You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you’re probably wanted for murder.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140273]Is there anything more awesome than Anchorman references?
I think not !!
Why?
Cause I killed a man with a trident ![/QUOTE]
****, wenshu beat me to it!
[QUOTE=wenshu;1140275]You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you’re probably wanted for murder.[/QUOTE]
I love lamp.
Oh I’m sorry Sanjuru. I think I ate your chocolate squirrel.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140278]I love lamp.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, back when Steve Carell was actually funny.
[QUOTE=wenshu;1140282][/QUOTE]
Are you trying to say that there is a party in your pants and I am invited?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140244]I think you are SELECTIVELY reading what you want t because he also said:[/QUOTE]
I quoted you exactly what Sifu Mike Patterson wrote. His words not mine.
What you have quoted from him refers more to cross testing than to cross training aspects such as ground fighting that already exist in his core style (and that of other TCMA stylists during his time in Taiwan).
ONE MORE TIME:
And again! :
It is all there in black and white. “ALL OLD STYLES ARE COMPLETE”! “THEY NEED NO OUTSIDE HELP”!
"ALL BICKERING COMES FROM…MISSING INFORMATION (which is what I have been saying in one way or the other, for years, and have been seen as “insulting” people, just because of that!
“MISSING INFORMATION”, merely means that people have not been exposed to the real deal training, depite training in “TCMAs” for decades.
In my humble opinion, people should put aside their egos and try and dig deeper into the TCMAs, as there are always “new” material to explore.
So, if you like what he has to say, how is it that you don’t like mma or the idea of Kung Fu in that schema? that’s exactly what mma is about and Kung Fu is not about that.
Have you in your kung fu experience been in a nhb contest? Do you know anyone who has?
What you have quoted from him refers more to cross testing than to cross training aspects such as ground fighting that already exist in his core style (and that of other TCMA stylists during his time in Taiwan).
This isn’t a chicken or the egg argument.
The reason his system is, in his view, complete is BECAUSE it was cross-tested and cross-trained with other systems and the gaps were filled in.
Of course the degree of completeness depends on the format of the competition.
Another student of his system, Tim Cartmel, realized that MORE specialization in ground grappling was needed for students to compete in MMA and grappling tournaments and, taking a lesson from his parent systems ( the same as Shifu Pattersons) he brought in people from BJJ and add the specialised grappling art to his curriculm.
Just as Shify Patterson’s teachers has done before them.
It is all there in black and white. “ALL OLD STYLES ARE COMPLETE”! “THEY NEED NO OUTSIDE HELP”!
On this I will disagree with Shifu Patterson.
Having seen his students ( from his videos) and having seen what it takes to be competitive in current MMA, it seems to me that they NEED to get some “outside help”.
In the area of Ground grappling.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140294]On this I will disagree with Shifu Patterson.
Having seen his students ( from his videos) and having seen what it takes to be competitive in current MMA, it seems to me that they NEED to get some “outside help”.
In the area of Ground grappling.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree as well. i don’t believe old arts are complete fighting systems at all, but then, I don’t believe grappling + striking = complete.
Just robust.
No martial art is “complete” without weapons. And when I say weapons, I mean WEAPONS!
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1140309]Yes, I agree as well. i don’t believe old arts are complete fighting systems at all, but then, I don’t believe grappling + striking = complete.
Just robust.[/QUOTE]
Agree with the above, but would add to that ‘principles.’ You can know the “how” (ie techniques) but if you don’t the why (ie principles) then it will be a lot harder to be successful when faced with a situation.
As we know, all those guys and their systems going into the UFC ( and even before that in Vale Tudo matches around the world) THOUGHT they were “complete” and they had a “ground game” and that they could fight “on the ground” and the vast majority were all wrong ( the only exceptions were guys that actually trained the ground grappling like judo and wrestling).
It’s not about how complete we THINK our system is, it is about how complete it is PROVEN to be.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140294]On this I will disagree with Shifu Patterson.
Having seen his students ( from his videos) and having seen what it takes to be competitive in current MMA, it seems to me that they NEED to get some “outside help”.
In the area of Ground grappling.[/QUOTE]
All due respect.. your ascertainment is made from a flawed perspective in two ways;
-
You cannot compare amateur students to professional fighters (assuming that’s what you meant) in any venue, even the same one, other than in terms of tactics and principles learned/utilized within said venue.
-
Kuoshu rule structures have never allowed any sort of continued ground fighting. The closest the rule set came was way back in my day when we were allowed to strike once as a finishing move as the opponent hit the ground.
To have first hand knowledge of what we do on the ground, I guess you’d have to come visit. As I am certainly now too old to compete any more. 
Also, both you and HW108 seem to be ignoring something else I said. So I’ll restate it here: Although we CAN go to the ground and stay, it is not our way. Our way is to punish and get back up. This is something that has been stated by others as well.
Seems to me that there is a bit of confusion (or maybe it’s just me) over the terms “ground grappling” and “ground fighting”. TCMA can do the latter. It is not our way to engage in the former.
A “submission” in current sport framework translates usually to a damaged/broken limb or neck in old style framework.
Our way is to stay mobile and not engage longer than necessary on the ground.
But hey, I’m not here to convince anyone. In person is better.
It going to the ground was an actual choice, no TCMA would do it. But it’s not. Ergo, you have to learn to roll on the ground like a “dog”. That or get your face smashed in… choice is yours.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1140313]
It’s not about how complete we THINK our system is, it is about how complete it is PROVEN to be.[/QUOTE]
That says it all right there.
And then a layer even deeper, how complete is the individual? We all know to what level we have been tested, tested ourselves in life.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1140288]So, if you like what he has to say, how is it that you don’t like mma or the idea of Kung Fu in that schema? that’s exactly what mma is about and Kung Fu is not about that.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure what you trying to say here. Let me just make it clear. MMA is fine for those who like MMA. Tae Kwon Do is fine for those who like Tae Kwon Do. My issue is with people make blanket statements about the TCMAs, while not having had genuine instruction in them for any valid amount of time.
How do I know that they are “lacking” in the TCMA department? I know from statements such as, “TCMAs do not address the ground scenario”; “Forms training is useless or fantasy”; “The Internals don’t exist”; “Internals are the same as Externals”; and a dozen other “lost in the woods” comments from people who claim TCMA EXPERIENCE (together with of course, BJJ, Muay Thai, wrestling, western boxing, etc. etc.)!
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1140288]Have you in your kung fu experience been in a nhb contest? Do you know anyone who has?[/QUOTE]
Do street fights count as NHb? LOL!
[QUOTE=Drake;1140330]It going to the ground was an actual choice, no TCMA would do it. But it’s not. Ergo, you have to learn to roll on the ground like a “dog”. That or get your face smashed in… choice is yours.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree with this.. you have to be willing to go there. Where you get into the most trouble is trying to “stop” this from happening.
Years ago, Dave Cater of IKF when interviewing me, called me on a statement I made about the bridge. I said if the opponent wants to bridge, why should I try to stop him? He stopped the interview and asked me if I meant to say that. When I said yes I did, he asked why would I want to allow an opponent to bridge on me? I said because now he has come out of his “house” and has momentum. This gives me opportunity. Why would I want to stop him and allow him to reset himself?
The same thing can be applied to the willingness to go to the ground. Once there, it is up to stylistic perspectives what you do, don’t do, can and can’t do. All positions are subject to counter. All dominance is subjective until conclusion. This is a simple truth. Nothing is a “be all and end all”. If it were, that’s all any of us would do.
[QUOTE=Ray Pina;1140333]That says it all right there.
And then a layer even deeper, how complete is the individual? We all know to what level we have been tested, tested ourselves in life.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Ray. I agree with you. (who knew right?:)) But I agree more with your amendment. At the end of the day, it is not the style, but the man. Those who train broadly and deeply, those who ingrain their methods into themselves. It is those people who win. The “style” is only a means to an end and not the end unto itself.