Capoeria

[Rurouni Saiyan]

This has been a martial art that I've been interested in for a long time. The way it moves and the amount of dexterity, agility, and skill behind it (not saying that other martial arts don't have these elements) is truly amazing.

It's roots remind me how Kung Fu got started, when martial arts were banned and Kung Fu went underground or disguised as dancing for the most part. Same with Capoeria, self defense was forbidden by the Portuguese slave masters in Brazil and Capoeria was disguised as dance.

For anyone interested, do a youtube video search for Lateef Crowder (Capoeria assassin in Tony Jaa's Tom Yung Goong [a.k.a. The protector]).

[Reidar]

That's not how the Chinese first developed an organized system of combat. There's no single era, but its devised roots can be traced back to about 700, when the Chinese scholar Hung Pei-sze described an esoteric Buddhist movement art as ch’uan fa, or "boxing methods". Chinese soldiers were also training in hand-to-hand fighting before any ban.

I took some free lessons about two years ago. It was okay, but the coach placed too much focus on cultural teachings over actual fighting.

[Lord Timaeus]

For a second I thought Capoeira the user got unbanned as I read the title. Thanks a lot for inadvertently terrorizing me there. >_<

[Rurouni Saiyan]

That's not how the Chinese first developed an organized system of combat. There's no single era, but its devised roots can be traced back to about 700, when the Chinese scholar Hung Pei-sze described an esoteric Buddhist movement art as ch’uan fa, or "boxing methods". Chinese soldiers were also training in hand-to-hand fighting before any ban.

I took some free lessons about two years ago. It was okay, but the coach placed too much focus on cultural teachings over actual fighting.

I mis-stated the origins of Kung Fu. Although I know that at one point, martial arts in China were banned under the emperor so that no commoner could learn it.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

This has been a martial art that I've been interested in for a long time. The way it moves and the amount of dexterity, agility, and skill behind it (not saying that other martial arts don't have these elements) is truly amazing.

It's roots remind me how Kung Fu got started, when martial arts were banned and Kung Fu went underground or disguised as dancing for the most part. Same with Capoeria, self defense was forbidden by the Portuguese slave masters in Brazil and Capoeria was disguised as dance.

For anyone interested, do a youtube video search for Lateef Crowder (Capoeria assassin in Tony Jaa's Tom Yung Goong [a.k.a. The protector]).

I think that you meant the time of the cultural revolution when Mao banned everything he found not in the national interest. That is most likely when people had to go into hiding and train underground. But as a result, Wushu was promoted, instead of each individual style of Chinese martial arts, as the National sport (Jet Li's training).

There were probably various emperors who banned the practice of martial arts during their respective dynasty's because they did not want commoners to become stronger. Only soldiers were allowed to train. It is an interesting history. Something else to consider. This is probably when the use of "forms" came into play in order to hide the true meaning of each movement and to preserve the art so it could be passed down. As a step further some martial arts masters would deliberately change their forms so that they could not be copied. This may be more in keeping with your example.

But back to what you were saying. Crowder was awesome in Tom Yum Goong. One of the best fight scenes that I have ever seen. I've heard pros and cons about this art. But I have no doubt that it can be used as an effective fighting art. I used to have a co-worker who practices and teaches. He is polite and never tried to show off. If I have some time, I may look into it in the future.

The thing about any martial art is not only to learn it but to make it your own. In the beginning, you may be drilled on basics until you get bored or as others have said, be turned off by talk of its rich history. But if you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete and you won't be able to appreciate it.

My co-worker before showed me some clips off the internet. It was a shame that I never was able to see it in action. Although I recently met a nice girl who seems to like this style.

If you think it's worth it, look into it and see what's up. Let us know how things go.

**There is a movie starring Mark Dacascos called Only The Strong which focuses on Capoeira. You may frown at some of the acting (or you may like the whole thing) but the training and movements are cool to watch. One of the few movies that pays homage to this Brazilian martial art. Although this is not the art that he practices in real life, he trained like crazy for this movie. He may still keep up with it. (Not sure though). It might be worth a look anyway.

I guess there is no one on this forum who practices Capoeira...?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

^ Mao Mao T-Dawg really banned kung fu? I wonder if he also banned the TV show.

[Animematt55]

Capoeria seems more like dancing, with a lot of wasted movement to me

[Bernard_Monsha]

Gunpowder made all of this obsolete, it is like the asian version of the SCA. I have yet to understand why people think martial arts will protect them from someone with a gun.

[Animematt55]

Gunpowder made all of this obsolete, it is like the asian version of the SCA. I have yet to understand why people think martial arts will protect them from someone with a gun.

exactly....
While this Capoeria guy is doing his silly break dance fighting, i have drawn my revolver and have it cocked and ready in probably 1 second

[Reidar]

Gunmanship is as much a martial art as any unarmed system.

But if you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete and you won't be able to appreciate it.

The only necessary component to learning a martial art is learning how to fight with it.

[Animematt55]

Martial arts are typically unarmed, or with melee weapons.
The only time that is necessary in marksmanship is when you need to you your bayonet

[Reidar]

It matters not what is "typical". Martial art schools are "typically" mcdojos that don't know the first thing about applicable combat, but that doesn't mean martial arts entail mock kamehameha waves.

But the assertion about unarmed systems being "typical" isn't true in the first place, barring all of the above. Kendo is a well-known martial art.

Gunmanship is a martial art, regardless of what is "typical". It is an "art" of "warfare" (martial).

[Bernard_Monsha]

Martial arts are typically unarmed, or with melee weapons.
The only time that is necessary in marksmanship is when you need to you your bayonet

I would have loved for some idiot to bayonet charge me.

[Reidar]

Also, I completely agree with what Bernard said initially. When someone asks me a good art to compete with in MMA, I give them a list of schools in their area. When they ask me how to defend themselves on their walk home, I tell them to purchase a gun.

[Animematt55]

I would have loved for some idiot to bayonet charge me.

You would of loved WWI then.
especially these days, soldiers rarely have to use melee tactics in combat. Although recently the bayonet has seen some use in Iraq and Afgan.
Plus, you cant hit someone with a punch from 100 yards away

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Reidar is correct about everything. Don't try to argue. Just close your eyes and hope his fists don't totally decimate your face.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Although recently the bayonet has seen some use in Iraq and Afgan.

The Brits didn't learn their lesson at New Orleans. A Bayonet charge will not work against a modern armed force end of story.

[Animematt55]

The Brits didn't learn their lesson at New Orleans. A Bayonet charge will not work against a modern armed force end of story.

it will work against a bunch of *censored* who dont know how to fire a weapon...
It worked for them at least once in Iraq. Scared a bunch of terrorists off with their bayonets

[???????]

Learning martial arts for many years, I've realized it is not the style that matters. It is the practice. Most martial arts have more than enough techniques to defend yourself and wreck havoc. But you'll need lots of practice, a sparing partner who's always there and the ability to bear pain. The instructor is also important. Find one that suits you. Some focus on sports, some on beating the crap out of a person and some on soft techniques(eg. locking, judo/kendo stuff). Also he must be able to explain the technique well. You know those dancing thingy they do in karate, kung fu whatever, it actually is the techniques, but too bad most instructors teach it as if it is dancing.

You sure have seen people doing thai kick boxing and copoeria flying all around , jumping here and there, doing somersaults when they take out the enemy. Well in real life combat, that's not gonna happen. You'd either take out that guy in one or two simple moves or you run, if not you're dead meat. And those flying moves, if your body is strong enough, anyone can do it.

[Reidar]

Learning martial arts for many years, I've realized it is not the style that matters.

You have hereby transcended the level of preteens asking what the best martial art is.

[Bernard_Monsha]

You have hereby transcended the level of preteens asking what the best martial art is.

PLZ Woot matial artz duz NAruto ues, so I can be hokage??!!!!!11111!!!one!!!!11!

[Reidar]

I've actually seen that exact question before, along with, "Will wearing ankle weights let me jump higher like Goku at the 23rd Budokai?"

[Bernard_Monsha]

I've actually seen that exact question before, along with, "Will wearing ankle weights let me jump higher like Goku at the 23rd Budokai?"

Did the say they wanted to be like Brolly because his power is maximum. I had a geek in my Kendo class ask about the Hiten Mitsirugi style. I also some fun with a local wuss-fu instructors who said a man in platemail was to slow to take a skilled martial artist.

[KingofHearts 13]

I guess there is no one on this forum who practices Capoeira...?


i was in gymnastics for a good 7-8 years of my life, and my teacher taught me a few tech's just mainly the body bending stuff and flips, but its mainly for me to be self-taught to an extent

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

The only necessary component to learning a martial art is learning how to fight with it.

That opinion sounds matter-of-fact but it really is just another way of going about it. It is a given that the fighting component will always be there. Learning a little history and culture is a part of the lesson and is always good to know. It still is ultimately a learning experience for both mind and body.

Capoeria seems more like dancing, with a lot of wasted movement to me

It seems like dancing because it is a dance. The combat is part of the movement. As it was explained to me, they are "playing" and although it is a game, each strike has an intended target with each player "aiming to hit." (in a serious game of course). When you research its history, you'll see why the dance is part of the game.

Did the say they wanted to be like Brolly because his power is maximum. I had a geek in my Kendo class ask about the Hiten Mitsirugi style.

Well, some people aren't able to differentiate reality from what they see in anime (I'm hoping that the person who asked was not an adult). I would just politely inform them of the difference and then walk away before they ask another question along those lines. A push in the right direction is probably what they need. Usually, people who have never studied any martial art are full of these types of questions. OR on the other hand...try not to laugh too loudly...


Learning martial arts for many years, I've realized it is not the style that matters. It is the practice. Most martial arts have more than enough techniques to defend yourself and wreck havoc. But you'll need lots of practice, a sparing partner who's always there and the ability to bear pain. The instructor is also important. Find one that suits you. Some focus on sports, some on beating the crap out of a person and some on soft techniques(eg. locking, judo/kendo stuff). Also he must be able to explain the technique well. You know those dancing thingy they do in karate, kung fu whatever, it actually is the techniques, but too bad most instructors teach it as if it is dancing.

I agree with that. Once you find a style that you like, put your effort into it. Whether for self defense, physical fitness or both. What you said about instruction is dead on. The ability to explain the application and how it evolved. The "dancy thingy" you refer to...you meant "forms" right? If taught correctly, they would be able to reinforce the moves that you already learned.

You sure have seen people doing thai kick boxing and copoeria flying all around , jumping here and there, doing somersaults when they take out the enemy. Well in real life combat, that's not gonna happen. You'd either take out that guy in one or two simple moves or you run, if not you're dead meat. And those flying moves, if your body is strong enough, anyone can do it.

Yep. Simplicity regarding self defense one key. Unless you want to draw out the fight. And running, although sometimes I don't agree with it...that is the general consensus. Although jumping around and flipping isn't practical in a real self defense scenario, it would still be a fun challenge to learn how to do it.

Anyhow, Rurouni Saiyan said he was interested in this style. Once he tries it, he can decide if that is what he wants to devote his time to.

[Leader Desslock]

I also some fun with a local wuss-fu instructors who said a man in platemail was to slow to take a skilled martial artist.
Please tell me that this "fun" entailed a physical demonstration at his expense. I would pay a great deal to be able to witness this.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

i was in gymnastics for a good 7-8 years of my life, and my teacher taught me a few tech's just mainly the body bending stuff and flips, but its mainly for me to be self-taught to an extent

It's always good to have the basics. So, would you recommend this type of training for anyone who is interested?

[Reidar]

Learning a little history and culture is a part of the lesson and is always good to know.

Saying "it's good to know" is a different statement from "your training is incomplete without it".

I don't learn the backstory of boxing, a martial art with an incredibly deep history that chronologically precedes all other documented systems of combat (except for wrestling), when I go to a boxing gym. Do they provide incomplete training?

[???????]

T
The "dancy thingy" you refer to...you meant "forms" right? If taught correctly, they would be able to reinforce the moves that you already learned.


I'm not sure if it is called forms or not. I'm only familiar with the name in the traditional language. Taegeuk for Taekwondo and kata for Karate. For Kungfu(whatever variant) it is either flower or pattern, forgot the chinese word already.

I wouldn't really say it reinforces any moves, it is a set of many independent moves or independent techniques combined to form a 'dance thingy'.

[Victory]

My special is healing a third of my life bar.

[Trefellin]

I also some fun with a local wuss-fu instructors who said a man in platemail was to slow to take a skilled martial artist.

I really want to see that. An athletic person can sprint and do push ups in a full suit of plate armour. The biggest problem would be vision, though a full set of harness is less of an encumbrance than most would think. Also the armoured man can't be struck without smashing your bones against steel.

[Caine]

A capoeira thread with no Flawless Victory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJfwWCsjPZg&mode=related&search=)?

I'm disapointed in you guys.


I really dont know much about capoeira except what little I learn from being around my brother. who does it.

[Animematt55]

My special is healing a third of my life bar.

...Elena?

*filler*

[Bernard_Monsha]

I really want to see that. An athletic person can sprint and do push ups in a full suit of plate armour. The biggest problem would be vision, though a full set of harness is less of an encumbrance than most would think. Also the armoured man can't be struck without smashing your bones against steel.

That only happens if you wear a great helm. If you were foot you never would. Most people do not realize that the Laurence Olivier myth of fully armored knights being raised on their horse by a wench is nothing but Hollywood. He found that out on the business end of a bill.

[Holy Knight]

That only happens if you wear a great helm. If you were foot you never would. Most people do not realize that the Laurence Olivier myth of fully armored knights being raised on their horse by a wench is nothing but Hollywood. He found that out on the business end of a bill.

This reminds me of a scene in "A Knight's Tale" with Heath Ledger. We see a fully armoured man trying to unsuccessfully mount a horse even though he has the help of a stool and his retainer.

If I recall correctly, full plate armour is around 40-50kg of weight. It does impede on motion, but for one who has been fighting with it since he was a little lad will give his disillusioned opponent a bitter shock.

[KingofHearts 13]

It's always good to have the basics. So, would you recommend this type of training for anyone who is interested?

0oh yeah, because it teaches you how to stretch properly and thats one of the first things, because if u try to do a back handspring to a tumble flip, you could wind up spraining something. not to mention it also teaches you where your center of balance is

[Reidar]

The straight-arm methods (iron cross, planche, maltese, etc.) in gymnastics build tremendous strength. There are gymnasts who have never powerlifted before in their lives, and can deadlift 400 lbs. on their first attempt after years of high-level gymnastics.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Saying "it's good to know" is a different statement from "your training is incomplete without it".

First, IF you are going to "quote" anything I say (I'm flattered that you would take the time to re-read my posts), I would kindly ask that you accurately do so. A quoted statement is supposed to be verbatim from the original source. Furthermore, omitting words and only using sentence fragments to try and make a point will not do the trick.

You tried to quote what I said but I have provided the original statements from which you derived you "quotes" from. Here is what I originally said.

Learning a little history and culture is a part of the lesson and is always good to know. It still is ultimately a learning experience for both mind and body.

In the beginning, you may be drilled on basics until you get bored or as others have said, be turned off by talk of its rich history. But if you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete and you won't be able to appreciate it.

When taken in the original context and written accurately, both my statements do not conflict with each other. Because each have preceding and/or proceeding statements in addition to some key words (which were conveniently omitted) that further support the point that I was originally trying to make.

I don't learn the backstory of boxing, a martial art with an incredibly deep history that chronologically precedes all other documented systems of combat (except for wrestling), when I go to a boxing gym. Do they provide incomplete training?

Well, it is already a fact that boxing has a deep history. Stating that it precedes all other systems of combat is a bit unnecessary.

You last question does not seem to flow with your post. It is unclear by your indications why "you don't learn the back story of boxing".....
a) You don't learn it because you don't feel like learning it?

OR

b)You don't learn it because the gym you go to does not provide it in the lesson plan?

Both have different implications. And I don't what type of instruction is provided at the gym that you go to.

So, whether or not they provide complete training is question that only have an opinion on. You had used a term before "mcdojos". Very clever term. I had come across something similar in a sociology class one time...a book dealing with the "McDonaldization" of society. If it can be applied to dojos, is it fair to apply to it boxing gyms? Just as not all dojos provide proper (or what people may subjectively think of as "good") instruction, the same can be said about said boxing gyms.

Do you feel that your gym provides incomplete training?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

A capoeira thread with no Flawless Victory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJfwWCsjPZg&mode=related&search=)?

I'm disapointed in you guys.


I really dont know much about capoeira except what little I learn from being around my brother. who does it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfeI0Y7lHkw

I have better.

[Reidar]

First, IF you are going to "quote" anything I say (I'm flattered that you would take the time to re-read my posts), I would kindly ask that you accurately do so. A quoted statement is supposed to be verbatim from the original source. Furthermore, omitting words and only using sentence fragments to try and make a point will not do the trick.

Why would I quote that which I do not take disagreement to? If someone else were to quote my words, I would expect them to be particular about what they're disputing for the convenience of both parties.

Your complaint would have merit if my paraphrasing altered context, but it did not.

You tried to quote what I said but I have provided the original statements from which you derived you "quotes" from. Here is what I originally said.

Learning a little history and culture is a part of the lesson and is always good to know. It still is ultimately a learning experience for both mind and body.

In the beginning, you may be drilled on basics until you get bored or as others have said, be turned off by talk of its rich history. But if you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete and you won't be able to appreciate it.

When taken in the original context and written accurately, both my statements do not conflict with each other. Because each have preceding and/or proceeding statements in addition to some key words (which were conveniently omitted) that further support the point that I was originally trying to make.

To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention. I very well could have used both original phrases in their entirety:

"The thing about any martial art is not only to learn it but to make it your own. In the beginning, you may be drilled on basics until you get bored or as others have said, be turned off by talk of its rich history. But if you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete and you won't be able to appreciate it."

"That opinion sounds matter-of-fact but it really is just another way of going about it. It is a given that the fighting component will always be there. Learning a little history and culture is a part of the lesson and is always good to know. It still is ultimately a learning experience for both mind and body."

The context would have remained identical; the degree to which that context is justified (or, at the very least, attempted to be) is what's cut. That matters not; you know what you wrote, and I read what you wrote. With both of us assuming that of the other (unless an interpretation is so blatantly inaccurate that it mars the entire exchange), we can move on to specificity. That's how a debate works.

Well, it is already a fact that boxing has a deep history. Stating that it precedes all other systems of combat is a bit unnecessary.

No, it was not. Emphasizing the extent of its origins in chronology served to underline the point of neglecting that history; therefore, if a martial art with as deep a back-story as boxing does not have history as a prerequisite, certainly, more modern styles would not, either.

You last question does not seem to flow with your post. It is unclear by your indications why "you don't learn the back story of boxing".....
a) You don't learn it because you don't feel like learning it?

OR

b)You don't learn it because the gym you go to does not provide it in the lesson plan?

Both have different implications. And I don't what type of instruction is provided at the gym that you go to.

Irrelevant. For the record, I'm very well-versed in the history of Western boxing, but my motives have nothing to do with whether learning that at a gym is criteria for legitimacy.

So, whether or not they provide complete training is question that only have an opinion on. You had used a term before "mcdojos". Very clever term. I had come across something similar in a sociology class one time...a book dealing with the "McDonaldization" of society. If it can be applied to dojos, is it fair to apply to it boxing gyms? Just as not all dojos provide proper (or what people may subjectively think of as "good") instruction, the same can be said about said boxing gyms.

Here's what you're doing: I asked a question with an already-defined set of circumstances in order to progress what you're trying to convey to me. Instead of answering that, you're adding in unrelated variables that miss the point of doing that to begin with. You stated that to neglect the historical teaching of an art is to "probably" equate to incomplete training. I'm taking that, and applying it to a question that tests the logic of it: if that is the case, do boxing gyms provide incomplete training to a boxer, based on the above circumstances alone? Because it would certainly seem that that's what the statement would allude to.

"What if your boxing gym has a weak roof, and while you're training, it collapses and crushes you? I cannot say for certain whether it's legit or not because of that possibility."

That's an exaggeration of what you went off on, obviously, but what does something along the lines of that contribute? Nothing, so let's assume that everything else that constitutes any future hypothetical gyms are ideal conditions. Now, again: does a boxing gym most likely provide "incomplete training" because it does not teach history?

Do you feel that your gym provides incomplete training?

No, because history is not necessary to learn combat. I study boxing history in my spare time. I study Muay Thai history in my spare time. I study Brazilian jiu-jitsu history in my spare time. I learn how to fight with boxing, Muay Thai, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu at my gyms, and if I did not happen to have a passion for history, it would not make my training as a fighter any less complete.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Why would I quote that which I do not take disagreement to? If someone else were to quote my words, I would expect them to be particular about what they're disputing for the convenience of both parties.

You left out portions that contributed to what you disagreed with. And you did so, seemingly for your convenience.

Your complaint would have merit if my paraphrasing altered context, but it did not.

You obviously DID NOT paraphrase. You clearly had quote marks and were inaccurate in conveying the original statement. There is a distinct difference in paraphrasing and quoting something. So to reiterate, I would kindly ask that you quote more accurately. That would give your arguments more merit.

The context would have remained identical; the degree to which that context is justified (or, at the very least, attempted to be) is what's cut. That matters not; you know what you wrote, and I read what you wrote. With both of us assuming that of the other (unless an interpretation is so blatantly inaccurate that it mars the entire exchange), we can move on to specificity. That's how a debate works.

All that filler still does not change the fact that in your attempt to find fault, you omitted certain things(mistakenly or conveniently). The fact that you used inaccurate and incomplete passages from what I originally wrote is enough grounds to render your counter invalid.

No, it was not. Emphasizing the extent of its origins in chronology served to underline the point of neglecting that history; therefore, if a martial art with as deep a back-story as boxing does not have history as a prerequisite, certainly, more modern styles would not, either.

Modern styles evolved from somewhere. It is only your opinion that history (and you omitted culture) is not a prerequisite.

Irrelevant. For the record, I'm very well-versed in the history of Western boxing, but my motives have nothing to do with whether learning that at a gym is criteria for legitimacy.

No, it is relevant. You had posed a question based on a statement that could be loosely interpreted. Some background information was needed because your motive (which you still failed to make clear) will provide a reason why you feel the way you do regarding this topic. You made clear your position but just don't do enough to defend it. Instead you pose a hypothetical question that can only be answered when certain variables are considered. And since it was you who brought it up, you should of at least had the courtesy to provide some input.


Here's what you're doing: I asked a question with an already-defined set of circumstances in order to progress what you're trying to convey to me. Instead of answering that, you're adding in unrelated variables that miss the point of doing that to begin with. You stated that to neglect the historical teaching of an art is to "probably" equate to incomplete training. I'm taking that, and applying it to a question that tests the logic of it: if that is the case, do boxing gyms provide incomplete training to a boxer, based on the above circumstances alone? Because it would certainly seem that that's what the statement would allude to.

"What if your boxing gym has a weak roof, and while you're training, it collapses and crushes you? I cannot say for certain whether it's legit or not because of that possibility."

That's an exaggeration of what you went off on, obviously, but what does something along the lines of that contribute? Nothing, so let's assume that everything else that constitutes any future hypothetical gyms are ideal conditions. Now, again: does a boxing gym most likely provide "incomplete training" because it does not teach history?

Here's what you did; You were unsuccessful at trying to dismiss a point that is relevant to what we are talking about. You had brought up the subject of boxing and the gym (you were talking about your gym). It all ties in with my previous question as to your opinion about the gym that you attend. Unless you are in the habit of training at hypothetical gyms, it is not realistic to assume that every gym is ideally in good condition. Since you are training, only you can say for sure if you feel if it is incomplete. Since you felt the need to mention your training and knowledge on the subject with no reservations, it is only fitting that you would use your gym as a specific reference point to defend your stance.

The training as a whole would seem incomplete to someone who feels that history and culture along with the physical aspects are important co-requisites.

No, because history is not necessary to learn combat. I study boxing history in my spare time. I study Muay Thai history in my spare time. I study Brazilian jiu-jitsu history in my spare time.

Again you try to sound matter-of-fact but I feel that combat, and more specifically martial arts, encompasses a lot more than just physical attributes. You will definitely learn how to fight but that is just part of the experience.

I learn how to fight with boxing, Muay Thai, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu at my gyms, and if I did not happen to have a passion for history, it would not make my training as a fighter any less complete.

You picked boxing even though the original focus was Capoeira; which is a martial art in which history and culture play a significant role in its training methods. Whether it is Kung Fu at an academy, karate at a dojo, etc and so on (all valid martial art examples), the bottom line seems to be that to anyone who feels history and culture are not important in conjunction with martial arts training, the type of training you describe above would seem complete.

We both seem to agree that history is important. The time and place is the issue. Obviously, a lecture type history lesson during training (as a hypothetical example) is a bit over-the-top and not what I intended when I was making my point. If the teacher cites facts and some historical and cultural anecdotes in conjunction with the physical training, then I feel there would be more benefits for the student.

[Reidar]

You left out portions that contributed to what you disagreed with. And you did so, seemingly for your convenience.

What was omitted was the extraneous substratum that served merely as the means to making whatever your case happened to be. To demand that is to demand redundancy. The crucial element is that which defines the compendium of your assertion, in abiding by the premise of a cohesive dissonance; not only do we know what was said prior for that specific excerpt to exist, but we assume that degree of perception on the other.

You obviously DID NOT paraphrase. You clearly had quote marks and were inaccurate in conveying the original statement. There is a distinct difference in paraphrasing and quoting something. So to reiterate, I would kindly ask that you quote more accurately. That would give your arguments more merit.

To "quote" and to "paraphrase" are not mutually exclusive concepts. To "paraphrase" is to concoct "a restatement of a text, passage, or work, giving the meaning in another form". A "statement" can very feasibly be made with a quotation.

My paraphrasing of your points was thus: "It's good to know", and "your training is incomplete without it", restated by singling out the sum of its parts to those two conflicting constituencies. Explain precisely how those are inaccurate representations of what you're trying to express. Where was the context amiss, and what specific portions of the remaining body would add to it? This is what you've failed to convey, thus far.

All that filler still does not change the fact that in your attempt to find fault, you omitted certain things(mistakenly or conveniently). The fact that you used inaccurate and incomplete passages from what I originally wrote is enough grounds to render your counter invalid.

If you insist so readily that my alleged misrepresentation was monumentous enough to nullify whatever else may be said, I would think you to be acquisitive to make known how. I can easily make the case that you not doing so is enough to, ironically, "render your counter invalid".

Modern styles evolved from somewhere. It is only your opinion that history (and you omitted culture) is not a prerequisite.

Culture exists concomitantly with history. That's why you used "history 'and' culture", not "history 'or' culture", with the post in reference. "And", as a coordinating conjunction, is being used to conjoin the clauses nearly synonymously.

That organized systems of combat do not necessitate history in order to function is not mere postulation. It is not physically impossible for someone to learn the mechanics and functionality of the art without recognition of its origins.

No, it is relevant. You had posed a question based on a statement that could be loosely interpreted. Some background information was needed because your motive (which you still failed to make clear) will provide a reason why you feel the way you do regarding this topic. You made clear your position but just don't do enough to defend it. Instead you pose a hypothetical question that can only be answered when certain variables are considered. And since it was you who brought it up, you should of at least had the courtesy to provide some input.

There was only one possible way to interpret that inquiry, and that's by utilizing the circumstances provided. Any other variables are speculatory and irrelevant. It only takes a single confutation to contrive a falsehood within a statement's entirety, and the question "do boxing gyms provide incomplete training if they neglect teaching boxing history?" applied that law to your assertion. It was already a preexisting flaw in your logic that I only identified, not created. If you agree with the above in abiding by your exclusionary criteria of, "If you don't know its history or think that it is unnecessary, you're training will probably be incomplete", then you abate boxers as legitimate martial artists; if you disagree, you contradict what you previously articulated. The question I presented to you operated under those circumstances, and those circumstances alone, in order to A.) help clarify what you intended to traject when you said that, and B.) to point out a flaw in that logic that you, as the possessor of it, should be ardent in addressing, if not for the audience you're trying to convince, then for yourself, at the very least.

Here's what you did; You were unsuccessful at trying to dismiss a point that is relevant to what we are talking about.

You can hardly speak for what I do. I already dismissed it, regardless of the extent that your motivations exist otherwise; what remains to be done is on your part. Superfluous variables added nothing to a linear question.

You had brought up the subject of boxing and the gym (you were talking about your gym). It all ties in with my previous question as to your opinion about the gym that you attend. Unless you are in the habit of training at hypothetical gyms, it is not realistic to assume that every gym is ideally in good condition.

The purpose of a hypothetical question is not "realism". If it were, it would not be hypothetical in the first place because it would be answered in regards to reasoning, not validity. An objection based upon the composition of the presented circumstances is not an appropriate answer to the question; that is assumed to be determined.

Since you are training, only you can say for sure if you feel if it is incomplete. Since you felt the need to mention your training and knowledge on the subject with no reservations, it is only fitting that you would use your gym as a specific reference point to defend your stance.

Of course it's fitting. I speak for myself, first and foremost. Reservations need not be made under the appropriate guise.

The training as a whole would seem incomplete to someone who feels that history and culture along with the physical aspects are important co-requisites.

You've changed your assertion yet again. Now, it's only neglectful if that individual personally "feels" accordingly, as opposed to, "If you don't know it", the latter of which makes no effort to define exceptions (however fallacious those exceptions may be).

Again you try to sound matter-of-fact but I feel that combat, and more specifically martial arts, encompasses a lot more than just physical attributes. You will definitely learn how to fight but that is just part of the experience.

That's incorrect. "Martial arts" are the "arts" of "war". Anything beyond that are properties of culture and philosophy, not martial aspects.

You picked boxing even though the original focus was Capoeira;

It wasn't. I clearly said initially, in post #10, "The only necessary component to learning a martial art is learning how to fight with it." If you were only referring to Capoeira, then you would have clarified that. Instead, in your retort, you accepted that premise and went with it, thereby establishing the subject at hand.

which is a martial art in which history and culture play a significant role in its training methods.

They play a significant role in regards to the reality of tradition, not in terms of the scope of effectiveness. One can still learn the combative system of Capoeira without recognizing its history and cultural placement. It would omit the tradition surrounding the art itself, but not its propriety as a martial art.

Whether it is Kung Fu at an academy, karate at a dojo, etc and so on (all valid martial art examples),

This completely nullified the remark, "You picked boxing even though the original focus was Capoeira". To further matters, "Kung Fu" and "Karate" are not martial arts, but are umbrella terms for various Chinese and Japanese arts, respectively. With Hsing Yi Kung Fu, "Hsing Yi" would be the actual martial art.

the bottom line seems to be that to anyone who feels history and culture are not important in conjunction with martial arts training, the type of training you describe above would seem complete.

History and culture have no bearing on the effectiveness of combat. They can be used as exemplary tools to augment the training, but as imperatives to even make restitution at all, the point of what comprises a martial art to begin with is almost entirely lost.

If the teacher cites facts and some historical and cultural anecdotes in conjunction with the physical training, then I feel there would be more benefits for the student.

They would be of benefit to making known the perspective of where something stands, but if they were not made, it would not invalidate the student's training.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Too many extraneous things here so I'll just respond to what I feel stands out.

To actually spend time as to try and explain the definitions of paraphrasing and quotations is a bit reaching. I know what you tried to do and it was clearly pointed out. **Well, it seems that this habit is a difficult one to break even after it has already been pointed out.

You're definition of martial arts is based on one perspective.

Kung Fu and Karate are commonly used terms in martial arts. Unnecessarily naming specific styles of Kung Fu has no bearing on what we are discussing. Maybe you thought it was a good time contribute with any fact relating to martial arts.

Nothing was nullified. Just another case of omission.

The question that was submitted has already been answered. Whether or not anyone agrees with that answer depends on how they feel about martial arts training. I've already said why I feel those things (history and culture) are important in martial arts training and that should be enough. We are at this point because there was obviously a disagreement on your part. You've made clear your feelings on the matter-at-hand. However, neither of us has changed their stance regarding this topic.

If I may politely point out something. I never implied that the effectiveness of the physical combat in martial arts training, something that you are a big proponent of, would be in any way diminished or invalidated with the absence of history and culture (the sentiment that I get from your statements). That was your incorrect assertion. As I said in a previously, the fighting aspect will always be there. I talked about the training as a whole and that it was ultimately an experience for the mind and body. It seems those statements were ignored in order to facilitate an argument based on a single point-of-view using some sentence fragments.

[Reidar]

Too many extraneous things here so I'll just respond to what I feel stands out.

To actually spend time as to try and explain the definitions of paraphrasing and quotations is a bit reaching.

Then why bring it up at all, if you feel it to be a mere matter of semantics? You instigated that by attempting to correct me on inapplicable terminology usage. When I prove that to be false, it suddenly becomes trivial?

As it stands, making an accusation like that is making an accusation of misinterpretation, which calls for an address. If you disagreed, then you wouldn't have brought that up for me to refute.

I know what you tried to do and it was clearly pointed out.

I paraphrased you to make my case. Simple.

You're definition of martial arts is based on one perspective.

Kung Fu and Karate are commonly used terms in martial arts. Unnecessarily naming specific styles of Kung Fu has no bearing on what we are discussing.

What's "common" isn't synonymous with what's "correct", the latter of which necessitates a valid exchange. It's wholly relevant to this discussion because it serves as a component to one of your points. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference.

Certainly no less trivial than you attempting to differentiate between "paraphrasing" and "quoting".

You're definition of martial arts is based on one perspective.

Quite the contrary, it's based on an objective definition. The "art" of "martial" systems is a concise concept. Introducing philosophy is the matter of perspective.

Maybe you thought it was a good time contribute with any fact relating to martial arts.

It wasn't just "any" fact if it was in direct accordance to a point you made.

The question that was submitted has already been answered. Whether or not anyone agrees with that answer depends on how they feel about martial arts training. I've already said why I feel those things (history and culture) are important in martial arts training and that should be enough.

Then why did you return to make your case? Is it only "enough" after you've said your piece? Obviously, what you said previously was not sufficient in its itself if you come back and add on to it.

If I may politely point out something. I never implied that the effectiveness of the physical combat in martial arts training, something that you are a big proponent of, would be in any way diminished or invalidated with the absence of history and culture (the sentiment that I get from your statements).

This is a strawman. I never said you did.

That was your incorrect assertion.

Copy and paste where this was posted.

As I said in a previously, the fighting aspect will always be there. I talked about the training as a whole and that it was ultimately an experience for the mind and body. It seems those statements were ignored in order to facilitate an argument based on a single point-of-view using some sentence fragments.

That aspect was ignored because I have no contention with it. I clearly made my case in saying that history and culture have no bearing on the effectiveness of combat. That doesn't mean I'm claiming you to be making moot every other facet, and it's outlandish for someone to assume that with no insinuation. That's a fallacy of speculation.

[Spadesy]

It's fine if you want to take it, so long as you don't get overly concerned about application. I saw a demonstration once. The guy was pretty light, had a six pac, and the movements looked as fun as break dancing. But I was still confident I could make him bite the curb.

[master terrence]

There's a Capoeria club at my school, they have a black belt instructor and everything. From what I've seen, they do a lot of flips and play loud music... It looks like fun. As far as Brazilian Martial arts go though, I'll stick to my Jujitsu.

[Animematt55]

There's a Capoeria club at my school, they have a black belt instructor and everything. From what I've seen, they do a lot of flips and play loud music... It looks like fun. As far as Brazilian Martial arts go though, I'll stick to my Jujitsu.

Sounds fun. Sounds more like a fitness thing to me though. But I bet you get a lot of centrifugal force and such with a flip kick thing

[master terrence]

fitness can be fun.

From what I saw, when the random capoeria guy did his flip he twisted his torso a lot and swung his hips down.

[tofuman]

My collage has a Capoeria club also. They do demonstrations every now and then. It looks fun to do, but it doesn't look very practical.

[Reidar]

The Capoeira roda is most often used in demonstrations to attract people, not the actual martial properties. It's like seeing a boxer work mitts with someone else, and then remarking that boxing would be suspect to use in a fight. That's not boxing, that's an exercise to train boxing. Capoeira's cultural traditions are undeniable, but it's not unheard of to incorporate Capoeira movements into pertinent combat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGfmJ0SCoY

PS: I wouldn't fault someone for reasonably making the observations you've made, because you obviously have to react to what's presented to you.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

So, we are agreed that you incorrectly quoted. It was no trivial matter. That is why I brought it up and felt that it stands out. It was the basis for your instigation. But I can see why you would try to make it seem trivial...again for your benefit.

So, then it is all to clear how you feel. You are a firm believer in your POV and that is fine. Just reread what you wrote if you forgot anything. I patiently read what you had to say on the topic and responded to what I thought deserved as such. Anything we write here is a possible moot point, as you can clearly attest to. Accordingly, it seems this is being dragged out.

You are still in disagreement with my feelings, which is no tragedy at all.

[Animematt55]

The Capoeira roda is most often used in demonstrations to attract people, not the actual martial properties. It's like seeing a boxer work mitts with someone else, and then remarking that boxing would be suspect to use in a fight. That's not boxing, that's an exercise to train boxing. Capoeira's cultural traditions are undeniable, but it's not unheard of to incorporate Capoeira movements into pertinent combat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGfmJ0SCoY

PS: I wouldn't fault someone for reasonably making the observations you've made, because you obviously have to react to what's presented to you.

It seems to me he just did one move from Capoeria though. Everything else was standard ground pounding

[Reidar]

So, we are agreed that you incorrectly quoted. It was no trivial matter. That is why I brought it up and felt that it stands out. It was the basis for your instigation.

Nope. It was correctly paraphrased, as I've already proven: "To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention."

Highlight: "...point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed."

You have yet to do that, as someone who still feels adamantly that context was somehow removed from the excerpts.

But I can see why you would try to make it seem trivial...again for your benefit.

Psst. That inconsequence is your own logic: "Unnecessarily naming specific styles of Kung Fu has no bearing on what we are discussing."

I have no issue with paltry remarks like that, but when you try to place irrelevance on the above after you (falsely) quibbled over the semantics of "paraphrasing" and "quoting", the hypocrisy becomes obvious. See, I don't mind if you claim that "paraphrasing" and "quoting" were used incorrectly; I can easily disprove that, as I did. I do mind when you say that and then complain about trivialities, because double-standards cheapen the exchange. What's more, when I actually addressed that and proved you incorrect, rather than either acknowledge or dispute it, you turned around and dismissed it as if I was the one who even brought it up in the first place.

So, then it is all to clear how you feel. You are a firm believer in your POV and that is fine. Just reread what you wrote if you forgot anything. I patiently read what you had to say on the topic and responded to what I thought deserved as such. Anything we write here is a possible moot point, as you can clearly attest to. Accordingly, it seems this is being dragged out.

It's funny how people always end with, "This exchange doesn't matter anymore" after they've made their points. If you really felt that "anything we write here is a possible moot point", you wouldn't be responding, now would you?

[Reidar]

It seems to me he just did one move from Capoeria though. Everything else was standard ground pounding

Yup. That's what that sport is. If the point was to portray Capoeira being used throughout the whole fight, it wouldn't be MMA anymore.

[HSaabedra]

Yup. That's what that sport is. If the point was to portray Capoeira being used throughout the whole fight, it wouldn't be MMA anymore.

MMA as it stands now isn't really mixed to begin with as the major promotions enforce jiujitsu as a style due to the use of the NJ Modified Ruleset. The ruleset mandates that promotions not allow anything that could be considered a part of the older vale tudo style, of which capoeira is placed under according to older rules. This is the reason I dislike MMA in its current form.

[Reidar]

MMA as it stands now isn't really mixed to begin with as the major promotions enforce jiujitsu as a style due to the use of the NJ Modified Ruleset.

"N.J.A.C 13:46-24A.1 lists the different weight classes for mixed martial artists.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.2 details requirements for the construction of the fighting area.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.3 provides that stools or chairs are required outside the fighting area for the contestant and his or her seconds.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.4 states that a water bucket and a water bottle must be provided.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.5 explains the specifications for bandaging a mixed martial artist’s hands.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.6 provides that the use of a mouthpiece by a mixed martial artist is mandatory.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.7 provides requirements for the use of a groin protector and a chest protector.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.8 states that the use of gloves is mandatory.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.9 specifies the types of apparel that are either mandatory or prohibited.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.10 states requirements for the physical appearance of a mixed martial artist.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.11 states the duration of the round length in a mixed martial arts event.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.12 provides that the referee and ringside physician are both authorized to stop a contest.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.13 states the factors for a judge to consider when scoring a mixed martial arts event.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.14 states what warnings a mixed martial artist may receive from the referee.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.15 lists the various fouls which if committed will result in penalties.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.16 states the consequences of injuries sustained during competition.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24A.17 states the different possible outcomes of a contest.

N.J.A.C. 13:46-24B.1 provides that mixed martial arts events are subject to the same requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:46-4 applicable to professional boxing.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24B.2 subjects mixed martial arts events to the same bond procedure of N.J.A.C. 13:46-4.8 applicable to professional boxing.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24B.3 subjects mixed martial arts events to the inspector requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:46-9 applicable to professional boxing.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24B.4 subjects mixed martial arts events to the health and safety requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:46-12A and 12B applicable to professional boxing.
N.J.A.C. 13:46-24B.5 subjects mixed martial arts events to the weigh in timing requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:46-1A.3 applicable to professional boxing."

There is zero official endorsement of any one style. And BJJ is far from being the only grappling art. A background in folkstyle wrestling is key in establishing a good ground base in defenses against takedowns, boxing stances have the footwork systems modified to work with Muay Thai, Fedor's champion Sambo skills are frequently utilized, and so on.

Muay Thai and BJJ just so happen to be some of the more mainstream systems, to the point that there's a distinction between European and traditional Muay Thai and Muay Boran. That doesn't speak on behalf of the sanctioning body.

The ruleset mandates that promotions not allow anything that could be considered a part of the older vale tudo style, of which capoeira is placed under according to older rules. This is the reason I dislike MMA in its current form.

Vale Tudo entailed maneuvers that have violated modern MMA rules for years. MMA already attracts controversy and legislation from politicians; as it stands, the sport would simply not have a chance to grow with "anything goes" Vale Tudo rules. What's more, the above criteria don't even diminish any actual aspects of the fight itself. The biggest issue I have is not being able to knee a grounded opponent in UFC, which is hardly a deal-breaker. If a fighter thinks he can make Capoeira maneuvers work in an MMA match, there is no prerequisite to stop him from trying.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

There's a Capoeria club at my school, they have a black belt instructor and everything. From what I've seen, they do a lot of flips and play loud music... It looks like fun. As far as Brazilian Martial arts go though, I'll stick to my Jujitsu.

You should try it and tell us how it goes. It definitely takes some great physical exertion (as do most martial arts). Seems like an interesting endeavor.

It's funny how people always end with, "This exchange doesn't matter anymore" after they've made their points. If you really felt that "anything we write here is a possible moot point", you wouldn't be responding, now would you?

I expected something like this. If it didn't matter, I would not have contributed my point in the first place. So then you things from a one-sided perspective and that is enough for you.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

I apologize to everyone else for I have let my time be wasted.

Does anyone else have any opinions on Capoeira? Out of all the members here, there has to be someone who actively pursues this art. An opinion from a qualified participant would be a plus.

I welcome your thoughts. Don't be shy.

[Reidar]

I expected something like this. If it didn't matter, I would not have contributed my point in the first place.

Exactly, thus rendering "anything we write here is a possible moot point" an inconsequential remark.

So then you things from a one-sided perspective and that is enough for you.

Do not speak for me in regards to what I am and am not content with; it only makes your previous renunciations on your side of the exchange all the more glaring.

[Hara!]

If AN still had clubs, you guys would be the 'Tyler Durdens'.

[Reidar]

I eat Tyler Durdens for breakfast.

[???????]

fitness can be fun.

From what I saw, when the random capoeria guy did his flip he twisted his torso a lot and swung his hips down.

Right, fitness can be fun. However fun does vary from person to person. I like dancing as well as somersaults. At the same time, I also enjoy doing all those fixed moves martial arts things common in east Asian martial arts.