Flashy, Stylized and Useless

[sgtmac_46]

In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal: fighting proficiency. And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't. For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.

And that's a point I try to keep in mind..........when we talk about different styles, and which is 'better', the first question is 'better at what?'.

 

[jarrod]

That seems to be the general consensus.......however.......Pankration is 4,000 years old and predates all modern 'TMA's.........it's also devoid of ritual beyond it's physical techniques.

Seems some confusion about whether it's the hurting people without ceremony is really 'new' or if it's the original 'TMA'.

true, but pankration died, modern pankration is purely reconstructed. it's an interesting game of "what if" to wonder if it might have survived if it had been connected to more tradition, & what it would look like if it had.

if some other arts are any indication, it might have survived at the expense of more intense, realistic training.

jf

 

[Flying Crane]

I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.

But that also is not going all out. Even in doing this, you are holding something back.

 

[Archangel M]

Try it....when they go into competition they are "going all out"...and this is how they prepare for it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Try it....when they go into competition they are "going all out"...and this is how they prepare for it.

no, this is my point. There is something being held back, or else someone will go to the hospital or the morgue. I'm not talking about competition. I'm talking about self defense.

there will always be a gap between training, and reality, and the individual either is, or is not, able to jump that gap when the time comes.

Some training methods make that gap smaller, others not so much so. But the gap always exists.

 

[tallgeese]

Yes, there is always a difference between actual fight conditions and training. The question is how well your training is preparing you for that transition.

For my money, the schools that are training their stuff more along the lines of MMA methodology are more apt to be ready that what is normally thought of as TMA. Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.

Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD. There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address. What I'm saying is about the way they train. If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA. It's just a matter of brining a fighter closer to fight conditions. Those are conditions I often don't see mimiced or prepared for in a TMA school.

 

[jks9199]

I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.

The advantage of boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, and judo over many other schools or approaches of training is that they face off with a real, live, actively resisting opponent as a standard element of their training. While steps are taken to minimize and reduce injuries -- they're hitting & getting hit, throwing and getting thrown for real. It's a necessary stage in training if you want to really use the skills you're learning.

The danger of free sparring, as practiced by many people, is that they simple "rock & roll." They don't try to make their learned techniques work under pressure; they just do something. That's where one, two, three or more step sparring can be a great tool. But it's not done as a simple ONE-TWO rhythmic exercise; that's only the first step in that sort of sparring. Once the participants have a reasonable understanding of the basic exercise, they need to start changing it up. Maybe don't signal the start of the "attack" or even vary the attack. Change the pace; speed it up. Don't be a static target for the defender... There's lots of things that can be done within that context to make the exercise more and more real. That's what most people don't do... They never move beyond the first step.

 

[Archangel M]

no, this is my point. There is something being held back, or else someone will go to the hospital or the morgue. I'm not talking about competition. I'm talking about self defense.

there will always be a gap between training, and reality, and the individual either is, or is not, able to jump that gap when the time comes.

Some training methods make that gap smaller, others not so much so. But the gap always exists.

Well, yeah, but if you want to get as close as you can get then boxers/MMA types are in that zone. Most of us LE types will never get in a real gunfight, but good simulation training with airsoft/simunitions will get me pretty close. If fighting demands punching/kicking an opponent then I think that REALLY punching/kicking an opponent "held back" or not is the best training for it. Same thing for grappling over knives/guns etc.

 

[Bruno@MT]

And that's a point I try to keep in mind..........when we talk about different styles, and which is 'better', the first question is 'better at what?'.

+1.

I chose my martial art for many reasons. Effectiveness in a street fight is not at the top of the list. I am not saying that Ninpo is not a good fighting art, but it takes a hell of a lot longer to use it effectively than say boxing or muay thai.

In my case, it's a bit like practising japanese tea ceremony. By the time you're done, you are drinking a cup of tea, but if that was your main goal, then there are quicker ways to get to the same end result, which also don't take years to learn.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, we seem to have gotten off track again... Let's see if we can wrap some of this up and get back to the thread topic itself, okay?

Stac3y said: "In the study of literature, this is called "willing suspension of disbelief." ",

to which Archangel M replied: "I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit."

This type of "willing suspension of disbelief" is exactly what we (in our schools) do use... we refer to it as "play-acting", in that the attacker responds with a realistic body shape as a result of a strike/kick/action delivered by the defender. And the seniors/instructors are on hand to ensure that a realistic response is what is given. In other words, when someone is grabbed by the throat (in say, a kick defence), the natural response is not to simply stand there and allow it, nor is it to start punching the defender (at least, not initially). The most common response, and primal survival instinct, is to remove the grabbing hand, so the students are guided to give this realistic response in order to assist the learning process for all involved.

The downside is when the reactions are not realistic. That benefits no-one, as, if the response is understated or non-existant, then the unconscious message given to both practitioners is that "this doesn't work!". If the reaction is overdone, or too exagerated, then it gives a very false sense of the effect of your abilities. This does take a fair bit of callibration, but works quite well when doen that way.

Flying Crane then mentioned hitting a heavy bag, with the caveat that it is still a flawed method in that it has gaps.

This I agree with completely. Striking a bag is incredibly good for power development and impact conditioning, however it is very different to having a real person in front of you, moving, and altering the distance and available targeting. This is only able to be practiced with a person in front of you... but, just so you know, this is not sparring I am talking about. We'll get to that.

Archangel M then said: "I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion."

The real benefit that MMA/Boxers have is that they are used to hitting and being hit. But what they are used to is hitting and being hit multiple times over a number of rounds, and that is simply not the way a fight goes. That said, I do agree that it is a very good idea for anyone who wants to be able to handle a real assault to get used to hitting and being hit, so boxing is often a first recommendation from me. However, what should be remembered is that boxing/MMA etc is geared towards competitive success, not self defence. The two are quite different.

sgtmac_46 then said quite a bit, most of which I agree with or is alerady handled quite well, so I'll only deal with this part: "The kata serves the purpose of instilling the motion in the muscle memory.......that is true, and I am not really opposed to kata per se........it's useful so long as it's combined with realistic sparring."

Well, now we get to something interesting: realistic sparring. In my opinion, sparring, as understood in most schools/dojos/kwoon/dojang is simply not realistic when it comes to street self defence. Now, before you all start yelling, here are some of my arguments as to why (from another of my posts in another thread... am I just quoting myself these days?):

"Sparring can be a great benefit, or a great hindrance. On the benefit side, you get used to the pace, speed, aggression, distance, and timing af a real person in front of you trying to hit/kick/throw/choke/arm-bar you (or hit with a weapon even, eg kendo, naginatado, arnis/kali, AMOK knife skills etc). You get a feel for the way you need to respond to an opponent, and can improve your speed, reflexes, and ability to "read" an opponents body and predict what they may come in with.

But there is a downside which can actually harm your ability to defend yourself. Sparring is a controlled way to experience a free-form of training, often with particular rules and restrictions. These rules and restrictions can develop into very dangerous habits which can leave you in (unsuspectingly) open to previously unconsidered attacks.

For example, I know of a particular karate system which has as part of it's rules the requirement of the combatants to "allow" their opponent the chance to answer any strike they throw, rather than get in, hit, and get out. As I'm sure you can understand, if you develop the habit of "I hit you, you hit me", eventually, you will find someone who hits harder than you. This same system also teaches the habit that if you get knocked down, the opponent will let you get up. That doesn't really happen too often in real violent encounters.

You also have the idea of non- or light-contact sparring. To highlight this issue, and to counter those who will say "yes, but if it's real, I won't worry about the rules....", under stress, you will respond the way you have trained, and the way you believe (unconsciously) generates the most success. If you train for non-contact tournaments, and engage in non-contact tournaments, and experience success in such tournaments (even if you don't win the trophy), that will create a belief that it is powerful. Then, when you need it, you will do exactly as you have trained, and react in a non-contact manner. One of the wierdest things I have seen in the Martial Arts is a non-contact karate tournament (in France, if memory serves), in which a number of the participating groups had some bad blood between them. The tension erupted into a nearly 10 minute long brawl, in which there were almost no injuries at all. All the non-contact tournament fighters, very fast and accurate in their techniques, also trained ot pull their strikes. So, under pressure, they were very fast and accurate, and pulled their strikes. Try that when someone is attacking, and see how long it stops them.

That said, sparring in systems such as boxing, kick-boxing, muay thai, and others, can certainly help get you prepared for two of the most uncomfortable experiences for a martial artist: getting hit, and being able to give a hit. For that reason, if I am asked to recommend something to someone in order to get prepared to defend themselves in a hurry, I will often recommend boxing over pretty much anything else.

The last thing to remember in regard to sparring is that in sparring, you have no clear-cut attacker and defender, instead you have two aggressive opponents both trying to attack each other at the same time. You also have only one opponent, who is in front of you, and who will attack with recognizable, familiar techniques, rhythms, and combinations. There are constraints (referees, strikes with no grappling, grappling with no kicks, all-in unarmed [MMA] with no weapons, timed rounds, etc). This is completely different to a real attack, where there is a clear attacker and defender, there may be more than one, they may attack from any side or direction, they may attack with anything from any range, they may or may not have a weapon, and there is no referee to stop anything. In fact those watching may be the opponents friends, watching to see if you are gaining the upper hand, and may join in if you do. Very different from sparring in most ways.

There are some training methods that cover this ground, though. Go along to most Krav Maga schools, and a lot of RBSD seminars, and you will see it. Check out Geoff Thompsons DVDs, especially Animal Day. But really, it is just another expression of traditional martial art free-expression training, randori as seen in arts like Aikido, Classical Jujutsu, and Ninjutsu schools around the world (note, not randori as understood by Judoka, nor rolling as understood by BJJ practitioners, which is essentially the same thing)."

The traditional Japanese form of Randori mentioned at the end there involves a single defender, and one or more attackers who may or may not be armed (clear, defined attacker and defender, as in an assault). The attacker(s) then attack with anything from single, pre-arranged, slow attacks (for training purposes, and getting a student used to a mild form of chaos), through to unannounced, random, continuous attacks at full pace (a very realistic scenario, and much closer to a real fight than a regular "sparring" match). Against these attacks, the defender has a free-response, meaning that they can respond in any way they know how - the catch being that if their response is not deemed effective, then the attack continues. All of this comes out of the more old-school version of kata training that I have mentioned before, by the way.

Okay, that took a little while. Hopefully I made some sense to people out there, and we can get back to the whole "flashy, useless" thread that this is supposed to be.

 

[Archangel M]

This type of "willing suspension of disbelief" is exactly what we (in our schools) do use... we refer to it as "play-acting", in that the attacker responds with a realistic body shape as a result of a strike/kick/action delivered by the defender.

What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.

 

[blindsage]

I'm a huge proponent of sparring, coming from a Kyokushin background with some boxing and Muay Thai thrown in that's probably obvious, but having said this I also believe that hard sparring is not remotely the end all and be all of effective self-defense, nor does it discount the possible skills that can be beneficial in self-defense but that cannot be developed by sparring, or resistance drills alone. Their are a number of skills that must be developed through repetition in other formats and then need to be resistance tested, but if you only do sparring the muscle memory doesn't develop properly. The use of kata or various types of forms don't exclude a need for sparring and they may or may not be used as a method of training some kind of self-defense skills, but without researching their appropriate, intended use you don't know how much usefulness they may or may not actually have. Plenty of Kyokushin fighters have beaten Muay Thai fighters at their own game, does that mean that because Kyokushin fighters do kata then that doing kat makes better fighters? Not necessarily. But because you don't like forms or other 'traditional' training methods and don't see the apparent usefulness of them, does that make them useless? Not necessarily.

A side thought, if walk into a MMA gym and get into a ring to practice stand up fighting and at the first kick to the body or head from my opponent I do a kick straight into the knee of his back leg and break it, does that mean I just trumped all argument for the effectiveness of Muay Thai? Or does it just make me a complete dickhead for ignoring the rules of how Muay Thai is done, and hurting someone in a potentially life altering way for no good reason?

There are ALWAYS rules to protect and limit the damage training partners sustain, regardless of style, and their are always limits to how those rules reflect self-defense in the street. There are a variety of ways to pressure test (sparring being very effective, and preferred by me), there are a variety of skills that can be developed for effective use in self-defense and many can't be developed by sparring alone. If you don't like a method, don't use it, but don't assume that because you don't see the practicality or usefulness of something that it just can't be there.

 

[blindsage]

What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.

So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?

 

[Flying Crane]

Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.

OK, tell me then. How do fights go down on the street? And how do you know this? How many fights have you witnessed, how many have you been involved in, and what kind of fights were they? Have you been taking notes, or keeping statistics? Was it two kids on the playground? Were they two hot-heads facing off at the local balldiamond to fight over a bad umpire's call in a local league softball game? Were they two drunk fools in a bar who start swinging at each other over a perceived insult? Were they self-defense against a mugger or ne'er-do-well punk? Were they gang members jumping a rival? Was it a woman getting attacked by a possible rapist? What have you witnessed, and what have you been involved in that makes you able to make a blanket statement about how fights go down in the street? Because the way fights go down in the street is probably pretty unique to the situation.

Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD. There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address. What I'm saying is about the way they train. If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA.

and how do you know that TMA schools DON"T train in a realistic way? Granted, poor schools of all kinds abound. There is no argument there. But I don't think you can lump all TMA schools together and say that the way they all train is poor, and they all ought to mimick MMA or Boxing schools.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of martial arts schools are teaching poor quality material, and poor quality skills. I think a lot of things have been watered down in pursuit of the mighty dollar, and a lot of integrity has been lost by a lot of schools and a lot of instructors.

But I don't think it is accurate to blame this on the arts themselves. The problem is that the arts are not being trained properly. Too many people have allowed standards to slip to lower and lower levels, this is very true. But that is not the fault of the arts. That is the fault of individuals with little integrity. The arts, and their PROPER training methods are very sound. If someone doesn't train up to proper standard, well that is another story altogether.

 

[Flying Crane]

Their are a number of skills that must be developed through repetition in other formats and then need to be resistance tested, but if you only do sparring the muscle memory doesn't develop properly. The use of kata or various types of forms don't exclude a need for sparring and they may or may not be used as a method of training some kind of self-defense skills, but without researching their appropriate, intended use you don't know how much usefulness they may or may not actually have.

I think this makes a very good point.

I do not believe that anybody here who is a kata proponent is suggesting that kata alone is the only thing that one needs to train, to be effective with their art. All that the kata proponents suggest is that kata is one part of the greater picture. It is an effective and worthwhile method of developing skills, but for full skill development other methods in addition to kata are necessary. Some form of working with resisting opponents is necessary. This can include sparring, and other methods as well.

I've said it before in the past, kata is clearly not imperative for developing martial skills. Not everyone likes it, not everyone uses it. That's fine.

But for those who understand the proper role of kata, it is a very effective method.

Different strokes for different folks. Just because you may not like kata, don't assume kata is worthless for everyone.

Likewise, just because you may like kata, don't assume everyone needs or should want to do it.

And just because you may feel you have figured out an effective way to train, don't assume that everyone needs to train just like you in order to also be effective.

 

[Flying Crane]

I was reading a thread on another forum, about Ed Parker, and how some were wondering if he taught things, on purpose, that had no meaning, leaving it to the students to figure it out for themselves.

I've heard that notion expressed as well. I never met the man, so I'm in no position to be an authority on the subject. But personally, I've got my doubts. It just seems like such an detrimental thing to do. I sort of feel that if you've agreed to teach someone, you teach them properly. I dunno. Maybe he was teaching a bunch of people he felt were loosers, so instead of turning them away, he taught them wrong. Seems underhanded to me. I think it's ethically and morally wrong to take money from someone as a fee to teach them, and then deliberately teach them wrong. So I just find this hard to believe that he would have done that.

There is stuff in Kenpo that I'm not crazy about and yes people say that its probably because I dont have a good understanding of it, and that may be true. I still teach it because others may have luck with it. I find what works for me, and train the hell out of it.

sure, but does kenpo as a whole get written off, based on the fact that not everyone can make every single technique work? It seems to me that sometimes people like to write off TMAs based on the notion that it's all flowery, stylized, cultural carryovers with little of value. It's way too much of a blanket statement. It's simply not true.

 

[tallgeese]

Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO. So, I've seen and/or been part of my share. From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.

The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings. That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree.

That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods. And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.

 

[Kacey]

That's where one, two, three or more step sparring can be a great tool. But it's not done as a simple ONE-TWO rhythmic exercise; that's only the first step in that sort of sparring. Once the participants have a reasonable understanding of the basic exercise, they need to start changing it up. Maybe don't signal the start of the "attack" or even vary the attack. Change the pace; speed it up. Don't be a static target for the defender... There's lots of things that can be done within that context to make the exercise more and more real. That's what most people don't do... They never move beyond the first step.

This is, I think, a point that is often overlooked. Too many people practice step-sparring as memorized sets, learned as testing requirements, and do nothing else with them. If done correctly, step sparring should be used as a vehicle to create and practice new sparring combinations in a situation in which techniques can be experimented with, to improve understanding of application, singly and in combination. That's why, once past basic 3-step, I don't teach my students step sparring sets - only the rules for step sparring at each level. Then they have to experiment and find what works best for each of them, individually, instead of performing a pattern while facing another person. Patterns (kata, tul, whatever) are, IMHO, very valuable - and step sparring is the next step on from there, moving on to free sparring after that.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO. So, I've seen and/or been part of my share. From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.

The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings. That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree.

That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods. And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.

a fair enough perspective.

But I still hold with my position that it's not the TMAs themselves that are lacking, but rather the quality of the training in many schools. But improving on quality of training does not need to mean mimicking a MMA school or boxing gym, altho I wouldn't be surprised if there are some commonalities.

And that in no way detracts from what the MMA schools and boxing gyms are doing. The success (or failure) of one has no bearing on the success (or failure) of the other. They can both provide excellent results, depending on what you are looking for.

I think these debates often sort of turn into an assertion that because MY art is good, therefore YOUR art is no good. I just don't think we need to fall into that trap. They can BOTH be good, or BOTH be bad. It really depends on quality of training. It's often not an overt assertion, but I think it sort of creeps into the subconscious of the debate.

 

[tallgeese]

I'd concur. I'd also concur that the defining factor of the product of a gym is probably first and foremost the instruction and the focus of the school as a whole. I'll grant you that. I still feel that some arts are better suited for certain things, but that's another thread altogether.

A lot of subconscious creep does tend to infiltrate these sorts of discussions for sure. I still think, that despite that risk, they can be useful and are worth re-hashing from time to time.

My experience is from adopting MMA, MT, and boxing type drills into SD stuff for realism. That does not mean it's the only way, just the way I've found.