TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:Older-folks? /headshake

You do realize that Jui-Jitsu is an older form of martial arts that has been superseded by Kodokan Judo and the like?

I use to forms of martial arts; Smith AND Wesson.

Keith B wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Older-folks? /headshake

You do realize that Jui-Jitsu is an older form of martial arts that has been superseded by Kodokan Judo and the like?

I use to forms of martial arts; Smith AND Wesson.

Smith and Wesson is only an art when they come in Pastels.

Purplehood wrote:Older-folks? /headshake

You do realize that Jui-Jitsu is an older form of martial arts that has been superseded by Kodokan Judo and the like?

Since the term jujutsu is from the 17th century ... maybe I should say ancient folks

Actually I love BJJ... and properly said it's good for "all ages"

Purplehood,

"or you simply don't give a rats-patootie about other aspects of physical and character building, than yeah, go take those cool courses with neat names."

No, I'm not interested in the accompanying eastern philosophy or their methods of character building as adjuncts to martial arts training. Nor do I believe them necessary.

Can you imagine an American teaching shooting in China to the locals (yeah, I know that's highly improbable, but stretch your imagination for a moment) and how well received he'd be if he also went beyond the required training of his students and insisted Western cultural and philosophical training are mandatory accompanying systems without which basic firearms training would be incomplete? Further asserting shooting couldn't be taught without such as its absolutely necessary for physical and character building?

I think Americans are importuned by other cultures to the point we feel awkward or even guilty simply being American. We must always be accepting or we're ugly Americans.

Other cultures aren't particularly welcoming or accepting of foreign ideas of cultural or their particular way of doing things no matter the subject.

I think Americans can learn whatever they care too without having to feel their approach is inferior or somehow lacking.

That doesn't mere were Xenophobes either, just not willing to have to accept other cultures without the option of saying "No Thanks"!

I just want to learn to defend myself I dont need any of THIS for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWEfN6R6mxA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If people want to go that way and find your "Zen Warrior" feel free but its just not for me.
You can build character without the other stuff, you can build physical fitness without the other stuff. You (purplehood) were in the Marines, when they taught you to fight did they start mixing in eastern religion into it?

The example with shooting is dead on btw

marksiwel wrote:

I just want to learn to defend myself I dont need any of THIS for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWEfN6R6mxA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If people want to go that way and find your "Zen Warrior" feel free but its just not for me.
You can build character without the other stuff, you can build physical fitness without the other stuff. You (purplehood) were in the Marines, when they taught you to fight did they start mixing in eastern religion into it?

The example with shooting is dead on btw

Hey folks, I CHOSE to learn the "other stuff". It was imposed on me at a young age. When I hit about 13, my Dad gave all 4 boys the option to quit or continue. Myself (oldest) and the number three brother opted to continue. It helped build character and discipline that I felt that I lacked, and came to good use in the Marines and the Army.

BTW, how is Martial Art training defined as Eastern Religion?

Abraham wrote:Purplehood,

"or you simply don't give a rats-patootie about other aspects of physical and character building, than yeah, go take those cool courses with neat names."

No, I'm not interested in the accompanying eastern philosophy or their methods of character building as adjuncts to martial arts training. Nor do I believe them necessary.

Can you imagine an American teaching shooting in China to the locals (yeah, I know that's highly improbable, but stretch your imagination for a moment) and how well received he'd be if he also went beyond the required training of his students and insisted Western cultural and philosophical training are mandatory accompanying systems without which basic firearms training would be incomplete? Further asserting shooting couldn't be taught without such as its absolutely necessary for physical and character building?

I think Americans are importuned by other cultures to the point we feel awkward or even guilty simply being American. We must always be accepting or we're ugly Americans.

Other cultures aren't particularly welcoming or accepting of foreign ideas of cultural or their particular way of doing things no matter the subject.

I think Americans can learn whatever they care too without having to feel their approach is inferior or somehow lacking.

That doesn't mere were Xenophobes either, just not willing to have to accept other cultures without the option of saying "No Thanks"!

As someone who studied taekwondo and several forms of karate over the years all I can say is:

Abraham, marksiwel: if there is a Haganah place near you, I would second giving that a try, especially if the first lesson is free. Be careful with any upfront financial commitment, so that if you find it is not for you, you can get out and minimize any cost of time and money.

Alternatively, consider finding a boxing gym and going as far with it as your health, fitness, schedule, etc will allow at this time. I would not expect any grappling, bowing, foreign flags, etc there.

Skiprr wrote: With the advent of MMA in the 1990s, you started seeing more and more schools doing away with some of the trappings we first saw in the U.S. from Judo and Karate and Taekwondo. Some sort of belt system typically remains, but you're less likely to see the requirement for an official gi or chuan-i, less likely to see the genealogy of the founders of the style on the wall, and less likely to bow before entering the training area.

When information was harder to come by those lineage charts were more important. I think some of the bowing etc.. served as a mental reset to help people remember "we are training/learning". You may not have a required gi in some classes, but the carryover is the class T-shirt & sweats etc.. Most will find many MMA gyms to be less formal as well.

Skiprr wrote: One cautionary note: CHL holders looking for training would, I think, best be served by not focusing on grappling systems like Brazillian Jujitsu. The ground game can be devastating in a one-on-one, unarmed confrontation, but in armed or multiple-attacker scenarios it can be the wrong tactical decision.

I'll agree the we probably don't want to go to the ground voluntarily. I can think of some pros and cons of taking it to the ground with multiples. What we need is control at that range. If we can gain control, then we have options to impose our plan.

But, I'm going to disagree about not focusing on grappling. The reason being is the VCA(s) is close to you to get your stuff or you. In the chaotic nature of assaults we need to have many points of reference (POR) in that range. What do I mean by POR? I mean knowledge of position and attachments. If we find ourselves in a situation starting from a familiar position, one you've worked your way out of, goes a long way to re-gain initiative. The more experience we have gives us more options, and for spontaneity options is what is needed.

yerasimos wrote:Abraham, marksiwel: if there is a Haganah place near you, I would second giving that a try, especially if the first lesson is free. Be careful with any upfront financial commitment, so that if you find it is not for you, you can get out and minimize any cost of time and money.

Alternatively, consider finding a boxing gym and going as far with it as your health, fitness, schedule, etc will allow at this time. I would not expect any grappling, bowing, foreign flags, etc there.

Foreign flags? LOL, there really are some xenophobes here!

Purplehood wrote:

yerasimos wrote:Abraham, marksiwel: if there is a Haganah place near you, I would second giving that a try, especially if the first lesson is free. Be careful with any upfront financial commitment, so that if you find it is not for you, you can get out and minimize any cost of time and money.

Alternatively, consider finding a boxing gym and going as far with it as your health, fitness, schedule, etc will allow at this time. I would not expect any grappling, bowing, foreign flags, etc there.

Foreign flags? LOL, there really are some xenophobes here!

I only point that out because right or wrong, I realize such things could be objectionable to some individuals, not because I may like them or find them objectionable, or whether I am a xenophobe or xenophile.

The good people need to train in some sort of unarmed fighting with some degree of contact, because the bad people/VCAs are definitely doing it. Whatever gets the good people in some quality training, is good.

fm2 wrote:

Skiprr wrote:One cautionary note: CHL holders looking for training would, I think, best be served by not focusing on grappling systems like Brazillian Jujitsu. The ground game can be devastating in a one-on-one, unarmed confrontation, but in armed or multiple-attacker scenarios it can be the wrong tactical decision.

I'll agree the we probably don't want to go to the ground voluntarily. I can think of some pros and cons of taking it to the ground with multiples. What we need is control at that range. If we can gain control, then we have options to impose our plan.

But, I'm going to disagree about not focusing on grappling. The reason being is the VCA(s) is close to you to get your stuff or you. In the chaotic nature of assaults we need to have many points of reference (POR) in that range.

I wholly agree with you. I think we were just using different definitions of "grappling." Since I had mentioned MMA, I was using "grappling" in terms of what most MMA viewers have come to understand: primarily ground techniques a la Brazilian Jujitsu.

(A quick aside to two earlier posts: I believe the first known use of the term jujitsu dates to the mid-16th century, not the 17th; coined by the Takenouchi school. And to purplehood, Kano's judo sorta kinda superseded jujitsu, at least officially, but they both continued to exist. Even well into the 20th century when Mitsuyo Maeda arrived in Brazil in 1914, after the official "consolidation" of the Kodokan, judo was often still referred to as "Kano Jiujitsu." Trivia tidbit: the guy Kano selected to represent his system, and to win the contest in 1886 that saw judo adopted as the official police system, was actually a practitioner of an older jujitsu style; he had only very recently begun studying under Kano. For those who wonder why the terminology makes any difference, consider that it is the anglicized spellings that cause most of the confusion. The character for "jiu" or "ju" basically means soft, or softness. "Jiutsu" or "jutsu" means loosely "skill" or "technique." "Do" means "the way" or "the path." In its first anglicized appearance, Kano's system was called "jiu-do." So you can see how the terms really are joined at the hip...pun intended. My first judo classes were in 1964, but I didn't continue with it after I moved to Southeast Asia.)

That's more or less a segue back to fm2's correct observations. Let's pretend I said "groundfighting" rather than "grappling." IMHO, a focus on wrestling, for example, is not the best unarmed self-defense foundation for someone who carries a handgun. (Mind you, as Paladin mentioned, understanding enough about ground fighting to have a chance to escape the guard and half-guard, and to not put your arms or legs into an easy-break position, is a good thing; but I think stand-up techniques are far more important to the CHL holder.)

The old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer," definitely has real-world applicability. Almost all martial arts systems have some element of what I call "stickiness" or "adhesiveness": the ability to fight by touch, to monitor and control your opponent's movement kinesthetically, without needing to see it. You find this less in systems like Taekwondo, Shotokan, or boxing, and more in wrestling, jujitsu/judo, aikido, silat, wing chun, and in many Chinese styles that include chin-na joint trapping and locking techniques.

As shooters, we almost always hear that distance is our friend, meaning the farther away the better. And while that's mostly true, there comes a distance in your Personal Defense Zones where you're better off going directly into the hole and taking the fight to "grappling" distance on your own terms. Based on statistics from officer-involved shootings, that distance is quite likely to be a reality in an instance of deadly assault.

For folks who haven't trained to react by closing the gap, it can be a very unnatural response. The tendency is to want to create distance between you and your attacker, not close in to eliminate it. But there are some very good reasons to do so, and even in a multiple-attacker scenario it may present your best defensive option.

In an armed encounter--meaning we and the attacker(s) are armed--I can think of only one or two instances where voluntarily going to ground might be a viable choice. There is one occasionally-taught ECQ handgun technique that has the defender dropping immediately to his back, but IMHO too many external conditions have to be precisely correct to make this a practical solution in all but a tiny minority of situations.

When would getting closer be beneficial other than when the BG already has drop on you and your within two yards?

Abraham wrote:Can you imagine an American teaching shooting in China to the locals (yeah, I know that's highly improbable, but stretch your imagination for a moment) and how well received he'd be if he also went beyond the required training of his students and insisted Western cultural and philosophical training are mandatory accompanying systems without which basic firearms training would be incomplete?

Not to agree or disagree about your primary points of enculturation, but your example is almost exactly what happened in Japan shortly before and after the Meiji Restoration of 1868.

The Dutch came in and the Japanese let them train them to build and operate a modernized navy. Two separate and extended French military missions to Japan (two additional occurred later, but had less effect) were given pretty much free reign to train the Japanese army in the image of the French...French uniforms, formations, tactics, even many command orders in French. The French were a big martial-training presence in Japan from about 1866 through about 1880. Some guns and equipment came from the U.S., but most from the French, the British, and the Dutch. The U.S. might have played a larger role, but in the 1860s we were pretty much occupied by a war at home. From 1886 to 1889 two German officers were put in charge of training the highest-ranking Japanese military officers.

But all that's not terribly surprising because, even though an old culture that's been established for 2,000 years, the Japanese have a history of borrowing from other cultures and societies those things they feel can improve their own lot. We haven't had as much time as a country, but everything we started out with was borrowed (save for Native American culture), and I think our ability to keep an open mind and analyze has led directly to our history of innovation.

frazzled wrote:When would getting closer be beneficial other than when the BG already has drop on you and your within two yards?

Sent ya somethin'.

What isn't covered in there are issues regarding multiple attackers. Generally speaking, if there's more than one attacker you want to stack them up in an "I" formation in relation to your position. If you're within a distance from the closest attacker to make closing the gap an option, gaining control of him can be a viable choice.