Right....
Er... "need"? Why? According to who? For what?
This is the real issue here, John... to be completely frank, you're a very experienced amateur with a superficial beginners understanding and appreciation of martial arts. Nothing you are putting down here is anything other than your justification of your own deeply limited grasp of the topic.
1. jab, cross, hook, uppercut, overhand, ...
2. front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, crescent kick, ...
3. finger break, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, head lock, ...
4. foot sweep, single leg, double legs, hip throw, inner hook, ...
5. full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, neck choke, ...
6. step forward, step backward, step sideway, stealing step, cover step, ...
Why? Why do you need multiple different punches? What makes them different? Here's one... are they different?
Same with the kicks, locks, and everything else you seem to want to segregate as if they live in a vacuum or bubble, without ever once understanding how they fint into an actual whole.
Those are the tools that we need to have in our toolbox.
No, they're superficially separated and generic angles for some actions, not, at any point, actual defined technical approaches or techniques. The fact that you can't comprehend this leads to most of the issues you find when trying to discuss these topics here.
So, why is style important? Your thought?
Well, for one thing, it would have you recognise the huge issues inherent in your manner of phrasing and questioning here in the first place. The rest, I'll leave for my comments to JKS, who has done a good job of starting the answer.
Maybe you don't need to learn how to punch in sport. But in street fight, you truly don't have choice.
What makes you say that? And what makes you think that that has anything to do with martial arts? What, exactly, is a "street fight"? Is it a mugging? A bar brawl? Road rage incident? Inter-gang conflict? Domestic assault? Sexual assault? Being arrested? Arresting someone? Restraining a patron? Is your opponent armed? Drunk? On drugs? Are there more than one? What are the circumstances and environment? This is before we even get to who are you? Are you a 16 year old girl being harassed on the way home from school? A fit guy in his early 30's? A septuagenarian in a supermarket? A new parent with a child in a stroller? Are you employed to handle violence? What are you physical, or legal constraints?
Can you begin to see just how much you can't say what is "needed" for a completely undefined non-event?
Here's the thing. You have a vision in your head (and beliefs) of what "violence" is. And that's all it is. In your head. It's not reality, it's not realistic, it's not informed, and it's not educated. It's shaped by, and here's the real fun part, the styles you've studied and trained in (but, it seems, never really learnt or understood). In this sense, you're not that unusual, certainly far from unique... but you are, frankly, not in any position to say what is or is not "needed", outside of your very lacking beliefs.
To keep this purely to the topic of handling modern violence (which is what you think you're talking about, and something that no martial arts are designed for, for the record), the first step is understanding what is likely, or potentially, going to be encountered. Then, it's about understanding the ways to minimise risk. From there, understand the legal and environmental considerations (country, culture, etc). Only then are you in a position to start to look at any kind of requirements for physical responces (techniques)... and, you know what? Pretty much every single actual acknowledged expert in this field will tell you that techniques are the least important thing. In fact, most don't teach techniques at all, or only have an incredibly limited number, sometimes as few as one, that can cover the largest number of unknowable variables, and the most likely and realistic forms that such violence can take that may be encountered. And, in exactly zero cases will anyone who actually knows the topic come up with anything like the lists you constantly do. (PS this is why dropbears "Street Guys:" thread was also a completely nonsensical question to begin with... it was starting from a premise that denied reality, and attempted to superimpose a lacking and uneducated personal view to gain validation of such beliefs).
If everybody all spends 95% of training time to maintain their toolbox skill, the way you train your side kick should not have much different from the way I train my side kick. The term "style" will have no meaning.
Who says that someone else's side kick will be trained the same way as yours? If they come from a Savate background, it'll be quite different to if they come from a TKD one, which is different again to someone coming from a Capoeira background, which is wildly different to someone coming from a koryu jujutsu background, and so on and so forth. The underlying construct and context shapes the mechanical application, body structure and alignment, power generation, prefered targeting, and far more. If we start with two people in isolation, and get them both to train for EXACTLY the same context and application, then the similarities will be more apparent (which is why much of MMA looks the same), but the training methodologies can still vary greatly. After all, to use the most common version found (TKD/Karate etc), are you kicking with the blade of the foot or the heel? How are you setting your support leg? Where is the power coming from? Do you set it by turning to the target first, or turn to the target as you apply it (ie are you chambering when facing forward, or turned side on)? How are you chambering it? ARE you chambering it?
Can you see how your most basic idea is simply not based in any form of reality at all?
Oh, and in this sense, "style" has the meaning of providing the underlying structure and context, as well as mechanical and application preferences. With out them, well...
Every time I train kick/punch on my heavy bag, I truly don't know which MA style I'm training.
Then you're not doing anything other than a mechanical action, which may be okay by itself, but will suffer from a lack of cohesion or supportive framework.
So, a judoka is incapable of defending themselves in a street fight?
More to the point, is a "street fight" really an important way of defining what a martial art "needs"?
You can learn individual techniques until the cow comes home. Military combatives or police control tactics programs are often compliations of techniques from a variety of styles that have been evaluated and selected to meet the legal and practical goals of the program, for example. A boxer who decides to enter kickboxing could simply learn about 3 kicks and be competitive...
Very true... but I would add the caveat that, while drawn from various sources, they need to work as a congruent approach, influenced and shaped by the needs (applications), which may mean some adaptation to the original methodologies... which then makes it it's own (limited, admittedly) style at that point.
What a style or system does is provide a general structure and philosophy of movement to hang the techniques on. Principles of power generation, range, targeting, and so on... In a lot of ways, a style builds techniques from prinicples, rather than "that seems cool..." Having common principles makes it easier to combine individual techniques. For example, boxing tends to generate power from the shoulders, hips and foot pivot. Those principles might make adding a kick to a combination sequence hard, since the hips may be in the wrong place, and he might not be able to generate the power he wants out of the kick.
I've often stated here (and elsewhere) that a martial system, be it a modern, traditional, classical, unarmed, combative, sporting, armed, or any other form not stated, is defined by its underlying philosophy. To get past that word that seems to have many think it means it has to be highly philosophical in outlook, such as espousing certain beliefs that might not be particularly martial in spirit, all it means in this case is that there is a set of underlying beliefs and values, based in the context, culture, and application of the art, as well as it's foundation and origin.
These beliefs can be, and often are, based in perceptions of martial efficacy. It can be something like a particular weapon adjustment, a tactical or mechanical revelation, an adapted form of power generation, or a response to a newly emerging outside factor, such as new technologies, forms of violence, or changes to the culture (itself coming from changes either within the culture it is found, or by having the art move to a different one). And, from these beliefs, which themselves are based in a set of values, techniques are developed as an expression of this new understanding and approach. As these methods get more and more codified, we start to describe them as a "style", "school", "system", "art", or some other defining term to identify how those methods are structured, assembled, and transmitted from a teacher to a student.
As a result, I wouldn't describe a style or system as providing a structure to "hang the techniques on"; rather, the techniques are the natural outgrowth and expression of the system in the first place. The statement of "a style builds techniques from principles" is much more on the money... but those principles are, in themselves, still just the way the values and beliefs are expressed. The other influence, of course, is the cultural/contextual... a common thing these days is to see BJJ being seen as representative of jujutsu in the minds of many, particularly MMA followers, to the point that people sometimes expect to see a whole range of groundfighting methods in classical jujutsu systems, where, contextually and culturally, it would be rather bizarre to expect it at all. Mind you, classical systems pretty much all take weapons into account, even if not present in the techniques themselves (as commonly trained)... whereas that's not necessarily an expectation of a modern, highly sport influenced system.
Regarding your boxer analogy, I wouldn't necessarily say that the boxer wouldn't find adding a kick a problem due to the use of shoulders and hips denying power to it, but more that the context and application of boxing puts in a range and position where kicking is simply not a good choice... so, the power and body mechanics are designed to maximise the benefits for hand-strikes. Kicks are a problem to add because they're just not a good idea when boxing.
May be the question should be asked as: Why would anybody not want to learn the striking art?
No, the question is as Frank asked it. Yours is meaningless.
When Sanda was popular in Taiwan, all striker wanted to cross train the throwing art.
Er... okay? So, to compete in something that involves striking and throwing, people who focused on striking wanted to then also learn throwing skills? Well... yeah. Means absolutely nothing to any of your points, for the record... all it says is that, to be effective and competitive in a sporting system, it helps to have the skill sets that suit that competitive format... after all, you don't see boxers learning Judo to be better at throwing in boxing competition, do you?
In order to obtain a clinch, you have to deal with the flying fists and long range kicks.
No, you don't. You may, but you don't necessarily have to. It's more likely in a multi-range unarmed sporting system or context, such as Sanda or MMA, but that's about the only thing you can say with any kind of definition. At the end of the day, in order to obtain a clinch, all I have to do is get close enough to be able to clinch. That's it. That might mean dealing with strikes, or it might mean shooting in, or it might mean talking in, or it might mean letting them come to you...
IMO, sport is the path. Combat is the goal. Toward the end, the integration of
- kick,
- strike
- lock
- throw
should be your goal.
View attachment 33315
Fortunately, your opinion isn't overly valid here. You'd need to define combat, for one thing. Then you'd need to give the parameters for the "sport". Before all that, though, it might be wise to realise that "combat" isn't necessarily the goal of all martial artists nor all martial arts, at least, not the entire, or even primary goal.
But, if we take your premise as valid and accurate (it's not), then let's look at "combat is the goal". Where, in your list, is the handling of weaponry? Defence against blades? Firearms? Flying drones, or disarming ordinances? What are your tactics for group assaults? How about de-escalation? Do you understand how vague "combat" as a goal is?
There is no simple yes or no answer for your question.
Yes, there is. You just refuse to understand the question, even though it's directly related and derived from your own statements.
My answer is it depends on how much striking experience does that Judo guy may have.
So, your answer is that a judoka cannot defend themselves in a street fight (whatever that is) if they don't know how to strike. See? Simple yes or no. And, for the record, you're wrong. Again. Still.
A judo guy needs to enter kicking/punching range in order to obtain a clinch.
No, a judoka needs to enter clinch range to obtain a clinch. The problem you're having is you have a vision of a sporting (striking) set up, with the two combatants at a distance to begin with, facing each other, and (mentally) already engaged in combative action, as well as having the opponent actively striking forward, and having your judoka only going forward through it. None of that is realistic, reality, likely, or necessarily how any of it would go.
If a clinch cannot be obtained, his throwing skill cannot be applied. In a fist flying environment, the Judo guy needs to have striking skill to deal with striking.
But it isn't only obtained by going into a windmill of fists... and you don't necessarily need to be a trained striker to deal with strikes. You just need to be able to adapt to a different angle of attack and its energy. I mean... you do know that a range of throws in Judo, as trained in Nage no Kata, are done against incoming strikes, yeah? No moving forward to eat a punch first, but taking in the energy of the strike, and orienting it into a throwing action... the opponent enters in to give you the range, not the other way around.
Does all Judo guy train "parry a punch"?
You constantly expect a one-size-fits-all approach, and it's not only unrealistic, it's downright ignorant.
My opinion is not important in this thread.
Really? Then why do you insist on constantly pushing back on those offering opposing views to your dogmatic and contextless lists by just repeating your uninformed opinions over and over?
I'll be more interested to hear your opinion instead.
Honestly, John, I'll believe that when I see it.
Judo is a sport, not designed as a combat system and punching is not part of the rule set I believe. So, no need to learn how to parry one. I've heard of "combat judo" which may get into this. The root art, jujitsu, was more combat oriented and had some striking in the system.
Some things to clear up here...
Judo was designed as a training format for multiple jujutsu systems to train together with a set of common (well, common enough) methods in a relatively safe manner, which would later come to develop into it's own sporting format as representative of Kodokan Judo. But the original concept was to aid in preserving classical Japanese martial arts in a time where Japan was going through a huge (and fast!) cultural shift away from the samurai-dominated previous 8 or 9 centuries, and into a more modern, Western influenced country, with a huge amount of push-back against anything that was associated with the ruling class (samurai). As a result, the idea was that the Kodokan would become a central location where a number of classical arts would be found (the name itself, after all, means "hall of the old ways"), who could continue to pass on their older arts, while also having a way of training together to bolster numbers. This original idea would have rotating instructors from schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, and so on, for 6 months, or a year at a time.
To give the various ryu-ha students some commonality for their practice together, a few sets of kata were developed that would be "shared" among the schools. These included the Randori no Kata, itself made up of the Nage no Kata (Throwing Patterns), and the Katame no Kata (Entangling Patterns, essentially a series of pins and attempted escaping methods), as well as the Kime no Kata (Patterns of Decisiveness, a set of kata curated from a number of schools to form a kind of late 19th Century "self defence" series), Goshin no Kata (Self Protection Patterns, kind of an updated form of the Kime no Kata, developed after Kano had passed), Ju no Kata (Patterns of Flexibility, to teach principles of balance and kuzushi), and some imported ones, such as Itsutsu no Kata from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, and the Koshiki no Kata from Kito Ryu, both of which were schools that Kano had licensure in. These kata, most particularly the Kime no Kata and Goshin no Kata, would also include some rudimentary striking, but, in true Japanese fashion, the emphasis was to use them as disruptive agents in order to apply locking and throwing methods to control the opponent.
Thing is, Kano never thought of randori (what would form the template of the "sport" form of Judo) as being that important... it was used for rank, to show how well you could apply your skills, but that was about it... and that would top out at 3rd Dan. Beyond that, any higher rank wasn't anything to do with application, or knowledge of the art, as there wasn't really an "art" to go deeper into... it was expected that you were training in one of the actual schools (ryu-ha) for that... but was more to do with contribution, such as running a school, coaching, becoming a referee, and so on. In fact, Kano would say that the most important things that Judo had to offer were the Kime no Kata, which taught about combative applications, and the Katame no Kata, which taught about control and resistance. The rest? Useful within the Kodokan, but not that important. He also said that you couldn't just to Judo, especially just randori, and consider yourself an actual martial artist... you also needed to have an understanding of weaponry, different ranges, and so on. So, he brought in teachers of staff and sword arts to teach at the Kodokan for short periods, specifically to make judoka into actual martial artists... just sayin'....
What I'm getting at is that Judo was not designed as a sport, it developed into one. It was designed as a training method for combative systems, and it's own heart was based in the combative side of things... but that combative side of things was, itself, based in a contextual and cultural understanding of combative reality and expectation 130 years ago in Japan.
When it comes to "so they wouldn't need to learn to parry a punch" due to it not being in the ruleset of the shiai/randori practice that the sport would develop into, the first thing you have to ask is, what kind of punch? Is there a reason, beyond the "it's not in the competition rules" to expect to see a modern, Western boxing style punch in an art that came from, and, ostensibly was, a form of classical jujutsu in Japan 130 years ago? Punching simply wasn't a common striking form in Japan historically... Japanese combative context is typically grappling (stand up) and weapons... not striking. When striking is found in classical systems, if it's in any way developed, it's usually a major point of difference to other systems... the majority have striking actions as stand-ins for learning to handle the angle of (dominantly) edged weapon attacks. They move at a different speed, a different trajectory, and more... things like parrying a punch simply aren't overly useful skills there.
Lastly, Judo was derived from a couple of jujutsu (not "jujitsu") systems, most notably Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu Jujutsu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu, not some kind of imagined, singular art called "jujitsu". There were literally hundreds of different jujutsu or jujutsu-like systems, if not thousands, over the martial history of Japan, with many being developed in the Edo period, a time of extended peace; all the term really refers to is a system of combative methodologies that is largely unarmed, or lightly armed, and Japanese. That's about it. Many would engage in randori, some didn't do anything like it. Some had more striking, some had basically none (one of my systems has some 123 kata to its curriculum... only four involve any striking as an assault, and only maybe 15 involve any kind of striking in response, mostly as a way to disrupt before applying some locking or throwing action. So, when it comes to the comment that "the root art, jujitsu, was more combative and had some striking in the system" is incorrect in a number of ways.
Old judo had a bit of striking, just as karate had more grappling. But the Dai Nippon Butokukai which oversaw TMA in Japan imposed guidelines to keep grappling/throwing from karate and striking from judo so there would be no overlap between the two arts. I think this was done in the early 1930's but not sure of the exact year.
"Old judo" and "modern judo" have the same amount of striking in them.. it's found in the kata, where it has always been. The DNBK... ooh, that's a whole story there... oversaw, as part of the Japanese government, the implementation of martial arts in the school systems, and worked as a promotion organisation for classical and modern arts in Japan, having been founded in 1885... the original focus was on kenjutsu (later, this format would be the basis of modern Kendo, although it's format would not be what we directly recognise until after the DNBK was disbanded following WWII), and Kano was instrumental in getting them to adopt a "jujutsu" section as well, as that idea fit well with his concept of preserving the classical systems, and he was very involved in the Education Department of the government himself. At the time, the jujutsu section included all unarmed systems, so it also included the forms of karate that had come to Japan in the 1920's and onward... but I'm not familiar with any stories of them having influence on the curriculums or make up of the individual schools... not sure where that came from.
There were a couple of highly influential meetings involving the DNBK, in 1912 with Kano (and other jujutsu teachers) to codify the kata for the Kodokan, and a few in the 20's, but mostly around the way various arts were integrated into the school system for dominantly high-school students. Their influence is still felt with Kendo and Judo being found in most Japanese high-schools, but it didn't go as far as changing what was found in judo or karate... hmm...
