The world of mma

[Andrew Green]

The Oral history of Traditional martial arts is full of challenge matches, guess they where ok then, but not now.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

While there are stories on the fantastical side in many traditional systems, how do we think they even came up with their strategies? I am sure a good portion (not all) of such systems developed from actual encounters/battles. If this were not so, then why use them? The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness. Let's be honest with ourselves: without TMA, there would be no MMA. Show me an MMA concept that doesn't have roots in some traditional concept! I think the argument here is really pointless. Many so-called TMAs have evolved over long periods of time, so are they traditional because they are old or because they aren't a particular style favored by sport fighters of the modern age?

Statting that a style had its roots in some form of ancient warfare is also pointless.
1. Any style based on warfare(eg high offence) would not be in any way suitable for modern day self-defence.
2. These styles may have had roots in warfare, but it has been a LONG, LONG time since they were used in that context. So its been a damn long time since they've been tested.
3. What damn battle involved martial artists charging at each other unarmed en masse to use their respective styles against each other?

I don't care about a styles history. I don't care about whether its rooted in warfare or an ephinany you have on the toilet seat.
The ONLY thing I care about with regards a style is their training methods.
That goes for MMA, TMA, SD and any other acronym that dare raise its ugly head.
The results are what matter here, not all the damn ego thrown around by members of every single camp.

 

[Warrior-Scholar]

You need to calm down man!
Read my post carefully before ranting.
"The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness."

I fail to see any ego raising its head in my statements. I have never supported any particular style or tradition in my comments. I just want to have the best modern combative system at my disposal.

 

[Warrior-Scholar]

3. What damn battle involved martial artists charging at each other unarmed en masse to use their respective styles against each other?

I don't care about a styles history. I don't care about whether its rooted in warfare or an ephinany you have on the toilet seat.
The ONLY thing I care about with regards a style is their training methods.
That goes for MMA, TMA, SD and any other acronym that dare raise its ugly head.
The results are what matter here, not all the damn ego thrown around by members of every single camp.

Take a chill pill. Why is everyone around here so hostile? Aren't we all after the same goal here...better fighting?
I don't want to even address your comments due to their hostility, but I do have to mention point 3. Who said anything about unarmed battles? I ain't just talking about empty hand combat here. Look at the big picture. When I think of MMA (sorry if you don't like acronyms Mixed Martial Arts). I am speaking about mixing armed, unarmed and everything in between. There are principles of motion inherent within all these styles etc. that I want to extract and synthesize for an effective fighting style. If you don't care...fine. Do your thing and I will do mine!
I am leaving this darn forum...

 

[zDom]

Fearless Freep is correct re: my comments.

I know there are a lot of good people out there who are training MMA, and I respect them for their dedication and pursuit of excellence.

From what I've seen of Matt Hughes, he seems like a classy guy, but I do wonder why he is in the business of "beating people down."

The Gracies are a bunch of guys with a helluva lot of heart — but why the challenge matches? Isn't it enough for them to know in their hearts their system is best? If so, why the need to constantly prove it?

(I'm not agreeing they DO have the best system, but I have no doubt they think it is — and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. For their culture, their location, it very well may be the best option.)

And fwiw, Andrew, I don't approve of challenge matches in the past any more than I do today. It would be nice to be able to say we have grown past that point where we need to do that anymore but then it seems some people still seem to think it necessary.

Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.

One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:

breaking to demonstrate power,
judo/wrestling for grappling,
WTF for kicking ability,
boxing for hand striking ability,
forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
point style to demonstrate speed,

etc.

Just an idea.

But I have to admit: I do enjoy watching UFC / Pride Fights.

What I don't enjoy is the attitude a great many of the fighters have. But then, that isn't limited to UFC/Pride/NHB. I see bad attitudes in a lot of professional athletes nowadays.

 

[Ybot]

...From what I've seen of Matt Hughes, he seems like a classy guy, but I do wonder why he is in the business of "beating people down."...

Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.

Okay, I can see that you don't like the dangerous situations that are part of MMA compitition. That's fine, but I would argue that despite the violence that MMA is safer than older and more widely excepted sports such as Boxing, football, rugby, and hockey. Now certainly you can argue that these sports (except for boxing) don't incourage participants to intetionally injure each other. Okay, but I believe despite that, they are as dangerous, or more dangerous than MMA.

One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:

breaking to demonstrate power,
judo/wrestling for grappling,
WTF for kicking ability,
boxing for hand striking ability,
forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
point style to demonstrate speed,

etc.

Just an idea.

Interesting idea, and it could be fun, but I seriously question weather it would be any less harmful to the participants than MMA.

Certainly there is just as much a chance of taking a bad fall in wreslting or judo as in MMA, in fact possibly more so. In MMA you can fall properly and not be penalized (other than ending up on the bottom). In Judo, you land flat on your back you lose, so you do everything posible not to land like that, including doin stupid things like posting on your arms or head to stop the fall.

Boxing is more dangerous of a striking contest than MMA also. In MMA a man can tap out at any time. What would happen to a boxer who took too much punishment and gave up mid round? In MMA the second you are knocked into a state of consiousness you can not defend from the ref should stop it. In boxing you can be knocked out, but as long as you make it up by 10 you can continue fighting. In MMA power from blows can be neutralized through effective clinching. Clinching in boxing is seperated so that the boxing match can continue.

Anyway, not to take away from your idea, like I said it could be intresting, but to be completely honest I wouldn't have any intrest in competing in such an even, where as I would consider MMA. Just my personal prefference though.

 

[Rook]

The Gracies are a bunch of guys with a helluva lot of heart — but why the challenge matches? Isn't it enough for them to know in their hearts their system is best? If so, why the need to constantly prove it?

I figure its the same reason scientists do experiments and then publish their research. You can't just have a theory with no proof, no experiment, no reproducibility and no publication - thats just a personal opinion.

(I'm not agreeing they DO have the best system, but I have no doubt they think it is — and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. For their culture, their location, it very well may be the best option.)

I see.

And fwiw, Andrew, I don't approve of challenge matches in the past any more than I do today. It would be nice to be able to say we have grown past that point where we need to do that anymore but then it seems some people still seem to think it necessary.

It is necessary as long as we still have multiple competiting theories of fighting. In the end, there can be only one best way - there may be different variations for different people and their different strengths and weaknesses, but only one style.

On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojos - once people no longer actually have to fight to be considered a fighter then there is nothing to stop all sorts of nonsense. Dillman, Montigue, Ashida Kim, Frank Dux - how long would any of them have lasted just 100 years ago?

Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.

One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:

breaking to demonstrate power,
judo/wrestling for grappling,
WTF for kicking ability,
boxing for hand striking ability,
forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
point style to demonstrate speed,

etc.

Just an idea.

The thing is that a person could do all of these things and then not be able to actually put them together. Also, it overlooks important matters like actually being able to take a hit and recover or land hard strikes on moving targets.

But I have to admit: I do enjoy watching UFC / Pride Fights.

What I don't enjoy is the attitude a great many of the fighters have. But then, that isn't limited to UFC/Pride/NHB. I see bad attitudes in a lot of professional athletes nowadays.

I think some of them are rather immature as well. Nothing that even remotely compares to many of the "masters" who demand elaborate kow-towing and titles in their presence.

 

[FearlessFreep]

On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojo

Which is possibly related to the rise in litigation as a means of conflict resolution. Hard to have a challenge match of the loser turns around files charges against the winnner.

 

[Rook]

On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojo

Which is possibly related to the rise in litigation as a means of conflict resolution. Hard to have a challenge match of the loser turns around files charges against the winnner.

Thats true. Its a big part of the problem of the modern martial arts.

 

[Tez3]

I've just read through all the pages on here (just joined forum... hi !). I don't want to enter into the argument but would like to make a couple of points. Early on someone asked if MMA would benefit a middle aged woman, the answer is yes! that would be me among others, I train MMA and TMA, I fight and teach, among those I have trained with that you would maybe know are Ian Freeman and Leigh Remedious. I also work on Pride & Glory Ultimate Fighting which has put on over 20 fight nights so far.

The point of fighting? To prove you can, to challenge yourself. To go into combat if you like. Don't forget that it's two consenting adults that get into the ring/cage AND they come out as winners both whatever the actual outcome. The one thing I like about MMA is that the opponents can be fighting their hardest during the bout then afterwards they are in the changing area or wherever exchanging techniques, arranging to train with each and that sort of thing.

I've heard endless arguments on which is best for self defence over the years. It just goes round and round, people have a fixed stance on this which is a shame as it invariably seems to end up with insults!

 

[zDom]

The point of fighting? To prove you can, to challenge yourself. ... AND they come out as winners both whatever the actual outcome.

While this is true in many cases, there ARE other ways of challenging yourself which are also valid.

There is very real and significant risk that, whatever the outcome of these NHB/MMA fights, both participants can come out as "losers" in the sense that, win or lose, they can end up with serious injuries that could affect their training for weeks, months or even years.

I do respect those who are willing to put it on the line, to risk their ability to train to test their abilities and to entertain the rest of us, but prefer, for myself, to test myself in ways that have less risk of serious injury involved.

 

[Tez3]

In the UK serious injuries caused by fighting in the ring/cage are very rare, I've seen one guy break his leg (it's posted on the internet and has become quite famous, he didn't realise it was broken and stood up). The only other injuries I've seen have been minor cuts and bruises, no more than you would expect to pick up on a training night. The promotions over here and the standard of refereeing are such that the welfare of the fighters is the paramount concern.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

See but here's the thing:


On both sides ( with varying degrees of radicalism in individual opinions expressed but the points otherwise remain the same) we have the question of how what we do relates to SD.

On the one side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, not having, or at least not publicly appearing to have, a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress, what to them, from the outside, appear outdated training methods, and lack of athletic conditioning.)

On the other side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, a mindset percieved to be all about "winning" and not "surviving", concern over the fact of what the resultant attitude could be in the legal aftermath or public opinion of such activites , a claim that because there are rules the match is differebnt from a "real" fight, concern over the fact that the style's operators totally ignore or are not permitted the use of weapons or their equivalent simulators).

But here's the crucial thing Everybody needs to get, but apparently nobody WANTS to get:

It is this:

Both points of view are wrong....because both camps are RIGHT!

* Physical conditioning is beneficial to any person regardless of chosen path, since, apart from specialized conditioning to execute a given path's techniques, if a person is unhealthy or injured they cannot even train in any path.

*a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress is beneficial to anyone's SD abilities/confidence, but some people need more time than others and may not be able to handle the same amount, so paths with different levels of emphasis on this will attract the people able to handle that level, since if a person is dissatisfied with too low a level or overwhelmed by too high a level they'll quit and not get ANY benefit because if you don't like your path you won't stay on it.

*As to what is or is not an "obsolete" training method( the usual bone of contention is forms, but there are others)---"obsolete" for what purpose, "obsolete" for whose needs? If we were to discuss the hot button of forms, the greater part of whether they are useful tools or not largely stems from people on the outside( and, sadly, exponentially too many on the inside too), plain and simply not understanding what the tool is FOR. I have been uncommonly fortunate to find a teacher who can break down each part of any formlike movement we do and say"here is the form movement" and then "now here is *one way* the streamlined application version of the movement can be used". "This is a drill", then" here are the attributes that drill burns in your muscle memory so that you are able to do *this* aspect of the system". Most schools( which could perhaps be classified under the "McDojo" umbrella) are unable to do this because the ones teaching were never taught it either, and so can demonstrate the movement only at "face value" and this , I'm certain, is the most significant contributing factor in the position that this method is "obsolete". But in all of those movements, cvollected over all those millenia, ebgineered for all those different putposes and times, has GOT to be something for everyone whatever their needs.

I'll briefly use my specific case to illustrate:



After trying all the other arts in my profile before, I came to choose the ones in my profile's "Primary Art" space because they All have a reputation for adaptability and/or simplicity, and i like the fact they seem to have a natural flowing response rather than rigid prearranged actions,and are brain dead simple to learn, the work comes in getting them down I'm not looking for excessive flash or sport competitions, , though I kind of like *just* that right hint of cool artsy flavor and movement with my defensive applications, and both of these things they do quite well.I'm also interested in effective SD that encompasses armed, as well as unarmed, and so I like the fact that they seem to transition from armed to unarmed and back with very little hitch stylistically(In plain English,your nervous system won't hesitate while your mind tries to tell your body "It's a weapon. Change fighting styles" and gets you killed)since the principles, and with only slight modification, the movements, are the same armed or not. I also believe that no modern SD approach is complete without as much knowledge of modern firearms as the laws of your country allow, and this I remedied by becoming a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, and am now also certified to go armed in my home state.( which also had the additional, but welcome, benefit of a greater understanding of the legal ins and outs of true SD than I ever possessed before that time). In direct relation to this, I wear glasses and can't afford contacts/ corrective surgery right now. I'm severely nearsighted. If during a crisis those glasses come off my pistol just became worthless unless there's a laser sight on it and sufficient darkness to see it(my eyes without glasses can no longer use the sights but CAN still track the dot).I can however see enough for H2H/contact weapons just barely enough and such training is best there, and I chose what I do based exactly on that criteria and what was available near me, which also gave me the additional, and welcome, benefit of teachers and students who ended up being like family to me.

The point in all that is that I can't grasp why all this arguing over what's "obsolete" when people are so different and the MAs are diverse enough that there's something for everyone to take and use.

You ain't gonna look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that prior to 1993 everyone else for the last however far back human combat goes just......didn't know what they were doing.

I been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life, and they still dig holes with shovels.


*Mindset is important concerning how you approach SD--the qualities you must possess to be successful in professional athletic competition differ from, and in many cases could be at direct cross purposes with, what must be your mindset in pure SD situations, and vice versa. Exposure to both activities can help you figure out for yourself where you must find your balance, on your path.

* like it or not, in our present society, a basic knowledge of national, state( where applicable) and local legal precedent regarding SD is a stone dead MUST. May not be the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is* right now.

*Knowledge of weapons is beneficial to anyone interested in SD from either side since A) if you know their use it is far easier to determine their defenses, B) if you have a path which treats every incoming punch as though it is a knife, what is necessary for the weapon translates over ( another reason I chose my path) and it is more difficult to gain surprise which most criminal knifemen try for ( in many reports people report not knowing they were stabbed till they looked. There's a very real lesson there). C) weapons have always been humankind's first choice to fight with, so knowing how to be alert for them is beneficial to anyone of any camp, and for those of you who are US residents an additional D) according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports cite that an average of 8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons.



So why is it such an issue that you're supposed to pick what you like that works for you, and if you see a weakness in your training that something else offers, simply seek out some of it to help?

Each offers something the others may not, but here we are, stuck again in some nutty way, over labels and wanting to have "the only answer".

My point is I see a lot of unnecessary "Us vs. Them" when at the end of the day it's really just "Us".

 

[zDom]

Lotta good points, Andy, and well stated.

Especially the bit about mindset: I believe that is one of the critical elements, regardless of which "path" you choose in training.

 

[zDom]

In the UK serious injuries caused by fighting in the ring/cage are very rare, I've seen one guy break his leg (it's posted on the internet and has become quite famous, he didn't realise it was broken and stood up). The only other injuries I've seen have been minor cuts and bruises, no more than you would expect to pick up on a training night. The promotions over here and the standard of refereeing are such that the welfare of the fighters is the paramount concern.

Not sure if they are rare enough for me. For example, BJ's separated rib in his fight vs Matt Hughes -- I hate to have to let my cardio drop and then retrain it back up. Much easier to stay in cardio-shape then get into cardio shape.

Also, fwiw, the UFC-type games aren't the only ones I feel are "too risky" (for me).

I also think judo, muay thai, and pro football, for example, are sports in which you seriously risk body parts (specifically: KNEES which kickers value highly!)

Part of my opinion is related to my age: at 25, the rehab time for injuries wasn't nearly as long as I find them to be at nearly 40.

 

[Rook]

You have alot of good points and have laid out your view well Mr. Moynihan.

See but here's the thing:


On both sides ( with varying degrees of radicalism in individual opinions expressed but the points otherwise remain the same) we have the question of how what we do relates to SD.

Yes.

*a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress is beneficial to anyone's SD abilities/confidence, but some people need more time than others and may not be able to handle the same amount, so paths with different levels of emphasis on this will attract the people able to handle that level, since if a person is dissatisfied with too low a level or overwhelmed by too high a level they'll quit and not get ANY benefit because if you don't like your path you won't stay on it.

I'm glad to see that we're on the same page here. Actually, I believe that Mattm and zDom aren't entirely against this either, although there are some people on this site and elsewhere that remain throughly unconvinced which is why it keeps being brought up.

*As to what is or is not an "obsolete" training method( the usual bone of contention is forms, but there are others)---"obsolete" for what purpose, "obsolete" for whose needs?

This is a good question, but I think that it misses part of the point.

If we were to discuss the hot button of forms, the greater part of whether they are useful tools or not largely stems from people on the outside( and, sadly, exponentially too many on the inside too), plain and simply not understanding what the tool is FOR. I have been uncommonly fortunate to find a teacher who can break down each part of any formlike movement we do and say"here is the form movement" and then "now here is *one way* the streamlined application version of the movement can be used". "This is a drill", then" here are the attributes that drill burns in your muscle memory so that you are able to do *this* aspect of the system".

I have a similar teacher for karate. I don't disagree that there is some use of forms, but I very much doubt that it is the most efficient way to teach something.

I see the process as having to first memorize the form, then be able to do it, and only then be able to break apart the component motions and run through various bunkai. These bunkai might not necessarily be grouped together except that they use a similar motion. I think that I waste alot of time trying to memorize the order of movements in the air that would be better spent on just drilling the techniques and then sparring etc. Also, there is a sort of perfection of kata for the sake of perfection of kata impulse in the practice of many TMA training halls. Lastly, I think that the ability to judge a person's fighting skill by how they perform their kata is almost entirely off base.

Most schools( which could perhaps be classified under the "McDojo" umbrella) are unable to do this because the ones teaching were never taught it either, and so can demonstrate the movement only at "face value" and this , I'm certain, is the most significant contributing factor in the position that this method is "obsolete".

I agree that this is the major factor. I should point out, though, that many of the people who are now in MMA quit TMA schools that DID know how to break down bunkai and DID practice them hard. I also should point out that some TMA people do understand at least some of how MMA works as well. I don't believe that this contreversy is fundamentally one of ignorance.

But in all of those movements, cvollected over all those millenia, ebgineered for all those different putposes and times, has GOT to be something for everyone whatever their needs.

I think is alot of stuff in katas.

I'll briefly use my specific case to illustrate:



After trying all the other arts in my profile before, I came to choose the ones in my profile's "Primary Art" space because they All have a reputation for adaptability and/or simplicity, and i like the fact they seem to have a natural flowing response rather than rigid prearranged actions,and are brain dead simple to learn, the work comes in getting them down I'm not looking for excessive flash or sport competitions, , though I kind of like *just* that right hint of cool artsy flavor and movement with my defensive applications, and both of these things they do quite well.I'm also interested in effective SD that encompasses armed, as well as unarmed, and so I like the fact that they seem to transition from armed to unarmed and back with very little hitch stylistically(In plain English,your nervous system won't hesitate while your mind tries to tell your body "It's a weapon. Change fighting styles" and gets you killed)since the principles, and with only slight modification, the movements, are the same armed or not. I also believe that no modern SD approach is complete without as much knowledge of modern firearms as the laws of your country allow, and this I remedied by becoming a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, and am now also certified to go armed in my home state.( which also had the additional, but welcome, benefit of a greater understanding of the legal ins and outs of true SD than I ever possessed before that time). In direct relation to this, I wear glasses and can't afford contacts/ corrective surgery right now. I'm severely nearsighted. If during a crisis those glasses come off my pistol just became worthless unless there's a laser sight on it and sufficient darkness to see it(my eyes without glasses can no longer use the sights but CAN still track the dot).I can however see enough for H2H/contact weapons just barely enough and such training is best there, and I chose what I do based exactly on that criteria and what was available near me, which also gave me the additional, and welcome, benefit of teachers and students who ended up being like family to me.

I'm glad that you found what you wanted.

The point in all that is that I can't grasp why all this arguing over what's "obsolete" when people are so different and the MAs are diverse enough that there's something for everyone to take and use.

You ain't gonna look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that prior to 1993 everyone else for the last however far back human combat goes just......didn't know what they were doing.

I been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life, and they still dig holes with shovels.

Let me see if I can put out my thoughts on this; I don't know if it will make much sense or not.

By way of analogy, people have been running since there were people. The earliest organized sporting events in the world were footraces. We know by the times recorded by knotburing during races of ancient times approximately how fast some of their top long distance runners were. We know times since the invention of the mechanical clock for races for centuries. We know pretty exact times from the invention of the stopwatch. What do these measurements consistantly show us? People getting faster and faster.

The Roman top runnners were faster than the Greeks, the middle ages had faster runners still, they got faster and faster all the way up until today and every couple years our top runners still break records. The Olympians of the early 1900s would lose high school nationals today.

Now, this is running. As simple and basic and fundamentally unchanging, "same human body" as any human activity I can think of. It is simple to practice and simple to execute. It is older than any martial art. There isn't any secret technique to it. Yet, somehow, same human body and all, no new limbs, no new techniques, we keep getting faster. This is the result of incrementally improving training methods. We find better postures that shave just tiny seconds off your marathon, we find better theories of nutrition and muscle recovery and gaitstepping and so forth. None of these things ever really had some big revolution, they just keep getting better a little bit at a time.

Fighting is a similar way. There are those who look to the past because of legends and stories and the myths of the ages and say the ancient Chinese monks or the samurai of the Edo period or the post-WWII koreans already figured it out; they've got it all down, no more need to get in the ring, or on the platform or step out in the alley and see if maybe someone can do it a bit better (or alot better when you add up all the improvements). It often just comes out as "we have confidence in our tradition, thank you very much, and if you don't share our faith then you can burn."

*Mindset is important concerning how you approach SD--the qualities you must possess to be successful in professional athletic competition differ from, and in many cases could be at direct cross purposes with, what must be your mindset in pure SD situations, and vice versa. Exposure to both activities can help you figure out for yourself where you must find your balance, on your path.

* like it or not, in our present society, a basic knowledge of national, state( where applicable) and local legal precedent regarding SD is a stone dead MUST. May not be the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is* right now.

Agreed.

*Knowledge of weapons is beneficial to anyone interested in SD from either side since A) if you know their use it is far easier to determine their defenses,

Agreed.

B) if you have a path which treats every incoming punch as though it is a knife, what is necessary for the weapon translates over ( another reason I chose my path) and it is more difficult to gain surprise which most criminal knifemen try for ( in many reports people report not knowing they were stabbed till they looked. There's a very real lesson there).

I don't train this way. I look at it this way: A knifefighter uses body mechanics conducive to getting his knife used to the best effect. Defending against that knife is fundamentally different than defending against punches or kicks. Against a knife, risky tactics sometimes have to come out because if you can't control the knife you've lost anyway... I wouldn't risk some of them against an unarmed fighter.

C) weapons have always been humankind's first choice to fight with, so knowing how to be alert for them is beneficial to anyone of any camp, and for those of you who are US residents an additional D) according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports cite that an average of 8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons.

Good points.

So why is it such an issue that you're supposed to pick what you like that works for you, and if you see a weakness in your training that something else offers, simply seek out some of it to help?

Each offers something the others may not, but here we are, stuck again in some nutty way, over labels and wanting to have "the only answer".

My point is I see a lot of unnecessary "Us vs. Them" when at the end of the day it's really just "Us".

 

[Tez3]

Not sure if they are rare enough for me. For example, BJ's separated rib in his fight vs Matt Hughes -- I hate to have to let my cardio drop and then retrain it back up. Much easier to stay in cardio-shape then get into cardio shape.

Also, fwiw, the UFC-type games aren't the only ones I feel are "too risky" (for me).

I also think judo, muay thai, and pro football, for example, are sports in which you seriously risk body parts (specifically: KNEES which kickers value highly!)

Part of my opinion is related to my age: at 25, the rehab time for injuries wasn't nearly as long as I find them to be at nearly 40.

You guys really complicate things! To say you over intellectualise martial arts would be an understatement To every one I know who trains and fights we do it because its fun! We enjoy it, so you get a bit hurt every so often... and? I'm considerably older than 40 and I still train and fight. An American friend of ours Skip Hall is over 60 and he still fights.We had him over to fight on one of our shows a couple of years ago, he was brilliant. Why train in martial arts and not fight? Would you learn to swim on dry land or learn to ride a bicycle by using a gym one?

Whats best for SD? A suit of armour and a big gun? sometimes the best thing is your tongue... talk your way out, sometimes a kick in the groin, sometimes running away. You can't prepare for every single eventuality, just be prepared. I ve trained with some very hard men, mostly ones who've done the doors in rough areas as well as Paras and Royal Marines. I don't have any false confidence about what I can do but for sure whatever I do I will mean it.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

much doubt that it is the most efficient way to teach something.

When i first saw this I had been going to pose the question of what "something" it wasn't good to teach but I think in this next segment we have the answer I was after:

I see the process as having to first memorize the form, then be able to do it, and only then be able to break apart the component motions and run through various bunkai. These bunkai might not necessarily be grouped together except that they use a similar motion. I think that I waste alot of time trying to memorize the order of movements in the air that would be better spent on just drilling the techniques and then sparring etc. Also, there is a sort of perfection of kata for the sake of perfection of kata impulse in the practice of many TMA training halls. Lastly, I think that the ability to judge a person's fighting skill by how they perform their kata is almost entirely off base.

THERE it is.



I think we just nailed the root cause for misunderstanding.



You aren't the only one to make the assertion that forms are not the best way to develop physical fighting skill.



This could be because your source of forms is ostensibly Japanese/Okinawan and mine is Indonesian and there could be cultural as well as personal differences on the point and purpose thereof, but I submit that forms are not intended as the tool to sharpen the *physical* side of fighting at all, but rather the muscle memory/nervous system/concentration aspect that must accompany the physical side. The physical can be addressed by such things as sparring or scenario training and the like, but i find that in the midst of a drill or form like movement, that my level of concentration deepens to an extent it never does in any other activity, and just only yesterday in class i could see the form like drills i had been doing were paying off in my nervous system ( a drill that had an artsy component to it but had sound principles as its underpinning jumed right out of me while i was trying to attempt a newer technique i was learning but hadn't gotten down yet. The movement didn't look as clean or artistic as the drill, rather more sloppy, and yet the principles--checking the attack, moving in outside his arc and arresting his entire rotational axis--all snapped together and worked. He didn't know what was coming either because rather humorously, we had been doing Kali drills and this was a Silat technique that jumped out of me ). This is what I mean about burning principles into the muscle memory--as we all know, when sparring or otherwise going at full speed there is not time to be worrying about perfect technique. If you have both components, you can be more "loose" and upright and fluid in your actions and when an opportunity presents itself you can make an opening with a more basic move and then "it" will find its way in by itself, make more sense now?

I agree that this is the major factor. I should point out, though, that many of the people who are now in MMA quit TMA schools that DID know how to break down bunkai and DID practice them hard. I also should point out that some TMA people do understand at least some of how MMA works as well. I don't believe that this contreversy is fundamentally one of ignorance.

Well that would correspond with my earlier point about doing an art, deciding something else offered something they felt they needed and seeking it out. Which is what you're supposed to do. In the same way I finally decided as i described before, to more intelligently tailor my training to make my own limitations less "limiting. Which is what you're supposed to do.

I think is alot of stuff in katas.

Indeed. So many things that a lot of them don't often get seen by....pretty much *anyone* outside a given style's students or someone who "discovered" an application( more accurately we must perhaps say "REdiscovered") and that alone could be an advantage for a defender on sheer surprise value.

I'm glad that you found what you wanted.

Thanks. Me too, though as you can see I also haven't shut my eyes upon finding it.

Let me see if I can put out my thoughts on this; I don't know if it will make much sense or not.



By way of analogy, people have been running since there were people. The earliest organized sporting events in the world were footraces. We know by the times recorded by knotburing during races of ancient times approximately how fast some of their top long distance runners were. We know times since the invention of the mechanical clock for races for centuries. We know pretty exact times from the invention of the stopwatch. What do these measurements consistantly show us? People getting faster and faster.



The Roman top runnners were faster than the Greeks, the middle ages had faster runners still, they got faster and faster all the way up until today and every couple years our top runners still break records. The Olympians of the early 1900s would lose high school nationals today.



Now, this is running. As simple and basic and fundamentally unchanging, "same human body" as any human activity I can think of. It is simple to practice and simple to execute. It is older than any martial art. There isn't any secret technique to it. Yet, somehow, same human body and all, no new limbs, no new techniques, we keep getting faster. This is the result of incrementally improving training methods. We find better postures that shave just tiny seconds off your marathon, we find better theories of nutrition and muscle recovery and gaitstepping and so forth. None of these things ever really had some big revolution, they just keep getting better a little bit at a time.



Fighting is a similar way. There are those who look to the past because of legends and stories and the myths of the ages and say the ancient Chinese monks or the samurai of the Edo period or the post-WWII koreans already figured it out; they've got it all down, no more need to get in the ring, or on the platform or step out in the alley and see if maybe someone can do it a bit better (or alot better when you add up all the improvements). It often just comes out as "we have confidence in our tradition, thank you very much, and if you don't share our faith then you can burn."

It does make sense, although I might suggest an additional viewpoint.



The view you seem to take seems to me to have the same potential for problems in it as the view which the classical fencing community had of itself in the late 19th/much of the 20th century (problems in viewpoints are not unique to ANY community, but please bear with me a moment):



At this time, it was believed that the study of swordplay had evolved purely on an artistic, technical basis in a single, linear path of evolution to their prsent day( conveniently overlooking the fact that the sword by this time had not been a serious weapon of battle, or even civilian duel anymore for quite some while). Of course, a necessary part of this line of thinking was that if their art, as they believed had reached the pinnacle of it's "evolution", then they must necessarily place themselves at that "pinnacle" as well.



I would tend to look at this evolution not as a linear progression, but rather cyclical:



For example, if I were to continue on with the fencing analogy, the generally accepted theory was that the "thrust" was "discovered" in the early 16th century( I suppose spears back to the stone age didn't count, or Vegetius Flavius Renatus' teachings in the Late Roman Empire that the thrust should be the preferred mode of engagement for the legions of the time, but nevermind), and the "crude, briutish" cutting blows fell out of favor becaiuse their skills were "inferior".



This outlook does not take into account the actual realities surrounding the cultural and combative circumstances of the actual weapons and styles at that time:

*With the large scale military application of gunpowder in the 14th century, armor began to decline and so changes in the sword began to occurin ways that reflected the times; with armor in decline and the shield almost completely abandoned except for the buckler, swords began to develop more complex hilts and guards to protect the hands in direct answer to the new combat condition of unarmored/less armored hands.

*As the Medieval period gave way to the Renaissance, social conditions affected swordplay as well--now anyone who could afford to own a sword could carry it, and codes of personal "honor" more often led to private duels.

*Following directly from this development, sword shapes and styles changed to suit the rules/customs of those duels.

*Following directly from *this* came the rapier, which came to be intensely optimized for thrusting and eventually had a sharp point only, because with armor gone save a buckler or gauntlet depending on what the participants in the duel decided upon, a straight line thrust became a quicker and much more effective way to end the fight in civilian situations than in pitched battle, where a cutting edge and edge blows would serve more use--able to engage in more directions than straight ahead and no worries that if you found yourself flanked you could only effectively attack in one direction at a time. (In fact when i was last in England I visited all of the major arms and armor museums and was amused to see swords with rapierlike compound hilts mislabeled "rapiers" solely on the basis odf hilt design despite having what were clearly cut-and-thrust blades==a true rapier has very little cutting capacity compared to a sword at all, and its "edges" would only be sharpened to discourage it from being grabbed, since if you can control its point, you effectively neuter its entire offensive capability--the main reason it was nearly alays used with a dagger, cloak, or other companion weapon).

*Paradoxically, with the decline of armor, older cutting blades found new life on the battlefield again (during the heyday of plate armor, axes, maces hammers, the poleaxe and the longbow were the anti-plate weapons of best efficacy, though there was a specialized sword called a "tuck", "Estoc" or "Panzerstecker" depending if you were English, French or German, designed to fight plate by beating on it and thrusting into its gaps.With plate gone, older heirloom blades were rehilted andbrouht back( I saw one Scottish example of a basket hilted broadsword, where the hilt was 17th century but the blade was 12th).

Old techniques finding new life again.

*later, by the 18th century, with the duel by now in sharp decline, the disappearance of the sword in civilian dress, the rapier and its lighter, faster, more specialized descendant the smallsword, disappeared as martial arts and began the trend toward the classical sport we now know as fencing, while the hanger and the sabre (both optimized as *cutting swords*) actually outlasted the fencing blades in actual combat use, with the last sabre produced for the US Cavalry for actual use other than an item of dress, issued in 1914.

It happens that where I live, only a summer ago, there was a spate of youth violence involving machete use as well, and while I've no illusions about going unarmed against such a thing, I'm very grateful many of the drills i learn in kali were based around swods of a very machete like blade profile.

Old techniques finding new life again.


I'm very sorry this turned out to be so longwinded, but is it easier now for you to be able to see why I view martial evolution not as linear but cyclical?

I don't train this way. I look at it this way: A knifefighter uses body mechanics conducive to getting his knife used to the best effect. Defending against that knife is fundamentally different than defending against punches or kicks. Against a knife, risky tactics sometimes have to come out because if you can't control the knife you've lost anyway... I wouldn't risk some of them against an unarmed fighter.

This is one of those things we would have a much easier time discussing where we could each share techniques in person so as to illustrate why we each approach it the way we do.


At this point I don't expect total agreement, but it's been a productive talk just the same.

 

[Rook]

When i first saw this I had been going to pose the question of what "something" it wasn't good to teach but I think in this next segment we have the answer I was after:







THERE it is.



I think we just nailed the root cause for misunderstanding.



You aren't the only one to make the assertion that forms are not the best way to develop physical fighting skill.



This could be because your source of forms is ostensibly Japanese/Okinawan and mine is Indonesian and there could be cultural as well as personal differences on the point and purpose thereof, but I submit that forms are not intended as the tool to sharpen the *physical* side of fighting at all, but rather the muscle memory/nervous system/concentration aspect that must accompany the physical side. The physical can be addressed by such things as sparring or scenario training and the like, but i find that in the midst of a drill or form like movement, that my level of concentration deepens to an extent it never does in any other activity, and just only yesterday in class i could see the form like drills i had been doing were paying off in my nervous system ( a drill that had an artsy component to it but had sound principles as its underpinning jumed right out of me while i was trying to attempt a newer technique i was learning but hadn't gotten down yet. The movement didn't look as clean or artistic as the drill, rather more sloppy, and yet the principles--checking the attack, moving in outside his arc and arresting his entire rotational axis--all snapped together and worked. He didn't know what was coming either because rather humorously, we had been doing Kali drills and this was a Silat technique that jumped out of me ). This is what I mean about burning principles into the muscle memory--as we all know, when sparring or otherwise going at full speed there is not time to be worrying about perfect technique. If you have both components, you can be more "loose" and upright and fluid in your actions and when an opportunity presents itself you can make an opening with a more basic move and then "it" will find its way in by itself, make more sense now?

I think I see better where you are coming from, and I agree that this is more true of arts from areas other than Okinawa.

I ussually think of developing techniques as first in the air, to get the feel for it and be able to use techniques without needing to borrow balance from the target, if striking I then moving to the heavy bag to slowly do the technique correctly, then to focus pads to try to up the accuracy. Eventually, I try to use it in full speed sparring, making a point to use the correct technique even if less polished movements seem more natural. When it doesn't work as planned, I take what went wrong and go back to the heavy bag and focus pads, paying particular attention to that aspect. If the technique is coming out seriously flawed, I go back to the air and start over.

If throwing, I often don't practice on the air very much at all except within the kata (certain motions double as throws), and most of my work is within semi-resistant drills. That is, I try to execute the throw while a person tries to safely resist being thrown with a level of resistance appropriate for our respective skill levels.

When doing groundwork we mix drills to develop new techniques with full resistance (ie competitive) freestyle work. There is no air work there.

I think that a person could develop fighting skills with predominently air (including kata as well as shadowboxing and individual techniques and combos), heavy bag, focus pads, prearranged drills (including "one step sparring" and the like) or heavy sparring, but I try for a balance. Of course, the professionals who have more time and more developed skills tend to have a different mix of times. I think that there is a great disagreement on what that balance should be and, for some martial artists, there is a disagreement on whether many of the later things on my list are of value or not.

I enjoyed comparing perspectives on this.

Well that would correspond with my earlier point about doing an art, deciding something else offered something they felt they needed and seeking it out. Which is what you're supposed to do. In the same way I finally decided as i described before, to more intelligently tailor my training to make my own limitations less "limiting. Which is what you're supposed to do.

Agreed.

Indeed. So many things that a lot of them don't often get seen by....pretty much *anyone* outside a given style's students or someone who "discovered" an application( more accurately we must perhaps say "REdiscovered") and that alone could be an advantage for a defender on sheer surprise value.

True.

Thanks. Me too, though as you can see I also haven't shut my eyes upon finding it.

Oh, I haven't stopped reading about other arts and looking at their viewpoints. I just find it hard to argue with the results of the MMAists. When I first started to look seriously at martial arts, I was of the general impression that all styles were more or less equal... then they were optimized for different people and body types... then some of them were an improvement on others but there were lots of valid ones... and finally I ended up more or less fully in the MMA intellectual camp.

It does make sense, although I might suggest an additional viewpoint.

The view you seem to take seems to me to have the same potential for problems in it as the view which the classical fencing community had of itself in the late 19th/much of the 20th century (problems in viewpoints are not unique to ANY community, but please bear with me a moment):

At this time, it was believed that the study of swordplay had evolved purely on an artistic, technical basis in a single, linear path of evolution to their prsent day( conveniently overlooking the fact that the sword by this time had not been a serious weapon of battle, or even civilian duel anymore for quite some while). Of course, a necessary part of this line of thinking was that if their art, as they believed had reached the pinnacle of it's "evolution", then they must necessarily place themselves at that "pinnacle" as well.

I would tend to look at this evolution not as a linear progression, but rather cyclical:

For example, if I were to continue on with the fencing analogy, the generally accepted theory was that the "thrust" was "discovered" in the early 16th century( I suppose spears back to the stone age didn't count, or Vegetius Flavius Renatus' teachings in the Late Roman Empire that the thrust should be the preferred mode of engagement for the legions of the time, but nevermind), and the "crude, briutish" cutting blows fell out of favor becaiuse their skills were "inferior".

This outlook does not take into account the actual realities surrounding the cultural and combative circumstances of the actual weapons and styles at that time:

*With the large scale military application of gunpowder in the 14th century, armor began to decline and so changes in the sword began to occurin ways that reflected the times; with armor in decline and the shield almost completely abandoned except for the buckler, swords began to develop more complex hilts and guards to protect the hands in direct answer to the new combat condition of unarmored/less armored hands.

*As the Medieval period gave way to the Renaissance, social conditions affected swordplay as well--now anyone who could afford to own a sword could carry it, and codes of personal "honor" more often led to private duels.

*Following directly from this development, sword shapes and styles changed to suit the rules/customs of those duels.

*Following directly from *this* came the rapier, which came to be intensely optimized for thrusting and eventually had a sharp point only, because with armor gone save a buckler or gauntlet depending on what the participants in the duel decided upon, a straight line thrust became a quicker and much more effective way to end the fight in civilian situations than in pitched battle, where a cutting edge and edge blows would serve more use--able to engage in more directions than straight ahead and no worries that if you found yourself flanked you could only effectively attack in one direction at a time. (In fact when i was last in England I visited all of the major arms and armor museums and was amused to see swords with rapierlike compound hilts mislabeled "rapiers" solely on the basis odf hilt design despite having what were clearly cut-and-thrust blades==a true rapier has very little cutting capacity compared to a sword at all, and its "edges" would only be sharpened to discourage it from being grabbed, since if you can control its point, you effectively neuter its entire offensive capability--the main reason it was nearly alays used with a dagger, cloak, or other companion weapon).

*Paradoxically, with the decline of armor, older cutting blades found new life on the battlefield again (during the heyday of plate armor, axes, maces hammers, the poleaxe and the longbow were the anti-plate weapons of best efficacy, though there was a specialized sword called a "tuck", "Estoc" or "Panzerstecker" depending if you were English, French or German, designed to fight plate by beating on it and thrusting into its gaps.With plate gone, older heirloom blades were rehilted andbrouht back( I saw one Scottish example of a basket hilted broadsword, where the hilt was 17th century but the blade was 12th).

Old techniques finding new life again.

*later, by the 18th century, with the duel by now in sharp decline, the disappearance of the sword in civilian dress, the rapier and its lighter, faster, more specialized descendant the smallsword, disappeared as martial arts and began the trend toward the classical sport we now know as fencing, while the hanger and the sabre (both optimized as *cutting swords*) actually outlasted the fencing blades in actual combat use, with the last sabre produced for the US Cavalry for actual use other than an item of dress, issued in 1914.

It happens that where I live, only a summer ago, there was a spate of youth violence involving machete use as well, and while I've no illusions about going unarmed against such a thing, I'm very grateful many of the drills i learn in kali were based around swods of a very machete like blade profile.

Old techniques finding new life again.


I'm very sorry this turned out to be so longwinded, but is it easier now for you to be able to see why I view martial evolution not as linear but cyclical?

I see your point. Its an interesting arguement.

This is one of those things we would have a much easier time discussing where we could each share techniques in person so as to illustrate why we each approach it the way we do.

At this point I don't expect total agreement, but it's been a productive talk just the same.

Agreed. I'm glad that the thread has taken this turn.

 

[zDom]

Why train in martial arts and not fight? Would you learn to swim on dry land or learn to ride a bicycle by using a gym one?

Well, let me answer this with your swimming analogy:

IMO, there are ways and places to practice "survival swimming" other than in the North Atlantic with 20-foot swells.

Nothing wrong with spending most of your time in a pool, lake or pond with an occassional visit to the ocean to swim out past the breakers in some three or four foot swells, is there?

I'm still swimming, and if need be, I'm pretty sure I could survive for a short while in the North Atlantic in case I fall off a cruise ship and have to wait for a boat to get me back on board, eh?



Moving on the next analogy,

While there are some things you can only learn from being on a REAL bike, you can certainly train your legs and cardio up on a stationary bike. And if you already KNOW how to ride a bike and don't want to ride outside in the rain, why not get a workout on a stationary bike?

Ok, enough analogies for now

I like fighting, to a certain extent. I LOVE ITF-style continuous sparring -- it is my favorite game in the whole world. I even like to play it rough. And believe me, while I don't want to play the UFC game, I very much doubt there are very many UFC fighters who would like to play ITF full contact game with me for very long I'm very, very good at it. And I hit very, very hard (when I want to) with both feet and hands.

On the other hand, I don't like rehabilitating injuries. I despise it.

Different strokes for different folks.

I DO like watching just about any fight game where kicking is part of the action -- including UFC, Pride Fighting, and I just saw a new one the other day -- IFC or something like that.

Now a question: these 60-year old guys are playing full-contact MMA games? Or just training MMA?

If they are fighting full contact at that age, kudos! Some tough old birds -- they definately have my respect and I wish them the best of luck.