Too deadly for competition rant

[GBlues]

I agree with your post for the most part, but will play Devil's Advocate (just a tad) because there is always more than one side of any story.... and it's fun to play Devil's Advocate!

I have observed that all martial arts share the same components of sport, self-defense, and artistic expression.

There is a difference in "FOCUS" from one style to the next however.

Some arts focus more on self-defense and the training reflects that. It has long been held that you will "execute on the street, the way you train in the dojo."

Every single one of you have been told and instructed to perform maneuvers over and over and over....repitition is the key to learning, no?

Why do you think this is the case? So that your reactions are embedded into your subconcious so that concious thought is not needed to deal with a threat. Why? Because concious thought means hesitation, and he who hesitates...meditates...in the horizontal position (to steal a quote from SGM Ed Parker.)

Therefore, depending on the focus of one's training, it may be more natural to execute an eye-poke for example instead of a simple punch. Now, that DOES NOT mean self-control and good sense is not required for the situation so please don't jump me yet....lol.

I agree that any MA worth it's salt should have practicioners that can adapt to a sport environment. Key word is "adapt" though. One does train differently for a sporting competition than one does for self-defense.

That's because the situations are different.

In a sporting environment, there are preset rules one must be familiar with. Rules that are set up in part to help prevent serious injury and/or death. In a self-defense scenario, there are no rules and the goal is to at least injure your opponent enough so that they are no longer a threat.

Sports are equated to games....it's not a game to play with one's life. Of course, you have the right to choose how much force you use in either a sporting event or in self-defense. The difference is that if you make a miscalculation in judgement in the ring, you may only lose the fight and/or a couple of places in the rankings; however, a miscalculation where your life & limb are concerning could land you in the ICU or morgue. So... I think you have a little more margin for error where "sport" is concerned.

Is it BS to claim one's style is too deadly for competition? Absolutely. It's also BS to claim that one can change the results of their training at the drop of a hat as well. Especially where a lot of time has been put into it. It's like saying that I can do any dance because I can do the Funky Chicken....not so....I still can't Break Dance worth a damn!

This is what I was trying to get at with my post. I did post a reply earlier also, but apparently it didn't take. You can use both focuses for sd, and competition. However, if your whole focus is on sd, then that is how you would react in the ring, not in a competition way. Repetition. THe other point is there are no non-lethal attacks. Yes, the likely hood of some attacks being lethal, are not very likely, but they all can be, given the right circumstances. That was my point about the if it's too deadly for the ring then it's too deadly for the street. All techniques are deadly given the right circumstances. So how can you say, that only one is good for competition, but one is not. Doesn't really apply. Things happen, and while as of yet no one has been killed in the UFC, it's only going to take once, and the media will have a hayday with it. As far as serious injuries not taking place as one poster previously elluded too. I believe it was MA Caver that posted the vid of the guy breaking his leg. That's a pretty serious injury to me. Fight ending for certain, and perhaps carreer ending at that. Again what technique is not potentially deadly? THey all, 'potentially' are deadly. That was my point.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I would like to ask you guys to name a strike, and target, that is not potentially an injurious technique to your opponent or even lethal.

Foot stomp hurts alot but rarely kills. Injurions yes, lethal no. But in competion you do run the chance of injury.

Front hand backfist can stun, or bloody a nose, or knock a tooth out, but I've never heard of it killing.

Front hand jab pretty much does the same as above.

Roundhouse for the thigh frogs the leg muscles but ain't much of a killing blow either.

GBlues, I expect in competition, or even sparring in class, the potential of injury. Don't matter how deadly the 'art' is (on non-deadly.) But an art that is to 'deadly' it can't be practice at full speed is rather useless cause you need to practice at full speed sometimes against an opponent.

And for all, I pack a gun (many times two) on the street. The gun, by itself, is kind of like the atom bomb of personal SD. It's used when for all practical purposes, there is no other way to stop the attack. And that is why H2H skills are needed. And yes, non-lethal methods as well as lethal!

I've twice had to stop someone. Once a burgler which I held at gunpoint in my parents house. He was twice my size and the Colt .38 evened the odds. Another time, in the Virgin Isands, two of us chased down a purse snatcher and held him for police. I used a wrist lock on the purse snacher. It was all I needed for that.

But even with the deadlyness of the gun, I shoot IDPA matches with it. Even that one can compete with!

Deaf

 

[GBlues]

Foot stomp hurts alot but rarely kills. Injurions yes, lethal no. But in competion you do run the chance of injury.

Front hand backfist can stun, or bloody a nose, or knock a tooth out, but I've never heard of it killing.

Front hand jab pretty much does the same as above.

Roundhouse for the thigh frogs the leg muscles but ain't much of a killing blow either.

GBlues, I expect in competition, or even sparring in class, the potential of injury. Don't matter how deadly the 'art' is (on non-deadly.) But an art that is to 'deadly' it can't be practice at full speed is rather useless cause you need to practice at full speed sometimes against an opponent.

And for all, I pack a gun (many times two) on the street. The gun, by itself, is kind of like the atom bomb of personal SD. It's used when for all practical purposes, there is no other way to stop the attack. And that is why H2H skills are needed. And yes, non-lethal methods as well as lethal!

I've twice had to stop someone. Once a burgler which I held at gunpoint in my parents house. He was twice my size and the Colt .38 evened the odds. Another time, in the Virgin Isands, two of us chased down a purse snatcher and held him for police. I used a wrist lock on the purse snacher. It was all I needed for that.

But even with the deadlyness of the gun, I shoot IDPA matches with it. Even that one can compete with!

Deaf

Foot stomp rarely kills depending on the target.

Backfist could kill if again delivered to the correct target.

Front hand jab again depends on the target, and health of the adversary.

A 17 year old kid a few years back was attacked by a 40 year old man. Kicked him in the head with a roundhouse. Broke the guys neck and killed him.

I'm not saying that you can't compete. I'm not saying that there are martial arts that are too deadly to compete. I'm saying if you want to take that position, that 'if it's too deadly for the ring, then it's too deadly for the streets.' Then you have to consider the reality of martial arts. There original purpose. Many like karate, were not designed to be competition martial arts. They were designed to kill. Period. You don't attack a guy who is trying to cut your head off with a slap in the mouth. You kill the s.o.b. as quickly as possible, or in my case you hope that your feet are faster than his and you can run. LOL! I don't think anybody is really getting my point. Competition is always good. It can be done with anything, no matter how deadly. Doesn't mean we should, just means that you can. A good example of this is paintball. Paintballs in many cases are traveling at the speed of a bullet. THat's fast, and it's got a lot of power behind it. Nobody has died from it yet. However, I don't know how many of you have ever heard of paint injection, but the possibility is there. IF the paint breaks the skin, and the paint enters the blood stream, well my friend you'd be losing an apendage unless you can get to a doctor and right quick. Lethality can occur with anything. Granted injuries happen, that is only normal in contact sports. However, you can not take that position of 'if it's too dangerous for competition, then it's too dangerous for the streets', because it simply is not true.

My position being that accidents happen. ANd the reality is, most techniques were designed to be lethal. A punch if delivered properly can be very deadly. Look at joint manipulation. THis an even better example of inadvertant murder. A guy attacks you with a stick, you break his arm in self-defense, now the attack is over. He's crying about his arm, screaming in pain. A side effect to that attack, maybe shock. If he goes into shock he could possibly, conceivably die. What about a neck crank? Going for a submission you yank on the guys neck, and pull just a little to hard, and snap his neck. Should it be outlawed from competition? IF so, then should it be banned from all martial arts because it's too dangerous for the ring, so therefore, it's to dangerous for the street. It's a slippery slope we tread when we start to say, " this dangerous, this is too dangerous, and this not." Who decides these things? What happens when a technique that is deemed non-lethal becomes lethal? This is combat. Regardless of whether for sport or for life and limb. It's still combat, and it is all still very lethal. I don't think that you can separate the too. Yeah there are less lethal attacks. Absolutely, things that most likely aren't going to cause death, but what happens when you get that one guy that it does cause death too. Then what? Are you going to tell the judge, 'Well sensei said that it was a non-lethal attack." A prosecutor will probably come back with, " Even under a high stress, high adrenaline situation?", "Oh that wasn't covered in class."

 

[DeLamar.J]

Interesting subject. I happen to know of some people who specialize in Iron Palm, and can break 6 bricks freestanding, non supported, no SPACERS, and from the side. They dont want to compete because they are required to cover up there hands, which is the essence of there art. So I can understand not wanting to compete like that.
I think there are a few sides to this argument and a grey area to go with it listed above, but yea 'most' of the time I'd say the 'my art is too deadly' saying is pretty much crap.
I'd like to ask those fakers out there - You should be able to modify your style to fit mere tournament rules, since your used to fighting in mortal combat eh? haha

 

[Monadnock]

One of the points of competition is to "dumb down" the combat to a safe and equal level for both parties involved. The "victor" of competition may not necessarily be the victor on the battlefield, and vice versa.

While the "I'm too deadly for competition" line may be a crock, I can still see that certain individuals may not be interested in proving their art's effectiveness in such a manner.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One of the points of competition is to "dumb down" the combat to a safe and equal level for both parties involved. The "victor" of competition may not necessarily be the victor on the battlefield, and vice versa.

While the "I'm too deadly for competition" line may be a crock, I can still see that certain individuals may not be interested in proving their art's effectiveness in such a manner.

There's definitely an element of that with a lot of people. Of course, the guys and gals who aren't interested in competition generally don't make any pretense about it; they say that they aren't interested and leave it at that, rather than making any silly remarks about being too lethal.

To a great extent, I'm not interested in proving myself in competition. I do feel that it is a good experience and by spending time in competition, I can better answer questions from students who have an interest in it.

Also, while I don't have an interest in proving myself in competition, it is a good venue for live sparring with people other than the usual suspects.

I do believe that some arts are not condusive to competition; not because they're sooooo deadly, but because they don't lend themselves well to an easy to follow points assessment. Some arts are virtually meant for competition; taekwondo lends itself to competition very well, in part because even an uneducated audience can follow what is going on.

Daniel

 

[Xue Sheng]

I Think Right Said Fred said it best

I'm too Deadly for my style too Deadly for my style
style's going to leave me

I'm too Deadly for my shirt too Deadly for my Shirt
So Deadly it hurts
And I'm too Deadly for the ring too Deadly for the ring
stadium and mat

And I'm too Deadly for your fight
Too Deadly for your fight
No way I'm sparing tonight

 

[Bigshadow]

I am all for some sparring or Randori, but I personally think training for competition is quite different than training to survive. There is a huge difference in mindset. Yes I agree that many techniques of most arts can be used in competition and in one form or another we can see some of them while watching UFC.


But... There is a difference in how one has to think. We will fight how we train. So I personally wouldn't want to fight for my life as if I was in a competition, rather I would like to survive and go home.

BTW, I do think the phrase "my art is too deadly for competition..." is a rediculous statement.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am all for some sparring or Randori, but I personally think training for competition is quite different than training to survive. There is a huge difference in mindset. Yes I agree that many techniques of most arts can be used in competition and in one form or another we can see some of them while watching UFC.


But... There is a difference in how one has to think. We will fight how we train. So I personally wouldn't want to fight for my life as if I was in a competition, rather I would like to survive and go home.

BTW, I do think the phrase "my art is too deadly for competition..." is a rediculous statement.

One trains to defeat an opponent he may see again later in a rematch and one trains to defeat an opponent he hope to never see again

 

[Bigshadow]

One trains to defeat an opponent he may see again later in a rematch and one trains to defeat an opponent he hope to never see again

I like that.

 

[Deaf Smith]

They were designed to kill.

GBlues,

Not ALL martial arts techniques are designed to kill. Some are, some are designed to stun. Others are designed to trap and hold an opponent. There was a level of response even back in the feudal days of Japan and Korea.

My position being that accidents happen.

Yea, I just got a busted lip this evening sparring. Got popped in the mouth with a jab (and we were not trying to hit.) That happens.

I've had seven stiches in my forhead from a roundhouse kick. My right front tooth was bent backwards by an elbow while sparring (I pushed it back strait and it didn't kill the nerve, but man did it swell up!) I've had black eyes and many a bruse. That is the risk you take to learn how to react when someone is trying to hit you. It's how you learn to read the other person in 'real time'.

What we don't do is go all out bare fisted and try to maim each other. Otherwise we do the same 'deadly' techniques we would use on the street. We learn control GBlues. You lean to control your technique to deliver the power, speed, and accuracy you need at that moment.

Deaf

 

[Steve]

One of the points of competition is to "dumb down" the combat to a safe and equal level for both parties involved. The "victor" of competition may not necessarily be the victor on the battlefield, and vice versa.

While the "I'm too deadly for competition" line may be a crock, I can still see that certain individuals may not be interested in proving their art's effectiveness in such a manner.

I've known people who rationalize loss (or avoiding the possibility of losing) in just this way. It's like the classic scenario common in Westerns and Samurai movies, where someone loses a competition, but wins when it's "for real." Like the knife vs gun scene in The Magnificent Seven. It's an appealing fantasy... but ultimately just that.

 

[Monadnock]

There's really no rationaliztion there, just things based on my own experiences. I once entered a point competition and lost. It was like a game of tag, really. Who could tap who first. Does it mean anything about whose style is better? Or more effective on the street? Hardly.

The other thing worth mentioning is some styles are so different, finding a commone ground to compte with rules would change one or both of them so significantly, one or both parties may be at a great disadvantace for - *cough* -- scoring points.

Take for instance a BJJ guy vs. a knife fighter. How do the two really compete to contrast arts? I think it would take 2 kinds of matches, one with knives, the other with empty hands. Each would probably win their respective area of specialty.

The whole idea of comptetition today flys in the face of what duels used to be. I think it is a silly game to bolster the ego.

I've known people who rationalize loss (or avoiding the possibility of losing) in just this way. It's like the classic scenario common in Westerns and Samurai movies, where someone loses a competition, but wins when it's "for real." Like the knife vs gun scene in The Magnificent Seven. It's an appealing fantasy... but ultimately just that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've known people who rationalize loss (or avoiding the possibility of losing) in just this way. It's like the classic scenario common in Westerns and Samurai movies, where someone loses a competition, but wins when it's "for real." Like the knife vs gun scene in The Magnificent Seven. It's an appealing fantasy... but ultimately just that.

I'll agree with you up to a point.

I'm going to use WTF sparring as the basis of my example: If you have people who train in martial arts and who happen to also compete, then yes, such a rationalization is an appealing fantasy.

But when you have people who train specifically for competition and fight in such a way as to use the rules to their advantage, doing things that you would never do on the street (such as turn your back to an opponent to keep from scored on) or who win because judges don't score hand techniques, dance around with their arms at their sides, and who's receive no practical SD in their training, then it isn't a fantasy: its fact.

I think that in MMA, you don't have the degree of narrow focus of techniques as you do in WTF; just enough limitations to maintain safety and regulate matches, so such a blatant gaming of the system may not be possible, but I'm sure that even in MMA, one can maximize their training for competition in such a way that it would hinder the practical use of their art outside of competition. Perhaps an MMA practitioner could comment more on that, as I am not MMA knowledgeable.

Daniel

 

[Flying Crane]

The other thing worth mentioning is some styles are so different, finding a commone ground to compte with rules would change one or both of them so significantly, one or both parties may be at a great disadvantace for - *cough* -- scoring points.

Good point, and there's more to it: some styles just can't be forced into the rule set without turning the style into something else. Sure, one could pursue the competition venue but you would not really be using your style the way it is designed and intended to be used.

This isn't a "deadliness" issue. It's just fitting into the competition venue.

I'll throw out something else here: How much does sparring resemble the real techniques of your art? It seems like many striking-based arts have a body of self-defense techniques and kata where the meat and bones of their fighting SHOULD come from. But whenever they strap on the pads and do some free sparring, everyone looks very much the same: modified (and often sloppy) kickboxing. Some people are more intense or less intense with it, but it all tends to look very much the same, regardless of the root style in which they train. From what I've seen, in the context of free sparring and competition sparring, very few people are able to use their meat and potatoes techniques from their self-defense arsenal.

So maybe competition alters EVERY art enough to where it becomes something else. Looks to me like competition has its own distinct style, and either you include that as part of your training, or you don't, no matter what your root art is.

 

[Steve]

Good point, and there's more to it: some styles just can't be forced into the rule set without turning the style into something else. Sure, one could pursue the competition venue but you would not really be using your style the way it is designed and intended to be used.

This isn't a "deadliness" issue. It's just fitting into the competition venue.

I'll throw out something else here: How much does sparring resemble the real techniques of your art? It seems like many striking-based arts have a body of self-defense techniques and kata where the meat and bones of their fighting SHOULD come from. But whenever they strap on the pads and do some free sparring, everyone looks very much the same: modified (and often sloppy) kickboxing. Some people are more intense or less intense with it, but it all tends to look very much the same, regardless of the root style in which they train. From what I've seen, in the context of free sparring and competition sparring, very few people are able to use their meat and potatoes techniques from their self-defense arsenal.

So maybe competition alters EVERY art enough to where it becomes something else. Looks to me like competition has its own distinct style, and either you include that as part of your training, or you don't, no matter what your root art is.

Another possibility is that the training isn't adequately preparing the martial artist to integrate the techniques in other than a fixed environment. If you can't pull the trigger on a technique during sparring, I'm not sure I would have confidence that you could do so if it really matters.

There are some examples in MMA competitions of guys who exhibit strong technique in a particular area. Of course, the main styles are Muay Thai, BJJ, Western Boxing and Wrestling, where the techniques are very apparent, but others have adapted strong Karate technique, San Shou and even TKD.

 

[shihansmurf]

Another possibility is that the training isn't adequately preparing the martial artist to integrate the techniques in other than a fixed environment. If you can't pull the trigger on a technique during sparring, I'm not sure I would have confidence that you could do so if it really matters.

Bingo!

Anyone can pull off a perfect move against a compliant partner. Martial artists that engage in realistc sparring at heavy contact are better prepared for actual self defense situations. Punching a resisting opponent with force while padded up in a ring may not be identical to a real world violent encounter, but it is nearly imeasurably closer than punching the air in endless repitition or doing countless iterations of compliant partner drills. While the latter two are valuable adjucts to the former, they are vastly inferior as a training methodology, should the desired end result of training be the development of applicible fighting skills.

Just my view.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've known people who rationalize loss (or avoiding the possibility of losing) in just this way. It's like the classic scenario common in Westerns and Samurai movies, where someone loses a competition, but wins when it's "for real." Like the knife vs gun scene in The Magnificent Seven. It's an appealing fantasy... but ultimately just that.

While I wouldn't go that far....the difference isn't technique, but that some folks are great competitors.....but when their own death is a strong possibility they choke! A man can win a contest of strength against another man because he is physically younger, stronger, etc.....and then lose his life to that same man because the other man because he chokes at the thought of losing his own life in a life or death struggle!

Napoleon said 'The moral is to the physical as three is to one'.....mere physical and technical superiority can lose to cool deliberation under fire.

Excerpt from an interview with Buffalo Bill Cody

"‘Was Wild Bill one of the quickest shots?’ I ventured.



"‘Fair,’ smiled Cody, and I too smiled to hear a man say that Wild Bill was a ‘fair’ shot. But this was Buffalo Bill speaking, and he spoke as one with authority.



"'"Bill" was only a nickname we gave him, you know.’ I didn’t know, but nodded. ‘His real name was James B. Hickox, and we got to calling him "Wild Bill" because when we were all boys together there were four "Bills" in the wagon train, and we had to sort them out somehow. Jim Hickox was always popping away at everything he saw move when on guard at night over the stock, so we sort of got to calling him "Wild" Bill, and that is how the name came to him. They called me "Buffalo" Bill because I had that buffalo contract with the U. P. and got down over 4,250 for meat. I have forgotten what became of the other two "Bills."’



"‘How did Hickox get so many men?’ I asked.



"‘Well, Bill was a pretty good shot, but he could not shoot as quick as half a dozen men we all knew in those days. Nor as straight, either. But Bill was cool, and the men he went up against were rattled, I guess. Bill beat them to it. He made up his mind to kill the other man before the other man had finished thinking, and so Bill would just quietly pull his gun and give it to him. That was all there was to it. It is easy enough to beat the other man if you start first. Bill always shot as he raised his gun. That is, he was never in a hurry about it; he just pulled the gun from his hip and let it go as he was raising it; shoot on the up-raise, you might call it. Most men lifted the gun higher, then threw it down to cock it before firing. Bill cocked it with his thumb, I guess, as it was coming up into line with his man. That’s how he did it. But he was not the quickest man by any means. He was just cool and quiet, and started first. Bill Hickox was not a bad man, as is often pictured. But he was a bad man to tackle. Always cool, kind, and cheerful, almost, about it. And he never killed a man unless that man was trying to kill him. That’s fair.’ It was, and so I agreed.

I'll add Masterson's opinion on the subject.....

"I have known men in the West whose courage could not be questioned and whose expertness with the pistol was simply marvelous, who fell easy victims before men who added deliberation to the other two qualities." http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-benthompson.html

The difference between fighting in the ring, or as Marc 'Crafty Dog' Denny calls it, 'Young male hierarchical combat' and a life and death struggle is the sure knowledge that someone (very possibly you!) is going to DIE!

The difference isn't the techniques, but the mindset......as listed above, there are men who would have lost 'contests' to many of the men they killed...had it been a contest of skill where losing didn't mean dying.....but won the gunfight because 'they made up their mind to kill the other guy before other guy was done thinking'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bingo!

Anyone can pull off a perfect move against a compliant partner. Martial artists that engage in realistc sparring at heavy contact are better prepared for actual self defense situations. Punching a resisting opponent with force while padded up in a ring may not be identical to a real world violent encounter, but it is nearly imeasurably closer than punching the air in endless repitition or doing countless iterations of compliant partner drills. While the latter two are valuable adjucts to the former, they are vastly inferior as a training methodology, should the desired end result of training be the development of applicible fighting skills.

Just my view.

I agree whole-heartedly!

 

[Flying Crane]

Another possibility is that the training isn't adequately preparing the martial artist to integrate the techniques in other than a fixed environment. If you can't pull the trigger on a technique during sparring, I'm not sure I would have confidence that you could do so if it really matters.

There are some examples in MMA competitions of guys who exhibit strong technique in a particular area. Of course, the main styles are Muay Thai, BJJ, Western Boxing and Wrestling, where the techniques are very apparent, but others have adapted strong Karate technique, San Shou and even TKD.

That is certainly likely to be true at least in some cases.

I think there is a certain disconnect between a real attack and sparring as well. They are simply not the same thing, and this does very much affect how it proceeds and what can and cannot be done.

Sparring/competition is an arranged match meant to be conducted
between two reasonably evenly matched individuals, under a set of agreed-upon rules, with pre-determined conditions to designate the winner. This often encourages a certain level of caution between combatants, who are testing and feeling out the opponent's skills, and overall jockeying for position within the ruleset.

A real fight/attack has none of this. Nothing is agreed upon, nothing is pre-determined, an even matchup is unlikely, and nobody has willingly shown up for the fight, except perhaps the perpetrator if this is a premeditated attack. I think this can change the mindset and mandate a certain level of committment in technique, that will probably be very different from competition sparring. Granted, some competitions allow for greater contact than others, but a real self-defense situation doesn't contain the same level of caution and jockeying that a competition will have. Of course this committment to technique will exist on the part of both attacker and defender, and it's likely that pain and injury will happen much more quickly than in even the most heavy-hitting competitions.

But a lot of effective self defense techniques can rely on real injury and bodily destruction that is unlikely to be possible within the parameters of a competition venue, with a very aware and evenly matched opponent. In a real attack, I think the skillset of the trained martial artist/victim can have an edge of surprise on an attacker who doesn't know ahead of time that his victim has been trained. This scenario can lend itself to a greater degree of application of traditional self-defense techniques found within the body of kata and applications used by many of the striking arts.

This isn't to claim that good combat experience cannot be had thru the right kind of sparring and competition. I personally feel that sport martial arts and self-defense martial arts can have a lot of overlapping skillsets and experiences, and they are not automatically mutually exclusive.

I'm just offering a different perspective on why much of the competition sparring tends to fall back on often sloppy kickboxing methods.