Grappling

[RBL_M1A2Tanker]

Ranger EvilCouch, I'd agree that Karate is a good style, but I imagine that it depends on the style you're learning (Shotokan, Sho Ren Ryu, Chi Shen Ryu, etc) and how it's taught.

I was learning Chi Shen Ryu (and I admit I'm probably messing the name up), before I moved to the university here. They never participated in tournaments, they prefered to work with techniques that you could actually use while instilling discipline into the students, plus focus on more traditional aspects of the style while drawing in from others, such as Akido. When I got here, I observed the Shotokan group that draws a lot of its students from the university, and I was not impressed. The techniques looked sloppy, the students weren't showing proper respect as the shihan was speaking (twisting about, talking, etc), and out of like 30, I saw maybe two that were serious. They also focus more on tournaments. So I never joined up with them.

I've thought it was good to keep an open mind to any technique available, and keep what works, discard the rest. In a manner of speaking anyways. Do you believe it doesn't hurt to learn from multiple styles to improve what you know? Or is it better to stick to just one thing? Like just Combatives and grappling techniques or just Karate, etc.

I know what Sergeant Larsen thinks (which was an eye opener and an interesting viewpoint), but I'm open to others interpretations.

[CloakAndDagger]

Ranger EvilCouch,

You mentioned Kung Fu as a "flashier" style. Granted, there a multitude of styles and sub-styles, but I never viewed my own, Hung Gar, as flashy. Practical, mostly, sometimes dirty, but never flashy.

As for some background on my own experience, I trained in it for 2 years while in college. I was forced to break off formal training after moving out of Seattle-proper. (If I land a job in/near Seattle, I will start back up).

Anyway, I'm curious for an outside perspective on it's strengths and weaknesses.

If you are unfamiliar with it, but wish to (peacefully) investigate, I can PM you more details.

Experienced comments from others are welcome. No DEPs/civilians (unless a Ranger is willing to back your reputation), please!

[EvilCouch]

Ranger EvilCouch, I'd agree that Karate is a good style, but I imagine that it depends on the style you're learning (Shotokan, Sho Ren Ryu, Chi Shen Ryu, etc) and how it's taught.

I was learning Chi Shen Ryu (and I admit I'm probably messing the name up), before I moved to the university here. They never participated in tournaments, they prefered to work with techniques that you could actually use while instilling discipline into the students, plus focus on more traditional aspects of the style while drawing in from others, such as Akido. When I got here, I observed the Shotokan group that draws a lot of its students from the university, and I was not impressed. The techniques looked sloppy, the students weren't showing proper respect as the shihan was speaking (twisting about, talking, etc), and out of like 30, I saw maybe two that were serious. They also focus more on tournaments. So I never joined up with them.

I've thought it was good to keep an open mind to any technique available, and keep what works, discard the rest. In a manner of speaking anyways. Do you believe it doesn't hurt to learn from multiple styles to improve what you know? Or is it better to stick to just one thing? Like just Combatives and grappling techniques or just Karate, etc.

I know what Sergeant Larsen thinks (which was an eye opener and an interesting viewpoint), but I'm open to others interpretations.

With anything, there are good and bad schools. I believe that all things being equal, Karate provides an excellent stand up fighting base. It covers all the basic strikes, blocks and even has a limited amount of grappling. Not nearly enough grappling to guarantee a win if the fight goes to the ground, but enough that getting close to someone doesn't shut the style down. However, most combinations involving a take-down in Karate end with punching the guy in the throat or football kicking his head, which are just about as good as a good submission hold for ending the fight.

Karate has and expects striking techniques at all ranges, whereas a lot of other striking styles has one range that they're good at and basically ignore the rest. However, there are good points to pretty much any martial art that has managed to survive to the modern age. So long as you're aware of the style's weakpoints and your training with it focuses on what it does well and you fix the gaps by training with other styles, there's not really a "bad style". There are martial arts that are more rounded and provide for a faster learning of how to fight in general, though.

[EvilCouch]

Ranger EvilCouch,

You mentioned Kung Fu as a "flashier" style. Granted, there a multitude of styles and sub-styles, but I never viewed my own, Hung Gar, as flashy. Practical, mostly, sometimes dirty, but never flashy.

As for some background on my own experience, I trained in it for 2 years while in college. I was forced to break off formal training after moving out of Seattle-proper. (If I land a job in/near Seattle, I will start back up).

Anyway, I'm curious for an outside perspective on it's strengths and weaknesses.

If you are unfamiliar with it, but wish to (peacefully) investigate, I can PM you more details.

Experienced comments from others are welcome. No DEPs/civilians (unless a Ranger is willing to back your reputation), please!

I'm unfamilar with the style, aside from knowing that it's a Southern style. It'd be interesting to know what it focuses on.

[CloakAndDagger]

I'm unfamilar with the style, aside from knowing that it's a Southern style. It'd be interesting to know what it focuses on.

Hung Gar is considered a hard style. It's sometimes refered to as Tiger & Crane style (Fu, Hok, respectively, Cantonese), although most of the crane techniques are reserved for advanced students. The Seattle school quite possibly shares a similiar lineage to the school Ranger Chiron's son is enrolled in, but that's just a guess from the photos and the "Tiger Claw" name.

As to it being a hard style, the first stance taught is the 4-point Horse, followed shortly after by the Bow & Arrow. An advanced student should be nearly unmovable in both. (Traditionally, students aren't allowed to learn anything more until they can hold the 4-point Horse for ~30 minutes, but Sifu [Master] John Leong dropped that, until later in the training, when he found he couldn't retain any American students.)

The first 2 blocks learned are the Wood (Crossing, mid-level) and the Dragon (high). Optimally, both should inflict pain on the opponent, while being little noticed by the blocker. In addition, partner forearm blocking drills are required as final exercises.

The first 3 strike learned are the Level Punch (eastern jab), Tiger Claw strike (palm strike + rake), and a low-thrusting punch.

Kicks aren't emphasized much, except as repetitious cardio workouts, until about 6 months in. Even then, most of what is emphasized are low kicks (kidney to knee range).

Not much emphasis on any grapples, mostly just on basic grab-breaks, and keeping your head if you do get caught.

As to being practical:
+Forms aren't usually taught until about 9 months in, and there are only 6 empty hand forms, the longest of which, #5, taking about 6 months to learn (I only got through #4). In addition, forms are emphasized more as teaching tools for new techniques than they are as performances.
+No belt/sash system in the Seattle school. When formality in seniority is required (rare except when addressing the instructor) it's older/younger brother/sister (using Cantonese terms). Seniority is based strictly on time.
+There is a fair number of "dirty" techniques taught as one advances: crotch kicks/grabs, elbows, knee and wrist breakers, strikes to the eye, etc.

Hung Gar is pretty rare in the U.S. In web searches, I think I've only noted another school in TX and one in FL. The fact that there are 3 branches of one school in Seattle, is one reason why I asked you specifically, Ranger EvilCouch. I will PM you more info on the where/when, so you can check it out at your leisure.

If anyone else in the Seattle area is interested, PM me, and I'll get back to you.

[EvilCouch]

OK, that sounds much more reasonable, Useaspoon.

I still disagree about the choke from kesa-gatame, though. I understand the choke you're talking about; I just don't see it as being horribly effective. However, if you're in a position to pull that choke, you probably have enough time to make it pay off.

When I was referring to strikes stopping grappling, I was referring to the stand-up portion. Which normally starts before much adrenaline gets flowing. I see stand-up fighting as a sticky spot for most Judo players. I haven't heard of many Judo schools doing any sort of serious training to get the fighter's instinct to take the hit and complete the throw.

However, blows from a striker, once the fight's gone to the ground are just delaying the inevitable. Virtually no striking style even talks about how to hit someone while you're both on the ground.

Looks like we're on the same page now. We still have a couple of points of contention, but they make a certain amount of sense now.

[EvilCouch]

I'm unfamilar with the style, aside from knowing that it's a Southern style. It'd be interesting to know what it focuses on.

Hung Gar is considered a hard style. It's sometimes refered to as Tiger & Crane style (Fu, Hok, respectively, Cantonese), although most of the crane techniques are reserved for advanced students. The Seattle school quite possibly shares a similiar lineage to the school Ranger Chiron's son is enrolled in, but that's just a guess from the photos and the "Tiger Claw" name.

As to it being a hard style, the first stance taught is the 4-point Horse, followed shortly after by the Bow & Arrow. An advanced student should be nearly unmovable in both. (Traditionally, students aren't allowed to learn anything more until they can hold the 4-point Horse for ~30 minutes, but Sifu [Master] John Leong dropped that, until later in the training, when he found he couldn't retain any American students.)

The first 2 blocks learned are the Wood (Crossing, mid-level) and the Dragon (high). Optimally, both should inflict pain on the opponent, while being little noticed by the blocker. In addition, partner forearm blocking drills are required as final exercises.

The first 3 strike learned are the Level Punch (eastern jab), Tiger Claw strike (palm strike + rake), and a low-thrusting punch.

Kicks aren't emphasized much, except as repetitious cardio workouts, until about 6 months in. Even then, most of what is emphasized are low kicks (kidney to knee range).

Not much emphasis on any grapples, mostly just on basic grab-breaks, and keeping your head if you do get caught.

As to being practical:
+Forms aren't usually taught until about 9 months in, and there are only 6 empty hand forms, the longest of which, #5, taking about 6 months to learn (I only got through #4). In addition, forms are emphasized more as teaching tools for new techniques than they are as performances.
+No belt/sash system in the Seattle school. When formality in seniority is required (rare except when addressing the instructor) it's older/younger brother/sister (using Cantonese terms). Seniority is based strictly on time.
+There is a fair number of "dirty" techniques taught as one advances: crotch kicks/grabs, elbows, knee and wrist breakers, strikes to the eye, etc.

Hung Gar is pretty rare in the U.S. In web searches, I think I've only noted another school in TX and one in FL. The fact that there are 3 branches of one school in Seattle, is one reason why I asked you specifically, Ranger EvilCouch. I will PM you more info on the where/when, so you can check it out at your leisure.

If anyone else in the Seattle area is interested, PM me, and I'll get back to you.

From what you've said, I've read and what a kung fu buddy of mine says, Hung Gar sounds like a much more solid style that the vast bulk of kung fu styles out there.

It'll still probably take a fair amount of time to be considered a solid fighter, but it definately looks like a very effective style.

[RBL_M1A2Tanker]

Sergeant Larsen always put the concept of winning as, "You finish a fight. You don't win it. The only person who "wins" in a fight, is which sides buddy shows up with a gun first."

He also had three fundamental rules: Close distance, Achieve dominant fight position, Finish the fight. Speed is key, if I recall the Combatives course...which was pounded into me quite nicely on "Punch Day."

But even Sergeant Larsen said that while Combatives will help give you an edge, if you're down to hand-to-hand...you're in some serious shit.