Yes. When fighters from arts like Wing Chun, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Aikido, etc. face fighters from arts like Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc. with a minimum of rules, there is an overwhelming correlation between winning and studying one of those latter arts. That's because those latter arts train in methods to control and/or damage a resisting opponent, which is what fighting is, while the former train to "perfect" one's mastery of a curriculum regardless of whether that curriculum can be applied.
Now for my question, are you telling me that you truely believe that just because a person takes a certain type of fighting style that they are going to be a better fighter?
This has been borne out in every fighting venue from the dreaded streets and pool halls to wimpy places like rings and octagons. It is very clear.
I know this is true because I have studied both Tae Kwon Do and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Tae Kwon Do made me a worse fighter. BJJ made me a better fighter. The small amount of Judo and Muay Thai striking I've been able to work has made me a better fighter. If the arts were equal and the only difference were the fighter, then studying different arts could not take the same fighter in opposite directions in terms of effectiveness.
The training methods in Judo, Muay Thai and BJJ are quite simply superior. Furthermore, these superior training methods have now been making positive changes in these arts for anywhere from 75 to 100 years--maybe more. The training methods of TKD and Aikido, meanwhile, have been taking those arts downhill during that time. At this point the arts themselves are vastly different in quality, so that if you started an Aikido studio and tried to apply the training methods of Judo or BJJ, you'd have to throw out a ton of stuff that doesn't work in the real world. In the end you'd be reinventing the wheel.
That is exactly what he is saying and he is correct. Have you never seen an Aikidoka attempt to fight a BJJ guy or an MMA athlete? It's ugly. Same for TKD 9999 times out of ten thousand, although apparently there's a TKD guy working people over in Polish MMA at the moment.
One does TKD
One does Aikido
One does BJJ
One does MMA
Are you actually telling me one is going to be able to dominate, solely on what style of Martial arts he has taken?
If you cant see that each child will have their own strenghths and weaknesses depending on what style they take I do not know what to tell ya.
By the time your kid in BJJ has 12 years in, he's probably a black belt or a brown. He has therefore been in just about every ground position possible against opponents who knew what they were doing. He has choked hundreds of people who didn't want to be choked, he has armbarred hundreds of people who didn't want to let him do it. He's suffered the same and he has escaped the same hundreds of times, too. And everything has done--EVERYTHING he has done--he has done against total resistance at full speed. He knows it works.
The MMA kid is even more dangerous. If he has truly spent 12 years in an MMA gym, then he's probably a dangerous striker who throws tight hand combinations, vicious low kicks at a minimum, and has a pretty good takedown along with good takedown defense. On the ground he is well-versed in submissions--and again, he's done all this against people who were trying to stop him and do something mean back to him.
The TKD kid, on the other hand, has never learned to move on the ground, much less fight. Same for Aiki-boy. If they fall down, they're lunch. If they get taken down, they're lunch. If they take their opponent down, but the opponent simply holds on and drags them down, they're lunch. If you haven't been on the ground with a competent submission wrestler, or even a good high school wrestler, you have no idea. It has been likened to throwing a man who can't swim into a shark tank.
Even on their feet, remember, the Aikidoka and the TKD boy have never seen a jab or a straight right. When they do defend themselves in a class, it is against choreographed, deliberately clumsy, slow, and unbalanced attacks. They have never been kicked in the leg. They have never been kicked with the shin. They have never learned real breakfall because they have never really been thrown--as in totally against their will with no choreography.
They will be taken down and submitted by the BJJ kid at will. The MMA guy will beat them up on the feet before taking them down and beating them up, then taking a submission if he chooses.
Aikido and TKD have their strengths, yes, but most of their strengths have nothing to offer in a fight. Their weaknesses are overwhelming. TKD has fast, elusive footwork, and. . . . well, that's about it. Aikido has . . . . I don't know what I'd list as an advantage for Aikido as a fighting art. It doesn't seem to have been intended as a fighting art, frankly.
Besides, we've forgotten the fifth child, the one who did West Wind Karate. Not only did he get taught ridiculous crap, but he was charged thousands of dollars for it. In twelve years he spent as much as I spent to go to college (well, undergraduate.) He's poor, he's underemployed, and his brothers keep picking on him.
Bullshit. If I tell you I dislike a style, I will tell you why. There are solid, simple reasons that explain the easily observable phenomenon of people from one group of styles consistently losing in competition against people from other styles.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Here is a perfect example of prejudicial judgment. You think that a style sucks just because you choose not to like it.
All that is true, but more or less amounts to a tautology. All styles have their strengths and weaknesses? Well, duh, but that does not in any way make them equals. The Americans and the Germans once had a contest in which their industrial output and strategic leadership were tested. The Americans and their allies had their strengths and their weaknesses. They did some dumb things, in retrospect, and they made some poor materiel. However, they were superior to their German foes. They were not equals just because they both had weaknesses. In the end, American industrial output buried the Germans despite its weaknesses.
All styles have their strengths and weaknesses. What works for one person may not work for another. I do agree that it is not just the person that makes the whole of the equation, but what they put into it, the quality of instruction, their level of natural born talent, how smart they are, how strong they are, how fast they are and so on and so forth.
Straw man. Nobody here argued that the style is the sole factor. You, on the other hand, argued that the individual is the sole determining factor. If that were true, then a good fighter would be able to train in anything--Yu-Gi-Oh or Chess, for example--and still pick up enough to "make it work for him."
There is no way that a persons fighting skill is soley dependent on what style of martial arts he takes.
No, they do not. WTF Tae Kwon Do has at least ten times as many students in the U.S. as BJJ and Muay Thai combined; it should be turning out ten times as many good fighters. It turns out almost none, while the comparatively tiny pool of BJJ grapplers and Muay Thai strikers turns out most of the really good fighters in the U.S.--and the rest are mostly wrestlers, boxers and judoka.
They all have the potential to turn you into a great fighter based on what you put into it and get out of it and your level of natural ability.
Many of these arts are actually teaching crap that will get you killed if you ever try to apply it. I have a picture on my hard drive right now from that Tukong Mu Sool nonsense we were discussing for awhile. It shows two Tukong fighting masters attempting to use handguns; they are aping the movements of characters from bad television shows. One is actually performing a "Full Sabrina."
If you are not sure who he is, you could do yourself a huge favor by searching the video archive here for his video on "Aliveness." Thornton's contribution is not an art; he teaches Jeet Kune Do with BJJ. Instead, Thornton is famous for coining the term "aliveness" and using it to explain the most important aspect of martial arts training. To train with aliveness means to train at full speed against fully resisting opponents with no predetermined "winner" and "loser" (there is no "uke" in other words.)
I am not sure who Matt Thornton is, but if he teaches that his style is the one and only style, then he is another prime example of Bullshido.
Arts which do not do this are dead. They teach only a curriculum of movements, and their ideal is to preserve those movements with as little change as possible.
Alive arts do not train alive at every moment. When a new technique or principle is taught, the student begins by drilling it slowly with a passive partner. The speed and intensity are gradually stepped up until the student is applying the technique at full speed, albeit with the partner still not attempting anything except to resist/escape the technique. Finally the student will be set free to roll or spar and attempt to use the new knowledge in the context of a free fight.
Originally Posted by wingchundo
Most of the history will tie back into my point. The schools are not what they used to be.
I would love to hear your story as well.
Originally Posted by stvp
You wont believe what they pulled. Stay tuned I am going to be wrapping up my story this weekend.
Originally Posted by Ninja Claus
Originally Posted by Gabster the Bad Elf
I spent some time at the Napa school teaching as well. They bounced me around a lot from school to school. West Wind had a bad head instructor at Napa for a while, who did not help in running the name into the ground. There were a few things that sent Napa school into extinction. One was the fact that the head instructors students, and some of his junior instructors which were still in highschool, were bullies at the highschool. Giving West Wind the reputation of not teaching self discipline and humility and self control. The contracts thing was another, but more so how much they were charging people than the contracts. The word spread fast that they were crooks. Plus people did not want their kids being taught by an irresponsible head instructor.
Originally Posted by jdinca
Ron Lee did infact leave East West before recieving his black belt from Richard Cuveliere, who also changed his name to Richard Lee. Sorry for the misspelling in my intro. He made it clear to every one and really I found that level of honesty respectable. Ron Lee split with Richard Lee before he could take his test. I do not know the whole story, but they had some sort of disagreement and some hard feelings as well. He still knew all the material and used what he felt was appropriate to start his own system. Ron Lee says he named his system Bok Fu first and Richard Lee says he named his Bok Fu Do first. Who came up with it first, who knows. I was not there at that time so I dont know. I am pretty sure that Ron Lee owned and operated Berkeley West Wind by 1972, if not prior to that. I also know that ours never had "Do" on the end. What ever that signifies.
You are absolutely right about Al Tracy giving him the title of 10th degree black belt. But Tracys is totally different from West Winds Bok Fu. There are some simularities, but they are different. I dont know that much about what East West teaches to compare them to Tracy's karate. Kenpo has changed since Ed Parker, but even Al Tracy himself has said that only one person still teaches the closest to what Ed Parker taught and that is Larry Tatum. You can read that on his website.
LMFAO - dude, I live in Japan and was walking over towards the harbor to meet an old friend who is one of the original Seido students from NYC when Nakamura broke with Oyama. In fact he and Nakamura had a falling out after he decided to be an engineer instead of opening a dojo in Berkeley when he graduated and moved out there 10 years ago so one of his good friends opened one there instead.
Originally Posted by Bokfutopher
I just thought it would be fun to watch the reaction of the group when I told them I was moving back to the US and looking for somewhere to train - then see if I could get them into a little sparring to "make sure I could actually learn something from them"... :D
BTW, I'm a student and an instructor at East - West and GM Richard Lee is my teacher. I know what happened between the two but it's not my place to tell that story, so I will refrain. All I can say is that I would suspect everything Ron Lee had to say about Bok Fu, who named it and whatever else he cared to say. If you refer to the article I posted a link to, you might find some answers. There is also a page about GM Lee, which may provide you with further information. It wasn't until '72 that Bok Fu even came into existence. Prior to that, the BBs he developed were learning Tracy Kenpo.
Originally Posted by Bokfutopher
We get transfers from other schools all the time, including West Wind and East Wind. Yes, you could call what they learned Bok Fu, because the techniques are basically the same but the way they were taught and the level of detail provided to the students was not exactly up to par with what we do. Unfortunately, these schools have given Bok Fu Do a bad name and my primary purpose is to keep facts about the system and its founder straight whilst the rest of you systematically take apart these other schools. I have no intentions of standing in the way of that.
This is a REALLY GOOD POST that should be the basis for an article. I give few compliments (I know, what an understatement) but I'm quite serious here.
Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO