Martial Frankensteins...why the hate?

[WingChunIan]

My main point being that MMA isn't some hodge-podge grab bag of techniques from any and every martial art, but rather the discipline of training in two or more different arts and knowing when to use which.

But MMA isn't a style and anyone who claims to train MMA is fooling themselves. What they train is a bit of MT and a bit of boxing and a bit of BJJ and a bit of wrestling etc etc dependent upon the background of the coaches in the club. Training for the sport of MMA is good old fashioned cross training and the best exponents train with dedicated expert coaches in each field not some self proclaimed GM of the style of MMA. Even when top fighters retire and open schools they invariably bring in style experts to assist. Obviously there are exceptions and some have released DVD's etc of their fighting system but most people who know their stuff can see through the marketing blurb. The choice of whether to cross train or not has been discussed many times before and the argument boils down to personal choice (jack of all trades or master of one) but creating a system is something different altogether. Most created systems are borne from bits of this and bits of that, and the important point is bits not total systems. People often cite JKD as a great example of a created system but actually JKD was borne from a principle that BL took on board from his wing chun seniors. As a principle JKD is great but everyone seems to forget that BL never learnt the whole WC system, who's to say that the bits he couldn't or chose not too incorporate wouldn't have been hugely beneficial to some of his students. I'm not knocking JKD just using it as an example because it is one of the better put together eclectic systems.

 

[J W]

We agree there, Ian, that's the point I trying to make. MMA fighters are training multiple distinct arts and using the one they need when they need it, instead of training in a single hybrid style.

There is no style called "MMA", but sometimes you'd never know it the way some schools advertise these days.

 

[Cyriacus]

We agree there, Ian, that's the point I trying to make. MMA fighters are training multiple distinct arts and using the one they need when they need it, instead of training in a single hybrid style.

There is no style called "MMA", but sometimes you'd never know it the way some schools advertise these days.

Thats because calling it MMA encapsulates it. It tells You Youll learn Striking, Grappling, Defense, Offense, Strength, Speed, so on and so forth, and may have opportunities for Competition.
Its like a blanket term.

 

[rickster]

Thats because calling it MMA encapsulates it. It tells You Youll learn Striking, Grappling, Defense, Offense, Strength, Speed, so on and so forth, and may have opportunities for Competition.
Its like a blanket term.

And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket

 

[Cyriacus]

And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket

Yep.

 

[pgsmith]

And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket

But if you've got the wrong training, it can be a wet blanket!

 

[Drag'n]

But MMA isn't a style and anyone who claims to train MMA is fooling themselves. What they train is a bit of MT and a bit of boxing and a bit of BJJ and a bit of wrestling etc etc dependent upon the background of the coaches in the club. Training for the sport of MMA is good old fashioned cross training and the best exponents train with dedicated expert coaches in each field not some self proclaimed GM of the style of MMA.

What you say does apply to some mma practitioners, but not all.

I train in KUDO. A hybrid style which started in 1981 as a blend of Kyokushin and judo with face punches allowed.
It expanded from there incorporating the most effective techniques and principles from a variety of styles such as BJJ, Muay Thai, sambo, wrestling etc, becoming a form of mma.

The rules vary a bit from typical mma. We wear a gi and head gear but no gloves. No G&P to the head. Ground fighting limited to 30 secs.

Wearing a gi makes the use of judo throws very practical. We use Judo principles and some throws. However, much of judo is designed to work in the absence of strikes. When you throw knees elbows punches kicks and headbutts into the mix, many judo applications are just dangerous to try and very difficult to pull off. Its a whole different animal!

So while the techs may come from judo, the way we blend and apply them to work in cohesion with strikes and other grappling methods leads to the development of something new. An art which seams different ranges and principles together into one comprehensive style, original and different, yet not necessarily containing much that is new.

This same philosophy is applied to all the arts contained in the system.

While we do indeed sometimes practice certain styles separately,( some times this is necessary to truly understand and improve in certain techniques particular to that style) the focus is always on bringing it all together as one art rather than separate arts.

I think this also applies to mma grappling. When you add strikes to BJJ or wrestling, there is a lot which becomes impractical.

MMA striking is also different to pure Muay Thai or boxing. The danger of take downs forces you to use very different strategies foot work distance etc.

MMA is still very young. In the future you probably will see more teachers of MMA grappling/striking as opposed to separate coaches for each discipline.

Many arts were developed within limited frameworks as to what they focused on. Mainly striking /mainly grappling etc. Sometimes due to competition rules.Sometimes just due to the preferences or limited exposure on the part of the founders/followers. Becoming a "master" of one style can just mean you are very good within the boundaries of your limited framework but find yourself in big trouble when taken out of your comfort zone.

 

[WingChunIan]

What you say does apply to some mma practitioners, but not all.

I train in KUDO. A hybrid style which started in 1981 as a blend of Kyokushin and judo with face punches allowed.
It expanded from there incorporating the most effective techniques and principles from a variety of styles such as BJJ, Muay Thai, sambo, wrestling etc, becoming a form of mma.

The most effective techniques according to who? based upon what criteria? Was it influenced by the original thinker's build, their experience, their attempts to use certain techniques in certain circumstances, their own deficiencies?
For example when I'm training Wing Chun with someone of a different build if certain techniques work for me but not them and others for them but not me are they all deficient techniques or is it that there is a difference in our individual ability and the specific environment? If during a fight / pressure testing I attempt to respond in a certain way and it goes horribly wrong does that mean that the response is flawed or that I chose the wrong response, or even chose the right response but hadn't trained hard enough or been taught well enough to make it work.
In my experience (and it is only a personal view and not meant to insult anyone) development of many eclectic systems stems from lack of ability of the practitioner to put their art into practise under the circumstances presented. The practitioner then assigns fault to the system and seeks to fill a percieved gap by incorporating something else. Of course there is also trend following, when pressure point fighting was fashionable it suddenly appeared on an awful lot of syllabuses (should that be syllabi?), likewise escrima, and BJJ and so will the next fashion.

 

[rickster]

But if you've got the wrong training, it can be a wet blanket!

How cn MMA be a wet blanket?

If you have the wrong training, then you do not have enough blanket

 

[Drag'n]

The most effective techniques according to who? based upon what criteria? Was it influenced by the original thinker's build, their experience, their attempts to use certain techniques in certain circumstances, their own deficiencies?

Yes of course all of these things would have been influences in the beginning. It was based on the criteria of would work effectively when Judo grappling and Kyokushin striking with face punches were employed together, and what wouldnt be very effective.
It was tested and developed over many years where our founders students put their skills to the test against each other and against fighters of different styles from around the world.They also went to train with specialists from various styles to expand their understanding.

It also attracted experienced fighters from other backgrounds who brought their skills to the table thereby expanding our art.

It is a process which still continues today. A constant evaluation of the most effective means to overcome an opponent for each individual, according to their own natural strengths and preferences. There is no one method fits all approach. (which you seem to be advocating as superior?)
So you see a variety of "styles" within Kudo. Each fighter develops a certain style of his own based on his teachers experience and ability to help him, and his own experiences in sparring and competition.

I think this is perhaps the major difference in our philosophies. I see it as a process of constant evolution according to each individuals needs and goals.
You seem to be saying that if you feel the need to deviate from your original founders preferences, then its because you are at fault. His system is perfect.?

For example when I'm training Wing Chun with someone of a different build if certain techniques work for me but not them and others for them but not me are they all deficient techniques or is it that there is a difference in our individual ability and the specific environment?

If they work for someone, then probably the latter.

If during a fight / pressure testing I attempt to respond in a certain way and it goes horribly wrong does that mean that the response is flawed or that I chose the wrong response, or even chose the right response but hadn't trained hard enough or been taught well enough to make it work.

Yes possibly all of the above. Its up to you to figure that out and/or your teacher to help you realize which one it is.

In my experience (and it is only a personal view and not meant to insult anyone) development of many eclectic systems stems from lack of ability of the practitioner to put their art into practise under the circumstances presented. The practitioner then assigns fault to the system and seeks to fill a percieved gap by incorporating something else. Of course there is also trend following, when pressure point fighting was fashionable it suddenly appeared on an awful lot of syllabuses (should that be syllabi?), likewise escrima, and BJJ and so will the next fashion.

I just see it as a natural process of evolution which has always been happening in the arts and will continue in the future.

 

[Mark Lynn]

As I read this thread I kind of got lost on what a martial art Frankenstien is and what would be considered a natural progression or evolution of a martial art system.

If combining any art(s) together creating something new or different constitute a "Frankenstien" than from my experience it isn't bad all of the time, in fact some of our TMA would be called a Frankenstien using that criteria and I believe that does a disservice to the art. Take Wa Do where it is a combination of Shotokan Karate and Jujitsu, is this bad? Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was), Shotokan is a combination of different methods of Okinawan karate (taken from different instructors and different regions). TKD is a combination of Shotokan influenced karate and the kicking techniques of a Korean folk game.

GM Remy Presas brought together different methods of the FMA and blended them together to become Modern Arnis, Gruo Inosanto blended several styles of FMA into his method of Kali, Doce Pares was a system created by I believe 12 masters who blended together what FMAs they knew between them and created their own system. Cacoy Canete created Eskrido by combining Doce Pares escrima with Aikido, Judo, and Jujitsu along with influences of other Japanese martial arts.

Kajukenpo was developed by three masters of three different systems who fused them together. Krav Maga would be considered a Frankenstien as would any of the combative programs used by the military.

If these are Frankenstiens then I don't understand the hate and discontent.

 

[dancingalone]

Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was),

I know this wasn't the main idea of your post, but I wanted to point out that many hapkido practitioners would dispute this. It's said that GM Ji developed many of the kicks found in hapkido himself, possibly sourcing some of them from older Korean sources.

That said, there's no doubt there are many martial artists that study both TKD and hapkido and inevitably some degree of blending occurs that way.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Thanks for the correction, I meant no disrespect to any hapkido practitioners out there.

 

[J W]

As I read this thread I kind of got lost on what a martial art Frankenstien is and what would be considered a natural progression or evolution of a martial art system.

If combining any art(s) together creating something new or different constitute a "Frankenstien" than from my experience it isn't bad all of the time, in fact some of our TMA would be called a Frankenstien using that criteria and I believe that does a disservice to the art. Take Wa Do where it is a combination of Shotokan Karate and Jujitsu, is this bad? Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was), Shotokan is a combination of different methods of Okinawan karate (taken from different instructors and different regions). TKD is a combination of Shotokan influenced karate and the kicking techniques of a Korean folk game.

GM Remy Presas brought together different methods of the FMA and blended them together to become Modern Arnis, Gruo Inosanto blended several styles of FMA into his method of Kali, Doce Pares was a system created by I believe 12 masters who blended together what FMAs they knew between them and created their own system. Cacoy Canete created Eskrido by combining Doce Pares escrima with Aikido, Judo, and Jujitsu along with influences of other Japanese martial arts.

Kajukenpo was developed by three masters of three different systems who fused them together. Krav Maga would be considered a Frankenstien as would any of the combative programs used by the military.

If these are Frankenstiens then I don't understand the hate and discontent.

There was a distinction made by several folks in this thread between hybrid arts that are well thought out and well put together (like pretty much all the ones that you mentioned), and "Frankensteins" which are made up of random and often incompatible techniques. I don't think anyone here has any animosity toward cohesively constructed systems; it's the grab-bag mash-ups that earn our ire.

 

[Mark Lynn]

There was a distinction made by several folks in this thread between hybrid arts that are well thought out and well put together (like pretty much all the ones that you mentioned), and "Frankensteins" which are made up of random and often incompatible techniques. I don't think anyone here has any animosity toward cohesively constructed systems; it's the grab-bag mash-ups that earn our ire.

JW

I understand your point and yet I disagree with you. What we think are "well thought out and well put together" are viewed several years or generations after they were created. What we see now maybe is not exactly what was created back then, we see what is closer to the finished product, not the trail and error in the creation of the system. Take Bruce Lee's system, it went through several changes as it was being created, you have the Seattle JKD, the China Town JKD, the LA JKD (I speaking to the general areas he was teaching over several years as his system was created).

If we saw an art in it's creation as a blending of two systems it could (probably would) be viewed as a "grab-bag mash-ups". Take Judo I'm sure the Jujitsu masters of the day viewed it as something that earned their ire, or Shotokan masters/practitioners and the attitudes towards the Wa Do stylists when it was created. Just because we don't like it or understand it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Because we might not understand it now doesn't mean in the future it won't be worked out.

Why should we get upset over anything.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I cross train. I enjoy it, I think its very beneficial. I've taught some Arnis material in a Kenpo class. Those things, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine to do. What I don't do: When I teach something that isn't Kenpo, in a Kenpo class, I make sure that everyone understands that what I'm showing is not Kenpo. I like to give credit where its due. Why should I lead someone to believe that the club disarm I did is Kenpo, when its really Arnis?

MJS

If I remember right you have studied or do study Modern Arnis. Remy's phrase "The art within your art" I believe speaks to the statement I bolded here.

Are you saying that the club disarm you showed (just using your example) is only found in MA and not in Kenpo? For instance my understanding of a principle or a technique might have come from MA but that doesn't mean the same motion, principle, concept couldn't be found in my TKD basics as well. For instance a scoop block (inside towards the outside block) for a TKD basic block I teach the lead hand coming underneath across the belly while the returning hand chambers on top. (Think about a sparing stance with the rear hand up to guard the head and the front hand guarding the front side and lower body.) Ok so the upper hand grabs the stick hand when it is inverted while the bottom hand pushes against the stick towards the side as the top hand pulls across your body. You have a back hand disarm. Now TKD doesn't teach that as a disarm (that I have ever seen) however the movements and the path the arms travel are the same (very close). Who is to say it's not TKD?

Now don't get me wrong I would not lead everyone to believe that TKD is the end all art, the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Gen Choi even thought so deep as to have this disarm and they have hidden it in their forms for all of these years because it was to dangerous to show people. However I would tell them that the value of cross training is that it helps unlock your mind to see things differently, and there is a universality of movements so a movement we call a block could be a disarm, an attack etc. etc. and this came to me through my study of Modern Arnis and it can be of value in my TKD training as well.

I use to do the same thing, worry about giving credit where credit is do, this is this art, this is that art. I got that really from Guro Inosanto (and I mean no disrespect here). Now when working with my students on weapons defense in my TKD class it is block like this, hit them, hit them again, knee them, take them down, stomp on them, and run awaaaaay. I don't care what art they do. Just do it.

 

[J W]

JW

I understand your point and yet I disagree with you. What we think are "well thought out and well put together" are viewed several years or generations after they were created. What we see now maybe is not exactly what was created back then, we see what is closer to the finished product, not the trail and error in the creation of the system. Take Bruce Lee's system, it went through several changes as it was being created, you have the Seattle JKD, the China Town JKD, the LA JKD (I speaking to the general areas he was teaching over several years as his system was created).

If we saw an art in it's creation as a blending of two systems it could (probably would) be viewed as a "grab-bag mash-ups". Take Judo I'm sure the Jujitsu masters of the day viewed it as something that earned their ire, or Shotokan masters/practitioners and the attitudes towards the Wa Do stylists when it was created. Just because we don't like it or understand it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Because we might not understand it now doesn't mean in the future it won't be worked out.

Why should we get upset over anything.

I agree that new martial arts don't just spring forth fully developed. They must go through periods of development where several changes are made.

However, I think there is a distinction between what works and what doesn't. Something like JKD started with core concepts, and everything was built on top of it. What worked with those concepts was kept and refined; what didn't was discarded. Ultimately, a viable system was formed.

When I say "grab-bag mash-up", I'm speaking of those collections of bits and pieces that don't really fit well together, yet are compiled into a new "art" anyway. A style that doesn't have a solid base. Without a solid base, everything resting on top will be unstable. So I don't think the arts that you cited could ever have fit that definition, even in their infancy. Sure, there were most likely those who didn't like Judo or whatever when it first developed, but there are still people who don't like Judo even though it is now a fully established martial art. Every art has its critics, now matter how young or old.

A martial art that consists of influences from several older martial arts is fine, I have no problem with that. But it's a different story when someone studies a little of this, a little of that, some of this for good measure, never really understanding any of it and then decides hey, I'm going to create my own martial art! I'll just stir all the bits I know together and viola!

 

[pgsmith]

A martial art that consists of influences from several older martial arts is fine, I have no problem with that. But it's a different story when someone studies a little of this, a little of that, some of this for good measure, never really understanding any of it and then decides hey, I'm going to create my own martial art! I'll just stir all the bits I know together and viola!

While I happen to agree with you completely on this, I'll recount what an old Japanese instructor told me years ago when I asked what he thought about all of the self-proclaimed "masters" and "grandmasters" and "sokes" that were around today. He said he just ignored them because they were not his problem, they were his great-grandchildren's problem. If any of these schools were still around when his great-grandchildren were ready to start serious martial arts training, then it would be up to them to decide if they are worth training in or not.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I agree that new martial arts don't just spring forth fully developed. They must go through periods of development where several changes are made.

However, I think there is a distinction between what works and what doesn't. Something like JKD started with core concepts, and everything was built on top of it. What worked with those concepts was kept and refined; what didn't was discarded. Ultimately, a viable system was formed.

When I say "grab-bag mash-up", I'm speaking of those collections of bits and pieces that don't really fit well together, yet are compiled into a new "art" anyway. A style that doesn't have a solid base. Without a solid base, everything resting on top will be unstable. So I don't think the arts that you cited could ever have fit that definition, even in their infancy. Sure, there were most likely those who didn't like Judo or whatever when it first developed, but there are still people who don't like Judo even though it is now a fully established martial art. Every art has its critics, now matter how young or old.

A martial art that consists of influences from several older martial arts is fine, I have no problem with that. But it's a different story when someone studies a little of this, a little of that, some of this for good measure, never really understanding any of it and then decides hey, I'm going to create my own martial art! I'll just stir all the bits I know together and viola!

JW

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with you, I too don't like the systems that are put together by someone who studies a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I even at one time studied under an instructor who did exactly that, he combined jujitsu, with Goju and Balintawak (maybe Wing Chun). Once I realized that he didn't have it all worked out I quit. For years it left a bad taste in my mouth etc. etc. I had planned on making that experience my contribution to the thread so to speak. However as I read this thread along with the martial arts evolution/revolution thread I had to take a step back and reexamine things.

It appeared, although some made distinctions like you said, that some posters were really touting the TMAs and sometimes trashing the newer arts where people have brought together elements of different martial arts and formed a system. When in reality people combining systems and teachings is exactly how the TMAs were created and how other MAs are created today. It's just that we see the end product (or mature product) of the TMAs, and the new creations in their development stage today. We tend to think that the masters of old were much better martial artists, much better teachers, etc. etc. when really they were ordinary people like all of us here on MT. I believe that they most likely practiced much more than us, they probably studied their art deeper however I believe that we as martial artists today are better educated, have more access to martial knowledge, we know more about the body, nutrition etc. etc. The people today whom we see practicing the martial arts steadily for 40-50 years probably are better martial artisits than their instructors. We just see their art and their instructors through watching them, never questioning is this exactly how they were taught or have they too modified something.

Someone today who creates a self defense art probably doesn't care about all of the intricacies of how the Wing Chun Chain punch works, he might just like the straight blast right up the middle so he uses it. Likewise he might not care if this is a judo throw or a jujitsu throw or an arm break, does it work. Who cares if this foot trap comes from this art or that just do it. Over time as the art gells into a system you might care how this works or that what is the most effective way to do this, but at the beginning of the formulation of it. I doubt it. I don't believe the masters of old who created their systems really cared either.