UnderGround Forums
 

JKD UnderGround >> Training Conundrum


7/10/11 1:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cprevost
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/03
Posts: 616
Had a long post written out but deleted it. No use really. Yoshida your post makes no sense. Adam is of course correct.
no dogmatism nor lack of evolution. Stop by Adam's gym sometime and you'll get ample evidence of that.
7/10/11 1:26 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5221
Pity. I would've appreciated your input.
7/10/11 9:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigSifu
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/29/09
Posts: 274
 Form follows function. Sadly,IMO most "martial arts" were created on someone's desktop,and are theoretical ideas why something "should" work. Tai Chi,Aikido,Ba Gua,etc,are great exercises,relaxation,etc. But I do not feel they have proven themselves wothy of combat consideration. Aikido was designed as a "way" and not necessarily for combat (derived from the more "combative" Aikijutsu). I have never seen anything to show me that Tai Chi,etc have any combative value.

MMa training is the way it is because the most inportant things to (any) fighter are fitness and toughness (mental and physical). Form follows function,a fit,tough person with 3 good moves will probably beat an out of shape person with 1000 moves.

I like interesting and obscure martial arts,I enjoy their practice. However,I would never confuse it with actual Combative sports or RBSD. I realize this does not answer your question,but it's my opinion anyway...
7/10/11 10:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Demitrius Barbito
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2102
""" Within the context of all that we despise about the classical approach re: TMA/JKD dogma, does anyone else, however seldom, feel like the rise of MMA is boxing us into the same kind of patterns/dogma at the other end of the spectrum?"""

No. Because it's meets the chief criteria of being effective...
7/10/11 2:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cprevost
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/03
Posts: 617
Yoshida, your premise would only make sense if the arts MMA draws from were dead arts. They are not.All the base arts are evolving and changing to meet the chalenges of evolution and competition. Demi and Bigsifu are absolutely correct.
7/10/11 2:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5230
Demitrius Barbito - """ <span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; font-size: small; ">Within the context of all that we despise about the classical approach re: TMA/JKD dogma, does anyone else, however seldom, feel like the rise of MMA is boxing us into the same kind of patterns/dogma at the other end of the spectrum?"""

No. Because it's meets the chief criteria of being effective...

Are sanshou and savate not effective? Are/Were they not known to others within the TMA/MMA communinities? Were people right when they said kicking wasn't effective?

My point is that it's been 20yrs and the average MMA fighter still can't wrestle beyond sprawling and singles/doubles, still can't throw punches in combinations or move their head/slip correctly, and still can't throw more than the 3 kicks I mentioned. Why is that? IMO, it's because there is a definite 'recipe' to building an MMA fighter and a lot of it has to do with dogma associated with the 4 piece puzzle.

Again, why weren't sanshou or savate integrated into people's games earlier when they are/were establish, fully functional combat sports at the time the UFC/MMA began? How come MMA guys aren't taking trips to France to train/fight savate like they do trips to Thailand and Holland for muay thai? How come they don't have sanshou coaches on staff? Aren't bringing in the Mike Swains and Jimmy Pedros for training camps to work on throws and control on the ground? IMO, it's because of the dogma in MMA that says the 4 piece puzzle is not only enough, but is actually all there is re: functionality.
7/10/11 4:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigSifu
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07/10/11 4:50 PM
Member Since: 3/29/09
Posts: 275
 I think just about everything you need for standup (in MMA) is covered in boxing and Muay Thai. Why do you need more than 3 kicks? Is more better? Judo works well within Judo rules,but a lot of the ground control is covered in BJJ & Wrestling.

Your answer is that you don't NEED more than a few things sharpened up to be sucessful in MMA. Come on,Savate? Do you really need to see guys getting taken down repeatedly while flicking those kicks? What exactly from Sanshou do we need? Sidekicks? Some fighters have used throws in MMA (Karo Parisian),but the reason you see throws in Sanda instead of double legs is that wrestling takedowns aren't allowed.

I also train BJJ,i'd love to see a better caliber of ground game in MMA,but let's face it-it's not necessary. Enjoy Savate and San Shou on their own,because odds are you'll not see them heavily represented in MMA... 
7/10/11 4:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Adam Singer
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/17/02
Posts: 2696
You keep answering your own question. And you seem to not understand sports. Phone Post
7/10/11 5:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5245
I'm not talking about need, I'm talking about completeness across ranges and self-expression not dictated by a cookie-cutter approach to building an MMA fighter.

Your comments re: savate and sanshou are telling though, and pretty much confirm what I'm saying is true.

Go watch the 2003 Sanshou highlight on youtube. You see a wide variety of striking techniques. Leg kicks, head kicks, sweeps, trips, lead leg power kicks, switch kicks, etc. And you see it in an environment where throws and wrestling takedowns(singles/doubles) are allowed. Perfect fit for MMA as Cung Le has demonstrated, imo. Same goes for savate. Really slick footwork, a variety of kicks in the arsenal and thrown in combinations that would add alot to the MMA striking game. But as you post illustrates, the dogma is present and confines people to the 4 piece puzzle.
7/10/11 5:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07/10/11 5:02 PM
Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5246
Adam Singer - You keep answering your own question. And you seem to not understand sports.
Please elaborate.
7/10/11 8:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Adam Singer
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/17/02
Posts: 2697
I was just going to call Tom Couglin and ask him why he is following a cookie cutter approach to football. His offense is definitely not complete with his running game. Why is he ignoring rugby, auz rules, Canadian football, arena ball, and backyard football.

The answer to all your questions are in football.
Performance = Truth
Winning = Truth
Aliveness = truth
7/10/11 8:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5261
You're making a false analogy. The strategies and techniques in use in all of the sports I've mentioned are allowed within the rule structure of MMA, yet across the board MMA fighters are not showing completeness across ranges or true self-expression. Instead, there is a dogmatic method in place that stems from the confining nature of the 4 piece puzzle.

Once again, why can't you answer the question of why sanshou and savate are given little consideration even today(as evidenced by BigSifu's post) when they are/were fully functional sports even before MMA came around? You can't, not without conceding the dogma.
7/10/11 8:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Adam Singer
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/17/02
Posts: 2698
MGT I am out of time for the weekend. I did not make an false analogy, The backward lateral is legal in football as it is the method of advancing the ball in Rugby. It existed before the athletes got freaky.

Stop with the fucking "dogmatic this" and "4 piece puzzle that." I am an EXPERT in the sport of MMA and I am telling you that the only thing that matters is winning. Show me something that works and if it fits my athletes games I put it in, end of discussion.
Adam
7/10/11 8:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5264
Sure you did.

Take the side kick from sanshou or the chasse bas from savate. Are both techniques come from 'alive', fully functional arts? Yes. Are both inherently functional techniques? Yes. Do you have fighters who like to kick and can kick well? (I'm assuming) Yes. So where is the evidence that coaches like yourself are thinking outside the 4 piece puzzle?

A real answer would be nice, but based on the tone of your last post it's pretty clear we're turning circles again, so it's probably not worth it to continue this conversation unless others want to chime in.
7/10/11 11:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cprevost
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/03
Posts: 618
Well, I'm sure Adam could take the time to tell you why the Sanshou side kick or the savate chasse bas is not a good idea for modern MMA. (I know they are not and have had this discussion with a good MMA coach). The discussion could go on for pages and pages that way. You name some awesome art/technique and a good MMA coach can look at it and tell you right away what looks reasonable or not.


Point is, you are not the first person on earth to think that "wow XYZ art has awesome techniques and it isn't used in MMA. Therefore MMA coaches must be dogmatic." It simply is not true. Neither are your other assertions. Completeness across the ranges is not what MMA is about you know? It's about winning. Adam has said that quite a few times and you haven't been able to see it. MMA athletes try to have good functional skill sets in all areas but there is not the idea that they will become masters or "complete" in them all. They build game based strategies based on what tools they have.

Frankly MGT you are coming off like someone who has very little knowledge about what MMA coaching and training looks like. The experts don't have discussions about looking at obscure martial arts for some answers/innovation. Not because they are dogmatic. It's because they are practical.

The worst part though is that you are believing yourself to somehow understand a basic truth that experts in the field don't understand. When that happens you should seriously examine your own assumptions. Either you are right and you are smarter and more clever than everyone in the MMA industry or your assumptions may be faulty. Which seems more likely?

Oh, and the 4 piece puzzle thing is annoying. We have guys fighting who couldn't tell you when they are doing thai boxing, regular boxing, wrestling or bjj. They just do what works and have no idea or attachment to where it came from. They do it because it works and not because it belongs to any particular art. That's way outside the box!

7/10/11 11:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Adam Singer
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/17/02
Posts: 2699
Cane will now be my official spokesman because he is smart : )
Adam Phone Post
7/11/11 12:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5267
cprevost - Well, I'm sure Adam could take the time to tell you why the Sanshou side kick or the savate chasse bas is not a good idea for modern MMA. (I know they are not and have had this discussion with a good MMA coach). The discussion could go on for pages and pages that way. You name some awesome art/technique and a good MMA coach can look at it and tell you right away what looks reasonable or not.

Perhaps. But at the same time there hasn't been the least discussion to that end, just an appeal to authority making no point to bounce ideas/opinions off of. Now, of course, I say that with all due respect to all who've posted, because I know (by reputation) who you all are. But it's basically asking me to take you on your word even though I may or may not understand where you're coming, whereas at least I'm trying my best to offer a valid/evidence argument explaining my viewpoints.

With regard to specific techniques, I'm not asking for 10+ pages worth of dialogue on the smallest details that make a technique a) functional or b) adequate for the cage, but at least make a point that offers a logical objection to the examples/fighters given.
cprevost - Point is, you are not the first person on earth to think that "wow XYZ art has awesome techniques and it isn't used in MMA. Therefore MMA coaches must be dogmatic." It simply is not true. Neither are your other assertions. Completeness across the ranges is not what MMA is about you know? It's about winning. Adam has said that quite a few times and you haven't been able to see it. MMA athletes try to have good functional skill sets in all areas but there is not the idea that they will become masters or "complete" in them all. They build game based strategies based on what tools they have.

That may be true, and by no means am I asking you to speak for anyone else, but in Adam's first post did he not say that the environment MMA itself is pure self-expression? If so, then which is it...because you can't have it both ways. Either winning is everything or completeness across ranges(which *provides for* self-expression as the precusor to winning) is the bottom line.
cprevost - Frankly MGT you are coming off like someone who has very little knowledge about what MMA coaching and training looks like. The experts don't have discussions about looking at obscure martial arts for some answers/innovation. Not because they are dogmatic. It's because they are practical.

The worst part though is that you are believing yourself to somehow understand a basic truth that experts in the field don't understand. When that happens you should seriously examine your own assumptions. Either you are right and you are smarter and more clever than everyone in the MMA industry or your assumptions may be faulty. Which seems more likely?

Interesting. Of course, I disagree. But if, as has been stated previously, that competition, aliveness, and winning are all truth(s), then why the need to place labels on things or differentiate between arts? I ask because neither sanshou or savate are obscure martial arts, nor are they 'dead', non-functional TMAs. They are ring tested combat sports with worldwide participation, the same as the arts making up the 4 piece puzzle. So, again, if the search for truth stems from honest practicality, then once again, what is the explanation for why such styles/sports haven't been considered/integrated on a larger scale? It's certainly not for lack of awareness, participation, or functionality(imo), it's simply the effect of a dogma that is/was demonstrated in Big Sifu's posts.
cprevost - Oh, and the 4 piece puzzle thing is annoying. We have guys fighting who couldn't tell you when they are doing thai boxing, regular boxing, wrestling or bjj. They just do what works and have no idea or attachment to where it came from. They do it because it works and not because it belongs to any particular art. That's way outside the box!

Come on, man! This is false and you know it. How many gyms around the world have generic 'striking' and 'grappling' classes or coaches on staff or brought in for training camps? Hardly any. Ask most fighters and they'll be able to tell you where their technical base comes from for the simple reason that training is based on...and broken down into...4 pieces of the puzzle.

In any event, I'm pleased you decided share your thoughts.
7/11/11 10:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Joe Maffei
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 737
MMA is a sport that has gone through many changes, I've been in it from the beginning so I can speak from experience. When a person brings a new technique to me my brain starts processing and cataloging placement for myself or the client's criteria. I immediately ask questions. example:
1.Can anyone perform this movement? young, old, fat, thin, tall, short, or is it for the athlete?
2.Can this movement be performed in a variety of environments? night, snow, wetlands?
3.Can this movement be performed in a variety of gear and apparel?
4.Can this movement be performed under unfavorable circumstances, sick, dehydrated, sleep deprived?
5.Does this movement fall into my overall plan?

This is how I start, the first of the rule of 3, the theory, the pre-fight, does it work on paper.
Number 2 of the rule of 3 is the practical, it must be tested. MMA is a common place to test because any average person can perform the movement. Why? because it is based in common gross motor skills.

In addition it would need to be tested against a person with similar traits. I continue to go down the list testing the movement and start developing mission specifics.
You can't get all the details of what will or will not work simply through debate. It's to grey, to corporate, to internetish, you got to get down in the dirt, succeed/fail, /succeed/fail test re-test. That's how it's done. I never pooh pooh any movement until it's gone through all 3 stages, even then it's buried in the bottom of the tool box for that weird job.
7/11/11 11:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Demitrius Barbito
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2103
 """My point is that it's been 20yrs and the average MMA fighter still can't wrestle beyond sprawling and singles/doubles, still can't throw punches in combinations or move their head/slip correctly, and still can't throw more than the 3 kicks I mentioned."""

I'll give you the past 50 years... We've looked under every rock and in every closet. It's all out there. We've seen it all, touched it, felt it hit back, wrestled with it etc. MMA is the single most complete skill set for unarmed fighting.

Savate has a few good techniques, Thai boxing is great, western boxing too. BUT if someone asked me what should they train to be a complete fighter it would be MMA (of course me being me I would add weapons and firearms as well).
7/11/11 11:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07/11/11 11:41 AM
Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5280
^That's a general statement that does not address my points/questions.

Yes, MMA as an environment/venue/proving ground, is complete. Yet, as I've mentioned, there is still not completeness across ranges, especially as it concerns the 'recipe' for building an MMA fighter re: the Matt Mitriones. Guys may be well-rounded in the respect that they train standup, clinch, and ground, but across the board there is a method that boxes them into a set of specific and limiting techniques that a) the Tao quote warns against and b) does not provide for true self-expression.

What I'm saying with regard to something like chasse bas is that it's no more dead, unproven, ineffective, or no less generic(ie: its use by people with different games) than the inside leg kick, for example. As a guy like Kyacey Uscola demonstrated, it's a technique that can be added to game of a non-superman athlete(Silva) or a wrestler who will never really become a great striker, yet across the board it(and other techniques) haven't been given the consideration it should, and like I said before, around here it met with dogmatic resistance despite its effectiveness inside the cage by 2 fighters with dissimilar games/body types due to the confining nature(and consciousness) of the 4 piece puzzle.
7/11/11 4:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Demitrius Barbito
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2106
""" the Tao quote warns against and b) does not provide for true self-expression."""

The Tao should be read as historical data. Bruce did not organize his notes. We do not know how much of what he wrote down would have been thorn out BY HIM...

Consider "intent to harm" as the most dangerous aspect in fighting. If someone who "has no skill level" INTENDS TO HARM YOU they will hide behind a door with a sharped pencil and stab you in the throat as you come thru the door.

The question then becomes "who will be able to respond to such an attack? How would you train for the mental fortitude and physical toughness? What makes you best prepared to "fight"?

MMA - at the core of your training...
7/11/11 5:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5311
That's all well and good, but it still says nothing about completeness across ranges...or lack thereof...within the training environment of MMA.

MMA offers a rule structure that's very free and as such it allows people to see what works and what doesn't, which is a welcome and valuable thing. But at the same time, the 'recipe' for success(winning) is extremely limiting as far as completeness/self-expression are concerned, and as I've continued to say, it's due almost exlusively to the dogma that exists within the 4 piece puzzle. Because if that weren't the case, we'd be seeing styles like savate and sanshou given a lot more consideration than they've been given thus far. But because of mindsets illustrated by Big Sifu's posts, people dismiss them out of hand because it is assumed boxing/muay thai is all you need/want.

Just like takedowns are *the* domain of wrestling and the ground is *the* domain of bjj. Despite the things a style like judo has to offer both domains, people do not consider or pursue it because the assumption is that what they're already doing is 'enough' for everyone. That's dogma because it's saying "this is all that works" and these set techniques from this particular puzzle fits everybody the same way. Not true, not self-expression, and definitely what the Tao warns against whether its a to be taken at face value or with a grain of salt.
7/11/11 5:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cprevost
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/03
Posts: 620
What the hell is self expression? And, how is it more available in Savate than in Boxing? And, the idea of completeness across ranges is a very vague idea. What exactly does that mean?

Your points seem to be:
1. MMA guys can't express themselves fully.
2. They are somehow incomplete across ranges.
3. The 4 piece puzzle is limiting their creativity.

Number 1 and 2 you haven't really defined enough for anyone to make an argument. You did say something earlier about MMA having super limited takedowns (not true) or MMA fighters not learning some fundamentals of boxing like combinations and slip/duck (also not true). I can show you at least 5 gyms right here in Portland that would easily prove both these statements false. As far as number 3 goes your assertions are ridiculous. Adam has proven that point repeatedly. There is plenty of innovation and creativity going on. Our guy in UK has developed a wonderful strategy system based entirely on the shape and structure of the cage. Wonderful evolution! The evolution came from the sport itself. No need to look to Savate because it had no answers for that particular problem. Alive training, critical thinking, solid fundamentals were all that was required.

Here are points I will grant you. Much of what we see in MMA comes from the "4 piece puzzle." The 4 base arts bubbled to the top early on in MMA because that's what worked. If you remember the early days there were way more arts. The ones that had little to offer fell by the wayside. Now there is some inertia in that the base arts are very popular and most MMA guys get some exposure to them. In short we teach what we know. I still assert though that they are the best and most effective arts we know of. And, that if there were more effective things out there they would have bubbled to the top as well.

I can tell you that at my gym we have a lot of other arts besides the base 4 represented. One of our guys has a black belt in Judo. Another in Aikido. We have karate, kendo, kung fu, and i personally have a 3rd dan in TKD (retired). We have lots of other stuff available. We tend to stick to what works though. Frankly we've found the other arts lacking and not very productive for MMA.
7/11/11 6:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Missing Glove Tape
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/12/10
Posts: 5314
What I mean by incompleteness across ranges in terms of those 3 points is variety of techniques at each range(ie: people with more than 3 kick kicking games and/or wrestling ability beyond singles/doubles) that is demonstrated consistently (by fighers) across the board. Hence my point re: Matt Mitrione. In my opinion he is an example of the set recipe that's in place in MMA due to the 4 piece puzzle. A guy like that, or perhaps it's better to say the 'average' fighter, isn't imo, learning to develop their striking to a high level or one that allows them to explore things in terms of their individuality...ie: self-expression. And the analogy I gave towards chasse bas I think is a good example, because there is a technique that comes from an alive art, is inherently functional, and has been used by fighters with vastly different games and body types, yet it not being apart of the boxing/muay thai structures, the average fighter, or a guy like Mitrione is not likely to ever have it shown to him in the gym that he would be able to test it out and bring it to bear in the UFC.

So, the bottom line is that from my viewpoint, it has nothing to do with specific strategies(ie: the cage reference you made), teaching/training within the context of our backgrounds and what's available to us, or even the styles within the 4 piece puzzle are or are not themselves strong, proven and important to a fighter's growth/success in MMA. All I'm saying is that 'teaching what we know' is not all there is even though posts like Big Sifu's would have us believe it is. That in and of itself is dogma that limits self-expression and creativity, because using Silva and Machida as examples, had they(Machida especially) not a) come from unconventional backgrounds or b) looked outside the 4 piece puzzle, would anyone today *honestly* be thinking the kicks they used were effective/adequate for the cage? I have a hard time believing that myself, but perhaps you would disagree. And that's fine because I'm merely verbalizing thoughts I've had and have appreciated everyone's input because I respect where you're all coming from.
7/11/11 6:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cprevost
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/28/03
Posts: 622
Agree to disagree... See on another post that you are thinking about Portland. Feel free to drop by the gym if you hit town. Good place to train and may give you a different perspective on the issue.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.