Sports vs Traditional in terms of Self Defense

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,066
Reaction score
7,735
The real distinction should be active pressure testing (in multiple forms) vs not. That was really the point he was trying to make; if you practice against a resisting opponent then you're more likely to be successful in a self defence situation. The problem is that a lot of "traditional martial artists" however we define that term, don't do this. It's a very widely held opinion (outside those that practice traditional martial arts) that combat sports are the future and traditional martial arts are useless for self defence/combat. You see the idea pop up everywhere.

Not so much. Without competition you get this faux resistance training happening. Which looks like resistance training but is in fact garbage.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,211
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
if you practice against a resisting opponent then you're more likely to be successful in a self defence situation. The problem is that a lot of "traditional martial artists" however we define that term, don't do this.
I don't think we should talk about that part of the "traditional martial artists".

Some people train MA for combat. Some people train MA for health. I just hate to mix both discussions together.

One day when I asked my long fist brother to spar and he expressed no interest, I stopped asking him after that.

To me, if you train MA, and I also train MA, when we meet, we should spar. :)
 

Damien

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
247
Reaction score
204
Location
Sydney
Not so much. Without competition you get this faux resistance training happening. Which looks like resistance training but is in fact garbage.
I think you could put faux resistance training in with those that don't do it. You could say the same with competition when it looks like karate point sparring- it's not reflective on an actual self defence situation. It teaches certain skills certainly, but completely ignores others.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,327
Reaction score
10,091
Location
Hendersonville, NC
depends on how you define self defense. Doesn't it? And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.
Which really just makes it all the less likely no art has ever been developed with that intent.
 

Damien

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
247
Reaction score
204
Location
Sydney
I don't think we should talk about that part of the "traditional martial artists".

Some people train MA for combat. Some people train MA for health. I just hate to mix both discussions together.

One day when I asked my long fist brother to spar and he expressed no interest, I stopped asking him after that.

To me, if you train MA, and I also train MA, when we meet, we should spar. :)
I think its fine to train just for health or for interest, but you need to be honest with yourself and others about what you are doing.

My main interest in training is health and interest, it just so happens that one of my interests is the application behind things, and that requires training with resistance. I don't ever intend to use any of this stuff, and really hope I never have to, but it is there if I do. Going back to some earlier points, the soft skills of avoid, diffuse and run away are far more effective for avoiding getting hurt.

When entire styles fall into the only health and interest approach though it is a shame, as the why behind the art gets lost. I think schools should try and teach something practical including resisted drills and then have specific classes where they spar (even combat sports clubs do this kind of thing since throwing complete beginners into sparring is generally a disaster from a technical perspective). That way if you're not interested you can just not go to those classes.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,589
Reaction score
7,108
Location
Covington, WA
This is part of Danahers argument, that combat sports develop this fighting spirit more than martial arts which do not include a sparring or competitive aspect.

Honestly, this is also a major reason for the existence of systems such as Army Combatives or the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program. Unarmed combat really isnt a significant portion of the mission of a modern soldier, but the military believes that the training is useful for building soldiers personal courage, confidence, and resiliency.
This is something that sport in general instills, not just combat sports. If we are just talking about fighting spirit, ninja warrior competition training is excellent. Or rugby.

Which really just makes it all the less likely no art has ever been developed with that intent.
Well, sure, someones definition. Its like the multiverse thing thats so hot right now. :)
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,211
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
the soft skills of avoid, diffuse and run away are far more effective for avoiding getting hurt.
Agree everything that you have said except this.

The hard skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.

We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.
 

Damien

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
247
Reaction score
204
Location
Sydney
Agree everything that you have said except this.

The hard skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.

We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.
Certainly if you want to hurt someone its better to learn how to effectively strike etc. Whilst anger might make you want to hurt someone, my general outlook on life is that it's best not to hurt anyone if at all possible.

But if you want to not get hurt at all yourself, better to never be in the fight; you can never completely reduce the change of being hurt if you get into a fight. Don't go to the bad part of town, don't wander down dark alleys, don't approach that dodgy looking guy, don't rise to the bait of some idiot in a bar....

I'm not saying don't learn/practice self defence, but very much keep it as a last resort. Better to take the longer way home, or lose some face than get in a fight, even if you're confident of the outcome.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,211
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
Certainly if you want to hurt someone its better to learn how to effectively strike etc. Whilst anger might make you want to hurt someone, my general outlook on life is that it's best not to hurt anyone if at all possible.

But if you want to not get hurt at all yourself, better to never be in the fight; you can never completely reduce the change of being hurt if you get into a fight. Don't go to the bad part of town, don't wander down dark alleys, don't approach that dodgy looking guy, don't rise to the bait of some idiot in a bar....

I'm not saying don't learn/practice self defence, but very much keep it as a last resort. Better to take the longer way home, or lose some face than get in a fight, even if you're confident of the outcome.
Since street fight can cause so much problems, we can now see the value of the sport.

In sport, you can take down your opponent 5 times today. Tomorrow he will still be your wrestling partner.

 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,066
Reaction score
7,735
Agree everything that you have said except this.

The hard skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.

We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.

The hard skill is also super important if you don't want to hurt people.

If say you just want to hold guys down for a bit. You still need to have done that at flat knacker in training.

Soft skills work from Mount more effectively.
 

jergar

Yellow Belt
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
36
Reaction score
6
According to John Danaher, in the following video
he says that sports based martial arts with competitive aspects are the most reliable for self defense purposes. However, traditional Budoka of the Koryu, often talk down or even denigrate the sportification of martial arts. Phil Relnick Sensei has even stated in an interview that he considered Judo a sport, not a martial art (a sentiment with which I really wholeheartedly disagree with). Toby Threadgill Sensei, in a Shu-Ha-Ri dialogues interview talked about how his Sensei effortlessly put down hardned Judoka. But what John Danaher is saying, as I understand it, essentially contradicts the things we hear from the traditional martial arts representatives.

In my opinion, the ideal thing to do is to probably do both competitive and traditional (theoretical) based martial arts.

What are your thoughts and reactions to John Danaher in this video?
Hi I agree with what he's saying about training in sport arts, you have to get used to punches and kicks coming at you and have your mind and body trained to deal with various situations. MMA fighters are conditioned to take a beating and keep on fighting, but they are expecting their opponent to fight in a similar way to them .One good eye jab puts them out in about two seconds as we have all seen at one time or another. When he says a boxer will have to change his fighting technique to basically become a kick boxer he forgets that if a person has trained to box for any length of time he will not stray to far from his training ,having fought a few boxers i can attest to that! I don't deviate from my training very much after 31 yrs. If your training is only form or katas sure you'll get your clock cleaned by an seasoned full contact fighter. You really need hands on training to be a good fighter. What he's not doing is thinking about a trained traditional martial artist that's trained in knife,sticks,staff,sword ,what he thinks is a jab may be a knife thrust to the throat or body then it's game over. That is the difference between us. Peace!
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,327
Reaction score
10,091
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Hi I agree with what he's saying about training in sport arts, you have to get used to punches and kicks coming at you and have your mind and body trained to deal with various situations. MMA fighters are conditioned to take a beating and keep on fighting, but they are expecting their opponent to fight in a similar way to them .One good eye jab puts them out in about two seconds as we have all seen at one time or another. When he says a boxer will have to change his fighting technique to basically become a kick boxer he forgets that if a person has trained to box for any length of time he will not stray to far from his training ,having fought a few boxers i can attest to that! I don't deviate from my training very much after 31 yrs. If your training is only form or katas sure you'll get your clock cleaned by an seasoned full contact fighter. You really need hands on training to be a good fighter. What he's not doing is thinking about a trained traditional martial artist that's trained in knife,sticks,staff,sword ,what he thinks is a jab may be a knife thrust to the throat or body then it's game over. That is the difference between us. Peace!
MMA fighters dont react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.
 

Hyoho

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
741
Reaction score
336
Well first of all I don't agree with Shuhari (shin-gyo-so) 摰湧. To me it's Shu (蝧) to study or learn something Ren (蝺) to practice it (repeatedly) Ko (撌) to work/figure out and improve on what you studied based on feedback from practicing. After the ko process you then go back to Shu and repeat.

Secondly its "all" practice. Even MMA has rules. In a real life situation if your life was in danger? There are areas of the body one would attack that are not allowed in everyday practice. Is one better than the other? A favorite subject of mine doing Budo to a Kodansha level and Koryu to a licensed level. In both the epitome of what we do is based on defense. Budo has me sparring as we also attack. But still the ultimate technique is dealing with a person that has already committed to an attack is Sen. Budo has taught me (and still learning) is to deal with unexpected situations. The Koryu has brought me as close as possible to a real life situation of dealing with a situation or get hospitalized. For both I need a fighting spirit. One Koryu I do is based 100% on Sen. To see an already attempted attack and deal with it. We actually don't do anything else but Sen. In other words if we are not attacked we can both go home. The few real situations I have ended up in? Koryu was triggered devoid of any rules.
 

jergar

Yellow Belt
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
36
Reaction score
6
Well first of all I don't agree with Shuhari (shin-gyo-so) 摰湧. To me it's Shu (蝧) to study or learn something Ren (蝺) to practice it (repeatedly) Ko (撌) to work/figure out and improve on what you studied based on feedback from practicing. After the ko process you then go back to Shu and repeat.

Secondly its "all" practice. Even MMA has rules. In a real life situation if your life was in danger? There are areas of the body one would attack that are not allowed in everyday practice. Is one better than the other? A favorite subject of mine doing Budo to a Kodansha level and Koryu to a licensed level. In both the epitome of what we do is based on defense. Budo has me sparring as we also attack. But still the ultimate technique is dealing with a person that has already committed to an attack is Sen. Budo has taught me (and still learning) is to deal with unexpected situations. The Koryu has brought me as close as possible to a real life situation of dealing with a situation or get hospitalized. For both I need a fighting spirit. One Koryu I do is based 100% on Sen. To see an already attempted attack and deal with it. We actually don't do anything else but Sen. In other words if we are not attacked we can both go home. The few real situations I have ended up in? Koryu was triggered devoid of any rules.
Absolutely and as it should be ! Self defense has no rules. Salute!
 

jergar

Yellow Belt
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
36
Reaction score
6
MMA fighters dont react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.
No they react to getting poked in the eye as anyone would do. What i'm getting at is they are trained to fight a certain way,they do their thing, the other person may have a different idea .
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,066
Reaction score
7,735
MMA fighters dont react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.

MMA fighters also deal with eye pokes all the time. Luke actual you can't see out of that eye issues.
 

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
736
Location
Perth, Western Australia
According to John Danaher, in the following video
he says that sports based martial arts with competitive aspects are the most reliable for self defense purposes. However, traditional Budoka of the Koryu, often talk down or even denigrate the sportification of martial arts. Phil Relnick Sensei has even stated in an interview that he considered Judo a sport, not a martial art (a sentiment with which I really wholeheartedly disagree with). Toby Threadgill Sensei, in a Shu-Ha-Ri dialogues interview talked about how his Sensei effortlessly put down hardned Judoka. But what John Danaher is saying, as I understand it, essentially contradicts the things we hear from the traditional martial arts representatives.

In my opinion, the ideal thing to do is to probably do both competitive and traditional (theoretical) based martial arts.

What are your thoughts and reactions to John Danaher in this video?
According to him.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,066
Reaction score
7,735
No they react to getting poked in the eye as anyone would do. What i'm getting at is they are trained to fight a certain way,they do their thing, the other person may have a different idea .

Good sport strikers are going to be better at eye gouging. And better at defending eye gouges. Than a system that focuses on eye gouges specifically.

The mechanic of good striking is the best method to defend eye attacks.
 

Ji Yuu

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
53
Reaction score
27
Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.

If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.

Now, let's say you train for self defense only; targeting the knees, eyes, etc. These tactics are of little use if you do not know how to engage your attacker(s) (knowing how to fight). This is where a sparring partner(s) comes in. This is where you engage in "sport" martial arts in order to learn how to get past your attacker's guard, get your attacker off balance, or how to spot various targets, and how to position yourself if you have two attackers, i.e. not being in between them.

Having said all of that, martial sport can be a useful tool. You just have to throw the rule book out. After all, if you train only for competition, you'll defend yourself like you're trying not to get disqualified and win a match. If you train to save you life or a loved one's life, you'll fight like it.

That's my opinion.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
22,679
Reaction score
8,312
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.

If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.

Now, let's say you train for self defense only; targeting the knees, eyes, etc. These tactics are of little use if you do not know how to engage your attacker(s) (knowing how to fight). This is where a sparring partner(s) comes in. This is where you engage in "sport" martial arts in order to learn how to get past your attacker's guard, get your attacker off balance, or how to spot various targets, and how to position yourself if you have two attackers, i.e. not being in between them.

Having said all of that, martial sport can be a useful tool. You just have to throw the rule book out. After all, if you train only for competition, you'll defend yourself like you're trying not to get disqualified and win a match. If you train to save you life or a loved one's life, you'll fight like it.

That's my opinion.
It's a valid opinion, sure, but it's also not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Because it presumes that not targeting the eyes/groin/whatever in sparring means you cannot/willnot do so in a self-defense scenario.
I don't have to break students knees to be capable of it. Nor do I have to gouge out their eyes. Or fracture their larynx.
I can spar by targeting targets that won't do severe, long term damage. And when it's not sparring, I can target other parts. Because, you know, I'm thinking while I fight in both cases. Certainly SOME people may react in the limited manner your describe. But it's equally certain that it is far, far, from universally true.
 
Top