Holy well put Omega.
I try to preach the "all ranges, alive training, pressure testing" to people who I talk to about martial arts.
Usually the discussion still breaks down into "just go do some Judo and then get back to me". Because getting thrown on my head changed my worldview.
Someday I will get around to Muay Thai... hopefully while I can still kick above my waist.
I am sure we (as a forum) could create a pretty impressive list of MMA fighters who have done well without studying the "right" martial arts.
Although I'm hesitant to disagree to an extent, given the likelihood that I will be schooled by Omega... Why bother differentiating by styles at all then? Should we just call it all MMA? Or say I train in fighting? Don't get me wrong, I agree to an extent, I think... For example, judo and bjj have many moves that are the same, so if I learn a move in judo class, and then use it in jits class, I don't differentiate. That said, isn't there, or shouldn't there be some amount of recognized curriculum that separates the various MA styles?
You say MMA. Omega says Kung Fu.
Originally Posted by AKRhino
See the difference? No? Yes? Good, because they are just names at a certain level. Omega's Kung Fu includes his entire body of martial techniques, regardless of what the original source was. While this does not fit the rigid Western definition of Kung Fu, it is my limited understanding that it fits many older Eastern definitions. That being, a person's personal library of martial techniques comprises their Kung Fu, no matter what the origin.
That is my interpretation anyway. I'm sure Omega will correct me if I'm wrong.
Ironically, while I understand this line of thinking, my own paradigm is a bit too linear to adopt it. I dabble in both Judo and SOMBO, but they are discrete in my own head from the BJJ that I train on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by AKRhino
I'd say its lineage and rule set. If you are doing your grappling at a Judo dojo, with Judo players, under a Judo philosophy and curriculum, saying you do Judo makes sense. Saying you know Sambo doesn't. Same goes for striking.
But, since we often train for the rule set we will compete under.
I can't get the whole thought out clearly, so hopefully that makes sense. If its just a matter of semantics, then call it whatever the **** you want. Just be ready for someone to correct you if you tell them Ronda Rousey has sick Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Or that Fedor had good Greco. Or that Omega's Muay Thai is of the chain.
Right, until it becomes part of your normal routine. If you are practicing them separately then they are their own style, system, art. Once you incorporate them, as the word is defined, they become part of that system. That's my philosophy at least. I still practice SAMBO and Kung fu separately even though there are over lapping techniques. Hope that answers Rhino's question too.
Originally Posted by jnp
I practice Mouth Boxing and Keyboard Warrioring separately maybe I should combine the two into one coherent style.
I agree with you but with one caveat. Of course it's nonsense that you need to learn BJJ to compete in mixed martial arts, just ask Fedor or Mirko Filipovic etc. You do need a balanced mixture of some kind of striking and grappling or at the bare minimum defense against striking or grappling. I fully agree with you there. I doesn't matter if you learned to grapple in a 'combat ballet' school as long as you are good at grappling. I also agree that genealogy wars are pointless and sadly way too common and time consuming. Sambo in particular makes no secret of borrowing heavily from Judo, Chiodaba, Gulesh, Slavic folk styles etc. And yes, even if a throw is borrowed from Chiodaba, it becomes a sambo throw. As long as it works, it doesn't make sense not to use a technique because it's not 'part' of your style.
Here is one thing that I don't have fully reconciled. If I want to learn leg locks for example, I am most likely not going to go to a kung fu monastery. A much better bet would be going to a sambo gym, if available, or judo. If I want to perfect my iron fist, on the other hand, a shaolin monastery seems like a good bet. If I want to learn to punch like Andy Hug, I probably won't ask around for a great Wushu school or Tae Kwon Do dojo. But if I want to impress my wife with my 360 tornado kick, Tae Kwon do looks like a way better bet than boxing. In that sense styles help to unite potential students with teachers capable of improving whatever aspect of their fighting they feel needs work.
On top of that, while I have no doubt that the throws and submissions that you teach in your kungfu school are in fact effective, many or possibly most kung fu schools don't hold such distinction, despite claims to the contrary. Beginners hoping to learn to fight might get lucky and happen upon you kung fu? gym and come out balanced fighters with a good skill set. But it's much more likely that they'll go to a less rounded gym and wind up with a lot of holes in they skill set. To fill those holes, it's easiest to look to styles that specialize in whatever those people may be looking for.
So I think it's really a matter of perspective. To the eyes of an expert that already knows what he/she is doing that has had ample chances to test their theory in actual fighting or at least something full contact, styles have no meaning. However, to a beginner, or even an expert in one aspect of fighting that wants to broaden his range, styles are a very useful stepping stone from which to begin their search.
Sorry about the novel. I just felt like the thought you put into your post deserves at least an equal effort.
Well, that or the prospective student could ask if Omega's school has any students who compete in competitions, grappling, striking or MMA. When they learn that Omega has a number of successful students in all three of those, they could infer that the skills he teaches measures up to other schools that teach the same type of techniques respectively.
Originally Posted by theAsthmatic
Hooray for logic.
How many beginners know to ask the right questions though? Most beginners will ask if the teachers knows how to teach grappling and striking or more likely if the training will help with their confidence. Chances are, the answer will be yes, no matter what the teacher actually knows.
Not to mention, some arts don't do competitions. A few of them are even effective, despite a lack of competition being a red flag. Like Krav Maga, or I guess Jeet Kun Do. Beginners can't really be expected to apply logic without a basis to work with. Tournaments aren't also the end all to fighting skill. I would be perfectly comfortable with letting a legitimate former Spetznaz teach me how to fight with a knife, even though he most likely has no tournament victories or even students with such victories.
Beginners also won't know that winning something like the Kyokushin World open, is very different from winning the Junior Olympics in TKD. So they won't be able to tell if they are about to commit to studying under a true master, like say Kancho Joko Ninomya of Enshin karate fame or just some guy that has a lot of medals and trophies on his wall. So, unfortunately, logic only works here when you already generally know what you are looking for.
Beginners now have the internet, which is pretty handy. If they want to learn to fight, they will google "what martial arts are worth a ****" and learn things. That pretty damn close to how I got onto this site. If they don't want to compete and just want to feel cool and dance in a gi or lose some weight, then it doesn't really matter what they choose I guess.
Sometimes you just have to say "idiots are going to be idiots, and you can't cure stupid even with reasonable presentation".