Comba-Tai is a 6,000 year old Royal Warrior tradition and is the oldest MA...

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 12:32am

Well, I went back to the Proboards Comba-Tai site to see if they've resolved the "LOL BANNED" question. They haven't. Dr. Jones actually told me some kind of behavior was the reason I'm no longer welcome to post--but he addressed that post to me. So I answered it. I don't know what he expected to happen.

Dr. Jones also posted his new "Comba-Tai Rules of Debate." That's right, Comba-Tai has its own rules of debate now. Here they are:

I Guess Mr. Guinn didn't see this post on the other thread. Pehaps that is why he is no longer welcome to post.

To Whom It May Concern:

No one can deny that I’ve been very patient. But it’s time to set a few ground rules for anyone coming to this forum to question our claims. If you violate the rules below, you will be labeled as an “Arguing Troll” and will not be given a response. However, if you adhere to these rules your questions will be seriously considered. (Define troll: “troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.”) We must do this because youth visit this site and I don’t want them offended by the type of vituperative vitriol statements I’ve seen. We don’t need to debate on this issue; this is our house and if you don’t agree with our rules, please don’t post. In any case I am not promising information, I don’t have a lot of time, but, I will publish a book by summers end for anyone’s perusal. If you have “specific” questions, I will try to answer them. Please don’t get on our site and use it as a platform to preach your opinions...we all have opinions.

COMBA-TAI RULES OF DEBATE

1. If you disagree with a claim you must give a reference that counters the reference given (this includes page number).
Giving your opinion is unacceptable and will not be given a response. For instance, simply stating that I don’t believe “The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt; Ian Shaw, page 67” claim that Egyptians were indigenous Africans, is your opinion. Leave your personal views and your personal experiences out of this discussion; what is important is exclusively the evidence for your arguments. While we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs, it does not present evidence against a claim and will not illicit a response. Even we don’t have internal Comba-Tai discussions until we follow these four steps:
a. Read background information presented.
b. Check references
c. Collect as much material as you can find.
d. Read and study/cross reference the material discovered.

2. However I will permit “reductio ad absurdum”, but not as it relates to disrespect but rather a collaboration of evidence. “I'm being as respectful as I know how to be,” will not be considered an excuse for ignoring respect.

3. Avoid emotional Rhetoric – Example: “The first assertion, to address your point about context, is only true if the context is taken to be so broad as to allow all human endeavor of any kind to be traced back to Africa simply because that is where the earliest known hominids developed. That point of view would remake igloo shelters and ice fishing into 6,000 year-old-traditions handed down from Egyptian and Kunutse ancestors.” (This is an example of an unacceptable response and extremely disrespectful.)

4. Rebuttal:
• Presentation of Counter Evidence: A complete evidence citation must include the following as identified by the original source: publication title, page number. In the event of a violation of this rule, the person will be disqualified from the information sharing process. Avoid:
a. Fabrication: falsely representing a cited fact or statement of opinion as evidence; or intentional omission/addition of information within quoted material.
b. Distortion: misrepresentation of evidence or of citation which significantly alters meaning or content.
c. Ignoramus: does not support claims against a thesis for obvious reasons.

Example: “Frankly I am not aware of any reputable scholar of that period of history who would say that there are complete enough records of the arts of that time to say that it's possible for you or anyone else to substantiate the claim that he practices the same art today.”

Note: If you are not a professional in this regard, it is dishonest and Unacceptable to give a professional opinion.

5. Avoid Statements of Benefit: It is very disrespectful and completely untrue to claim that meager research is beneficial to Comba-Tai. It is not appreciated! There are those that will come before you and those that will come after you that will claim we are wrong, Afro-Centric, Racist, Thieves, Liars, dishonest and enemies of mankind. People will believe what they will believe for what ever reasons they have for believing.
Note: Please avoid statements of benefit such as below:

"It's my intent to find out what the truth is. If the truth discredits you, that will have to be your concern. If the truth doesn't discredit you, then just as I've done here, I'll make that very clear--and you will benefit from the fact that someone actually checked and verified your claim rather than simply taking your word for it. "

Nope-- We Don't Benefit, the value of verifying a claim is related to the credentials of the verifier. In other words we don’t benefit or get discredited because you say it’s true or the most horrible lie in human history. Who really cares?

6. Use Tact and Diplomacy at All Times— because we have youth that view this forum, I expect all adults and your friends that post on this website to get your point across in a positive professional image. That also means the forums you post on our site. I also expect you to develop an awareness of your communication style and how others see you. You can communicate however you want, but don’t expect to get free information with horse fertilizer.

7. Honesty: Openly state complete agendas, if hidden agendas are discovered, you will be disqualified from information sharing, and deemed unworthy to give answers or information...
Case in Point: I'm intrigued by Comba-Tai; the idea of combining boxing, wrestling and judo makes a lot of sense, and if you were doing it in the 1980's that makes you pretty early birds! However, I find the 6,000 year continuous lineage harder to comprehend. Is it the position of Soke Jones that he can trace the art he practices today back 6,000 years to Mesopotamia? That seemed to be the gist of his manuscript on the subject, but I didn't see any evidence of such a lineage presented. (This was very respectful and good specific questions.)

Discovery: “The fact is that many of the claims made for Comba-Tai and Dr. Jones are literally incredible and are made with no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you have admitted just that regarding at least one claim I asked about. (The time Dr. Jones sent 13 attackers to the emergency room.) That's enough to make anyone want to take a closer look . . .…but combined with Dr. Jones' dishonesty on E-Budo (pretending to be some average guy with three months' experience in Comba-Tai, and later pretending to be white because he thought that would make some difference) and his dismissal of everyone there as racists, it demands scrutiny.” (Disrespectful arrogant opinion—not worthy of response. The response is also based on illiteracy of the information given.)

This is disrespectful and completely untrue! I guess we could argue about these things, but let’s not. Don’t do this again, please. You don’t have the right to make these claims against another human being based on the conjectures of some internet chat forum for a number of reasons. It’s just not fair.

Soo. . . . . yeah. Not much to say to that, is there?

Anyway, Grandmaster Parham apparently wanted me to post the following picture, which shows himself, Dr. Jones, and Richard Steele in Las Vegas. I suppose it's meant to prove that Comba-Tai is in fact affiliated with Richard Steele and his boxing gym. I thought that was a settled matter, but here you go.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 12:35am

If you didn't feel like reading the entire "Comba-Tai Rules of Debate," here they are in condensed form:

1. No disrespectful behavior.
2. If you're not sure whether your behavior is disrespectful, it is.
3. If you're certain your behavior is respectful, it probably isn't.
4. NO BEING DON GWINN.

**BackFistMonkey** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 2:17am

Originally Posted by Don Gwinn

If you didn't feel like reading the entire "Comba-Tai Rules of Debate," here they are in condensed form:

1. No disrespectful behavior.
2. If you're not sure whether your behavior is disrespectful, it is.
3. If you're certain your behavior is respectful, it probably isn't.
4. NO BEING DON GWINN.

I don't understand this . You are one of the most sedate and low key posters here , not to mention very personable and respectful in person .

**jonathan_sicari** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 3:56am

Mantis,

I know you are going to say I'm one of Don's supporters despite my never having met or (to my memory) corresponded with him.

You have done nothing but obfuscate the issue and attack Don and his "hidden agenda" instead of producing proof of your claims that would have ended this thread along time ago (hint, search for Jimmy Higgens [he did bring different problems on himself but he was apologized to for inaccurate accusations made about him).

I have read Dr. Jones paper. It proves nothing! In fact, given its extensive use of the word suggest or some variant there of, it is full of supposition, nothing more.

*edited to add* Also, the unbroken lineage in the paper seems to have breaks in it...? *boggle*

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 8:31am

Jimmy Higgins isn't the best example, since he later returned and claimed to have rescued a girl from pimps with his throwing stars and used aura healing to save a boy's life, but I understand what you're trying to say.

The people on this site are generally respectful of empirical truth, intolerant of obfuscation, and quick to acknowledge the difference.

**Matt W.** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 10:45am

So, if nobody minds (because I'm too lazy to read this whole damn thread), did they ever show that they had combatai trained fighters in MMA? I read the first couple (and only the first couple) pages of the thread on the CT board, and it seemed like after doing a lot of name dropping it was determined that mostly they were "friends" and not students.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 7:19pm

A better example would be Blaise Loong, the Apache fighting instructor. He had to answer some questions here, but his stock rose considerably when some Bullshido members discovered that the guy questioning his credibility was a convicted child molester with just about zero credibility of his own.
I know because I was one of the members who tracked down the information. But remember, it's all about feeding frenzies and irrational hatred, right? Bullshido investigations don't change when the evidence changes, right?

Anybody remember that BJJ black belt in Australia who looked like a fake--until we checked, and it turned out he was legit? What was the outcome of that investigation? Oh, yeah, it was an apology.

Those experiences are part of the reason I'm mroe circumspect than some posters here would prefer. I don't call Bullshido very often, but when I do, I want people to be able to take it to the bank.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 7:48pm

Originally Posted by Matt W.

So, if nobody minds (because I'm too lazy to read this whole damn thread), did they ever show that they had combatai trained fighters in MMA? I read the first couple (and only the first couple) pages of the thread on the CT board, and it seemed like after doing a lot of name dropping it was determined that mostly they were "friends" and not students.

Short version?

Confirmed:

Adam "Bar None" Guerra stated on The Underground that he does know Parham and has trained with him. I believe he also acknowledged that Parham's students have fought in many competitive formats including MMA. He was unable to help with Jones, which is fine--better to be honest than stretch things, and he says he never worked with Jones directly. But Parham credits Jones with teaching him everything he knows about fighting, so unless we assume Parham is baldly lying then much credit goes to Jones.
"Big" John Dixson, who fought at heavyweight in the first PRIDE event and in the early tournament events in the '90's, also vouches for Parham and Jones. Dixson DID work with Jones and says he's good. He's not a student of Jones, exactly, but apparently worked with him extensively before MMA blew up and has continued that relationship.
Parham says he sits on the board of the Universal Martial Arts Hall of Fame with Dan Severn. Of course, the UMAHOF set off some alarm bells here back in the early days of this thread, and there are some undeniable BS artists pictured on their page (I believe Berador is a member in good standing!) But that doesn't undo the information above, and sitting on the same board as Dan Severn was never more than tangential to Parham's case anyway.

Unconfirmed:

Parham claims to have trained Guy Mezger; I have not contacted him.
Parham claims to have taught Melvin Guillard a specific method of punching to the body which Guillard has since used to great effect; Guillard did not reply to my messages.
Parham claims to have trained Mike Sciortino, who he says won the IFC. Sciortino actually is claimed as a student of Parham; however, I have been unable to locate or contact Sciortino. Sherdog shows that Sciortino beat three opponents in IFC III (Eric Daniel, Brian Gassaway and Frank Caracci) while suffering no losses, so while it doesn't explicitly say he won the tournament, that sounds about right for an eight-man tournament championship.
Parham claims he trained with Rich "No Love" Clementi. I have not contacted Clementi.
Others, such as Houston Dorr, Harry Moskowitz, Kevin Rosier and Anthony Macias are mentioned, but it's unclear whether as friends or fighters Parham has trained. I haven't pursued this; maybe someone with more time will. Frankly I'm inclined to take Parham's word on this subject, since others have already vouched for him.

So far, no one has given me credible evidence to dispute Parham's MMA claims, so I've more or less ignored them for some time now. If anyone would like to investigate further, feel free. Jones has a thread at the Comba-Tai boards devoted to all the celebrities who've trained in Comba-Tai, so you could look into that as well, but I think you'll find those claims essentially true.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 8:30pm

OH NOES!

I'm not banned . . . . YOU'RE ALL BANNED!

No, seriously, Grandmaster Parham is now claiming that one of his students, who now runs her own school, was "challenged" by an "internet crazy" at my urging. I've asked him who that "internet crazy" was and exactly what he did. I'm finding this very hard to believe.

So fess up . . . . which one of you internet crazies went to the school run by the only female Comba-Tai instructor/school owner (of which I'm aware, anyway) and "challenged" her?

In any case, the Comba-Tai boards will now be password protected. Honestly, if they didn't want to allow anyone to ask difficult questions, that would have been the way to go from the beginning.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 2/27/2007 8:43pm

Here's the challenged instructor's website. I don't feel at all bad about posting this, Mantis, because she posted it herself:

http://fearless-femaleselfdefense.com

Some of you who've been following along with the home game might notice that some parts of the site are copied and pasted word for word from her black belt test on the Comba-Tai forums (yes, Jones conducted her written exam on the forum--actually not a bad idea when you think about it. Every Comba-Tai instructor, regardless of location, could read it in real time.)

There's also some progress on Dr. Jones' degree. The short version is that Friends International Christian University, which granted his doctorate, is not accredited by the DOE. We knew that. But the organization that did "accredit" FICU is the ACI headquartered in Arkansas. That organization is part of a growing new wave of "Accreditation Mills" that hand out accreditation to dubious universities the same way those universities hand out degrees to dubious scholars.
The FICU was actually sued by the state of Hawaii in 2001 and as a result was enjoined from ever operating as an unaccredited school under Hawaii's statutes--ever again. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, get out and never come back.

This has not been a good week for Sokes with Doctorate degrees.