I Don't See It, So It Must Not Work!

[MJS]

The title of this thread is a line that is usually heard when people compare what they see in MMA fighting to what they see in a regular Martial Arts class. Lately, I've noticed alot of those type of posts right here on this forum.

I'm sure there are many moves that people have applied to save themselves, but because they're not used in the cage or caught on film, they're somehow discarded as ineffective. Of course, like any move, technique, etc., there is always a time and place for everything. If a target does not present itself for a particular move, we need to adapt and do something else. However, that does not mean that given another situation, that other move may be better suited.

This thread is not designed or intended to bash cage fighting, or anyone that trains in a MMA gym, or fights in a cage.

This thread is intended to discuss and better understand the line of thinking that I mentioned above.

Let the games begin!:ultracool

 

[KempoGuy06]

While I have no MMA experience and actually dont watch MMA fights, I have heard this from friends that watch MMA constantly. I always tell them to come to the dojo and watch my instructor or the asst instructor before they pass judgement.

Its the same thing as "I havent seen it so it doesnt exsist" but this is a non educated statement. Ive never seen a great white shark, but there are pictures and stories so it must exsist.

Just because someone has never seen a style in action doesnt mean that it is not effective.

B

 

[Kreth]

On the flip side, I've never seen an MMA guy win a bar fight by tap-out, so it must not work.

 

[KempoGuy06]

On the flip side, I've never seen an MMA guy win a bar fight by tap-out, so it must not work.

LOL!

 

[stone_dragone]

On the flip side, I've never seen an MMA guy win a bar fight by tap-out, so it must not work.

Kreth...you the man!

 

[newGuy12]

Well, if we are all going to air our differences, yet again...

My opinion matters little, but I'm sticking to my guns. Kicks to the solar plexus, floating ribs, and even the carotid artery can be effective by a skilled martial artist in self defense.

There, I've said it. Now let me don my special flame retardant protective suit...

 

[kidswarrior]

I'm sure there are many moves that people have applied to save themselves, but because they're not used in the cage or caught on film, they're somehow discarded as ineffective.

When I first read the title, my thinking went in a little different direction from the MMA/TMA dyad/controversy.

Have been rethinking my rethinking of a lot of traditional forms which I was taught way back when--but taught without any realistic application. Now, thanks in large part to friends here on Martial Talk (pointing me to some MAists who are doing cutting edge work in bunkai), I am beginning to see realistic applications for parts of forms that I had abandoned. So, am coming full circle and returning to the forms as I learned them, instead of reinventing the wheel.

I guess I'm saying, If I don't see it, maybe I just haven't practiced long enough (15 years is not a long time in MA's), or as MJS said, maybe haven't been presented with the situation yet in which it would be useful. jmho.

 

[terryl965]

On the flip side, I've never seen an MMA guy win a bar fight by tap-out, so it must not work.

LMAO

 

[Kreth]

Have been rethinking my rethinking of a lot of traditional forms which I was taught way back when--but taught without any realistic application. Now, thanks in large part to friends here on Martial Talk (pointing me to some MAists who are doing cutting edge work in bunkai), I am beginning to see realistic applications for parts of forms that I had abandoned. So, am coming full circle and returning to the forms as I learned them, instead of reinventing the wheel.

I guess I'm saying, If I don't see it, maybe I just haven't practiced long enough (15 years is not a long time in MA's), or as MJS said, maybe haven't been presented with the situation yet in which it would be useful. jmho.

Excellent points. A few years ago I was working with a lot of the Bujinkan bojutsu kata, many of which are done vs. an attacking swordsman. When you look at the movements in the context of the varying strategies of the two combatants (swordsman needs to get inside the range of the bo to make a cut, or alternately attack the hands holding the bo; whereas the bo wielder is trying to keep the swordsman at bay to maximize his reach advantage) and the movements make a lot of sense. Add some movements where you are "accidentally" exposing yourself to a cut, to draw your opponent into position for a counterattack and everything falls into place.
Now I try to look at any kata that way, ie. why am I doing this particular movement in this situation?

 

[Shotochem]

Well, if we are all going to air our differences, yet again...

My opinion matters little, but I'm sticking to my guns. Kicks to the solar plexus, floating ribs, and even the carotid artery can be effective by a skilled martial artist in self defense.

There, I've said it. Now let me don my special flame retardant protective suit...

Don't put on the ol' suit just yet.

Remember if you hit someone hard enough and often enough in just the right places, I would consider that quite effective.......:wink1:

-Marc-

 

[Adept]

My opinion matters little, but I'm sticking to my guns. Kicks to the solar plexus, floating ribs, and even the carotid artery can be effective by a skilled martial artist in self defense.

Well, yeah. At the same time, throwing toothpicks or taking off your shoe and hitting your assailant with it may also be effective.

Where are we going with this?

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

When I first read the title, my thinking went in a little different direction from the MMA/TMA dyad/controversy.

Have been rethinking my rethinking of a lot of traditional forms which I was taught way back when--but taught without any realistic application. Now, thanks in large part to friends here on Martial Talk (pointing me to some MAists who are doing cutting edge work in bunkai), I am beginning to see realistic applications for parts of forms that I had abandoned. So, am coming full circle and returning to the forms as I learned them, instead of reinventing the wheel.

I guess I'm saying, If I don't see it, maybe I just haven't practiced long enough (15 years is not a long time in MA's), or as MJS said, maybe haven't been presented with the situation yet in which it would be useful. jmho.

Of course you also have factor in the number of TMA practioners who also don't "see it".
Having read Ian Abernathys work, Im increasingly open to the idea of kata based training. However, there are a large number of martial arts clubs where forms are merely practised rather than utilised or applied properly. So when MMA practioners encounter TMA who merely perform rather than use kata, is it any wonder that they would dismiss it?

 

[newGuy12]

So when MMA practioners encounter TMA who merely perform rather than use kata, is it any wonder that they would dismiss it?

No. It makes pretty good sense to me that it would be dismissed if it were not presented in its more robust form. Its very clear to me that there is a world of difference between teaching the forms with applications exposed and teaching the forms just superficially.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's an important insight raised by Shotgun above and it's one that I'd not really pondered before.

Whenever I've been subliminally aggrivated by sentiments expressed from the 'sports' end of the spectrum I've never fully appreciated that why they've been so dismissive of TMA is that they've not actually ever seen any. Like NG said just prior to my putting fingers to keyboard, the difference between doing a form and understanding a form is huge.

 

[kidswarrior]

Of course you also have factor in the number of TMA practioners who also don't "see it".

As Suke stated in typically incisive fashion, an important point that I hadn't really considered before, either.

Having read Ian Abernathys work, Im increasingly open to the idea of kata based training. However, there are a large number of martial arts clubs where forms are merely practised rather than utilised or applied properly. So when MMA practioners encounter TMA who merely perform rather than use kata, is it any wonder that they would dismiss it?

This statement is intriguing, Shotgun, because I find myself more and more of late watching, learning from, and applying the lessons of MMA fighters and events to my TMA practice.

 

[MJS]

Of course you also have factor in the number of TMA practioners who also don't "see it".
Having read Ian Abernathys work, Im increasingly open to the idea of kata based training. However, there are a large number of martial arts clubs where forms are merely practised rather than utilised or applied properly. So when MMA practioners encounter TMA who merely perform rather than use kata, is it any wonder that they would dismiss it?

I would expect that they'd dismiss it as well. While kata is applicable to fighting, it is, IMHO, just a part of the puzzle. IIRC, there was a discussion on something similar a while back, regarding nothing else being needed. I still feel that you also need to experience the other aspects, aside from kata.

But, I'm just using this as an example here. There are already enough threads on the pros/cons of kata, so I really don't want this thread to take that route.

 

[MJS]

Just to further expand on where I'm hoping to take this thread. If we watch a MMA fight, observing what techniques are used, and then review the techs. in our art, we should see things that are not used or if they are used, they're used on a rare basis.

So, that being said, we really don't see any of the 'dirty' tricks that people always talk about such as shots to the eyes and throat, spinning kicks or joint locks. All valid moves IMO, but we don't see 'em in the ring. One group says in that case, they're not solid techniques, while the other side says they are.

 

[Brother John]

there are a large number of martial arts clubs where forms are merely practised rather than utilised or applied properly. So when MMA practioners encounter TMA who merely perform rather than use kata, is it any wonder that they would dismiss it?

Nope, it's not a wonder at all.
I'd have to say that I'm in the exact same boat as kidswarrior !!
I studied TMA from the time I was a kid until my early twenties. 1/2 at one dojo and 1/2 at another (eclectic) dojang. The dojo was pretty darn traditional and had a very respected Sensei of HIGH rank and a solid pedigree. (IF I mentioned his name you may have heard of him, if I mentioned his Sensei.....the majority of you WOULD...... so please don't ask. I still have a good relationship with him and respect him too much to do that too him) He was (is) extremely knowledgeable in our art in many respects, and a very GOOD coach...yet some of his bunkai was.... well...... you could tell it was 'made up' on the spot, often changed and sometimes was actually ridiculous. Also he lacked any knowledge of Kyusho which I later learned from another instructor...yet it IS supposed to be an integral part of the system.

Then at the dojang, which was an ecletic mix...yet still retained all of the traditional/formal hyung & kata (and other curricula) of the base systems. This instructor (and his assistants) was MUCH lower in rank than the other Sensei, and no one in several generations of their pedigree would be a name Anyone on this forum would even know of. YET...their knowledge of their system, it's forms and other aspects, was DEEP and very effective! Very.

The HIGH ranking sensei was regarded by many as the premier MA instructor in town and taught in a NICE dojo at a GOOD location in town ....full time.

The lower ranked instructors at the other school were 'known and respected', but didn't draw nearly the same number of students (and charged HALF what the other school did) at their humble school, which was little more than a hole in the wall type place down on the "Wrong side of town"....and all of the instructors had 'day jobs' at a local factory. ((Later: they moved the school to a large portion of un-used space at a "Salvation Army" location and gave 100% of their profit to them! ...and their numbers turned around BIG time.))

I'm getting ALL long-winded here.....sorry
Anyway, I'm just saying this to make a point:

If people's only exposure to Martial Arts had been the nice trad dojo in the nice part of town (as was often the case) ...then they may think it's not so effective. If they'd seen or heard of the number of his Black Belts that got a big head and got into streetfights with untrained scrappers...and LOST quite often....they'd think "That Martial Arts stuff is crap!"

OR: if an MMA person were to come into town and try to train at the "NICE" dojo, they'd end up thinking "Traditional MA is Crap!"

Forms that are done w/out knowledge of their application is little more than exercise! Sure, they can perform the moves fluidly and with snap...etc., but without a depth of knowledge in application???
no thanks.

Like Kidswarrior said, later I learned MUCH more about proper Bunkai for the kata I'd learned and trained in from the NICE traditional school all those years ago, and it opened my eyes a LOT! ....once I learned even just Some Kyusho, it was like handing me a key to a tressure that'd been locked up in my own basement!!! Like meeting your Longest Friend, and finally learning his name!

NOW: The art that I study/teach and train in (American Kenpo) has a very direct connection between it's forms and their application....so it's pretty different; though there ARE hidden applications.
...and they tend to be real jewels. But my further information on Bunkai and Kyusho has made my 'old forms/kata' REALLY come to life for me.

...sorry......
ranting...

stopping now.
Thanks for staying with me.

Your Brother
John

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Just to further expand on where I'm hoping to take this thread. If we watch a MMA fight, observing what techniques are used, and then review the techs. in our art, we should see things that are not used or if they are used, they're used on a rare basis.

So, that being said, we really don't see any of the 'dirty' tricks that people always talk about such as shots to the eyes and throat, spinning kicks or joint locks. All valid moves IMO, but we don't see 'em in the ring. One group says in that case, they're not solid techniques, while the other side says they are.

Ok well lets look at the moves involved. One thing consistent about MMA fighters is the tendency to only use what they need. This means that if they already have an effective way of doing something, they're unlikely to develop extra ways as they simply complicate the issue. Hicks Law and all that.
Due to this, there is a minimising of techniques, where the ones considered most effective FOR THE SITUATION are kept, and the rest discarded. Yes there are some moves discarded that are valid techniques, but there are already enough that accomplish the same goal. Others are discarded because they don't fit the situation. A good example of this is open-handed strikes. From a self defence perspective, a highly useful weapon. From an MMA perspective, unnecessary. Why? Open handed strikes exist so that you can strike hard areas without risking breaking your knuckles or damaging your hands. Since MMA fighters wear gloves that protect the knuckles, this is no longer a concern.

 

[Kwan Jang]

First, I want to make a quick comment on the kata issue, I feel too many schools use katas as "filler" and don't teach practial applications of it. If the kyusho and tuite is taught, some use of kata can be of benefit. It's a good starting point, it's not that much use if you just stop there.

In regards to the issue of whether or not something is only valid if it is proven in the MMA cage, I would say that it can be an indicator, but far from the sole determining factor if something is valid or not. I see MMA as one of the best ways for healthy young athletes to pressure test the effectiveness of their strategies or techniques in a relatively safe enviroment and I feel it has helped with the evolution of the martial arts.

OTOH, as another poster pointed out, the self defense applications of open hand strikes, especially to the head, without protective gloves is a valid point. Another is that in MMA, you wear a steel cup and fighters rarely factor in either protecting or attacking the groin. I see quite a few techniques in MMA that may be great for a healthy young athlete, but may not be either effective or appropriate if it was executed by his Grandmother. I've seen many MMA fights ended by a round kick to the head or spinning back kick, thus under the prescribed line of reason, they are very valid techniques, yet these are not strategies or techniques I would suggest for certain students for real self defense. The same is true for many people with back or knee injuries regarding a lot of ground work.

There are other techniques, combos and strategies that may work today in MMA, but will be discarded or less used in the future. Anybody else remember when a mount or guard was "unbeatable". And how many thought if you got someone in a triangle choke, the fight was all but over? As MMA evolves and the quality of the athletes and their training improve, you will see a different set of techniques and combos come along and you will also see a new set and strategy to counter it.

I will mention that I believe that the "live" training against a resisting and countering opponent with far less rules than most of us were used to using (at least with a high level of intensity, contact or adrenal stress) has pointed out some of the weaknesses or faults in some people's training strategies or arsenals. There were far too many instructors who were teaching students that "this technique will destroy any opponent", yet had never been in a fight themselves or ever applied their "lethal" technique. For them, ingorance was bliss and I believe this has led to a backlash that can often be reactionary.