No Time

"I just don't have time to train"

I hear this all the time. People say this as an excuse not to do some kind of strength or conditioning work, or why they don't train martial arts, or why they take pain killers to deal with back or knee aches.

It's complete crap. What people mean is, I am not willing to give up some leisure time. Everyone has some time to train. No exceptions. Don't believe me? Record your daily activity in a log for one week. Be accurate and honest. I guarantee I can find some time.

Now, that time might have to come from somewhere else. For example, instead of watching the latest episode of Family Guy (I know, I like that show too, but sacrifices have to be made). Or, instead of going to the sports bar on Sunday to watch the NFL EVERY week, you use that time to do something constructive. I have yet to meet someone, even the busiest businessman, who truly has no time. Maybe Mother Theresa. But before you throw that out as an example, ask yourself "Am I really comparing myself to Mother Theresa?"

The other aspect to this is that training time does not have to be some long marathon session. Consistent daily training of short duration will go farther than occasional long efforts done inconsistently.

One of my bread and butter training sessions is the couple of minutes every morning that I have to wait while my shower water heats up. Instead of standing there motionless, I shadowbox in front of my mirror. It is a great way to wake my body up, and it is valid training time. Now, two minutes doesn't sound like much, but think about it. Two minutes a day = 14 minutes a week = 56 minutes a month. That is almost an extra hour EVERY month of solid training. It does not interfere in anything else, and I can do it no matter how hectic my schedule is. What could you do with an extra hour?

I have other times and sessions that are similar. But rather than telling you what they are, I challenge you to find the time in your own life that you can do this. Without a doubt, I know you can do it. It just takes a little thought and the willpower to implement it.

Don't be like the other sheeple out there. Take responsibility for your life and do something constructive.

thieves in the martial arts

A good buddy of mine gave me a hard time (in a joking manner) recently about how most of my blog posts in the past few months have been me ranting and raging at someone or something that ticked me off. He was right. Making me angry is a good method of making me write here. I told myself that I would try to be a little more positive. I really meant it.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of total scumbags are there. And sometimes, they push me too far.

Case in point. I think intellectual thievery is abhorrent. Unfortunately, it is also rampant in martial arts. I can't police the world, but I can call out those people who do it when it strikes closer to home. So, I will do so now.

There is a new trend of people teaching MMA or Combatives who recognize that boxing is a key to fighting, but they don't have the experience to coach it. Nor do they have the intellectual honesty to try to learn it well from a legitimate source. So they steal the creation of someone better and smarter than themselves and pass it on as their own. There are many people out there who have stolen CM Boxing methods but try to call it something else. Here are a couple of terms they try to substitute for CM - "high guard boxing", "cover & fend", "MMA Shell defense". Everyone of these terms is a direct rip-off.

To be clear, I am not saying that only CM has a "shell" or "cage" structure. There are different boxing and Muay Thai techniques that are similar. But there are certain terms describing CM that are proprietary and have never been used before CM. Terms such as hunchback, dive jab, sinking into the pelvis, etc. If you want to disagree, show me where these terms were used in a fighting context before Rodney King and Matt Thornton introduced CM to the general public in 2002. I am confident such citations won't be found.

But there are people out there, some really well known, who are thieves who have knowingly stolen material that does not belong to them. They use these terms, teach direct CM concepts and principles, but call it anything but CM.

One of these is a world famous martial artist from Australia who has DVD's out where he teaches his "MMA Shell" using words like hunchback stance, yet never mentions Rodney King or CM. It just so happens that I was physically present when this person learned CM directly from Rodney. I also sparred with him and know for a fact his stand up skill was rudimentary. Yet 18 momths later, he produces a DVD set that he charges a very high price for that features his ideas of stand up striking. And he does not have the simple decency to give credit where it is due. What a turd.

Another guy is an "authority" on combatives in the UK. Magazines and websites in the UK always feature him as a cutting edge instructor and street fighting expert who spends a lot of time researching. This ass has written articles on how great CM is and what a genius Rodney King is. Yet when he publishes a book, he shows CM boxing but renames it "cover & fend" and NEVER mentions Rodney's name. And, after the book came out, along with a companion DVD, he has tried to diminish any mention of Rodney. He has even hid and edited the article on his website. Even worse, I know for a fact that he was invited numerous times to come free of charge to a number of Rodney's seminars in the UK and he NEVER responded. Not only is he a thief, he is lazy as well.

There are also a couple of people who Rodney has kicked out of his organization who never actually fulfilled their commitment to actually train in person with him, but still try to cash in on CM. There are a couple in Australia and one in the UK (Coventry). They couldn't do the work to actually learn, but want to be seen as "sensei". They might just be the worst of the bunch.

I don't see how any of these people sleep at night. In my opinion, they are complete scumbags. And if any of them have a problem with me writing this, they are more than welcome to confront me on it. Just be ready for that confrontation to be videoed, and the results then posted on youtube for the world to see.

I doubt any of them will man up.

my attempt to help Hollywood

Sometimes it helps to be outside of a problem to find an answer. Case in point is today's USA Today. There was an article in the Life section about certain movies not finding an audience (or, in simpler words, they tanked at the box office). In an attempt to do my part in helping the nation's economy, I will offer some insights that might help the movie studios.

Essentially, what the article talked about was how the nine major recent studio releases that dealt with the War on Terror/Iraq all failed miserably. There is a lot of hand wringing and sweating going on inside the studios with executives trying to find out why. Let's look at this. What did they have in common?

1) all directed by successful and critically acclaimed directors
2) all had major movie stars in main roles
3) all backed by major studios so they all had plenty of publicity to get the word out
4) all were, for the most part, critically praised.

But all of that is standard Hollywood. The failure can't be laid there. So what else did they all have as a common thread? Oh yeah, they all, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, all had an obvious anti-U.S. bias! Every single one of these movies (Stop Loss, Body of Lies, In the Valley of Ellah, Redacted, etc....) had as an underlying theme how horrible, stupid, corrupt, greedy, murderous, and on and on the U.S. and it's actions were. The government is evil, the military is evil, the intelligence agencies are evil, the individual citizens are either evil or stupid or selfish. There is no possibility that any action taken by the United States can be for any moral reasons. The single one of these movies that made some money (though not a profit) was The Kingdom, and it was the most pro-U.S. movie (even though the overall tone was of a negative bent)! And these movie executives actually can't figure out why the movies tanked? OMG.

Look Mr. Executive. Whether the general public is against the Iraq war, or is tired of President Bush, it does not automatically follow that the public thinks we as a nation are inherently evil. The people might want out of Iraq, but they place no blame on the military. It is not Vietnam where returning servicemen are called baby-killers. And the people of this country believe that our collective hearts are in the right place. The next time you green light a movie dealing with terrorism or Iraq, you might want to check to see if the director and/or writer actually likes this country or do they follow the Michael Moore/Oliver Stone school of thought. If it is the latter, you might want to plan your excuses now, because the movie will lose money. Guaranteed.

Just a word of warning.

"don't got the ground in a fight" part 1

"Don't go to the ground in a real fight."

A boatload of "fighting experts/reality based combat authorities" spout this crap all the time. They desperately try to justify why they don't train any form of grappling.

But I have a question for anyone who says this in the future. Before they say it, they need to describe how they will keep themselves from going to the ground, especially when they find themselves up against someone with a modicum of grappling knowledge. Not just the techniques, but how they plan to train it. Because that is integral to the process. Technique without practice is just mental masturbation.

In case they don't get my point, I will clarify. If you don't regularly train against someone who can take you down, and honestly tries to do it, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP IT STANDING. I could care less what magical art or system you practice (WW2 combatives, aikido, systema, silat, etc...). The proof will always be in the pudding.

Anybody I train, or anybody I respect in the martial art world will have no problem producing ON DEMAND. Bring a top notch wrestler to my gym? Cool, I or any of my guys will perform at any time. Not only that we will do it, but even more importantly, WE HAVE ALREADY DONE IT, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS! **note - I did not say we will succeed every time. What I am saying is we are willing to test ourselves or our theories on a constant basis against someone who is honestly trying to make us fail. My point is that we do not pontificate without performance - end sidenote ** I find it quite funny that the critics of grappling for the "street" can't produce any evidence that they can say the same. I have seen a lot of internet forum threads and blog posts from silat people, for example, how their stuff is so lethal on the ground and it is so devastating to grapplers, but NEVER a piece of video footage actually showing them accomplishing these magnificent feats. You don't have to have a silat player enter the UFC, but it should be mandatory when one of these super-fighters denigrate MMA/BJJ, that they need to have visual proof to back that up. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to put their money where their mouths are. That would require some integrity.

the concept of "tapping out"

As many of my blog posts are, this one is inspired by an exceptionally insipid internet forum thread. I know that I should let these things go, but sometimes they just rumble around my brain, gradually making me crazy. In order to keep my sanity, I have to write. Rather than get drawn into the thread in question, and get into a long debate that will fall on deaf ears anyway, I would prefer to do my mental relief therapy here.

The gist of this thread was, of course, another endless "don't go to the ground in a fight" pontifications. The author of it is a fat, out of shape, self-proclaimed fighting authority who has never publicly got on a mat and proven his asinine theories in front of unattached third party judges. He much prefers selling 75 cents of paracord for $15 as a "tactical" knife holder. Yeah, here is someone who is up on real world combat. Uh huh.

Anyway, there are a number of idiocies espoused on that thread, but there is one I really want to point out because it really shows how this particular person has NEVER, EVER actually trained BJJ with a reputable coach.

Here is the actual quote so no one can accuse me of lying - "but I think the concentration should be on doing damage and getting up as fast as you can, not using both hands to squeeze a choke or locking a joint instead of breaking it."

What a complete doofus. This is equivalent to saying that shooting at paper targets is dumb because you should shoot at people!

Look dumbass. Since it is blindingly obvious you have no idea of what BJJ entails, I will enlighten you. You lock a joint IN TRAINING so you don't injure your partner! It is not the end move! Do you really think an armbar or a kimura is to hold somebody? It is a break moron. You allow your partner to tap out so you can keep training. You don't actually injure the joint, because you will soon run out of people willing to get on the mat with you.

Also, the above comment also implies that a choke is some long and involved time consuming process. Sorry, again he shows his ignorance. A well executed choke will work in about 3-4 SECONDS. About the same amount of time it would take to get up and move far enough away to create some space. If you are "squeezing" it and it is taking longer, it means you have done it wrong. This is not my opinion, it is FACT. Don't believe it? Good, come to my coaches BJJ gym anytime you want. There are 20 -30 guys on the mat at any given time who would love to demo a choke on you.

One piece of advice. Seek out a qualified, reputable, experienced BJJ coach and actually LISTEN to what he has to say. You will look a lot less stupid.

the greatest mass produced candy bar EVER

http://www.thechocolatereview.net/2007/04/28/nestle-peanut-butter-kit-kat-chunky/


If you ever get the chance to try one, DO NOT PASS IT UP.

I am addicted to these. Thank God I don't live in the UK or I would weigh about 400 lbs.

oops (warning - political commentary - read at your own peril)

I rarely use this blog to make political comments, mostly because I think all politicians are scum.

However, on occasion, a politician does something so heinous I have to point it out.

Barak Obama has put out a campaign ad mocking John McCain for being computer illiterate. Now, aside from being a cheap and negative shot by someone who supposedly was above that kind of thing, it was also stupid.

The reason McCain is not Mr. Computer is because he can't be! Why? Due to the severe wounds from torture he incurred as a POW! According to a Boston Globe newspaper article from 2000 :

McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.


Nice going Obama campaign. Yeah, you are all about the politics of change. Go on, pull the other one.

using "dirty moves" against a grappler

The following is an answer to a ongoing debate I had through email/IMing. It revolved around the other person's contention that "dirty moves" (i.e. eye gouges, biting, skin ripping, etc...) were a good weapon to use in a fight against a superior grappler who has taken you down and is controlling you so well that you are unable to escape using "regular" moves. It is my experience that the people who think these moves are consistently successful in a grappling situation are the people who NEVER step foot on a grappling mat to actually see firsthand what they are talking about. I feel strongly that not only is it stupid to try "dirty moves", it is a general waste of training time. Here I try to outline why.


In a superficial way, I agree with your point, XXXXX. However, overall, I think it is wrong on two levels. First, I think there is an implication here that as soon as the "dirty" fighter launches his dirty move(s), the non-dirty fighter panics and loses all sense of what he was doing before. In your example of the BG taking you down, putting you in cross side, and holding your there because he is a superior ground fighter, your shredder scenario works only if the BG completely ignores what he has been successful with already, which I find hard to believe. Why would he lose all control at the first sign of pain? After all, he is already so much better than the other guy and is totally dominant. A wussy with a low tolerance of pain he is probably not. And if he isn't a wuss, AND is already completely dominating the situation, shouldn't he be able to make adjustments along the way? If he can't, then he probably is not the superior fighter, and in that case, the dirty moves are probably not needed in the first place because you can most likely escape using "non-dirty" techniques.

Also, and I might be thinking too personally here, but I know that if I am controlling someone in a fight so much so that their only hope of escape is taking it off-road (to use Paul Sharp's fantastic phrase) and they do so, a few thoughts will quickly go through my head:

1) "Oh, so we are moving to more of a lethal force level?" – where maybe I was operating under the idea this was just a "fist-fight", you just told me you considered it more, so I can now act appropriately.

2) "Oh yeah, I can do that too" – even if I didn't spend a lot of time training those moves, and they wouldn't come out under stress as long as it was ME doing the decision making, I am quite sure that anyone who was good enough to be in control at the stage would easily be able to have the brain switch over to "copying". In this case, as my opponent tries to eye gouge me, I defend it, and then undoubtedly the battle computer in my head will fire off the command to "go ahead and do the same thing back". Unfortunately for my opponent, I am actually the one that is in the position to throw continuous dirty moves, and he is going to be able do absolutely nothing about it. Is that really, truly a good thing for him to give me that idea?

Variations on this has happened countless times in training/sparring. For example, I am not a big leg lock guy. I have seen too many injuries result from them to spend a lot of time training them so it irritates me if there is no agreement beforehand to use them. But if it happens that my partner does try it and after I defend it, almost every time I think "okay, your turn" and do it back to them EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT A BIG PART OF MY ARSENAL. If I am a good enough grappler, adding something like that is not difficult, which I am sure you know well. My general point here is that if I am so good that the only way the other guy can escape is to go off-road, I probably have the ability to adjust to what he does as well as the ability to improvise, BUT I CAN DO IT FROM A SUPERIOR POSITION!

I am used to literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of trying to control and submit guys at or near my same technical level who many times out class me physically (bigger, stronger, faster, younger, better cardio, less injured, etc..). I think - no, I know I can because I do so on a regular basis - I can probably handle a second or two of pain while I adjust to maintain my dominance.

The second way I have problems with your idea/point is in this regard and I think it speaks to an even more important overall point on why I think training these kind of moves are a general waste. I think to a large degree, not being able to use dirty moves because I have not trained them is moot. In everything I do in straight BJJ, I am working my counters to dirty moves. The things I need to do to control a position, sweep, take the back, or slap on a submission are the EXACT SAME THINGS I need to do to handle dirty moves. Again, using your example of the BG taking top control in cross-side, unless he is clueless at that point, which makes NO SENSE, he will be looking to move to the next phase. If he is controlling you so well, he most likely has control over your head and /or shoulders, has immediate control over one of your arms, most likely has put your other arm in a situation where it is neutralized, and has blocked your ability to move your hips very well. Where is the ability for you to apply dirty moves uninterrupted? I just don't see it. As soon as you move to apply an eye gouge for instance, he will treat it as any other hand motion and adjust. Whether he thinks you are going for the eye gouge, or just trying to make space for an escape does not matter. The top guy can easily treat it as one and the same and shut you down.

I witnessed my BJJ coach roll with a very well known and successful JKD instructor. After being completely tortured for a few rounds, the JKD instructor talked about maybe using "dirty moves" as counters (he was well known for advocating biting/pinching/gouging type moves as a counter to BJJ). My BJJ coach kind of scoffed at it, which irritated the JKD guy. So, my instructor said go ahead and use them. They proceeded to roll again, and my coach DID NOT DO ONE THING DIFFERENT. And the results were the same. The JKD guy was humiliated. He never got the chance to use his cool moves because the delivery system to apply them effectively are the same delivery systems that work without the "street moves". Basically, if I do what I am supposed to do on the ground, there are very few windows of vulnerability open, even if I don't train it regularly.

play vs. training

As I reflect on this year's CM trainer's clinic this past May, it has helped me crystallize some thoughts that have been drifting around in my head for a while now.

After years of training in environments and with people that, to put it nicely, were less than ethically optimal, and now train almost exclusively in a fun and playful environment and with people who are decent human beings, I have come to the realization that all improvements in my personal game are directly proportional to how much fun I am having when I train.

Looking back at the days when I was so desperate to become a bad ass, and worked so hard at it that I was generally miserable, I wonder why I kept plugging along (probably has to do with the fact I am not particularly intelligent). I was always down on myself, and I always compared myself to others who I deemed "better". It was an experience that was the exact opposite of fun.

And now when I train, I don't really care what others think of me - do they think I am a walking mountain of bad ass-ness? - now, I only care what my wife and kids think of me. Now when I train, I don't really think of it as "training" - it is, to steal Rodney King's idea, just PLAY. I go out and play with my friends, the same way I did as a kid. It just so happens that instead of playing cowboys and indians, we are punching each other or slapping on a choke. BUT, the underlying spirit of those games of cowboys and indians is there on the mat with me.

So, to everyone who I have played with the past couple of years, THANK YOU. And I look forward to more play as we go along.

a new name

Bear with me here, because I am having a stream of consciousness moment.

I have been thinking lately that MMA as a descriptive term has become fairly specific. I feel that it does, and perhaps should only, refer to the actual SPORT and those who are training for it.

It seems to me that when you use the term to describe a more general application such as self-defense or as an art done by someone who has no desire to step into the cage or ring, you run the risk of defusing the usefulness of said term. Maybe, for those people, another way of describing the art should be found.

What should it be? I don't know. Maybe NHB (no holds barred)? After all, the was the original acronym, and it is pretty descriptive, and still has the connection to MMA. Of course, that connection might be too strong and it defeats the purpose.

I like Vale Tudo, but again, it still generally refers to the original semi-sport application.

Maybe MFA (mixed fighting arts) or MCA (mixed combat arts). Again, a connection with MMA that suggests the same training methodologies and principles, but with a slightly different emphasis.

Who knows. I have a 30-40 minute commute to work both ways, 5 days a week, so I have sometimes have too much time to contemplate odd thoughts like this.

Yes, I am a total geek. I have come to terms with that.

MMA: bad for the street?

Okay, after ANOTHER person saying how MMA is a sport that will lead to bad things if you try to use it in the street, I have had enough.

This time it was an email newsletter that for the umpteenth time spouted the same garbage about how using MMA ground-oriented tactics will lead to getting your head kicked in by your opponents friends. Rather than deal with the asinine logic of it, let me agree with him for a moment and ask a question.

First, let's ignore the fact that this line of thinking has to assume that you are ALWAYS alone with no one to EVER back you up.
Second, let's forget that this assumes that you will be focused on only the guy you are fighting and will NEVER look around.
Third, let's also assume that this taking someone down and choking them out will require a lot of time (totally contrary to the experience of anyone who has ever done this against an opponent inexperienced at ground fighting- usually the choke takes less than 5 seconds, plenty of time to disengage and deal with others - but I digress).
Fourth, let's also assume that the MMA guy will ONLY go to the ground, totally ignoring the fact that the ENTIRE POINT of MMA is to have some modicum of functionality in all ranges - striking, clinch, as well as ground, and more importantly, no MMAer ever goes into a fight or sparring "knowing" what he is going to do - situations such as your opponent stuffing your takedown and negating your ground game leads to a well rounded fighter who uses the tactics that best handle that given moment in time - something MMA critics, because they refuse to step on the mat are incapable of handling.

Let us ignore all those points for just a minute and let me ask a simple question. Is there ANYONE out there who can provide a DOCUMENTED example of an MMA practitioner getting his head stomped in that was a DIRECT result of his tactics? And not just the typical BS story - "I heard on the internet one time about some guy in Texas" - let's have names, dates, exact circumstances. I, for one, can provide a number of provable situations where the opposite happened, i.e. the MMAer survived because of his tactics. MMA has been around long enough that if the doubters are right, there should be, somewhere in the universe, such an example of failure.

If you have it, send it to me, and I will publicly say I am wrong. Until such time, I will continue to say that those people who say these kind of things about MMA are looking desperately for an excuse not to do the work, because they know they will look like a little bitch tapping out and their egos (especially those of the well known "combat authorities") can't deal with it.

Congrats Luka

I wanted to say congratulations to one of my BJJ coaches, Luka Dias. Luka is a black belt and the wife of my main coach, Megaton. She is a close family friend, a terrific person, and a great BJJer.

At the Pan-Ams this previous weekend, she took the gold medals in both her weight class as well as the absolute. In the absolute, she avenged her loss at the Mundials by beating the current world champ in what most people are calling the best match of the entire tournament. She also officially now holds more gold medals than any other woman in the history of the Pan-Ams!

Way to go Luka!

Radio Nowhere

Between my IPOD and satellite radio, I rarely listen to regular radio. I like being able to decide what I get to listen to. About the only time I listen to terrestrial radio is weekday mornings when I like to listen to a local morning show. It is on the main alternative rock station and the host, Chuck Powell is a comedic genius. Why he isn't on a national broadcast is beyond me. He is fantastic. Brilliantly funny without ever having to use raunchiness or vulgarity as a crutch (now don't get me wrong, I enjoy raunch and vulgarity - the main reason I have satellite radio is so I can listen to Howard Stern whenever I want- but it is nice to have someone who can make you laugh with something other than poop or booby jokes).

The drawback to listening to his show is that he is still forced to play some music in between the comedy. Now I like alternative music, and the station is one of the better ones (one of the nice things about it is that it is locally owned; it isn't part of some national corporate chain). However, there is just something wrong with the current radio scene. In a word, the playlists suck. For example, on this station, they constantly play older stuff like Nirvana or older songs by artists like Green Day. Nirvana was a great band, but do we really need to hear "Smells Like Teen Spirit" again? Or, do we need to hear "Holiday" for the umpteenth time?? I mean, how is it different than a classic rock station playing "Stairway to Heaven" or "Freebird" for the gazillionith time or a pop music station playing anything by Elton John?

Here is a piece of free advice to any radio station programmer who might happen to read this. If you listen to me, I think you will take a big step towards doing something different and PROFITABLE.

STOP TRYING TO BE MY IPOD!!!! No matter how much of a genius you are, you will never be able to beat anybody's personal MP3 player. Everyone knows their own taste better than the greatest programmer on the planet. Rather than regurgitate the same old stuff, and bore 85% of your potential audience, try this. Be the source of new music. Be the place everyone listens to in order to know what the good new stuff is. Don't bother with what we already have, turn us onto new music.

And, this is really easy to do. Go to the nearest university, community college, or technical school and bring on an intern (at no charge! - how cool is that) and have their total duties be browsing the internet for interesting songs, or reading the trade journals, or even magazines like Rolling Stone of Blender. What 19 or 20 year old college student wouldn't love to get school credit by listening to music? Every week, they could find 15-20 new songs, put them on a CD and give them to the programmer to check out over the weekend. The programmer could then see if any of them are good enough to add to the rotation. Just think, FOR FREE, any radio station could be constantly adding new stuff. Very quickly, they would be the radio destination for a ton of people, including ones (like me) who don't currently listen. It is a win-win situation.

The music industry is changing, more quickly than anyone could have realized five years ago. The ones who survive, whether they are artists, record companies, producers, or radio stations, will have to be the ones who think outside the box. My idea is one that could very well be the model for the new age of radio.

I am such a genius.

what is wrong with your CM?

Recently, I read an internet post (I know, I know, I shouldn't even pay attention, but sometimes....) where the poster gave a back handed compliment to CM boxing. He said that CM was okay when you needed a second to handle pressure from strikes, but it didn't work overall. I had to laugh. I actually know a lot about the guy who wrote that post. I know his background, who he trains with, and his overall experience. I know, FOR A FACT, that he has NEVER trained CM with a knowledgeable CM coach. The most he knows is either through DVDs or second hand from someone who MIGHT have trained it. Yet he has no problem making public pronouncements about the system! Amazing. He must be the reincarnation of Bruce Lee to be so insightful.

What is more amusing is the one of the arts he practices is Savate, an art that is often misunderstood. I have seen where this guy gets irritated when someone makes an ill-informed comment on Savate. He will spend a lot of time posting corrections and basically saying someone who hasn't trained in Savate is probably missing a lot of the information. But, it is funny he doesn't see the hypocrisy in his own actions.

As someone who has been coaching CM for awhile, and has conducted or assisted at a good number of seminars, I have seen a lot of people try to learn this system and I have a good idea of the typical mistakes that about 99% of newbies make. I GUARANTEE that the afore-mentioned poster is making almost all of these mistakes and doesn't have the faintest clue he is doing so. Here are the typical problems I see.

1) Too high, not sinking your body down into your pelvis - This is a huge step towards defending against body shots, as well as being able to absorb force without being knocked back off balance. Beginners never realize they are not doing this because they haven't built up their kinesthetic perception.

2) Elbows everywhere but where they should be - Again, newbies don't realize where their elbows actually are. Generally, they are too far forward, not lying on the ribcage, thereby giving the opponent space to go around to land shots.

3) Shoulders down - it takes some practice to learn to keep the shoulders shrugged up. It is easy to let them drop, and forcing the arms to take on more responsibility of the defense which takes away from your ability to go on the offensive.

4) Hips angled - not keeping the hips square to the opponent.

5) Rear foot down - beginners have a hard time understanding the just the act of bringing the rear heel off the ground and leaving it there adds so much to their game in so many ways. It is such a crucial skill, but definitely one that most people lack when they start.

Numbers 1,2,3, and 5 are generally related to fatigue. If you have the proper coaching to make sure you are doing the mechanics correctly, and you actually put in a little time doing the work, they all are easily addressed. Number 4 is just a question of understanding spacial relationships and a basic level of kinesthetic perception, all things that a decent coach can bring out in you.

As you can see from the photo above of the top CM coach in the UK Phil Wright, his torso is dropped down into his pelvis making him look shorter than he actually is, his shoulders are up, his elbows are almost resting on his ribs, his hips are square to his imaginary opponent, and his rear foot is up. This is the right details. Where his hands go at this point is almost irrelevant because everything else is in place to handle the bad stuff that might be coming in.

The key underlying thread to all of them are that most people don't get them from watching a DVD. It generally takes hands on coaching to make them understood.

If you haven't taken the time to actually train it hands on, you might want to pass on public commentary so you don't look like a buffoon.

a good library for today's martial artist, part 1

To me the term martial artist is a good one. To me it means someone who is trying to become a better human being using the vehicle of combat, combat sports, and physicality. To accomplish this, you need more than knowing how to punch someone, or throw someone, or disarm a weapon wielding assailant. It requires a deep and far ranging study of the human condition, physics, anatomy, political science, history, sociology, exercise physiology, and on and on. There is a lot to it. It requires an in depth focus on research. One method of accomplishing this research is through reading. Besides being informative, it's fun! So, to give some of you out there an idea of books that I think are a good idea to pay attention to, I will start an ongoing series of recommendations.

Now, after saying how you need to know how to do more than punch someone, I will mess you up a little by starting the series with what I believe are some of the most important fighting-centric texts. I know, I know. I just figure I should suck you in with the candy first, and then hit you with a higher level of nutrition. So, here we go.

Groundwork

Mastering Jiu-Jitsu by Renzo Gracie & John Danaher - a really good overview of not just jiu-jitsu, but of the overall fight strategy as well. Some fun history as well.











H2H by Greg Thompson - a very nice technique overview and breakdown (although I hate the first guard pass shown, it should NEVER be done or taught, no matter what). He includes some basic clinch work, as well as some weapon-centric stuff as a bonus.







The Essential Guard by Kid Peligro & Rodrigo Medeiros - almost everything you need to know to get up and running with a decent guard game. Heavy on the basics, and not too much flash.









Mastering the Rubber Guard by Eddie Bravo - outside of his pontificating about his favorite extra-curricular activity, this is a great book. Bravo has a good approach to getting techniques across, and, as far as I can tell, he does not hold back any "secrets" which is admirable.








Clinch

Wrestling for Fighting by Randy Couture - Really the only book that approaches wrestling instruction in the context of total combat. Plus, Couture has actually thought about this, not just relied on his natural ability or experience.









Striking

Championship Fighting by Jack Dempsey - the standard right now on how to hit with power in a realistic manner. The only drawback to this book is it is out of print and hard to find, and incredibly expensive when you do find it. Worth the attempt though.












Muay Thai Unleashed by Erich Krauss - Good stuff, plus it covers some aspects of MT style neck clinching.












and, with some reservations: Championship Streetfighting & The Savage Science of Streetfighting, both by Ned Beaumont. I say reservations because there are some things wrong (like his illustration of jabbing in the first book is an open invitation to getting taken down as well as making it tough to use your rear weapons - conversely, his teaching of the left hook is perfect), and a lot of the good info is taken almost word for word from Dempsey's book. However, these books are much easier to find and much cheaper, so it might be a decent place to start. He also has some fun stories throughout both books as well.

Putting All the Pieces Together

Mixed Martial Arts: The Book of Knowledge by B.J. Penn - Right now, the best book about the total picture of MMA. The only drawback is a complete focus on the sport, to the exclusion of the idea of self-defense or as an "Art". But still a must have, regardless.

These are a pretty good place to start. Next time I will look at some books that are not directly related to the actual technique of fighting, but are still what I consider foundational.

the myth of the leatherneck in the Philipines

In the martial arts, there is SOOOOO much B.S. that goes around that it is sometimes overwhelming. People just throw out utter garbage on a constant basis. Sometimes you can't even argue it because you are just dumbfounded at the utter stupidity of it.

BUT, sometimes you can fight it, often with some simple common sense, or even better, the historical record.

I am really anal when it comes to historical accuracy. You can debate the whys and wherefores in history, but you should not be able to argue whether something happened or didn't happen. So, we can use that to fight some common fallacies in the martial arts.

One of my pet peeves is that the US Marines got their nickname of "leatherneck" from the Philippine Campaign. The B.S. legend goes that the Moro fighters were such bad asses that they would fight their way through a hail of gunfire and manage to get in close where they used their native martial art (Kali/escrima/arnis/whatever you want to call it) to kill marines with knives and swords, often by cutting the necks of the marines. So to combat this, marines wore leather collars around their neck to help survive.

That is a really cool legend. Too bad it has absolutely NO basis in fact. The reason the Marines have the nickname Leatherneck dates back to the early part of the 19th century. The uniform of the Corps had what was called a "stock". Simply, it was a leather collar that was designed to forcibly keep the Marine's head up no matter what, so he always looked smart and squared away on duty. The stock was, understandably, hated and was eventually done away with by the 1860's. And, just so there is no misunderstanding, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT BACK at anytime in the history of the Corps.

So all the proponents of Filipino martial arts, PLEASE stop spouting this line of crap. Your art has enough real and authentic stories that you don't need to make up nonsense that only serves to make you look foolish. It is an undisputed fact that the Moros were bad as*es. They don't need lies to appear so. Be truthful and knowledgeable.

In the above picture of an actual uniform, you can just make out the black leather collar.

Here is the actual official tale of the phrase leatherneck from the Marine Corps itself:

“Leatherneck”
In 1776, the Naval Committee of the Second Continental Congress prescribed new uniform regulations. Marine uniforms were to consist of green coats with buff white facings, buff breeches and black gaiters. Also mandated was a leather stock to be worn by officers and enlisted men alike. This leather collar served to protect the neck against cutlass slashes and to hold the head erect in proper military bearing. Sailors serving aboard ship with Marines came to call them “leathernecks.”

Use of the leather stock was retained until after the Civil War when it was replaced by a strip of black glazed leather attached to the inside front of the dress uniform collar. The last vestiges of the leather stock can be seen in today’s modern dress uniform, which features a stiff cloth tab behind the front of the collar.

The term “leatherneck” transcended the actual use of the leather stock and became a common nickname for United States Marines. Other nicknames include “soldiers of the sea,” “devil dogs,” and the slightly pejorative “gyrene,” (a term which was applied to the British Royal Marines in 1894 and to the U.S. Marines by 1911), and “jarhead.”

And, before you start arguing with me, read the following books that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that what I have just written is correct.

United States Marine Corps by John Selby

US Marine Corps by Charles Cureton

USMC: A Complete History by John Hoffman

as well as this website: http://www.usmcmuseum.org/Museum_LoreCorps.asp

These books include DOCUMENTED fact. If you want to debate me, you had better be prepared to cite facts to back you up. I did.

Martin Luther King Day

Today is a national holiday that celebrates the life and work of a great American. A TRUE American. His famous "I have a dream" speech is one of the most amazing pieces of oratory in history. I am surprised at how many people have never read or heard the entire thing. Here is my favorite part of the speech, but do yourself a favor and go to youtube or google it and actually watch it in it's entirety. If you have any humanity in you, you will be deeply moved.

"Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

closed fist vs. open fist part deux

I want to revisit this topic for a second. I won't rehash what I wrote about in my earlier post on this topic, but since it is something that continues to be debated, I wanted to throw something else out there that I didn't address before.

One of the concerns the pro-open hand people often cite with striking with a closed fist is the chance of damage to the small bones of the hand. I believe this is a legitimate concern and something that should be taken into account. HOWEVER, the open hand people never seem to follow through on their logic and take it a step further. By this I mean, they never seem to address the fact that while you have a chance of doing damage to knuckles and the other (relatively) weak bones of the hand, I think the chance is even greater of causing great harm to the extremely vulnerable fingers during an open handed strike.

The open hand proponents seem to imply that you have nothing at all to worry about by leaving all those weak digits dangling out there while you ram your palm with full force into the skull of another person. But it has been my experience that not only is it easy and very common to jam or torque fingers past the point of injury, it is extremely debilitating. As I am writing this, I am nursing a jammed thumb that is VERY painful. How did I injure it? During clinch work with an OPEN HAND! Let me tell you, it was not easy to get through the rest of the training session even going fairly light with the pain I was feeling. And I didn't even do it on that hard a surface (it was the floating ribs and waist that rammed my thumb). I am trying to imagine right now what if I had been driving it at full speed at solid bone. I shudder to think about it.

So what is my point? Simply this. Hitting bone with any force and making contact with ANY part of the hand is a crapshoot. You can get injured and possibly your fighting ability severely compromised either hitting with a closed fist or an open palm. This is an important debate and it should be discussed, but only with an even playing field where both sides can present all the pros and cons of their side. Implying that an open palm somehow turns your fist into Superman's is foolish and weakens your overall argument.

no sporting application????

Recently, I have been reading an interesting book called "When all Hell Breaks Loose" by Cody Lundin. In it, he writes about advice on dealing with large scale emergencies, such as natural disasters, terrorist attack, etc..., that would lead to a temporary breakdown of public services. It is a very good read, and it dovetails with his previous survival handbook, 98.6 Degrees - Keeping your Ass Alive (both the books are available on Amazon).

Lundin is a professional survival instructor in Northern Arizona, and is the best kind of teacher. He is very realistic, and does not try to convince you you will become Tarzan - King of the Jungle, but still gets across strategies that most people can implement.

HOWEVER, the book breaks down near the end. There is a chapter on self-defense. Now, to Lundin's credit, he says this is not his area of expertise, so he turns it over to someone who supposedly does know what he is talking about. I say supposedly because the guy is a card carrying idiot. This guy (I will call him Mr. Combatives) is all about easily learned techniques. And his ideas on mindset are fine as well. But then he makes a completely asinine statement. Mr. Combatives says that when you are looking for a martial arts school, you should only go to one that teaches NO SPORTING APPLICATIONS for their uber- deadly techniques. I just have to shake my head. Is this guy living under a rock for the past 15 years? Or is he the martial art equivalent of the Flat Earth Society?

Let's take this and break it down. There are two HUGE problems with his approach of doing techniques that are "too deadly" to practice and only doing them on a target in a set way. If you do not use "sporting" methods (i.e. sparring) to test yourself and the methods:

1) How do you know that the techniques work? Saying that your chin jab will stun your opponent, or that the side kick to his knee will disable him, and actually accomplishing that are two different things. The human body is incredibly resilient and can take enormous damage and yet still function. A few years ago, there was a news story that was widely circulated about a hiker who was trapped in a rock slide in the middle of nowhere. His arm was pinned under a boulder. Knowing he would die if he did not get away, he CUT HIS OWN ARM OFF WITH A POCKET KNIFE! Now, do you honestly think that hitting that guy with a chin jab is really going to do so much damage that you will be able to follow up with any strike you want (or run away at will)? Come on. And the thing is, those stories of human endurance are very common. People can take a lot of punishment and still keep ticking. Basing your entire self-defense ideas on the (non-tested) belief that your base techniques are SOOOO deadly when you don't really know seems awfully stupid to me. So my techniques aren't as deadly as yours? Maybe, but you know what? I know, absolutely, what will happen when my "less deadly" cross lands on someone. You know how I know? Because I do it, all the time, over and over again. I use that puppy on another person, who is resisting me and trying to not let me hit them while at the same time trying their best to hit me back. I know what WILL happen, not what I think will happen, or what I hope happens.

2) How do you know that great technique will land? It is great to say that is is a simple technique, but in the chaos of combat, so much can happen in the blink of an eye. Hitting a BOB training dummy, or a partner who stands there motionless, has NOTHING TO DO with a resisting opponent. Take the standard boxing jab for example. This might very well be the easiest overall technique to land. It uses maximal reach, it is designed for maximal speed, and it allows the jabber to not have to always commit too far. And yet every boxer or MMAer out there spends literally hundreds of hours of their lives to land it. And even then, it is not a sure thing. Why? Because, just a slight movement of the opponent (throwing a hand or hands up in the way, moving their head, using footwork to change distance or angle) done in a millisecond can cause it to fail. So if a professional athlete who spends that much time training such a basic technique can still fail, why will a non-professional who spends 1/100ths of that time training a possibly more difficult technique be able to pull it off at will? It is an utterly ludicrous concept.

To close, I will try to educate those people who think that Mr. Combatives' approach is the right one. His concept of combat training fails the basic tenet of the scientific method. That basic tenet states that the conclusion of the experiment MUST BE REPLICABLE, ON DEMAND. Otherwise, it is useless. Basic MMA sport style sparring and training methods will, again and again, produce nearly similar results in that they (meaning anybody who practices it, professional athlete or not) all will have similar success rates, that can be predicted before hand. Mr. Combatives uber deadly methods will NEVER be able to say the same.

training to failure

It has taken me a good amount of time to really understand blogging. At first, I thought of it as almost like an online diary. Maybe someone else might read it, but more useful as a place to write my own ideas and beliefs. It is that, but as I realize that there are people who do read this and (at times) enjoy it, blogging can also be a great vehicle of education. And it functions best when it is linked up with others. So, in that spirit, I would like to join the wide world of blogging and link to something written by another person, but that I think is very valuable and interesting.

This is an article written by a good guy named Chris Fry and he address some really interesting ideas that confront anyone trying to improve their performance in martial arts/self-defense/combative sport. I only know Chris through online interaction, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if we met in person, I would get along with him really well. Anyway, here is the link

http://www.mdtstraining.com/articles.htm

Go to: Training to Failure, Experiential Learning, and Fighting Mindset and enjoy.

After you read the article, if you like it, check out the rest of them on his site. They are pretty dang good.