# Flashy, Stylized and Useless



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

On occasion here in the discussion forums, I see people make reference to traditional systems teaching moves that are flashy, stylized, and useless.  It seems some of the traditional arts are accused of carrying a lot of "cultural baggage" in their physical technique that has no real use or application in combat or self defense.

I'm not sure what these people are talking about.  In over a decade of learning traditional Chinese martial arts, I've never learned anything that is flashy, stylized and useless, nor anything that I'd classify as being some kind of cultural carryover.  I've really only learned a lot of useful, hard-hitting stuff.  Some of this stuff is a bit unusual, but once you understand its purpose it's pretty clear how useful it really is.

I've never seen anyone making this accusation define what they are talking about, nor give any concrete examples.

I wonder if the people who make this claim are thinking of Modern Wushu, which is a performance and competition art that nobody pretends is a viable combat art.  Or maybe people mistake what they see in kung-fu cinema for reality?  And I don't think this is limited to the Chinese martial arts either.

anyway, any thoughts on this?  Anyone want to give some specific examples?


----------



## jarrod (Jul 6, 2009)

most styles develop with the very general goal of providing some form of protection for practitioners.  as some styles evolve, they often limit their exposure to other arts for a variety of reasons, & the style becomes either about beating one particular rival style, or defeating an exponent of the same style.  thus the technique isn't "useless" (few techniques are) but has a very specific purpose which may fall outside the realm of general self-defense.  you will often hear TKD people argue that if you can deliver good kicks as high as the head, you can deliver them anywhere.  i agree.  so i think a lot of "flashy" moves may not be directly applicable to SD, but they aid in developing timing, confidence, & other attributes.  for instance, if i landed a spinning heel kick on a black belt, i can probably figure out how to kick an attacker in the jimmy.  but i'm not going to use a spinning heel kick in any context outside of the dojo.

jf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

Because it is all flashy stylized, useless and in the case of Taiji, to slow. And I will happily let all go on believing this :EG:

It is pretty much the &#8220;my dad is tougher than your dad&#8221; or the &#8220;my dog is tougher than your dog&#8221; argument. And in the case of CMA or TMA it is part propaganda and part realism. Go to the majority of TMA schools out there today and you be the judge. Is TMA effective? HELL YEAH!!! but it needs to be trained properly and it is not a quick or easy learn.

As to propaganda, it is much easier to condemn than understand something, especially if understanding it means you need to think. And it makes some feel soooooo much better to point fingers and say "your kung fu no good" because now, whether or not what they train is any good they have at least made themselves feel better because they told you what you do is no good. 

But to be completely honest I am getting to the point where I no longer care what anyone thinks. I know what I train and I know what I can do and as long as my Sifu is happy with my progress and what I am doing I frankly don&#8217;t care if some RSBD or Sport or other TMA person thinks it is a useless flashy waste of time. I have also trained real RSBD and it is, from what I can tell, nothing like a lot of RSBD I have seen and I don&#8217;t much care about that either.

I was thinking about TMA training today and what it is, what it was and what some think it is today and I was actually going to try and make a post out of it but to be honest I am not all that excited about posting much of anything on MT these days and basically I am here just to kill time.

And this has its root in exactly what your post it about.

But for the record...my dog IS tougher than your dog


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 6, 2009)

I always found TMA to be straight to the point. There is a reason things are done a certain way. I have not found anything flashy and I think people are talking about Demo,XMA,Wushu and think that is what Martial arts is even schools push that direction. 

I think people find techniques uselss and bring up the whole"well it was done 200 years ago and we don't fight like that now a days" have failed at either learning to adapt the technique to modern times or have failed at truly understanding the teachniques principles and basics.


----------



## geezer (Jul 6, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> But for the record...my dog IS tougher than your dog



No problem, Xue. It's really just how you cook it.

And regarding "useless flash"... people are confusing solid TMA with Wushu, movie fight scenes and tournament XMA stuff. Can you really blame them? After all, this is what most people are likely to see. And, there are plenty of "McDojos" that pass flashy stuff off as real MA because it appeals to their customer base --kids.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

geezer said:


> No problem, Xue. It's really just how you cook it.
> 
> And regarding "useless flash"... people are confusing solid TMA with Wushu, movie fight scenes and tournament XMA stuff. Can you really blame them? After all, this is what most people are likely to see. And, there are plenty of "McDojos" that pass flashy stuff off as real MA because it appeals to their customer base --kids.


 
I would like to believe this, but I've seen this kind of comment thrown around by people with many decades of training, and who are respected leaders in their own systems.  I would think these people would see thru the XMA/wushu/cinema stuff and know the difference...


----------



## Carol (Jul 6, 2009)

Some pointed complaints that I hear about the traditional arts seem to be more than just a critique or an analysis.  They seem to have some sort of personal undercurrent, as if the person making the complaint has been personally insulted by one system or another.

It makes me wonder if what is going on is not really an honest critique of the style, but more of an expression of frustration from expectations that weren't met or managed.  

There's nothing wrong with wanting to do submission grappling or BJJ  or MMA style fighting or what have you.  I just don't think studying (say) Shaolin Long Fist is the best way to get there.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 6, 2009)

I think some of the "stylized" of that comes from a kata argument, and I won't start one here.  But I will say that there are more direct ways to train for fighting.  Depending on what you're doing that may or may not be important for you.

Some of the "useless" critique probably arises from overcomplicated movements or those that take too long to develop in actual application.  Also, practice against largely unrealistic attack sequences comes into play here.

So do movements that, even at face value, have little real world application.  

Before the flames start, I'm not accusing all TMA's of this, but I think we can all agree there are enough out there doing it that the stereotype was developed for a reason.

"Flashy" is largely in the eye of the beholder.  I think high kicks are flashy.  Pretty, but given my body structure and goals in the ma's, fairly useless to me.  Athletic, sure.  Feasible for other people, sure.  In my game plan, nope.

You get people arguing off that quite a bit.  I have little to no experience with CMA's so I'm not real qualified to disect what might lead to the above labeling in those arts, but if it occurs it's probably related in some way to the things I've outlined above.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Some of the "useless" critique probably arises from overcomplicated movements or those that take too long to develop in actual application. Also, practice against largely unrealistic attack sequences comes into play here.
> 
> So do movements that, even at face value, have little real world application.


 
Have you seen examples that you can describe?


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 6, 2009)

I don't know much about CMAs, either, so take what I say with a bucket of rock salt. I don't think high kicks are flashy or useless, but that may be because they're easy for me. Lots of things are hard, but kicking high is not one of them, in my case.

The flashy, stylized, and useless stuff I see most often is some of the weapons stuff. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the utility of spinning and release moves with staff weapons--maybe on a very limited basis, but not to the extent that you see them in competition. Also, my weapon of choice is a fighting fan. Since it's an esoteric weapon, I've had to watch a lot of videos to learn how to use it. Many of these have a lot of stylized movements that are pretty and flashy--the fan is gently waved about, tossed, etc.--but darned if I can figure out what use they are. I did manage to find a more stripped down version on video (still kind of fanciful, but less so than the others), and with that and some reading I've put something together that's stronger and more oriented toward actual fighting, with strikes, stabs, and slashes. 

I also don't see the point in a lot of the flips, cartwheels, and other gymnastic moves that are seen in a lot of competitive forms. They look cool, and I love watching them, but I prefer to see them limited to XMA competition, not allowed in open forms competition.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> I don't know much about CMAs, either, so take what I say with a bucket of rock salt. I don't think high kicks are flashy or useless, but that may be because they're easy for me. Lots of things are hard, but kicking high is not one of them, in my case.
> 
> The flashy, stylized, and useless stuff I see most often is some of the weapons stuff. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the utility of spinning and release moves with staff weapons--maybe on a very limited basis, but not to the extent that you see them in competition. Also, my weapon of choice is a fighting fan. Since it's an esoteric weapon, I've had to watch a lot of videos to learn how to use it. Many of these have a lot of stylized movements that are pretty and flashy--the fan is gently waved about, tossed, etc.--but darned if I can figure out what use they are. I did manage to find a more stripped down version on video (still kind of fanciful, but less so than the others), and with that and some reading I've put something together that's stronger and more oriented toward actual fighting, with strikes, stabs, and slashes.
> 
> ...


 
It sounds to me like much of what you are describing here would not be strictly traditional martial arts.  Rather, this sounds like modern "flair" added for the sake of tournament competition.  I'd bet that if you could find a teacher who was knowledgeable about this kind of thing, like your Fan example, it would be much simpler and more direct, with few or no fancy embellishments.  This goes for the gymnastic moves as well.  Some of that does exist in a limited way in some traditional arts, but not nearly to the extent that one often sees in competition.  These things are added in the hopes of scoring higher with ignorant judges who don't know any better themselves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

On the other side of the spectrum, I have heard people say that Isshinryu is 'ugly' and 'ungraceful' and they therefore reject it on that basis.

I didn't choose to train in Isshinryu because it fit my aesthetic notion of what a martial art should look like, so I don't really understand that kind of criticism.

On the other hand, I've noted that a lot of statements of that sort come from those who either do not train in MA, or who those who have 'dabbled' in MA training.  So even as a newbie myself, I know they're mostly full of crap.

Most of the experienced MAists I have met are respectful of other styles, even if they don't understand why certain movements are done the way they're done.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Some of the "useless" critique probably arises from overcomplicated movements or those that take too long to develop in actual application.


 
It all depends on what you are after.



tallgeese said:


> Also, practice against largely unrealistic attack sequences comes into play here.


 
I am not flaming you here but I doubt there is anyone in TMA that believes that a form is a pattern to follow when attacked or to attack. Therefore I would respond with it is not an unrealistic attack sequence since none that train it would use it as such. This is more to what I said, a lack of understanding as to what TMA is and does and why it does it.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 6, 2009)

I would just want to make one point if that is ok?  Coming from an Aikido bkgd, I am well aware of how the art is perceived beyond its white walls.  Thing for me is that much of that prejudice is completely and unarguably valid!  

I think the techniques that more traditional arts offer (as opposed to "combative" systems) are no less hard-hitting; they are no less useful in reality; they are no less tough and aggressive.  I think the distinction lies in how those techniques are applied.  Traditional martial systems were created for a single purpose: fighting.  Anything else is a misnomer.  However, they are not necessarily practiced -now- for that purpose.  Some of us practise for exercise, some for sport, some for camaraderie, some for who knows what.  Were we all to practice our arts with that real honest-to God "combative" intention, well, the techniques would remain the same, but the application would be much more direct.  To the observer at least, they would give the impression of no waste, fluff or flash that I think you are referring to among those folk in martial arts, practicing for reasons other than pure martial combat.

Again, let me just say, that I have no beef with anybody doing what they do how they do it, I just think martial arts practiced without a martial intention do engender that fluffy uselessness.  I hope that makes sense?  Interested to read your thoughts 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm going to have to admit, I find high kicks and spinning kicks rather useless, even though they are really easy to me. On principle, I never throw a kick above the stomach, simply because it leaves me too open.  You watch the Power Rangers, see how many kicks they throw to somebody's head, and how many of those actually land, then you'll understand why high kicks are dangerous.

As for the acrobatics in TMA's, I haven't seen too many actually built into a curriculum. In my dojo, we practice basic ukemi, which includes cartwheels, dive rolls and hand springs, and the hand springs are what I would say are the most acrobatic movements. Still, we do not train to use a back hand spring in a fight, and I think it's mostly used for getting over something or getting out of a fall, and even a little bit is done just to build upper body strength.

I don't find too too much in martial arts, any martial art, not just the TMAs, too unrealistic, it just depends on what you intend on using it for.


----------



## clfsean (Jul 6, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> On the other side of the spectrum, I have heard people say that Isshinryu is 'ugly' and 'ungraceful' and they therefore reject it on that basis.



Pfah... bugger 'em. Ever seen Southern Dragon or Bak Mei??? Not pretty, but straight to the point & plenty effective in application of technique & theory. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I didn't choose to train in Isshinryu because it fit my aesthetic notion of what a martial art should look like, so I don't really understand that kind of criticism.



See your post below. Lots of opinions come from that camp... but lots of opinions come from the long timer camp too. Everything in perspective on that idea.



Bill Mattocks said:


> On the other hand, I've noted that a lot of statements of that sort come from those who either do not train in MA, or who those who have 'dabbled' in MA training.  So even as a newbie myself, I know they're mostly full of crap.



You're not that new then... 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Most of the experienced MAists I have met are respectful of other styles, even if they don't understand why certain movements are done the way they're done.



Exactly. If they're curious, they'll ask & find out. If not, they'll normally come back with something like "That's not how I'd do it, but instead I'd do "this"." Which is fine. There may be enough difference between what's being critiqued & what's been studied to where there's not a comparable technique, but it can be appreciated regardless.

I'm the first to admit I'm a bit of a TMA snob & really have no liking at all for XMA or PRC Wushu. I see no martial application (practical or applicable) in 99% of what's done. Then again, I'm not into the performance aspect of things & never have been.


----------



## clfsean (Jul 6, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> It all depends on what you are after.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not flaming you here but I doubt there is anyone in TMA that believes that a form is a pattern to follow when attacked or to attack. Therefore I would respond with it is not an unrealistic attack sequence since none that train it would use it as such. This is more to what I said, a lack of understanding as to what TMA is and does and why it does it.



Truth on both counts!!!


----------



## jarrod (Jul 6, 2009)

Jenna said:


> I think the techniques that more traditional arts offer (as opposed to "combative" systems) are no less hard-hitting; they are no less useful in reality; they are no less tough and aggressive.  I think the distinction lies in how those techniques are applied.



i think you are on to something; i also think that the difference in application begins at training.  for the techniques to be applied realistically, they have to be trained with progressive realism.  in boxing for instance, you will learn how to punch via shadowboxing.  then you'll learn what it's like to hit an object by hitting the heavy bag; then less predictable targets by working the mitts or the double end bag, etc, then eventually sparring & fighting live, uncooperative opponents.  now many TMAs can generate a TON of power, but if you don't develop the timing & distance to land the strike safely, it's not doing you a lot of good.  so in some cases, it's not that the techniques are bad, it is that they are trained ineffeciently.  

jf


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

Okay.  There is a circular kind of logic being applied here guys.  In this thread so far, the argument is basically that TMAs don't train anything that is flashy, useless or stylized _because _any techniques that are flashy, useless or stylized aren't TMA.  

We're in a very grey area here, IMO, where anything can be justified.  For example, forms/kata were brought up by tallgeese.  I share his opinion that forms aren't useful in combat.  The response was that forms aren't trained for combat.  Xue Sheng said, "_I am not flaming you here but I doubt there is anyone in TMA__ that believes that a form is a pattern to follow when attacked or to attack. Therefore I would respond with it is not an unrealistic attack sequence since none that train it would use it as such."_ 

Well, okay.  But they're a large part of many TMA schools.  Doesn't this cede the point that forms are useless in combat, and by extension that TMAs do in fact teach useless, stylized techniques?

I don't personally think forms/kata are useless, but I do believe that there are more efficient solo and partner exercises that would accomplish the same end.  

Jarrod, I agree with you 100% and have made the same point in other threads.  IMO, it's how you train.  While there is a cerebral aspect to fighting, fighting is a physical activity.  You can't learn to cook by reading cookbooks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I don't personally think forms/kata are useless, but I do believe that there are more efficient solo and partner exercises that would accomplish the same end.



I don't think I follow your logic here.  We do self-defense techniques and quite often, sensei will ask - what kata is this move out of?  It becomes easy to see that the moves we learn in various kata are valid self-defense moves.  Granted one would not run 'seisan' on an attacker.  But the side blocks are side blocks.  The kicks are kicks.  The foot trap is a foot trap.  What's more efficient than rote memorization of necessary body mechanics that you want your body to become very, very, proficient in?

I agree that part of self-defense training is actually using the techniques, by sparring or otherwise exchanging techniques, both attacking and defending.  But kata is just working that response system into your body so that it becomes a natural and instinctive move.  A middle body block when practiced as kata, for example, can be examined, judged, and corrected, so that you do it correctly each and every time (eventually). In a series of self-defense moves, I wonder if an instructor would pick out that your feet were wrong, or your wrist bent, etc.

Eh, we're getting back to kata and how useful it is again.  I'm just a newbie with much to learn, but I do kata, kata, kata, and I will continue to do kata, kata, kata.  I believe in it.


----------



## clfsean (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Well, okay.  But they're a large part of many TMA schools.  Doesn't this cede the point that forms are useless in combat, and by extension that TMAs do in fact teach useless, stylized techniques?



Not so much IME & HO. They're (forms) the encyclopedia of your "X" flavor of TMA. The same basics movements are repeated in different order, patterns, stances, sequences, etc... not to teach you to respond in "ABCD" fashion, but to teach your body how to respond with these techniques without it having to be in this stance, from this direction, etc... 

I'm not going to use the same IF...THEN...ELSE statement I learned in college because the syntax & subsequent processing is different than the simple programs I started off writing. However, it laid the base to apply the IF...THEN...ELSE logic to any situation where it I need it to fit. If it doesn't fit, I have other choices to pull from. It's not static & wrote... it's fluid & dynamic.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Okay. There is a circular kind of logic being applied here guys. In this thread so far, the argument is basically that TMAs don't train anything that is flashy, useless or stylized _because _any techniques that are flashy, useless or stylized aren't TMA.


 
Actually it is not circular it is saying that the accusation that TMA are flashy is based on something the is not TMA such as contemporary Wushu and kung fu theater movies



stevebjj said:


> We're in a very grey area here, IMO, where anything can be justified. For example, forms/kata were brought up by tallgeese. I share his opinion that forms aren't useful in combat. The response was that forms aren't trained for combat. Xue Sheng said, "_I am not flaming you here but I doubt there is anyone in TMA__ that believes that a form is a pattern to follow when attacked or to attack. Therefore I would respond with it is not an unrealistic attack sequence since none that train it would use it as such."_
> 
> Well, okay. But they're a large part of many TMA schools. Doesn't this cede the point that forms are useless in combat, and by extension that TMAs do in fact teach useless, stylized techniques?
> .


 
No it does not cede a thing it goes again to a lack of understanding as to what forms are.

Forms are useless in combat but the postures that make up those forms are not and it is a training tool and those tools are expanded upon which to me means they are not stylized and useless but a tool, albeit a tool that is usually misunderstood. No one is ever going to go through a form from beginning to end in an attack or defense but parts of that are and no one is going to use that from beginning to end any more than someone can use what is learned in a drill as it is trained in the order that it is trained in all confrontations. A fight is rather fluid and cant be put in a box any better by either side of this discussion/argument

But whether or not you agree, disagree or argue for or against doesnt really matter as I said in my first post I know what I train and I will add to that I know it works and I do not feel the need to prove that point or argue it at all. 

And, sadly, since this is likely to turn into a my style is better than your style post (not necessarily from you) I do not think I will be in it much longer since what this appears to be degenerating in a bad direction and once again into what has been done to death on MT.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

First, I'm happy to address your points, Bill, but I don't want to go too far into whether kata is a good or bad thing.  Simply put, I believe that it's fine if you like it, but there are better ways to learn technique, IMO.





Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think I follow your logic here.  We do self-defense techniques and quite often, sensei will ask - what kata is this move out of?


I see your point.  I don't, however, see how this makes it a better (or even good) way to learn a technique.  I've never said that kata are useless.  Only that they aren't the most effecient way to synthesize a technique.  

Put it this way.  There are four basic levels of understanding: knowledge, comprehension, application and synthesis.  Knowledge is where you can define a term or idea, or in an MA context, execute a basic technique.  Consider it to be the multiple choice level of understanding.  Kata is, in my opinion, strictly a knowledge level learning tool.

Comprehension is where you can begin to identify something in multiple contexts.  If knowledge level understanding is a multiple choice question, comprehension would be an essay test.  For MA, this would be executing the technique correctly in multiple contexts... integrating the technique into lockflow, working solo or partner drills.  That sort of thing.

Application is exactly what the name implies: an application level understanding where you can actually perform the action in context.   Sparring, competition, self defense scenarios...  anything that integrates the technique into a larger system.  

Synthesis is a level where you can apply the idea or ability at a mastery level... ie, where you could begin to mentor or teach others.


> It becomes easy to see that the moves we learn in various kata are valid self-defense moves.


Never meant to imply that they aren't.  





> Granted one would not run 'seisan' on an attacker. But the side blocks are side blocks. The kicks are kicks. The foot trap is a foot trap. What's more efficient than rote memorization of necessary body mechanics that you want your body to become very, very, proficient in?


The goal in any adult learning situation is to bring the person to the application level as quickly as possible (synthesis is brought about through experience in application).  

The only exception to this is in situations where the learning process itself is the goal... and there's nothing wrong with that.  If the pursuit of master is more important than acheiving master, then lingering at the knowledge level is totally cool.  Or said another way, if kata itself is important for its own sake, then mastering kata becomes a learning goal in and of itself.  There are recognized masters of kata.  In this learning model, they have acheived a synthesis level understanding of kata.  

Once again, I'm not anti-kata.  I simply think that there are more efficient ways to learn technique. 





> I agree that part of self-defense training is actually using the techniques, by sparring or otherwise exchanging techniques, both attacking and defending. But kata is just working that response system into your body so that it becomes a natural and instinctive move. A middle body block when practiced as kata, for example, can be examined, judged, and corrected, so that you do it correctly each and every time (eventually). In a series of self-defense moves, I wonder if an instructor would pick out that your feet were wrong, or your wrist bent, etc.


An experienced practitioner would, and once again, would be offering correction in context.  If you have any doubt about this, sit near the edge of the mat at a BJJ or wrestling tournament.  You'll hear very specific instruction being offered that is timely and in context.  





> Eh, we're getting back to kata and how useful it is again. I'm just a newbie with much to learn, but I do kata, kata, kata, and I will continue to do kata, kata, kata. I believe in it.


And I'm sure you'll benefit from it.   

I think this addresses clfsean and Xue Sheng's points, as well.  If not, let me know and I'll try to be more specific.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2009)

Okay, Okay, Okay..........everything works equally well........or something.  Reality may refute that, but if it gives everyone the warm fuzzies all styles are equally suited to everything equally........can I get a hug?

I hate to be the contrarian, but what evidence do we have the effectiveness of this style or that style other than the word of it's practioners that it seems like it should work?  Wasn't the point of the first UFC's as a contest between different unarmed styles?  And since some styles didn't do so well, we get all kinds of excuses as to why.....and perhaps some of those excuses are valid.......but how do we know? 

In short, my question is how do we measure the effectiveness of a style?  The question isn't whether High Supreme Master so-and-so can use it effectively.........the standard when it comes to self-defense is whether I can take the art and teach it to the average student in 6 months or less of consistent training and see that person able to apply the techniques to defeat an attacker.

When comparing two forms, if I divided two groups of students of equal skill level and commitment and taught them for 6 months, which group would be more skilled in defending themselves against a physical attack.

If it takes 20 years to become proficient it might be a wonderful 'Art' but it's a lousy means of self-defense.







Here's a hint.......there's a reason why nobody with any credibility seriously questions the effectiveness of BJJ or Muay Thai!  If you have to defend your art with words, it's probably not combat effective.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 6, 2009)

One of which is a TMA and the other solidly based in TMA.  Does anyone complain about 'flashy' techniques when a Muay Thai fighter throws a head kick, or a spin kick, or a leaping technique?  All impractical and 'flashy' by the standards of most critics of TMAs, but not included as equal criticisms of Muay Thai.  Having experience in Kyokushin full contact training and fighting and having seen some of the approaches (not all, but some) put forward as inherently superior to TMA, but having seen the evident weakness in them, should I relegate all RBSD or Muay Thai or BJJ people to the irrelevency pile?  Or would that just be ignorant?  

Despite how I think I come across on here a lot of the time, I'm equally critical of weak traditional training practices, but I also find more overwhelming the critique by those who want to broadly label any and everything that could be considered TMA as weak, useless, irrelevant, or at the very least out of date.  And IMHO this notion is often based on either a lack of experience, or a lack of patience.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 6, 2009)

The flashy and stylized argument seems to always come from the peanut gallery of sport martial artists or those who's knowledge extends to Jackie Chan movies (like this one person who watch a class at our dojo then seriously asked me after "How come you didnt do any flips or high jumps?").  As I've said before, there are no new limbs on the human body, nor are there new joins that allow movment in new axis.  

What has worked will continue to work, it's a question of how the curriculum is arranged and how efficiently it is taught.  You may not think kata is an effective teaching tool, but I think it totally is, but then I'm the guy who's fighting looks like kata.  It may look like a dance or silly or whatever else you might think but it engrains things in and I can walk into any Seido school and it be the same, not similar.

The reason I love kata is because I'm totally engraining things into muscle memory (it's the guitarist in me), you learn how to do things and how to react to stimulous in a certain way and after the block you can continue as you would in the kata or go for another closer target if it's presented.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

Yup, this got old fast.

All the new stuff is great and all the old stuff sucks

now wait I will sum ever siingle post form this point onward 
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
But I got proof you know a small group of people fought a couple of guys so that proves ever single person simply sucks


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 6, 2009)

Some people are gifted. They can do gymnastics karate and I have no doubt they can use that stuff if need be. And for them I say, "more power to them!"

But us mere mortals find it real hard to do back flips, jump double side kicks, run up walls and somersault, and carry on in the most shameful manner. But I assure you, if we could we would!

The flashy stuff brings in students. Thats showmanship. Thats cool. And the more people in the martial arts the better. No telling how many troubled boys and girls got into the martial arts cause they saw some of that cool stuff and decided to try it. And they stuck with it and learned enough self-confidence to get themselves out of the rut that got them in trouble (and yes, I bet a few got injured to trying a stunt or two.)

No, this flashy stuff is ok with me. Do I expect them to do flips when fighting? No. I have enough common sense to know better than expect them to do that. But I have no doubt some of them can do some pretty weird stuff in a fight and get it to work.
Deaf


----------



## MJS (Jul 6, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> On occasion here in the discussion forums, I see people make reference to traditional systems teaching moves that are flashy, stylized, and useless. It seems some of the traditional arts are accused of carrying a lot of "cultural baggage" in their physical technique that has no real use or application in combat or self defense.
> 
> I'm not sure what these people are talking about. In over a decade of learning traditional Chinese martial arts, I've never learned anything that is flashy, stylized and useless, nor anything that I'd classify as being some kind of cultural carryover. I've really only learned a lot of useful, hard-hitting stuff. Some of this stuff is a bit unusual, but once you understand its purpose it's pretty clear how useful it really is.
> 
> ...


 
I was reading a thread on another forum, about Ed Parker, and how some were wondering if he taught things, on purpose, that had no meaning, leaving it to the students to figure it out for themselves.  I've been training for quite a while now.  During my time, I've seen some great stuff, some ok stuff and some stuff that made me wanna run for the hills. LOL.  On one hand I find myself saying that everything has some value, just because I dont see it, doesnt mean that the next guy wont.  I also find myself wondering why someone would be concerned with flashy stuff, when time could be better spent on learning something more effective.  

To each their own I suppose.  If its something that I dont like, I just wont do it.  There is stuff in Kenpo that I'm not crazy about and yes people say that its probably because I dont have a good understanding of it, and that may be true.  I still teach it because others may have luck with it.  I find what works for me, and train the hell out of it.  Personally, I'd rather take a few things, really get good at them, and know that I have a set of things to pick from, that will have a good percentage of success for me.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

> The reason I love kata is because I'm totally engraining things into muscle memory (it's the guitarist in me), you learn how to do things and how to react to stimulous in a certain way and after the block you can continue as you would in the kata or go for another closer target if it's presented.


This is such a foreign idea to me.  How is kata like learning to play the guitar?  It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.

Xue Sheng, I'm really disappointed in you.  Two people post any kind of disagreement and since the lovefest is over, you'll simply dismiss the points with a childish temper tantrum, take your keyboard and go home.  Seriously.  I'm genuinely sorry I wasted my time typing up my earlier response.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This is such a foreign idea to me.  How is kata like learning to play the guitar?  It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.



I do that all the time practicing my legato and arpeggios.  It programs fingerings into the hand, it improves muscle memory, it builds finger strength.  Just like practicing kata does, ingrains the moves improving muscle memory and making them second nature.  If we were to make a concious decision on every foot placement, body position, muscle movment in a fight, or every chord shape, inversion, fingering, picking patern then nothing would get done.

But then, I do understand different strokes for different flokes and practising hours of kata or hours of scales and modes may work for some but not for all.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 6, 2009)

> This is such a foreign idea to me. How is kata like learning to play the guitar? It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.


 
Hey Steve I will attempt the analogy. Lets use learning guitar chords as Kata. You have to put the fingers in certain positions on the frets to learn the chords(kata,spar) Once the chords are memorized by muscle memory then you can use the chords freely to create music(as in muscle memory of the principle and concept of Kata you are able to move freely in fighting)

Omar was typing same time as me lol.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Xue Sheng, I'm really disappointed in you. Two people post any kind of disagreement and since the lovefest is over, you'll simply dismiss the points with a childish temper tantrum, take your keyboard and go home. Seriously. I'm genuinely sorry I wasted my time typing up my earlier response.


 
Do you have any idea how many of these have been posted on MT over the years. Call it what you will be disappointed all you want. It is an old worn out discussion that has been hashed and rehashed on MT for years and this is not even the only post on the topic at the moment and they always end the same way.

And just what are you disappointed in this post that was in response to you that you ignored, 



> No it does not cede a thing it goes again to a lack of understanding as to what forms are.
> 
> Forms are useless in combat but the postures that make up those forms are not and it is a training tool and those tools are expanded upon which to me means they are not stylized and useless but a tool, albeit a tool that is usually misunderstood. No one is ever going to go through a form from beginning to end in an attack or defense but parts of that are and no one is going to use that from beginning to end any more than someone can use what is learned in a drill as it is trained in the order that it is trained in all confrontations. A fight is rather fluid and can&#8217;t be put in a box any better by either side of this discussion/argument
> 
> ...


 
Or my last post that was about the way this post was going which this type of thing has gone so many times before
.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This is such a foreign idea to me. How is kata like learning to play the guitar? It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.


 
In my opinion, since you brought up the music reference, it's like practicing scales.  Kata catalog the major (and often the minor) techniques that make up your system.  Kata, along with the basic techniques, make up the foundation of your art.  Of course the foundation is built upon, with other things.  So of course kata ALONE is not the answer.

Another thing kata do is to make it easier to practice the broader spectrum of the techniques that make up the system.  For me personally, I can wrap my brain around a larger amount of material in this way.  If I have a kata made of up 40 movements, it's easier for me to remember the complete kata, and likewise all 40 movements of that kata, than it would be to remember the 40 movements in a disjoined list of discrete techniques.  I'd need to carry a list with me so that I wouldn't forget something.  But when it's in the context of the kata, I can remember it all.

I'm really surprised this discussion ended up here on the topic of kata.  

In my original post, I didn't think kata would become the focus, tho of course I'm well aware of the debate between those who see value in kata, and those that do not, or at least feel there are better ways and choose to train without kata.

I made reference to "cultural baggage", and I wonder if people see kata as such?  Is kata a carryover from Asian culture, that perhaps doesn't mesh well with Western cultures and Western mindsets?  (I don't want to say "American" culture, because of the many members here from Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and other non-USA, but non-Asian cultures).

What I was thinking about when I opened the thread, was really more on the lines of perhaps the animal mimickry, or something.  I wasn't thinking about kata at all as being cultural baggage.  I anticipated that maybe people would feel that trying to fight like a mantis or something might be silly.  The stylized techniques that mimick the animal namesake seemed to me a likely target for accusations of cultural baggage.

Being that I practice an animal-based art, I'm definitely in a position to observe and work with the methods contained in my chosen system.  Maybe some people might think that fighting like a Crane doesn't make sense.  I will grant that there is a certain amount of stylized movement in the art, that is something of animal mimickry.  But I can also state that I am constantly surprised by the amount of power that can be generated with our methods.  Whan I first began training in Tibetan White Crane, I knew nothing about it.  I did find the techniques to be somewhat odd, and even contrary to what a Westerner might assume would be inherent in a fighting method.  But I held my doubts aside and continued with the training.  And it really was not long, before I began to see the tremendous potential that the art contains.  I could feel it in the techniques that I was practicing, I can feel it when I work hands-on with my training partners, I can feel it on the heavy bag when I cut loose and give it hell with our methods, and I can feel it in the forms that we practice, that make the foundation of the art.

As I stated, the art does have some amount of Crane mimickry.  It isn't named White Crane for nothing.  But all I can say is, it works, and it works in such a way as to be really surprising.  I think it surpassed my expectations quite a bit, because I simply had no idea that this kind of potential existed.

I can't convince any nay-sayers of the truth in what I am writing.  It takes a hands-on experience to understand what I am saying, and see what's in there.  And for a Westerner, it takes a willingness to hold back judgement for a while, until you get a chance to really taste what it is all about.  Unfortunately, most Westerners don't give it that chance.  We've had people come in wanting to learn.  I think people get enamored with the romance of it.  White Crane sounds sort of mysterious.  So Sifu would give them to me and I'd start running them thru the basics, and they wouldn't come back.  Oh well.

All I can say is, I'm glad of the traditional art that I've been priviledged to train.  

Flashy?  I wouldn't say so, but others might.  

Stylized?  Sure, it's not called White Crane for nothing. 

Useless? Most certainly not.

If my system is laden with Cultural Baggage, all I can say is that is probably what makes it work so well.  I'll take the cultural baggage that it has, because that has probably given it its strength.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 6, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, since you brought up the music reference, it's like practicing scales.  Kata catalog the major (and often the minor) techniques that make up your system.  Kata, along with the basic techniques, make up the foundation of your art.  Of course the foundation is built upon, with other things.  So of course kata ALONE is not the answer.
> 
> Another thing kata do is to make it easier to practice the broader spectrum of the techniques that make up the system.  For me personally, I can wrap my brain around a larger amount of material in this way.  If I have a kata made of up 40 movements, it's easier for me to remember the complete kata, and likewise all 40 movements of that kata, than it would be to remember the 40 movements in a disjoined list of discrete techniques.  I'd need to carry a list with me so that I wouldn't forget something.  But when it's in the context of the kata, I can remember it all.
> 
> If my system is laden with Cultural Baggage, all I can say is that is probably what makes it work so well.  I'll take the cultural baggage that it has, because that has probably given it its strength.



Exactly, kata is the grammar of karate through which the fights flow, just like scales are there to digest huge amounts of information and relationships between one tone another ... or in the case of kata how one attack may lead to an automatic responsee that may be a simple block or an entire series.

As for cultural baggage.  I'm sure the knife fighting in The Phillipines helped a lot in the shaping of Kali, I don't think that baggage that's the result is at all bad.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I do that all the time practicing my legato and arpeggios.  It programs fingerings into the hand, it improves muscle memory, it builds finger strength.  Just like practicing kata does, ingrains the moves improving muscle memory and making them second nature.  If we were to make a concious decision on every foot placement, body position, muscle movment in a fight, or every chord shape, inversion, fingering, picking patern then nothing would get done.
> 
> But then, I do understand different strokes for different flokes and practising hours of kata or hours of scales and modes may work for some but not for all.


Very fair points, Omar.  I understand what you're saying.  I have never said that kata is useless.  I only believe that there are more efficient ways to do the same thing.  As you say, different strokes and all of that.  If kata works for you, then it works.  



JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Hey Steve I will attempt the analogy. Lets use learning guitar chords as Kata. You have to put the fingers in certain positions on the frets to learn the chords(kata,spar) Once the chords are memorized by muscle memory then you can use the chords freely to create music(as in muscle memory of the principle and concept of Kata you are able to move freely in fighting)
> 
> Omar was typing same time as me lol.


Thanks.  See my response to Omar above.  



Xue Sheng said:


> Do you have any idea how many of these have been posted on MT over the years.


Yes.  Yes, I do. 





> Call it what you will be disappointed all you want.


I'm not disappointed at the thread.  Only your childish response to it.  Seriously.  





> It is an old worn out discussion that has been hashed and rehashed on MT for years and this is not even the only post on the topic at the moment and they always end the same way.


You sound like you need a moist towelette and a hug.  These threads all end the same way because someone like you always drags them down the familiar path.  If you can't have a grown up conversation about a topic, then perhaps you should avoid the topic.  Know thyself.  I don't post often in the Study because it gets on my nerves.  


> And just what are you disappointed in this post that was in response to you that you ignored,


You big baby. I didn't ignore your response.  I thought that my response to Bill M. addressed your points and asked you specifically to let me know if you didn't agree (that I had answered you).  For Pete's sake.



Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, since you brought up the music reference, it's like practicing scales.  Kata catalog the major (and often the minor) techniques that make up your system.  Kata, along with the basic techniques, make up the foundation of your art.  Of course the foundation is built upon, with other things.  So of course kata ALONE is not the answer.


And for this basic level of understanding, it would work fine.  As I said above, I think kata is great for teaching the most basic level of underestanding.  I believe that there are more efficient ways to do the same thing.  





> Another thing kata do is to make it easier to practice the broader spectrum of the techniques that make up the system.  For me personally, I can wrap my brain around a larger amount of material in this way.  If I have a kata made of up 40 movements, it's easier for me to remember the complete kata, and likewise all 40 movements of that kata, than it would be to remember the 40 movements in a disjoined list of discrete techniques.  I'd need to carry a list with me so that I wouldn't forget something.  But when it's in the context of the kata, I can remember it all.


Maybe.  But this is another interesting topic altogether.  I'm for simplicity, myself.  I'd rather know 10 techniques extremely well than to know 1000 techniques to a lesser degree.





> I'm really surprised this discussion ended up here on the topic of kata.


I didn't really mean to take it here.  I was actually following up on the circular logic being applied in this thread... where anything that is flashy is modern and therefore not TMA. 

Someone said that forms/kata aren't useful.  A CMA/TMA person said (essentially), "True, but no one really trains them to be useful, so that doesn't count."

It wasn't kata, per se, but the faulty logic I was talking about.


----------



## padre (Jul 6, 2009)

Today in class I was being taught white belt &#54408;&#49352;in my school's tradition, and as a white belt, none of it is particularly flashy. But I can already say I don't find it useless.

I'd be going through a form and say to the instructor, "Something feels wrong," and sure enough it would turn out that (for example) my arms weren't in the right position to lead into the movement that was to follow.

Seems to me that at least this aspect of training is an ideal way to correct many details of how I'm doing things before I train myself to do them "wrong" and have to struggle with that as more advanced material in the system builds on these details.

I've seen the instructors do some really flashy stuff in demonstration and just having fun. I can't comment on some of their feats would be handy in specific situations, but I wouldn't pick a fight with any of 'em. heh


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, since you brought up the music reference, it's like practicing scales. Kata catalog the major (and often the minor) techniques that make up your system. Kata, along with the basic techniques, make up the foundation of your art. Of course the foundation is built upon, with other things. So of course kata ALONE is not the answer.
> 
> Another thing kata do is to make it easier to practice the broader spectrum of the techniques that make up the system. For me personally, I can wrap my brain around a larger amount of material in this way. If I have a kata made of up 40 movements, it's easier for me to remember the complete kata, and likewise all 40 movements of that kata, than it would be to remember the 40 movements in a disjoined list of discrete techniques. I'd need to carry a list with me so that I wouldn't forget something. But when it's in the context of the kata, I can remember it all.
> 
> ...


 
What I find interesting coming from the view of culture is that my Sanda sifu who was born raised and trained in China in Sanda (the police Military version not the sport) is rather impressed with all types of martial arts out of China and he is very impressed by good Bagua, Xingyiquan and Taijiquan in their entirely and my Taiji sifu is of the feeling that all martial arts, trained well, are good for fighting but he is a bit more prejudice towards Taiji and the Neijia arts but he is also very interested in all things Aikido if it is a film of Morihei Ueshiba and one that surprised me was a film of a student of Jigoro Kano he was impressed by. He to was born raised and trained in China (he is older than my Sanda sifu however and has trained longer) but only in Taijiquan. And yet the only type of martial artist either seems to have a problem with is a fake one or one that makes it a business over it being a martial art. 

Now this is only the attitude of 2 Chinese martial artists and I am sure there are those that are more opinionated but it seems to be less of a problem in China where some of this comes form than here in the US where it came to.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> And for this basic level of understanding, it would work fine. As I said above, I think kata is great for teaching the most basic level of underestanding. I believe that there are more efficient ways to do the same thing.


 
Serious question: when you don't have a training partner handy, do you still train?  If so, how?  What do you work on?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Yes. Yes, I do. I'm not disappointed at the thread. Only your childish response to it. Seriously. You sound like you need a moist towelette and a hug. These threads all end the same way because someone like you always drags them down the familiar path. If you can't have a grown up conversation about a topic, then perhaps you should avoid the topic. Know thyself. I don't post often in the Study because it gets on my nerves.
> You big baby. I didn't ignore your response. I thought that my response to Bill M. addressed your points and asked you specifically to let me know if you didn't agree (that I had answered you). For Pete's sake.


 
Speaking of disappointing; childishness insults and name calling are so unbecoming but they seem to be becoming the norm around MT these days.

As to your response to Bill, sorry I missed that last bit because it did not feel it address what I posted so I did not finish it. But you have had enough of me and I sure have had enough of you so have a good one. Later.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Serious question: when you don't have a training partner handy, do you still train?  If so, how?  What do you work on?


Good question and the answer is yes.  There are solo drills and body weight exercises that also teach muscle memory.  But honestly, the best way to learn to grapple is to grapple.  Outside of class, even working solo drills, the primary goal is going to be conditioning.  





			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Speaking of disappointing; childishness insults and name calling are so unbecoming but they seem to be becoming the norm around MT these days.


 If you can honestly call your behavior other than a childish tantrum, I'll admit to an ad hominem.  But in order for a label to be libelous, it has to first be untrue.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Good question and the answer is yes. There are solo drills and body weight exercises that also teach muscle memory. But honestly, the best way to learn to grapple is to grapple. Outside of class, even working solo drills, the primary goal is going to be conditioning.
> 
> I understand that the best way to learn grappling is to grapple, but there can be times when a partner is not available.
> 
> Are you saying that you essentially do not train solo, with the exeption of conditioning or strengthening exercises?


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand that the best way to learn grappling is to grapple, but there can be times when a partner is not available.
> 
> Are you saying that you essentially do not train solo, with the exeption of conditioning or strengthening exercises?


Not quite.  I said that there are solo drills.  But that they are a poor substitute for more than sport/activity specific conditioning.  They're important, particularly as a warmup, but aren't going to help you in a technical sense.  Take the shrimping drill, done in probably every BJJ school in the world.  As I said earlier, they're great for a warmup but really only teach you the basic motion.  In order to actually hip escape under pressure, no amount of shrimping down the mat will help.  

It's as I said before, a learning model I personally like lists 4 stages of adult learning: knowledge -> comprehension -> application -> synthesis.  Kata, like a solo drill such as the hip escape drill, is really only good for teaching to a knowledge level... the most rudimentary understanding.  Better than nothing?  I'd argue that, beyond some conditioning benefit, probably not.  

Does that make sense? 

Edit to add:  Just to be clear.  This is just my opinion.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 6, 2009)

IMO...a good western boxer will kick the *** of most "solo"/kata/1-step sparring/"semi-contact" sparring practitioner.


----------



## Carol (Jul 6, 2009)

However, even boxers shadowbox.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This is such a foreign idea to me.  How is kata like learning to play the guitar?  It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.



as with most things, it's relative to taste.  i've played guitar for around 20 years now, & i can count on two hands the number of other people's songs i can play.  for me guitar is more about self expression than replication, & i take the same approach i take to martial arts.  you can learn a lot from learning other people's songs, but it's not absolutely necessary.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jul 7, 2009)

boxer's get brought up a lot as an example of efficient training (i've used the example myself).  yet not all boxing training methods are efficient.  for instance, i've boxed for years & i loath working the speed bag.  i can barely move the thing & find it dull, & unrelated to actual boxing.  sure, it helps your timing, but it is not the most efficient way to train.  

the only difference is that speed bag training isn't wrapped up in tradition.  if someone really, really loves training the speed bag to the extent that it gets them training more, more power to them.  but it's not essential.  same with kata.  if you dig it & interests you enough to train more than you would otherwise, cool.  if you don't want to do it, cool.  IT IS JUST A TRAINING TOOL, USE IT AS YOU SEE FIT.

jf


----------



## Carol (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:
			
		

> This is such a foreign idea to me. How is kata like learning to play the guitar? It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.



That is precisely what goes in to guitar pedagogy.   Novitiate guitarists are encouraged to just try fretting basic cords in order to build callouses up on their fingers.  As the guitarists progress, part of practice is fingering through transitions to get a feel for the exchange.  (Guitar playing invokes a lot of muscle memory, also).  A more advanced guitarist will do speed drills one hand at a time (working the fretting hand without picking, working the picking hand without fretting) then work both hands together.  

My professors at Berklee always insisted that we get a Gripmaster to carry with us when we were out and about or otherwise away from our guitar.  Note the fingers can be squeezed independently of one another.   We could simply squeeze it like a squeeze ball...but that wasn't accomplishing anything musical.     By manipulating certain sequences with the Gripmaster, that forced us to focus our mind on our "music" and the mechanics needed to perform the notes.  Our profs generally didn't have to tell us twice...we all saw the value in it.  Plus it was a good way to stave off the withdrawl symptoms...


----------



## Omar B (Jul 7, 2009)

Carol!  I didn't know you went to Berklee, many of my great friends went there!  Heck, Joe Stump's a great old friend of mine too!  

Oh, and yes, just like working out gives you a high so does playing guitar and like Carol, I go through withdrawals.


----------



## Carol (Jul 7, 2009)

Yup I did!  Actually graduated too 

I haven't seen Joe Stump in awhile.  One of my fave guitarists, and a damn good guy to boot.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 7, 2009)

Ok, this has gone on long enough now that I don't remember exactly where the stuff I was going to pull quotes was....

Well, it's the old fashioned way.  

First up, someone made the comment about the unrealistic attack sequences I mentioned earlier and wondered what examples I could give.  That's easy.  Walk into any karate school in the US and you'll probably see people repping stuff off of a step thru reverse punch.  One that is usually chambered at the hip and telegraphed from it's inception.  That's the easiest and classic example in my mind.

Now, should we beat on white belts till they can slip full on strikes from experienced hitters?  Of course not, but starting their training from a more realistic look will shave time off from learning to actual implementation.   It will probably build less bad habits as well.

As to kata, I agree with some others, if it's your thing it is a solo training tool.  However, there are better ways to get things repped.  Drilling resistance against a heavy bag and shadow boxing are great.  The also have the advantage of not being pre-arranged.  This starts the mind to thinking in a fluid state.  One much more akin to actual fight progression than static form.  

But to the flashiness, I just don't see that in MT and other contact varities of training.  There is a gulf of difference between a full tilt shin to the head (which still isn't in my inventory by the way) and a multi-turn flying kick prevalent in some arts.  Not to mention that a bulk of MT training a tactics you see in fights is short and brutal.  

As to the overcomplexity statment I made ealier, I was asked about what this was in reference to.  Well, again, look at just about any US karate school and check out the way a typical block is thrown.  The thing is chambered away from the line of attack, arms are crossed as the actual arm moves into position, and much precision is put into the arm bend, fist placement, ect.  All this to not get hit in the head.  It's needlessly complex.  

Again, it's just my thoughts, eveyone is entitled to their own.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Put it this way.  There are four basic levels of understanding: knowledge, comprehension, application and synthesis.



I think that is more true of 'head' knowledge than 'body' knowledge.  Muscle memory is trained at a less than conscious level, and correct repetition brings rewards.



> The goal in any adult learning situation is to bring the person to the application level as quickly as possible (synthesis is brought about through experience in application).



That may be where we branch off.  I am in no hurry.  I did not begin training at an Isshinryu dojo to learn self-defense, per se.  That's simply a benefit.  Even our sensei has said, if you're in a hurry to learn to defend yourself, take up boxing.



> The only exception to this is in situations where the learning process itself is the goal... and there's nothing wrong with that.  If the pursuit of master is more important than acheiving master, then lingering at the knowledge level is totally cool.  Or said another way, if kata itself is important for its own sake, then mastering kata becomes a learning goal in and of itself.



I am not interested in mastering kata to say I have mastered kata.  I am interested in kata for what I perceive as its core value, teaching proper body mechanics and muscle memory.



> Once again, I'm not anti-kata.  I simply think that there are more efficient ways to learn technique. An experienced practitioner would, and once again, would be offering correction in context.  If you have any doubt about this, sit near the edge of the mat at a BJJ or wrestling tournament.  You'll hear very specific instruction being offered that is timely and in context.  And I'm sure you'll benefit from it.



I have and I do, but again - a correction on foot position in a kumite, shouted from the sidelines, is hardly conducive to creating body mechanics and muscle memory that makes it ingrained.

I am naturally splay-footed.  That is not an efficient way to stand while punching in most cases.  I have found that while sparring, I go right into that 'bad' stance.  Sure, sensei yells for me to correct my feet - and I get jacked while I'm trying to think about fixing my feet.  In kata, kata, kata, he corrects me, I practice correct foot position, and little by little, my body begins to respond.  I look down at the end of a sequence and by God, my feet are right - and I didn't think about it.



> I think this addresses clfsean and Xue Sheng's points, as well.  If not, let me know and I'll try to be more specific.



Anyway, back on topic - I don't know of anything particularly flashy or useless about what I'm being taught.  And I'm content to learn it the way sensei teaches it.  I do not understand what the value would be of a newbie like me trying to re-think what has been cleary well-designed and refined over a long period of time by people who know a lot more about it than I do.

I am also patient, even as a beginner at age 48.  What's the rush?  All things in time.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that part of self-defense training is actually using the techniques, by sparring or otherwise exchanging techniques, both attacking and defending. But kata is just working that response system into your body so that it becomes a natural and instinctive move. A middle body block when practiced as kata, for example, can be examined, judged, and corrected, so that you do it correctly each and every time (eventually). In a series of self-defense moves, I wonder if an instructor would pick out that your feet were wrong, or your wrist bent, etc.
> 
> Eh, we're getting back to kata and how useful it is again. I'm just a newbie with much to learn, but I do kata, kata, kata, and I will continue to do kata, kata, kata. I believe in it.


 
Not to sidetrack this thread on to a kata debate...God knows there are enough of those threads around here, but I wanted to comment on what was said.  For me, I think that there is alot of useful things in kata.  The #1 problem that I have seen during my training time, is that there are many teachers who dont know what is contained in the kata.  So if they dont know, they certainly cant expect the student to know either.  

So the end result is you have a bunch of people running around, not knowing what they're doing, other than a series of preset moves, and then you have those that don't do kata in their art, who see this, and say that its useless.  

Kata does have alot in it, but it all comes down to how its trained, and how its explained.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> IMO...a good western boxer will kick the *** of most "solo"/kata/1-step sparring/"semi-contact" sparring practitioner.


 


Carol Kaur said:


> However, even boxers shadowbox.


 
However, boxers will also get into the ring and spar, with contact.  Now, I'm the first one to say that while I like kata, and think it has benefits, I also feel that its not the end all, be all of training either.  I still maintain that you need to expand outside of the kata box, get into the ring and spar with some hard contact, as well as do some random, spontaneous self defense drills, to further enhance the package.  

There was a time during our class, that we'd have people run thru a kata with others attacking.  Now, this wasn't always an easy task, due to the fact that it was a slow process, meaning if there weren't enough people, you always had to stop and re-position the attackers.  However, this still gave the student a feel for how the kata was designed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> The #1 problem that I have seen during my training time, is that there are many teachers who dont know what is contained in the kata.  So if they dont know, they certainly cant expect the student to know either.



Good point.  I guess I've been lucky.  My sensei clearly understands and explains the bunkai, and we practice the 'back side' of the kata as well, so one person performs the kata and one/several attackers provide the input in the form of punches, kicks, and blocks.  If your kata cannot do what it is supposed to do, either the kata is useless or you're not doing it right.  So far, if I fail to block a kick or parry a punch, it's been the latter for me.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good point. I guess I've been lucky. My sensei clearly understands and explains the bunkai, and we practice the 'back side' of the kata as well, so one person performs the kata and one/several attackers provide the input in the form of punches, kicks, and blocks. If your kata cannot do what it is supposed to do, either the kata is useless or you're not doing it right. So far, if I fail to block a kick or parry a punch, it's been the latter for me.


 
My first instructor really had no clue about what was in the kata.  I'd ask, and get, "Well, its done this way because.....................................................................................................well, because thats the way its done."  Doesnt sound like a good answer to me.  Fortunately, as training went on, I came across teachers who did give examples, and explain to me how to look for my own interpretation of the moves.  

Keep training hard.  Sounds like you're on the right path.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 7, 2009)

It all boils down to what YOU like to do in your training.  If you have a good instructor and you can see "why" you are doing what you're doing and find value in it then keep on doing it.  If you don't like that approach to training, then find one that does fit your personality and training goals.

Everyone has a different build and personality and mental approach to what they want, that is why we have so many arts.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 7, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Ok, this has gone on long enough now that I don't remember exactly where the stuff I was going to pull quotes was....
> 
> Well, it's the old fashioned way.
> 
> ...


 
Misunderstanding training methods does not make them useless.  Also, understand the context of what TMA's are designed for from it's beginning stages.  It isn't for a squared off sporting competition it is designed as a civilian self-defense (it was not designed for soldiers/law enforcement so it has a different goal in mind) to hurt your attacker and get away quickly and safely.  Do you know why the hand is pulled back to the hip?  You are grabbing onto your opponent and pulling him into your punch.  Boxers chamber their punches also based on the context it was designed for, karate chambers in different areas depending on the usage as well.



tallgeese said:


> As to kata, I agree with some others, if it's your thing it is a solo training tool. However, there are better ways to get things repped. Drilling resistance against a heavy bag and shadow boxing are great. The also have the advantage of not being pre-arranged. This starts the mind to thinking in a fluid state. One much more akin to actual fight progression than static form.


 
Again misunderstanding the use and place of kata.  Karate uses and originally used bags and makiwara to drill techniques during solo practice.  Also kumite drills and partner exercises were always used.  Kata is a textbook that you pull out combos to work on and learn principles and concepts to learn more applications and to be more spontaneous.



tallgeese said:


> But to the flashiness, I just don't see that in MT and other contact varities of training. There is a gulf of difference between a full tilt shin to the head (which still isn't in my inventory by the way) and a multi-turn flying kick prevalent in some arts. Not to mention that a bulk of MT training a tactics you see in fights is short and brutal.
> 
> As to the overcomplexity statment I made ealier, I was asked about what this was in reference to. Well, again, look at just about any US karate school and check out the way a typical block is thrown. The thing is chambered away from the line of attack, arms are crossed as the actual arm moves into position, and much precision is put into the arm bend, fist placement, ect. All this to not get hit in the head. It's needlessly complex.
> 
> Again, it's just my thoughts, eveyone is entitled to their own.


 
Once more you misunderstand what it is teaching.  It is teaching multiple things.  The "arm crossing" is a parry built into the training process so you are getting two techniques for one training idea.  The "drawing back" part again teaches two different things.  It is teaching you to use that motion as a strike to destroy the opponent's limb after we have parried it or grabbed on to an extended limb.  It also teaches a specific path to block off a certain area of the body and divert the strike.  You learn the full motion using the whole body to be able to use only part of the motion when needed and still have proper body mechanics behind it.  Other evasion skills are also taught and shown in kata for the student to practice with a partner.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup I did!  Actually graduated too
> I haven't seen Joe Stump in awhile.  One of my fave guitarists, and a damn good guy to boot.



Awesome!  I was accepted to Berklee but went to Queens College instead because it was cheaper, closer to home and my focus was not music at the time.  Joe's a great friend of mine, he has helped my magazine career quite a bit and helped my playing quite a bit.  Not just by stealing from the records, but by his sending me these huge packages of handwritten sheet music.

Back to the thread.  Some may think the martial arts are too formalized, but really, how much of that is based on reality.  As I said before, a person once observing our class asked how come we didnt do any flipping around.  People's perseption of what the martial arts are about take their cues from TV (sad, I know, but most people don't read).  Even those who practis an art like MT, Boxing, Wrestling may think that because where they work out seem less formalized.  Or they say the movments look too flashy and could never work without having any experience of how to apply that move correctly from the experience they have had in their art.


----------



## Steve (Jul 7, 2009)

jarrod said:


> boxer's get brought up a lot as an example of efficient training (i've used the example myself). yet not all boxing training methods are efficient. for instance, i've boxed for years & i loath working the speed bag. i can barely move the thing & find it dull, & unrelated to actual boxing. sure, it helps your timing, but it is not the most efficient way to train.
> 
> the only difference is that speed bag training isn't wrapped up in tradition. if someone really, really loves training the speed bag to the extent that it gets them training more, more power to them. but it's not essential. same with kata. if you dig it & interests you enough to train more than you would otherwise, cool. if you don't want to do it, cool. IT IS JUST A TRAINING TOOL, USE IT AS YOU SEE FIT.
> 
> jf


Once again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but any of these activities remain useful as conditioning tools.  The mistake, IMO, is in trying to make them more than they are.  Kata is, IMO, a simple conditioning tool that some have elevated out of proportion to any potential gain.  The difference between a speed bag workout and kata is that no one claims to be learning any deeper or more technical understanding of the lexicon of boxing by working the speed bag.  The same can't be said for kata.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that is more true of 'head' knowledge than 'body' knowledge. Muscle memory is trained at a less than conscious level, and correct repetition brings rewards.


I personally disagree.  This is simply how we learn.  Cooking.  You can read cook books and watch cooking shows to get to a knowledge level.  Comprehension begins by cooking from recipes.  Application begins when you start modifying the recipes and perfecting the ones you really enjoy.  Synthesis is a mastery level.

You can apply these four categories very simply to any learning situation, and it's almost always very clear because this is just fundamentally how we learn.  It's so helpful precisely because it focuses on taking information from a cerebral/conceptual level to a concrete/practical level.  So often, as adult learners, any training we receive is academic and not practical, spending more time on "why" and "when" to do something and less on "how" and "what" to actually do.





> That may be where we branch off. I am in no hurry. I did not begin training at an Isshinryu dojo to learn self-defense, per se. That's simply a benefit. Even our sensei has said, if you're in a hurry to learn to defend yourself, take up boxing.


This places an emphasis on the process, which, if it's your thing, great.  Sort of like the friend who writes bad poetry.  I have a friend who loves to write poetry.  Even she will admit that it's bad, but she has no interest in trying to improve... that's not why she writes.  I can respect it, even if I can't exactly understand it.





> I am not interested in mastering kata to say I have mastered kata. I am interested in kata for what I perceive as its core value, teaching proper body mechanics and muscle memory.


And this brings us back to full circle.  If you are in it for the process, great.  If you are in it for results, then focusing on the process is a mistake, and one that many adult learners make.





> I have and I do, but again - a correction on foot position in a kumite, shouted from the sidelines, is hardly conducive to creating body mechanics and muscle memory that makes it ingrained.


I disagree completely.  Timely feedback in context is THE BEST way to create proper body mechanics and muscle memory.  As I said before, I can shrimp down the mats all day long and am only conditioning my body.  When I hip out correct and reestablish guard in the context of actual resistance, I'm actually learning body mechanics and muscle memory. 





> I am naturally splay-footed. That is not an efficient way to stand while punching in most cases. I have found that while sparring, I go right into that 'bad' stance. Sure, sensei yells for me to correct my feet - and I get jacked while I'm trying to think about fixing my feet. In kata, kata, kata, he corrects me, I practice correct foot position, and little by little, my body begins to respond. I look down at the end of a sequence and by God, my feet are right - and I didn't think about it.


Kata will help you condition your body.  Sparring will help you fix your stance under pressure.  Your stance goes to hell because you let it go during sparring.  It seems clear to me that you need to spar more and focus on fixing your stance.  Getting jacked is feedback, saying to you, "Your feet might be right, but you also have to keep your hands up."  Kata isn't teaching you the technique.  It's conditioning the muscles.  Sparring is where you're learning the technique and that you continue to do it incorrectly during sparring is a good indication that, regardless of where your feet are at the end of a kata, your body still doesn't understand the technique.   

Just in general, this applies to all of the guitar analogies, as well.  Conditioning is critical.  I appreciate and agree with that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Just in general, this applies to all of the guitar analogies, as well.  Conditioning is critical.  I appreciate and agree with that.



Guess we have to agree to disagree, then.  I'm 180 degrees from where you are in terms of what I believe kata does for me.  I get conditioning from doing situps and jumping jacks.  I get muscle memory from doing reps of kata correctly.  Well, I do, anyway.

And yes, I do need more sparring.  All in time.  I'm not in a rush.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 7, 2009)

Hi,

Just to put this "kata vs no kata" thing to bed, this may help those that think they don't train in it (from another of my posts in a different thread):

Well, kata is a Japanese term that literally means "form", or "shape". The method of training refered to as kata training is what NLP practitioners refer to as "modeling". In this method, the student repeats the same movements and actions over and over without changing them, in order to instill the basic strategies and concepts of a martial system. As a result, you could even say that BJJ uses a kata method, in that you constantly repeat the same action (a particular sweep, for example) over and over in order to be able to use it at any time. The term used would probably simply be "drill", though.

In old Japanese arts, known as koryu (old styles), kata training often refers to paired combat exercises, with a specific attack and response scenario. This is applied to unarmed and weapon schools alike, with different schools having longer or shorter kata depending on the school in question. This type of kata training exists even in more modern systems such as BJJ and Judo.

In more modern arts (such as karate, tae kwon do, various kung fu systems), the kata/form/poomse approach is far more often a long string of movements practiced solo. This is, as stated, not the only definition of "kata".

Okay, hopefully that helps...

As for whether or not there is too much "flash" in TMA systems, which is useless, I would want to break that down a bit first. To begin with, how are we defining Traditional Martial Arts? There are some (probably quite a few here, actually) who will happily clsas Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Karate (most Japanese based systems I am refering to here...)and various other quite modern creations as TMA. Some will even give Krav Maga that title. So it's going to come down to how you define "Traditional". 

Then, we need to understand what is meant by "useless". Training with a sword (Kendo, Iaido, Taiji etc) is not really immediately applicable to a real-world self defence scenario, so could be taken as "useless" if that is the criteria. By the same token, certain training drills and practices, flashy or not, are not exactly very good representations of the realities that could be faced. Again, we would refer to these as "useless".

Finally, how are we defining "flashy"? Show a boxer a high-level limb control or throw/immobilisation combination, and they could consider that quite flashy, and ask why you don't simply hit the guy? By the same token, a Judoka may consider a leaping spinning kick from Tae Kwon Do to be very flashy and impractical.

From my perspective, yes, there are some overly flashy aspects in some TMA systems which is not particularly useful in a modern assault scenario, but that is hardly anything new. And in those systems, I'm sure you will find that there is a reason for those flashy movements, which may even include simply looking impressive to score more points in a competition, or to generate awe-inspired students (wow, can't wait til I can do that!).

Earlier, someone was asked for examples of flashy movements and unrealistic training exercises. Okay, here you go: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1749038/context/tag:martial-arts/

This clip was taken as an advertisement for the club, but has been re-edited for humour (and schadenfreude, I feel...), but shows the flashy-style movements as well as an unrealistic training habit (the attacker launching a single attack, then just waiting for the response). Other dangerous habits I commonly see (most ofte in Karate and Tae Kwon Do schools... not trying to pick on you guys, but this type of drill is what you guys do most) are after the single attack, the defender responds with a series of strikes and kicks, and the attacker simply stands in place. There is no reaction to the effect such strikes and kicks would have, so no realistic openings are created, no realistic body shapes are presented, and the defender (unconsciously, at least) gets the message that their strikes and kicks don't move the opponent. Not flashy, but not particularly realistic either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Not quite. I said that there are solo drills. But that they are a poor substitute for more than sport/activity specific conditioning. They're important, particularly as a warmup, but aren't going to help you in a technical sense. Take the shrimping drill, done in probably every BJJ school in the world. As I said earlier, they're great for a warmup but really only teach you the basic motion. In order to actually hip escape under pressure, no amount of shrimping down the mat will help.
> 
> It's as I said before, a learning model I personally like lists 4 stages of adult learning: knowledge -> comprehension -> application -> synthesis. Kata, like a solo drill such as the hip escape drill, is really only good for teaching to a knowledge level... the most rudimentary understanding. Better than nothing? I'd argue that, beyond some conditioning benefit, probably not.
> 
> ...


 
I understand what you are saying, and I have just enough JJ experience to understand your shrimping example.

I think solo practice in a grappling art may be less useful than solo practice in a striking art.  I think the very nature of the methods creates this discrepancy.

Likewise, grappling arts have a certain advantage in training, in that you can more easily control the escalation of the encounter, and therefor make the training more alive and more realistic, while still keeping enough control to avoid injury to the participants.

This is a handicap that striking arts have.  If I don't hit my training partner hard enough to injure him, then he can ignore my strike and hit me back.  But my art counts on my strikes being effective.  Techniques are applied with the understanding that those strikes are landing with effect, and this is often what makes the follow-ups possible.  But if I injure my training partner, I don't have someone to train with.  It's a catch-22, if I don't hit hard enough then my strikes are ignored, but if I hit hard enough then my partner gets injured and won't train with me anymore.  So we try to find a reasonable middle-ground where the strikes land with reasonable authority, and the training partner agrees to respect them, for the sake of having a productive training session.

With a striking art, it is more difficult to raise the level of realism, while maintaining safety of the participants.  I think that grappling methods have an easier time of managing these issues.

But I think maybe striking arts have an easier time with solo practice, and for a striker, solo practice is more beneficial than solo practice would be for a grappler.  We can punch and kick, and practice more complex combinations such as kata.  Even tho it is done in the air, without a partner, we still benefit from the muscle memory that is being established.  In addition, we can strike things like the heavy bag, in order to develop the conditioning and power in delivering strikes.  Then, when we have a partner to work with, we can bring those elements together and develop real useage ability with our techniques.  But the ability to train effectively when a partner is not available is an important part of the picture.  Hence, kata practice among other things.


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 7, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> So we try to find a reasonable middle-ground where the strikes land with reasonable authority, and the training partner agrees to respect them, for the sake of having a productive training session.


 
In the study of literature, this is called "willing suspension of disbelief." :wink2:


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2009)

I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.


 
That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it.  You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.

This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real.  But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it.  That's more of a mental thing, I think.  I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous.  You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 7, 2009)

Ok, I don't misunderstand training methods, I've heard those things time and again.  I just think it's  not needed, and therefore perhaps getting to the core of the OP's question.

If you want to practice grabbing and pulling something, then practice it.  Don't hide it and make it interpretive.  Or make what you're working on over complex by stacking things up on a two for one drill.

As to kata being more fluid than striking any sort of bag, I'd disagree.  Any prearranged pattern will condition your body to think that way.   Better to keep moving and differ each time.  Again, more akin to fight conditions.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it.  You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.
> 
> This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real.  But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it.  That's more of a mental thing, I think.  I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous.  You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.



I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

blindsage said:


> One of which is a TMA and the other solidly based in TMA.  Does anyone complain about 'flashy' techniques when a Muay Thai fighter throws a head kick, or a spin kick, or a leaping technique?  All impractical and 'flashy' by the standards of most critics of TMAs, but not included as equal criticisms of Muay Thai.  Having experience in Kyokushin full contact training and fighting and having seen some of the approaches (not all, but some) put forward as inherently superior to TMA, but having seen the evident weakness in them, should I relegate all RBSD or Muay Thai or BJJ people to the irrelevency pile?  Or would that just be ignorant?
> 
> Despite how I think I come across on here a lot of the time, I'm equally critical of weak traditional training practices, but I also find more overwhelming the critique by those who want to broadly label any and everything that could be considered TMA as weak, useless, irrelevant, or at the very least out of date.  And IMHO this notion is often based on either a lack of experience, or a lack of patience.



And there's that self-serving vague definition of 'TMA' again.........so using that logic, EVERYTHING is a 'TMA'......even MMA, since it's made up of TMA's..........lets just drop the TMA thing........quite frankly folks here aren't arguing that it's BJJ and Muay Thai that is getting short shift.......generally it's Chinese and Korean styles, to be blunt and honest, that we are calling TMA's for the narrower purpose.......and the issue, style to style, is how do we know a particular style is effective?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yup, this got old fast.
> 
> All the new stuff is great and all the old stuff sucks
> 
> ...



I'm still confused about which is the 'Old stuff' and which is the 'New stuff'?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This is such a foreign idea to me.  How is kata like learning to play the guitar?  It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.
> 
> Xue Sheng, I'm really disappointed in you.  Two people post any kind of disagreement and since the lovefest is over, you'll simply dismiss the points with a childish temper tantrum, take your keyboard and go home.  Seriously.  I'm genuinely sorry I wasted my time typing up my earlier response.



I'll admit that feigning the movements will enhance guitar playing........but it sure as heck, as you point out, doesn't take the place of having your hands on the guitar.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I'm still confused about which is the 'Old stuff' and which is the 'New stuff'?



old stuff is when your method of hurting people is enmeshed with tradition or pre-modern rituals.  new stuff is when you hurt people without as much of that.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> IMO...a good western boxer will kick the *** of most "solo"/kata/1-step sparring/"semi-contact" sparring practitioner.



I've seen that with my own eyes many, many times.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

jarrod said:


> boxer's get brought up a lot as an example of efficient training (i've used the example myself).  yet not all boxing training methods are efficient.  for instance, i've boxed for years & i loath working the speed bag.  i can barely move the thing & find it dull, & unrelated to actual boxing.  sure, it helps your timing, but it is not the most efficient way to train.
> 
> the only difference is that speed bag training isn't wrapped up in tradition.  if someone really, really loves training the speed bag to the extent that it gets them training more, more power to them.  but it's not essential.  same with kata.  if you dig it & interests you enough to train more than you would otherwise, cool.  if you don't want to do it, cool.  IT IS JUST A TRAINING TOOL, USE IT AS YOU SEE FIT.
> 
> jf


 Good point.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 7, 2009)

In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal:  fighting proficiency.  And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't.  For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.

Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements.  That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.

In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities:  if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me.  Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Once again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but any of these activities remain useful as conditioning tools.  The mistake, IMO, is in trying to make them more than they are.  Kata is, IMO, a simple conditioning tool that some have elevated out of proportion to any potential gain.  The difference between a speed bag workout and kata is that no one claims to be learning any deeper or more technical understanding of the lexicon of boxing by working the speed bag.  The same can't be said for kata.


  Exactly....Well, conditioning and muscle memory.......the problem with some Kata, however, is that the muscle memory being taught are the motions, but not the dynamic motions as they'll be applied against a resisting opponent.

Hitting a heavy bag and speed bag instills conditioning and muscle memory, but getting in the ring is where you learn to hit a resisting opponent.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Guess we have to agree to disagree, then.  I'm 180 degrees from where you are in terms of what I believe kata does for me.  I get conditioning from doing situps and jumping jacks.  I get muscle memory from doing reps of kata correctly.  Well, I do, anyway.
> 
> And yes, I do need more sparring.  All in time.  I'm not in a rush.



The kata serves the purpose of instilling the motion in the muscle memory.......that is true, and I am not really opposed to kata per se........it's useful so long as it's combined with realistic sparring.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.



BINGO!  A lot of false beliefs are propagated in such a manner.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it.  You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.
> 
> This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real.  But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it.  That's more of a mental thing, I think.  I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous.  You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.



Yes, but boxers and muay thai practioners have managed to pretty successfully translate hard sparring to a high level of competence on the street.......when boxer or muay thai practioner hits someone on the street, they usually render them unconcious.

The only issue with boxers hitting people on the street is they have a tendency to break their hand, owing to training with gloves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

jarrod said:


> old stuff is when your method of hurting people is enmeshed with tradition or pre-modern rituals.  new stuff is when you hurt people without as much of that.
> 
> jf


 That seems to be the general consensus.......however.......Pankration is 4,000 years old and predates all modern 'TMA's.........it's also devoid of ritual beyond it's physical techniques.

Seems some confusion about whether it's the hurting people without ceremony is really 'new' or if it's the original 'TMA'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2009)

Kacey said:


> In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal:  fighting proficiency.  And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't.  For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.


 And that's a point I try to keep in mind..........when we talk about different styles, and which is 'better', the first question is 'better at what?'.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That seems to be the general consensus.......however.......Pankration is 4,000 years old and predates all modern 'TMA's.........it's also devoid of ritual beyond it's physical techniques.
> 
> Seems some confusion about whether it's the hurting people without ceremony is really 'new' or if it's the original 'TMA'.



true, but pankration died, modern pankration is purely reconstructed.  it's an interesting game of "what if" to wonder if it might have survived if it had been connected to more tradition, & what it would look like if it had.  

if some other arts are any indication, it might have survived at the expense of more intense, realistic training.  

jf


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.
> 
> It will open your eyes a bit.
> 
> THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.


 
But that also is not going all out.  Even in doing this, you are holding something back.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2009)

Try it....when they go into competition they are "going all out"...and this is how they prepare for it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Try it....when they go into competition they are "going all out"...and this is how they prepare for it.


 
no, this is my point.  There is something being held back, or else someone will go to the hospital or the morgue.  I'm not talking about competition.  I'm talking about self defense.

there will always be a gap between training, and reality, and the individual either is, or is not, able to jump that gap when the time comes.

Some training methods make that gap smaller, others not so much so.  But the gap always exists.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 7, 2009)

Yes, there is always a difference between actual fight conditions and training.  The question is how well your training is preparing you for that transition.

For my money, the schools that are training their stuff more along the lines of MMA methodology are more apt to be ready that what is normally thought of as TMA.  Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.

Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD.  There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address.  What I'm saying is about the way they train.  If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA.  It's just a matter of brining a fighter closer to fight conditions.  Those are conditions I often don't see mimiced or prepared for in a TMA school.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.
> 
> It will open your eyes a bit.
> 
> THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.


The advantage of boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, and judo over many other schools or approaches of training is that they face off with a real, live, actively resisting opponent as a standard element of their training.  While steps are taken to minimize and reduce injuries -- they're hitting & getting hit, throwing and getting thrown for real.  It's a necessary stage in training if you want to really use the skills you're learning.

The danger of free sparring, as practiced by many people, is that they simple "rock & roll."  They don't try to make their learned techniques work under pressure; they just do something.  That's where one, two, three or more step sparring can be a great tool.  But it's not done as a simple ONE-TWO rhythmic exercise; that's only the first step in that sort of sparring.  Once the participants have a reasonable understanding of the basic exercise, they need to start changing it up.  Maybe don't signal the start of the "attack" or even vary the attack.  Change the pace; speed it up.  Don't be a static target for the defender... There's lots of things that can be done within that context to make the exercise more and more real.  That's what most people don't do...  They never move beyond the first step.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> no, this is my point.  There is something being held back, or else someone will go to the hospital or the morgue.  I'm not talking about competition.  I'm talking about self defense.
> 
> there will always be a gap between training, and reality, and the individual either is, or is not, able to jump that gap when the time comes.
> 
> Some training methods make that gap smaller, others not so much so.  But the gap always exists.



Well, yeah, but if you want to get as close as you can get then boxers/MMA types are in that zone. Most of us LE types will never get in a real gunfight, but good simulation training with airsoft/simunitions will get me pretty close. If fighting demands punching/kicking an opponent then I think that REALLY punching/kicking an opponent "held back" or not is the best training for it. Same thing for grappling over knives/guns etc.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 8, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And that's a point I try to keep in mind..........when we talk about different styles, and which is 'better', the first question is 'better at what?'.



+1.

I chose my martial art for many reasons. Effectiveness in a street fight is not at the top of the list. I am not saying that Ninpo is not a good fighting art, but it takes a hell of a lot longer to use it effectively than say boxing or muay thai.

In my case, it's a bit like practising japanese tea ceremony. By the time you're done, you are drinking a cup of tea, but if that was your main goal, then there are quicker ways to get to the same end result, which also don't take years to learn.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 8, 2009)

Okay, we seem to have gotten off track again... Let's see if we can wrap some of this up and get back to the thread topic itself, okay?

*Stac3y said: "In the study of literature, this is called "willing suspension of disbelief." ", *

*to which Archangel M replied: "I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit."*

This type of "willing suspension of disbelief" is exactly what we (in our schools) do use... we refer to it as "play-acting", in that the attacker responds with a realistic body shape as a result of a strike/kick/action delivered by the defender. And the seniors/instructors are on hand to ensure that a realistic response is what is given. In other words, when someone is grabbed by the throat (in say, a kick defence), the natural response is not to simply stand there and allow it, nor is it to start punching the defender (at least, not initially). The most common response, and primal survival instinct, is to remove the grabbing hand, so the students are guided to give this realistic response in order to assist the learning process for all involved.

The downside is when the reactions are not realistic. That benefits no-one, as, if the response is understated or non-existant, then the unconscious message given to both practitioners is that "this doesn't work!". If the reaction is overdone, or too exagerated, then it gives a very false sense of the effect of your abilities. This does take a fair bit of callibration, but works quite well when doen that way.

*Flying Crane then mentioned hitting a heavy bag, with the caveat that it is still a flawed method in that it has gaps.*

This I agree with completely. Striking a bag is incredibly good for power development and impact conditioning, however it is very different to having a real person in front of you, moving, and altering the distance and available targeting. This is only able to be practiced with a person in front of you... but, just so you know, this is not sparring I am talking about. We'll get to that.

*Archangel M then said: "I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion."*

The real benefit that MMA/Boxers have is that they are used to hitting and being hit. But what they are used to is hitting and being hit multiple times over a number of rounds, and that is simply not the way a fight goes. That said, I do agree that it is a very good idea for anyone who wants to be able to handle a real assault to get used to hitting and being hit, so boxing is often a first recommendation from me. However, what should be remembered is that boxing/MMA etc is geared towards competitive success, not self defence. The two are quite different.

*sgtmac_46 then said quite a bit, most of which I agree with or is alerady handled quite well, so I'll only deal with this part: "The kata serves the purpose of instilling the motion in the muscle memory.......that is true, and I am not really opposed to kata per se........it's useful so long as it's combined with realistic sparring."*

Well, now we get to something interesting: realistic sparring. In my opinion, sparring, as understood in most schools/dojos/kwoon/dojang is simply not realistic when it comes to street self defence. Now, before you all start yelling, here are some of my arguments as to why (from another of my posts in another thread... am I just quoting myself these days?):

"Sparring can be a great benefit, or a great hindrance. On the benefit side, you get used to the pace, speed, aggression, distance, and timing af a real person in front of you trying to hit/kick/throw/choke/arm-bar you (or hit with a weapon even, eg kendo, naginatado, arnis/kali, AMOK knife skills etc). You get a feel for the way you need to respond to an opponent, and can improve your speed, reflexes, and ability to "read" an opponents body and predict what they may come in with.

But there is a downside which can actually harm your ability to defend yourself. Sparring is a controlled way to experience a free-form of training, often with particular rules and restrictions. These rules and restrictions can develop into very dangerous habits which can leave you in (unsuspectingly) open to previously unconsidered attacks. 

For example, I know of a particular karate system which has as part of it's rules the requirement of the combatants to "allow" their opponent the chance to answer any strike they throw, rather than get in, hit, and get out. As I'm sure you can understand, if you develop the habit of "I hit you, you hit me", eventually, you will find someone who hits harder than you. This same system also teaches the habit that if you get knocked down, the opponent will let you get up. That doesn't really happen too often in real violent encounters.

You also have the idea of non- or light-contact sparring. To highlight this issue, and to counter those who will say "yes, but if it's real, I won't worry about the rules....", under stress, you will respond the way you have trained, and the way you believe (unconsciously) generates the most success. If you train for non-contact tournaments, and engage in non-contact tournaments, and experience success in such tournaments (even if you don't win the trophy), that will create a belief that it is powerful. Then, when you need it, you will do exactly as you have trained, and react in a non-contact manner. One of the wierdest things I have seen in the Martial Arts is a non-contact karate tournament (in France, if memory serves), in which a number of the participating groups had some bad blood between them. The tension erupted into a nearly 10 minute long brawl, in which there were almost no injuries at all. All the non-contact tournament fighters, very fast and accurate in their techniques, also trained ot pull their strikes. So, under pressure, they were very fast and accurate, and pulled their strikes. Try that when someone is attacking, and see how long it stops them.

That said, sparring in systems such as boxing, kick-boxing, muay thai, and others, can certainly help get you prepared for two of the most uncomfortable experiences for a martial artist: getting hit, and being able to give a hit. For that reason, if I am asked to recommend something to someone in order to get prepared to defend themselves in a hurry, I will often recommend boxing over pretty much anything else.

The last thing to remember in regard to sparring is that in sparring, you have no clear-cut attacker and defender, instead you have two aggressive opponents both trying to attack each other at the same time. You also have only one opponent, who is in front of you, and who will attack with recognizable, familiar techniques, rhythms, and combinations. There are constraints (referees, strikes with no grappling, grappling with no kicks, all-in unarmed [MMA] with no weapons, timed rounds, etc). This is completely different to a real attack, where there is a clear attacker and defender, there may be more than one, they may attack from any side or direction, they may attack with anything from any range, they may or may not have a weapon, and there is no referee to stop anything. In fact those watching may be the opponents friends, watching to see if you are gaining the upper hand, and may join in if you do. Very different from sparring in most ways.

There are some training methods that cover this ground, though. Go along to most Krav Maga schools, and a lot of RBSD seminars, and you will see it. Check out Geoff Thompsons DVDs, especially Animal Day. But really, it is just another expression of traditional martial art free-expression training, randori as seen in arts like Aikido, Classical Jujutsu, and Ninjutsu schools around the world (note, not randori as understood by Judoka, nor rolling as understood by BJJ practitioners, which is essentially the same thing)."

The traditional Japanese form of Randori mentioned at the end there involves a single defender, and one or more attackers who may or may not be armed (clear, defined attacker and defender, as in an assault). The attacker(s) then attack with anything from single, pre-arranged, slow attacks (for training purposes, and getting a student used to a mild form of chaos), through to unannounced, random, continuous attacks at full pace (a very realistic scenario, and much closer to a real fight than a regular "sparring" match). Against these attacks, the defender has a free-response, meaning that they can respond in any way they know how - the catch being that if their response is not deemed effective, then the attack continues. All of this comes out of the more old-school version of kata training that I have mentioned before, by the way.

Okay, that took a little while. Hopefully I made some sense to people out there, and we can get back to the whole "flashy, useless" thread that this is supposed to be.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 8, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> This type of "willing suspension of disbelief" is exactly what we (in our schools) do use... we refer to it as "play-acting", in that the attacker responds with a realistic body shape as a result of a strike/kick/action delivered by the defender.



What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm a huge proponent of sparring, coming from a Kyokushin background with some boxing and Muay Thai thrown in that's probably obvious, but having said this I also believe that hard sparring is not remotely the end all and be all of effective self-defense, nor does it discount the possible skills that can be beneficial in self-defense but that cannot be developed by sparring, or resistance drills alone.  Their are a number of skills that must be developed through repetition in other formats and _then_ need to be resistance tested, but if you only do sparring the muscle memory doesn't develop properly.  The use of kata or various types of forms don't exclude a need for sparring and they may or may not be used as a method of training some kind of self-defense skills, but without researching their appropriate, intended use you don't know how much usefulness they may or may not actually have.  Plenty of Kyokushin fighters have beaten Muay Thai fighters at their own game, does that mean that because Kyokushin fighters do kata then that doing kat makes better fighters?  Not necessarily.  But because you don't like forms or other 'traditional' training methods and don't see the apparent usefulness of them, does that make them useless?  Not necessarily.

A side thought, if walk into a MMA gym and get into a ring to practice stand up fighting and at the first kick to the body or head from my opponent I do a kick straight into the knee of his back leg and break it, does that mean I just trumped all argument for the effectiveness of Muay Thai?  Or does it just make me a complete dickhead for ignoring the *rules* of how Muay Thai is done, and hurting someone in a potentially life altering way for no good reason?  

There are *ALWAYS* rules to protect and limit the damage training partners sustain, regardless of style, and their are always limits to how those rules reflect self-defense in the street.  There are a variety of ways to pressure test (sparring being very effective, and preferred by me), there are a variety of skills that can be developed for effective use in self-defense and many can't be developed by sparring alone.  If you don't like a method, don't use it, but don't assume that because you don't see the practicality or usefulness of something that it just can't be there.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.


So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.


 
OK, tell me then. How do fights go down on the street? And how do you know this? How many fights have you witnessed, how many have you been involved in, and what kind of fights were they? Have you been taking notes, or keeping statistics?  Was it two kids on the playground? Were they two hot-heads facing off at the local balldiamond to fight over a bad umpire's call in a local league softball game? Were they two drunk fools in a bar who start swinging at each other over a perceived insult? Were they self-defense against a mugger or ne'er-do-well punk? Were they gang members jumping a rival? Was it a woman getting attacked by a possible rapist? What have you witnessed, and what have you been involved in that makes you able to make a blanket statement about how fights go down in the street? Because the way fights go down in the street is probably pretty unique to the situation.



> Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD. There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address. What I'm saying is about the way they train. If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA.


 
and how do you know that TMA schools DON"T train in a realistic way? Granted, poor schools of all kinds abound. There is no argument there. But I don't think you can lump all TMA schools together and say that the way they all train is poor, and they all ought to mimick MMA or Boxing schools.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of martial arts schools are teaching poor quality material, and poor quality skills. I think a lot of things have been watered down in pursuit of the mighty dollar, and a lot of integrity has been lost by a lot of schools and a lot of instructors.

But I don't think it is accurate to blame this on the arts themselves. The problem is that the arts are not being trained properly. Too many people have allowed standards to slip to lower and lower levels, this is very true. But that is not the fault of the arts. That is the fault of individuals with little integrity. The arts, and their PROPER training methods are very sound. If someone doesn't train up to proper standard, well that is another story altogether.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Their are a number of skills that must be developed through repetition in other formats and _then_ need to be resistance tested, but if you only do sparring the muscle memory doesn't develop properly. The use of kata or various types of forms don't exclude a need for sparring and they may or may not be used as a method of training some kind of self-defense skills, but without researching their appropriate, intended use you don't know how much usefulness they may or may not actually have.


 
I think this makes a very good point.

I do not believe that anybody here who is a kata proponent is suggesting that kata alone is the only thing that one needs to train, to be effective with their art.  All that the kata proponents suggest is that kata is one part of the greater picture.  It is an effective and worthwhile method of developing skills, but for full skill development other methods in addition to kata are necessary.  Some form of working with resisting opponents is necessary.  This can include sparring, and other methods as well.

I've said it before in the past, kata is clearly not imperative for developing martial skills.  Not everyone likes it, not everyone uses it.  That's fine.

But for those who understand the proper role of kata, it is a very effective method.  

Different strokes for different folks.  Just because you may not like kata, don't assume kata is worthless for everyone.

Likewise, just because you may like kata, don't assume everyone needs or should want to do it.

And just because you may feel you have figured out an effective way to train, don't assume that everyone needs to train just like you in order to also be effective.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2009)

MJS said:


> I was reading a thread on another forum, about Ed Parker, and how some were wondering if he taught things, on purpose, that had no meaning, leaving it to the students to figure it out for themselves.


 
I've heard that notion expressed as well.  I never met the man, so I'm in no position to be an authority on the subject.  But personally, I've got my doubts.  It just seems like such an detrimental thing to do.  I sort of feel that if you've agreed to teach someone, you teach them properly.  I dunno.  Maybe he was teaching a bunch of people he felt were loosers, so instead of turning them away, he taught them wrong.  Seems underhanded to me.  I think it's ethically and morally wrong to take money from someone as a fee to teach them, and then deliberately teach them wrong.  So I just find this hard to believe that he would have done that.



> There is stuff in Kenpo that I'm not crazy about and yes people say that its probably because I dont have a good understanding of it, and that may be true. I still teach it because others may have luck with it. I find what works for me, and train the hell out of it.


 
sure, but does kenpo as a whole get written off, based on the fact that not everyone can make every single technique work?  It seems to me that sometimes people like to write off TMAs based on the notion that it's all flowery, stylized, cultural carryovers with little of value.  It's way too much of a blanket statement.  It's simply not true.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 8, 2009)

Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO.  So, I've seen and/or been part of my share.  From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.

The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings.  That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree. 

That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods.  And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 8, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> That's where one, two, three or more step sparring can be a great tool.  But it's not done as a simple ONE-TWO rhythmic exercise; that's only the first step in that sort of sparring.  Once the participants have a reasonable understanding of the basic exercise, they need to start changing it up.  Maybe don't signal the start of the "attack" or even vary the attack.  Change the pace; speed it up.  Don't be a static target for the defender... There's lots of things that can be done within that context to make the exercise more and more real.  That's what most people don't do...  They never move beyond the first step.



This is, I think, a point that is often overlooked.  Too many people practice step-sparring as memorized sets, learned as testing requirements, and do nothing else with them.  If done correctly, step sparring should be used as a vehicle to create and practice new sparring combinations in a situation in which techniques can be experimented with, to improve understanding of application, singly and in combination.  That's why, once past basic 3-step, I don't teach my students step sparring sets - only the rules for step sparring at each level.  Then they have to experiment and find what works best for each of them, individually, instead of performing a pattern while facing another person.  Patterns (kata, tul, whatever) are, IMHO, very valuable - and step sparring is the next step on from there, moving on to free sparring after that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO. So, I've seen and/or been part of my share. From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.
> 
> The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings. That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree.
> 
> That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods. And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.


 
a fair enough perspective.

But I still hold with my position that it's not the TMAs themselves that are lacking, but rather the quality of the training in many schools. But improving on quality of training does not need to mean mimicking a MMA school or boxing gym, altho I wouldn't be surprised if there are some commonalities. 

And that in no way detracts from what the MMA schools and boxing gyms are doing. The success (or failure) of one has no bearing on the success (or failure) of the other. They can both provide excellent results, depending on what you are looking for.

I think these debates often sort of turn into an assertion that because MY art is good, therefore YOUR art is no good. I just don't think we need to fall into that trap. They can BOTH be good, or BOTH be bad. It really depends on quality of training. It's often not an overt assertion, but I think it sort of creeps into the subconscious of the debate.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 8, 2009)

I'd concur.  I'd also concur that the defining factor of the product of a gym is probably first and foremost the instruction and the focus of the school as a whole.  I'll grant you that.  I still feel that some arts are better suited for certain things, but that's another thread altogether.

A lot of subconscious creep does tend to infiltrate these sorts of discussions for sure.  I still think, that despite that risk, they can be useful and are worth re-hashing from time to time.

My experience is from adopting MMA, MT, and boxing type drills into SD stuff for realism.  That does not mean it's the only way, just the way I've found.


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2009)

Kacey said:


> In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal:  fighting proficiency.  And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't.  For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.
> 
> Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements.  That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.
> 
> In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities:  if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me.  Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.


I hope it's  clear from my posts that I agree with this.  I've said repeatedly in this thread and in others that if the process is what's important, than more power to you.  If training efficiency is the goal, I don't think *kata is the best way to it.  *kata meaning how everyone on this board but Chris Parker define the term, meaning the forms/poomsae/kata/solo patterns performed in many different martial arts.

Getting back to the question at hand, though... are they outdated?   I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading your thoughts in this post.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 9, 2009)

blindsage said:


> So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?


 
Do you even semi-regularly try to punch someone who is REALLY trying to punch you? 

If you "fake" punch people in sparring and thats the only experience you have with fighting you are going to be in for a BIG shock....


----------



## Carol (Jul 9, 2009)

blindsage said:


> So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?



It happens, when you spar without pads.  Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)

If you're hitting hard enough for some bruising to occur, you're going to get socked in the face, even if you're avoiding one another's head.   Your opponent  makes a high attack (perhaps targeting the brachial plexus), he zigs while you duck and you get unintentionally smacked in the face.  You think you taste blood, it hurts like hell, disorients the **** out of you, and makes you wonder why you actually pay for this crap.  It sucks.  But it was still important.

My own lesson?  I decided to move towards training with weapons after getting clocked in the face and seeing a slight off-color bruise well up to the surface the next day.  That frigging hurt. The sting that didn't go away for several days.  But it was a painful lesson in how easily I could be overcome...even dudes with no training could do far worse to me if they wanted.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.


 
Hi Archangel M, 

Well, the "realistic responses" are based on a number of things... in part, experience (both first-hand, and from other instructors/seniors, as well as listening to people who have "been there and done that"), observation (and things such as youtube have been quite informative once you can sift the wheat from the chaff), simple understanding of human reactions (which in a fight, due to different adrenaline kicking off a different part of the brain as well as other factors, can be very different to the reaction you get from accidentally clocking a training partner), and just plain common sense. When you hit someone, they do not just stand there waiting for your next strike (as in a large number of demos I see still), they move, ususally either aggressively (as you seem to, Archangel), or defensively (ranging from stepping back, removing a grabbing hand, attempting to retain a weapon, covering up, or cowering).

This does not mean we go around hitting people to see what happens, but as mature martial arts instructors, we feel that it is our duty to understand the realities of a violent encounter, and that is part of what I am addressing above. Hope that helps.

Oh, and Stevebjj, thanks for singling me out there. Just giving a wider definition of the term there, for what it's worth, BJJ uses a kata method too, they just don't call it that... Oh, and I agree that that is the common version of kata that most people are thinking of, I just wanted to add a bit to increase the thought patterns...


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.


 


Flying Crane said:


> That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it. You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.
> 
> This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real. But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it. That's more of a mental thing, I think. I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous. You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.


 


Archangel M said:


> I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.
> 
> It will open your eyes a bit.
> 
> THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.


 
I agree with both of you here.  On one hand, as FC said, we can't beat the **** out of our training partners every time, otherwise we're going to run out of people to train with.  Then again, if you don't condition yourself to some hard contact, you're probably going to be in for a rude awakening.  But there is still that fine line, due to the fact that even with gear, its not going to be the same as a barehanded strike.  I can get hit in the face and head, and I have, with headgear on, and its rocked me, to the point where the 'lights' started dimming a bit.  The headgear saved me a little I'm sure, but I still had the effects of a hard hit.

IMO, I think this is where alot of people get confused...they do flashy, point sparring type moves all the time, never really mixing it up with harder contact.  Personally I'd rather train for what I'm more likely to encounter, but then again, to each his own.


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2009)

Kacey said:


> In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal: fighting proficiency. And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't. For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.
> 
> Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements. That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.
> 
> In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities: if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me. Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.


 
Good points, and if I havent hinted at this in this particular thread, I know I've mentioned it in others, the fact that everyone trains for a different reason.  Of course, in a way, this may take away, slightly, from those that are more serious about their training.  In other words, say I'm partnered up with someone who is just training for weight loss and something to do after work.  Are they going to understand my needs and give me a  realistic feel to my training, or will they be stuck in their mindset?  This is why I often find myself saying that those who're not into serious SD, should seek another activity, but that wouldn't be anymore fair to them, than if I said that someone who goes to a gym should be serious about exercise instead of meeting new people.  Then again, most people who workout at a gym are there for the purpose of working out, losing weight, etc., not tea time, so flip that back around to martial arts training, and my point becomes easier to understand.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 9, 2009)

> *kata meaning how everyone on this board but Chris Parker define the term, meaning the forms/poomsae/kata/solo patterns performed in many different martial arts.


 
 Here you go:&#22411; here it is in Hiragana:&#12363;&#12383;. Christ is correct concerning what the word means. It means Shape,Model,Mold,Form. It does not mean solo pattern. It is like taking clay and forming it into a bowl.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 9, 2009)

Thanks, Jadecloud, I feel that is understood, but the use of the term by most here is the more common interpretation... but we know the truth, right?

And it's not necessarily a bad thing that that is the (dominantly) only way it is used by most here. It keeps a common understanding amongst people. I was simply attempting to show a deeper aspect to the word. That's all.


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> It happens, when you spar without pads. Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)
> quote]
> 
> We spar with pads, but I've still had my nose flattened a couple of times (once with boxing gloves by a very large man--my nose doubled in size within minutes), have blacked someone's eye, kicked someone's contact lens into pieces, have knocked people down and been knocked down, have been kicked in the chin with RingStar shoes....I've got half a dozen nasty bruises right now, in fact. I've also been randomly punched in the face while in a crowd and had my hair yanked back by a stranger hard enough to knock me down. Have been threatened with a knife (I knocked the guy down with a punch to the throat) and grabbed unexpectedly from behind (turned out to be a friend who did that, but I did significant damage to him before I realized it.)
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 9, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> The other thing I've observed is that most people I've seen get in fights are just lousy fighters. They don't have good aim or power. Most of the fights I've seen involve one guy (it's almost always a guy) either grabbing the other guy's shirt or pushing him, then a couple of poorly aimed punches, maybe they fall down and roll around some....not a lot of damage done to anything but someone's pride. Once in a while you'll see a really good punch thrown, but not that often. Of course, my experience of this is mainly at high schools and bars, or in crowds at public events--these aren't diabolical criminals out to murder somebody.


 
I don't tend to hang around in places where I get into fights, and when trouble is brewin' I am usually able to talk around it or otherwise make myself absent.  So in some 25 years of martial arts training, I've never really needed to use it on anyone for real.

But what you say here certainly has the ring of truth.  I think a lot of fights are a lot of bluff, and people don't really know what they are doing.  Just the other day a coworker of mine told me about an encounter that she witnessed, right outside our office building.  Seems a jogger and a bicylist had some sort of altercation, they were throwing punches, rolling around on the ground, and finally they got up and the jogger jogged on his way and the other guy got on his bike and rode away.  Nobody really got hurt.

There are dangerous people out there.  But I think there's a lot of bluff out there too and the streets aren't so dangerous as perhaps we want to believe.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 9, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> I was thinking about this topic last night, and I wonder what the rest of you think about this: the couple of times I have used aggressive self defense techniques (the two mentioned above, and one or two others), they have worked very well, and I didn't have to think about them; I just did them--wasn't even conscious of deciding to do them. My body just took over. But I had never practiced them at full speed or with seriously resisting attackers before. It was like the adrenaline focused me, rather than paralyzing me.


 
Personally, I think this is an example of how other training methods can also be effective.  You don't need to mimick a MMA gym to be able to effectively defend yourself.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jul 9, 2009)

I've read through most of the responses here.  But I'm going to try and take a step back from them and reply in a more general sense.

What allows unrealistic and "flashy" technique to insinuate itself into a system is the fact that the system loses its reality check.  And the room left over for flash is directly related to the quality of the style's reality check.

People often say that "style X" must be good because it was used on the battlefield hundreds of years ago.  But the logic of that idea is predicated on one of three ideas:

1) It's _still_ being used on the battlefield, and therefore still subject to constant realism testing.

2) Despite the fact that it's no longer being used on the battlefield, NOTHING has changed in the way the style is taught, trained, or tested.

3) The system, as taught for the battlefield, worked equally well for all individuals.  A hundred soldiers went out, all using the same system, and they all came back.  Owing to the system.  

In reality, it seems far more likely that people lived and died based on where they were standing, what they were wearing, blind luck, etc.  Battles seldom come down to the prowess of one lone soldier.

Fast forward a few centuries.  Look at modern boxing.  There's relatively little flash in modern boxing (though not NONE; plenty of showboating in the ring).  Because the ring will very quickly sort out who's got solid technique and who doesn't.

Does that make boxing automatically better?  Not necessarily (though I'm a fan of it as a martial art).  Because the reality check is limited to a particular ruleset.  And it can only serve to check those realities included in that ruleset.  Same is true regardless of how inclusive your ruleset is (e.g., MMA).  Some things will fall inside the reality check.  Other things won't.

As an example, we don't really have any better reason to believe that the current UFC champ would be able to survive multiple knife-wielding attackers than we do to believe that anyone else would.  His reality check doesn't really allow for that possibility.

Does that mean that Chuck Liddell wouldn't stand a chance?  Not really.  As someone else wisely mentioned, there's always a gap between reality and training.  Training is ALWAYS an abstraction.  You can try different training methods emphasizing different qualities.  But at the end of the day, you're still "triangulating" the truth.  Not looking right at it.

Besides, the broadest reality checks (e.g., real fights) usually encompass so many variables that they're difficult to reproduce with any confidence anyway.  Disarming one drunken assailant swinging a broken beer bottle around doesn't necessarily mean you're "all set" for next time.



Stuart


----------



## blindsage (Jul 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Do you even semi-regularly try to punch someone who is REALLY trying to punch you?
> 
> If you "fake" punch people in sparring and thats the only experience you have with fighting you are going to be in for a BIG shock....


Soooo....yes or no?  

As to your question, yes.  I never said anything about "fake" punching.  My background is in Kyokushin training, I've been hit hard plenty of times and hit back hard plenty of times.  And despite the no-head-shot-punching in Kyokushin training it still happens, both to me and by me, and with some boxing and Muay Thai as well, yes.

And with that training I'm of the firm opinion that you cannot go full out (and hard contact fighters rarely do) in training 99% of the time.  It's not practical.  Injuries occur way to frequently (as per the point of hitting full out).  IMHO, you need realistic drills with resistance relative to the skill level of the student, plus sparring with medium to heavy contact, _and _other non-contact skill development practice.  And you can get this in any style, if you find an instructor that teaches that way.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> It happens, when you spar without pads. Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)
> 
> If you're hitting hard enough for some bruising to occur, you're going to get socked in the face, even if you're avoiding one another's head. Your opponent makes a high attack (perhaps targeting the brachial plexus), he zigs while you duck and you get unintentionally smacked in the face. You think you taste blood, it hurts like hell, disorients the **** out of you, and makes you wonder why you actually pay for this crap. It sucks. But it was still important.
> 
> My own lesson? I decided to move towards training with weapons after getting clocked in the face and seeing a slight off-color bruise well up to the surface the next day. That frigging hurt. The sting that didn't go away for several days. But it was a painful lesson in how easily I could be overcome...even dudes with no training could do far worse to me if they wanted.


Sure, of course this happens, but what your talking about is not regurlarly just decking the hell out of each other full contact in the face with no pads.


----------



## bowser666 (Jul 9, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Good question and the answer is yes.  There are solo drills and body weight exercises that also teach muscle memory.  [/FONT][/COLOR]



Last time I checked isn't a kata/form, a solo drill ?  LOL, you guys keep talking in circles and basically keep trying to hammer your argument into each other's heads. Just give up already. People train in all different kind of ways.  Go with whatever works best for you I say. There doesn't have to be one better way or the other. Do what is best for YOU !!!  

Steve - It seems like you are more anti-form/kata , because the art you study requires a partner to practice things on.  in fact it relies heavily on that. A student can practice tons of applications, and utilize forms for much more which si why I feel they are advantageous. Let's face it , trying to train BJJ with no partner is like training Kendo with no sword ever.   

Other arts do not have to completely rely on having a training partner for all the training.  Yes a training partner is a MUST in order to apply what you learn and practice for effectiveness but there is alot of training that can be done solo. 


To get back on the point of the O.P.  I do feel that forms/katas are a leave behind from a historical/cultural background. From my limited understanding forms were designed as tools for memorization, excercise/conditioning, and also to be disguised as non-combat. Its just another way to remember things. It is also a good way to help preserve a style. Same way you pass along stories, this is how you pass along your art. Forms/kata, provide the foundation, and with proper instruction can be applied. None of this is new to any of us on the forums here.

If you train a different way that is your right.  People should just simply say, Hi my name is X , and I train this way , it works for me, but may not work for others, i wanted to share my training methods in case it helps any of you in your MA journey.  Take it or leave it.  These mine is better than your posts need to stop.  MT is supposed to be above that, and this place is turning more and more into YouTube style debates.


----------



## bowser666 (Jul 9, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Yes, there is always a difference between actual fight conditions and training.  The question is how well your training is preparing you for that transition.
> 
> For my money, the schools that are training their stuff more along the lines of MMA methodology are more apt to be ready that what is normally thought of as TMA.  Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.
> 
> Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD.  There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address.  What I'm saying is about the way they train.  If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA.  It's just a matter of brining a fighter closer to fight conditions.  Those are conditions I often don't see mimiced or prepared for in a TMA school.



This post makes no sense to me ?  Um MMA is sport fighting , where is the SD application aside from , SD for the sake of countering and escaping techniques that are allowed in the ring.  Notice there are tons of things that are NOT allowed.  Do they train for those as well ?  My guess would be no ?  Every fight interview I have ever seen , they typically train against their expected opponent, and have a working knowledge of their skillset.  Not so in a street "real life" SD situation.


----------



## bowser666 (Jul 9, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO.  So, I've seen and/or been part of my share.  From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.
> 
> The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings.  That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree.
> 
> That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods.  And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.



I must ask another question , what TMA are you referring to you, from where are you getting this basis ?  Did you train in various TMA and this is what you  directly saw ?  I have noticed that alot of bias people are quick to bash something that they don't really know about, and only think that what they do is the best. I do understand that there are alot of bad schools out there  McDojo's that basically train you to regurgitate material and thats it, no application taught etc........  There are however alot of TMA schools that do it right as well. 

I just wanted to see what your personal experience was in your training, what you have tried, what worked, what didnt etc.....   If all you have ever done is train in a MMA gym, then its pretty wrong to make presumptive statements about other MA styles that you may not know anything about.

I also wanted to add that your assertion to MMA methods looking closer to reality ?  Since when is reality a octagon cage, with a referee watching to stop the fight at any moment, with friends/trainer in your corner shouting pointers? Unless you go everywhere with this entourage how is that training for reality ?  Last time I was in a realistic self defense situation ( defending myself from a drunken moron at a bar) I did not see anyone shouting pointers from my corner, nor was there a referee to break it up if it got out of hand. Sorry but i found that statement quite amusing.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 9, 2009)

I was referring to the actual nature of the conflict.  People get so caught up in the trappings of different things they forget to actually consider what fights look like.  And, again, based solely on my experience, fights tend to look more like ugly MMA bouts than they do any sort of TMA exercises.

For instance: me and mope all tied on one another, up against the wall of his living room striking and looking for advantage is way closer to what you'll see in an MMA bout than a typical karate sparring match.  Just sayin.

Someone above made a good point, despite the trappings and posturing that goes with the ring, it definatly showcases skills once people step in.

I've earned BB rank in a couple of kempo based systems.  However, I can't say they were "traditional" in the sense most people thing of.  No kata, big focus on SD, ect.  During that time, I've come across plenty of trad trained individual.  Yes, I've met some good ones, I've never said I didn't.  I'm just pointing out how people might come to assign the OP's descriptors.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jul 9, 2009)

bowser666 said:


> This post makes no sense to me ? Um MMA is sport fighting , where is the SD application aside from , SD for the sake of countering and escaping techniques that are allowed in the ring. Notice there are tons of things that are NOT allowed. Do they train for those as well ? My guess would be no ? Every fight interview I have ever seen , they typically train against their expected opponent, and have a working knowledge of their skillset. Not so in a street "real life" SD situation.


 
I think there was a baby in that bathwater, mate.

Where's the SD application?  People don't punch in fights anymore?  

MMA is clearly not an accurate model of all the things that can happen in a fight.  But fights can and do include punching, kicking, knees, elbows, throws, and grappling.  So being good at MMA is as reasonable a preparation as any for tackling _those possibilities_.

Here's why I'm so adamant about the "all training is an abstraction" idea: Everyone has rules.  You may not call them rules.  You may not have a ref.  But the fact is that, spoken or no, everyone trains with a common understanding of what's on and what's not.  Which is precisely why, regardless of how permissive our style of choice is, very few of us have _actually_ gouged anyone in the eye or elbowed anyone in the throat.  We've pulled strikes to those targets, sure.  But how is that any less an abstraction than sport martial arts' limitations on targets?  Why is it any easier for us to bridge the void in terms of use of force than it is for the boxer to aim a few inches lower and land his jab right on someone's adam's apple?

To me, the MMA =/= SD argument is inherently flawed.  Nothing is SD but SD.  And we're fooling ourselves if we say that tossing controlled shots at vital targets is comparable to the actual act of crushing those targets.  

None of it's real.  It's all approximate.  And it's appropriately humbling to keep that in the forefront of our consciousness.


Stuart


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 10, 2009)

Well, we've managed to get from "Do some martial art systems have flashy methods which are not useful, and is that a fair criticism?" to "Is kata really useful?" now through to "Is MMA realistic?". Hmm. Okay, I've tackled the others, I'll have a go at this latest aspect as well.

The way I see it, MMA is a very different approach to street defence. That is not to say that it cannot, or will not help you should you find yourself in a bad situation, just that that is not what it's purpose is, and that should be recognised (a few of the more insightful here are already more than aware from the looks of things here, so I ask you to bear with me as we go through this once more).

To give an idea of the difference in what the two ideas train for, here is me from another thread:

Remember that anything that starts with a referee in a ring, no matter how "no-holds-barred" it is, is not real fighting as you would encounter on the street. It is simply competition, and that is a very different environment with very different needs.

"The timeline between a real fight and a MMA bout is very different, and if you are training for one, then you are not training fof the other. In an MMA bout, you have any number of years of general preparation (your regular training), usually between 4-6 weeks specific preparation (training for a known upcoming fight, typically a known opponent who you can study form their tapes and records, and train for the expected techniques and excapes/defences), a pre-fight experience (getting to the ring, the ref's anouncements etc, usually getting a hit of adrenaline here already as your body prepares), the fight itself lasts in most cases for up to 15 minutes, broken into 3 x 5 minute rounds, with 2 minute breaks inbetween (this gives you an adrenaline rush, five minutes of very intensive activity, then a break in which you get an endorphine release, then a second adrenaline hit and repeat), finally followed by a very managed post-fight experience (with the trainers and physios to manage any physical injuries, as well as the come-down from the multiple adrenaline hits).

To compare that with a real violent encounter, the tmeline is usually something like this: Any amount of time in general preparation (like the general prep of an MMA fighter, except that the MMA fighter can limit his general prep to techniques and tactics that are within the defined parameters of his competition, whereas the street defence student cannot know exactly what they may encounter, so the general prep needs to cover as many different conditions as possible; striking, grappling, weapons, multiple opponents, ambush, intuition, talk-down [de-escalation], and much more), 0-60 seconds specific preparation (let's face it, the first warning most people are aware of that they are in a fight is "why does my nose hurt, and why am I bleeding?", so if you are aware enough to realise that someone is about to launch an attack [hit them first, for crying out loud!], you get very limited time to prepare for their attack [which is still unknown], their body type, and any other piece of information you may glean), 0 seconds - a few minutes of pre-fight (yelling, puching, or even your opponent feigning a lack of aggression to open you to a sucker-punch), the fight itself (which is typically from 3 to 10 seconds, sometimes longer, but typically not, and during which you will get a HUGE adrenaline rush, so it'll help if you've experienced adrenaline training as well), and then the post-fight (diring which you need to manage any injuries, the surrounding environment [does he have friends that are about to start something as well?], the security and police, any legal repercussions, and the endorphin release after the adrenaline burst, as well as getting home safely... just a note on this post-fight, after one encounter, I had to ask someone if they knew the number for the police. In Australia it is 000, I couldn't remember that at all. My mind simply shut down), which could last up to years, particularly the legal and emotional aspects."

Now, as I said, I am not suggesting that MMA training will not help, I do believe it will to a fair degree, but it is certainly not the be-all end-all that some proponents make it out to be. And, along with all other visual competitive mediums, there will still be a degree of "flash" here (although not quite as much as in a typical WWE bout... ), and it's usefulness is only relative to it's purpose. If they are flashy to get the crowd onside, then it could be incredibly useful. But if it is to attempt an overly complicated combination which results in the competitor telegraphing every movement and getting knocked out with a simple counter, then maybe no. Hey, what do you know, back on topic!


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jul 10, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, we've managed to get from "Do some martial art systems have flashy methods which are not useful, and is that a fair criticism?" to "Is kata really useful?" now through to "Is MMA realistic?". Hmm. Okay, I've tackled the others, I'll have a go at this latest aspect as well.
> 
> The way I see it, MMA is a very different approach to street defence. That is not to say that it cannot, or will not help you should you find yourself in a bad situation, just that that is not what it's purpose is, and that should be recognised (a few of the more insightful here are already more than aware from the looks of things here, so I ask you to bear with me as we go through this once more).
> 
> ...


Here's the problem though: You can't set this tone in your post that says *heavy sigh* "here we go again" and then proceed to debate something that nobody is currently saying. I'm certainly not saying that MMA is the same thing as SD. And I think I made that clear. I'm saying that there's crossover. If it were a Venn diagram, you wouldn't have two totally separate circles.

I think we're basically in agreement on this.  But these debates always seem to settle in along party lines anyway.  To whatever degree I end up doing that, my apologies in advance.

The chief objection seems to be that MMA doesn't accurately model reality. And, as I said, nothing does. You come from an art that makes extensive use of weapons. So do I. Have you ever accurately modeled the experience of getting hit with a sword? Or of hitting someone else with a sword? Or crushing someone's windpipe? Or any of the other things that we could point at and say "see how much more our system of choice addresses?"

As for the original question about flash, I think a discussion of how flash manifests itself is both logical and pertinent. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that there's flash in MMA. You don't become the most popular fighter without inciting the crowd's imagination and awe. Taking someone out with a spinning back kick will have people talking for a good long while. So yes, MMA is an imperfect model of utilitarianism. There's certainly an entertainment element to it. 

At the same time, when you see Georges St. Pierre beautifully slip a jab-cross combination and flow seamlessly into a double-leg takedown against a highly trained and conditioned combat athlete, I personally don't have too much trouble believing he could do likewise against a less trained and conditioned aggressor. Nor do I think that said aggressor is likely to have the takedown defense of a world-class UFC competitor, so that Pierre would be unlikely to have to get into a prolonged grappling match on the ground when he could just as readily drop the guy through a coffee table.

We can't have it both ways. We can't, on the one hand, say that MMA doesn't model reality and then, on the other, insist that any MMA fighter who got into a real-life dustup would approach it _exactly_ the way they'd approach a match in the aforementioned unrealistic model. This people are professional fighters. Not automatons.

Now, I know you didn't say that MMA would be useless.  Just as I didn't say that MMA would be the do-all, end-all.  (Which would be pointless for me to say, given that I don't even train in MMA)  At the same time, I hope that between us, we can present a fairly balanced look at the merits and limitations of the MMA model.


Stuart


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Stuart,

Actually, I agree completely with you, and didn't mean to infer that I didn't. I was just adding my take on the new corner the thread had taken, more for others reading than for those who had commented in regard to MMA here... And all I meant by the beginning of my post was that we had continued to drift from the original topic again...

There are some around who have the feeling that MMA is the answer to street defence, so this was my addition to the pros and cons, and the differences between the methods. So, yes, I feel that, as you put it "At the same time, I hope that between us, we can present a fairly balanced look at the merits and limitations of the MMA model."

Good to hear from you again.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jul 10, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Stuart,
> 
> Actually, I agree completely with you, and didn't mean to infer that I didn't. I was just adding my take on the new corner the thread had taken, more for others reading than for those who had commented in regard to MMA here... And all I meant by the beginning of my post was that we had continued to drift from the original topic again...
> 
> ...


 
Good to hear from you too, Chris.  Your point about topic drift is well taken.  As well as your points about relative newbies to this debate and that segment of the population who _do_ maintain that MMA is the answer to all questions.

I'm just glad that it's possible to sift through some of that stuff and get to something more useful.  Thanks very much for that.


Stuart


----------



## Omar B (Jul 10, 2009)

Great points you guys.  I've had talks with guys who are of the MMA ilk who look down their noses at karate.  They'll say things like "It's all style" or "it'll never help you on the street."  Completely blanking out the fact that it is created for that.  I think the MMA blinders have people thinking that because you can learn the MT curriculum and have some fluency within a few weeks you'll become some sort of fighting superman.  Fact is, if you are not squared up face to face with the guy from the begining of the conflict you are at a distinct disadvantage.  Where in karate we break holds, fight out of multipe attacker situations.  They see kata as useless, I see it as a tool for dealing with groups.


----------

