Soft vs Hard Martial Arts Discussion

[drewtoby]

Okay, I ran along the theory of aliveness while on another forum. Recently, many people seem to worship sparring, MMA, BJJ, and discredit any "soft" form of martial arts as ineffective/unrealistic unless if are studied with extensive cross training. However, many here know that a skilled martial artist studying a "soft" MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker. So, I developed a theory...



System vs. System: After only a short time training
----------------------------------------------------------

Soft Vs. Hard: The hard MA will win every time. The soft MA trainer does not have the skill to execute locks against a resiting striker, nor the sparring base to apply any learned kicks/strikes.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Ability to pull of strikes, as well as knows how a slow/sloppy strike can be used to end the fight.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Wider skill set as well as striking, maybe even the ability or idea of how to use a lock against resisting opponent.



System vs. System: After long time training
------------------------------------------

Soft Vs. Hard: The soft MA will win every time. After repetition has eased its way into the trainer's muscle memory, as well as the developed speed and polishing that dedication brings. The hard MA trainer will not know what hit him.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: 50/50, as a trainer will most likely throw a strike that he/she will regret. If the other MA knows how to prevent counter locks, it is all over.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Cross trainer every time. Can spar at an equal level of the hard trainer, but one joint lock/take-down and the fight is over.



If it is hard vs. hard or soft vs. soft it is a 50/50 thing, as I am only comparing those styles with trainers of equal skill sets and no weapons, just fighting the way they trained. With an intermediate skill set it is anybody's game.

I may be biased due to training in Hankido for several years, so please disprove me if you feel the need. Your thoughts are appreciated as well. I also need to determine how many years is a "short/long time training". I know I will get a lot of hate from MMA trainers, but just remember: it's only a theory.

 

[Flying Crane]

in my opinion, you are trying to make an "either/or" categorization, and in real life it just isn't so simple as that.

For every single one of your statements on this, my answer is, "it depends". And really, it depends more on the individual and the quality of his/her training, than it does on the style.

and your statement here: "However, many here know that a skilled martial artist studying a "soft" MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker." is something that I do not take as a given or obvious at all. Again, it simply depends.

 

[K-man]

Okay, I ran along the theory of aliveness while on another forum. Recently, many people seem to worship sparring, MMA, BJJ, and discredit any "soft" form of martial arts as ineffective/unrealistic unless if are studied with extensive cross training. However, many here know that a skilled martial artist studying a "soft" MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker. So, I developed a theory...

I get warning bells when I read 'everybody knows' or in this case 'many here know'. You can't make generalisations like that as fact. A good big man has advantages against a good small man regardless of style.

The next question is, what is 'soft'? I have difficulty in finding any martial art that is totally 'soft'. We could rank martial arts from softest to hardest and that would probabably be Tai Chi at one end and Kyokoshin karate at the other.


The only way these comparisons could have any validity is if practitioners are matched for size and strength although I understand that so called softer styles suit a smaller person over a larger one. How are they to be matched? Do they both have to attack or can one wait to be attacked. That alone changes the dynamic considerably.
System vs. System: After only a short time training
----------------------------------------------------------

Soft Vs. Hard: The hard MA will win every time. The soft MA trainer does not have the skill to execute locks against a resiting striker, nor the sparring base to apply any learned kicks/strikes.

Agreed.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Ability to pull of strikes, as well as knows how a slow/sloppy strike can be used to end the fight.

Agreed.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Wider skill set as well as striking, maybe even the ability or idea of how to use a lock against resisting opponent.

I don't think there will be much difference here. If anything someone training boxing or kickboxing would probably win hands down.

System vs. System: After long time training
------------------------------------------

Soft Vs. Hard: The soft MA will win every time. After repetition has eased its way into the trainer's muscle memory, as well as the developed speed and polishing that dedication brings. The hard MA trainer will not know what hit him.

I don't think you can say this as speed does not manifest in soft styles alone. I have trained with hard guys who are so fast a normal person doesn't stand a chance. To be blunt, to make this claim is straight BS.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: 50/50, as a trainer will most likely throw a strike that he/she will regret. If the other MA knows how to prevent counter locks, it is all over.

Aikido is considered a soft style by some. As Ueshiba has been quoted, 70% of aikido is atemi. I'm not sure what you are saying here and there seems to be contradiction. If these guys have trained a long time let's say they have learned reversals. Are you really suggesting that if the cross trained person strikes then the other guy wins? Sorry this is BS too.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Cross trainer every time. Can spar at an equal level of the hard trainer, but one joint lock/take-down and the fight is over.

Agreed. This has probably been best demonstrated in the ring with MMA where unless you have developed all round skills you are most unlikely to win.

If it is hard vs. hard or soft vs. soft it is a 50/50 thing, as I am only comparing those styles with trainers of equal skill sets and no weapons, just fighting the way they trained. With an intermediate skill set it is anybody's game.

I may be biased due to training in Hankido for several years, so please disprove me if you feel the need. Your thoughts are appreciated as well. I also need to determine how many years is a "short/long time training". I know I will get a lot of hate from MMA trainers, but just remember: it's only a theory.

So, are you suggesting that hankido is a 'soft' style?

There are so many variables. Karate is thought by many to be hard, yet where it developed in Okinawa it was hard and soft. It lost the soft when it was taken to Japan but our style of Goju Ryu uses as much soft as hard. Aikido is considered soft. I study Aikido and I can tell you that atemi plays a large part in the ability to apply locks or holds to a non compliant partner.

Now we come to the most important part. Most martial arts were developed as civilian self defence. Some were based on military training. They were not developed for competition. Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Judo, Taikwando, Kyokoshin and of course MMA are for competition and people wondering which was best saw the beginning of the UFC. But martial arts like Aikido, Kung fu, Krav Maga, Systema etc have nothing to do with competition. I don't believe it possible to rank martial arts in order of effectiveness. There are too many variables.

Adopting the famous phrase from Mythbusters ... your theory is Busted!

:asian:

 

[JBAtlanta]

I'm a newbi, but can you explain what you mean by "hard" vs "soft." Do you mean arts that primarily use kicking and punching as "hard" and those that primarily use grappling and other techniques are "soft?" No judgements on the words, just trying to understand.

 

[Takai]

There are too many variables.

Adopting the famous phrase from Mythbusters ... your theory is Busted!

:asian:

Agreed. It is never about the "style". It is always about the practitioner. Just to many variables.

 

[K-man]

I'm a newbi, but can you explain what you mean by "hard" vs "soft." Do you mean arts that primarily use kicking and punching as "hard" and those that primarily use grappling and other techniques are "soft?" No judgements on the words, just trying to understand.

It is really complex. Something like boxing is obviously hard and something like Tai Chi Quan is obviously soft. Even then Tai Chi still has strikes. Almost all MAs have a balance of hard and soft. That is what Go and Ju in Goju karate mean. Most people think of Aikido as being a soft flowing art and it is. Just that most of the techniques used have provision for a strike if it is taught correctly.

Another way of looking at it is many of the Chinese styles are considered 'internal'. That leads to another great debate as to what this means as we start discussing Chi and energy flow. So can 'soft' win over 'hard'. The answer is yes but not for the reasons given in the OP. I have had the privilege to train under two men who are able to dominate hard with soft and I have incorporated that into my karate training and teaching. It has taken those guys 30 to 40 years to reach that level and I have not seen anyone else in so called soft styles anywhere near their level. People talk about being able to do this and that but when the crunch comes, they can't deliver. I brought a high ranked Aikidoka into my school some years back to teach my guys some of his techniques. One of the senior guys asked what would happen if he resisted. The answer was demonstrated physically. It didn't work. He hadn't been taught atemi. So why have I been studying Aikido for the past seven years? Well, I know it does work if taught correctly.

Returning to your question. Grappling as you see in BJJ could hardly be called soft. If you look at Japanese jujutsu which blends with the opponent, that is soft. Perhaps a definition could be that styles that clash are hard and those that blend are soft. Even here the overlap is enormous.
:asian:

 

[drewtoby]

So, are you suggesting that hankido is a 'soft' style?

There are so many variables. Karate is thought by many to be hard, yet where it developed in Okinawa it was hard and soft. It lost the soft when it was taken to Japan but our style of Goju Ryu uses as much soft as hard. Aikido is considered soft. I study Aikido and I can tell you that atemi plays a large part in the ability to apply locks or holds to a non compliant partner.

Now we come to the most important part. Most martial arts were developed as civilian self defence. Some were based on military training. They were not developed for competition. Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Judo, Taikwando, Kyokoshin and of course MMA are for competition and people wondering which was best saw the beginning of the UFC. But martial arts like Aikido, Kung fu, Krav Maga, Systema etc have nothing to do with competition. I don't believe it possible to rank martial arts in order of effectiveness. There are too many variables.
:hmm:
Adopting the famous phrase from Mythbusters ... your theory is Busted!

:asian:

I know when I have been defeated... Thank you for your debunking. Hankido is a little bit of both, but leans to the "softer" side. After seeing what my instructor and his instructor could do at full speed, I guess I jumped to conclusions too fast. That and I am a bit annoyed by people that denounce "soft" martial arts. Anyways, thanks for the debunking! I will be sure to think of individuals now, not arts when it comes to combat. I guess it is like how some people can easily apply Tai Chi to self defense while others can not.

 

[jks9199]

in my opinion, you are trying to make an "either/or" categorization, and in real life it just isn't so simple as that.

For every single one of your statements on this, my answer is, "it depends". And really, it depends more on the individual and the quality of his/her training, than it does on the style.

and your statement here: "However, many here know that a skilled martial artist studying a "soft" MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker." is something that I do not take as a given or obvious at all. Again, it simply depends.

I agree. Let's look at that sentence for a second. "... a skilled martial artist studying a 'soft' MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker." Deadlier? Do you know a way to make some more dead than dead? There's plenty of argument today about the actual moment of death, but once dead -- you're dead. Whether you're choked out, locked and your neck is broken, punches shatter your skull or blunt force trauma from a combination of kicks and punches cause enough internal bleeding that you die, or even a miracle of timing and punch to the chest actually stops your heart... You're still dead. So... what does deadlier mean?

Is the OP trying to say that a soft MA is more likely to kill than a hard MA? I'd say that's a reach, at best. I've been exposed to hard systems that focus their strikes on non-lethal targets, and studiously avoid targets that might cause serious injury. And there are soft systems that go out of their way to do things to people that, unless they're highly skilled in handling falls, will almost certainly lead to serious bodily injury or death. Law enforcement DT would certainly qualify as a hard approach or style -- but generally seeks to avoid killing the resisting/assaulting subject.

Maybe we need to redefine hard or soft? (Where would Goju karate be? It's hard & soft!) In truth, many arts combine both, and have elements of both at different points in your training.

I think the whole theory espoused by the OP starts from a faulty premise -- that any art is inherently more dangerous or more likely to kill than another, at any point in the training. We might be better off discussing which leads to a more effective approach -- but than we get into the whole mess of defining "effective." Is it winning tournament; subduing, controlling, and arresting a subject; stopping an attack and allowing you to escape safely? Is it based on time to learn and apply?

 

[drewtoby]

Very good analysis of my prior ideas. I mean more effective in combat, but not in a death v. death match. But, as the above have pointed out, it is the artist, not the style training.

 

[jks9199]

Very good analysis of my prior ideas. I mean more effective in combat, but not in a death v. death match. But, as the above have pointed out, it is the artist, not the style training.

But what do you mean by "combat?" In most warfare today, hand-to-hand is a last resort, and usually an indicator that something hasn't quite gone according to plan. I use empty hand skills with some regularity -- but I'm supposed to go into the places that things happen, and not supposed to use force indiscriminately. Do you mean sparring or dueling? Way different environment than coping with true violence... which changes depending on whether you're a victim or imposing force, too.

You started by mentioning "aliveness." The general use of that term is to talk about taking martial arts training out of the scripted, predictable, and sanitary dojo environment, and looking at what happens when you try to use the techniques against a resisting opponent, or in a less predictable setting. But lots of people that think and claim they're doing "alive training" are really just working from a different script... and they seldom really realize it.

 

[drewtoby]

But lots of people that think and claim they're doing "alive training" are really just working from a different script... and they seldom really realize it.

What do you mean by this? Are you alluding to how in some "alive" places moves are learned slowly, if at all? And their reliance on muscle for muscle, not technique and smooth application?

Sounds like you agree with flying crane... just too many variables. I have discarded my theory due to the above debunking.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Chinese martial arts saying: soft goes to hard and hard goes to soft.

Basically if trained right they end up in the same place. If trained wrong they end up in the same place too.....useless...however they are generally useless for different reasons.

Beyond that they mean nothing

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Recently, many people seem to worship sparring, MMA, BJJ, and discredit any "soft" form of martial arts as ineffective/unrealistic ...

Is the implication here that BJJ would qualify as a "hard" style? That would certainly go against common usage of the hard/soft dichotomy. As normally used in martial arts circles, "hard" doesn't mean "includes sparring." (Actually I have deep reservations about the usefulness of the hard/soft terminology in general, but if you are going to use those terms then BJJ would definitely fall into the "soft" camp.)

 

[Flying Crane]

Chinese martial arts saying: soft goes to hard and hard goes to soft.

there's some other analogies there too, but, um, we don't need to go there. snicker...

 

[Xue Sheng]

there's some other analogies there too, but, um, we don't need to go there. snicker...

No, no we don't

 

[chinto]

I do not like the way most use hard and soft about arts, as well most arts have both. Aikido has strikes that are hard, and Karate has grapples and locks and throws that people call soft. but there are "soft blocks" and "Hard blocks" as well. I would say that grapple and strike are more apt for some arts.

as far as which works better? I think some of the arts that are called soft are lengthy to learn and become proficient enough to use on the streets in self defense, but then so are some that are called hard. again it depends.

Some arts it depends on the style, and the instructor, actually in most arts this is true as to how well you are trained and or learn the art. also if you end up with all the aspects. some instructors were never taught all the aspects so how could the pass them down? I agree with Flying Crane to many variables to make any statement one wa or the other generally.

 

[jks9199]

What do you mean by this? Are you alluding to how in some "alive" places moves are learned slowly, if at all? And their reliance on muscle for muscle, not technique and smooth application?

Lots of things. Let's look at the simplest: sparring or judo randori or BJJ rolling as "alive training." Yet you spar according to rules for a particular event; boxing, kickboxing, MMA... WTF/Olympic TKD, BJJ, each has their own rule set, right? Let's look at the typical start to a sparring match. You're facing an opponent of similar skills if not similar skill level, usually of comparable build... You're practicing engaging an opponent, breaking off, then re-engaging. Not a good idea in the real world, huh? Might be a quick trip to the pokey, might "just" get you hurt... Rolling and randori... you're generally agreeing to start already sacrificing initial contact, right? So, it's alive in the sense that it's "unscripted" -- but it's scripted by a lot of various rules.

Or let's look at some "alive" self defense training people do. They set up a "scenario" and then they walk through it and engage the subject. H'mmm... If I told you that if you go down Main St in 5 minutes, someone's going to jump you... what's the best way to get out of it safely? How about going down Maple St instead?

Can you see where I'm going?

 

[drewtoby]

I do not like the way most use hard and soft about arts, as well most arts have both. Aikido has strikes that are hard, and Karate has grapples and locks and throws that people call soft. but there are "soft blocks" and "Hard blocks" as well. I would say that grapple and strike are more apt for some arts.

as far as which works better? I think some of the arts that are called soft are lengthy to learn and become proficient enough to use on the streets in self defense, but then so are some that are called hard. again it depends.

Some arts it depends on the style, and the instructor, actually in most arts this is true as to how well you are trained and or learn the art. also if you end up with all the aspects. some instructors were never taught all the aspects so how could the pass them down? I agree with Flying Crane to many variables to make any statement one wa or the other generally.

Yes, this proves it really does depend. I have visited my fair share of bad and good dojos for TKD in my area. Luckily, the few Hapkido dojos I visited are good (not Mcdojos, but taught by good teachers). TKD is too commercialized in my area. It could be reversed in other areas though.

 

[drewtoby]

Yes I can

 

[Xue Sheng]

OK, I’ll play

However, many here know that a skilled martial artist studying a "soft" MA is deadlier than any kickboxer or striker. So, I developed a theory...

Studied hard and soft styles and I have studied Taijiquan for over 20 years and my favorite style is Xingyiquan and I don’t know that.
Question, what styles are you referring to as “soft styles”?

System vs. System: After only a short time training
----------------------------------------------------------
Soft Vs. Hard: The hard MA will win every time. The soft MA trainer does not have the skill to execute locks against a resisting striker, nor the sparring base to apply any learned kicks/strikes.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Ability to pull of strikes, as well as knows how a slow/sloppy strike can be used to end the fight.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Advantage cross trainer. Wider skill set as well as striking, maybe even the ability or idea of how to use a lock against resisting opponent.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

System vs. System: After long time training
------------------------------------------
Soft Vs. Hard: The soft MA will win every time. After repetition has eased its way into the trainer's muscle memory, as well as the developed speed and polishing that dedication brings. The hard MA trainer will not know what hit him.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

Soft Vs. Cross Trainer: 50/50, as a trainer will most likely throw a strike that he/she will regret. If the other MA knows how to prevent counter locks, it is all over.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

Hard Vs. Cross Trainer: Cross trainer every time. Can spar at an equal level of the hard trainer, but one joint lock/take-down and the fight is over.

Depends on a whole lot of things, basically to many variables to tell and there is not blanket generalization to answer that one.

If it is hard vs. hard or soft vs. soft it is a 50/50 thing, as I am only comparing those styles with trainers of equal skill sets and no weapons, just fighting the way they trained. With an intermediate skill set it is anybody's game.
I may be biased due to training in Hankido for several years, so please disprove me if you feel the need. Your thoughts are appreciated as well. I also need to determine how many years is a "short/long time training". I know I will get a lot of hate from MMA trainers, but just remember: it's only a theory.

What are you using to determine “trainers of equal skill sets”

What is your definition of “skill sets”?

What “skill sets” are you comparing?