You take each drill you train with a resisting opponent, link them all together, do them solo as if you did have an opponent in front of you, and you’ll have a form.
That’s what forms are. They link techniques together into a sequence. Form teach transitions from technique to technique and footwork to footwork.
You train your forms and then you should also taking one technique out of a form and work on them with a resisting opponent in your workout. After making that technique work, you choose another technique out of your form and work on them against a resistant classmate to make them work. After achieving a few techniques that work against someone resisting, then you spar with what you can make work.
Forms is just a training tool and only part of a training. Complete training is involves forms, partner drills to make those techniques come to life, bag/focus mitt work and sparring. The feel of someone resisting your techniques and hitting the bag with the techniques of your forms, make your forms more alive rather than a dance.
Originally posted by Knifefighter
Empty-handed fighting has never been effectively practiced in war. Any army that has ever tried this was quickly decimated by it’s opposition that was using weapons.
Are you implying that soldiers don’t train in unarmed combat? Even with todays modern weaponry, soldiers train in unarmed combat.
–>mantis is the ORIGINAL mma<–
“No-Holds-Barred matches DID NOT start in the 20th Century.”
Great point. Many martial arts styles, and yes forms, were creted by old school nhb fighters. For example the Japanese swordsman Musashi, the founder of aikido Ueshiba, and of course the legends credited to Wang Lang.
For my 2 cents… I was cross training with some mma people a few years back. One of them gave me his instructors video set, it happened to be the “seal team” series on panther, by Frank Cucci. Now besided the silliness of him teaching while wearing combat boots and camo pants, this series is nice. He teaches a few punches and kicks, and makes it easy to understand and remember.
How does this apply to mantis? Like what was said before, you can take anything in our encyclopedia (forms) and drill them do deadly proficiency. In fact, I don’t think there was anything necessarily “new” I learned from these tapes, or training with the mma guys, guys a different view on the same stuff.
Tonight I just visited a mma school. They taught the typical mix: muay Thai, JKD, bjj. You know what? Absolutely everything I saw in a one hour workout I recognized from the panther tapes. I have no doubt I could have endured their wourkout, and even held my own in sparring.
So in closing let me say this. Meet as many martial artists as you can, work out with each other, and learn. Do it so you can be flexable to different fighters, but don’t stray too far from your foundation. Else you risk becoming the jack of all trades, master of none, right?
Originally posted by Merryprankster
[B]
No offense, but have you SEEN the guy he knocked out? 
Manny Yarborough is a 600 lbs bag of fat, vice the far more athletic real sumo wrestlers in Japan. Well, discounting Musashimaru and Akebono (who both recently retired). [/B]
prankster you must be one who favors groundfighting. It seems every time someone talks about being deadly at striking or even dominant with it you either,
A) Discredit them and berate them for lack of training
B) Try to make light of the situation as above…like it is somehow inferior to all the fights you seem to have been through
or
C) all of the above
I have respect for grounfighting and it definitely has its place…among all the other aspects of combat fighting…that is what you train for right? combat? Or is it just simply for a competition with rules? That is very different from a street fight. Where your main objective is saving your a$$.
Uh-oh, thats going to open a can of worms.:eek:
Actually TWH, I train for fun. I’m probably one of the few people on this board that will admit that. Oh sure, I’ve got some self-defense skills thrown in with that, but it’s a by-product of my training. If I liked rock climbing, I’d do that instead. As it stands, I like combat sports. shrug
I wasn’t suggesting that striking can’t be dominant. If you really read that into what I was saying I don’t know what to tell you.
What I was suggesting is that a nearly immobile 600 lbs fatass who gets tired lugging his enormous body 5 feet isn’t much of an opponent. Keith Hackney, on the other hand, did quite well for an air conditioner repairman, and later got to punch Joe Son in the forbidden speed bag.
Truth be told, we’ve had very few world class strikers compete in MMA. There is better money elsewhere. On the other hand, wrestling is so ****ed boring to watch if you don’t know what’s going on, that it won’t pay the bills. So there have been quite a few world-class grappler types in MMA.
Oddly enough, the world-class guys are… world class… and have proven it with big wins over quality opponents, vice a guy who eats too many cheeseburgers at a sitting.
So, ya done assuming a bunch of stuff or do we have to go round with this? Here’s my stance:
- You have to know grappling and striking.
- One isn’t better than the other.
- Full contact sparring is vital.
- Multiple opponents is the dumbest excuse for not learning grappling ever–if you can’t get up right you’re going to get stomped. Why train to get up against a guy who doesn’t know how to hold you down?
- Eyegouges, biting and other fouls are not the answer and will get you mauled if that’s your defense.
There.
But feel free to continue telling me what I think.
Originally posted by Knifefighter
Soldiers spend some time training in unarmed combat. Unarmed training is and always has been somewhat of an aferthought.
Unarmed combat, an afterthought? Is this true for the history of the Chinese soldiers, before the invention of the gun? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
The reason is that armed combat is, and always has been, a much deadlier way to fight a war.
This is true. Two guys going at it with pipes, or broken bottles is going to be deadlier than if they went at it with the hands. No revelation here.
The number of soldiers who have actually used unarmed combat against an opposing army is miniscule. The number of those who have done it and survived is even more miniscule.
…Which is just saying your chances of winning in a combat situation are BETTER if you have a weapon, and your opponent does not. I have to agree with you here, also.
“Many styles of Kung-Fu have passed the test of effectiveness on the battlefield of WAR and the numerous No-Holds-Barred tournaments that were frequent in the old days of China.”. This includes the many different WEAPONS of Kung-Fu.
If thats the case prankster then I do apologize for jumping to conclusions. I would tend to agree with all of your points except the very last…about the eye gouging and such. Can you elaborate on that point? I’m not sure if I understand. Do you mean that when competing in a NHB type of competition, or on the street? I’ve never competed as of yet in a NHB competition but I’ve had many streetfights. Now I’ve never actually eye gouged someone..but I have hit someone in the throat…and that was all it took. No foulness
Eye gouging, biting, throat shots, groin rips and that sort of thing are adjuncts to, not replacements for, appropriate grappling knowledge. Relying on them is low percentage. On somebody with an ounce of savvy, the best you’ll do is create some space. On the other hand, you may just **** them off.
Kind of like your throat shot–it worked–but I think you’ll agree that it’s no substitute for knowing everything else in your system. Same here–an eyegouge doesn’t replace appropriate movements and escapes when somebody is mounted on you, blasting your face into hamburger.
I would tend to agree. However I try to have the mindset where no technique is superior among all others and all have counters…and counters to those counters and so forth. I believe for streetfighting applications the throat shots, eye gouging and etc def. have their applications…and equally so does having the adequate groundfighting skill. I truly believe in striving for excellence in all ranges of combat…a balanced fighter.
Also in my experience being a bouncer, most of the fights end very quickly and I personally have yet to be taken to the ground. Also keep in mind that in the street you probably won’t square up like in a NHB competition both skilled fighters ready to pound each other into oblivion. There are several other factors to consider…environment, element of surprise etc. So far I have always had the first strike…which pretty much ends it for the attacker right then and there. Basically if I have felt threatened I won’t even think twice but instead just reacted by blasting the attackers face or a takedown or both so far. But I definitely don’t rely on that during sparring and always like to roll around on the ground…because I believe it is very important.
So far I have always had the first strike…which pretty much ends it for the attacker
Since they hadn’t attacked you yet. And you attacked them first. Wouldn’t that make you the attacker? 
Hmm, I suppose one could look at it that way if you want to look at it from a philosophical perspective. If someone swings their arm around at me trying to hit me, only I beat them to the punch…does that make their punch really a punch?
Lets not get into semantics, if you knew the kind of place I work at, where thugs, rednecks and bikers frequent then you would understand the need for my mentality when at work. If you take even a split second to think about if the guy you are trying to escort out is going to hit you who suddenly changes his movement from soft and away from you to direct and agressive, then you will probably land face first on the ground while his buddies try to jump in too.
I had to learn the hardway…2 years ago when I first started working there..I tried to jump in the middle of a fight and break it up…I got a beer bottle right across my brow just about 2 inches above the eye. I’ve got a nice little scar to remind me of that now.
Sorry, I was just assuming by that comment, that you would strike someone, before a problem escalated or something, and I was just thinking how that would be viewed in the eyes of the court. (since they tend to be hard on martial artists as it is)
By attacker you meant someone has tried to hit you, only didn’t. When I thought you were saying an attacker, as an opponent, or an aggressor.Just a misinterpretation on my behalf.
No problem…and speaking of the courts. I had to go and testify for my boss this past winter for this very same situation. He decked this guy with a 1-2 punch because he came at him agressively and lifted his arm…after he was told to leave the premises 3 times. Now my boss is 50 some odd years old and the guy he hit was in his 20’s. The guy tried to press charges…so I went and testified for my boss and the judge pretty much laughed in the younger guys face.
That’s funny.
As in regards to courts, I think it’s different when you fight because of an occupation like a bouncer or bodyguard or some kind of defense service.
But fighting when it has nothing to do with your job, then the courts seem to get hard on martial artists.
Can’t even take a vacation!
K guys,…Mantis is the topic here remember? 
BTL
Welcome back!!!
Hope you had a great trip Beitanglang. “The sheriff’s back in town”.
V/r
Steve M.