West Wind Schools "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"

[Bokfutopher]

I am sorry I have to say it again. To say that one fighter is going to be better than another fighter based on the style of martial arts is simply ludicrous. This is an extremely controversial subject apparently and has generated much heated debate in many forums such as this one. The answer to this question is very subjective - students of any particular martial art tend to favor that one over any other (otherwise they would probably be studying the other martial art). There are many different but equally valid reasons for studying any martial art, such as for combat/self defense, for spiritual growth or enlightenment, for general physical health, for self-confidence and more. Some of the many teachers of a particular style will emphasize on only physical health, spiritual growth, sport and tournament and so on. That does not mean that the style itself does not have the potential to be as effective in combat if taught properly. Different martial arts, and even different styles within a particular martial art, emphasize different aspects giving them both weaknesses and strengths. That is why it does strengthen your fighting skills if you have mastered more than one style. But one style being far superior to another when they both have their weaknesses is silly. This may be tautology, but this needs to be repeated apparently. One person has said that it has been borne out in every fighting venue, from the dreaded streets and pool halls, to the wimpy places like rings and octagons, like it is a fact. I will agree with the later, rings and octagons are no comparison to a street fight. But I am not going to believe that one system of fighting is going to produce better fighters than another just because of the way that they fight, and without anything else taken into consideration. I will say it again, more goes into this equation than that. All these systems did not survive all these years because they did not work. If in fact one style of martial arts did dominate all the other styles, the better style would be overrun with students. There would be a waiting list for people to get in. There is not one person on this planet that would not want to take the supreme style. They too would want to take this style to make themselves a supreme fighter. If in fact it could be absolutely proven that one style annihilated all the other every single time, with out falter and did not matter who the fighter was. Everybody sits here judging these styles for what kind of fighters they are putting out. Have you ever stopped to consider, what kind of TRAINING they are getting. The style itself is of no use if the levels of training they are getting is for sport and not combat. It is hard to name one TKD school that does not train for sport (Tournament/Sparring/Competition).

Aikido is one of the styles that are not very popular on this forum and is made up of several different styles that have been around for a long time. I am guessing they have been around for a long time, not because they did not work, but for the opposite. On the technical side, Aikido is rooted in several styles of jujitsu (from which modern judo is also derived), in particular daitoryu-(aiki) jujitsu, as well as sword and spear fighting arts. Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, studied Jujutsu at the Kito-ryu dojo and Swordsmanship at the Shinkage Ryu training center. He also studied Tenjin Shin'yo-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu Jujutsu, and Sumo wrestling. He was taught, later in his life, by Sokaku Takeda, grandmaster of Daito-ryu Aiki Jutsu. Aikido itself has not been around that long, compared to some arts, but its roots date back a long time. And it is rooted in jujitsu just like BJJ. Brazilian jujitsu is rooted in Japanese jujitsu and judo, just like Aikido. The most important factor that differentiates Brazilian Jiu-jitsu from judo, aikido, and some schools of Japanese jujitsu is that BJJ places a decided emphasis on ground fighting instead of throwing techniques. While Japanese Jujutsu and Judo do incorporate training in ground fighting (newaza), some schools favoring more ground techniques than others, few Japanese schools put as much emphasis on ground techniques instead of throwing techniues as BJJ. The most considerable differences between BJJ and the Japanese styles include more emphasis on strikes on the ground, and holds and joint locks forbidden in sport Judo but taught in practical Judo or traditional jujutsu and Aikido.

[Bladesinger]

I'm so goddamn sick of the "every art is a unique and beautiful snowflake" bullshit.

I have something to help with that. It's an ancient device commonly referred to as a bucket. You can hurl in it, then when you've got it full enough it's an excellent delivery system for emptying it's contents onto those beautiful snowflake people.

[JohnnyCache]

blah blah blah.

Paragraphs, dude.

[Bokfutopher]

Im a late comer to this thread, but hopefully I can explain what the rest of the forum is trying to flame you for.

1: Every martial art is good in its own aspects

Yes, you are absolutely correct in this statement, however when you further elaborate on the statement you have to ask: each martial art is good compared to what? It seriously depends on what you're comparing each style to. Its easy to compare a striking style to a grappling style, because each style doesnt cover what the other style does. Once we start comparing styles that are more similar in their approach to fighting (i.e. striking vs striking, grappling vs grappling, etc) this is where it start to get complicated. Ultimately, under practical observations, one style is going to prove to be superior to the other even though in theory every style of martial art has a valid approach to combat. Such is the way of life- theres going to be a winner and theres going to be a loser- both can not win.
You have a point that it is more complicated to compare two simular ways of fighting (grappling vs grappling), for example. I know both cant win, but you cant make the assumption that one is going to win just because he takes a certain style. Life is unpredictable and there are too many variants to this equation to simply say "Oh he is studying BJJ or TKD or whaterver, so he is going to win automatically.
Now, in respect to the grappling styles vs the striking styles, its very clear that grappling styles have a great advantage over striking styles when trained in isolation. We walk on two feet, and due to the aggression and strength of a fight, its very common for people to get overwhelmed and thrown to the ground. The ability to remain on your feet in a fight is in direct correlation to your grappling ability, not your striking ability. The fact that striking styles are so lacking in grappling expertise already puts them at a grave disadvantage when fighting against someone else who knows so much as a basic takedown. When fighters begin to cross train, then the outcome of a fight relies more on the individuals talent and determination moreso than skill, because all fighters are knowledgable in all aspects of a fight. All styles can not make the same quality of fighters because of their obvious differences- thats why we have styles and thats what it means to be a "jiu jitsu" fighter, or a "kickboxer."
The opposite could be said too. The grappling system has its weaknesses against the striking style as well. If all I had to do is study a grappling style and I was guaranteed to win every fight, Id sign up so fast your head would spin, as would every one else. But that is not the case in reality. There are no guarantees in life other than, no matter how great a fighter a person is, no matter what style a person chooses to study, there will always be someone on planet earth who can beat them to a pulp regardless of his style, wether in a ring or in the streets.
When we start to compare styles, lets compare something like muay thai to TKD. I'll try to avoid using just BJJ examples to try to keep this unbiased. TKD is much much more popular in the US, with perhaps 10x as many practitioners (maybe more) than muay thai. Yet, in full contact kickboxing competitions and in mixed martial arts competitions, there are far more successfull fighters with a base style in muay thai than there are those with a base style in TKD- thats got to pick your brain just a little bit. Choosing which style you prefer to train in makes all the difference in the world. "Live and let live" does not apply and cant apply to something like martial arts where things are constantly empirically tested- its a physical activity that can be scientifically measured- its not like philosophy.
If you are going to compare these two you have to take into consideration that a lot, not all, of TKD instructors have changed the way they are teaching, with the emphasis on tournament/sparring/competition, instead of combat like it used to be. I am guessing they do this to appease the parents who dont want their children taught violence. Where most instructors teaching Muay Thai still emphasize on combat training.
How else could you explain someone like Royce Gracie, who's 175lbs defeating all such opponents 15 years ago? Hes not particularly strong, not very fast, and not an athletic person. He relied solely on his jiu jitsu technique and was able to defeat people who were heavier, stronger, faster, and more athletic than he was and he did it because, at the time, his style and technique were much more superior.

You are right Royce Gracie was an excelent fighter. He won against a lot of different styles. He even won against different styles of grappling. But was it not the same Royce Gracie that just lost his last match? I might be wrong, but I do not believe Matt Hughes studied BJJ. I know he is a grappler, but not brazilian jujitsu. Royce Gracie finaly met his match, someone from a different style no doubt, and a lot stronger and faster.

[Punisher]

[QUOTE=Bokfutopher]You are right Royce Gracie was an excelent fighter. He won against a lot of different styles. He even won against different styles of grappling. But was it not the same Royce Gracie that just lost his last match? I might be wrong, but I do not believe Matt Hughes studied BJJ. I know he is a grappler, but not brazilian jujitsu. Royce Gracie finaly met his match, someone from a different style no doubt, and a lot stronger and faster.QUOTE]


You sir, are an idiot. It is hard to believe that someone could be so stupid and misinformed.

Matt Hughes studies jujistu. Specifcally he trains at Miletich Fighting Systems. Notice the jujitsu on their class schedule. http://www.mfselite.com/id15.html

Read, watch, or listen to any interview with Matt Hughes and you will likely hear how important jujitsu is to his training. Not as fundamental as wrestling, but very important indeed.

Secondly, you make this sound that this was the first time the mighty Royce had been vanquished. Not true.

Thirdly. I believe all styles have merit, but it is ridculously stupid to argue that all styles have equal merit. Some styles are simply better than others. If you have a kenpo guy fight a comparable bjj guy 100 times, the bjj guy will probably win 99. And this is coming from a guy who has studied kenpo for 20 years and owns a kenpo school.

I really hope you are not a real person. I really hope this is all just a bad dream or at least a really bad joke.

[Myoken]

If you have a kenpo guy fight a comparable bjj guy 100 times, the bjj guy will probably win 99. And this is coming from a guy who has studied kenpo for 20 years and owns a kenpo school.

Dude, you've just proved his point. It's not that kenpo sucks, it's just that your kenpo sucks.

[oldman34]

You are right Royce Gracie was an excelent fighter. He won against a lot of different styles. He even won against different styles of grappling. But was it not the same Royce Gracie that just lost his last match? I might be wrong, but I do not believe Matt Hughes studied BJJ. I know he is a grappler, but not brazilian jujitsu. Royce Gracie finaly met his match, someone from a different style no doubt, and a lot stronger and faster.

Here ya go buddy.......

http://www.matt-hughes.com/training.html

if that doesnt help try this one....

http://www.mfselite.com/

Not Bok Fu Do, but hey...we cant ALL be LARPers.

[oldman34]

I have abosolutely nothing to do, so here goes.

I am sorry I have to say it again. To say that one fighter is going to be better than another fighter based on the style of martial arts is simply ludicrous.

Not necessarily the style, but the TRAINING. If you train half ass, your skills will be half ass. If you point spar for training, when the chips are down, you will fight like a point sparrer.

This is an extremely controversial subject apparently and has generated much heated debate in many forums such as this one.

Actually, NOT controversial. WHy do you think that Militaries around the worl run a realistic drills as possible? Because you will perform like you train. If you train in an art (not all schools are the same) that has little or no moderate to heavy contact sparring, or has you train moves against a compliant partner constantly, then you will be unpleasantly suprised, when you attacker doesnt behave like your partner. If he doesnt offer you his wrist to grab, then what?

The answer to this question is very subjective - students of any particular martial art tend to favor that one over any other (otherwise they would probably be studying the other martial art). There are many different but equally valid reasons for studying any martial art, such as for combat/self defense, for spiritual growth or enlightenment, for general physical health, for self-confidence and more. Some of the many teachers of a particular style will emphasize on only physical health, spiritual growth, sport and tournament and so on. That does not mean that the style itself does not have the potential to be as effective in combat if taught properly.

And there you have it. A great many times, they ARENT taught properly.

If you are taking something for health reasons, great...
If you are taking something for spiritual reasons, well ok...whatever
If you are taking it for sport/tourney stuff, great...

but dont come here and say that art "x" is super doodles above the rest, when historically it is full of charlatans, and money grabbers.

Different martial arts, and even different styles within a particular martial art, emphasize different aspects giving them both weaknesses and strengths. That is why it does strengthen your fighting skills if you have mastered more than one style. But one style being far superior to another when they both have their weaknesses is silly. This may be tautology, but this needs to be repeated apparently.

However a great many people DONT crosstrain because their GM, Soke, Sensei, etc. says that they dont need to. That their "art" has it all. Therein lies the problem. They never go outside of their own school, because they have been told over and over, that this is useless, regardless of facts to the contrary.

One person has said that it has been borne out in every fighting venue, from the dreaded streets and pool halls, to the wimpy places like rings and octagons, like it is a fact. I will agree with the later, rings and octagons are no comparison to a street fight. But I am not going to believe that one system of fighting is going to produce better fighters than another just because of the way that they fight, and without anything else taken into consideration.

Again...it is the training that produces the fighters, not the art. Rings and Octagons are a LEGAL way to test theories and techniques. Some arts have proven to be more effective than others. The ones that are consistently beaten, only fall back on "t3h str33t" argument.

I will say it again, more goes into this equation than that. All these systems did not survive all these years because they did not work. If in fact one style of martial arts did dominate all the other styles, the better style would be overrun with students. There would be a waiting list for people to get in. There is not one person on this planet that would not want to take the supreme style. They too would want to take this style to make themselves a supreme fighter. If in fact it could be absolutely proven that one style annihilated all the other every single time, with out falter and did not matter who the fighter was. Everybody sits here judging these styles for what kind of fighters they are putting out. Have you ever stopped to consider, what kind of TRAINING they are getting. The style itself is of no use if the levels of training they are getting is for sport and not combat. It is hard to name one TKD school that does not train for sport (Tournament/Sparring/Competition).

Ummmm...one style has pretty much dominated all other styles. Grappling. Sorry to say it but its true.

You are beginning to see the light. (in yellow) Thats EXACTLY what most of us are considering.

Aikido is one of the styles that are not very popular on this forum and is made up of several different styles that have been around for a long time. I am guessing they have been around for a long time, not because they did not work, but for the opposite. On the technical side, Aikido is rooted in several styles of jujitsu (from which modern judo is also derived), in particular daitoryu-(aiki) jujitsu, as well as sword and spear fighting arts. Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, studied Jujutsu at the Kito-ryu dojo and Swordsmanship at the Shinkage Ryu training center. He also studied Tenjin Shin'yo-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu Jujutsu, and Sumo wrestling. He was taught, later in his life, by Sokaku Takeda, grandmaster of Daito-ryu Aiki Jutsu. Aikido itself has not been around that long, compared to some arts, but its roots date back a long time. And it is rooted in jujitsu just like BJJ. Brazilian jujitsu is rooted in Japanese jujitsu and judo, just like Aikido. The most important factor that differentiates Brazilian Jiu-jitsu from judo, aikido, and some schools of Japanese jujitsu is that BJJ places a decided emphasis on ground fighting instead of throwing techniques. While Japanese Jujutsu and Judo do incorporate training in ground fighting (newaza), some schools favoring more ground techniques than others, few Japanese schools put as much emphasis on ground techniques instead of throwing techniues as BJJ. The most considerable differences between BJJ and the Japanese styles include more emphasis on strikes on the ground, and holds and joint locks forbidden in sport Judo but taught in practical Judo or traditional jujutsu and Aikido.

Gee, thanks for the history lesson. Most of us are aware of the differences in JJ styles.

One more time for the slower people in the room.

TRAINING WITH ALIVENESS.

I have seen TKD training,
I have seen Aikido training
I have seen BJJ training
I have seen Karate training
I have seen Judo training

BJJ, and Judo had the most "alive" training methods. That is why they are held in such high esteem.


One more thing....stop posting in colored font. It makes you look like a newb.

[Punisher]

Dude, you've just proved his point. It's not that kenpo sucks, it's just that your kenpo sucks.

No noobie, I didn't. As far a kenpo goes, what I teach and I how I teach it is quite good. If you put one of my guys against the average American Kenpo guy, I'd bet on my guy everytime.

It is just the BJJ is the worst possible match-up for kenpo. It is a matter of fighting strategy. Kenpo is best against other kenpo-like styles and arts like Aikido. But BJJ = Kenpo Krytponite.

[Gumby]

The opposite could be said too. The grappling system has its weaknesses against the striking style as well. If all I had to do is study a grappling style and I was guaranteed to win every fight, Id sign up so fast your head would spin, as would every one else. But that is not the case in reality. There are no guarantees in life other than, no matter how great a fighter a person is, no matter what style a person chooses to study, there will always be someone on planet earth who can beat them to a pulp regardless of his style, wether in a ring or in the streets.

And now through your counter argument, you're starting to actually acknowledge that there is a difference between styles. Grappling systems have a weakness against striking systems in that they are not taught how to strike- this is why they prefer to grapple. Its relatively easy to box up and protect your vital areas (chin, face, temple) when you close the distance to a clinch when attempting to take someone down.

Do you know what the Gracies did when people would come in for challenge matches against their style? They would often pit whoever challenged them against a much smaller opponent who was only mildly experienced (i.e. a blue belt) should you think that you got beat because the person was a superior fighter. They would take 15 yr olds and put them against grown men who had 20-30 lbs (sometimes more) advantage and still win. They did this specifically to prove that it was the style, not the person, that was beating you.

Try going to a BJJ gym in your area and asking for a challenge match- such things can be done respectively and there will be no ill feelings towards you. They'll most likely pair you up with someone significantly smaller and have him take you down and beat you many times to prove that its not a fluke. If at that point you havent figured out the fighting game and cross train in a grappling style, then thats your own fault.

As far as always being someone out there who can kick your ass, the people who are going to kick the ass of the professional fighters are also going to be well versed in specific styles- you'll never find someone from a pure karate or TKD school whos going to beat someone like Fedor, Mark Coleman, Frank Shamrock etc- and its NOT because such people cant become good enough to beat them but because they dont have the proper training in the proper styles.

If you are going to compare these two you have to take into consideration that a lot, not all, of TKD instructors have changed the way they are teaching, with the emphasis on tournament/sparring/competition, instead of combat like it used to be. I am guessing they do this to appease the parents who dont want their children taught violence. Where most instructors teaching Muay Thai still emphasize on combat training.

Most combatives were turned into sports to offer a means for its fighters to enhance and test their skills against one another in times of peace. Muay Thai is no different. Go to a muay thai school, and they're going to be putting on 16 oz gloves with handwraps, cups, and shin protectors, even though such protective equipment is not going to be used in a "real" fight. They're also not going to show you many weapons defence scenarios, self defense scenarios, or multiple opponent scenarios- thats about as far from the traditional line of thinking of what "self defense" is. The reason why muay thai wins in this clash of styles is simply because its better.

You are right Royce Gracie was an excelent fighter. He won against a lot of different styles. He even won against different styles of grappling. But was it not the same Royce Gracie that just lost his last match? I might be wrong, but I do not believe Matt Hughes studied BJJ. I know he is a grappler, but not brazilian jujitsu. Royce Gracie finaly met his match, someone from a different style no doubt, and a lot stronger and faster.

You dont understand- my point was that Royce isnt an excellent fighter- he doesnt have the physical attributes that are becoming of someone whos an excellent fighter- strength, speed, physical size- Royce doesnt have any of this. He was made into an excellent fighter specifically because of the style he trains in. If Royce were a karate or TKD practitioner, he would have gotten pounded on just like everyone else in the early UFCs due to his lack of groundfighting knowledge.

As far as his fight vs Hughes, Hughes is an avid practitioner of BJJ- hes a member of the Militech Camp, whos head instructor is a BJJ black belt. Hughes has been working on his submission skills alot as many of his recent victories have come by way of submission. He beat Royce because he knew the same exact things that Royce did, at which point physical attributes become much more important in a fight.

The fact that Hughes beat Royce so badly speaks even more volumes for BJJ than if Royce would have beaten Hughes. Nothing changes what Royce did 15 years ago, and after fighting Hughes you see that Royce was never really that good- what that means is that you dont have to be a great fighter in order to utilize jiu jitsu in a fight if a (now) mediocre jiu jitsu fighter can dominate so many people the way he did.