View Full Version : Martial Arts Myths
I thought I'd try to start a thread on MA myths, specifically moves that don't work as advertised.
Let's keep this specific, practical and provide reasonable supporting evidence or argumentation.
Claiming that "the ancient masters did" or "my sensei says" do not qualify.
Claiming that "as seen in competition [refer to said competition]" or "in my personal experience, defined as ____, I have observed..." or "I tried this and expected A and got B" or "one of the guys on my team, police or military unit, did this and here's what happened" do qualify.
They provide anecdotal evidence, not a universal finding, of course, which is just fine.
Using one of Cliff's posts as an example, he claimed that destroying a knee with a kick is a MA myth. It is far more difficult to do than frequently thought. He referred to heaps of K1 matches where guys can kick legs as hard as they want but we don't see this injury very often.
Other MA myths to discuss:
- just hit the nose from below and the broken cartilage will go into the brain and kill the guy.
- strength is irrelevant.
- non-contact KOs (especially through walls).
You guys get the idea?
Okay, your myths now....
the idea the skill only will beat out size and strength is one of the biggest. I remember talking to one guy who was telling me that this martial arts organization that he was friendly with had techniques whereby size, strength don't matter, a 100 pound woman in that system could easily take on a 200 pound man. I said yeah, if she had a .357 Magnum.
Then it kind of devolved from there where he thought fitness made no difference, there was actually a one strike kill, etc.
Of course the special forces troops that can easily tear out your throat and kill you with just their bare hands...they really exist and open up schools and hold seminars where they teach this deadly techniques. No one ever seems to answer just how you practice those techniques.
Jeff Burger
11-03-2005, 12:38
KO through walls...amateur.
How about West Coast USA to England.
"The Speedman" (maker of many crappy videos) threatened a friend of mine who asked for his money back on the afore mentioned crappy videos.
He said he could kill a person anywhere in the world with his internal powers.
Something more practical.
When you break your hand / bones they will be stronger when they heal. Talk to people who have broken there hand and ask if they think it improved.
Jeff
Musubi Dojo
11-03-2005, 12:59
It's been discussed before but;
A blackbelt suddenly gives you inhuman reflexes and the ability to never be surprised again...
A blackbelt comes with great wisdom and a deep understanding of eastern philosophy.
Having a blackbelt means you can kick the crap out of 5 guys all at the same time.
These are all from friends family and associates...
"The Speedman" (maker of many crappy videos) threatened a friend of mine who asked for his money back on the afore mentioned crappy videos.
He said he could kill a person anywhere in the world with his internal powers."
Eats a lot of beans, does he?
That made my otherwise boring afternoon... :)
Cheers
c
The notion that size and strength don't matter is, as stated before, a big myth. I saw 2 marine corps close combat instructors go up against each other int he barracks one day. One was a blue belt in bjj and the other outweighed him by at least 60 pounds (and apparently used muscle enhancing products). The bjj guy's technique was great and he almost had his opponent until the guy decided to just spread his weight over him and basically smother him. He really showed no grappling ability (not saying he didn't have any), but he had the size and strength to dominate this guy.
Also, I think we are all familiar with the Dim Mak master who claimed to be able to knock anyone out with a single strike using pressure points and was embarassed on public television. Actually, here's the link, lol:
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Links&file=viewlinkinfo&id=122
KO through walls...amateur.
How about West Coast USA to England.
"The Speedman" (maker of many crappy videos) threatened a friend of mine who asked for his money back on the afore mentioned crappy videos.
He said he could kill a person anywhere in the world with his internal powers.
Jeff
Speedman sounds like that poster who wanted to inform us of the Red Dragon Technique about 6 months ago, remember a way to "release the internal build up of Ki". That was one poor misguided soul.
Awesome. I had forgotten about the ol' "Red Dragon"!!! Very nice...
hizaguchi
11-03-2005, 14:59
Myth: size doesn't matter
When I was doing judo a while back, I was able to hold my own against all but the highest ranking students when practicing newaza. With exactly 1 bjj class and, at that time, 1 judo class worth of experience, that was certainly not because of skill. I'm just so heavy that moving me around isn't trivial. In the 1 bjj class I got to take, the situation was similar, but they were just better at dealing with it and had less trouble handling me. So I'd say that, yes, superior technique can overcome size to an extent, but not to the point that size doesn't matter. That tiny girl I was practicing pins with didn't stand a chance. :up:
"its not the art its the artist"
Hear me out here...
This has to be the singlemost PC BS answer Ive ever read, and it astounds me each and every time I see it.
The simple reality is that the art DOES MATTER.
If it didnt matter than martial arts would have never formed, it would have just been one good fighter against another good fighter doing their own things respectivly. But the art DOES matter.
It matters in its context.
If all it took were guts and heart to win a fight (the fighter) then the only form of martial art would be some "berserker" thing where only the strong survived. It aint like that. why? Because some people figured out ways to take advantage of certain situations.
When in a situation similar to the situation an art was designed for, the techniques of that art have a higher probability of getting the results desired. If you dont train for that situation, you wont have the ability to get a strong liklihood of success in the situation.
Its not the artist, its the situation and whether or not you prepared for that situation. If your not prepared because the art doesnt address the situation...............
Also, I think we are all familiar with the Dim Mak master who claimed to be able to knock anyone out with a single strike using pressure points and was embarassed on public television. Actually, here's the link, lol:
His instructor is George Dillman... Go figure!!!
"its not the art its the artist"
Great post, Joe.
I've been trying to find the words to argue against this one, too.
Well said.
Another thing that needs considering is that some situations are more likly to occur than others.
If you trainin an art that addresses the most common situation, with techniques likely to provide the most consistent results, then by default you will be better prepared to deal with the "average" situation.
If however, you train in an art that trains for very specific situations, uncommon situations, or uses techniques that dont get consistent results, then by default you will be less prepared to deal with the "average" situation.
this is NOT to say that these arts are by any means inferior. In fact they are SUPERIOR. But only in their own context.
someone who is extremely skilled in MMA (for example) may be very prepared to deal with 99 out of 100 situations, but he is probably SOL if someone who has only trained in, but is very skilled in sojutsu, happens to charge at him with a spear.
ChampNtraining
11-03-2005, 15:38
I can attest to brute strength playing a big part in any confrontation. The K-1 champ Bob Satt proved this dozens of times with his massive +350lbs of mostly muscle. His secondary and stabalizing muscles in most of his body are stronger than most people's primary muscles, and he used this to his advantage to escape hundreds of holds due to his opponents having a tough time keeping him held in any single position all too well. He still lost fights off and on but contantly proved that brute strength can overcome a great deal of technique.
STORMCROW34
11-03-2005, 15:46
I agree, size matters to some extent. Have you ever tried O-goshi on a 300 pound uke who drops his weight as soon as his balance is broken? Not an easy task from my perspective.
kenpo123
11-03-2005, 18:29
The notion that size and strength don't matter is, as stated before, a big myth. I saw 2 marine corps close combat instructors go up against each other int he barracks one day. One was a blue belt in bjj and the other outweighed him by at least 60 pounds (and apparently used muscle enhancing products). The bjj guy's technique was great and he almost had his opponent until the guy decided to just spread his weight over him and basically smother him. He really showed no grappling ability (not saying he didn't have any), but he had the size and strength to dominate this guy.
Also, I think we are all familiar with the Dim Mak master who claimed to be able to knock anyone out with a single strike using pressure points and was embarassed on public television. Actually, here's the link, lol:
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Links&file=viewlinkinfo&id=122
maybe the bjj guy would have won if he sunk to street tatics and just bit this guy like a dog while being smotherd, ive never been smothered and dont know if biting is possible but it crossed my mind that maybe.. i dunno
lol...i'm sure a nice gnaw of the nipple would have gotten his opponent right up! always worked when i was losing to my cousin
GodofGamblers
11-03-2005, 20:41
Hey, Doug, what about the infamous EAGLE CLAW? i've always wondered if that works... After years of handstrength exercises involving twisting, grabbing, clawing, etc, you have the ability to simply GRAB your opponent in any spot and inflict incredible pain and injury simply from the strength of your grip.
Is this possible? If it were, it would be the ultimate defense vs. grappling.
And aikido too maybe. Once an EAGLE CLAW grabs you, even if you do a kotegaeshi on him or whatever, when you pull away the guy's hand he would have a handful of your flesh in it. Sounds unbeatable... if it's not a myth.
David Anderson
11-03-2005, 22:20
Hey, Doug, what about the infamous EAGLE CLAW? i've always wondered if that works... After years of handstrength exercises involving twisting, grabbing, clawing, etc, you have the ability to simply GRAB your opponent in any spot and inflict incredible pain and injury simply from the strength of your grip.
Is this possible? If it were, it would be the ultimate defense vs. grappling.
I don't know what you mean by 'Eagle Claw' but once in my dojo, a senior student gave me a major full-hand pinch to the flabby bit inside my right thigh to get out of a headlock [yeah, we were just goofing around]. It hurt so bad it actually put me on the floor, and in a day or so I had a bruise the size of a baseball inside my thigh. If he had grabbed me by the goolies it couldn't have hurt much worse.
Pain and pressure point techniques don't always work, but if your opponent isn't totally berserk and gets taken by surprise, I think they can be very effective.
Antares33
11-03-2005, 22:47
Pain and pressure point techniques don't always work, but if your opponent isn't totally berserk and gets taken by surprise, I think they can be very effective.
I don't think many artists would disagree with this notion. Pressure points can enhance a technique, you don't get into trouble until you start to rely on them.
My favorite myth is the notion that someone can punch opponents all day long anywhere on the body (particularly the head and skull) and suffer no damage to the hand. I think hollywood plays a big part in this myth, but plenty of Martial Artists beleive and perpetuate it.
Hey, Doug, what about the infamous EAGLE CLAW? i've always wondered if that works... After years of handstrength exercises involving twisting, grabbing, clawing, etc, you have the ability to simply GRAB your opponent in any spot and inflict incredible pain and injury simply from the strength of your grip.
Is this possible? If it were, it would be the ultimate defense vs. grappling.
And aikido too maybe. Once an EAGLE CLAW grabs you, even if you do a kotegaeshi on him or whatever, when you pull away the guy's hand he would have a handful of your flesh in it. Sounds unbeatable... if it's not a myth.
LOL...yes, the eagle claw is classic!! However, I've always had trouble differentiating between that and a tiger claw, chi nau, nap sau (sp?) or just grabbing someone, lol. But seriously, what really got me was that we were told that if you apply an eagle claw correctly, then no one could get out of it. Then we would learn a technique (of the dozens they taught) to get out of an eagle claw grip...thus proving that it was beatable, lol. HOWEVER, I have to admit that some of it worked in my first bjj class. Knowing where to grab tendons in order to shift someone's weight is a good thing to know. Alot of this was actually eagle claw like grabs which caught people by surprise and the simple feeling of your muscle being twisted brings shock, especially if you don't expect it. Whereas bjj focuses more on larger body parts, I was able to employ some of the kung fu small join manipulation when in close quarters with people who expected other moves.
TroyRoget
11-04-2005, 00:14
Also, I think we are all familiar with the Dim Mak master who claimed to be able to knock anyone out with a single strike using pressure points and was embarassed on public television. Actually, here's the link, lol:
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Links&file=viewlinkinfo&id=122
Just to be clear, pressure points do work. The technique that he performed with the strike to the hand and then to the head was one of the first techniques I learned, and I've used it on dozens of different people and had dozens perform it on me.
However, I have yet to learn any pressure point knockouts that require only one strike, and the no-touch knockouts stuff is complete crap. I'm not defending that guy at all, just pressure points.
The technique that he performed with the strike to the hand and then to the head was one of the first techniques I learned.... However, I have yet to learn any pressure point knockouts that require only one strike
Actually, the only part of that strike combo that has much value is the strike to the neck. Its a vaso-vagal strike. It will work without touching any part of the arm, if the strike is placed appropriatly.
Flying side kicks....why?
I love side kicks...front leg side kicks, skip side kicks, turn back side kicks, slide side kick. I am ALWAYS working my side kicks for speed and strength.. What is the point of a flying side kick? I do them, I teach them, I have never understood the combat perspective. I have never used them in open sparring.
GodofGamblers
11-04-2005, 02:49
LOL...yes, the eagle claw is classic!! However, I've always had trouble differentiating between that and a tiger claw, chi nau, nap sau (sp?) or just grabbing someone, lol. But seriously, what really got me was that we were told that if you apply an eagle claw correctly, then no one could get out of it. Then we would learn a technique (of the dozens they taught) to get out of an eagle claw grip...thus proving that it was beatable, lol. HOWEVER, I have to admit that some of it worked in my first bjj class. Knowing where to grab tendons in order to shift someone's weight is a good thing to know. Alot of this was actually eagle claw like grabs which caught people by surprise and the simple feeling of your muscle being twisted brings shock, especially if you don't expect it. Whereas bjj focuses more on larger body parts, I was able to employ some of the kung fu small join manipulation when in close quarters with people who expected other moves.
sounds effective! i've heard of "tiger claw" too but i don't really understand what it's all about. if you look up some websites on handstrength they are very interesting. handstrength is something that you can work on for decades and the potential seems unlimited; in fact, some of the strongest men in the world in this department are in their 60s or 70s and can bend nails and exert over 400lbs of pressure. imagine getting an "eagle claw" from one of them!
but doug you seem to be saying that it is 'placement' (tendons etc) and not strength that is the key. so is there no special hand training for tiger/eagle claw?
Flying side kicks....why?
I love side kicks...front leg side kicks, skip side kicks, turn back side kicks, slide side kick. I am ALWAYS working my side kicks for speed and strength.. What is the point of a flying side kick? I do them, I teach them, I have never understood the combat perspective. I have never used them in open sparring.
You mean that flying drop kick that I saw Captain Kirk do on Star Trek doesn't work? How can that be? The stuntment always dropped like sacks of cement and never got back up after one of the good Captain's deadly flying drop kicks.
STORMCROW34
11-04-2005, 08:10
Flying side kicks....why?
I love side kicks...front leg side kicks, skip side kicks, turn back side kicks, slide side kick. I am ALWAYS working my side kicks for speed and strength.. What is the point of a flying side kick? I do them, I teach them, I have never understood the combat perspective. I have never used them in open sparring.
Eliz-
I'm no expert on the flying side kick (yoko-tobi-geri), but from what I've been told it was an unarmed technique designed and used to dismount a horseman.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought all that stuff about knocking people off horses in Korea was a modern myth.
I agree - so much more practical to bring him down to ground level by cutting the horse out from under him or taking him off the horse with a long pole arm.
Hee Il Chong, (sp?) the jumping master, wrote that jumps are not to get up high but to get acceleration and get free of contact with the ground, which can bind our movements.
Jeff Burger
11-04-2005, 10:05
How about the old rip his heart oput a show it to him before he dies.
Jeff
ezzthetic
11-04-2005, 10:16
How about the old rip his heart oput a show it to him before he dies.
Jeff
I'm getting rather uneasy with the fact how much you keep mentioning that one and the voicebox one as well! :D
STORMCROW34
11-04-2005, 10:38
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought all that stuff about knocking people off horses in Korea was a modern myth.
But what about Japan? Was that also a myth?
No, I think Japan is real. :D jk (At least my World Map says it is).
Has anyone ever effectively used a flying side kick for any purpose other than forms, breaking, strenth and exercise, or demos?
I have heard the argument that it is used more along the lines of layback front snap kick - to close the distance between you and your opponent.
I believe (as stated above), the usefulness of the flying side kick is myth.
I believe (as stated above), the usefulness of the flying side kick is myth.
Against a stationary and slowly-reacting target (a drunk, a dumb person, or someone already pummeled) it may do the trick.
So would many other, more conservative and more sensible techniques, though, too.
No, I think Japan is real. :D jk (At least my World Map says it is).
Has anyone ever effectively used a flying side kick for any purpose other than forms, breaking, strenth and exercise, or demos?
I have heard the argument that it is used more along the lines of layback front snap kick - to close the distance between you and your opponent.
I believe (as stated above), the usefulness of the flying side kick is myth.
I watched a show on TV earlier this week, one of those "Shocking Videos" shows. A man was holding a girl hostage, by the hair, brandishing a long knife. A cop in civilian clothes made his move - a mae tobi geri kekomi - front flying thrust kick. Not only did the girl not get cut, but the cop did not get cut either, and other people standing by subdued him with ease, as he was knocked rather vigorously off his feet and away from the girl.
So we do have video evidence that the technique can be effective in a deadly situation.
Regarding the earlier comment that "it's the artist, not the art" being total PC BS, I have to disagree. Although some valid points were made, I think the comment as described is not how it is always used.
If you are perfect at blocking, you will never get hit. If you are perfect at punching and kicking, you will always find your target and never get taken down. However, I DO strongly agree that most people can never become perfect, therefore other realistic solutions need to be practiced.
But let me turn the comment around, inside-out. If you encounter a bad TKD stylist, does that mean that all TKD is bad? What about a horrible MMA guy? There are far more horrible artists than good ones. Does that mean the arts are bad? I don't believe so.
Jeff Cook
I think the artist-vs.-art statement might need to be qualified. It's probably more appropriate as a response to a style-basher (of which we have few on this site) - shouting out that arts are ineffectual just because some proponents are. Some arts are better than others for certain situations, I think we can all agree. However, which ones where will probably be points of contention.
Flying kicks have been around a while, so they must have some use. I can't imagine it would be a high percentile technique, but as in Mr. Cook's example, it works some places - just not as often as Hollywood would like us to believe.
Oh, and as to the horsemen, I suspect that was a myth or a legendary one time occurance. I can believe that once or twice in history a tall man maybe on a hill managed to kick someone off a small horse and has had his name lost to history. That an entire art form could be formed from that (either HRD or TKD or both) is a bit difficult to believe, even if you were not to consider the history of either form.
Thats probably true whether in Japan or Korea.
Jeff, your using an "exceptional skilled" example to support your position, and it doesnt hold up. You then use the "exceptionally unskilled" person to support your turn around position.
You use the extremely rare to counter act the extremely common, and in this instance, it doesnt work. It only seems to hold water because you can make up someone who "is perfect at blocking so will never get hit". However if that person existed, his skill is only in a very small subset of the skills needed to deal with the attacks he is likely to face. Be as skilled in blocking as you want. Be "the great invincable blocker" in a circus sideshow for all I care, you cant "block" a multifight, for instance. Your aguement only holds up when put in a hypothetical context devoid of outside influence.
For the amount of lip service, and the dumbfounding array of situations such a phrase is bandied about its quite obvious that it CANNOT be applied to the "average" situation. It certainly cant be expected to hold any meaning whatsoever for the average nitwit who shows up and says "I want to learn how to defend myself on the street" and they get fed the line "Its not the art its the artist"............ gee, thanks.
Next time Im looking for a car and I cant decide between getting a 4 wheel drive or a sports car, Ill be sure to remember that the mazaratti and the jeep might as well be the same thing, its not the car, its the driver.
Jeff Burger
11-04-2005, 12:38
"If you encounter a bad TKD stylist, does that mean that all TKD is bad?"
Internal dialogue... dont say yes dont say yes
Jeff
Jeff Burger
11-04-2005, 12:42
I see where your coming from now Joe and it makes sense. At first I was thinking how can it not be the artist?
However Im still going to go with the artist. I havent seen a style that doesnt teach some way to hurt the person to end a conflict.
Jeff
I believe cavalry can be effectively countered by the use of pikes and by forming squares , unless this technique did not make it to Asia I find it highly unlikely that anyone would spend time trying to kick a man off a horse.
It's not just military that MAs were for. There were lots of burgulars, drunk fighters, criminals, etc., just like today. We're talking about LOTS of history in MANY places. All sorts of problems could have happened and been identified to solve.
I can see kicking high being just a fun goal to strive for, tough training, and something to show off with and say, "see - we're tough! Don't mess with us!" in certain villages, towns, neighborhoods, and circles.
However Im still going to go with the artist. I havent seen a style that doesnt teach some way to hurt the person to end a conflict.
Yes, but some arts teach these ways more effiecntly than others. Some arts teach things these "effienct" arts do not. Some teach things in the most bizarre way possible (Pauly Zink ring a bell?) And some arts are just show and tell non-sense, like Juko-Kai.
If you want to learn how to fight, and learn quickly, are you going to go study Muay thai and BJJ, or are you going to go study CMC Tai Cheese? If your wanting to further your study of Taoism, are you going to study Bagua or Kyokushin? If you want to further your ground fighting, are you going to study sambo or TKD?
The art does matter. As I said before, it matters in its context.
If your just going to hold up the exceptional practioner as your "see see its the artist" focal point, then your doing a great disservice to the overwhelmingly vast majority of average joes just looking for a school/style that fits their needs.
If its the artist not the art, be sure to recommend Can Can dancing next time... they teach alot of excellent kicks, and have a brutal workout routine.
STORMCROW34
11-04-2005, 14:25
No, I think Japan is real. :D jk (At least my World Map says it is.
Very funny, I was in a hurry. :laugh:
My favorite myth that I was raised-on, was that-
"If you ever get a shot on a Black Belt, it's only because they let you."
Something I learned in MMA class, was not to make a habit out of *letting* people hit me. :laugh: I get hit by my students all the time, so I guess I must just suck.
Jeff Burger
11-04-2005, 14:58
Oh I totally agree some art are better than others and some by a long shot.
Jeff
but doug you seem to be saying that it is 'placement' (tendons etc) and not strength that is the key. so is there no special hand training for tiger/eagle claw?
I'm sure there is, and I'm sure it does work on muscles if you have enough strength. However, if you don't have that much strength yet, I think working on the tendons and connective tissue is easier. Hand stength surely plays a role in these grips (especially eagle claw).
AndrewSimonsen
11-04-2005, 17:31
I think the art versus artist arguement is akin to nature versus nurture, they both play a part but neither are definitive. Joe is correct that it matters in context, but I would say that there are just some people who are better than others.
To start with, not all schools within a system train the same way. Second, some people just put in more effort. This is made apparent whenever one group or other puts out a video of a fighter from one MA beating another, and almost in retaliation a fight between the same style but with a different outcome comes out.
The various style versus styles I've seen include; Mauy Thai beats TKD, TKD beats Mauy thai, TKD beats Kyokushin (SP?), Kyokushin beats Kung Fu, BJJ beats Kung Fu, HKD beats BJJ, BJJ beats Shotakon, Savate beats Sumo, Judo beats Wing Chun, Sambo beats BJJ, Sambo beats Mauy Thai, Sambo loses to Wrestling, Boxing beats Karate (Unkown Ryu), Sambo beats Judo, Wrestling beats Judo, Judo beats Wrestling, guy with no training beats BJJ, etc etc. Now if it was entirely MA versus MA you would be able to look at who beat who and establish what MAs were the best. But you can't.
In MMA competitions these have proven to win the most http://www.sherdog.com/stats/stylewinrecords_ratio.htm
These appear to lose the most http://www.sherdog.com/stats/stylelossrecords_ratio.htm
Looking at that Wrestling (that would be me) ranks higher than Mauy Thai, but that doesn't mean I could beat up a Mauy Thai fighter. It comes down to the fighter, but MA and training methods play a huge part.
Andrew -any idea why jiu-jitsu is listed 3 times?
AndrewSimonsen
11-04-2005, 18:26
Because it tends to more effective and there are numerous styles of JJ, when they had Greco-Roman, Freestyle, and Folkstyle wrestling listed seperately the same thing happened. Like I said, style plays a huge part but it is never the deciding factor.
I'm a little confused. Seems Gracie JJ sucks and Brazilian JJ rocks.
STYLE WINS LOSSES RATIO
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu 834 409 0.67
Gracie Jiu-Jitsu 12 15 0.44
AndrewSimonsen
11-04-2005, 18:41
They just use the declared style for their math, so it would be better to say that the BJJ guys who call it GJJ suck. If I were to fight in a MMA fight with a declared style of Finnish Tomfoolery it could get a high rating.
TCBA_Joe
11-04-2005, 18:44
Have you opened your Finnish Tomfoolery dojo yet? I need one in WI, i've been looking for something exotic yet aplicable. let me know when that happens.
I don't get this site either. They have pancrase and pankration listed separately. They seem to make a distinction between BJJ, GJJ, and Vale Tudo and I'm not sure precisely where they draw the line. (I can see BJJ not affiliated with the Gracies being classified as BJJ and the Gracie affiliated stuff as GJJ but still that’s just misleading.)
Also, your post seems to imply some sort of either hierarchy or rock-paper-scissor set up among martial arts styles. Which, if either, are you implying? (Sorry, just trying to figure out where you are going with this.)
AndrewSimonsen
11-04-2005, 20:05
I was trying to say that there is no possible rock paper scissors to the martial arts, people from any MA can lose to somebody from any other MA.
Myth: Once you achieve the rank of BB, you are the all knowing, all powerful, supreme being.
Fact: Once you achieve the rank of BB, you are no longer considered a color belt. That is it - no more, no less. Depending on individual schools, expectations may go up, rules of contact may change, and so on. But that is the decision of the individual school, it is by no means a universally accepted medium.
I was trying to say that there is no possible rock paper scissors to the martial arts, people from any MA can lose to somebody from any other MA.
A very true statement indeed.
Good. On rereading your post makes more sense. Sorry about being hasty. I get it now.
Antares33
11-04-2005, 23:08
http://www.sherdog.com/stats/stylelossrecords_ratio.htm
poor... poor random task. The only image I can conjure in my head is the one of Keith Hackney wailing on his nuts.
TroyRoget
11-05-2005, 00:14
What I want to see is the fight between the perfect blocker who blocks every strike, and the perfect striker who is always able to get through any guard.
RRousselot
11-05-2005, 00:42
Oh I totally agree some art are better than others and some by a long shot.
Jeff
And I totally disagree with you.
It’s the artist not the art.
You can take someone teach them the best art on earth and if they don’t have the spirit they will never be able to use it.
Like wise you can take someone with spirit show them a few things and they can destroy someone with years of training and no spirit.
RRousselot
11-05-2005, 00:52
1) Myth: Once you achieve the rank of BB, you are the all knowing, all powerful, supreme being.
Fact: Once you achieve the rank of BB, you are no longer considered a color belt. That is it - no more, no less. Depending on individual schools, expectations may go up, rules of contact may change, and so on. But that is the decision of the individual school, it is by no means a universally accepted medium.
1) I knew a young guy that got a black belt and he thought that was it. He was on the top of his game now and knew it all. I asked him a few question about different aspects of training and he couldn’t answer and some he had never heard of.
Years ago after I got a black belt I realized I had more new questions to be answered than answers to old questions. This has to be the most interesting and frustrating parts of training because the more I learn the more questions it creates and it snowballs like this forever……hell I'm still confused on a lot of stuff. Sometimes my students ask questions like why is xxxxx like that? or how is xxxxxx ? Sometimes they are shocked when I say "I dunno". Hey, I'm not going to lie to them or BS an answer. I tell them to ask one of the senior people or ask them when we are all together. I wanna learn just as much as the next guy.
Jeff, your using an "exceptional skilled" example to support your position, and it doesnt hold up. You then use the "exceptionally unskilled" person to support your turn around position.
You use the extremely rare to counter act the extremely common, and in this instance, it doesnt work. It only seems to hold water because you can make up someone who "is perfect at blocking so will never get hit". However if that person existed, his skill is only in a very small subset of the skills needed to deal with the attacks he is likely to face. Be as skilled in blocking as you want. Be "the great invincable blocker" in a circus sideshow for all I care, you cant "block" a multifight, for instance. Your aguement only holds up when put in a hypothetical context devoid of outside influence.
For the amount of lip service, and the dumbfounding array of situations such a phrase is bandied about its quite obvious that it CANNOT be applied to the "average" situation. It certainly cant be expected to hold any meaning whatsoever for the average nitwit who shows up and says "I want to learn how to defend myself on the street" and they get fed the line "Its not the art its the artist"............ gee, thanks.
Next time Im looking for a car and I cant decide between getting a 4 wheel drive or a sports car, Ill be sure to remember that the mazaratti and the jeep might as well be the same thing, its not the car, its the driver.
Gee, you're welcome. Your sarcasm is unecessary and a little disappointing, Joe.
Regarding your car example, which one is "safer?" Yes, the jeep may have a higher incidence of rollover due to inexperienced drivers not compensating for a higher center of gravity. The mazaratti has a higher incidence of loss of control because inexperienced drivers being unaccustomed to the power and handling. But if you train each driver how to handle each vehicle, the safety factor increases considerably. The driver needs to be trained how to use the vehicle properly. The artist needs to be trained how to use his skills properly.
Like I said before, I agree with certain points of your argument. I certainly study particular arts because they suit my needs better than others. That makes them better for me, but not necessarily "better."
Here's an "extremely common" example for you, since my hypothetical argument is being misunderstood. TKD is largely considered "ineffective" by most experienced MA-ists who don't study it. They feel it is a weak art for learning self-defense. However, thousands of TKD folks have successfully defended themselves from real, violent attacks. How do you explain that? The answer can be found in Robert's posts.
Jeff Cook
Jeff Burger
11-05-2005, 08:57
"I was trying to say that there is no possible rock paper scissors to the martial arts, people from any MA can lose to somebody from any other MA."
I think it plays out like that alot.
"And I totally disagree with you.
It’s the artist not the art.
You can take someone teach them the best art on earth and if they don’t have the spirit they will never be able to use it.
Like wise you can take someone with spirit show them a few things and they can destroy someone with years of training and no spirit.'
I agree the artist is in the end ultimately more important.
10 skills = 1 strength
10 strengths = 1 will
Give me a person with will / spirit any day.
I got away from Karate for along time but have back to it some what in the last couple of years.
Number one reason was the spirit. Others arts can have them but you cant have Karate without it.
But all other things being equal (size, strength, time in training, quality of instruction, will). Give 2 people 6 months to train. Id put my money on a grappler or a Muay Thai fighter over a Tai Chi person.
I hope that doesnt sound like Im arguing with you Robert. We had a spat on another thread but I really think your a valuable resource.
Jeff
Gee, you're welcome. Your sarcasm is unecessary and a little disappointing, Joe.
Taking that a little personal arnt ya?
Regarding your car example, which one is "safer?"
Who said anything about being safer? My point is that certain things, like cars for instance, are better suited for ertain requirments. If my requirements are being able to go off road on jeep trails, Im not buying a sports car... despite the fact that they both have 4 wheels.
Yes, the jeep may have a higher incidence of rollover due to inexperienced drivers not compensating for a higher center of gravity. The mazaratti has a higher incidence of loss of control because inexperienced drivers being unaccustomed to the power and handling. But if you train each driver how to handle each vehicle, the safety factor increases considerably. The driver needs to be trained how to use the vehicle properly. The artist needs to be trained how to use his skills properly.
Im not sure what your saying here, as Im not talking in anyway about someone being taught to "use their skills properly" Im talking about picking the right set of skills to best accomplish the given task.
Like I said before, I agree with certain points of your argument. I certainly study particular arts because they suit my needs better than others. That makes them better for me, but not necessarily "better."
Oh! then we agree!
Here's an "extremely common" example for you, since my hypothetical argument is being misunderstood.
actually, I think Im the one being misunderstood, as your example below shows. Ill explain....
TKD is largely considered "ineffective" by most experienced MA-ists who don't study it. They feel it is a weak art for learning self-defense. However, thousands of TKD folks have successfully defended themselves from real, violent attacks. How do you explain that? The answer can be found in Robert's posts.
At no point have I ever said that TKD is ineffective. Not in this thread, or anywhere else. What I have said is that some arts contain techniques with a higher likliehood of "street" success, and if your goals are self defense, you would be better served studying those arts. If your goals do not start and stop at self defense, then you may find that another art is in your favor. If your goal, for instance, is to sport fight, BJJ may be your best bet. If however your more instested in spiritual development you might want to look into some internal arts.
This is not to say that any art has a monopoly on effective techniques, or that an art is devoid of effective techniques, just that some arts better suit the needs of the individual, and throwing out a weak line such as "its not the art its the artist" is the height of foolishness when someone comes asking about an art that best suits there needs.
Ill say again, every art is correct, in its own context.
Taking that a little personal arnt ya?
Not really; you would have to be friend or family for you to hurt my feelings. Just making an observation based upon limited input; i.e. the few words we put down on a page. Not sure if you are denying being sarcastic, or if you are saying I should accept your sarcasm without comment. Which one is it?
Who said anything about being safer? My point is that certain things, like cars for instance, are better suited for ertain requirments. If my requirements are being able to go off road on jeep trails, Im not buying a sports car... despite the fact that they both have 4 wheels.
Understood.
Im not sure what your saying here, as Im not talking in anyway about someone being taught to "use their skills properly" Im talking about picking the right set of skills to best accomplish the given task.
My point is that either vehicle may not be perfect for the task it was purchased for, but with the proper skills it may still be used, albeit in a limited fashion, with some possible success. It may not be the most efficient, but it CAN be used.
Oh! then we agree!
As I said before, somewhat;)
actually, I think Im the one being misunderstood, as your example below shows. Ill explain....
At no point have I ever said that TKD is ineffective. Not in this thread, or anywhere else. What I have said is that some arts contain techniques with a higher likliehood of "street" success, and if your goals are self defense, you would be better served studying those arts. If your goals do not start and stop at self defense, then you may find that another art is in your favor. If your goal, for instance, is to sport fight, BJJ may be your best bet. If however your more instested in spiritual development you might want to look into some internal arts.
This is not to say that any art has a monopoly on effective techniques, or that an art is devoid of effective techniques, just that some arts better suit the needs of the individual, and throwing out a weak line such as "its not the art its the artist" is the height of foolishness when someone comes asking about an art that best suits there needs.
Ill say again, every art is correct, in its own context.
I agree! In fact, that goes back to my original point, that it depends upon the CONTEXT the remark is made in. I would not study iaido to learn effective self-defense techniques, nor would I study aikido to learn sword techniques, in spite of them playing with the sword. However, those are extreme examples. It seems your beef with the "artist not the art" comment stems from the way it is normally presented, mainly as a defense against those that would say, for instance, "BJJ sucks for self-defense because John Smith, BJJ expert, got his butt kicked by a street thug."
By the way, I was using TKD as an example only; not saying YOU talk down about TKD. Just using it as a focal point to try to get my point across.
Jeff Cook
just hit the nose from below and the broken cartilage will go into the brain and kill the guy
Mike Tyson used to believe that was true!
------
And why do these threads have to turn into slagging matches?!
Can this art-artist debate be partly connected to another "myth", myth about measuring, or testing MAs or single techniques? Some claims that the efficiency of some MA or tech is seen from how often it is used in MMA tournaments (where did I pick that :rolleyes: ), some says that certain historical lineage is the measurement, some takes arts use in training of special operation forces... And all may carry new myths within..
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
Not sure if you are denying being sarcastic, or if you are saying I should accept your sarcasm without comment. Which one is it?
Oh, it was sarcastic, just not directed at you... therefore, not personal.
It seems your beef with the "artist not the art" comment stems from the way it is normally presented, mainly as a defense against those that would say, for instance, "BJJ sucks for self-defense because John Smith, BJJ expert, got his butt kicked by a street thug."
I dont deny that a highly skilled person in the most oddball art in the world cant make his skills work in any situation, if he is HIGHLY SKILLED. Nor do I deny that the biggest (insert rude name here) in the world would manage to screw up his training when he needed it most, even if he spent a decade training with Yoda. My contention is that the phrase in question is not as flexible as some people seem to think. While extremes to either direction exist, they cannot be used as the measure for "the average joe" because neither extreme is "average". In the "world of average", where most of us live, making informed choices on which arts fit our needs best is far more appropriate than attempting to make an ill fitting art conform to our needs. Some arts fit better than others... the arts are different because they address different needs. If your needs are X, your best interest is to pick the art that best addresses X, not try and make Y art deal with X. Conversely, if your needs are for Y situation, pick the Y art.
And just to make this conundrum of mixed metaphores and half baked algebra complete...
If your needs are for situation A, there nothing to say that arts X, Y, and Z wont all provide excellent tools to deal with situation A, but art P might just get you killed, no matter how well you apply it.
AndrewSimonsen
11-05-2005, 12:24
I agree the artist is in the end ultimately more important.
10 skills = 1 strength
10 strengths = 1 will
Give me a person with will / spirit any day.
I got away from Karate for along time but have back to it some what in the last couple of years.
Number one reason was the spirit. Others arts can have them but you cant have Karate without it.
But all other things being equal (size, strength, time in training, quality of instruction, will). Give 2 people 6 months to train. Id put my money on a grappler or a Muay Thai fighter over a Tai Chi person.
Jeff
Agree completely, both are vital but neither is decisive.
AndrewSimonsen
11-05-2005, 12:44
Another myth, only asian martial arts are martial arts. Why wouldn't boxing and wrestling count?
Luebbers
11-05-2005, 12:50
http://www.sherdog.com/stats/stylelossrecords_ratio.htm
poor... poor random task. The only image I can conjure in my head is the one of Keith Hackney wailing on his nuts.
Yes! I love Joe Son Do references. I think it's hilarious that this is listed as a "style" on the leaderboards.
Sherdog needs to do a little house-cleaning and make their own distinctions. Relying on self-declared styles just starts to make things confusing. For one, a lot of people completely fabricated their credentials on the early UFCs, plus, there are too many people who make up unique names for their styles, when it's not really anything different. Carlos Newton used to call his art Dragonball Jiu-Jitsu (I'm not sure if he still does). It was just regular old BJJ, but he studied at so many different places, I guess he didn't want o affiliate himself with anyone in particular. The problem now is that the fighters are becoming so well-rounded as hybrid fighters, I don't know that you can effectively classify their style. Look at Matt Hughes. He's listed as a wrestler, but three out of his last four victories have been by submission.
Jeff Burger
11-05-2005, 13:30
UFC makes me think of another myth....
His grappling wont work cause Ill just keep him away with my kicks.
In the very early days of UFC I was pretty sure what has happened would happen. That we would end up with a common denomonator style of fighting.
This will eventually plateau until / unless ....
1) They modify the rules AGAIN.
2) Someone brings something new to the game.
Jeff
AndrewSimonsen
11-05-2005, 14:05
Most of what people have tried to pass off as takedown defence to me is laughable. The same old front kick to the face, or sidestep with a chop to the back of the neck. It seems that most takedown defence was created specifically for the double leg while ignoring singles, spikes, and high crotches which is what a good wrestler will use. Also it just makes me want to ask why they don't just sprawl and crossface. The only time when I have ever seen a kick work in a takedown defence was in Mirko Vs. Fujita.
Jango007
11-05-2005, 16:02
Just to be clear, pressure points do work. The technique that he performed with the strike to the hand and then to the head was one of the first techniques I learned, and I've used it on dozens of different people and had dozens perform it on me.
However, I have yet to learn any pressure point knockouts that require only one strike, and the no-touch knockouts stuff is complete crap. I'm not defending that guy at all, just pressure points.
Well said. I myself think the no-touch ko is false but that doesnt mean pressure points do not work.
RRousselot
11-05-2005, 17:01
But all other things being equal (size, strength, time in training, quality of instruction, will). Give 2 people 6 months to train. Id put my money on a grappler or a Muay Thai fighter over a Tai Chi person.
A grappler or Muay Thai fighter have different “spirit” than your typical Tai Chi~er.
Just as in sports people of different spirits are attracted to different arts. The spirit of a ping pong player might be different than that of say an ice hockey player. Both are competitive in their own game but not in the other’s.
When I lived in Taiwan I was told by the late Hung Yi Shen* that young people will often study the shing yi style arts (karate type arts) where more contact and “aggression” is involved and when they get older and calm down a bit they will study Tai Chi, Bagua and Chi gung.
Mr. Hung then demonstrated several techniques on me all of which send me crashing to the ground. After I got up here is the conversation that followed:
Mr. Hung: Was it shing yi or tai chi that I did?
Me: I don’t know.
Mr. Hung: Exactly
Later what I found out by one of his senior students that was watching that it was a Bagua move.
Mr. Hung explained that young people need to get rid of the “hot blood” so they more aggressive looking arts but explained that when they are older and more mature they are ready for Tai Chi, Bagua and Chi gung. He also explained that both types were effective but he wouldn’t train young people in Tai Chi, Bagua and Chi gung until they had thoroughly trained in Shing yi.
*Hung Yi Shen was a major bad *** when he was younger….think Motobu Choki Taiwan version. He trained in Shing yi, bagua, tai chi, and chi gung. He was also a licensed acupuncturist.
Jeff Burger
11-05-2005, 17:13
I have heard chinese refer to it as "the life time plan".
Do the external arts when your younger, make your body strong, channel that aggressiveness. When your older go towards internal art, better on the joints, techniques are more for those gained in experience (required timing, relaxation...).
Lam : If you really want good Tai Chi do external until 30s. Then do Xing Yi or Bagua 10 years, then do the other 10 years, then do Tai Chi.
Jeff
Oh, it was sarcastic, just not directed at you... therefore, not personal.
I dont deny that a highly skilled person in the most oddball art in the world cant make his skills work in any situation, if he is HIGHLY SKILLED. Nor do I deny that the biggest (insert rude name here) in the world would manage to screw up his training when he needed it most, even if he spent a decade training with Yoda. My contention is that the phrase in question is not as flexible as some people seem to think. While extremes to either direction exist, they cannot be used as the measure for "the average joe" because neither extreme is "average". In the "world of average", where most of us live, making informed choices on which arts fit our needs best is far more appropriate than attempting to make an ill fitting art conform to our needs. Some arts fit better than others... the arts are different because they address different needs. If your needs are X, your best interest is to pick the art that best addresses X, not try and make Y art deal with X. Conversely, if your needs are for Y situation, pick the Y art.
And just to make this conundrum of mixed metaphores and half baked algebra complete...
If your needs are for situation A, there nothing to say that arts X, Y, and Z wont all provide excellent tools to deal with situation A, but art P might just get you killed, no matter how well you apply it.
Joe, I hate math, and suck at algebra. I think we are arguing the same side in opposite fashion.
When teaching a simple, combat effective system to 10 people, and one of those people gets their butt beat by an untrained crackhead, one may say it's the art, not the artist, and in my opinion that would be incorrect. Here is my reason: the average technical student in ANY class, any system, does not have the mental strength or will to fight through a violent confrontation. The best student in your class will lose if he does not have that will. The worst student in your class may win if he has an indomitable spirit. That fighting spirit is why I say it is the artist, not the art, that determines the outcome.
The reason why I say that the average student in ANY system does not have the proper spirit is through direct observation of thousands of students in hundreds of dojos around the country over a period of years.
Conversely, there are instructors who in my opinion teach "low-percentage" arts - arts that do not properly address the true combat equation, but they have a great skill in instilling the "will" in their students. So in that case, is it the art or the artist when that student of a "poor" art perseveres?
Jeff Cook
Myth - hyperrotation of the head by grabbing the chin and back of head and twisting from front standing will break the neck.
I don't buy this.
Erik, why don't you buy it?
Jeff Cook
Chiropractors do it all the time and it doesn't break anything.
Spinal processes don't collide except when the neck is bent funny and then rotated which is very hard to do.
Takes a fair amount of leverage against a reasonably strong limb.
Cannot practice it for real so I am not convinced it really works. Just an MA claim.
Vertibrae are meant to rotate, so I cannot see rotating along surfaces meant to rotate causing a significant problem.
That's pretty much why I don't buy this one.
TCBA_Joe
11-10-2005, 17:02
actually, if hes talking about just twisting, that prob wont do anything, but ive been told that you need to lift the head up then twist to the side, and i think also at an angle. plus, chiropractors do it with a lot less force than would a navy seal or something. i might be wrong, but maybe someone else has an oppinion or some actual insight?
martial arts myth: you can learn from books and videos. we have a freshman in our club that learned only from books and videos so he "knows" JKD, ninjitsu, and aikido. hes pretty arrogant and not very good.
KobraKai
11-10-2005, 18:35
If size didn't matter, there wouldn't be weight classifications in tournaments =P
If size didn't matter, there wouldn't be weight classifications in tournaments =P
Weight catagories in competition are used as equalizers. It has nothing to do with the topic of self defense. I'm a competitor - not a tournament basher - just wanted to point out the difference.
Peter Rehse
11-10-2005, 22:18
Weight catagories in competition are used as equalizers. It has nothing to do with the topic of self defense. I'm a competitor - not a tournament basher - just wanted to point out the difference.
No weight divisions in our competitions. Also promotion shiai for Judo (at least in this country).
Another martial arts myth - you need weight divisions for fair tournaments.
starkjudo
11-10-2005, 23:26
Another martial arts myth - you need weight divisions for fair tournaments.
Fine, you be the 140-lb judoka facing the 250lb player in shiai.
It ain't a myth.
Peter Rehse
11-10-2005, 23:48
Fine, you be the 140-lb judoka facing the 250lb player in shiai.
It ain't a myth.
Depends on the rules - weight divisions are not always necessary. I gave two examples where they are not used.
I have seen two equally ranked Judo guys go at it with the smaller (2/3s the size) defeating the larger. It was a stunning kata guruma no less and over in seconds. This was during my Judo shodan promotion shiai (as I said there are no weight divisions there).
In Judo Shiai I was the 73 Kg guy against the 90 Kg. I actually did lose that one but weight was only part of the reason. He took me down with perfect timing and here I was counting on my agility. I did approach the situation differently than I would if I was the big guy but that is what a martial artist should be able to do - adapt.
We began with:
Another martial arts myth - you need weight divisions for fair tournaments
and evolved to:
Depends on the rules - weight divisions are not always necessary.
Maybe it depends on a lot of things. Either way, rules of policy and proceedure in regards to tournaments and the topic of self defense are NOT sonomous!
Peter Rehse
11-11-2005, 01:16
Maybe it depends on a lot of things. Either way, rules of policy and proceedure in regards to tournaments and the topic of self defense are NOT sonomous!
Eliz - I was responding to tournaments (Diana's post specifically) and the need for weight classes or more specifically the large numbers of divisions. There is no difference between my two statements.
I've seen tournaments where there are 9 divisions when 2 or 3 made more sense and like I said, I can think of a number of examples where succesful tournaments had none.
With regard to self defense it is far better to compete and train against a full range of opponent sizes. There are no weight divisions "on the street" although I'll lay odds that if the aggressor is unarmed he will most likely pick on the smaller individual. If that is your concern than training within and for specific weights is a big mistake.
Making a big man fall - now that's a challenge.
Eliz - I was responding to tournaments (Diana's post specifically) and the need for weight classes or more specifically the large numbers of divisions. There is no difference between my two statements.
I've seen tournaments where there are 9 divisions when 2 or 3 made more sense and like I said, I can think of a number of examples where succesful tournaments had none.
With regard to self defense it is far better to compete and train against a full range of opponent sizes. There are no weight divisions "on the street" although I'll lay odds that if the aggressor is unarmed he will most likely pick on the smaller individual. If that is your concern than training within and for specific weights is a big mistake.
Making a big man fall - now that's a challenge.
I completely misunderstood your post. My apologies. I understood you to say weight catagories in tournaments were NOT equalizers, just handicaps that were not universally embraced.
DragonMind
11-14-2005, 15:26
Chiropractors do it all the time and it doesn't break anything.
Spinal processes don't collide except when the neck is bent funny and then rotated which is very hard to do.
Takes a fair amount of leverage against a reasonably strong limb.
Cannot practice it for real so I am not convinced it really works. Just an MA claim.
Vertibrae are meant to rotate, so I cannot see rotating along surfaces meant to rotate causing a significant problem.
That's pretty much why I don't buy this one.
The real problem is in the description: "breaking the neck". The neck doesn't break, the spinal cord is severely damaged by the hyper-rotation about the vertical axis and the limits of travel in spinal facets and root nerves. The hands on the head and jaw are to provide acceleration of the head in excess of what the stationary body can compensate for. Think of it this way, if I want to open a stuck jar, I can use controlled pressure (chiro) and just keep slowly increasing until I achieve my goal, or I can take a hammer and smack the lid (neck crank) hard. In the latter, I have a good chance of damaging the jar/lid from excessive or unequal forces. Or try wringing out a towel. Slow and steady and the towel is fine. A sudden snap can tear the towel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.