We receive about 150 e-mails a Month here at straightblastgym.com.
Most involve questions on whether or not SBG type training is
available in the author’s particular area of the world.
A few every month always involve questions about our curriculum
here. Because of that we have decided to post answers to the most
frequently asked curriculum and training questions here in a Q&A
format. Some of these questions where written on various bulletin
boards and taken off the Internet. Others came to us in E-mails.
We hope this helps clear up many of the questions some of you
may have about our curriculum. If after reading these responses
you are still confused, try reading the interview with SBG President
Matt Thornton, listed on this site as Q&A with Matt.
If after that you still remain perplexed . . .feel free to e-mail
us at info@straightblastgym.com
We try and specialize in clearing minds of indoctrinated confusion.
----------•----------
E-mail question:
Does this mean you guys don’t teach
Jun Fan JKD anymore, and if not, why not? Also, do you not teach
the Kali drills of JKD Concepts anymore?
Answer:
What we teach at the Straight Blast Gym is individuals. Not "Styles",
Systems, or methods; be they called Jun Fan, or Classical Gung
Fu.
What we teach those individuals to do is fight on their feet,
in the clinch, and on the ground. How we do it is with ALIVENESS.
Remember, all that matters is what YOU can do, and how well YOU
can perform. The rest is just a semantic exercise in mental masturbation.
E-mail Question:
So are you saying that JKD is anybody that
trains "alive" and in all ranges. And if so, what about
interception. Isn't Jeet Kune Do the Art of interception?
Answer:
What about Interception. Bruce Lee was fascinated by Muhammad
Ali’s ability to intercept his opponent's strikes. Was Muhammad
Ali JKD, and if not, why not? You see. . interception is a skill
all great athletes acquire through ALIVE training. Its not a product
owned by any "style" , "System", or man.
E-mail question:
Are you saying JKD is the same as NHB sport
then?
Answer:
I am saying that if what you do works. . it will naturally resemble
NHB sport. If what you are doing doesn’t resemble some aspect
of NHB then it's without a doubt not athletic, and as a consequence,
not functional.
Frequently asked question:
I don’t see what the difference is
between what you teach, and NHB training. What about Self Defense!
Some of us just want to go home to our families and don’t
care about brawling it out in a ring.
Answer, posted online:
This is a question that is becoming so common I thought I would
try and address it as simply as possible.
The idea that there is such a thing that is "self defense"
training is in and of itself yet another in a long line of martial
arts myths.
Let me explain. What works in "sport" is what works
against resisting opponents. Much of what is passed of as to "deadly"
for sport, is simply technique which will not work against resisting
opponents. Obviously there are some foul tactics (such as biting
and eye gouging) which could never be allowed in sport. But, would
you really want to go tit for tat with a Rickson Gracie, or Tom
Erickson by biting or eye gouging?
What is the difference between "self defense" Brazilian
Jiu-Jitsu, and tournament Jiu-Jitsu. . . .not much. An armlock
is an armlock, holding mount is holding mount, etc. There are
some things you need to watch for, but I have always seen Brazilian
Jiu-Jitsu Instructors address these. For example, when Rickson
teaches a seminar he will often teach the simple shoulder lock
from mount position. He will say "for street turn away from
his face while you pop this because he may try and claw your eyes",
but the armlock is essentially the same!
My friend, and Machado black belt Chris Haueter recently completed
a video series with us titled "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Streetfighting"
(featured in our new adverts in IKF and black belt) Do you think
Chris taught a whole "different" version of Jiu-Jitsu?
No, he simply demonstrated areas that need to be addressed for
the street. . .the moves, the positions, the training, the conditioning,
the timing. . .its all the same. He also made a good point, you
could take a very good boxer, and in a manner of minutes teach
him to open his hands, how to strike the eyes, etc, and he would
be very effective. However, if you took someone who knows no boxing,
and has never done any sparring, and teach him or her just "streetfighting
eye boinks" they will still get their ass kicked. They won’t
have the timing, footwork, movement, coordination, etc. The same
could be said of wrestling, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu, and all the
other combat "sports".
What about knives and multiple opponents . . . .what about them?
RUN! I cannot fight two large males who are strong and know even
some of what I know. Neither can Randy Couture, Chris Haueter,
nor (I've asked him) Rickson Gracie. If someone pulls a knife
on me I am doing my best Ben Johnson imitation. I am not going
to carry around a clipit and engage him in a knife dual. Bottom
line is that if you are staying out of bars, away from alcohol,
and "party" people, and living a clean, athletic life.
. .its unlikely that you will ever get in a legit streetfight.
If you are attacked it will be by a predator. . .you will be out
numbered, and or he/they will have a gun and knife. . .and NOTHING,
let me repeat, NOTHING anyone could ever teach you, will even
the odds in that situation. Your best defense in that situation
is awareness, and conditioning. . .to try and find a way out,
and RUN. period.
I know the Kali/ Escrima knife drills taught in the JKD Concepts
world, etc. So does Burton, so do many others. . .but I am skeptical
at best about the application of any of it against someone armed
with a real blade and bad intentions. Same with so called "multiple
opponent training".
Does that mean we never do it. No, all our Instructors have done
a simplified version of it (read tried it against resistance),
and are students go through it as well. . but you know what you
really learn, you learn you dont ever want to try and fight a
blade or several people at once because odds are you'll get a
beating. And that's a good lesson to learn!
So why bother with martial arts at all then?
Because, done (correctly), it can make you a better person, a
happier person, and teach you lessons that will permeate your
entire life. Correctly means athletically. The lessons learned
on the mat and in the ring are true lessons of "Gnosis"
self knowledge. It’s all about self perfection. The real
spiritual side to martial arts exists is the athletic aspects
of it! Joseph Campbell once stated that the only true "peak
spiritual experience" he had ever had was through athletics.
The Straight Blast Gym is in Portland. Between our several locations
in the area we have roughly 600 students. Out of those 600, 40%
are female. Out of those 600 we have a competition team of about
11 active members that compete in Vale Tudo and Jits. That means
589 of them don't, and have no intention of ever competing. They
are here to get in shape, have fun, learn about themselves, who
they are and what they can really do. No illusions, no bullshit,
they learn what they can do, and most importantly, what they can’t
do! Most are middle aged, professional, and go to work everyday.
Many are law enforcement. They use it every day on the street.
What we teach works just as good as anything ever could in the
street. But, in the end the pursuit of "streetfighting"
and "self defense" is a dead end. Think of yourself
as an athlete. Train realistically (yes that means like a "sport")
and the real spiritual part of all this becomes a reality. That’s
the truth!
Question:
So are you saying you don't teach streetfighting
anymore?
Answer, posted online:
I am saying that to train specifically for the intention of "streetfighting",
is a philosophical dead end. Actually I don't believe there is
a better way to prepare someone for a real life altercation then
the way we train here. Thats still not the point. The point is
that the pursuit of "streetfighting" is never an excuse
for not training athletically.
Question:
What about all the people who aren't jocks.
. .who were beat up and are just looking to learn to fight! Who
need the spirituality and self defense skills that are offered
by realistic "streetfighting" training, and traditional
martial arts.
Answer, posted online:
Yes, many people come to martial arts to learn to fight. Many
were picked on, and or beat up as a kid. Many were not "jocks",
and lack a certain level of self esteem.
The answer to that puzzle exists in athletic training and work
against resistance. You can meditate under a waterfall, chant
secret chants, etc. All day long. . .but the scared kid inside
still exists. However, once that person begins training "alive",
against resistance, a wonderful thing happens. .they learn what
they can do, what they cant do, they learn what they are truly
scared of, and what they are not. . .and low and behold, they
begin liking themselves more. Action, is truly the high road to
self esteem, as Bruce Lee so eloquently put it.
I do allot of work with kids that have emotional problems at
the Gym. I have also seen kids that lack confidence and self esteem
helped greatly by wrestling coaches and others who give of their
time.
Contrast that with traditional self defense, and or streetfighting
arts. Put these same scared kids in there. . .they begin wearing
camouflage pants, carrying knives everywhere, thinking "tactically",
etc. Becoming just bigger dorks and obvious targets for a bully
jock. They grow up and turn into the geeks you see at gun and
knife shows. The ones who played dungeons and dragons in high
school, and were constantly picked on. Instead of confronting
those issues through athletics. . .they resort to looking for
the "mysterious", the secret Silat master who can teach
them to beat up the football players. . .as they have always fantasized.
As Krishnamurti said, "Once you reject experience, and begin
looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!"I find it
interesting that on the forums that are mostly populated by people
training athletically. .ie: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, boxing, etc.
when the question of streetfighting comes up, knives, multiple
opponents, etc. . most say without hesitation they would run.
I have posted the same scenario on "traditional" forums,
populated by the kung fu, aikido, shaolin, silat, etc, folks.
. .and you would think you had never run into a bigger bunch of
bad asses, (at least over the internet). . . .of course reality
is that they would be the first to pee their pants and haul ass.
The only difference is that they would feel like cowards when
they did it. Where as a real fighter, ala; a Rickson, or Royler,
or Couture, or even a good wrestler like Stephan Neal, etc, has
nothing really to prove. They know what they can do.
The answer to the abused child, and picked on dork is athletic
training. That’s where you can learn about yourself, and
they discover that they do not need to be ashamed or afraid around
any other man. It’s the high road to self esteem. The pitfall
for them is the world of deadly martial arts, and weekend commandos.
In that world they can live out their fantasies, without ever
confronting themselves. Becoming just another bitter geek filled
with bullshit hippie philosophy.
Question:
I have seen lots of athletes who could
fight like champions and were also bad ass Vale Tudo type fighters.
. .but who remained complete assholes! What about them. I dont
see how athletic training or fighting sports have helped them
much.
Answer, posted online:
It's obvious that athletics is no cure all. The world is filled
with pro athletes that are complete jerks. They’re on the
news all the time. But, that’s not my point. I believe absolutely
that you can have spirituality and a quest to better yourself
without EVER becoming involved in any form of combat athletics.
This is obviously the case. I also believe that you can have athletics,
and combat athletics, without ever having a shred of spirituality,
and self development. Again, looking at the news thats obviously
the case as well.
However, this is where you and I may or may not agree, and this
is my point. I do not believe you CAN have spirituality, and self
development in the realm of Martial Arts without having it be
athletic, alive, and against resistance. If you are seeking that
aspect of it (spiritual) I believe you will NEVER find it if what
you do is not athletic. For anything to have merit it must first
be true, In our world that means it must work. That means it must
work in an alive environment. That means that it’s athletic.
Then, it is possible that you can use combat athletics as a vehicle
for personal growth. Whether or not every combat athlete decides
to board that train is another matter.
I hope I made that point clear enough?
Question:
Why do you say you don't teach Wing Chun
type trapping anymore?
Answer, posted online:
When was the last time you ever saw anything that remotely looked
like a wing chun or "kali" style trap in a NHB competition?
You probably never will either. . . . . .guess what....there is
a good reason for that!
Question posted online:
Sure, complex trapping combos may not work
just like some train them. But, don't you think they help develop
attributes like line familiarization, helping you see all the
possibilities, and "hardwiring" your reflex's?
Answer, posted online:
think about what you are saying. You say "sure, complex
traps may not work but like kali flow drills they teach other
things like line familiarization, the possibilities, etc".
If it doesn’t work what possibilities and lines is it teaching
you?!
It reminds me of the argument people make that say if you throw
out that which doesn’t work...ie: complex trapping, you
are throwing away the "art". Art of what?? If it doesn’t
work, where's the art? People don't say Randy Couture is a great
wrestler but he has thrown away the art part of wrestling, or
Evander is a great boxer, but he's thrown out the art of boxing.
Thats nonsense. The ART is in the performance! Not the repetition
of dead patterns passed on through hearsay by a "sifu".
The last thing I will say on this subject is this, TRY IT OUT.
The best and only true "sifu" on this planet is experience,
so try it. And no, not against a shaved guy in a speedo (where
have you been hanging out?)
But against an aggressive, large, pissed of man. If you can make
it work I will be the first to congratulate you. In fact I will
personally fly you out to the Gym and let you demonstrate that
on an athlete who is at least ten pounds smaller then you and
has less then two months training. I must warn you though. . .we
dont wear speedos here, so I hope that doesn’t mess you
up?
No offense. . .everyone is after different things....hey, that's
why we have Aikido right?
Question:
What do you consider "cutting edge"
as far as JKD is concerned?
Answer, posted online:
The idea of being "cutting edge" is to be as well rounded
as possible. You have to be comfortable on you're feet (boxing),
you have to be comfortable in the clinch (greco/ muay thai), and
you must be comfortable on the ground (wrestling/ braz jits).
Its not that complicated. Who spends all day fighting in the clinch?
...Greco-Roman wrestlers, thats what they do. Who spends all day
learning to land blows on an opponent. .Boxers, that’s what
they do.
For all the guys that still want the exotic, the fancy trapping,
or mysterious arts. . .cool! If everybody had a million dollars,
what would it be worth? Keep practicing you're Jurus!
Question:
Why are you so hard on the idea of lineage.
don't you think it plays an important role is preserving an art?
Answer, posted online:
Lineage, like titles, certificates, and the associated bullshit.
is a disease. It serves only to distract from the true ideal of
pursuing the truth in combat regardless of where it leads you.
I know so many silly "sifus" . They measure their progress
by the size of their notebook. Accumulating yet another trapping
combination, or abstract silat sweep. . .without ever asking themselves
"does any of this stuff work?" Worse yet they never
truly try it themselves. . .never discovering the truth about
their own personal level of performance. Which in the end is all
that matters.
Question:
Why do you say you no longer train the
"vast majority" of Kali and Escrima drills taught in
the JKD/Kali family. Don't you think there are other reasons to
train these types of drills besides just bashing people in stick
sparring?
"Now me for instance, I tend to be
more predisposed to streetfighting and the cultivation of real
world self preservation tactics, tools, etc. I use the weapons
training PRIMARILY as an attribute builder because I think it's
safe to say that when you face the stick or knife under combative
pressure, your ability to handle fighting pressure in the street
is enhanced beyond belief. One Dog Brother Gathering will prove
it to you. I don't have any illusions about running into a stick
and dagger match in the street, and while I know it may be possible,
it's far from probable. Now on the other end of the spectrum,
the technical study of the weapons (since the weaponry of the
Filipino Martial Arts appears to be the topic more than the empty
hand end) can build a lot of combative attributes as well, but
if you train to be technical, you'll be technical. If you train
to be a fighter, you'll be a fighter. And if you train both (as
we all should) you should do it with a purpose, not a system in
mind. Self preservation and self perfection are essential parts
of the same thing. But rather than "JKD mindset" or
"FMA mindset", try looking at it from a fighter's mindset
or a technician's mindset. Again, under pressure, you don't rise
to the level of your expectations, you fall to the level of your
training."
Answer, posted online:
Consider you're assumptions.
There are more "myths" and silly ideas spread in JKD
circles then you could shake a Guru certificate at.
First off the idea of training the drills long associated with
the FMA such as hubud, sombrada etc, primarily for the "empty
hand attributes" makes absolutely no sense when you stop
to think about it. What do you think will develop better attributes
for empty hand fighting...attributes such as timing, footwork,
spatial relationships, flow, rhythm, etc. . . .actually sparring
against an "ALIVE" opponent, and , or doing yet another
meaningless variation on a dead pattern drill such as box pattern.
You don't have to be a genius to figure it out...and yet instructor
after instructor, person after person...we constantly hear the
same rhetoric about "attributes" and self preservation
vs self perfection....etc.
Also you must re think the notion that there is a difference
between being a good "technician" and being a good "fighter".
Have you ever heard a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Instructor say to another
"that black belt is a really good technician...but he just
cant beat the purple belts in sparring."? Being a good technician
in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu means you have a good groundgame in sparring.
Not having a good groundgame in sparring means you are not a good
technician! Fighting of all sorts, and ranges is the same. The
idea that you can be a good technician without being a good fighter
is another in a long line of myths that I hope you all come to
question.
It's never disrespectful to question the answers, but it's cowardly
not to speak the truth for risk of offending the long held JKD
myths.
Question posted online:
Matt, I'm going to have to disagree with
you. If I misunderstood what you have to say, please correct me,
but it seems that you're saying that all these drills are worthless.
I agree that drills are worthless without sparring, but I also
believe that if you have weaknesses in your game, they can be
worked on in isolation using drills. And then you have to be thrown
back in against live opponents again. Boxing and wrestling and
Judo which all focus on competing against live opponents have
plenty of drills.
As far as the BJJ example goes, I've heard
a story about Kimo going into Joe Moreira's studio, wiping the
floor with the blue belts and purple belts there and being awarded
a purple belt on the spot. If this story is true, would you consider
Kimo a good technician because he could wrestle opponents with
less athleticism and strength up to a purple belt level? Or would
you say he was an awesome physical specimen and fighter who had
a lot to learn about technique?
Answer, posted online:
No, I did not say drills where worthless. I said dead pattern
drills (such as sombrada, hubud, numerado, & 99% of the drills
most JKD/FMA people do) are worthless.
They have little to no practical application in a real stickfight.
If you want to see drills that WILL have a positive affect on
you're fighting skill then check out Burtons new tape. If the
difference between alive drills and dead patterns is still a mystery
to you...then you won’t understand what I am saying anyway.
In regards Kimo. He is a good technician. If he was just strength
and power he wouldn’t be able to beat purple belts of his
own weight. We regularly have 200lbs + powerlifters enter the
gym who are easily beaten by 150lb blue belts. If that 200 + powerlifter
beats a 200+ Brazilian Jits trained blue belt...then their is
a problem with that blue belts "technique"! Remember,
at the time he fought Royce he was much bigger and stronger then
Royce was, still Royce won.
Let me make this as simple as possible. YES, you can be a tough
fighter without knowing any technique. . .just due to attributes,
size, strength, conditioning, aggression, etc. HOWEVER, you cannot
be a good "technician" without also being a good fighter.
Otherwise the term "technician becomes absolutely meaningless!
What most people describe as technical proficiency in the FMA
can be described as this "looking good in a demonstration
against a non-resisting cooperative stuntman in front of a crowd
of people who dont know any better"
The fantasy distinction between technician & fighter was
created by people who can’t fight, and or don't want to
make their students do what it takes to fight IE: spar. You can
fight without being a good technician...but you cant be a good
technician without being able to fight! Otherwise what does being
a good technician mean?? Think about it.
BUT, please...above all else. . try it!! Take you're "drills"
into the realm of uncooperative opponents. . . and let that be
you're guide. Not hearsay repeated verbatim from a "guru".
A response to the same post made by Burton Richardson:
Guru Matt,
I would just like to add the point that most of the drills developed
in FMA was because sparring with the weapon was too dangerous.
Now we have very good sparring equipment, so we can spar safely,
or do realistic sparring at full speed and power with the protective
gear. Therefore, the old drills are not really needed, and may
actually hinder the fighter's development. For the record, I did
hubad drills for over twelve years and never ever was able to
use any of it in sparring. I thought it was because I just wasn't
good enough, but then later realized that nobody I knew had ever
pulled any of these types of techniques off. I believe that a
lack of testing over the years is responsible for the art straying
off course.
Drill, spar, adjust the drills, and spar some more. This is why
those weird Straight Blast Gym guys are so good.
Online Question:
Hi Matt,
All of your and Burton's points are well
taken. So for the rest of the post, try to take what I say not
as an insult or a challenge but as questions from someone who's
not that experienced and maybe a little on the stupid side.
I still am unclear on the difference between
an alive drill and a pattern drill. Could you give me an example?
When we do hubud at my school, we do work in random variations
off the pattern. We throw in kicks, dumog, traps to get to the
neck, etc. But I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean about
an alive drill.
Going to an earlier post by Burton in the
thread, would you be talking about progressive resistance? For
example, learning the footwork and body mechanics for a new throw,
then the entrance and actual throw, then practicing it moving
in different though set directions, then practicing it with an
opponent moving in different directions and then, finally, against
a resisting opponent. (Sorry that went on so long.)
I appreciate your taking the time to answer.
The things you and Burton are saying are new to me, and I want
to wrap my mind around this stuff.
Answer, posted online:
Hello balance. . .don't worry about offending me with a challenging
question..etc. I am just a little blunt...so please don't take
that as aggression.
In regards aliveness. . I would ask you take a look at my first
tape titled aliveness. I know that sounds like a plug...but I
really went to great effort in that two hour tape to explain just
that.
Secondly, I would suggest you spend a good month or two just
stickfighting. Don't over think it. . .just do it!
PS: Make sure you use real sticks and allow the ground. Then.
. .go back to you're drills. You sound fairly intelligent, so
I am guessing that you will have reached you're own conclusions
at that point as to just how hollow and empty those drills really
are.
I hope that helps.
Also. . why do you need "hubud" as a shell in order
to add other elements such as "dumog" etc. Why not just
fight for position in the clinch? Why the pattern? Greco Roman
has a drill known as a pummel. . .which would serve you well.
Online Question:
With regard to the drills listed above
as "dead drills" - do you feel that they hold no value
at all for more advanced students? Meaning, what about newer students
(like myself) who are getting familiar with the concepts of rhythm,
timing, sensitivity, footwork with weapons, etc.? Or even newer
students, who may have never picked up a stick or other weapon
before?
Online Answer:
Why would you want to use movements that will not work in actual
sparring to "familiarize" yourself or a new comer with
that weapon? Then when it comes time to actually use the material
discover that you're distance, timing, and rhythm is contrived
from the start?
Doesn’t it make more sense to practice a drill that involves
the same movements you will actually use when you fight. You will
still develop attributes. In fact you will develop much greater
attributes because the motion is "alive" then you ever
will with a demonstration drill.
If you are VERY interested in the subject, I implore you to take
a good look at Burtons new weapons tape, watch, think, do, and
go from there.
To answer you're question. . .NO I do not feel dead drills have
any function for beginners either. In fact they are even more
dangerous for beginners because they may in fact think what they
are doing is real, and thats a bad assumption!
Question via e-mail 1/14/2000:
Matt, I agree with much of what you say.
But I still think you guys are now teaching a 'sport' and not
combat! Combat, "streetfighting" is much different.
What about military style training methods, and people who just
need COMBAT techs?
Answer:
No problem. I appreciate your questioning. . sincerely. I also
completely understand your point. I just don't think its very
valid.
You see, how do you test reality for the street? Do you purpose
streetfighting? Beating up some drunks in a bar? What does that
prove. You say science. Where is the acid test?
I don't follow the logic of "streetfighting". It is
a philosophical dead end. It is impossible to prove, and it is
constantly used as an excuse not to train athletically. That may
not be the case with you. . .but you must understand that 99%
of the people that rail against NHB as being a 'sport' and not
for street, are Aikido, and kung fu geeks that couldn't fight
there way out of a wet tissue paper bag. They are looking for
the 'secret' Chinese master thats to 'humble' to actually spar,
as he has no 'ego'. And will teach them to beat up those naughty
football players that have picked on the poor kid since he was
in grade school. Do you see? Its all a big cliche, a joke!
I believe what we do is the best way to train anyone for a street
altercation. But the idea of streetfighting is still meaningless.
You must test yourself against real athletes to be able to evaluate
performance. And performance is all that matters. Chi Sau aint
going to cut it.
As far as the streetfighting stuff goes. . believe me, I have
heard it all before! The military training methods.etc. I was
in an elite unit of the military. We didn't learn much of anything
for hand to hand. Its not a priority. . .as most encounters are
handled at the end of a 5.56 round. What is taught is a simplified
version of what we do. Simplified due to time constraints. . not
effectiveness." -Matt
Post made by 'Don D' at Mousels forum 1/21/2000:
Interesting. We should all be progressing,
because that's what JKD is all about. Is there anyone out there
who says "no, JKD should not be about progressing."?
Somehow, I doubt it, so it's not a very useful statement to base
a discussion around. What is progress? That may be more relevant.
Does it mean only learning new stuff? If so, does it mean you
shouldn't learn what your teacher does? What his teacher did?
What counts as 'new', since you almost certainly learned it from
someone else? Do you have to reinvent every wheel, with only philosophical
guidance? I don't think that definition of progress will work
for me. How about defining progress as becoming a better fighter?
Do you think Dan Inosanto is a better fighter since he stopped
learning from BL? I o. Hey, he progressed! How about these mysterious
'some people' you refer to? Are they better fighters? Name a name,
I'll give a real opinion and not a veiled allusion. Do you think
BL would have defined his progress as having something to do with
having learned lots more stuff, or at getting better with what
he knew? I doubt if he'd define it either way. He'd measure his
progress by how much better he was as a fighter. Not being a 'vale
tudo' guy, or a 'Jun Fan Gung Fu' guy (didn't he stop using this
term well before he died? why is anyone still using it? hmm...),
or an fma guy, or whatever. That I have learned indirectly from
him, is to break a fight down to timing, distance, and rhythm.Increasing
your control of these makes you a better fighter. That there are
at least a handful of strategies you can use to 'score' an entry
or hit that work pretty well if you understand the circumstances
that are appropriate to each. That simpler is usually better.
Perhaps most of all, that motivation is the most important part
of any intentional success.
What improvement has been made on that
approach to martial arts? And yes, by thinking like that, I'm
doing exactly what Bruce Lee did and "trying to be like him",
whether I go to my BJJ class, my wing chun class, or my (mythical)
jun fan gung fu class. -Don
Answer posted at forum by Matt:
Your post is well placed on one account Don D, and that is the
fact that the only measure of progress is performance, period.
Not accumulation of technique.
This is an obvious truth.
Now the question becomes. . .how do you measure your performance?
How do you measure your performance Don D? You said fighting,
not Vale Tudo? Please explain how you measure that? are you going
to hit the bars and beat up some drunk frat boys? Are you going
to take on that bad ass gas station attendant that couldn't run
a half mile without falling over dead because he smokes two packs
a day? How do you measure performance in the realm of "streetfighting"
which is in and of itself a meaningless concept!
Test yourself against real fighters, athletes. Boxers, wrestlers,
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guys. . .now you can measure your performance!
Where would 99.9% of JKD people be (yes that includes all the
original JKD people) in such a performance based test? I submit
to you that they would be on their back staring up at the sky.
..after being beaten to a bloody pulp by one of then there "sport"
or vale tudo guys.
YES, performance is the only true test. Increased performance
is the only measure of progress. . .AND performance against a
real fighter, an athlete, is what matters.Eye boinks and kicks
to the nuts will not save you if you have no background in boxing,
wrestling, or Brazilian jiu-jitsu. If you dont believe me stop
by the Gym here in Portland and try it. Thats reality!
In regards what JKD is or is not. As Krishnamurti often said.
. "The word is not the thing!" Most 'vale tudo' guys
I know (damn those sport guys again) easily grasp what its all
about. The simple sayings borrowed by Bruce Lee from the likes
of Krishnamurti, Allen Watts, and others, that seem so cryptic
to the "Martial Artists", are easily grasped by fighters.
Because the word is not the thing. To know JKD is to do it. If
you are not a fighter (read test yourself against real fighters,
read 'sport') then you will probably never get it. And thats okay,
because in that case. . you were not meant to. -Matt
Response posted by Don D 1/22/2000:
"actually agree with pretty much everything
said after my post above. Even yours, matt. Performance is the
key, not the name or names of martial arts you've studied. Being
proud of having taken some particular brand of martial art, or
of not having taken it, is a limp game. Yes, there are many people
who can kick my ass. I'm not a professional athlete or fighter,
and don't pretend to be. On the other hand, if Mike Tyson can
kick my ass (he can), does that mean I should consider everything
I know worthless? Put it this way, if you can't beat Shaquille
O'neal or Allen Iverson one on one, does that mean you're playing
basketball wrong? Does being able to kick a drunk frat boy's ass
or the cancer-ridden gas station attendant's ass mean I'm doing
it right? Sort of yes, actually. It just doesn't mean I should
go around thinking I'm the best. The dirty little secret of martial
art training is that you'll never know how good you are (though
you can certainly get an idea of how bad...). The various tournaments
around can give you some idea, but it's not the same as having
somebody pull a knife on you or your wife, or walking past a gang
of hoods staring you down, or a cursing nut on the bus about to
explode. The tournaments are great, but no, they're not the ultimate
measure of your skill. There isn't one. Testing yourself in hard
competition is necessary, but it's still only a test, and not
some knifed of ultimate reality. Since I don't have the time,
inclination, or talent to train in ma as a professional athlete
would, I won't worry about trying to beat the guys who do. I won't
win, and I'll accept that. Measuring yourself against the best,
while enlightening and humbling, is inaccurate: measure yourself
against how good you'd be if you'd put the same amount of time
and effort into something else. Progress is measured by your fighting
ability, not somebody else's. -Don
Answer posted by Matt 1/22/2000:
Don D, you have missed the point completely. What you call the
dirty little secret of martial arts is nonsense. It is not that
complicated to get an accurate picture of where your skill level
stands.
Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible. NO, you
do not have to be a fantastic fulltime athlete to reap the benefits
of alive training.
However, if what you are doing is not done against some form
of resistance (hence sport) then it is just another dead pattern.
It is not alive, and it will be of little help to you against
anyone, athlete or otherwise. You may still chose to do it. But
its not a martial art. It has become a dance or a demonstration.
Does the fact that you cant beat up mike tyson mean your (whatever
it may be) style is no good. Of course not, thats a silly and
meaningless statement. However, if you cannot deal with a boxer
who has had maybe a year or two of training, and is 30 or 40 pounds
lighter then you. ..then yes, your training is probably just more
b.s.
Savvy was 100% correct. The real benefit to all this comes from
the athletic training against resistance. That teaches you about
yourself, your ego, and that is where all the 'spiritual aspects'
of martial arts exist. The idea that you practice 'streetfighting'
is a meaningless concept. It is also a dead end in terms of self
improvement.
If you are still confused Don D, I implore you to take a good
look at our site. Statements such as yours have been asked and
answered a million times over, and we post much of the info there.
In regards a 'challenge' I am not trying to be aggressive or
vindictive. I am just telling you that the illusion of streetfighting
martial arts is getting old. If you are ever in the area I am
willing to let you see for yourself. Experience is the best teacher,
and you may never 'get it' until you have had your ass handed
to you by someone much smaller."
Also keep a few points in mind.
Don D, you stated that NHB was in no way the ultimate reality
of fighting. . . . .no sh*t! Thanks for sharing that amazing observation.
Again, you are stating the obvious.
You agree that performance is the only real measure of progress,
then please tell me how you intend to measure increased performance
if its not through some form of sparring??
Will you do it through a form. . ."my Sil lum tao was much
better today"?. Will you do it with a drill "chi sua",
hubud, whatever? Please tell me how you intend to measure performance
if its not through some form of sparring?
You see, it may involve simulating eye gouges, or having multiple
attackers. . .but it still must be ALIVE! and hence, athletic.
So if you have discovered some fantastic new way to gauge performance
without sparring. . by all means share it, as I would be the first
to claim interest.
I am also tired of hearing how NHB training is for only strong
young athletes. The logic of that is so faulty its amazing. It
assumes that there must be some secret form of deadly martial
arts out there that are better for little weak people to practice.
As they could never make NHB style moves (braz jits/ wrestling/
box) work. Takedowns are takedowns, punching someone in the head
(or opening your hand and boinking there eye) is punching someone
in the head, and an armlock is an armlock. If a 230lb wrestler
who is a professional athlete has a hard time making some esoteric
throw, or hand trap, etc, work. . then how the hell is some 155lb
desk jockey going to pull it off?
Everyone can train NHB style techs safely. Our Brazilian Jits
class here is filled with many women, and older people. Is it
harder for them. . .of course! It always will be. . .but that
doesn't mean they should stop what they are doing and take up
wing chun hand trapping. Then they would not only have a harder
time. . .it would be impossible for them." -Matt
Question via e-mail 1/24/2000:
Matt.. thanks for the insights, appreciated.
Aliveness, movement, etc all well and good, but many would argue
a closed fist would break in a real fight precisely because of
the unpredictablness, hence boxing would not necessarily be the
best striking choice. Same with wrestling and multiple opponents---
I read your advice to run, but if you are walking down a narrow
Jerusalem street and two self-proclaimed 'holy fighters' attack
or one pulls a knife, you can't always run away. No doubt, boxing
and wrestling offer much better real-world conditioning, impact
and otherwise, than martial arts... but the above examples DO
occur in the real world. I like what you have to say, I'm just
trying to fill in the holes, so to speak, compared to hand-to-hand
skills I'm familiar with. Please comment, with respect always,
dave
Answer:
Dave,
Thanks for the e-mail. The answer to your post is simple. Yes,
it is possible to break your hand boxing in the street. The reason
for that is that boxing provides you with the body mechanics that
allow you to hit as hard as humanly possible for your particular
body weight. Its physics, plain and simple. Try opening your hands.
Whether you are palm striking, finger jabbing, or punching. .
.the body mechanics, footwork, timing, and motion remain the same!
As common sense as that may seem people still seem to argue the
point.
In regards fighting multiple opponents. . good luck. There is
no art that will allow you to do that. Does that mean that its
an impossible task? Absolutely not! But, it will take allot of
conditioning, toughness., and attributes. . that can only be developed
through hard sparring, and athletic training.
One and two step practice of "deadly" techs against
a cooperative partner will get you no where.
Hope that answers your question. -Matt
Question:
Matt,
I think I have a pretty clear understanding
of your thoughts on "streetfighting," "self-defense
training," and so forth. But I didn't see any discussion
on what I'll call "scenario based training." By
this, I mean the type of training done by instructors like Peyton
Quinn, Tony Blauer, and others. Their training methods attempt
to mimic the conditions of a street attack. Specifically, the
"attacker" in the training scenario will approach the
student, begin cursing and swearing like a street thug, and generally
"get in the face" of the student. Before the actual
physical attack begins, the student has to make some effort to
diffuse the situation verbally. After the physical attack
begins, often a second assailant will come out of nowhere in an
attempt to surprise the student. The attackers, and maybe
the student, will be dressed in some kind of armor that allows
for full-contact, or near full-contact, striking and grappling.
The instructors list several reasons for using this type of training:
(1) physical street assaults are usually preceded by some words
exchanged between victim and attacker. (2) legally, you are not
allowed to bash a thug's head in unless a physical attack is imminent.
As Paul Vunak says, "You can't jab somebody in the eyes just
for cutting you off on the freeway." Therefore, you
need to get a feel for when a verbal assault turns into a physical
assault. (3) fighters will experience an unfamiliar, potentially
disabling adrenaline rush in a street attack that isn't
replicated by regular sparring. So you need to experience
this in training, prior to ever getting attacked. (4) you won't
have a chance to get into boxing stance, bai jong stance, or traditional
martial arts stances in a street attack. You also
won't have a chance to warm up, stretch, wrap your hands, etc.
Accordingly, students need to practice fighting from natural,
non-fighting stances. (5) it's just more "real."
After watching a tape of some of Peyton's students, I have to
say they look like they can fight. Some of them may not
look too athletic, or very pretty, but they appear to be
kicking the crap out of a very aggressive, resisting opponent.
Some without any prior fighting training.
Just wanted your thoughts on this type
of training, and whether you incorporate any of it into the SBG
curriculum. Thanks, David"
Answer:
Hi David,
The short answer is I think that type of training is great, and
yes, we do some.
The long answer is that I also believe that if you are into this
for the long haul (training for life), then the time spent learning
to actually box, wrestle, and do Braz Jits, is priceless. When
streetfighting only trained people jab the eyes thats great, but
often they drop their hands, telegraph their shots, and lack mobility.
In short it looks like bad boxing. When a trained boxer learns
to jab the eyes, things seem to turn out better. When streetfighting
only trained people roll around on the ground and scratch and
pinch and bite, they often look really poor. They tire quickly
as they are not used to the ground, and cannot control position,
or escape from bottom without the use of "foul tactics".
In short, it looks like bad Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and if matched
against good Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, or wrestling, I am afraid they
might take a beating. However, take a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu purple
belt and teach him to bite, and scratch, and poke, and you have
a completely different animal.
It's also worth noting that there is no end to the level you
can reach when it comes to Jiu-Jitsu, and "alive" training.
So from a self perfection standpoint it provides a vehicle that
can be driven your entire life.
Having said all that I still believe that courses like those
described in your e-mail do have value. Especially for those that
don't want to train for life, but are looking only for a shorter
lesson in "self defense". I do not know Mr Quinn at
all so I cannot speak for his stuff, but as regards Tony Blauer,
I have seen some of his material and most of what I have seen
I like. I think he probably has much to offer."
Take care. -Matt Thornton
Question:
Matt,
I wondered what you would say to someone
such as myself who has never felt the need for refined fighting
skill, but has nonetheless come to completely buy in to the SBG
philosophy. I guess I'm just trying to make sense of my
motivation. The physical conditioning the training offers
is reason enough, but lets face it. It's a fighting class.
I consider myself a non violent person who is secure enough in
his person to never feel anger or hatred toward another human.
I do believe these two emotions are weaknesses. Of course
there are always irrational and purely malicous people out there
that you're bound to cross paths with at times during your life.
But that aside, how do you separate the negative stigma attatched
to the word "fighting" from the positive value of SBG?
Thanks, Pete
Answer:
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the e-mail. Thats a great question.
I make the distinction by drawing a seperation between
'streetfighting' or self defense & assualt situations, and
what I refer to as honorable combat. Honorable combat could
be wrestling, boxing, jiu-jitsu, anything that involves
a real opponent who is giving real resistance. In honorable
combat both parties have agreed to participate and agreed to the
rules. In an assault their is no agreement and no rules.
Assualts are meaningless and worthless. You do what you need to
do and go home. Honorable combat is a world and a half away from
that. I beleive working within the realm of honorable combat is
what forces people (especially men) to confront their own
egos. The pettiness and insecurity seems to have little
or no place to hide. This is especially true with combat
athletics. Probably because the very nature of the sport leaves
no room for excuses. (team sports leave plenty of room for excuses,
one on one combat is pretty straightforward.) Now, you could apply
that methodology to anything by constantly forcing yourself out
of comfort zones. This does not have to be just 'fighting'. Its
just that for whatever reason I believe that fighting is
a very effective tool for this. The most effective tool
I have ever seen. However, in the right hands/ minds I believe
art in the form of music, painting, sculpture, etc may also
be valuable in this way. I find a clear similarity between the
violence of an opponent and a work of creativity left undone.
As far as anger and hatred being a weakness, I am not sure I
would aurgue that point with you. Instead I would ask you to think
more on it. Is it a weakness if a Mother of a child she has just
discovered was victimized shows anger at the molester? Is it weakness
if father who had his entire family wiped out in Rwanda shows
anger at the radio announcers who inspired and lead the genocide?
Is there such a thing as rightous anger? I am not being clever,
I don't claim to know the answer, just the question. As far as
hatred. . .I think its more important to acknowledge it, then
ask why do you feel it, when did you begin feeling it, where did
you learn it from, where does it come from? Acknowledge it, open
the box and look inside. Aha, now we can address it and eventually
ask the all important, how can we leave it behind? I think its
dangerous to simply label it weakness and ignore it. If you hate
you hate, ask why, and move on. This ability to look into oneself
is what its all about, and I believe its the absolute hardest
thing for most humans to do.
Things labeled as weakness, or 'bad' dont always go away, they
often just become repressed. Things repressed often lead to perversion
and hypocrisy.
I hope that helps clarify my thoughts on this matter. But, that
was a good question.
Take care. -Matt Thornton
Question:
Do you think you can use gi techniques
for the street?? I know you have to include the punches,
kicks, head buts, and elbows when training for the street
at least I do anyway. I think using gi techniques are useful because
in a street fight there is usually something to grab on to . What’s
your opinion on that??
Thanks, Carl
Answer:
Hi Carl, yes I do, and in some ways I think GI is sometimes more
functional in the street. Especially in the wintertime. I believe
that a blood choke is the most effective, gentle, and humane way
to end a fight. So yes, I think GI BJJ is great, and do plenty
of it myself.
take care. -Matt Thornton
Question:
Matt,
Hey, I have a question about JKD. In some
of your forums, you've commented on JKD. What do you think of
Paul Vunak's curriculum? I trained his curriculum for a while,
and I am now accentuating it with some BJJ. I love the BJJ and
I am doing this for self-preservation, not NHB. Do you see any
shortcoming with PFSJKD? If so - I do have the option to train
in Muay Thai or boxing, but I would be spreading myself thin.
I am 30 years old and am in grad school so I am limited to 2x/week.
If you recommend either boxing or mt-how long should I expect
to do them? Again I expect to defend myself against the common
nut and (hopefully) will never meet a Dan Henderson or Rico Chiapparelli
on the street. I am currently maintaining (and love) Paul's curriculum
+ BJJ. Your thoughts?
P.S. thanks again for your past advice.
-Mark
Answer:
Mark,
Sounds like you are having a good time and that's all that matters.
I think Paul's RAT curriculum is great. However, if you ever want
to actually learn how to fight well on your feet you are going
to have to get in with someone who is trying to knock you out,
and spar. Nobody, not Paul, or me, or anyone else, can do that
for you. There is no other way. Until you do that, you will never
truly know in your heart what you are, and are not capable off,
and in terms of "self preservation" that's vital information.
Once you have done that awhile you can back off and train lighter.
However, until you do that, you are to a degree, fooling yourself.
As you do not yet, "know". Nosce Te Ipsum.
Who you train with, who they are certified by, etc. . .does not
matter. What does matter is the level of intensity, contact, and
athleticism that you become accustomed to operating under during
training, and pressure. -Matt Thornton
Question:
Hi Matt:
I have just finished watching your second
video series. Excellent videos. I could go on all day complementing
them, but I am really writing to ask a quick question. Unfortunately
the MA school I attend does not always use aliveness (which you
define so well in your videos and web site) as it's guiding principal.
People will often defend training methods where aliveness is not
a factor. During a discussion about training methods someone said
to me "What about boxers hitting the heavy bag, and speed
bag there is no aliveness there, so hitting the bags is a waist
of time hu. Hitting the speed bag doesn't look anything
like fighting so that must be a waists of time too hu.."
I replied that the heavy bag was good for things like body mechanics,
and could be a great work out in itself. The only response
was "well if there's no aliveness how can it be any good,
hu..." Anyway just wondering if you had ever fielded a comment
like this? Perhaps the answer is that people will always find
some semantic nonsense to prove their point no matter how clear
the truth seems to be, and that this kind of talk is better preparation
for a debate than for the ring.
Thanks. -Kevin
Answer:
Hi Kevin,
You are correct. People will defend their beliefs because they
are feeling defensive, because what I said is true. Sadly, those
people are usually beyond help anyway. Their reasons and motives
for training do not revolve around performance, the way an athletes
motives will; Therefore it's a different, and in many ways dysfunctional
paradigm they are trapped in. Accumulation, certification, and
false pride. In regards a heavy bag, you can make heavy bag training
more "alive". . . . by moving around, and not using
repeated patterns like a robot. However, there are many things
we may do that improve are bodies that are not "Alive".
Its just that ALL of those things fall under the category of CONDITIONING.
Lifting weights is not Alive, but it will have a direct impact
on your body. Where Aliveness comes in is when you include a partner.
BJJ is a great example. You could roll around with a stuffed dummy
on the mat, and practice knee ride, punches, etc. This would be
very similar to a boxer hitting the heavy bag. However, if you
never, or rarely wrestle "Live" against a fully resisting
opponent, you will always and forever suck. You would never be
able to compete or reach the performance level of even a beginner
blue belt. You must have aliveness, it’s as simple as that,
that’s where timing and ability in BJJ come from. As it
is in BJJ it is in stand up and clinch. Focus mitts don't teach
you to box, boxing does, etc. Hope that’s clear? Take care
and tell me how it goes. -Matt Thornton
Copyright © SBGi. All rights reserved. |