All martial arts are ruined by their hubris

[Gerry Seymour]

Edit: I can almost guarantee most traditional styles wont let me fight how i want to fight, eg if i say i want to do vertical punches (which we all know i am fond of now) they will provably be non comprising given it might not be taught to low belts and isnt in Patterns.
Covertly and with pad/sparring i might have more luck as i have done a pad session with vertical punches with little complaint, Instructor either didnt know (more likely) or care.

I will get back to you when i start going again and see how well it goes wanting to the type of punch i want to do. Overtly say i want to do X punch and not Y. Perfectly fine if they complain about my technique though.

That depends upon the instructor's approach. If you came to me, I'd make you do it the way I teach while I'm teaching it - because my job is to teach you that method. But in sparring, I don't care, unless you're dodging weak areas (someone from TKD would be required to use their hands, not their kicks). If a student didn't want to do those things early in their training, they aren't really interested in learning what I can teach, so I'm probably not much use to them. Later in their training, I'm far less concerned with whether they use methods I teach or something they learned elsewhere.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unfortunately most martial arts students don't have the opportunity to practice their techniques regularly against skilled practitioners of other martial arts. Still, there are things an instructor can do to maximize the chance that their students can generalize their skills for application against a wide range of opponents.

One very important component is of this process is regular sparring/free-form exercises where participants are not forced to limit themselves to a particular style of movement. Every drill has rules imposed for the sake of safety or focusing on a particular skillset (grappling only, striking only, striking and takedowns with no groundwork, groundwork only, no gouging the eyes, whatever). Within those boundaries, participants should be able to try whatever works for them. If your sparring partner throws a boxing punch or a karate punch or a wing chun punch or an untrained brawlers punch, it's your job to deal with it. "He didn't throw the right kind of punch" is not an excuse for being hit.

One side effect of engaging in this type of training regularly is that practitioners learn to instinctively apply principles rather than just executing memorized techniques that depend on an opponent moving in a particular stylized way.

Another is that instructors will be familiar with the most common movement patterns of untrained individuals as well as those typical of more skilled fighters.

I've been fortunate enough to have the experience of grappling and/or sparring with wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, capoeristas, karateka, wing chunners, boxers, samboists, MMA fighters, nak muay, aikidoka, power lifters, football players, completely untrained people, and many more. When teach new students, I don't start them out with "this is a counter to such-and-such a specialized BJJ technique." Instead I start them out with common situations and attacks that they might encounter from an untrained fighter and I show them highly generalizable moves which will work not only against these untrained attacks but also more sophisticated , trained versions. I emphasize the principles that make the techniques work so that when they have to modify the defense for a different attack it makes sense and isn't just memorization.

As usual, we'll said, Tony

I'll add that most of us have people training with us who have some other experience. I like to encourage them to bring that to the table in specific situations, so other students (and I) get a chance to work against whatever it is. I don't care if it's karate, boxing, jujutsu, wrestling, fencing, etc. - so long as they can bring it with control.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I tell my students over and over again. The fundamental requirement for any throw is that you compromise your opponent's structure without compromising your own in the process. The same applies to sweeps, joint locks, and just about everything else in jiu-jitsu.

And I'm surprised by how often I see this not taught in my own primary art. It's probably the most important principle of grappling, whether standing or ground.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand that the drills are to teach my technique. But the drills also train other things - such as timing, distance, and reactions. Doing the drill for a one-step punch I learn to see the haymaker, and my eyes get practice tracking the punch on the way in.

What I'm not getting out of these drills is how to track and time punches coming from the other side, or how to track different punches. And if I start learning to track that when I need it, then I'm going to get hit in the face. It's a lot better if that experience comes from drills or sparring than from a real fight or a match.



Unfortunately there's not a lot of time to do that while I'm in class. That's the issue I have.



I'm saying that if I don't do the technique right and my partner has an opening, they will capitalize on it. So I am learning to correctly compromise your structure, because if I don't, I will lose.

I think the issue isn't the drills you cite, but those you don't (because they are missing, most likely). As with other issues, this may be mainly a problem of staying on the starter drill too long, and omitting the next step.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hes my role model.




Skimmed over this orginally but: I was reading up on Bartitsu,and the main justification of him teaching kicking* (at the time was throwned upon by who he was aiming to teach mainly) is so, you are a good partner to teach kick defences and counters with (and secondly and lesser point, so you can kick if you need to as they might not play by your rules )

Just a tidbit i know and ,might explain some things in martial arts also. ( i granted look over this and forget that as a possible reason for anything in any martial art)

* Apparantly

One of the reasons I teach non-traditional punching early in my curriculum is to build better uke.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry. Skribs had started another thread on stages of learning, where I posted a link to an explaination of the Shu-Ha-Ri method. This is what many Japanese arts use to transmit the art to new people.

Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai

Basically, the Shu stage is where you copy. This is learning the katas or forms. The Ha stage is where you diverge from the kata and start to make it your own. The process of learning how and where to diverge as well as why, is the important bit, as it helps you understand better your art. Ri is where you throw away the kata.

I find that way too many people are stuck just copying and never knowing exactly what it is they are copying. Too many think that the kata/forms are the art as opposed to the kata/forms being the method of transmitting the art. More specifically, they are the material for the Shu stage, for people to copy, as a beginner.

I've never heard those term (we don't use a lot of Japanese), but I've seen that progression, as well as the lack of it. I get grouchy when I see an instructor in what I now can refer to as the shu stage. Even some with advanced rank.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long. And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through. When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.

So it's not that I'm not learning. It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.

There is time for it. I couldn't run through my curriculum at most levels in less than 4-5 hours, but I don't ever try to do it in a single session, so that doesn't matter. It just takes a lot of classes to get in the curriculum, plus the drills and free time needed to reach that next level. I was always slow moving through the ranks, because I rarely used free time in class to prep for a test, which would have replicated what was being covered in the structured time. It's all about how the classes are structured.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long. And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through. When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.

So it's not that I'm not learning. It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.

There is time for it. I couldn't run through my curriculum at most levels in less than 4-5 hours, but I don't ever try to do it in a single session, so that doesn't matter. It just takes a lot of classes to get in the curriculum, plus the drills and free time needed to reach that next level. I was always slow moving through the ranks, because I rarely used free time in class to prep for a test, which would have replicated what was being covered in the structured time. It's all about how the classes are structured.

I can't even imagine the time it would take to go through the full curriculum of everything I teach. Even just demonstrating everything would take hours. Actually drilling enough reps for meaningful practice would take days.

My preferred approach for structuring a class is to cover just 2 or 3 techniques, drill them for a while, do some sort of live drill (sparring or otherwise) which gives students an opportunity to attempt those techniques in context, then do some troubleshooting to address issues students had in making things work against an uncooperative partner.

 

[O'Malley]

And I'm surprised by how often I see this not taught in my own primary art. It's probably the most important principle of grappling, whether standing or ground.

Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:

"I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido."

He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.

 

[now disabled]

Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:

"I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido."

He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.

That would have been a good session or seminar .... was it an original Iwama shihan ? as I don't know of any that Saito awarded 8th dan to (yes I know the ranks were all done thru the Aikikai one of mine is ) I can think of one or two that may hold that rank it would be interesting to know which one

 

[now disabled]

I am assuming that he is Japanese as the only westerner I know of that holds the 8th Dan is Tissier and he is def not Iwama

 

[now disabled]

Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:

"I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido."

He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.

The only one I can think of that I know holds the 8th dan and teaches or did at Iwama is Isoyama Hiroshi but he was a student of Ueshiba Morihei although he did study with him at Iwama .....I am intrigued as to who it could be as the only ones that are direct Saito students that I know of that hold high rank are Corallini, Evanas and Witt unless they have been made up as they were and are Saito direct line ...I am really interested to know as I thought the highest rank from Saito line was a 7th dan and as I said I thought the only westerner to hold the 8th Dan shihan thru the Aikikai was Tissier

 

[oftheherd1]

Apologies for the click-baity title. From my own training in Taekwondo and Hapkido, and what I've seen in several different videos around the web, one theme I keep seeing in martial arts is that an art typically teaches combat only against the style taught by the art.

In some cases, it makes sense for the sport. Obviously a wrestler needs to know how to counter wrestlers, boxers don't need to worry about kicks, and a Taekwondoist doesn't need to have a plan to deal with ankle locks. Just like how I don't expect Tom Brady to go to batting practice, Michael Jordan to work on his bicycle kick, or Tiger Woods to run passing drills. If someone has 5 years experience boxing, I should destroy them in a Taekwondo match. I should be no match for them in the boxing ring.

But I'm not looking at sports right now, I'm looking at martial arts.

One-Step Punch Defense
The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches. These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata: step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.

Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches. Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street). But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch. If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat.

Wing Chun
While we're on the subject of Wing Chun, most of the drills I've seen for it seem to assume the person you're fighting knows Wing Chun. I don't know that I've seen another art that has a similar style. Now, I haven't trained in the art, so this is from an outside perspective, but most of what I've seen in Wing Chun videos are how to progress through that style of fighting. Most of those drills wouldn't really even apply to another art.

It's not that other arts would beat those drills. It's that they wouldn't even apply, because the techniques appear to be counters to things I've only ever seen done in Wing Chun.

This is why I mention hubris. Obviously, the Wing Chun fighters, and especially the masters in the art, believe Wing Chun to be the best art. Since Wing Chun is the best art, if you can defend yourself against a Wing Chun fighter, you can defend yourself against any fighter. (I'm using a bit of hyperbole here, I hope you realize). But the end result is you have a martial art where most of the drills are focused on fighting against a style specific to that art.

Hapkido
Along the same lines, you have hapkido. Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks. What does hapkido generally teach? Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist. It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.

Part of my insight into hapkido may be limited by the fact that Hapkido at my school is basically an elective addition to our Taekwondo curriculum, so we take only that which Hapkido does better than Taekwondo and focus on the grappling and joint locks. But the theme still seems to be the same. Hapkido assumes wrists are a weak link that you need to protect in yourself and attack in your enemy.

Thoughts

• This post may come across as a rant, and it maybe kind of is. It's partially tongue-in-cheek, but partially serious, too.
• I think the problem with Taekwondo is that so much sparring time is dedicated to the point-sparring kicking game (at least in KKW schools) that you don't get to do much scenario sparring or more freestyle sparring. So in this case, it may be a case of the sport interfering with the art, than a flaw in the art itself.
• Wing Chun, I obviously don't have enough experience to comment on the entirety of the curriculum, and perhaps I'm off base in my assessment of their drills. It's just an observation I've made as an outsider.
• And as to Hapkido, I did admit that we have a focused version of Hapkido to remove redundancy with our Taekwondo training, and as we advance in Hapkido we do learn more than just wrist locks and wrist grab defenses.
• But with all those caveats aside, I do believe that most martial arts do come from the mindset of "this art is the best" (otherwise, why practice it?) and then because "this art is the best" the best defense is defense against that art.
• I think this is a big reason why MMA is so popular, and even with its limitations its important - because it provides failure drills by someone outside the art, and forces martial artists to think about their techniques from another perspective.
• One reason why martial arts might primarily train against themselves is because that's what the fighters are good at. It doesn't make sense to train to fight against a boxer if none of your students are boxers. And you're not going to get good feedback at defeating a wrestling shoot if none of your training partners actually know how to shoot for the leg.

Questions

1. Does this make sense? Or is it just insane ramblings on my part?
2. How does an art "get over itself" and train to fight against other arts? Or is that up to the individual fighter to look at what he needs to learn to defeat another art?
3. Where am I wrong in my understanding of these arts and the defense drills they provide?
4. What are some other examples of a martial art primarily fighting against itself in its drills?

I have much more experience in Hapkido than TaeKwonDo. A lot of what I thought of when I read this post has been answered by @wab25. The Hapkido you are learning seems more unfocused than I thought. I guess since it is sort of an "elective" as you mentioned, not really a course in Hapkido, perhaps that isn't as bad as it would otherwise sound.

In the Hapkido I studied, we learned defense against wrist grabs for sure. As wab25 pointed out, there is a lot to learn in wrist-grab defense. One learns the "feel' of grappling, and sets up muscle memory with that "feel." Then begins to learn to seek that feel and muscle memory when taught other joint grappling techniques. I wasn't taught a lot of things by having them explicitly pointed out. I was corrected on foot movement and learned that I was moving out of line of the attack, inside or outside.

I also began to learn to move into an attack, inside or outside. It makes an opponent uncomfortable and tends to make him feel he needs to move away from the defense, giving me greater leverage, along with ease of breaking his structure. That isn't used in every defense of course, but as I learned, it is used in many. I need to learn early on not to be uncomfortable doing it myself.

I simply don't understand not normally wanting to break an opponent's structure. Maybe we don't apply the same meaning to the term? Most of the defenses I learned which attack joints, are not only causing joint breaks/dislocations, they also force the rest of the opponent's body away from being able to punch, grab, or kick me. That is how I understand breaking the opponent's structure. If @wab25 disagrees I hope he will tell us how he interprets the term.

Hapkido
Along the same lines, you have hapkido. Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks. What does hapkido generally teach? Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist. It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.

Part of my insight into hapkido may be limited by the fact that Hapkido at my school is basically an elective addition to our Taekwondo curriculum, so we take only that which Hapkido does better than Taekwondo and focus on the grappling and joint locks. But the theme still seems to be the same. Hapkido assumes wrists are a weak link that you need to protect in yourself and attack in your enemy.

I guess it isn't wrong to expect a wrist to be deployed more than other attacks, especially in a TKD school. But in the Hapkido I studied, we also learned clothing-grab defense, kick defenses, knife defenses and sword defenses (attacking wrists sometimes?), lapel-throw defenses, hair grab defenses, sitting defenses, get off the ground defenses; pretty much any way you can be attacked, front or back, we learned defenses. We also learned counters for many things. Some used joint locks/breaks, some kicks, some strikes, some combined other types of defense. Quite often, there was a sequence of strikes, breaks, and throws in our defenses. That was up to 3rd Dan.

And I know many other things would be taught at higher belts. For instance, if I had tested for 3rd Dan, I would have begun a lot of healing techniques for a 4th Dan grade. Don't ask me what. I never trained any, nor even saw them used. But the point is, there is a whole lot you haven't even gotten to. I hope your teacher will teach you most all the things I had to learn for 1st Dan. Testing you only wrist-attack defenses, and maybe some other joint attacks, would to me, be an incomplete 1st Dan.

BTW, we have a little different mind set in our studies. We don't quite think of wrists as a weak link we need to protect in ourselves, and attack in others. We are defensive. So when attacked, we use a defense against that kind of attack. In the Hapkido I studied, the last thing we learned before testing for a Dan level, was offense techniques. Sometimes using a defense we had already learned, but as a offensive technique, more rarely, something new.

 

[skribs]

I simply don't understand not normally wanting to break an opponent's structure. Maybe we don't apply the same meaning to the term? Most of the defenses I learned which attack joints, are not only causing joint breaks/dislocations, they also force the rest of the opponent's body away from being able to punch, grab, or kick me. That is how I understand breaking the opponent's structure. If @wab25 disagrees I hope he will tell us how he interprets the term.

The breaking of the structure happens. But the focal point is the wrist. It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.

It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The breaking of the structure happens. But the focal point is the wrist. It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.

It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.

In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.

 

[skribs]

In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.

Depends on where you are. We generally go back and forth. Step in and break their structure, apply leverage to the wrist to get them in position to break their structure down even more so we can isolate their wrist and break it.

Sometimes it happens simultaneously too. Again, it depends on the technique, where you are, and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.

You beat me to that one. Wrist locks are relatively easy to block out if you have structure. Lose that structure, and things open up enough to make some opportunities.

 

[drop bear]

In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.

Yeah. Tyrannosaurus arms are the ultimate defense.

I go for wrist locks all the time. Why ignore 5% of the human body.

 

[drop bear]

Fixing the model by the way is easy. Instructor need to change their mind set and invite other people who can beat them.

Start holding open mats and appreciate when some slick guy comes in and manhandles everyone in the room.

Happens to us all the time.

And I have never had any of these elite fighters try to murder anyone. They just want to do what they enjoy.

 

[oftheherd1]

The breaking of the structure happens. But the focal point is the wrist. It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.

It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.

LOL, kind of so. In the Hapkido I learned, it was very much as you describe. Pain compliance breaks the structure as the opponent attempts to alleviate the pain. The structure is usually broken in such a way that the opponent cannot use any part of his body against us, And that is so for any joint manipulation.