Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical Martial Arts

[skribs]

There are many different ways of categorizing martial arts. They can be categorized by their objective (i.e. sport vs. self defense), by being a striking or grappling art, by being "traditional" or "modern". One thing I've seen discussed, but not in name, is the concept of a symmetrical art vs. an asymmetrical art.

This is a difference in objective.

• Symmetrical art - both fighters have the same objective
• Asymmetrical art - both fighters have a different objective

To provide a longer definition of each, a symmetrical art is typically (but not necessarily) an art with a sport-based component. Both boxers want to KO their opponent. Both TKD fighters want to score more points than their opponent. Both wrestlers want to pin their opponent. Both BJJ fighters want to submit their opponent. Both MMA fighters want to achieve one of several win conditions, which are the same win conditions for both fighters. A symmetrical art gives you a win condition that both fighters are fighting over.

An asymmetrical art is one in which the objective is different for each fighter, in general because you are training for a real-life situation. The scenarios you train for, your adversary will generally have an objective to do you harm, and your success condition is that he is unable to harm you. In this case, damage you cause to your opponent is the means to the end (disabling his ability to harm you) instead of the end itself (winning the submission or getting the KO).

If we were to use sports as an analogy, a game like basketball, tennis, or dodgeball are typically symmetrical sports, as both teams are trying to accomplish the same goal. A sport like gridiron football, baseball, or cricket would be asymmetrical sports, as there is clearly a difference in goal between the batting team and fielding team in a game of baseball.

Why is this distinction important? Why is it worth my time rambling on and on about it? Because too often, I think we look at the way we teach or the way we learn, and we think that is the "right" way, and the other is the "wrong" way. I think by defining the distinction, it gives a concrete view on the difference in approach, and allows it to be discussed in maybe a different way.

I also think that while arts tend to lean one way or the other, there's still a bit of both in each. For example, in Taekwondo, sparring has a symmetrical objective. However, sparring drills are done for offense an defense, and you take an asymmetrical approach to those drills. The same thing happens when you drill for positions or guards in BJJ, when you enter the referee's position in wrestling, or when you do target drills in boxing. These are all asymmetrical drills, used to help train you for a symmetrical fight.

However, some arts become entirely asymmetrical. In a real life scenario, I'm not also trying to steal a mugger's wallet. I can "win" someone trying to murder me by surviving, whether or not they survive too. Whereas they only "win" if I am dead. This variance in win condition means that symmetrical sparring is not 100% realistic.

With asymmetrical sparring, a little bit of role play is required, and the sparring session is set up similar to the referee's position in wrestling - one fighter is the aggressor, and the other fighter must pretend to defend himself from harm. The aggressor is going to also be playing a role - they're not trying to pin you or tap you out, they're pretending to be someone who wants to cause you harm in some way.

These situations are also not 100% realistic, for reasons different than the symmetrical art. Typically the aggression levels are toned down from a realistic scenario, and you don't have the adrenaline of a real life-or-death situation exacerbating your fight/flight/freeze response.

So where does this leave us? In a symmetrical art:

• The things you learn will be more generally applied than in an asymmetrical art
• The things you learn can be more easily tested against live opponents, both inside and outside your school
• You learn better how to read people's intentions and react quicker to combinations
• You gain confidence that you can handle a full-speed fihgt based on your ability to handle yourself in tournaments or competitions

In an asymmetrical art:

• You learn techniques and concepts that specifically apply to the scenarios they cover
• You are concerned with more realistic objectives than a symmetrical art
• You are attentive to scenarios a symmetrical art may not take into consideration, such as multiple opponents, defending someone else, or weapons
• You are more open to techniques that target weak areas of the human body, such as the side of the knee, groin, neck, eyes, than someone who is focused on a sport with rules

Both of these styles have pros and cons. Practitioners of both styles need to be aware of these differences, so that in a real situation you know where your strengths and your weaknesses are. If self defense is something that is important to you, then a symmetric fighter will need to think about scenarios outside the ring, and how to apply their training. If sport is something important to you, an asymmetric fighter will need to probably change martial arts.

It's also important when looking at other martial arts. No, Hapkido and Krav Maga don't translate well to UFC. That's not because they're bad martial arts. It's because they're bad at sports.

If I have a pickup truck and a sports car, they can both get me to work. But only one of them can carry a couple tons of rocks to line my garden. A pickup driver can't look at a sports car and call it impractical, because if you're not planning on hauling all of that stuff, the sport car will get you to work just as well. But that sport car driver can't delude himself into thinking his car is perfect for hauling rocks.

This is kind of my take on it. Symmetrical arts and asymmetrical arts are both useful in different ways, and ideally people would take a mix of both (depending on their goals).

 

[pdg]

I'm not also trying to steal a mugger's wallet.

Then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I didn't get through all of that yet, but I disagree with the idea that the art is inherently symmetrical or asymmetrical. In a competition, BJJ is relatively symmetrical. Same (more or less) with free rolling. I've seen @Tony Dismukes teach a class, and the drills he was using were asymmetrical.

That same is true of my classes. At times, the partners have different aims. Other times (sparring, randori, rolling), their goals may be identical...or I may set it up with different aims again, like Tony's drills.

I will agree that some arts are most commonly taught as one or the other of those, but I don't think that's inherent in the art.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, the art isn’t necessarily symmetrical or asymmetrical. The use of the art in a given context can be one or the other. The underlying principles will be the same but the tactical choices and application of those principles may be different based on the situation.

I do think that if you are practicing a martial art as more than just a sport then it is a good idea to employ both symmetrical and asymmetrical training drills. I’ve noticed that some students have a hard time making the mental switchover from one to the other if they haven’t practiced both.

 

[Flying Crane]

Funny, I had an entirely different concept of symmetrical/asymmetrical.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A: You had beaten those 6 guys down. How did you end with in ER?
B: They threw rocks at me. My MA teacher didn't teach me how to dodge rock throwing.

MA training should cover a wide range areas.

 

[Martial D]

There are many different ways of categorizing martial arts. They can be categorized by their objective (i.e. sport vs. self defense), by being a striking or grappling art, by being "traditional" or "modern". One thing I've seen discussed, but not in name, is the concept of a symmetrical art vs. an asymmetrical art.

This is a difference in objective.

• Symmetrical art - both fighters have the same objective
• Asymmetrical art - both fighters have a different objective

To provide a longer definition of each, a symmetrical art is typically (but not necessarily) an art with a sport-based component. Both boxers want to KO their opponent. Both TKD fighters want to score more points than their opponent. Both wrestlers want to pin their opponent. Both BJJ fighters want to submit their opponent. Both MMA fighters want to achieve one of several win conditions, which are the same win conditions for both fighters. A symmetrical art gives you a win condition that both fighters are fighting over.

An asymmetrical art is one in which the objective is different for each fighter, in general because you are training for a real-life situation. The scenarios you train for, your adversary will generally have an objective to do you harm, and your success condition is that he is unable to harm you. In this case, damage you cause to your opponent is the means to the end (disabling his ability to harm you) instead of the end itself (winning the submission or getting the KO).

If we were to use sports as an analogy, a game like basketball, tennis, or dodgeball are typically symmetrical sports, as both teams are trying to accomplish the same goal. A sport like gridiron football, baseball, or cricket would be asymmetrical sports, as there is clearly a difference in goal between the batting team and fielding team in a game of baseball.

Why is this distinction important? Why is it worth my time rambling on and on about it? Because too often, I think we look at the way we teach or the way we learn, and we think that is the "right" way, and the other is the "wrong" way. I think by defining the distinction, it gives a concrete view on the difference in approach, and allows it to be discussed in maybe a different way.

I also think that while arts tend to lean one way or the other, there's still a bit of both in each. For example, in Taekwondo, sparring has a symmetrical objective. However, sparring drills are done for offense an defense, and you take an asymmetrical approach to those drills. The same thing happens when you drill for positions or guards in BJJ, when you enter the referee's position in wrestling, or when you do target drills in boxing. These are all asymmetrical drills, used to help train you for a symmetrical fight.

However, some arts become entirely asymmetrical. In a real life scenario, I'm not also trying to steal a mugger's wallet. I can "win" someone trying to murder me by surviving, whether or not they survive too. Whereas they only "win" if I am dead. This variance in win condition means that symmetrical sparring is not 100% realistic.

With asymmetrical sparring, a little bit of role play is required, and the sparring session is set up similar to the referee's position in wrestling - one fighter is the aggressor, and the other fighter must pretend to defend himself from harm. The aggressor is going to also be playing a role - they're not trying to pin you or tap you out, they're pretending to be someone who wants to cause you harm in some way.

These situations are also not 100% realistic, for reasons different than the symmetrical art. Typically the aggression levels are toned down from a realistic scenario, and you don't have the adrenaline of a real life-or-death situation exacerbating your fight/flight/freeze response.

So where does this leave us? In a symmetrical art:

• The things you learn will be more generally applied than in an asymmetrical art
• The things you learn can be more easily tested against live opponents, both inside and outside your school
• You learn better how to read people's intentions and react quicker to combinations
• You gain confidence that you can handle a full-speed fihgt based on your ability to handle yourself in tournaments or competitions

In an asymmetrical art:

• You learn techniques and concepts that specifically apply to the scenarios they cover
• You are concerned with more realistic objectives than a symmetrical art
• You are attentive to scenarios a symmetrical art may not take into consideration, such as multiple opponents, defending someone else, or weapons
• You are more open to techniques that target weak areas of the human body, such as the side of the knee, groin, neck, eyes, than someone who is focused on a sport with rules

Both of these styles have pros and cons. Practitioners of both styles need to be aware of these differences, so that in a real situation you know where your strengths and your weaknesses are. If self defense is something that is important to you, then a symmetric fighter will need to think about scenarios outside the ring, and how to apply their training. If sport is something important to you, an asymmetric fighter will need to probably change martial arts.

It's also important when looking at other martial arts. No, Hapkido and Krav Maga don't translate well to UFC. That's not because they're bad martial arts. It's because they're bad at sports.

If I have a pickup truck and a sports car, they can both get me to work. But only one of them can carry a couple tons of rocks to line my garden. A pickup driver can't look at a sports car and call it impractical, because if you're not planning on hauling all of that stuff, the sport car will get you to work just as well. But that sport car driver can't delude himself into thinking his car is perfect for hauling rocks.

This is kind of my take on it. Symmetrical arts and asymmetrical arts are both useful in different ways, and ideally people would take a mix of both (depending on their goals).

A martial art either gives you real fighting skill, or it doesn't. If it does you are far more prepared for any of the above situations than if it doesn't. Doing fantasy 1 on multiple or 1 vs guy acting the way your instructor imagines a mugger might act won't make a lick of difference if you can't fight.

And if you aren't fighting in class, you just aren't learning to fight, regardless what sort of arbitrary categories you put your drills into.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

A martial art either gives you real fighting skill, or it doesn't. If it does you are far more prepared for any of the above situations than if it doesn't. Doing fantasy 1 on multiple or 1 vs guy acting the way your instructor imagines a mugger might act won't make a lick of difference if you can't fight.

And if you aren't fighting in class, you just aren't learning to fight, regardless what sort of arbitrary categories you put your drills into.

The idea is to do both. Learn to actually fight, but then also practice fighting in the dark, or in a narrow area, or whatever, so you don't have to adjust as much when a new situation arises.

 

[skribs]

I didn't get through all of that yet, but I disagree with the idea that the art is inherently symmetrical or asymmetrical. In a competition, BJJ is relatively symmetrical. Same (more or less) with free rolling. I've seen @Tony Dismukes teach a class, and the drills he was using were asymmetrical.

That same is true of my classes. At times, the partners have different aims. Other times (sparring, randori, rolling), their goals may be identical...or I may set it up with different aims again, like Tony's drills.

I will agree that some arts are most commonly taught as one or the other of those, but I don't think that's inherent in the art.

Yeah, the art isn’t necessarily symmetrical or asymmetrical. The use of the art in a given context can be one or the other. The underlying principles will be the same but the tactical choices and application of those principles may be different based on the situation.

I do think that if you are practicing a martial art as more than just a sport then it is a good idea to employ both symmetrical and asymmetrical training drills. I’ve noticed that some students have a hard time making the mental switchover from one to the other if they haven’t practiced both.

I believe I did say that.

A martial art either gives you real fighting skill, or it doesn't. If it does you are far more prepared for any of the above situations than if it doesn't. Doing fantasy 1 on multiple or 1 vs guy acting the way your instructor imagines a mugger might act won't make a lick of difference if you can't fight.

And if you aren't fighting in class, you just aren't learning to fight, regardless what sort of arbitrary categories you put your drills into.

To be clear - are you saying these are bad drills to do, or that these are bad drills to do outside of other contexts?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Symmetrical vs asymmetrical - Interesting way of looking at MA. To me, symmetrical seems simpler: Both parties are more or less on the same page. Asymmetrical, the players may be on different pages which can change as the situation develops - plans and goals change once you get hit in the face. I think it is fair to say that skill in MA can be demonstrated by one's ability to smoothly flow from symmetrical to asymmetrical battle.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I kind of said this above, but:

IMO all arts should be both. They should start symmetrical (by above definition of symmetrical/asymmetrical), and eventually transition to asymmetrical once someone is skilled at symmetrical. Even then, it should be something like 75% symmetrical, 25% asymmetrical. Those obviously aren't scientific, set numbers, but the important thing is to learn how to fight with resistance, and the asymmetry training should just be an extra thing to help you adapt when you need to.

The exception to this is verbal deescalation and awareness stuff. I know some people do/don't believe that can be taught. But to me, that should be done from the beginning, and I've got no idea how to make it symmetrical.

 

[skribs]

I kind of said this above, but:

IMO all arts should be both. They should start symmetrical (by above definition of symmetrical/asymmetrical), and eventually transition to asymmetrical once someone is skilled at symmetrical. Even then, it should be something like 75% symmetrical, 25% asymmetrical. Those obviously aren't scientific, set numbers, but the important thing is to learn how to fight with resistance, and the asymmetry training should just be an extra thing to help you adapt when you need to.

The exception to this is verbal deescalation and awareness stuff. I know some people do/don't believe that can be taught. But to me, that should be done from the beginning, and I've got no idea how to make it symmetrical.

De-escalation is exclusively taught symmetrically at my school. The respect my Master shows us and expects of us, is the same thing I've used to de-escalate many potential fights.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

De-escalation is exclusively taught symmetrically at my school. The respect my Master shows us and expects of us, is the same thing I've used to de-escalate many potential fights.

Thats a really interesting way to think about it. Following that, my statement about physical skills also works for de-escalation. Mostly learn it through respect and being respectful, calm, humble, appropriate with people in the dojo, but also having exercises to practice specific de-escalations (someone is trying to mug you, for instance).

 

[skribs]

Thats a really interesting way to think about it. Following that, my statement about physical skills also works for de-escalation. Mostly learn it through respect and being respectful, calm, humble, appropriate with people in the dojo, but also having exercises to practice specific de-escalations (someone is trying to mug you, for instance).

I don't think de-escalation drills are bad. We just don't do them at my dojang. Hence my comment about it only being symmetrical.

 

[drop bear]

Both drills are pretty common. I am not sure what the discussion really is.

I mean an asymmetric drill would be any attacker defender.

And a symmetric drill would be sparring.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If we were to use sports as an analogy, a game like basketball, tennis, or dodgeball are typically symmetrical sports, as both teams are trying to accomplish the same goal.

I think it only looks like this from the outside. The goals are probably more numerous and more specific than just winning. Things like what type of defense to play, do I hit to my opponent's forehand or backhand. Do I throw the ball at my opponent's chest or feet. Become focal points and goals.

In application if you are thinking about winning, then you aren't thinking about nor focusing on what you needs to be done in the moment. Like not getting hit, punched, or taking advantage of your opponent's weaknesses.

 

[Martial D]

I believe I did say that.



To be clear - are you saying these are bad drills to do, or that these are bad drills to do outside of other contexts?

I'm saying without doing what you arbitrarilly categorized as a symetrical art is the path to learning how to fight. After that is done, or in motion, giving you some idea of distance, timing, pressure, stress/fear(of getting clobbered), etc..then what you call asymetrical (fantasy knife drills, contrived multiple attackers scenarios, etc) might be good as suplimentary training.

But without the first one. The second one is useless, or worse, a false sense of security.

 

[Martial D]

The idea is to do both. Learn to actually fight, but then also practice fighting in the dark, or in a narrow area, or whatever, so you don't have to adjust as much when a new situation arises.

Sure. If it's realistic.

Unfortunately most of the places that emphasize these 'asymetrical' things completely forgo, or even actively shun and scorn, sport based fight training.

Cause they're 'for the streetz!'

 

[skribs]

Unfortunately most of the places that emphasize these 'asymetrical' things completely forgo, or even actively shun and scorn, sport based fight training.

If your goal isn't sport, then sport training is irrelevant.

Just like if your goal is to win a wrestling match, training for X-on-1 or training knife defense is useless.

 

[skribs]

I think it only looks like this from the outside. The goals are probably more numerous and more specific than just winning. Things like what type of defense to play, do I hit to my opponent's forehand or backhand. Do I throw the ball at my opponent's chest or feet. Become focal points and goals.

In application if you are thinking about winning, then you aren't thinking about nor focusing on what you needs to be done in the moment. Like not getting hit, punched, or taking advantage of your opponent's weaknesses.

Macro vs. micro goals.