| Author |
Message |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
 Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | What are the arts that comprise MMA competition--they are ALL combat sports. Why? Because combat sports have proven their effectiveness, time and again.
You don't see the ostensibly "street lethal" methods--the ones that are supposedly so superior to mere "sports"-- winning in MMA.
And that is the point that you are apparently missing. |
I'm not missing it, I'm not even argumenting against it.... All those sports can create a good martial art once they complete each other. Alone they are handicaped.
As for the others street efficient MA I would expect them to be effective in the street, as much as I would expect a combat sport to be effective in a sportive encounter.
| Quote: | | Evidently you chose not read my entire post. I also mentioned fencers that have functioned well under unfamiliar formats and circumstances. |
Yes I did. My point was that a fencer who had to enter grappling without prior training in it, would not be able to perform well against someone who would. Would someone not trained in BJJ or any other grappling art or sport be able to win against a trained grappler? Possibly but I surely wouldn't bet on it.
| Quote: | | Georges St Pierre is a modern MMA practitioner, and he therefore trains in a combination of disciplines, like everyone else. Yes, he has a karate background, but he owes his success far more to things like muay Thai, Western wrestling (which he has an absolutely amazing aptitude for), and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (which he has learned under many excellent instructors). |
Actually his first MMA fight was while he was only doing Kyokushin at 16 years old against a 25 years old boxer. He won by KO. Many of his kicks seem to originate from this training.
| Quote: | | Definitions of "sport": an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition; an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively; any athletic activity that uses physical skills, often competitive. |
You are stretching the definition. If we use it we could say that every martial art is a sport. Which could be true, but then not every combat sport is a martial art.
Let me reexplain. If you take sparring by itself, then it is a sport, like the SCA or fencing. But it is not the end but part of a larger context, that's were you seem to be stumble. It's like taking cooperative practice of techniques in BJJ and saying: "Well its just like aikido since it practice cooperative kata."
In a combat sport, you only work the techniques which are suitable in the competitive arena, other techniques are a waste of time as they serve no purpose in a sport. If on the other hand you are also seeing many techniques which are not suitable for the competitive arena, because your end goal is to be effective in a real encounter, then it is a martial art. For example the ARMA holds some competitive fights, and there are some rules, but not all the thecniques are admitted for safety reasons, that makes them a martial art. Just like the early boxers you mentionned. What they taught might be considered a martial art since it was not intended for the ring, as many moves they showed were illegal (just see the book "banned from boxing") while some weren't.
Or just like in the old prize plays that were mentionned earlier. If we take the english masters of defence, they taught a martial art, because the goal of their practice wasn't the prize playing that were talked about, but actual defense capability. They taught many techniques that were not practiced in those plays (ex: prior to the fencing mask you could not thrust at the face, but it was still taught, great stick wasn't part of prize playing either, nor was the halberd), and that's why it was a martial art and not a sport. Intent. Modern fencing doesn't embarass itself with techniques that don't fit in a competitive encounter, and that's very good for they wouldn't win medals if they did.
Here's another limited but simple definition: http://www.kontactsports.com/What-is-the-diff...aaaaaa.asp
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
   |
 |
|
Ben C.
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | The guys that came in to train were from a local MMA school that competes in tournaments all over the US, each of them had 4 to 5 years experience. I don't know more than that. |
what was the name of the school? MMA is a fairly close-knit community and it's pretty easy to find out if a school is legitimate or not. I find it hard to believe that guys with 4-5 years experience were not aware of techniques that are taught as basics in most grappling styles, especially BJJ.
| Quote: | | Kneeing someone in the crotch, and pressing the blade of your hand into someone's throat is illegal in MMA to my knowledge, and according to those who trained with us. I know it's illegal in UFC, PRIDE, and others.They were good, and I know they were hold their own on the street. |
Strikes to the groin are illegal but putting your knee on someone's crotch to create pain/pressure is not. Groin strikes indeed do change things but again it's going to be the better grappler who is the one who will be in position to use them. A competent grappler is not often going to be the one on the bottom in a fight against a non-grappler. Furthermore it's actually quite difficult to land a knee to the groin against a fighter with a decent guard. Keep in mind that groin strikes used to be legal in old NHB/MMA competition and a lot of fighters tried unsuccessfully to use them in grappling situations. In fact even when groin strikes were legal it barely effected the grappling game at all. It actually only really had much influence on stand up striking.
| Quote: | | Again, I mentioned this above, the moves i was speaking of are illegal to my knowledge. And putting your hand on someone throat while they're trying to be in the guard from the bottom always works, the opponent can not doing anything if all your weight is on their throat and their head is against the ground. |
I'm sorry but that is a beginners move and it is something that nearly every grappler has to learn to deal with quickly. It is not illegal by any means and it you almost guarantee that an aggressive beginner will try to use it when they first start sparring. However when you are in someone's guard you need to focus on maintaining posture and controlling their hips. By overextending and learning down across your opponents body while still in the guard you are leaving yourself very vulnerable to both submissions and sweeps. It's also very easy to break the hand on throat position using basic physics; if someone has all their weight on one hand on your throat while they are leaning forward in your guard then simply striking the side of their arm will often cause them to slip and lose balance. If they don't have all their weight on your and are simply holding your throat then it's very easy to trap the arm and swing over for an armbar. Coming from a judo/wrestling background I hate being on my back yet I've never once failed to break out of this position, even against guys who were 70-80 pounds heavier than me.
Now if you have side control or full mount then holding the throat can be a very effective way of setting up strikes with your other hand. Matt Hamill vs Tim Boesch was a good example of that. However in both side control and full mount you are using your bodyweight to control your opponent's hips and therefore you have a very stable position yourself and are not in danger of being knocked off balance or submitted. When you are in the guard leaning across them and putting your bodyweight too far forward is a bad idea and a typical rookie mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | none of them are traditional karate exponents. All of them did kyokukshin karate, or one of its derivatives, which is a heavily modernised version of karate that was created after exposure to muay thai and western boxing. Most of the traditional ineffective techniques were dropped and full contact sparring became the main focus of training. I have a lot of respect for Kyokushin as a striking art (you forgot to mention Sam Greco, Semmy Schilt, Francisco Filho and Andy Hug as other exponents of the style) but it is in no way any less a modern style than boxing, wrestling or muay thai. |
Yes it surely was modified, up to which point I can't really tell. But there are way too many traditionnal techniques being taught in it and practiced in bouts to tag it as a completely modern thing. Most kata from the shotokan are still there, and from my short stay in the latter I think there are actually more in Kyokushin. During my training I remember using nearly all of the stances here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXEpN3Vovs during one fight or another, all of them are traditionnal karate stances. As for full contact being the principal focus, we also trained in self defense scenarios and kata very heavily, even while I was in Japan (I actually started BJJ after this, when I realised that I had no chance of beating one of the professionals there while only training in a striking art, I had to have other options).
I also agree with what Ben just wrote about the use of the hand to strangle, it is a very common technique, and defense against it is taught very early.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Marc!
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | I'm not sure if you mean the "invented in a California backyard" characterization to be insulting. I'll assume not. But it does belittle the hard work of many thousands of people, many with considerable martial experience in a variety of disciplines, over nearly half a decade. We all know SCA combat began in California. We all know it's a modern creation with a debatable relationship to historical combat. But to say it was "invented in a California backyard" is no more accurate than to say that the whole of the German longsword tradition was invented in a backyard in Mittelfranken.
Otherwise your argument is well put. But you spoil it with an apparent gratuitous put-down, which could easily be seen to be demeaning to a large portion of our community. |
First, I'm sorry to respond so late to you. I can no longer access this forum from work, so my posts are now few and far between.
I'm also sorry if my comment read as a put-down. I can readily see how it might, and that wasn't my intent, so please accept my apologies for not communicating better.
My point was simply to say that looking for after-the-fact resemblances between historic tournaments and SCA combat is not particularly useful. Some behourds used clubs. But so what? That neither supports, nor damns, SCA fighting. The Lacy article is an apologetic, and a needless one. The skill sets evolved by good SCA combatants don't need spurious evidence to support their achievements in creating a modern sporting activity that demands considerable skill at the top levels of its competitions.
However, I would like to point out that your analogy isn't quite on the mark. Providing the historic masters aren't all conspiring to lie to us, we know that the German longsword tradition was not invented in a 'Mittelfranken backyard' (though that did make me laugh!). We're instead told that Liechtenauer traveled and studied with other masters to synthesize the art he encoded. So, we have one instance of something being developed from whole cloth in the modern day, versus something amalgamated from other, time-tested, material in the medieval period. In my view, that's a pretty important distinction.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
|
Ben C.
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Max Chouinard"] | Quote: | | In a combat sport, you only work the techniques which are suitable in the competitive arena, other techniques are a waste of time as they serve no purpose in a sport. If on the other hand you are also seeing many techniques which are not suitable for the competitive arena, because your end goal is to be effective in a real encounter, then it is a martial art. For example the ARMA holds some competitive fights, and there are some rules, but not all the thecniques are admitted for safety reasons, that makes them a martial art. Just like the early boxers you mentionned. What they taught might be considered a martial art since it was not intended for the ring, as many moves they showed were illegal (just see the book "banned from boxing") while some weren't. |
The question is, do these unused/illegal techniques change fighting so much that the techniques used in sport fighting are no longer applicable? Based on personal experience, witnessed and reported events and video evidence I would have to say no.
The banned techniques (headbutts, eyegouging, fishhooking, biting, groin strikes, strikes to the spine or back of the head, slamming or spiking someone onto a hard surface) do definitely change the game and some tactics will work in a ring that wouldn't work on the street. However with the exception of slamming on hard surfaces, they are still relatively only small parts of fighting and the main skillsets still remain striking, wrestling and submissions. In most cases too it is going to be the better grappler or striker who can apply these 'illegal' techniques rather than a guy who is unable to strike or wrestle.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi all,
I agree, in the main, with David's point that some arts have been weeded out from MMA competitions, and that this is not purely because of the practitioner. TKD and Karate competitors, for instance, can get away with incredibly high kicks in their art because their legs can't be grappled. If you rely on those, not matter how true to form you are, and you compete in a setting where you can be grappled, that falls apart in a hurry. There are other arts that suffer from similar deficiencies when pitted against other arts.
The flip-side of this is that NHB/MMA bouts allow for some things that in turn would be suicidal in multi-attacker situations. Pin someone on the ground? Don't do this in a bar fight unless you're absolutely certain that the one you're pinning is friendless. It is the bar fight situation however that has created a number of distorted perceptions of this: bouncers can get away with ground holds because their moral authority (and presumed support from the other patrons and owners and police that will arrive) limits the likelihood of intervention by other assailants. But people tend to assume, without a thorough tactical assessment, that "it works because bouncers used it." Ground fighting makes still less sense on a medieval battlefield. On the other hand, almost all judicial duels in armour would have gone to the ground, it being the best place to work over the gaps in a late medieval armour harness.
There are interesting patterns that repeat over and over in actual combat systems. Groundfighting techniques have little stress, with the exception of techniques for judicial or other duels that eliminate the chance of there being more than one opponent. You'll also see that kicks are restricted to targets no higher than the navel (or thereabouts).
Everything is situational, and no competition can fully realize the nature of a real life and death struggle. But certainly, the rise of MMA has forced a number of practitioners of various arts to look at what holes there are in their practice. The well-rounded combat art should include strikes, kicks, locks, joint destructions, takedowns, throws, and certainly, some ground work, and ways to escape ground holds.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christian forgive me if this is only moderately related to your last post (which cleared up your intent in my mind), but I had a thought just spring into my mind. There is, I think, a shift in the intent of SCA apologists in recent years which bears mentioning.
Until perhaps the last 10 or so years, without any similar organizations on the horizon, we SCAdians have been defending our hobby from the mainstream question of "why on Earth would you want to put on armor and hit people with sticks? Isn't that kind of childish?" and so on... and a lot of earlier articles appear to be an attempt to explain the notion of grown men putting up in armor and hitting each other.
With the rise and proliferation of ARMA/HACA/WMA the debate has shifted to how historically valid our combat actually is. This is a totally different argument and not the direction of deLacy's article IMO, so I don't think it can be used in this context. A lot of light has been shed on these topics since 1996.
The good news is that our harshest critics at this point at least agree with us that hitting people with sticks is a fun an legitimate use of leisure time, which is a bit of a relief. Better we be thought of as misguided then downright crazy.
BTW I definitely subscribe to the notion that to get close to true understanding of combat, one must incorporate careful study of historical texts, and carefully reconstructed techniques, and competitive sparring.
Texts give context and understanding of the grim realities of mortal combat, reconstructed techniques ingrain proper habits and mechanics, and competitive sparring acts as a check against unrealistic expectations.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
Last edited by Gavin Kisebach on Fri 05 Dec, 2008 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Ben C.
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | The flip-side of this is that NHB/MMA bouts allow for some things that in turn would be suicidal in multi-attacker situations. Pin someone on the ground? Don't do this in a bar fight unless you're absolutely certain that the one you're pinning is friendless. It is the bar fight situation however that has created a number of distorted perceptions of this: bouncers can get away with ground holds because their moral authority (and presumed support from the other patrons and owners and police that will arrive) limits the likelihood of intervention by other assailants. But people tend to assume, without a thorough tactical assessment, that "it works because bouncers used it." Ground fighting makes still less sense on a medieval battlefield. On the other hand, almost all judicial duels in armour would have gone to the ground, it being the best place to work over the gaps in a late medieval armour harness.
Christian |
Multi-attacker situations are a completely different situation but it seems that in those scenarios wrestling and boxing are two of the most useful skillsets to have. Pinning someone on the ground is not a good idea but clinching someone standing up is. Unless you have good enough hands and footwork (I.e. boxing skills) you are not going to be able to avoid clinching against multiple attackers. Having good wrestling skills though will allow you to control the clinch thus letting you to use your opponent as a human shield, throw strikes or simply throw your opponent so you can deal with the next one or escape. and in a multiple attacker scenario what are you going to do if your attackers decide they want to take you to the ground and beat you there? In that case you have no choice but to fight from your back. Personally I think if you are facing multiple grapplers is one of the worst case scenarios for an unarmed fight.
As for ground fighting having no place on the battlefield I would have to disagree. I think in many cases it would have been unavoidable. For example in a situation where two heavily armoured opponents squaring off against each other would probably often end up toe to toe and clinching each other due to being unable to find a weak spot in their opponents armour. In many cases they would end up on the ground even if they didn't want to. Also at Agincourt I have no doubt that the lightly armoured English solders took advantage of their French knights lack of mobility and teamed up to take them down and finish them off on the ground. At all stages of history wrestling has been taught alongside other fighting techniques and I suspect this is because it was used both on the battlefield and in duels.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ben,
Let me clarify: in a NHB match, you have the luxury of staying on the ground and holding a single opponent until he submits or you otherwise are the winner.
You can't do that on a battlefield; if you try someone will attack you from behind while you're atop your man. It's a different beast. I'd argue that it is however really important to be able to get up from a situation where multiple attackers have dropped you to the ground.
As to wrestling skills being valuable - we couldn't be in more agreement. The medieval German Ringen techniques stress these first and foremost, with strikes used as entrances and for softening up the opponent, or working him over once you've held him.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
Last edited by Christian Henry Tobler on Thu 04 Dec, 2008 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The question is, do these unused/illegal techniques change fighting so much that the techniques used in sport fighting are no longer applicable? Based on personal experience, witnessed and reported events and video evidence I would have to say no.
The banned techniques (headbutts, eyegouging, fishhooking, biting, groin strikes, strikes to the spine or back of the head, slamming or spiking someone onto a hard surface) do definitely change the game and some tactics will work in a ring that wouldn't work on the street. However with the exception of slamming on hard surfaces, they are still relatively only small parts of fighting and the main skillsets still remain striking, wrestling and submissions. In most cases too it is going to be the better grappler or striker who can apply these 'illegal' techniques rather than a guy who is unable to strike or wrestle. |
Never said they weren't applicable, like I said sport and martial art have transferable skillsets, but they don't have the same goal. And I agree completely that one who is better at striking or wrestling will have the upper hand, except maybe if he commits a big mistake.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | What are the arts that comprise MMA competition--they are ALL combat sports. Why? Because combat sports have proven their effectiveness, time and again.
You don't see the ostensibly "street lethal" methods--the ones that are supposedly so superior to mere "sports"-- winning in MMA.
And that is the point that you are apparently missing. |
I'm not missing it, I'm not even argumenting against it.... All those sports can create a good martial art once they complete each other. Alone they are handicaped. |
Tell that to all the folks who have made use of them on the street.
| Quote: | | As for the others street efficient MA I would expect them to be effective in the street, as much as I would expect a combat sport to be effective in a sportive encounter. |
Considering that these traditional and "street lethal" methods have typically failed in MMA competition, why do you think that they would be effective on the street? If their practitioners can't even get them to work in a controlled setting (the ring or cage), what makes you think that they'll be able to get them to work in an uncontrolled one?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Evidently you chose not read my entire post. I also mentioned fencers that have functioned well under unfamiliar formats and circumstances. |
Yes I did. My point was that a fencer who had to enter grappling without prior training in it, would not be able to perform well against someone who would. Would someone not trained in BJJ or any other grappling art or sport be able to win against a trained grappler? Possibly but I surely wouldn't bet on it. |
You're still assuming that a given fencer wouldn't have other skillsets.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Georges St Pierre is a modern MMA practitioner, and he therefore trains in a combination of disciplines, like everyone else. Yes, he has a karate background, but he owes his success far more to things like muay Thai, Western wrestling (which he has an absolutely amazing aptitude for), and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (which he has learned under many excellent instructors). |
Actually his first MMA fight was while he was only doing Kyokushin at 16 years old against a 25 years old boxer. He won by KO. Many of his kicks seem to originate from this training. |
The fact remains that, by the time he really made his mark by defeating the top current competitors (and thus became dominant in his weight class at the pinnacle of the sport), he was well-versed in numerous arts, and he made judicious use of those arts. He is especially noted for his incredible wrestling skill (particularly incredible, given that he did not come from a wrestling background, and yet he can now more than hold his own with Olympic-level exponents). His BJJ is also extremely good.
And in any case, my original point was that, in the early NHB competitions (when it was still a "Style vs. Style" affair), you didn't typically see karateka or kung-fu guys winning. In fact, the reverse was manifestly the case--they were all "weeded out" pretty quickly.
When I brought this up, you responded my mentioning several current practitioners who had karate in their backgrounds, but since they are from the modern game, and they have many other arts (and thus skillsets) under their belts, they have nothing to do with my original point. The only folks you brought up from the "old" days were Patrick Smith (who frankly didn't do too well) and Mas Oyama (and I'm still waiting to hear about those "muay Thai fighters, wrestlers, & boxers" that he supposedly defeated).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Definitions of "sport": an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition; an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively; any athletic activity that uses physical skills, often competitive. |
You are stretching the definition. |
Not at all. Look at the definitions provided above, and it's pretty self-evident.
| Quote: | | If we use it we could say that every martial art is a sport. Which could be true, but then not every combat sport is a martial art. |
The terms "combat sport" and "martial art" are actually largely inseparable, since the former is needed for the latter to truly be effective. Only through the combat sport training methodology can fighters develop the attributes necessary to apply their skills in a real situation.
As for saying that "every martial art is a sport", I suppose that could be argued, but we also can't ignore the distinct lack of athletic emphasis which is all-too-often found in many ostensibly "martial" arts. Genuine combat sports place great emphasis on physical conditioning, which places them more in tune with the martial arts that were practiced by warriors from centuries ago. You would really be hard-pressed to find better-conditioned athletes than modern-day Western wrestlers. Judoka and samboists are likewise no slouches in this department. The same obviously goes for boxers, who go through truly rigorous training. Modern fencers have stronger legs for their bodyweight than NFL football players, and the only sport that requires faster reflexes than fencing is racecar driving.
Compare the above to the so-called "lethal" systems. I've seen exponents of such systems who are downright overweight. Folks who couldn't run a mile, let alone survive the training regimen of a folkstyle, freestyle, or Greco-Roman wrestler. This ignorance of physical culture is far too common both in mainstream society as a whole, as well as within the martial arts community.
| Quote: | | Let me reexplain. If you take sparring by itself, then it is a sport, like the SCA or fencing. |
I don't mean to bring up the SCA again, but I wouldn't consider what they do to be a "sport", simply because of that lack of athletic emphasis.
| Quote: | | But it is not the end but part of a larger context, that's were you seem to be stumble. It's like taking cooperative practice of techniques in BJJ and saying: "Well its just like aikido since it practice cooperative kata." |
No "stumbling" here, bro.
And I actually agree with your comparison above--i.e., combat sports most certainly have drills that can be compared to kata. Fencing makes use of all sorts of drills with a cooperative partner, but, unlike many arts today, fencing is not reliant on such drills. The "live" element is the crucial aspect, that makes the difference.
| Quote: | | In a combat sport, you only work the techniques which are suitable in the competitive arena, other techniques are a waste of time as they serve no purpose in a sport. |
Once more, that is an assumption on your part.
As I pointed out several times already on this thread, boxers have always recognized "foul" blows as something they are not allowed to do in the ring, but they can incorporate them on the street.
The same goes for other combat sports. Judo, sambo, and BJJ, for example, all have self-defense curricula.
| Quote: | | If on the other hand you are also seeing many techniques which are not suitable for the competitive arena, because your end goal is to be effective in a real encounter, then it is a martial art. For example the ARMA holds some competitive fights, and there are some rules, but not all the thecniques are admitted for safety reasons, that makes them a martial art. Just like the early boxers you mentionned. What they taught might be considered a martial art since it was not intended for the ring, as many moves they showed were illegal (just see the book "banned from boxing") while some weren't. |
It's something that boxers have always been aware of. I have previously shown that gloved boxers have been aware of these things, from the turn of the 20th century onwards.
| Quote: | | Or just like in the old prize plays that were mentionned earlier. If we take the english masters of defence, they taught a martial art, because the goal of their practice wasn't the prize playing that were talked about, but actual defense capability. They taught many techniques that were not practiced in those plays (ex: prior to the fencing mask you could not thrust at the face, but it was still taught, great stick wasn't part of prize playing either, nor was the halberd), |
As far as I know, "great stick" didn't even exist yet--that was a 19th century invention, used by the French and Italian Armies as an adjunct to bayonet training (see Alfred Hutton's Cold Steel).
| Quote: | | and that's why it was a martial art and not a sport. Intent. |
It was both. The combat sport training methodology was clearly there--they used rebated weapons, and had rule limitations for free-sparring.
You simply cannot separate the two, Max. 
| Quote: | | Modern fencing doesn't embarass itself with techniques that don't fit in a competitive encounter, and that's very good for they wouldn't win medals if they did. |
And yet, modern fencing still contains plenty of techniques applicable outside of the "competitive encounter".
LOL--sounds like something that was written by some bitter traditionalist.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ben -
-"what was the name of the school? MMA is a fairly close-knit community and it's pretty easy to find out if a school is legitimate or not. I find it hard to believe that guys with 4-5 years experience were not aware of techniques that are taught as basics in most grappling styles, especially BJJ. "-
I'm sorry I don't know, and I haven't spoken with them since my ankle surgery, I'll see someone else from the workout knew where they were from.
-"I'm sorry but that is a beginners move and it is something that nearly every grappler has to learn to deal with quickly. It is not illegal by any means and it you almost guarantee that an aggressive beginner will try to use it when they first start sparring."
I wish you where so you could see the move, as I may be describing it incorrectly. It was not just a beginners move. As the MMA guy was on his back, he quickly trying to get to his guard, the police officer quickly got to a position on the MMA guy where one knee landed on his crotch, (it would have been considered a strike more than a press), the other leg was out for stability, his head was the MMA guys chest, one arm was on the MMA guys throat, with the blade of his hand across the throat, arm bent 90 degrees, (this would have been a strike more than a press if he really wanted to hurt the guy, but we were just training) Can't quite remember what he did with the other hand. The MMA guy had about 20 seconds before he couldn't breath anymore. I am guessing the cop hit this postition so fast after they went down, and the MMA guy just wasn't expecting it. The cop said they use that all time for pinning people to ground on the street that they have been chasing or fighting with.
Don't be so quick to discredit people, everyone has a bad day or a has a bad match. Again, I am not saying MMA is bad, I am just saying it doesn't prepare you for everything on the street, nothing does. MMA probably does it the best though, especially for one on one situations.
Dave -
-"You don't see the ostensibly "street lethal" methods--the ones that are supposedly so superior to mere "sports"-- winning in MMA."-
Well... thats because they are illegal to use in MMA. If people were allow to shove a finger in some ones eye when they were grappling, I'm sure it would win quite often... or people were allow to grab and break fingers, I'm sure it would be used quite often in grappling. Or if people were allowed to kick people when they were on the ground, they would do it, and it works. When Kicking to a downed opponent was allowed in UFC, it worked very of often. Elbowing to the back of the head is another one, when it was allowed, it worked often, but now it's illegal in MMA. This isn't saying that these techniques are superior at all, it's just saying they real world techniques that are not used in MMA that work in reality. So, as I stated earlier, I'm just saying MMA doesn't teach everything. Nothing does
-"Both the practitioner AND the art are important. Some arts clearly ARE better than others, at least for given applications. That's why you see martial cultures making changes to their arsenals and fighting repertoires over the centuries.
If arts didn't count, then the Republican-era Romans never would have switched from the Greek-style spear-based phalanx, to the sword-based "manipular" legion, to cope with folks like the Samnites and Celts.
And that's just one obvious example."-
You are absolutely right. that wasn't what I was meaning though when I talk about "it's not the style, it's the person". of coarse different styles are created for different situations, and the more you have under your belt, the better. All I am saying is, too many people these days either teach or take martial arts and train with a false sense of reality. I'm sure you know what I am talking about, and judging by your posts thus far, we agree on most everything.
-"Suggesting that shootfighting "is an offspring of karate" is an even bigger stretch, Chris. In fact, it's patently false."-
No it's not, there were so many traditions in all sorts of original martial arts that were present when it was actually used for self defense, that have been lost to most of us today. Who knows if some sorts of karate had shooting fighting involved? We just don't know, and never will, until a time machine is built and we can go look at what they did hundreds of years ago.
-"Quote:
For Kung Fu, again, look at Chung Le, 6 and 0 in MMA, he used a variety of Chinese Kung Fu techniques.
Such as?"-
His powerful kicks that snapped Shamrocks arm in two, his take downs that dumped shamrock to the ground, all hit his strikes... all kung fu techniques.
"And your proof for this is where?
Where are all these vaunted kung-fu fighters? I don't see them in K-1. I don't see them in MMA.
Where are they?"
They are in San Shou competitions all over the world. Chung Le is just the first main stream San Shou fighter to go the MMA crowd. I'm sure we'll see plenty more after Chung Le's success.
-"But again, nothing above has anything to do with "sport". Things like modern "wushu" are about as far from a combat sport as something can get"-
Very true, what I mean by "sport" when I was talking of Kung Fu, is all the non practical modern kung fu arts that are out there, where there is heavy sport competition in forms and such (even in the olymics now). So I think our definitions of "sport" here are just miscommunicated. They are "sports", but not combat sports. And I personally think these sports are giving many practical kung fu styles, such as many styles used in San Shou, a bad name. There is nothing wrong with them, and they are good for show, fitness, and fun, but they are no longer linked to their historical practical side of Kung Fu.
-"No, it's actually because Chung Le has a strong Western wrestling background, as I already pointed out.
You can choose to ignore the facts if you wish, but it doesn't change what Chung Le actually uses. At least give the credit where the credit is due. "-
I am giving credit where it's due, I believe you are not giving credit to Chung Le's Kung Fu background either. Chung Le uses a vary large array of Kung fu techniques, and his western wrestling background is not as prevelant in his fights as you think. Just watch him, and keep in mind that most of his techniques for take downs and such are Kung Fu techniques, sure there is some cross over from wrestling, but again, there is only so many ways a body can move, and some techniques are bound to be similar. I'm not saying he doesn't use his western wrestling at all, because he does use it to compliment his chinese techniques. The one main thing western wresting taught him, is how to correctly train his kung fu techniques, which many Kung Fu instructors have either forgotten or deemed unimportant, which is silly.
|
|
 |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Tell that to all the folks who have made use of them on the street. |
Ok now youre just being stubborn. I di not say they were innefective, okay? But to turn your argument around, why don't we see boxers with no other training succeding in MMA?
| Quote: | | You're still assuming that a given fencer wouldn't have other skillsets. |
Am I really that bad in english? Wow. Of course if he knew wrestling he would hold his ground. But my example was of a fencer who only had training in olympic fencing. If he can suceed in it against a trained wrestler then what's the use of wrestling at all? Let's all do olympic fencing then!
| Quote: | | As far as I know, "great stick" didn't even exist yet--that was a 19th century invention, used by the French and Italian Armies as an adjunct to bayonet training (see Alfred Hutton's Cold Steel). |
False, the french schools and english schools both had the great stick from at least the Tudor era, it was a prerequisite for mastery and unlike other weapons they did not fought with them in plays but demonstrated their technical skills. How, I don't know. I'll give you sources as soon as I get home. Hutton is plenty good but it's 19th century, many things they didn't knew back then and they had a very darwinian view on things.
As for the argument for sport I developped the definition which is normaly accepted, if you want to put another one good luck but I'm not gonna argue about it anymore cause you visibly don't want to concede anything.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | Dave -
-"You don't see the ostensibly "street lethal" methods--the ones that are supposedly so superior to mere "sports"-- winning in MMA."-
Well... thats because they are illegal to use in MMA. |
The styles themselves are not illegal--only certain techniques.
| Quote: | | If people were allow to shove a finger in some ones eye when they were grappling, I'm sure it would win quite often... or people were allow to grab and break fingers, I'm sure it would be used quite often in grappling. Or if people were allowed to kick people when they were on the ground, they would do it, and it works. When Kicking to a downed opponent was allowed in UFC, it worked very of often. Elbowing to the back of the head is another one, when it was allowed, it worked often, but now it's illegal in MMA. This isn't saying that these techniques are superior at all, it's just saying they real world techniques that are not used in MMA that work in reality. So, as I stated earlier, I'm just saying MMA doesn't teach everything. Nothing does |
So let me get this straight--the traditional and "street lethal" styles are only effective when eye pokes and small joint manipulation are an option?
C'mon bro, give me a break.
As I said to Max--if these methods can't work in a controlled setting, how do you expect them to work in an uncontrolled one?
Don't forget that, in a streetfight, the sport-trained fighter (MMAist, judoka, wrestler, etc) can make use of those "foul" blows too, and, if anything, can capitalize on them more successfully, since they do "live" training as a matter of course.
| Quote: | -"Both the practitioner AND the art are important. Some arts clearly ARE better than others, at least for given applications. That's why you see martial cultures making changes to their arsenals and fighting repertoires over the centuries.
If arts didn't count, then the Republican-era Romans never would have switched from the Greek-style spear-based phalanx, to the sword-based "manipular" legion, to cope with folks like the Samnites and Celts.
And that's just one obvious example."-
You are absolutely right. that wasn't what I was meaning though when I talk about "it's not the style, it's the person". of coarse different styles are created for different situations, and the more you have under your belt, the better. All I am saying is, too many people these days either teach or take martial arts and train with a false sense of reality. |
Indeed they do--the traditionalists and RBSD types immediately come to mind.
| Quote: | | I'm sure you know what I am talking about, and judging by your posts thus far, we agree on most everything. |
There's definitely a good deal of "common ground" in our thinking, despite the points we disagree on.
| Quote: | -"Suggesting that shootfighting "is an offspring of karate" is an even bigger stretch, Chris. In fact, it's patently false."-
No it's not, there were so many traditions in all sorts of original martial arts that were present when it was actually used for self defense, that have been lost to most of us today. Who knows if some sorts of karate had shooting fighting involved? We just don't know, and never will, until a time machine is built and we can go look at what they did hundreds of years ago. |
No, Chis.
Simply put, no.
The history of Japanese shootfighting is well known, and I already gave you a summary on it. It did not exist until Karl Gotch settled in Japan, and that was only in the 1960s. There's no need for a "time machine", because we're not talking about a method that was spawned hundreds or thousands of years ago. The single biggest "component art" in shootfighting is English Lancashire/catch-as-catch-can wrestling, which Gotch learned at the Billy Riley "Snake Pit". That is a fact, and even a cursory glance at their grappling reveals that. Other important component arts in shootfighting are judo, and muay Thai (and today, BJJ). Is there any karate in shootfighting? Sure, one sees the occasional side kick, but to actually claim that shootfighting is an "offspring of karate" has absolutely no basis in fact. None whatsoever. Chris, I really want to stress that I respect you, and that I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, but your claim is simply wrong.
| Quote: | -"Quote:
For Kung Fu, again, look at Chung Le, 6 and 0 in MMA, he used a variety of Chinese Kung Fu techniques.
Such as?"-
His powerful kicks that snapped Shamrocks arm in two, his take downs that dumped shamrock to the ground, all hit his strikes... all kung fu techniques. |
How do we know that the kicks are not from muay Thai, as opposed to "kung-fu"?
Also, what takedowns did he use on Shamrock? (I did not see the fight).
| Quote: | "And your proof for this is where?
Where are all these vaunted kung-fu fighters? I don't see them in K-1. I don't see them in MMA.
Where are they?"
They are in San Shou competitions all over the world. Chung Le is just the first main stream San Shou fighter to go the MMA crowd. I'm sure we'll see plenty more after Chung Le's success. |
Again, the issue about san shou actually being "kung-fu" is still very much up in the air. It is a composite method that borrows from various sources, of which at least some are not even Chinese!
| Quote: | -"But again, nothing above has anything to do with "sport". Things like modern "wushu" are about as far from a combat sport as something can get"-
Very true, what I mean by "sport" when I was talking of Kung Fu, is all the non practical modern kung fu arts that are out there, where there is heavy sport competition in forms and such (even in the olymics now). So I think our definitions of "sport" here are just miscommunicated. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | They are "sports", but not combat sports. And I personally think these sports are giving many practical kung fu styles, such as many styles used in San Shou, a bad name. There is nothing wrong with them, and they are good for show, fitness, and fun, but they are no longer linked to their historical practical side of Kung Fu. |
To be honest, I don't think too many folks even associate san shou with "kung-fu" of any kind.
| Quote: | -"No, it's actually because Chung Le has a strong Western wrestling background, as I already pointed out.
You can choose to ignore the facts if you wish, but it doesn't change what Chung Le actually uses. At least give the credit where the credit is due. "-
I am giving credit where it's due, I believe you are not giving credit to Chung Le's Kung Fu background either. Chung Le uses a vary large array of Kung fu techniques, and his western wrestling background is not as prevelant in his fights as you think. Just watch him, and keep in mind that most of his techniques for take downs and such are Kung Fu techniques, sure there is some cross over from wrestling, but again, there is only so many ways a body can move, and some techniques are bound to be similar. |
No offense, but that's nothing more than a very convenient way of ignoring Le's Western wrestling background.
His takedown defenses do not come from kung-fu.
| Quote: | | I'm not saying he doesn't use his western wrestling at all, because he does use it to compliment his chinese techniques. The one main thing western wresting taught him, is how to correctly train his kung fu techniques, which many Kung Fu instructors have either forgotten or deemed unimportant, which is silly. |
Western wrestling "taught" Le many things, but none of those things have anything to do with kung-fu.
Peace,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | | Tell that to all the folks who have made use of them on the street. |
Ok now youre just being stubborn. |
No, I'm simply pointing out the truth.
I know plenty of folks who have boxed, and who have used it successfully on the street. A lot of folks who train at Renzo Gracie's BJJ Academy in NYC also happen to box. A lot of them also either work as bouncers, or live in really rough areas, or both.
| Quote: | | I di not say they were innefective, okay? But to turn your argument around, why don't we see boxers with no other training succeding in MMA? |
LOL, now look who's being "stubborn".
We already covered this, Max. You don't see ANY exponents of a single art succeeding in MMA today. Cross-training is essential in the modern game. Strikers have to know at least the basics of grappling, and grapplers have to know at least the basics of striking. The most successful fighters in MMA today may be strongest in a "base art", but they are also typically competent in other areas. Take Chuck Liddell, for example (arguably past his prime at this point, but the example is still useful)--folks normally comment on his devastating punches, but he was also a Division 1 wrestler in college. The reason he's such a successful striker in MMA is due not only to his boxing & kickboxing, but to his wrestling--i.e., he can defend superbly against takedowns. Randy Couture is an opposite example--a man with an extremely extensive wrestling background (especially in Greco-Roman), who is normally associated with amazing throws, takedowns, and ground control/ground n' pound. That being said, he also boxed during his stint in the U.S. Army. And some folks--like Georges St. Pierre and Fedor Emelianenko--excell in virtually ALL aspects of the MMA game.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You're still assuming that a given fencer wouldn't have other skillsets. |
Am I really that bad in english? |
No. Am I?
| Quote: | | Wow. Of course if he knew wrestling he would hold his ground. But my example was of a fencer who only had training in olympic fencing. If he can suceed in it against a trained wrestler then what's the use of wrestling at all? Let's all do olympic fencing then! |
It wouldn't hurt. Both modern and classical fencing have a great deal to offer. Boxers sometimes train in modern fencing, to sharpen up their sense of timing and distance. My own modern fencing background only helped my training in Filipino stick-and-knife, and I already listed other martial artists who have had similar experiences (like Ray Floro).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | As far as I know, "great stick" didn't even exist yet--that was a 19th century invention, used by the French and Italian Armies as an adjunct to bayonet training (see Alfred Hutton's Cold Steel). |
False, the french schools and english schools both had the great stick from at least the Tudor era, it was a prerequisite for mastery and unlike other weapons they did not fought with them in plays but demonstrated their technical skills. How, I don't know. I'll give you sources as soon as I get home. Hutton is plenty good but it's 19th century, many things they didn't knew back then and they had a very darwinian view on things. |
Show me your sources, then.
Funny how Silver doesn't mention this "great stick", among the Elizabethan English arsenal. He does mention how the use of the two-handed sword was based upon the play of the "short staff", but Silver's "short staff" is not the same as the "great stick".
| Quote: | | As for the argument for sport I developped the definition which is normaly accepted, if you want to put another one good luck but I'm not gonna argue about it anymore cause you visibly don't want to concede anything. |
There's nothing for me to "concede", Max. If you had a worthwhile argument, I would gladly modify my stance, but you frankly haven't presenting anything of note in this case.
As for the "sport" definition "which is normally accepted", don't impose your own preconceived notions of what that "definition" should be, on the rest of us.
Thanks,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave - again, no offense taken, I wish we could speak in person as i think there is alot of miscommunication via typing with out seeing one another.
-"So let me get this straight--the traditional and "street lethal" styles are only effective when eye pokes and small joint manipulation are an option?"-
Never said this, never even hinted toward it. When I speak of moves such as those, I am not refering to a whole tradiontional style or "street leathal" style, I am referring to the actual moves, and the fact that they are not allowed in MMA fights, but they are allowed in reality, thats it.
Many traditional styles are very effective. Would you not consider Muay Thai a traditional style? What sets Muay Thai apart from many martial arts, is that they never lost their practical techniques, and never lost their training methods. If we went back in history, I'm sure you could trace each traditional martial art, ei various types of Karate, Various types of Tae Kwan Do, and various types of Kung fu, back to when they were used correctly and trained properly for actual self defense application.
-"As I said to Max--if these methods can't work in a controlled setting, how do you expect them to work in an uncontrolled one?"-
So no one has ever used traditional types of martial arts to ever win a NHB match, ever? I don't have a record of every NHB fight ever, but I am sure that some people with traditional martial arts training have won matches before. I don't think a blanket statement like that can be made. If you look at any San Shou event, each competitor is taught in different styles of Kung fu, so every winner of those events is a traditional Kung Fu martial artist, is he not?
-"How do we know that the kicks are not from muay Thai, as opposed to "kung-fu"?
Also, what takedowns did he use on Shamrock? (I did not see the fight)."-
Ask Chung le, he is a kung fu martial artist, and I believe the match is on You Tube, at least some of his take downs are. Alot of leg sweeps when Shamrock tried to kick. Please watch it. You see there are times that both fighters had chances to capitolize on the others mistakes, but didn't do so.
- "Again, the issue about san shou actually being "kung-fu" is still very much up in the air. It is a composite method that borrows from various sources, of which at least some are not even Chinese! "-
It is Kung Fu, San Shou tournaments are tournaments for full contact fighting for Kung Fu styles, it's the definition of San Shou. Here is a link to the wikipedia entry on San Shou, and it pretty much describes what I am trying to say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shou
-"To be honest, I don't think too many folks even associate san shou with "kung-fu" of any kind."-
Again, look at the Wikipedia entry, you are incorrect, San Shou and Kung Fu are directly related in every sense.
-"No offense, but that's nothing more than a very convenient way of ignoring Le's Western wrestling background.
His takedown defenses do not come from kung-fu."-
How can you say this? Do you know Chung Le's style of Kung Fu? Do you know all the styles of Kung Fu? San Shou, and the kung fu styles used in San Shou, have always had throws and take downs incorporated, it would be silly to not have defenses for such throws and take downs. So to make that comment is just wrong.
-"Western wrestling "taught" Le many things, but none of those things have anything to do with kung-fu".
Hopefully you see now that Kung Fu is a larger world of art forms than you may think with much more practical application that you previously thought. No offense intended. When many people see Kun Tao, the style that I teach, people are always shocked to see that we rarely kick above the waist, and focus on many take downs, joint locks, manipulations, and elbow and knee strikes. People say... that's not kung fu... when it really is.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | Dave - again, no offense taken, I wish we could speak in person as i think there is alot of miscommunication via typing with out seeing one another. |
I understand, and agree.
| Quote: | -"So let me get this straight--the traditional and "street lethal" styles are only effective when eye pokes and small joint manipulation are an option?"-
Never said this, never even hinted toward it. When I speak of moves such as those, I am not refering to a whole tradiontional style or "street leathal" style, I am referring to the actual moves, and the fact that they are not allowed in MMA fights, but they are allowed in reality, thats it. |
I had that feeling, but thanks for clarifying anyway.
| Quote: | | Many traditional styles are very effective. Would you not consider Muay Thai a traditional style? |
Yes, but it differs from many other "traditional" styles in that it is taught and practiced as a rigorous combat sport.
| Quote: | | What sets Muay Thai apart from many martial arts, is that they never lost their practical techniques, and never lost their training methods. |
See above.
| Quote: | | If we went back in history, I'm sure you could trace each traditional martial art, ei various types of Karate, Various types of Tae Kwan Do, and various types of Kung fu, back to when they were used correctly and trained properly for actual self defense application. |
Like I mentioned a while back, the Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, & Cultural Revolution all had a negative impact on Chinese arts.
| Quote: | -"As I said to Max--if these methods can't work in a controlled setting, how do you expect them to work in an uncontrolled one?"-
So no one has ever used traditional types of martial arts to ever win a NHB match, ever? I don't have a record of every NHB fight ever, but I am sure that some people with traditional martial arts training have won matches before. I don't think a blanket statement like that can be made. |
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, then.
No, I haven't seen kung-fu, karate, tae kwon do, etc., used to win too many NHB/MMA matches. I recall seeing a lot of those folks get trounced by either experienced grapplers (BJJ players, samboists, judoka, shootfighters, & Western wrestlers), or big street brawling tough guys.
| Quote: | | If you look at any San Shou event, each competitor is taught in different styles of Kung fu, so every winner of those events is a traditional Kung Fu martial artist, is he not? |
As I have stated already, san shou also clearly incorporates non-Chinese fighting methods, so calling it "kung fu" is problematic at best.
| Quote: | -"How do we know that the kicks are not from muay Thai, as opposed to "kung-fu"?
Also, what takedowns did he use on Shamrock? (I did not see the fight)."-
Ask Chung le, he is a kung fu martial artist, and I believe the match is on You Tube, at least some of his take downs are. Alot of leg sweeps when Shamrock tried to kick. Please watch it. You see there are times that both fighters had chances to capitolize on the others mistakes, but didn't do so. |
Unfortunately I'm dealing with some computer issues and cannot watch Youtube videos, but I'll track down the fight--I collect MMA videos and DVDs anyway.
| Quote: | - "Again, the issue about san shou actually being "kung-fu" is still very much up in the air. It is a composite method that borrows from various sources, of which at least some are not even Chinese! "-
It is Kung Fu, San Shou tournaments are tournaments for full contact fighting for Kung Fu styles, it's the definition of San Shou. Here is a link to the wikipedia entry on San Shou, and it pretty much describes what I am trying to say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shou
-"To be honest, I don't think too many folks even associate san shou with "kung-fu" of any kind."-
Again, look at the Wikipedia entry, you are incorrect, San Shou and Kung Fu are directly related in every sense.
-"No offense, but that's nothing more than a very convenient way of ignoring Le's Western wrestling background.
His takedown defenses do not come from kung-fu."-
How can you say this? Do you know Chung Le's style of Kung Fu? Do you know all the styles of Kung Fu? San Shou, and the kung fu styles used in San Shou, have always had throws and take downs incorporated, it would be silly to not have defenses for such throws and take downs. So to make that comment is just wrong.
-"Western wrestling "taught" Le many things, but none of those things have anything to do with kung-fu".
Hopefully you see now that Kung Fu is a larger world of art forms than you may think with much more practical application that you previously thought. No offense intended. When many people see Kun Tao, the style that I teach, people are always shocked to see that we rarely kick above the waist, and focus on many take downs, joint locks, manipulations, and elbow and knee strikes. People say... that's not kung fu... when it really is. |
OK--first off, san shou simply means "free fighting". It's a competition format. Regarding the "component arts" of san shou, let's see what Chung Le's manager, Santos Soto says:
"Sanshou uses the hands of boxing, the specialized kicks of kung fu and the throws of Greco-Roman wrestling," Soto says.
So 2 out of 3 arts listed aren't even kung-fu. The "specialized kicks of kung-fu" may be representative of some "survivor" of the functional dilution of Chinese martial arts (refer to my commentary on the history of san shou, earlier in this thread).
The whole article is here (and note the nice pic of Le dumping his opponent with a Greco-Roman suplex):
http://www.svcn.com/archives/lgwt/09.05.01/cover-0136.html
Peace,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree:
-"OK--first off, san shou simply means "free fighting". It's a competition format. Regarding the "component arts" of san shou, let's see what Cung Le's manager, Santos Soto says:
"Sanshou uses the hands of boxing, the specialized kicks of kung fu and the throws of Greco-Roman wrestling," Soto says.
So 2 out of 3 arts listed aren't even kung-fu. The "specialized kicks of kung-fu" may be representative of some "survivor" of the functional dilution of Chinese martial arts (refer to my commentary on the history of san shou, earlier in this thread). "-
The boxing Soto refers to is Chinese boxing, a form of kung fu. So thats 2 out of three. And there are many in many kung fu styles that are similar to greco roman wrestling, so thats 3 out of 3... did you read the definition of San Shou on the wikipedia page I posted? It described this. I have spoken with Cung Le himself several times when he has attended the International Chinese Martial Art Open, in both St Petersburg and Orlando Fl. He himself says the throws and takedowns he uses are Kung Fu techniques, similar to wrestling, but are still chinese techniques. Again, the definition of San Shou on that wikipedia page describes this. Infact, the extent of Cung Le wrestling back ground is only what he did in High school, so to say his 3 years of highschool wrestling outways his 20 plus years of kung fu is silly, don't you think?San Shou has been around in China for a long time, before the cultural revolution, and before the arts were diluted.
Here are some You Vids of his fights, and you can see all the Kung Fu techniques being used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UahQiwgXudc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2ApsyKddnI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipWNbhcsBL4&NR=1
By the way, you arguements are also null because Cung Le won each of his MMA fights almost soley with his Kung Fu kicks, and no grappling at all.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | Yes, we will have to agree to disagree:
The boxing Soto refers to is Chinese boxing, a form of kung fu. So thats 2 out of three. |
Soto didn't say "Chinese boxing"--he simply said "boxing".
| Quote: | | And there are many in many kung fu styles that are similar to greco roman wrestling, so thats 3 out of 3... |
LOL, there you go again, ignoring Le's Greco-Roman background!
And for what it's worth, the shuai jiao (Chinese wrestling) talent pool is far lower than what you encounter in Greco-Roman wrestling, freestyle wrestling, or judo--because the competition is not as widespread. Robert W. Smith, who originally came from a judo background, went up against all of Shang Dongsheng's top wrestlers and defeated them even using their rules (throwing only, with no groundwork, and no subs).
| Quote: | | did you read the definition of San Shou on the wikipedia page I posted? |
I did.
| Quote: | | It described this. I have spoken with Cung Le himself several times when he has attended the International Chinese Martial Art Open, in both St Petersburg and Orlando Fl. He himself says the throws and takedowns he uses are Kung Fu techniques, similar to wrestling, but are still chinese techniques. |
Did he say that? Very interesting.
One has to wonder why he doesn't mention it in interviews. He certainly has no qualms about talking about his Greco-Roman wrestling background and exploits.
| Quote: | | Again, the definition of San Shou on that wikipedia page describes this. Infact, the extent of Cung Le wrestling back ground is only what he did in High school, so to say his 3 years of highschool wrestling outways his 20 plus years of kung fu is silly, don't you think? |
Chung Le didn't just wrestle in high school--he also wrestled in college. Surely you know this, bro. He was a college Greco-Roman champ in both 1990 and 1991.
| Quote: | | San Shou has been around in China for a long time, before the cultural revolution, and before the arts were diluted. |
On the contrary, san shou only dates from the 1920s, and thus there most certainly was dilution going on.\
And, given the sad state of China at that time, it's easy to see how something like san shou was created--i.e., they borrowed effective techniques from other martial cultures (Western boxing, Western wrestling, etc).
That can make for an effective fighting format, but it doesn't make it "kung-fu".
Again, I'm not able to currently watch them, but I look forward to checking them out.
| Quote: | | By the way, you arguements are also null because Cung Le won each of his MMA fights almost soley with his Kung Fu kicks, and no grappling at all. |
His wrestling enabled him to keep fights on the feet, no?
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
Last edited by David Black Mastro on Fri 05 Dec, 2008 6:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
