View Full Version : Even Worse Martial Arts
August 24, 2002, 10:14 AM
I know that there are a lot of immature people who teach martial arts. But I visited a class once that went far beyond how bad I thought a martial arts class could get.
The instructor sold autographed pictures of himself to his students (need I say more?). He also had action figures made of himself for sale. And no, he wasn’t someone that you’d consider “famous.” He taught a Kung Fu & BJJ class, but didn’t really teach his students as much as he gave demonstrations of his “elite skills.” For instance, when he was grappling a student and gained a superior position, he would “pose” to show how easy beating the person was.
Once when a new (real) BJJ Academy had opened up in his state, he invited the other academy to his place to train together. As soon as the other Academy walked in the door, they challenged their visitors to grappling matches- he had set up a video camera which he hoped would capture his students beating the other academy so he could show it to the world. But the other BJJ Instructor was for real, and soon the other school’s white belts were easily beating his brown belts. His assistant instructor asked the BJJ Instructor to grapple and quickly got submitted. The Kung Fu/BJJ Instructor became enraged, challenged the BJJ instructor to a fight, saying (while looking like he was about to cry) “people think your school is dominant now.” The BJJ instructor, I guess to his credit, said that he didn’t want to grapple someone who was angry, took his students, and left. He seemed like a nice guy and very disturbed by the display.
August 24, 2002, 10:35 AM
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: Words can't express how truly pathetic that instructor and his 'type' are. :barf: :barf: :barf:
August 24, 2002, 07:45 PM
Yeah Instructos are out for the money now days. You should visit Shane Popes Taekwando in Auburn Alabama. Man what a joke.
He is one of the biggest rip offs in the MA field. He is a disgrace.
August 24, 2002, 08:27 PM
I've actually been to a BJJ tournament in Auburn. Great town & great college. Nice BJJ club there too. There also used to be some good martial artists right across the Georgia border in Columbus too. I haven't visited the school that you speak of.
August 25, 2002, 12:50 PM
Najdorf Yes Auburn is a great place. Believe me, you dont want to viit Mr. Popes classes. A better but much more difficult MA instructer is Mr Lee Smith in Valley Al. He teaches The art of Ninja and survival skills.
Mr. Smith believes in earning your belts not paying for them
as Mr Pope does. I havent visited any MA classes in Columbus but I took a few small arms classes down there a few years ago. If your in this area much get in touch with Mr Lee Smith. If your into MA youll like Mr. Smith. His ph# is in the book.
August 26, 2002, 09:33 PM
Selling autographed pictures, and action figures yourself while not being famous. If that's not narcisism then I don't know what is.
August 26, 2002, 11:17 PM
But, all too typical. The ONLY media account I've read where an MA was used effectively to protect the intended victims was recently in Kali where an entire Judo class got to wail on a car jacker. Of course most encounters would not be newsworthy the way gun use is, but I fear that effective MA use is nearly restricted to the movies and TV.
It seems that MA classes' main benefit is training the mind and conditioning the body all without much success in imparting the skills contracted for. From the ones I've observed, the best advice to students on completion is "get a gun."
August 27, 2002, 01:47 AM
This type of chicanery is all too pervasive in the gun (training) and MA industries. I think it's testesterone poisoning or something. I have seen some amazingly uncouth and bizzarre MA "instructors" some of who couldn't beat 100 lbs. girls in a real fight.
BTW, as for the issue of the effectiveness of MA for fighting, I re-print one of my posts earlier to CMichael:
I think Akidio is more effective for close in than traditional karate. In fact, I would even go as far to say that about 90% of traditional karate or more is useless in actual fighting.
This is the kind of broad-brush statements to which I object.
What does "Aikido" and "traditional Karate" mean? Is Aikikai Aikido "Aikido"? Is it Yoshinkan? Ki Society? What is "traditional" Karate - Shotokan? Karate is more or less a MODERN (that is post-19th Century) "martial art" as is Aikido. Even Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujusu is a transitional system at best - that is transitional between Kobujutsu and modern Budo. Kobujutsu was mostly about weapons fighting of the Zi-Samurai.
"90%"(!) of "traditional Karate" is "useless" in "actual" fighting (as opposed to non-actual fighting)? The fact is that the VAST majority of "martial arts" schools do not teach "fighting." Systems such as Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan and Kodokan Judo are today about tournaments and Olympic bouts. Many Aikido schools are delusional about its effectiveness and still teach Kotegaeshi as THE defense against reverse punches to the mid-section (a jab to the head never enters an Aikidoka's mind). "Jujutsu," often referring to Brazilian Jujutsu that descended from Kodokan Judo, can range from sad imitations of Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu to an evolution of Kodokan Ne-Waza (hardly "fighting" since Ne-Waza was largely developed for contests rather than self-defense). Then there are weapon arts that teach antiquated sword play (Asian or European) or teach knife/stick dueling a la West Side Story. Meanwhile, the grappling craze has passed, and we are now in the midst of the "combatives" craze, of which Krav Maga is a part. Many of these schools offer little except some simplified locking and disarming techniques (many of which cannot be practiced against fully-resistant, non-compliant partners) and some watered-down kickboxing.
My point is NOT that all these are useless. To be sure, there are elements to each "martial art" that can benefit a prospective student who might be interested in learning how to "fight." My point is, rather, that the vast majority of these "arts" is time-inefficient in learning so-called "self-defense." Most people would be better off learning some pointers on situational awareness, verbal and physical cues of dangerous situations and learning to be fit over a lifetime (of course, others like police officers and soldiers can benefit from some training - but such training should be specifically tailored to their job requirements and situations - for the life of me I do not know why BJJ is being taught to the US Army Rangers).
To actually learn to "fight" using "martial arts" takes a great deal of dedication and learning. Just to pick up some decent striking skills (say, boxing or Muay Thai) and some ground fighting (BJJ, Shooto or Judo, for example) alone would take signficant time and physical commitments (lots of injuries). And still one would have only covered a fraction of "fighting" (then there are knives, sticks, handguns, etc.).
Yet, most schools advertise "effective self-defense" and other nonsense to people who train 3-4 hours a week and implant delusions of "super-fighting" ability in the minds of their students.
The reality is that, for most people, martial arts should be about fitness and fun (and some testesterone-quenching/spiritual-calming depending on temperament). That is the main reason why *I* train - for fun and physical fitness (weight-lifting 2 hours a day is boring for ME). Even then, for over ten years, I devoted 2-3 hours a DAY training variously in Tae Kwon Do, Kodokan Judo, Aikido, Shooto, Brazilian Jujutsu, Arnis and Muay Thai (some of them for extended periods in Asia). Today I don't quite train 2-3 hours a day, and I concentrate mostly on BJJ, Muay Thai and some Arnis/Kali. But I don't have a shred of fantasy that all this is for "fighting."
At the level of commitment and training we are discussing, it's even more pointless to discuss "Karate vs. Aikido - which is better for fighting" or present similar lines of arguments and statements. To be sure, I put in my two cents about which would be more appropriate as a supplement for CCW (presumably handguns) based on specific orientation of techniques - striking vs. draw prevention and weapon-retention - with serious caveats, but for some to present ideas like "Karate is 90% useless for fighting" is not only unhelpful in addressing the intial question, but also completely misses the point that I present above.
August 27, 2002, 08:42 AM
Dude, that is so cool...
Where can I get an action figure of myself made? :D :)
August 27, 2002, 09:21 AM
Apparently there is a place online where it can be done. A cop buddy of mine is having one made of himself, mostly as a joke (he's about the least egotisitcal person I've ever met) and partly as a playtoy for his kid. How cool would that be? Having an action figure of your own dad? :D ;)
August 27, 2002, 09:22 AM
Ah, the wonders of internet search engines...
August 27, 2002, 09:32 AM
Actually, take a look at some of the non-personalized ones they offer. VERy detailed renderings of modern and historical soldiers.
Wow. Kinda cool.
August 28, 2002, 01:48 PM
So many people place the value on a martial art by the level of fighting expertise they are able to achieve through it's learning, and certainly there is much merit to that.
But there are a few other aspects that so often get overlooked when in fact, they are the true essence of many matial arts.
In fact, most students who train in martial arts DO NOT actually wish to become an extreme fighter. Most students are looking to improve their lives through martial arts. They do this by getting into better physical shape. They hope to gain confidence by possessing skills that will give them an edge in an encounter. They learn skills neccesary to better succeed in a competitive enviremont.
They also stay with a school to be involved in the MA community.
Only a small percentage of my students train for competition. Most are there for the above mentioned reasons.
The ones who compete train hard, harder than most of the students who do not compete. Their skills are more finally honed than most non-competitor students. But they work on skills that are tailor made for competition, and while they add to their self-defense skills in doing so they understand that what they do is a sport. (albeit a rough sport).
When it comes down to students who can't quite get it I slow them down in their progress but I never send them out the door. I have students with severe disabilities. I have a student who is 72 years old. I have students who are superb athletes. I have students who's self-defense skills are very good. I have students who simply feel btter about themselves just for their efforts.
I had a friend that taught brutal classes. He only had a few students at any time but they were tough as hell and good fighters. Of course I inherited some of his students who could not keep up.
No matter what style your martial art is, you should get a heck of a lot more from it than simply learning fighting techniques. People train for many reasons, each seeking to better themselves, some will focus more on some aspects while others will focus on others. But the bottom line is once you have found a good school, to understand that no matter how good an instructor is, he cannot create the complete martial artists out of every student. The student must understand that no matter how good their instructor is, they will only get out of the program what they put into it.
Whether I am teaching one of my finely tuned athletes or teaching one of their diabetic over-weight mothers, I make sure each student knows to set goals in their training. It is the only way I can help them achieve what they are there for.
Will my 72 year old student be able at some point to execute a jumping spin-heel kick?........of course not. Will he become a bad MF that can take out a young male attacker?....maybe, but maybe not. But after years of training and improving himself while aquiring an academic knowledge of the skills of our art will I ever promote him to blackbelt?.........you bet!
August 28, 2002, 04:56 PM
for the life of me I do not know why BJJ is being taught to the US Army Rangers).
This is mostly to foster a aggressive mindset, same as Marine h2h in bootcamp. It also gives the Ranger an idea of what is possible in a h2h fight. They don't even pretend it is going to make the individual a skilled fighter, just hopefully a more aggressive one.
August 28, 2002, 07:41 PM
In fact, most students who train in martial arts DO NOT actually wish to become an extreme fighter. Most students are looking to improve their lives through martial arts. They do this by getting into better physical shape.Exactly! So why is it that so many "martial arts" schools pretend to teach "self-defense" or "lethal street" techniques?
This is mostly to foster a aggressive mindset, same as Marine h2h in bootcamp. It also gives the Ranger an idea of what is possible in a h2h fight. They don't even pretend it is going to make the individual a skilled fighter, just hopefully a more aggressive one.Hey, I personally like BJJ (and train in it). But if "aggressiveness" is what they are looking for, there are better things. Why not spend their valuable training time on something more tailored to their mission AND fosters aggressiveness? The Soviets actually did a good job with their Sambo, much of which is tailored to using military gear (anyone who has seen Spetsnaz use spades could attest to that).
August 28, 2002, 09:16 PM
I thought that Sambo meant "samo-oborona bez oruzhija" i.e. un-weaponed self-defense...or did they include improvised weapons?
August 28, 2002, 09:17 PM
"The Soviets actually did a good job with their Sambo"
and Oleg Taktarov, Sambo & Judo Champion who used to teach Sambo to elite Russian units, lasted a few seconds against Renzo Gracie before being KO'ed. That brings us full circle. :o)
August 29, 2002, 10:48 AM
Taktarov has now embraced Krav Maga as practical defense system. He and Bas Rutten both teach at KM Headquarters in LA.
August 29, 2002, 01:19 PM
I thought that Sambo meant "samo-oborona bez oruzhija" i.e. un-weaponed self-defense...or did they include improvised weapons?Correct. I believe, however, "without weapons" in that context means without firearms. Sambo can be divided into two kinds: military Sambo and sportive Sambo. Military Sambo involves the self-defense use of many kinds of military gear, most notably the spade. Sportive Sambo is something of a mixture of Judo and wrestling as well as native Russian (and Central Asian) grappling traditions.
That's actually the beauty of Sambo - it combines the combative elements with the sportive ones in one system. As such it contains techniques that are practiced compliantly as well those that are practiced non-compliantly (sparring/Randori).
"The Soviets actually did a good job with their Sambo"
and Oleg Taktarov, Sambo & Judo Champion who used to teach Sambo to elite Russian units, lasted a few seconds against Renzo Gracie before being KO'ed. That brings us full circle.More correctly Oleg Taktarov practiced sportive Sambo. You are comparing apples with oranges. Give an "average" Spetsnaz a spade and see how quickly he cracks open Renzo Gracie's skull from 25 feet away. Besides, Kazushi Sakuraba of Takada Dojo (headed by Takada Nobuhiko, a Japanese pro-wrestler and a joke as a fighter) beat Renzo silly (as well as his cousins Royler and Royce). Does that mean UFO Pro-wrestling is a better fighting system for Rangers than BJJ?
BTW, Rickson Gracie, reputedly the greatest fighting Gracie alive, was cleanly thrown on his back (total victory or total defeat in Rickson's case) in a Sambo match. I guess Sambo wins then.
Lastly, I practice BJJ, not Sambo, but I am under no illusion as to which would be more appropriate for military personnel.
August 29, 2002, 03:31 PM
In fact, most students who train in martial arts DO NOT actually wish to become an extreme fighter. Most students are looking to improve their lives through martial arts. They do this by getting into better physical shape.
Exactly! So why is it that so many "martial arts" schools pretend to teach "self-defense" or "lethal street" techniques?
Well, that is the bane of contemporary martial arts. I teach traditional Taekwondo, (emphasis on bettering oneself in all areas) and I teach sport taekwondo.......I firmly believe students can increase their skill level and learn a lot of positive lessons from competition, as long as the emphasis is on doing their personal best more so than on beating their opponent. I have students that have won some minor national tittles...(I'm working on placing a competitor on competing in the USTU Nationals......my son qualified one year but we could not afford the trip to denver, where the nationals were held that year.)
I also teach only a measure of "practical self-defense".......I am unable to teach much actual grappling but I do teach many standing hapkido techniques. I encourage my adult students to cross-train in other styles if they wish to be truly proficient in defending themselves.
But I never mislead any student, regardless of age, into believing they posess more skills than they do.
There are so many Mcdogo's around that exist only for big money, (mine are the lowest rates in the entire area and I have a full program), that I am often faced with the task of dispelling the mistrust when a student will join my school after a bad experience at another school.
The thing is, from what I am seeing, it is not just a "new breed" of instructors without the proper scruples to run a fair business, but I even know of 7th and even 9th dan koreans (from korea) who's integrity where proper instruction and fair business practices are concerned seem to be left behind.
I also get a bit perturbed when I hear a Grandmaster complaining that "today's instructors do not have it right".....If we do not, shouldn't our grandmasters share the blame?
My first Grandmaster was a helluva good instructor. Actually, when I first began training under him, he was only a 3rd degree blackbelt. (not a master or a grandmaster)....I had to defect from him when he began charging twice the going rate for tutitions and certifications. It seemed that each time he was promoted he would raise his rates accordingly.
When I opened my school 5 years ago I was a 3rd dan blackbelt. Presently I am a 4th dan kukiwon certified, with instructors credentials...($illy cla$$e$ though), a national referee under the AAU, the USNTF, and a regional referee under the USTU. In five years I've gone from 8 students to 90 students. I have not raised my rates one iota, (and in fact after going off on my own I was able to lower my rates.)
I know many many people in martial arts who's character is beyond reproach, but sadly, I also know of some who's ego's leave no room for character.
But no faction is perfect. Some priests are pedophiles, there are rogue police officers, lying presidents and yes, martial artists with no integrity......................I'm doing what I can in my little corner of the world to tackle what I see as wrong in the industry, but as you can imagine, I take a lot of heat from above
August 29, 2002, 05:06 PM
"More correctly Oleg Taktarov practiced sportive Sambo. "
Then he taught Sportive Sambo to Spetznaz, or lied about doing so.
"Give an "average" Spetsnaz a spade and see how quickly he cracks open Renzo Gracie's skull from 25 feet away. "
I sure hope they could win with a weapon. But I have a feeling some of them would manage to blow it. The members of "elite units" that I've taken on have not turned out to be all that great at unarmed.
Gracies lose fights. Japanese Wrestlers lose even more fights. Everyone who keeps fighting eventually loses. There is so much cross training now, that the individual matters more than the art they claim as their own.
I don't think we're actually in disagreement. BJJ by itself is not appropriate for Rangers. Actually in the 90's a lot of them studied Bujinkan Ninjutsu off base (Ft. Benning) with Cris Weakley in Columbus, GA. They would have done well to continue that trend, and crosstrain in other arts including BJJ AND Sambo.
I've met all three of the above (Gracie, Taktarov & Weakley), and all are tough in different ways. Any of them, or their arts, including Sambo, would have a lot to offer the Rangers. Most Rangers will train in several arts as they travel around anyway.
September 2, 2002, 07:08 PM
It's good that you provide low-cost instruction and one with ethnics. That's all very good.
You wrote "I also teach only a measure of 'practical self-defense'.......I am unable to teach much actual grappling but I do teach many standing hapkido techniques."
My question is this: what is your qualification for teaching "self-defense"? That you know Hapkido techniques? The reason I ask that question is not to get "personal" or disrespectful. I rather seek your vision of what source of experience/training should be "required" to teach self-defense.
Too often I see a 25-year old woman with 5-6 years of TKD training (1-3 Dan) with a little bit of Hapkido (or Aikido or Judo) training teaching "self-defense" or "anti-rape" techniques to a bunch of wide-eyed sorority girls and housewives.
"More correctly Oleg Taktarov practiced sportive Sambo. "
Then he taught Sportive Sambo to Spetznaz, or lied about doing so.No. What I meant was that he used sportive Sambo techniques in his mixed martial arts contests like the one with Renzo Gracie.
I sure hope they could win with a weapon.But that's the point, EXACTLY! When you are a Ranger, why learn Sankaku-Jime/triangular choke and get your balls bitten off when you can hack someone in the head with the common tools/gears that you carry (this is assuming that you don't have firearms in the first place).
A decent BJJer can probably beat a Kali practitioner in a contest fight. But give both men a stick or a knife. What's going to happen?
Which is more appropriate for people who carry firearms, knives, spades and other gear? A system that teaches contest fighting or one that teaches knife, stick and disarms?
BJJ by itself is not appropriate for Rangers.EXACTLY, again. BJJ is great for a lot of things and is quite excellent for no-time limit, contest fighting. Why? Because it was developed for such venue in Brazil. Sambo was designed from the get-go as a military non-firearm martial art and practiced as such. In their wisdom, the founders of Sambo also retained the Randori/sparring type techniques in the curriculum.
Any of them, or their arts, including Sambo, would have a lot to offer the Rangers. Most Rangers will train in several arts as they travel around anyway.Well, you are assuming every system has the same utility to the Rangers. That is simply not so. Rangers can learn whatever they feel like in their private time. However, their government-paid training time is limited, and as such, should be used for training that confers the greatest "job-related" skills. Some systems simply aren't as useful for the military as others.
September 2, 2002, 09:54 PM
Too often I see a 25-year old woman with 5-6 years of TKD training (1-3 Dan) with a little bit of Hapkido (or Aikido or Judo) training teaching "self-defense" or "anti-rape" techniques to a bunch of wide-eyed sorority girls and housewives.
Obviously you've attended KungFool's classes before.
( :p at Kungfool)
September 4, 2002, 05:29 AM
Oh, I gotta tell ya this horror story.
Once I saw a self-proclaimed "self-defense" instructor do a public demonstration in which he "caught" the Uke's knife by clasping his palms together (!) a la 1970's Ninja movies (above his forehead minds you - so if the attack was real, his forehead would've bled... a lot). Clearly he never heard of this steping away from the line of attack concept. Or such basic techniques as "defanging the snake" for example.
He also demonstrated a flying armbar as a self-defense technique. Since he didn't understand the mechanics of the flying armbar (as in, he could never pull it off himself), he had a young woman with a two-digit weight jump into his arm, followed by falling into her to pretend the flying armbar worked.
The galling thing was, that he was being SPONSORED (!) by a large university and the city government to do this! On top of that, he told one of my training partners (someone who actually competed in amateur Shooto and mixed martial arts competitions and was preparing to go pro) that he fought in the UFC (uh, no).
His classes were full of women looking for self-defense instruction. He also took to wearing black belts (when pressed about the origin of this belt, he answered "mine is a casual, no-nonsense system - you wear whatever belt you like because belts are meaningless").
When I was training in BJJ with my wife at a university gym (we trained under a Brazilian Pan-Am medalist, a Judo blackbelt at the same time, not to mention trained under Carlson Gracie and Rickson Gracie and one of the humblest human beings I ever met), he actually came by to criticize what WE were doing.
I dearly wished my BJJ, Muay Thai or Kali instructor was there, so this clown can see what a real instructor can do. But I sparred with this guy with my limited skill and even though he outweighed me considerably, I was submitting him and making him tap like a bongo player in no time. I could imagine what someone with real skill could do to this "self-defense expert." Well the goofy thing was that when I went by to check out his class later, he actually had security escort me out, saying that his classes are for HIS students only to witness! Apparently, he didn't want me to talk to any of his students.
When I think of all the people in his classes, particularly women, learning his master self-defense/anti-rape techniques, it still makes me wince about this kind of fraud so prevalent in "martial arts."
September 4, 2002, 10:15 PM
"No. What I meant was that he used sportive Sambo techniques in his mixed martial arts contests like the one with Renzo Gracie."
He was free to use whatever he wanted to. Although a few things may be technically illegal, noone ever gets disqualified for doing them. I have a taped fight of someone who advertised himself as a "Gracie Killer" gouging at my eyes in a local MMA event. He lost badly because he depended on "killer moves" instead of "fundamentals." You're clearly very knowledgeable, so I know that you're aware that people try that type strategy on them all the time.
"A decent BJJer can probably beat a Kali practitioner in a contest fight. But give both men a stick or a knife. What's going to happen?"
BJJ'ers are in general terrible with weapons except handguns, which they often carry in Brazil. Also, one BJJ'er (well known in the inner circles) is also a superb sniper. Some are actually decent with a knife.
"Well, you are assuming every system has the same utility to the Rangers."
I never said such a thing. I said that the 2 systems already mentioned, and the one that I've witnessed Rangers practicing would have a lot to offer. Some systems would have very little to offer.
I lived in Japan for a short time with a Ranger Captain who was a very skilled martial artist. I've also trained with 30 or 40 Rangers when I lived close to Ft. Benning a few years ago. I believe that exposure to a grappling art, in addition to other arts, will be useful for them.
September 5, 2002, 01:37 AM
He was free to use whatever he wanted to. Although a few things may be technically illegal, noone ever gets disqualified for doing them.Well, you aren't suggesting that Oleg should've pulled out a spade and thrown it straight right between Renzo's eyes, do you?
BJJ'ers are in general terrible with weapons except handguns, which they often carry in Brazil. Also, one BJJ'er (well known in the inner circles) is also a superb sniper. Some are actually decent with a knife.I think you are really stretching it and you know it. Certainly you are not suggesting that such "superb" sniping ability or knife-handling skills come from the curriculum of BJJ?
I believe that exposure to a grappling art, in addition to other arts, will be useful for them.Probably. But, quite frankly, unarmed hand-to-hand combat (a grappling kind at that) is really not within the realm of reality for the vast majority of the Rangers.
I am going to say this again. I practice BJJ in addition to Muay Thai and Kali. I don't have a shred of reason to stick up for Sambo other than the fact that I recognize certain truths.
BJJ was evolved from Kodokan Judo mainly for contest fighting. It's superb for that. Sambo was largely designed to train soldiers to use common military gear for fighting when firearms were unavailable. Because the founders of Sambo understood the usefulness of contests aspects (from Judo Randori and Shiai) for fitness and training, they kept the same in the system.
I've also trained with 30 or 40 Rangers when I lived close to Ft. Benning a few years ago. I believe that exposure to a grappling art, in addition to other arts, will be useful for them.We aren't talking about whether or not BJJ is useful for the Rangers. We are talking about how best to spend the limited, government-paid training time for the Rangers. Given their specific situation and needs, and the respective strengths and weaknesses of the systems, I'd argue that Sambo is a better fit for the limited training time than BJJ.
BJJ is not the be-all, end-all of martial arts for everybody. It's not even the top dog in mixed martial arts contests anymore (well, mainly, the rules changed from what benefited BJJers to what benefits stand up strikers).
If the Rangers want to train in BJJ during their sparetime, that's great! It beats playing pool at the bar. But teach armbars and triangular chokes on government time instead of more pistol markmanship or knife-fighting (or insert anything else they carry as a part of their gear)? I think not.
It's a delicate line I walk. There are these people who tout BJJ as the "best" "street" (let alone the military) self-defense system. Then there are those who say "BJJ is only for the ring. My deadly techniques can't be shown in the ring," because their techniques are, quite frankly, useless air-dancing. Both are equally confused.
September 5, 2002, 10:58 AM
This discussion misses the whole point of BJJ for Rangers. They don't even pretend they are teaching them h2h combat for the real world, they are simply trying to foster an aggressive attitude in the trainees. Marines do the same thing in their bootcamp, just with a different fighting style. Most branches used to use boxing for this.
One of the reasons BJJ was selected is that you can go full-force without hurting your partner too badly.
September 5, 2002, 07:11 PM
The source of our disagreement is that you assume Rangers don't train much, and can only train in one thing. I have been around them enough to know that they work hard and train in many things.
Wingnutz makes a good point about aggression. It's also worth noting that grappling gives you incredible cardio endurance. Under your logic (and given the improbability of being without firearms), wouldn't such added endurance be likely to help them more than spade throwing lessons?
Are you saying that Sambo only works with a spade? He could use any unarmed technique he wished.
My example of the BJJ'ers who are good with a weapon was to illustrate that BJJ people often know other things also, not that they learned it in a BJJ school. My point is that BJJ is a nice tool, but not as an only tool.
You're right that Rangers are unlikely to see unarmed combat, but we're also unlikely to see a gunfight- but here we are anyway hanging out on this forum...preparing for the unlikely.
September 6, 2002, 04:58 PM
This discussion misses the whole point of BJJ for Rangers. They don't even pretend they are teaching them h2h combat for the real world, they are simply trying to foster an aggressive attitude in the trainees."Aggression," eh? Well, why not train in something (not necessarily Sambo) that fosters aggression AND teaches job-applicable skills too?
BTW, BJJ is by no means an "aggressive" martial art. I consider it, actually, a fairly patient and opportunistic system, i.e. one that takes advantage of the opponent's mistakes.
One of the reasons BJJ was selected is that you can go full-force without hurting your partner too badly.That's a good point. But you can do the same (the Randori/free sparring part) AND more in Sambo.
The source of our disagreement is that you assume Rangers don't train much, and can only train in one thing.Nope. I don't assume that they "don't train much." I assume that they should NOT be spending too much of their training time on unarmed "martial art."
Under your logic (and given the improbability of being without firearms), wouldn't such added endurance be likely to help them more than spade throwing lessons?
Are you saying that Sambo only works with a spade? He could use any unarmed technique he wished.Nope. Sambo has two aspects - sportive (the grappling part) and military. It is more "balanced," if you will. Kali, too, has both unarmed and stick/knife techniques. To suggest, for example, that a Kali practitioner "can use any unarmed technique he wished" in an unarmed, contest fight against a BJJer (who trains EXCLUSIVELY for such a venue) as a measure of which is more appropriate for soldiers, is worse than meaningless since the at least half of Kali involves knife and sticks. At most, it proves that those who train exclusively for MMA beat those who do not IN MMA matches.
You're right that Rangers are unlikely to see unarmed combat, but we're also unlikely to see a gunfight- but here we are anyway hanging out on this forum...preparing for the unlikely.Well, Rangers are a heck of alot more likely to see fire fights with firearms than they are to see grappling in battle. It's NOT just about "preparing for the unlikely." It is about preparing for the range of probabilities, not ALL possibilities. The more probable/likely a scenario is, the more effort (meaning training and time) should be devoted. Grappling with armbars and knee bars really don't compare in the rank of probabilities to gunfights for Rangers.
God knows that I love practicing BJJ. But this whole teaching of BJJ to Rangers is a hype-based racket. I am sure that Rorion laughed all the way to the bank.
September 9, 2002, 11:31 PM
See http://www.bhome.com.au/bacfudo/ or use a search engine to look for "Sifu David Crook".
Some good stuff in there - especially Kungfool and Bahadur.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots like the one you mentioned in martial arts.
As someone with 40 years experience in the Martial Arts (and a lot of time teaching Officer Survival at Police Colleges and CQB in a military situation) I see "Fighting" as quite different to "Self Defence". The first implies preparation time (eg prior to a bout) while the second implies reacting to a very rapid deterioration in circumstances - no ability to prepare for such an eventuality.
The skills needed are quite different but can be mutually supportive (like some target shooting skills - trigger control etc - are useful to IPSC shooters).
Unfortunately, many martial artists are consumed by teaching a myriad of "Techniques" rather teaching some transferable "Concepts" that can be applied in a wide range of scenarios. Surviving a serious street situation is about the 3As - Attitude, Adaptability and Aggression - not about having a bunch of really neat little moves that you can demonstrate in avery controlled environment. Unfortunately, once having learned their particular little bag of "Techniques", these idiots think that they've achieved Mastery - and that's worth bragging about.
Now, I believe that a person can't teach another without having some level of Ego - the "egoless" state doesn't really exist. So, I'm probably a bit of an Egotist - but I've never though of selling autographed pictures of me to students (even though Australian Martial Arts magazines have said that I'm one of the Top 20 instructors over here and called me "The Canberra Legend - there's that ego again!!).
I think that most people would soon come to grips with this idiot's real skill level. But how many will he have turned off getting involved in what I've found to be an extremely rewarding pursuit - in terms of the great people I've met, the impact it's had on my personal values etc?
Chief Instructor (Bac Fu Do Kung Fu)
National Vice President (Australian Kung Fu Wu Shu Federation)
September 10, 2002, 12:10 PM
Bahadur.............Good Question.........As I said, i cannot teach ground grappling, though I do teach standing hapkido techniques and escape techniques. I talk about the many other aspects of being attacked. I teach them also to intersperse their TKD training into their practical self-defense. We are begining to act out scenarios. I try to keep the number of techniques both simple and open-ended, encouraging students to practice many times with different students.
I have also practiced several hapkido techniques through Master Jurgen Schmidt, who is a hapkido master (in a wheelchair) and is still the chief of security for master John Pellegringi.
I have honed the techniques and others with constituents who have hapkido and ju tisu backgrounds.
I am certain that in addition to Taekwondo, that my students are learning more about how to defend themselves in dangerous situations. I also heavily encourage them to cross-train in other arts ( a few actually do). I do not mis-lead them into thinking that I teach no-fail techniques. I make no claims at being an expert in any art othe than TKD. I make sure they understand that they must take what I show them and use it as a base to build good self-defense skills.
I have a good school. I am always looking for more ways to improve it.
September 10, 2002, 12:32 PM
I just realized I never really answered your question.
I do not oversell my limited knowledge on hapkido or any other martial art.
I apply what I have learned over many years of seeing firsthand what happens in fights.
In that portion of my class, I try to be inter-active and let the students do some thinking for themselves and then evaluate them.
I think that almost anyone can teach self-defense. I believe that because so few people (especially women) do not know ANY.
BUT........whoever the person is that is teaching should be careful to limit what they teach to what they themselves can explain.
So, I have no "credentials' (officially) to teach any self-defense other than how TKD applies to street situations. I have been taught several basic hapkido locks, throws and such. Add to that my own street experience and observervances and I make sure that my students are aware of the limitations I impose on them by not knowing more than I do.
(Just noticing Don's comment............hmmmmmmmm)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.