drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,489
- Reaction score
- 8,168
In the end, that's one of the most important things most of us get out of our training, whether it is fight-effective or not.
Now, this comes back to a recurring question of how much the system matters, and how much the training approach matters. And I think the answer (as with nature vs. nurture) is that they both matter more than some people think and less than others think. For the moment, let's assume all MA pursuits should end up with effective fighting (to remove argument about whether that's the case or not).
If I say "Karate is crap because of kata", that's a pretty clear bias against a training tool, not really supported by any specific evidence. Even if I could assert (with evidence) that kata were less effective than other means (which incidentally, I cannot), that wouldn't be evidence that there's something really wrong with kata. I might be able to make a similar assertion about a 50-pound heavy bag as opposed to a 75-pound one. But just because on is generally better, that doesn't make the other bad, so my evidence wouldn't be enough. And then we have to decide if the training method is actually the style. Some would argue it is, but there's no reason a style based on forms (kata) couldn't be taught without the forms, just by teaching what was in the forms. It would change the training, but not the system (if we define "system" as the collection of techniques, strategies, and tactics).
So, if a style includes some techniques that aren't effective, is that a bad style? I'd argue it depends how they are used, what percentage of the style/focus they are, and probably some other factors. Okay, if it's 50% ineffective (for fighting - remember our assumption here) techniques, that's probably a weak system. But what if it's 10%, or 25%? I'm not sure at what point it starts to become an actual problem. I expect if we looked into the entirety of every system, we'd find some things (perhaps not taught everywhere) that were less-than-optimal. And then we get the real confusion when some of those are actually quite good, but only under very limited circumstances - are those "ineffective" or "specialized"?
Of course, there are some things we can pretty universally agree are ineffective, in that none of us believe they'd work if we stepped in and let them try it on us. The problem is finding the right line between that and a few objectionable practices within a system - a line beyond which we consider the system "bad".
It has a lot to do with the feedback you receive inside the club. The feedback that the people who drive the concept of the club or style have received. There is a good video on resisted training that I cant find and have settled for Jocko Willik and his views on combatives for the military.
Which is a discussion on Martial arts for the use of getting fighters to win fights rather than getting people off the couch.
I have no issue with getting people off the couch. So long as they know that the effort they put in defines the result they get out. If they do a style where everyone just falls over. Then when somone fights back it is going to be hard.
I do a soft version of MMA myself. I miss days I dont do the fitness. there are drills I dont do. But if I was to compete. If I was to really have to use the style. I could not afford to do a soft version.
It is the understanding that effectivness really needs to be trained in a certain manner.
And that certain manner is honest.
Last edited: