Weak Men and Martial Arts
GreenDistantStar
effective. Some claim founders who are/were relatively weak men, light and
'frail' who developed their art as a result of their lack of strength. The
art thus developed ostensibly allowed a weaker man (now skilled in that art)
to defeat a stronger man who is we assume is unskilled in that art. Yet
anyone who has actually trained against resisting opponents will be well
aware of the benefits of strength.
The story of a weak man developing a powerful ma is a recurring theme, but
how realistic is it? Were they *really* those weak men we are led to
believe, and did their art make them strong or just so technically superior
that strength "didn't matter"...which brings us back to the issue of
strength and its relative merits.
It's interesting that wrestling, boxing and muay thai have no history of a
weak man playing any role in their development, but their brother art that
makes up mma does (Bjj).
GDS
Chas
> The story of a weak man developing a powerful ma is a recurring theme, but
> how realistic is it? Were they *really* those weak men we are led to
> believe, and did their art make them strong or just so technically
> superior
> that strength "didn't matter"...which brings us back to the issue of
> strength and its relative merits.
Strength is the first, easiest, attribute to nurture- it helps if you have
size as well.
It would take three generations of crossbreeding to allow me to look like
Arnold Swartznegger, plus a lifetime of work.
So, if you don't have those attributes, and still have to fight, what do you
do?
You train a specialty.
The keyword there is *train*. Which specialty you choose is a matter of
considering other martial attributes.
Most people choose quickness/speed. Some other people choose anatomical
knowledge, some choose iron palm hitting, others practice evasiveness and
hitting from unusual angles to unusual targets.
Some choose specializing in a good take-down and seizing the advantages of
the ground-as-unfamiliar territory to many very large, very strong, men.
Big, strong, and a modicum of training is very hard to beat.
Until you use a weapon.
Chas
Badger_South
<greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>A number of ma's claim that little strength is needed to make them
>effective. Some claim founders who are/were relatively weak men, light and
>'frail' who developed their art as a result of their lack of strength. The
>art thus developed ostensibly allowed a weaker man (now skilled in that art)
>to defeat a stronger man who is we assume is unskilled in that art. Yet
>anyone who has actually trained against resisting opponents will be well
>aware of the benefits of strength.
>
>The story of a weak man developing a powerful ma is a recurring theme, but
>how realistic is it? Were they *really* those weak men we are led to
>believe, and did their art make them strong or just so technically superior
>that strength "didn't matter"
GOOD GAWD, No-o-o-o!
Uh, except you have a Mr Mahoney right here in your ng, LOL. :-D
-B
Inner power...now training with crohn's...that's inner power
Chas
> Uh, except you have a Mr Mahoney right here in your ng, LOL. :-D
True dat.
Uncle Bill is like that. He was a sickly child and, at six, was sent to the
Chinese for healing and instruction. Fitness and conditioning became an
obsession with him.
He lost weight and body mass in the three concentration camps he was in;
starvation, slave labor, exposure and so on. They called him 'Skinny Bill'
right up until I first met him, and he's heavier now than ever before (at
almost 70, and it's muscle mass).
They also called him 'Wild Bill' because his philosophy was; 'Nothing
succeeds like a furious barrage of heavy blows', and he worked on 'furious'
and 'heavy' like you wouldn't believe. He picked fights and has the scars to
show for it- his brothers too; they're fractious to this day.
Overcoming a disparity of some sort can lead to some very interesting
martial styles.
Chas
Dale
news:YqCfd.49$K7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Throws and pressure points? Boxing, wrestling, and muay thai are sports, and
therefore have rules. Boxing has no kicks, no throws, no chin na. Wrestling
has no hitting, no kicking. Muay thai I don' know about.
Real martial arts don't have rules, it's just whatever takes somebody out.
Weak man style usually would be "if yin, yang; if yang, yin" so if your
opponent tries to overpower you, you try to use their own power against
them. Of course, there's a limit, and part of it is just the mystique from
the taoist philosophy that backs up the martial arts that have that weak man
philosohpy. You know, water is the softest material, yet it brings down tall
mountains and all that.
Badger_South
wrote:
I hope Gi doesn't read this, b/c I don't want to offend him...
-B
GreenDistantStar
"Badger_South" <Bad...@South.net> wrote in message
news:sqttn0prr1vqasl7a...@4ax.com...
> GOOD GAWD, No-o-o-o!
>
> Uh, except you have a Mr Mahoney right here in your ng, LOL. :-D
>
> -B
> Inner power...now training with crohn's...that's inner power
I don't think Bill has ever said he's weak (when he's well). Non-athletic,
yes, but not weak.
Does the art make you strong (as Chas has suggested) or has the art given
you the ability to 'not need' strength as much?
GDS
Badger_South
I'm trying to joke around and you want me to answer your question like you
want, hehe.
You know the standard BJJ 'pulling guard can counteract larger or stronger
opponent' rule. That's my take on 'weaker' man.
For Gi, 'weaker constitution' was my thought. Very strong in lifts and high
pain tolerance (discussed before). By constitution, had to take meds that
sap strength in normal ppl. Loss of fluid, (see crohns). He got sick last
month, went to hosp. as you know. He's better now!
-B
Richard Lancashire
> A number of ma's claim that little strength is needed to make them
> effective. Some claim founders who are/were relatively weak men, light and
> 'frail' who developed their art as a result of their lack of strength. The
> art thus developed ostensibly allowed a weaker man (now skilled in that art)
> to defeat a stronger man who is we assume is unskilled in that art. Yet
> anyone who has actually trained against resisting opponents will be well
> aware of the benefits of strength.
I would say that they are also aware of the immense difference
technique makes. Have you ever seen a 140kg white belt give an 80kg
purple belt a serious challenge? Just look at the early UFCs, before
everyone started training in BJJ. The people with the unknown,
uncountered style took out much larger, peak-condition opponents time
after time.
> It's interesting that wrestling, boxing and muay thai have no history of a
> weak man playing any role in their development, but their brother art that
> makes up mma does (Bjj).
The first three are pure sports, right back to the codification of
rules; they were designed as entertainment, and to pit fighters of
similar stature and ability, and they're widely-known. BJJ has a
considerably rawer edge to it; BJJ competitions are still not very
widely-known outside core grappling circuits, and certainly until 10
years ago it was an almost unheard-of manner of fighting.
Incidentally, Daniel (?IIRC) Mendoza was a comparatively small, wiry
boxer who is generally credited with a significant step in the
evolution of boxing - the concept of evasion and mobility - and was
said to beat larger fighters regularly :)
Cheers
Rich
Karim Rashad
> You know, water is the softest material, yet it brings
> down tall mountains and all that.
Bearing this in mind, I moot an M.A. style which utilises urine as the
primary weapon. Drinking certain rare Chinese Mountain Herbs(tm) could
bring corrosive or poisonous properties to the urine. The practitioner
would have to have his, er, 'gun' fully exposed at all times, possibly in
some sort of quick-draw harness.
The deadly (yet traditional) art of Piss Jitsu.
--
Karim Rashad <remove SPAMFREE: krashad at SPAMorbisFREEuk dot com>
Kirk Lawson
You knew I wouldn't be able to resist, right?
> Incidentally, Daniel (?IIRC) Mendoza was a comparatively small, wiry
> boxer who is generally credited with a significant step in the
> evolution of boxing - the concept of evasion and mobility - and was
> said to beat larger fighters regularly :)
>
> Cheers
> Rich
That is correct. He also used a unique guard frequently. Looked
similar to what I've heard is an elevated M.T. guard (fists above
head, forearms guarding face and slightly extended).
He also favored a kind of "elbow up" block that he'd turn into a
backfist.
Peace favor your sword
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:48:03 +0000, Dale wrote:
>> You know, water is the softest material, yet it brings
>> down tall mountains and all that.
>
>Bearing this in mind, I moot an M.A. style which utilises urine as the
>primary weapon. Drinking certain rare Chinese Mountain Herbs(tm) could
>bring corrosive or poisonous properties to the urine. The practitioner
>would have to have his, er, 'gun' fully exposed at all times, possibly in
>some sort of quick-draw harness.
Not bad. And we can start refering to slamming brewskis as tanking up
on chi.
>The deadly (yet traditional) art of Piss Jitsu.
"Honey, I'm going over to the club to get pissed."
Hal
thomas.galvin
> Throws and pressure points? Boxing, wrestling, and muay thai are sports, and
> therefore have rules. Boxing has no kicks, no throws, no chin na. Wrestling
> has no hitting, no kicking. Muay thai I don' know about.
>
> Real martial arts don't have rules, it's just whatever takes somebody out.
> Weak man style usually would be "if yin, yang; if yang, yin" so if your
> opponent tries to overpower you, you try to use their own power against
> them.
The problem with these "no rules" styles is that it is very, very
difficult to practice them effectivly. Well, unless you've got a lot
of sacrificial green belts waiting around.
This was the debate between the classical jujutsu ryus and Jano's
Judo; they argued that he had removed many of the dangerous, even
lethal techniques from his art, thus watering it down. It came to be
shown, however, that this allowed more effective practice. Removing
these "deadly" techniques, thereore, actually made for a more
dangerous practitioner, because he or she has done under stress what
others have only mimiced on a willing opponent.
There does have to be a balance, however. Boxing will teach you great
punching skills, but, as you said, it will leave you helpless against
a wrestler. Wrestling is good, but what do you do when you get the
guy to the ground? I like Judo, but must admit that BJJ has a much
more extensive ground game, and a more cohesive view of a fight.
thomas.galvin
> effective. Some claim founders who are/were relatively weak men, light and
> 'frail' who developed their art as a result of their lack of strength. The
> art thus developed ostensibly allowed a weaker man (now skilled in that art)
> to defeat a stronger man who is we assume is unskilled in that art. Yet
> anyone who has actually trained against resisting opponents will be well
> aware of the benefits of strength.
One of the things a martial art seeks to do is allow a person to
overcome physical disadvantage through a combination of skill and game
plan, and it is fairly easy to demonstrate that this is possible.
Some styles, however, are much more conducive to this than others.
Competitive fighting styles are almost always broken up into weight
classes. at first, especially whene these were introduced into the
MMA events, I thought it was a crock; aren't the arts supposed to
allow a smaller man to beat the larger? Eventually, though, it dawned
on me: the arts are supposed to allow a small, skilled man to beat a
large, *unskilled* opponent.
This was demonstrated in the early UFCs, when a relativly small
grappler was able to handily defeat much larger, but less skilled,
opponents. Now that grappling is well know, however, you don't see
these things anymore. Skill can overcome a large size disadvantage,
but as skill levels become more equal, bet on strenght.
Tomas Drgon
> effective. Some claim founders who are/were relatively weak men, light and
> 'frail' who developed their art as a result of their lack of strength. The
> art thus developed ostensibly allowed a weaker man (now skilled in that art)
> to defeat a stronger man who is we assume is unskilled in that art. Yet
> anyone who has actually trained against resisting opponents will be well
> aware of the benefits of strength.
Some of it may be natural selection (of the claims). Imagine somebody
claiming that if you study this and that art, you will be able to
overcome weaker and smaller opponents. From the marketing perspective,
this is not a viable claim.
And some of it is due to the fact that as time goes by, the masters in
the stories get smaller and weaker, whereas their opponents get bigger
and stronger. Just like in fishing stories....
>
> The story of a weak man developing a powerful ma is a recurring theme, but
> how realistic is it? Were they *really* those weak men we are led to
> believe, and did their art make them strong or just so technically superior
> that strength "didn't matter"...which brings us back to the issue of
> strength and its relative merits.
>
> It's interesting that wrestling, boxing and muay thai have no history of a
> weak man playing any role in their development, but their brother art that
> makes up mma does (Bjj).
>
Indeed interesting. One of the few effective ways how a weaker man can
defeat a stronger one is to isolate stronger man's weak feature (limb)
and attack it with his own strong feature (thighs/abs). The rules have
taken this possibility away from wrestles, boxers and MT fighters.
interesting thread
Tomas
GreenDistantStar
"Tomas Drgon" <Tomas...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e2f8684.04102...@posting.google.com...
>
> Indeed interesting. One of the few effective ways how a weaker man can
> defeat a stronger one is to isolate stronger man's weak feature (limb)
> and attack it with his own strong feature (thighs/abs).
That's one application of leverage, which is probably at the heart of this
issue. I think.
>The rules have
> taken this possibility away from wrestlers, boxers and MT fighters.
I'm not sure atttacking your opponent's weakness with your strength has ever
been removed by rules in those arts.
OTOH I've never seen a MT fighter attempt a flying arm-bar from a clinch. Is
that against MT rules? Which one/s?
GDS
Tomas Drgon
> "Tomas Drgon" <Tomas...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:e2f8684.04102...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Indeed interesting. One of the few effective ways how a weaker man can
> > defeat a stronger one is to isolate stronger man's weak feature (limb)
> > and attack it with his own strong feature (thighs/abs).
>
> That's one application of leverage, which is probably at the heart of this
> issue. I think.
>
> >The rules have
> > taken this possibility away from wrestlers, boxers and MT fighters.
>
> I'm not sure atttacking your opponent's weakness with your strength has ever
> been removed by rules in those arts.
>
My boxing is VERY basic, so I invite your flames. But I assume if I
fought a bigger man with better reach and more power than me, I would
have 2 options:
1. move in_get my combo in_move out,
2. move in and stay in
#1 is difficult due to his reach&power, #2 will lead to clinch and
breakup (=rules).
When I work with wrestlers, they do not have hard time to take me
down. But they leave their arms/legs/neck sticking out since they do
not train submissions (= rules).
Thinking abt MT, most MT fighters 10 years ago were small, weren't
they?
> OTOH I've never seen a MT fighter attempt a flying arm-bar from a clinch. Is
> that against MT rules? Which one/s?
>
Dunno, can you grapple in MT? I don't think you can (=rules).
Tomas
Dale
news:6e5da97b.04102...@posting.google.com...
> "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<TTEfd.11836$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Throws and pressure points? Boxing, wrestling, and muay thai are sports,
and
> > therefore have rules. Boxing has no kicks, no throws, no chin na.
Wrestling
> > has no hitting, no kicking. Muay thai I don' know about.
> >
> > Real martial arts don't have rules, it's just whatever takes somebody
out.
> > Weak man style usually would be "if yin, yang; if yang, yin" so if your
> > opponent tries to overpower you, you try to use their own power against
> > them.
>
> The problem with these "no rules" styles is that it is very, very
> difficult to practice them effectivly. Well, unless you've got a lot
> of sacrificial green belts waiting around.
That's the way it works at our school, we have enough students in the ranks
that are tough enough to take it and in the ranks that are skilled enough to
do it without killing or maiming, so they can pull each other along. I say
"they" because I'm still a lowly orange belt, we just do striking, throwing,
and chin na. One of the students is a security guard who recently dispatched
someone to the hospital using orange belt techniques, so I guess what we're
learning is effective, it's just hard to tell when you're only ever sparring
full out with other orange belts and above, and you have to go soft on the
lower ranks.
> This was the debate between the classical jujutsu ryus and Jano's
> Judo; they argued that he had removed many of the dangerous, even
> lethal techniques from his art, thus watering it down. It came to be
> shown, however, that this allowed more effective practice. Removing
> these "deadly" techniques, thereore, actually made for a more
> dangerous practitioner, because he or she has done under stress what
> others have only mimiced on a willing opponent.
That reminds me of another aspect of "weak man" ma, sensitivity to your
opponent. For all I know, this could also be important to other techniques,
but I know for sure it's taught in Taijiquan, and probably in jujustu and
judo. It's amazing what you can do when you really focus on your opponent,
not something that comes naturally to me. It's something along the line of
"wait for you opponent to act, then act before he does," another one of
those taoist paradoxes.
> There does have to be a balance, however. Boxing will teach you great
> punching skills, but, as you said, it will leave you helpless against
> a wrestler. Wrestling is good, but what do you do when you get the
> guy to the ground? I like Judo, but must admit that BJJ has a much
> more extensive ground game, and a more cohesive view of a fight.
That reminds me of something else, we actually do have school rules when
sparring. Lower ranked students aren't allowed to strike while
groundfighting, but that's mainly so they can practice on techniques which
are unique to ground fighting, instead of just trying to beat each other
into a pulp. By lower ranks here, I mean blue belts. You don't even get to
do ground fighting until that rank, which in our school is the fourth rank.
Yellow and orange can do throws, but then the match is restarted so they
aren't fighting on the ground.
Also, in general there is no striking to the face, though I've taken it in
my face a few times, mainly whilst zigging when I should have been zagging.
So we end up thumping each other in the midsection a lot, then with girls
there are even fewer targets, but we don't have many girls.
Tomas Drgon
> those taoist paradoxes.
This is not a taoist paradox, this is a taoist nonsense.
:))
Tomas