The problem with "traditional" martial arts part 3

[hoshin1600]

I go to a martial art to learn and hone fighting skills.

Agreed. My intention was not to make commentary on skills or methods whether that be mma or traditional ma. My whole rant was about what I see as a systemic error in both mma and traditional training about the concept of how a win is defined.
It's my belief that how you define a win changes how you play the game.

 

[Martial D]

Agreed. My intention was not to make commentary on skills or methods whether that be mma or traditional ma. My whole rant was about what I see as a systemic error in both mma and traditional training about the concept of how a win is defined.
It's my belief that how you define a win changes how you play the game.

In the context of a fighting system wouldn't a win simply be a win though? I mean, you can introduce all those other elements, but at that point the context is different and we are no longer talking about a fighting system.

Right?

 

[drop bear]

@drop bear
I think I may have just figured out where some of our disagreements come from.
It's the objectives we train for. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your frame work of reference is a bar fight. Where the consequences are a knock out, choke out, concussion or a broken arm. That is what you train for. So your objective is to win in that frame work.
Where for myself...and I hesitate to write this but..my objective is to kill, to take someone's life. That is what I train for. I'm at an age in my life where bar fights are not going to happen anymore. If I have to fight, it's some serious $#!^. My force continuum starts with two bullets center mass, then decreases from there two my knife. Yes I carry a knife from the time I wake till I undress for bed, then unarmed fighting. I can reduce the force from there if needed but the common training is for worst case. If I drop someone with a 9mm. I can hardly call that a win..it's maybe better than dead, but it ain't no win.
So when I say look for other options or a different kind of win, this is why. my starting point is too high. But I can see your point. If your starting point is having to make contact in sparring then what you say makes sense. To back off from there to a lower intensity lends itself to some issues.

How many people have you killed?

See I have fought, restrained and generally manhandled thousands of people in an environment where I basically sought out and engaged in drama without ever having to resort to killing people as a first resort.

I think you are overcooking a situation you don't really understand. The kill first and don't even ask the questions isn't really very realistic. Honestly that is mostly marketing and tough talk.

 

[drop bear]

If this is your definition then I have no problem with it. The problem I have is maybe with the word winning. It has connotations that I don't apply to self defense. But yes to achieve your objective is the goal.

Your free to explain why you think that, but I disagree.
My concept is that beating someone up, stabbing them through the heart or putting a bullet in their skull has consequences and you better think that one through before you do it. It's a fact of life and it ain't no excuse for crap fighting skills. If that is the only option then so be it, but you better make dam sure it's the only option and don't let your MMA macho BS attitude put you in a situation where you don't look for those other options. being behind bars, not seeing your family is a hell of a price to pay for being arrogant.

No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.

Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.

And you won't even know you are mediocre because there will be no way to judge.

And it is not about being macho. It is about having enough personal courage to try to win while risking loosing.

Which is about learning to be humble. Learning the true you.

 

[drop bear]

sorry to keep this up but im in a especially dark mood tonight ...so i apologize.

you want apples to apples...

so you and Drop Bear are in a bar you get in a physical fight with someone and how does that end? how do you see the win? did you knock him out? ok let go with that.....then what? THEN WHAT? how does that win taste? do you think your going to go home and enjoy your dinner with your wife and kids and that was the end of it? yeah sometimes that is the end of it,,except when its not the end of it.
well guess what..the dude had a few friends there and they got your name. 5 minutes of Google -fu and facebook and the dude knows where you live and do you think he is just gonna let things be? nope hes gonna return it back 10 fold. he shows up at your house and the door bell rings...ding dong, guess who mother F"er and he blows a hole though the back of the head of who ever answers, because he wants you to suffer he doesnt care who it is.
how does that win taste now?

the problem with the MMA Groupthink is you think the other guy is going to engage with you like in the cage...well on the street some people, the dangerous people are not going to square off and engage with you.. they will drop their head say sorry, maybe walk away. but later will come up behind you and stick you in the gut or in the back when your not paying attention. they are not playing by your rules.

OK again because you are talking to someone who dealt with that. It doesn't happen all that often.

These concepts don't really reflect the reality of conflict.

They are dogma.

 

[drop bear]

I didn't follow your words entirely on that, DB, but I think I got what you meant. If not, correct me.

Yeah, they'd have to embrace the student (and others within the school, or I'm not sure it helps much) actually trying to best each other - really testing whether they can control each other, including the instructor. I've yet to have a student who could best me more than momentarily, but I keep hoping. I'm not badass enough to believe I'll never get a student who can't do better than me, especially if they have some significant training before they get to me. Iv'e had a few students and partners who genuinely tried on occasion. When I visit elsewhere, I often get that taste of being outclassed (like being on the ground with Tony). I think it'd be healthy to have a student (or more!) who know they have areas where they are better than me, so long as they are still getting what they need in other areas.

We intentionally look for people who can flog the entire room.

And want them to come and train with us.

Imagine that Chinese MMA guy vs kung fu or whatever.

If that happened we would be happy if we got toweled up. Hopefully he can come back and teach us some stuff.

Nothing like the butt hurt defensive posture that was actually shown.

That john danaher leg locks video. They had to completely change their methodology to incorporate that new concept.

 

[Nobody Important]

Skimming through these threads I couldn't help but shake my head. Perhaps I rattled something important loose doing so, but, isn't everyone missing a key word in the phrase Martial Art, that word being ART. Everyone pursues traditional styles for different reasons, fitness, culture, self awareness, camaraderie, stress reduction etc. Some traditional styles are marketed more towards these attributes than for developing fighting prowess or self defense. Martial ability becomes a secondary or even tertiary holdover of the overall tradition, while the primary focus of the style defines it's purpose. Its undeniable that traditional systems over the years have been infused with philosophical and religious ideology, medical knowledge and have been shaped by cultural and societal views. All lending themselves to the use of the word ART to describe what was once a PRACTICAL SKILL.

The very term MARTIAL ART has become a colloquial catch-all to describe fighting methods, when in actuality, the word ART suggests something much more benign and scholarly.

Let's take Taijiquan as an example, while extremely rare nowadays, Taijiquan used to be a formidable fighting method. But, since the health benefits of performing Taijiquan have been discovered, this has become its MAIN focus. The fighting aspect has only hung around due to tradition.

The decline in the fighting efficacy of traditional systems can largely be attributed to fitness trends, sporting competitions and popular culture, Tae Bo, Dr. Ho's Tai Chi and XMA anyone? Let's face it, most martial arts instructors running full time schools wouldn't be able to afford rent, let alone feed themselves, if the only thing they had to offer the public was fighting ability, so most cash in on promoting physical fitness, camaraderie, discipline, self esteem building etc. The problem isn't in learning a traditional style, the problem is the suppressed remnants of the tradition that are neglected but continue to be viewed by the public at large as the primary function, this being FIGHT DEVELOPMENT. Little Johnny coming home with a black eye and bloody nose is more apt to draw a lawsuit than a new student referral. Another issue are those individuals who, because of the popularity of MMA, promote their traditional system as a fighting art when the extent of their experience is based on forms competition, light contact point sparring and having learned a few applications but have never been in an actual fight, all as a means of keeping their doors open.

Traditional systems are not the issue here, it's how they are learned and developed, what the PRIMARY focus is and usage. It all comes down to teacher and student and if the methodology of the style is emphasized as PRACTICAL SKILL or ART.

Anyways, that just my two cents on this whole discussion.

 

[Anarax]

I basically sought out and engaged in drama without ever having to resort to killing people as a first resort.

Could you elaborate? Does this mean you sought out conflict?

 

[KPM]

Traditional systems are not the issue here, it's how they are learned and developed, what the PRIMARY focus is and usage. It all comes down to teacher and student and if the methodology of the style is emphasized as PRACTICAL SKILL or ART.

Anyways, that just my two cents on this whole discussion.

Welcome back! Again!

Well said. But I think Paul Rackemann's article is focused on what "traditional" systems have BECOME. Modern day. What you are talking about is what "traditional" systems once were. Some still retain a lot of what you described. But most don't. And of those that don't, many fall into a lot of what Rackemann talked about.

 

[drop bear]

Could you elaborate? Does this mean you sought out conflict?

Yeah I did security for 20 years

 

[Nobody Important]

Welcome back! Again!

Well said. But I think Paul Rackemann's article is focused on what "traditional" systems have BECOME. Modern day. What you are talking about is what "traditional" systems once were. Some still retain a lot of what you described. But most don't. And of those that don't, many fall into a lot of what Rackemann talked about.

Correct, what they once were to what they have now become. The fault doesn't lie in the art, and the methods found within, but in the manner it is currently being used. To draw a parallel, I'll use the following analogy. Old fashioned cast irons were once heated on a stove and used to remove wrinkles from dampened clothing, now days people use them as decorative paperweights and door stops. This isn't due to the fact that the iron can no longer be used as it was intended to be, simply that some PEOPLE choose not to use it for its intended purpose anymore. To say that it is antiquated and useless because SOME do not know how to use it properly is a falsehood. It's a simple thing really, heat then use. Just because it can be used to keep a door ajar or books in place, as some people like to do, doesn't mean it can no longer be used as an iron. To forever render it to the realm of antiquated curiosities because of this logic is dismissive and backwards thinking. Do you understand my point now?

 

[hoshin1600]

I think you are overcooking a situation you don't really understand. The kill first and don't even ask the questions isn't really very realistic. Honestly that is mostly marketing and tough talk.

Sure you've been in some conflict...as a doorman correct? So that was your job. It could have happened on your night off but it was still your job and the world you lived in. I'm not a bouncer. You can say I'm inflating the situation but for me and in my life the only fighting I am going to be doing is if someone breaks into my home at night, and yes I'm jumping right to the end without any questions, none need to be asked.

No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.

Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.

And you won't even know you are mediocre because there will be no way to judge.

I've noticed this reoccurring theme in your posts often in replies to me. And I never understand why. How do you think I train? We do the same things..only under a different banner because I added knives and firearms. There is nothing in your personal or mma training in general that I disagree with. The major difference is the ratio of time spent on different aspects due to a difference in objectives and scope.
However as an ideology I see mma (as in the OP post) falling into the the same issues they call on everyone else.

 

[now disabled]

Skimming through these threads I couldn't help but shake my head. Perhaps I rattled something important loose doing so, but, isn't everyone missing a key word in the phrase Martial Art, that word being ART. Everyone pursues traditional styles for different reasons, fitness, culture, self awareness, camaraderie, stress reduction etc. Some traditional styles are marketed more towards these attributes than for developing fighting prowess or self defense. Martial ability becomes a secondary or even tertiary holdover of the overall tradition, while the primary focus of the style defines it's purpose. Its undeniable that traditional systems over the years have been infused with philosophical and religious ideology, medical knowledge and have been shaped by cultural and societal views. All lending themselves to the use of the word ART to describe what was once a PRACTICAL SKILL.

The very term MARTIAL ART has become a colloquial catch-all to describe fighting methods, when in actuality, the word ART suggests something much more benign and scholarly.

Let's take Taijiquan as an example, while extremely rare nowadays, Taijiquan used to be a formidable fighting method. But, since the health benefits of performing Taijiquan have been discovered, this has become its MAIN focus. The fighting aspect has only hung around due to tradition.

The decline in the fighting efficacy of traditional systems can largely be attributed to fitness trends, sporting competitions and popular culture, Tae Bo, Dr. Ho's Tai Chi and XMA anyone? Let's face it, most martial arts instructors running full time schools wouldn't be able to afford rent, let alone feed themselves, if the only thing they had to offer the public was fighting ability, so most cash in on promoting physical fitness, camaraderie, discipline, self esteem building etc. The problem isn't in learning a traditional style, the problem is the suppressed remnants of the tradition that are neglected but continue to be viewed by the public at large as the primary function, this being FIGHT DEVELOPMENT. Little Johnny coming home with a black eye and bloody nose is more apt to draw a lawsuit than a new student referral. Another issue are those individuals who, because of the popularity of MMA, promote their traditional system as a fighting art when the extent of their experience is based on forms competition, light contact point sparring and having learned a few applications but have never been in an actual fight, all as a means of keeping their doors open.

Traditional systems are not the issue here, it's how they are learned and developed, what the PRIMARY focus is and usage. It all comes down to teacher and student and if the methodology of the style is emphasized as PRACTICAL SKILL or ART.

Anyways, that just my two cents on this whole discussion.

Can I ask are you referring to all the "Traditional Arts" or just Chinese ones?

 

[Nobody Important]

Can I ask are you referring to all the "Traditional Arts" or just Chinese ones?

All

 

[JowGaWolf]

Possibly. But he has had a lot of exposure to other TCMAs as well. So I don't think he is exclusively referring to Wing Chun. He has done some Southern Mantis and other styles as well, and interacted quite a bit with people from other systems. In my experience some of the Southern Mantis I have been exposed to fits into a lot of what he says.

But the other stuff is so general that it could apply to non TMAs as well.

For example: Illusions of invulnerability – The belief that the group cannot fail
This is the same mentality that appears in gangs, cliques, small groups of good friends. The issue of Invulnerability is not one that I've seen in person or as a 3rd person looking at a martial art system, with the exception of the Chi Blast folks. He then goes to describe about only training withing the school and not going against people outside of the school. This is common for TMAs but it really doesn't have anything to do with Illusions of invulnerability. If a person spars within a TMA school, it becomes very clear that you aren't invulnerable. Getting bruised us and banged up as a natural part of training lets you know right away that your body can only take so much. We talk about injuries all the time here.

If I had to guess, I would say that most TMAs don't fight against other styles from other schools because they are afraid of losing students. If my school went up against a Sanda school and my students were beaten by the Sanda students, then I will have students who would rather train Sanda than their current style. This is a very realistic risk.
The only "illusion" that I can think of is people thinking that they can fight when they don't train to fight. A lot of TMAs train forms, drills, and demos. That's not the same as going multiple rounds against a different style and trying to figure out how to actually use and deploy your current martial arts skills.

So it's stuff like this that makes me think that the article is coming from a Wing Chun perspective and what he sees with the Wing Chun circles he travels in.
It doesn't take into context that most people who take martial arts aren't taking it to learn how to fight with it. Look at any TMA school ad and you'll see things like "Build Confidence" I've yet to see one that says "Learn how to fight." If you are teaching a TMA for money then you'll need to teach what the customer wants.

 

[pdg]

Correct, what they once were to what they have now become. The fault doesn't lie in the art, and the methods found within, but in the manner it is currently being used. To draw a parallel, I'll use the following analogy. Old fashioned cast irons were once heated on a stove and used to remove wrinkles from dampened clothing, now days people use them as decorative paperweights and door stops. This isn't due to the fact that the iron can no longer be used as it was intended to be, simply that some PEOPLE choose not to use it for its intended purpose anymore. To say that it is antiquated and useless because SOME do not know how to use it properly is a falsehood. It's a simple thing really, heat then use. Just because it can be used to keep a door ajar or books in place, as some people like to do, doesn't mean it can no longer be used as an iron. To forever render it to the realm of antiquated curiosities because of this logic is dismissive and backwards thinking. Do you understand my point now?

I'm not sure whether I agree with this analogy or not - in a way I do, but in another...

So, using the iron.

My nan had a cast iron, and she also had one with an ember chamber (load the iron with hot embers, it doesn't chill as fast).

I remember her using them, and I used them too.

Fast forward to now - I generally do the ironing in our house... In some ways the old irons worked better - the weight certainly helped.

In other ways, they were a complete pita. No temperature control, slow to heat and fairly quick to cool. We don't have an open fire, or a range cooker that runs all the time, so how to heat?

Their function hasn't diminished, but the convenience and ease (and method) of use has been hugely surpassed by the electric steam iron.

Drilling - I was brought up with a bit and brace, the geared hand drill felt like a revelation. I still have both types in the shed.

I want to make a hole, do I grab one of those or my li-ion cordless? Or my electric SDS?

No contest there either... Except for when there is.


It's not that the efficacy has been taken away, it's that a quicker, easier method has been developed. Every item (that is functional) still works now as well as it ever did - but is there an easier option available?

Sometimes, I don't want the easy option. I occasionally enjoy using a hacksaw and files instead of whacking something out on the milling machine. It keeps useful skills alive.

 

[now disabled]

I'm not sure whether I agree with this analogy or not - in a way I do, but in another...

So, using the iron.

My nan had a cast iron, and she also had one with an ember chamber (load the iron with hot embers, it doesn't chill as fast).

I remember her using them, and I used them too.

Fast forward to now - I generally do the ironing in our house... In some ways the old irons worked better - the weight certainly helped.

In other ways, they were a complete pita. No temperature control, slow to heat and fairly quick to cool. We don't have an open fire, or a range cooker that runs all the time, so how to heat?

Their function hasn't diminished, but the convenience and ease (and method) of use has been hugely surpassed by the electric steam iron.

Drilling - I was brought up with a bit and brace, the geared hand drill felt like a revelation. I still have both types in the shed.

I want to make a hole, do I grab one of those or my li-ion cordless? Or my electric SDS?

No contest there either... Except for when there is.


It's not that the efficacy has been taken away, it's that a quicker, easier method has been developed. Every item (that is functional) still works now as well as it ever did - but is there an easier option available?

Sometimes, I don't want the easy option. I occasionally enjoy using a hacksaw and files instead of whacking something out on the milling machine. It keeps useful skills alive.

Well put I was thinking on same lines but just couldn't think of how to explain it.

Anything that is old some people will have differences with and issues about it doesn't mean that it did not work nor in the same situation it still wouldn't work.

 

[drop bear]

I've noticed this reoccurring theme in your posts often in replies to me. And I never understand why. How do you think I train? We do the same things..only under a different banner because I added knives and firearms. There is nothing in your personal or mma training in general that I disagree with. The major difference is the ratio of time spent on different aspects due to a difference in objectives and scope.
However as an ideology I see mma (as in the OP post) falling into the the same issues they call on everyone else.

In this case it doesn't matter how you train. It is a direct response to training with the concept of winning. I am not making assumptions about your training here. I am reacting to your comments.

If you don't include winning an loosing in to your training method you are probably going to be crap.

Do you have any examples of your training by the way. Mabye dispell my concerns.

 

[drop bear]

Sure you've been in some conflict...as a doorman correct? So that was your job. It could have happened on your night off but it was still your job and the world you lived in. I'm not a bouncer. You can say I'm inflating the situation but for me and in my life the only fighting I am going to be doing is if someone breaks into my home at night, and yes I'm jumping right to the end without any questions, none need to be asked.

Do you sell drugs or owe money?

Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.

 

[Flying Crane]

Rackemann spent many years studying Wing Chun in a "traditional" fashion under Sifu Lo Man Kam in Taiwan, and has interacted with many others in TCMA. He speaks fluent Chinese. So yes, he does know about "traditional" martial arts and this is not just his musings. And Rackemann practices and teaches his own version of "Wing Chun Boxing".....and doesn't practice or teach "traditionally" any more. So no need to "just go train MMA."

He doesn’t know about “traditional” martial arts in a broad and general sense. He knows what he has experienced, from his perspective. Nothing more. Nothing less.