Kung Fu vs MMA

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. I'm saying that they are both great, but do different things.

If this were cooking, sparring would be part of the Mise en place, along with kata, drills, fitness and everything else. Competition, like combat as a soldier or working as a cop, is the result of training. It's what you train for.

I like competition because it's far more accessible to the average joe or Jane accountant than being a cop, or a soldier.

Except that competition would never be the point of my training. It's not what I train for. It might be a useful component in my training, but not the point.

And you're still not addressing how the two are materially different. If you and I go at it under a ruleset, the utility of that interaction doesn't necessarily change because it's part of a competition, versus us just squaring off to see what happens. The intensity matters. The ruleset used matters. The existence of a referee doesn't really matter. The existence of an audience might matter, if it makes one or both of us nervous or excited.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you look at the intensity of engagement as a continuum, light soft and slow stuff at the left end and people truly trying to kill one another on the right..... I can conceive of two people who consensually decide to enter a training session with enough intensity that it truly becomes that "test" of which you are speaking. Granted, it'll end up looking like Bloodsport, but I can conceive it.

I'd not want to traint hat way, myself. Hard to go get beers after class witht he dude who just dislocated your elbow, broke your jaw, fractured some ribs, etc.

And you wouldn't expect those to happen in most competitions, either.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Have to have a destination to anchor the training, or things get wonky. Every martial artist trains for something, when younthink you're training for "self defense" but are actually training for the next belt test, there's a disconnect.

And what if there's no next belt test?

 

[Steve]

Except that competition would never be the point of my training. It's not what I train for. It might be a useful component in my training, but not the point.

And you're still not addressing how the two are materially different. If you and I go at it under a ruleset, the utility of that interaction doesn't necessarily change because it's part of a competition, versus us just squaring off to see what happens. The intensity matters. The ruleset used matters. The existence of a referee doesn't really matter. The existence of an audience might matter, if it makes one or both of us nervous or excited.

If you never do what you're training for, you're not training for what you think. what is the point of your training? You're not a cop, so that venue isn't practical for you. You aren't a marine. You don't use your skills as a bouncer or a hit man or in any other way. So what's the point of your training.

A cop trains to be a cop, and he or she goes out and uses the skills in context. an accountant can train side by side with a cop, learning cop skills. But will never be a competent cop unless he or she actually logs the hours on the job. Training doesn't make you an expert in something. It prepares you to become an expert.

And I disagree that I am not addressing how the two are materially different. They are fundamentally different. One is the cause and the other the effect. One is preparation for application and the other is application.

As I said, not understanding this is why styles stagnate, have inconsistent results and "whither."

 

[Steve]

And what if there's no next belt test?

Thats a dilemma.

 

[drop bear]

To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing. If sparring has that then it will have the same benefit.

But It will change to the level that winning and loosing matters and to the level of guys competing.

If loosing has a consequence it changes the dynamic.

This is why video taping sparring will quite often raise the intent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you never do what you're training for, you're not training for what you think. what is the point of your training? You're not a cop, so that venue isn't practical for you. You aren't a marine. You don't use your skills as a bouncer or a hit man or in any other way. So what's the point of your training.

A cop trains to be a cop, and he or she goes out and uses the skills in context. an accountant can train side by side with a cop, learning cop skills. But will never be a competent cop unless he or she actually logs the hours on the job. Training doesn't make you an expert in something. It prepares you to become an expert.

And I disagree that I am not addressing how the two are materially different. They are fundamentally different. One is the cause and the other the effect. One is preparation for application and the other is application.

As I said, not understanding this is why styles stagnate, have inconsistent results and "whither."

Your point appears to be simply that everyone who's not a cop/bouncer is training for competition, and that makes competition inherently different. If someone doesn't enter competitions, but trains to be able to spar really well, doesn't that make sparring the end point, rather than the path? So, if we take the competition and remove the audience and referee, we have something that performs the same function (with the differences noted earlier).

You and I fundamentally disagree about the ability to train for self-defense as a goal. I get that. That really isn't relevant to this arbitrary distinction between sparring and competition. Very light point-sparring competition is not a better end point than moderately hard contact sparring at reasonably high intensity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thats a dilemma.

Yet there are many out there who train for SD, without belts. There are many who train just to learn an art, without the belts. And there are many who have the belts, but don't train to the next belt test.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing. If sparring has that then it will have the same benefit.

But It will change to the level that winning and loosing matters and to the level of guys competing.

If loosing has a consequence it changes the dynamic.

This is why video taping sparring will quite often raise the intent.

Agreed. This is one of those areas where "sparring" has multiple meanings. For some, it's never "competitive". For others, it always is. I'm in the middle. There are times I'm sparring just to see what happens. There are times I'm sparring with the same intent (though lower intensity) that I'd have in a self-defense situation: control the situation, avoid being injured. That last one is "winning" for me. For a competition to have much meaning to me, I'd either have to be in it just for the fun (regardless of outcome - BJJ strikes me as an art where I could enjoy this, as with Judo), or I'd need a ruleset that reflects that intent (control the situation, avoid injury).

 

[Steve]

Your point appears to be simply that everyone who's not a cop/bouncer is training for competition, and that makes competition inherently different. If someone doesn't enter competitions, but trains to be able to spar really well, doesn't that make sparring the end point, rather than the path? So, if we take the competition and remove the audience and referee, we have something that performs the same function (with the differences noted earlier).

You and I fundamentally disagree about the ability to train for self-defense as a goal. I get that. That really isn't relevant to this arbitrary distinction between sparring and competition. Very light point-sparring competition is not a better end point than moderately hard contact sparring at reasonably high intensity.

In order for you to know whether we agree or disagree, you have to understand my point. dismissing it as arbitrary won't get you there.

Yet there are many out there who train for SD, without belts. There are many who train just to learn an art, without the belts. And there are many who have the belts, but don't train to the next belt test.

They're training for something. Whether they get there or not is anyone's guess.

You're right, though. Training just to learn an art removes any pressure to perform. People also train in martial arts to lose weight, which also removes any pressure to perform. Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about,

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing.

If you have the fear that your opponent's punch may knock you down and cause you brain damage, you will then understand the old MA saying that said, "Fighting is like your shirt is catching on fire."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In order for you to know whether we agree or disagree, you have to understand my point. dismissing it as arbitrary won't get you there.

I believe the distinction is arbitrary, because you've stated that one is by definition and end point and that this is the difference. That's only true if the other is not an end point. If being able to do well against a skilled opponent is the goal, formal competition is not a necessary part of that.

They're training for something. Whether they get there or not is anyone's guess.

That's over-stating the problem, I think. There is reasonable evidence that being a skilled fighter transfers to some (not all) self-defense situations. We can test people's ability to respond to a reasonably intense attack of the variety they're training for. (These are what I call "simulated attacks" - where there's an assigned attack, to ensure we train for and test the response to that specific attack.) We can also test general fighting ability through sparring. And we can test adaptability by giving attacks that aren't known in advance (including unassigned attacks). We can't reasonably introduce live blades and kick-your-face-in attacks, so we'll never be testing exactly what we train, but that happens in the military, too. They don't get to send every recruit to a battlefront to test him a long the way in training. They have goals, and they meet them (and test for them) along the way without an actual live, ready-to-kill-you enemy. In fact, they use simulations quite often.

You're right, though. Training just to learn an art removes any pressure to perform. People also train in martial arts to lose weight, which also removes any pressure to perform. Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about,

Those are examples of other areas of MA training where competition is not an end point, which was my point. Competition need not be an end goal. And for some folks, it wouldn't be, even if they compete - it can also be a training tool, used toward a different end point (like preparing for SD).

 

[drop bear]

If you have the fear that your opponent's punch may knock you down and cause you brain damage, you will then understand the old MA saying that said, "Fighting is like your shirt is catching on fire."

More than injury. For our club we torture people for the 12 weeks leading up to the fight. Then we put that fighter in front of 500 people including their friends and family.

It is a big deal. And so a big deal to loose.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. This is one of those areas where "sparring" has multiple meanings. For some, it's never "competitive". For others, it always is. I'm in the middle. There are times I'm sparring just to see what happens. There are times I'm sparring with the same intent (though lower intensity) that I'd have in a self-defense situation: control the situation, avoid being injured. That last one is "winning" for me. For a competition to have much meaning to me, I'd either have to be in it just for the fun (regardless of outcome - BJJ strikes me as an art where I could enjoy this, as with Judo), or I'd need a ruleset that reflects that intent (control the situation, avoid injury).

It is interesting the self defense mind set vs the competition one. I was training the other day and was exhausted and so got tapped out by a guy who really shouldnt have won.

But there are no consequences to it so who cares?

Had that been a competition or even training for a competition it would have been a big deal and there would have been consequences.

I think for self defense it is very important to introduce the concept of winning and loosing. (or before this becomes a semantic battle. Success and failure If you want)

And winning has to become important.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is interesting the self defense mind set vs the competition one. I was training the other day and was exhausted and so got tapped out by a guy who really shouldnt have won.

But there are no consequences to it so who cares?

Had that been a competition or even training for a competition it would have been a big deal and there would have been consequences.

I think for self defense it is very important to introduce the concept of winning and loosing. (or before this becomes a semantic battle. Success and failure If you want)

And winning has to become important.

I thought I just expressed how the concept of winning fits into my view of self-defense training. In competition, I have no real consequence to losing, unless I put myself into a competition where I could seriously expect to get injured in a loss (which is anathema to my views on self-protection). So, in a BJJ competition, for instance, I'd be trying to win, but would have no real concern if I lose. I'd be doing it for the fun of competition, like when I played sports. When I am working on self-defense, I have a different view of the outcome.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The existence of a referee doesn't really matter.

I think the existence of a referee matters as well. The referee is the safety backup that will protect you if you are injured to the point where you can't continue. In a self-defense situation both physical and non-physical, there is no guarantee that someone will step in when things get to be too much. For example, the girl who was beaten to death in a school bathroom by other teenage girls. No Ref, No one jumped in to stop the attack. So her attackers continued even when she lost consciousness.

There are things that I will risk when sparring but wouldn't risk in a self-defense situation. If I had to physically fight back then I know that my attacks will be more intense and brutal. Sports fighting can be brutal but the brutality is limited by the rules. In a self-defense situation anything goes including shooting someone or stabbing someone. There is no rule set or law that will prevent someone from shooting me or stabbing. The only thing the law does is set up the grounds for which someone will be punished. If I get shot or beat to death then the laws don't mean squat to me because I would be dead.

When it comes self-defense, everything becomes non-sporting or should become non-sporting, and more about self-preservation.

 

[drop bear]

I thought I just expressed how the concept of winning fits into my view of self-defense training. In competition, I have no real consequence to losing, unless I put myself into a competition where I could seriously expect to get injured in a loss (which is anathema to my views on self-protection). So, in a BJJ competition, for instance, I'd be trying to win, but would have no real concern if I lose. I'd be doing it for the fun of competition, like when I played sports. When I am working on self-defense, I have a different view of the outcome.

So you are training for self defence. You get a bit tired or hurty and you give up.

What happens?

Submission from knee on belly?

 

[JowGaWolf]

So you are training for self defence. You get a bit tired or hurty and you give up.

What happens?

Submission from knee on belly?

lol. those were some big ladies. A knee on my belly from her would make me want to tap out. lol. My guess would be that the stomach and breathing conditioning wasn't there to deal with a knee in the stomach.

 

[drop bear]

lol. those were some big ladies. A knee on my belly from her would make me want to tap out. lol. My guess would be that the stomach and breathing conditioning wasn't there to deal with a knee in the stomach.

If I submitted from knee to belly. I may as well come to my next training session in a dress.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If I submitted from knee to belly. I may as well come to my next training session in a dress.

Make sure you take some pictures lol.