Can MA training ruin a natural fighter?

[lonecoyote]

Natural fighters exist, IMO, people who are strong, fast ,crafty, know what works for them and play to their own strengths. Take a guy who is exceptionally good at a couple of things, say, getting to an opponents back while stand up, where he usually kicks the hamstring, kidneys, hooks the head or chokes. He then goes to a MA school where all those things, save maybe the hook and footwork are against the rules. You fight like you train and so over thousands of repetitions of techniques as he goes all the way to black belt, he unlearns what worked for him. This is just an example. I'm not talking about dirty tricks specifically, just unorthodox stuff that some people have a talent for using very well. I knew a guy who knew one wrestling takedown, and he didn't do it right anyway, and yet he was so incredibly fast with it, and the takedown was so brutal that he didn't really need anything else, whether roughhousing with friends in the backyard, which is where I experienced it, or from what I'd heard, on the street. Fixing the guys technique, or changing his style would probably have ruined him. So, is this possible, MA training making a worse fighter out of someone?

 

[TonyM.]

Not really. MA training (unless it's poor) will only sharpen their skills and provide them with more.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yes. Bad training will ruin anyones ability to fight.

If you want to improve fighting skill, you have to train in fighting, not stylized routines and techniques.

All of those things you mentioned are legal and are trained in sparring in martial arts schools.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Nothing human beings do is altogether "natural."

2. You're not really talking about martial arts; you're talking about lousy teaching.

3. Sooner or later, everybody runs into somebody who's naturally bigger, stronger, and quicker.

4. Sure. After all, look how well Tyson turned out, after he got away from a real trainer.

 

[lonecoyote]

Nothing human beings do is altogether natural. Agreed, but certainly some things come more naturally to some than to others. Am I really talking about lousy teaching? Or simply how some have blinders on, doesn't mean they teach the techniques they know or believe in badly, they just don't see outside that view of their art. And no, some of the things I mentioned you cannot spar with, depending on your style (kicking in the legs, back, etc). Trying to talk more about concept than individual techniques. Looks like I might have hit a nerve with some, so I'll just say in advance I have a lot of respect for the posters here at MartialTalk, I've learned a lot and am once again ready to be convinced I'm wrong.

 

[Andrew Green]

It doesn't matter how well you teach the wrong things, they are still the wrong things...

Take a natural brawler and turn him into a point fighter, even a very good point fighter, and his fighting skills probably went down.

Stick him in a NHB school and refine what he naturally does to a much higher level and you won't want top get on his bad side

 

[lonecoyote]

Those are all good points Andrew, but what I'm talking about would apply to NHB training too. Here's kind of what I mean: My nephew was fairly good at golf. I don't know anything about golf so don't ask what his handicap was or whatever, just been told he was pretty good. The only formal instruction he had was in high school, and that wasn't much. The thing is, from what I understand, he got fairly good while doing a lot of things wrong, which sometimes happens in golf. He met a gal a few years ago who was a golf pro. She tried to fix his swing. He worked hard at it, changed everything, and watched his game go to hell. Couldn't get it back either, he'd done too many reps of trying doing it the "right" way. That's what I mean. Could the same thing happen in martial arts? By the way I have to say this about Mike Tyson, are you blaming Tyson's trainers for what happened to him? Are you saying D'Amato was the only real trainer Tyson trained with? That's not true. Anyway, doesn't have to do with the subject.

 

[Zujitsuka]

Natural fighters exist, IMO, people who are strong, fast ,crafty, know what works for them and play to their own strengths. Take a guy who is exceptionally good at a couple of things, say, getting to an opponents back while stand up, where he usually kicks the hamstring, kidneys, hooks the head or chokes. He then goes to a MA school where all those things, save maybe the hook and footwork are against the rules. You fight like you train and so over thousands of repetitions of techniques as he goes all the way to black belt, he unlearns what worked for him. This is just an example. I'm not talking about dirty tricks specifically, just unorthodox stuff that some people have a talent for using very well. I knew a guy who knew one wrestling takedown, and he didn't do it right anyway, and yet he was so incredibly fast with it, and the takedown was so brutal that he didn't really need anything else, whether roughhousing with friends in the backyard, which is where I experienced it, or from what I'd heard, on the street. Fixing the guys technique, or changing his style would probably have ruined him. So, is this possible, MA training making a worse fighter out of someone?

Yes some martial arts can ruin a fighter by having them assume unnatural postures (e.g. deep horse stance, deep back stance, etc.) when fighting. Also, keeping one's fist in chamber when fighting is a sure way to swallow a few knuckle sandwiches. No disrepect intended to traditional martial arts training as everything has its place, but its place is not in modern fighting strategy and tactics.

 

[Andrew Green]

The thing is, from what I understand, he got fairly good while doing a lot of things wrong, which sometimes happens in golf. He met a gal a few years ago who was a golf pro. She tried to fix his swing. He worked hard at it, changed everything, and watched his game go to hell. Couldn't get it back either, he'd done too many reps of trying doing it the "right" way.

Definately... but not to the same degree. Golf is far more specialised. There are far less motions then in NHB.

So lets say we had someone with a really agressive tackle, we start working to turn it into a proper double leg and maybe they won't be as good at it. But there is a ton of other stuff that they will have had no knowledge of that they will be bringning in.

The other major difference is they will be working against people that can defend against tackles. So the only reason they would really have to modify it would be if they were unable to take trained people down with it. Cause lets face it, no coach is going to have someone throw out a technique that they can make work consistantly against trained fighters because it isn't "technically" correct...

 

[loki09789]

Does training hurt a 'natural athelete' of any kind? Would Speakman, Gretzky, Payton...be who they were to their fields without training?

Natural fighters exist, IMO, people who are strong, fast ,crafty, know what works for them and play to their own strengths. Take a guy who is exceptionally good at a couple of things, say, getting to an opponents back while stand up, where he usually kicks the hamstring, kidneys, hooks the head or chokes. He then goes to a MA school where all those things, save maybe the hook and footwork are against the rules. You fight like you train and so over thousands of repetitions of techniques as he goes all the way to black belt, he unlearns what worked for him. This is just an example. I'm not talking about dirty tricks specifically, just unorthodox stuff that some people have a talent for using very well. I knew a guy who knew one wrestling takedown, and he didn't do it right anyway, and yet he was so incredibly fast with it, and the takedown was so brutal that he didn't really need anything else, whether roughhousing with friends in the backyard, which is where I experienced it, or from what I'd heard, on the street. Fixing the guys technique, or changing his style would probably have ruined him. So, is this possible, MA training making a worse fighter out of someone?

 

[Andrew Green]

Does training hurt a 'natural athelete' of any kind? Would Speakman, Gretzky, Payton...be who they were to their fields without training?

Would they be there if they had different training? Even if still "correct"

Everyone does things slightly differently. A good coach will work of the way a person moves naturally, not try to force them into a mould, which is what can take away from a persons skill.

 

[loki09789]

Would they be there if they had different training? Even if still "correct"

Everyone does things slightly differently. A good coach will work of the way a person moves naturally, not try to force them into a mould, which is what can take away from a persons skill.

none of these performance fields are strictly movement based. They all require conceptual, technical and tactical/strategic understanding that MUST come from thoughtful instruction that guides the learner through the techniques of intraspection (what am I doing, how can I do it better, what do I need to fix, How do I know I am ready for the next piece of the puzzle).

My point wasn't that these natural atheletes would not progress better than a fellow, less "natural" student, but that they would never reach maximum skill and performance ability without guided instruction. Agreed that the instruction has to be of quality standard for that to even be possible, but that is true for any student/program to succeed.

 

[Andrew Green]

yup, and those things are coached as well.

Gretzky has a unique style in how he plays the game.

Imagine if a coach had tried to change that, to make it "standard" would he be the same? Not just in the way he moved, but the way he played?

As an extreme, lets say a coach decided to turn him into a defenceman. Would he have even become a big name?

Not likely.

Same if someone tried to make him play the same as someone else. It just doesn't work. Even if it was the same position, it doesn't work.

Some people are more "standard" then others, but very often it is the unorthodox ones that get to the top, and those are the ones that get hurt the most by someone trying to fight that and make them play the way everyone else does.

 

[loki09789]

Strange how the ones who become the 'greats' all seem to get the same comments about them..."He/She makes it look so easy", "...Doesn't even look like they are trying"....

I don't know if it is so much that they are 'unorthodox' as much as balanced, in a tailored fashion, in skills (both technical and tactical).

They have evolved through the learning process so far that they have been able to put a style signature on the basics.

Your point about forcing folks into slot A type training is valid too. That is one of the Hockey battles in youth programs. Do you teach "system play" or do you teach "Skill development" and let the "system" (which means that the set plays won't be developed) take a back seat during training?

The "skill" approach is good for the player development and makes a stronger 'cell' for the 'body' and, theoretically, all those strong cells will evolve into a strong 'body' because of the individual improvement.

Personally, I think the 'art' of coaching, instruction and teaching is taking all the great 'science' stuff and being able to mix and match it to fit what is needed in the moment.

I agree that too often "system" whether martial arts or other sports can be emphasized instead of taking the time to build on natural abilities and prior knowledge.

yup, and those things are coached as well.

Gretzky has a unique style in how he plays the game.

Imagine if a coach had tried to change that, to make it "standard" would he be the same? Not just in the way he moved, but the way he played?

As an extreme, lets say a coach decided to turn him into a defenceman. Would he have even become a big name?

Not likely.

Same if someone tried to make him play the same as someone else. It just doesn't work. Even if it was the same position, it doesn't work.

Some people are more "standard" then others, but very often it is the unorthodox ones that get to the top, and those are the ones that get hurt the most by someone trying to fight that and make them play the way everyone else does.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Clearly, some folks are more talented. No question there. But also, talent is not nearly enough. The best are beautifully trained, extraordinarily talented, folks.

2. Training and teaching are different; the evidence strongly suggests that after d'Amato, Tyson was only trained. With appalling results, both for his fighting ability and his life.

3. Fighting is one part of martial arts. It ain't the whole thing. If you believe it is, follow Mr. Parker's advice: skip the boring and lengthy training and practice, buy a gun. But maybe, it's better to avoid the fantasy of becoming a pure warrior.

4. A good teacher avoids forcing students to be exactly like everybody else.

5. "Modern," arts, MMA, what have you, can be every bit as restrictive and strait-jackety as any poorly taught "traditional," art. Traditional arts can be every bit as liberating. It's all in the teacher, student, and school.

6. Maybe avoid confusing movie stars with the real deal? except for James Lew, of course.

 

[cfr]

I would say yes, MA could definatley make a naturally good fighter not so good. Lets say you have a great brawler, someone who give give and take with the best of them. Someone who has been in lots and lots of streetfights and who has alot of experience to draw on. Someone who is used to brutal, aggresive violence. Now you take this guy and put him into a school with lots of people that dont have the aggresiveness, althletics, or toughness of this guy. The school emphasizes proper technique. But to do it correctly, the fighter needs to be more controlled, more relaxed, more focused. More in tune with his chi. (Sorry, couldnt resist.) :ultracool Anyways, he eventually gets to point spar. He even gets good at it. But of course he cant be as aggresive and violent as he once was. He is now holding back the natural attributes he once had. Most people like Ive described dont usually go to schools like this from what Ive seen. As someone else mentioned they usually want more NHB type of training than traditional. A school that allows them to emphasize they're natural attributes and doesnt try to tame them.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. He might grow up, and become civilized.

And this would be a bad thing.

Again, in my opinion the problem here is a too-limited concept of what self-defense is.

 

[cfr]

Oh. He might grow up, and become civilized.

And this would be a bad thing.

Again, in my opinion the problem here is a too-limited concept of what self-defense is.

Right, theres no possibile way of growing up and becoming civilized without traditional MA training. I thought we were discussing self defense, not self improvement. artyon:

 

[lonecoyote]

rmcrobertson, Mike Tyson's main problem has always been Mike Tyson, not teaching, training or the lack thereof. I am not talking about civilizing the brutal, or steroid pumped 20 year old vs. 50 yr old master. Look at my golf analogy. Some people get pretty good at doing things the technically wrong way. And trying to correct their "problem" could ruin what they do best. How hardcore you want to be in your self defense fantasy doesn't even enter into it. Neither does whether you practice TMA or MMA. What I'm getting at is that there is maybe more than one truth, more than one way. No, fighting is not the whole of martial arts, but it had better be part of it, and what you have better work for you if you need it or else you might as well be doing ballroom dancing, which seems pretty cool too. Mr. Parker also had a quote about 10 techniques that work for you vs. 100 that work against you. The 100 that work against you, against your natural abilities, that's what I'm talking about. How about lots of practice and also buy a gun. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[rmcrobertson]

'Scuse me, but are you folks reading?

cfr's post specifically equated working out with "normal," people, and becoming a better person, with becoming a lesser fighter.

I didn't bring up the whole so-called "modern," vs. "traditional," nonsense;l a previous poster did. However, since it was brought up, I will say that a big chunk of the problem with contemporary martial arts lies right in that false opposition.

Oh, and I'd sure like to know where the hell it was that I claimed that martial arts had nothing to do with fighting. What I wrote was: "Fighting is one part of martial arts. It ain't the whole thing." "Lone Coyote," responded, apparently angrily, with: "No, fighting is not the whole of martial arts, but it had better be part of it..." stating something very different from what I...wait a minnit! It's the same statement!!

I'd also note that Tyson is going to end up penniless and miserable--looks to me as though something pretty essential to fighting got left out of his teaching: decent survival. Or is that not the point of fighting, in the end?

As for the quoting of cliches from Mr. Parker, well, the recitation of quotes that are quoted a thousand times to self-serving ends doesn't impress me. What impresses me--and what I don't see quoted, nearly so often, is his serious questioning of what martial arts are, and what they're for.

Yes, I suppose, if a naturally-talented fighter trains traditionally, they will lose some of their animal quality. Oooh, that'd be terrible. How awful to become a better human being--especially since I suspect that what's really being talked about here is the issue of fights on TV, which folks like to watch.

And by the way: I was always taught that one learns control so that, if need be, you can hit harder and more effectively.