]

The basic fact is that you can't "make up" a functional system unless you already have significant background in the area the system applies to.

No. You are unlikely to make a refined functional system without background, unless you're some sort of savant, but go back far enough, and you have a rudimentary functional system with no predecessor made by someone with no functional system to go off of. True, it's reinventing the wheel, but you don't see guitarists on music forums whining about people choosing to teach themselves guitar, why do you care, besides middle school not having let out the kids you troll yet?

Most of us have seen this in action when the kung fu guys with no ground experience started pulling "ground fighting" out of their forms and started teaching it to their students. All they ended up with was guys who were still clueless on the ground.

There is a strong difference between someone who decides to reinvent the wheel and someone who attempts to do so and has students learning it from them; but to use the latter to attack the former is pretty much smear tactics, and lame.

[Knifefighter]

The competition rules were defined by the desired approach to fighting, not vice versa, in both cases. That competition then further informed things is incidental to this point, the style did not rise from the competition rules, it rose from the preferences and skills of its founders and the need to create a format to work those skills.

It's both. The competition is designed for a specific reason (which may or may not be directly related to the approach to fighting). Techniques then are developed to suit the specific style of competition. Often, these techniques end up being unrelated to the original reason the competition was designed (think 1/2 guard techniques that get your face punched in or throws that give up the back).

[SoCo KungFu]

No. You are unlikely to make a refined functional system without background, unless you're some sort of savant, but go back far enough, and you have a rudimentary functional system with no predecessor made by someone with no functional system to go off of. True, it's reinventing the wheel, but you don't see guitarists on music forums whining about people choosing to teach themselves guitar, why do you care, besides middle school not having let out the kids you troll yet?

Go back far enough and you'll find people afraid of fire, yet I have a simple tool that will let me create fire with wet materials in the snow. Who has a better chance of survival? Me or some dude that just figured out sparks come from scraping rocks?

Just because somebody can realize if they wrap their arm around someone's neck and hurt them doesn't mean that alone is enough anymore. This is what people who think they can just go "discover" stuff in their forms (esp when all they are really doing is attempting to find something through a modern perspective that didn't exist at the time of the forms creation). In trying to go this route, one is willfully neglecting the entire line of evolution of that particular fighting method from its inception to present day. This is equally true of striking, grappling, throwing, whatever. Its a matter of been there done that. The systems people are avoiding are light years ahead of anything you may find in your attempts to reinvent. I really don't understand this stubborness people have in trying to do this on their own.

And you know, this even applies in a shorter term as well. Even among for example grappling experts, there are so many people trying to gain an edge at the moment that even on a year to year basis you see somebody coming up with something that renders an older move or whatever obsolete. And then it gets thrown up on youtube and next thing you know everyone is pulling it. If you aren't up to date, you get caught. Its like this crazy hand to hand arms race.

I just don't get why people are willfully inhibiting their own progression.

[KC Elbows]

Go back far enough and you'll find people afraid of fire, yet I have a simple tool that will let me create fire with wet materials in the snow. Who has a better chance of survival? Me or some dude that just figured out sparks come from scraping rocks?

Modern man is the least capable being on the planet of making fire from the tools at his disposal.

Just because somebody can realize if they wrap their arm around someone's neck and hurt them doesn't mean that alone is enough anymore.

In most cases, it is enough. MA is a hobby for a few, most fights have nothing to do with martial artists.

This is what people who think they can just go "discover" stuff in their forms (esp when all they are really doing is attempting to find something through a modern perspective that didn't exist at the time of the forms creation).

And yet, I've seen forms that did have elements of groundwork, the same sort of waist use, etc., that were taught as that long before. I've got a book from the 1930s of kung fu that is largely ground work. And I've seen people trying to work principles of their style into ground work, not claiming that the results were in their form all along. Only online have I seen a few people doing what you claim, so what's the point of debating this statistically irrelevant subgroup as something to do with the rest of us?

In trying to go this route, one is willfully neglecting the entire line of evolution of that particular fighting method from its inception to present day.

Like modern boxers with little to no knowledge of earlier versions of boxing that more closely resemble mma style fighting? This presumes that people trying to find their own answers do choose to ignore ground fighting styles overall, which is not necessarily the case; some are actually paying close attention to other styles or being open to rolling with other stylists in order to facillitate what they want to develop. Again, why should we be bothered or disdainful of this?

This is equally true of striking, grappling, throwing, whatever. Its a matter of been there done that. The systems people are avoiding are light years ahead of anything you may find in your attempts to reinvent. I really don't understand this stubborness people have in trying to do this on their own.

Maybe its not stubbornness, but merely doing it for the fun of it. Again, what's the big deal?

And you know, this even applies in a shorter term as well. Even among for example grappling experts, there are so many people trying to gain an edge at the moment that even on a year to year basis you see somebody coming up with something that renders an older move or whatever obsolete. And then it gets thrown up on youtube and next thing you know everyone is pulling it. If you aren't up to date, you get caught. Its like this crazy hand to hand arms race.

Which is cool.

I just don't get why people are willfully inhibiting their own progression.

Time? Money? Merely because they want to make you irate and then their friends can troll you on internet forums? Who knows?

[PHILBERT]

http://www.amazon.com/Fukien-Ground-...dp/0870409247/

[SoCo KungFu]

Modern man is the least capable being on the planet of making fire from the tools at his disposal.

The millions of smokers on the planet say you're wrong.

In most cases, it is enough. MA is a hobby for a few, most fights have nothing to do with martial artists.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation since we are in fact talking about both martial arts and fighting.

And yet, I've seen forms that did have elements of groundwork, the same sort of waist use, etc., that were taught as that long before. I've got a book from the 1930s of kung fu that is largely ground work. And I've seen people trying to work principles of their style into ground work, not claiming that the results were in their form all along. Only online have I seen a few people doing what you claim, so what's the point of debating this statistically irrelevant subgroup as something to do with the rest of us?

You can't learn ground fighting from a form. Probably even more so than trying to learn striking from a form. You learn by being in the situation repeatedly and applying it, like anything else in MA. I'd like to see what your book on kung fu groundwork actually displays. I'm betting their idea of suitable ground skill is vastly different than mine or anyone who actually trains ground to a serious degree. I'll withhold my opinion til after, though lets just say I'm skeptical. A few leg sweeps to get back to your feet does not make a fully flushed system of ground fighting.

Like modern boxers with little to no knowledge of earlier versions of boxing that more closely resemble mma style fighting? This presumes that people trying to find their own answers do choose to ignore ground fighting styles overall, which is not necessarily the case; some are actually paying close attention to other styles or being open to rolling with other stylists in order to facillitate what they want to develop. Again, why should we be bothered or disdainful of this?

Modern boxing has strayed away from things in its origin. However to argue that a modern boxer is inferior in striking than predecessors is just.....

Maybe its not stubbornness, but merely doing it for the fun of it. Again, what's the big deal?

Which again, has nothing to do with the current discussion of MA and fighting. Personally I don't really find it fun getting my *** beat but maybe that's just me...shrug....

Which is cool.

Time? Money? Merely because they want to make you irate and then their friends can troll you on internet forums? Who knows?

If they got time to daydream up nonsensical applications and not apply and test them when they show up for dancing class then they got time to work in some alternate training a couple hours a week. Money and availability are valid arguments, but yet we live in the information age so to say they have no access to at least see proper ground work is ludicrous (Not that, that is what you said, just saying). They still need willing people to train with, but that at least on a basic level can be done by a couple guys looking stuff up and working it. The good thing about grappling is that if you have a detailed enough source, a couple of guys working it out (so long as they are actually training effectively) can self critique until they get it correct. I don't think that is asking of too much dedication for someone who is so concerned with fighting effectiveness as we are assuming. As for the last point. I'm good man, I know what I got. Merely questioning for the sake of.

[PHILBERT]

The millions of smokers on the planet say you're wrong.

I think he meant, you know, with sticks, rocks, leaves, etc. Not with something you click and it starts a fire.

At least that was what I got from it.

[KC Elbows]

I think he meant, you know, with sticks, rocks, leaves, etc. Not with something you click and it starts a fire.

At least that was what I got from it.

The modern lighter is a convenience, not an advancement. Most people I know who do any sort of long term camping/hiking outdoor stuff away from modern conveniences might use one, but would consider it the height of stupidity to not be able to do without it, because it isn't a particularly reliable means for fire in the kinds of conditions one would really need fire.

[KC Elbows]

Which has nothing to do with the conversation since we are in fact talking about both martial arts and fighting.

The fact that, for the vast majority of martial arts situations, one doesn't need entire systems of ma to deal with attackers, is topical. Simply having an answer that has been reasonably tested is enough, so if someone wants to follow the hobby of focusing on throws, and merely has rudimentary approaches to other things, possibly even occasionally of the 'reinventing the wheel' type, but tests them and they are sufficient for the common assailant, who cares besides you and Knifefighter?

You can't learn ground fighting from a form. Probably even more so than trying to learn striking from a form. You learn by being in the situation repeatedly and applying it, like anything else in MA.

And you draw the body of what you're testing from either forms or lists of techniques, I'm not sure I've ever said otherwise.

I'd like to see what your book on kung fu groundwork actually displays.

Arm bars, kimuras, guillotines, etc. Not a form, but individual moves shown on a guy being pretzelled in much the same way as jjj, judo, and bjj do so. There is no mention of positioning and such, it is not necessarily a refined system of groundfighting, but the basic moves are virtually identical to some moves from ground styles. Looking through it, it has parts related to ground techniques, and, of course, more parts covering standup. The book is chin na fa, I don't know the author's name right off hand, but it was published, I think, by Tim Cartnell.

I'm betting their idea of suitable ground skill is vastly different than mine or anyone who actually trains ground to a serious degree. I'll withhold my opinion til after, though lets just say I'm skeptical.

I enjoy your method of withholding opinion by sandwiching the claim of doing so between your repeated opinion.

A few leg sweeps to get back to your feet does not make a fully flushed system of ground fighting.

While that technique does not, that is not the only move one can find in some kung fu systems. As already stated, a 1930s book based off of an older Chinese text had very similar techniques to what one would find in jjj, judo, and bjj. They were not an attempt at a fully flushed system, but merely meant to be useful techniques. Unless you are saying they are not, I'm not sure where you're getting, except arguing your familiarity of kung fu and omitting any other for your argument.

I'm not arguing that these moves are universally present in all kung fu, or that there was an attempt to develop a fully fleshed out system solely based on ground, merely that, if one has access to them, and since they are consistent with the other methods of ground work we see today, if one wants to work on them, why do you care?

Modern boxing has strayed away from things in its origin. However to argue that a modern boxer is inferior in striking than predecessors is just.....

I didn't argue that. He is less broadly capable as a fighter because of it. He has to learn how to use his striking in mma, he has to alter it to some degree for mma. I'm not bothered by this, he can do both, or just box, which will be largely sufficient for most situations outside of mma; I could cry endlessly about his willful ignorance of kicking or takedowns or groundwork, but that would make me a busybody.

Which again, has nothing to do with the current discussion of MA and fighting. Personally I don't really find it fun getting my *** beat but maybe that's just me...shrug....

I'm not arguing that, if one enters venues where people are using fully developed systems of groundwork, using a rudimentary system, that they will do well on the ground.

I'm stating that, in the rest of situations, bouncing, security work, etc, if they do have a rudimentary and reasonably tested approach, and other specialties outside of groundwork, they will be absolutely fine and not likely to get their ass handed to them, anyway.

I'm also saying you care way too much.

If they got time to daydream up nonsensical applications and not apply and test them

Who suggested not testing them? And if they do, again, why do you care?

when they show up for dancing class then they got time to work in some alternate training a couple hours a week. Money and availability are valid arguments, but yet we live in the information age so to say they have no access to at least see proper ground work is ludicrous (Not that, that is what you said, just saying). They still need willing people to train with, but that at least on a basic level can be done by a couple guys looking stuff up and working it. The good thing about grappling is that if you have a detailed enough source, a couple of guys working it out (so long as they are actually training effectively) can self critique until they get it correct. I don't think that is asking of too much dedication for someone who is so concerned with fighting effectiveness as we are assuming. As for the last point. I'm good man, I know what I got. Merely questioning for the sake of.

I agree on the availability of good stuff, and I like learning such things. My point is, when we expect everyone else to prove their self dedication on topics we pick and choose, we need to get a life and get laid. You love groundwork, cool, I think that's great, when your posts have useful info on that, I'll quietly read them and hopefully improve from that. When your posts are about how uncool not being as dedicated or organized on groundwork as you are is, I'll remind you that you are posting on a social forum, which is about one step lower on the cool totem than acne.

I'm not doing this as a moral service, but purely for trolling purposes. The joy of revealing the utter geekiness of fifty year old men haranguing teenagers and speaking like life is a Charles Bronson movie is incomparable!