Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Hanzou]

Superior in what way? I think this is an excellent question. One of my favourite topics to think about is, what makes a martial artist and what makes a fighter? Is there a difference between the two, and if so what is it? Can one be a martial artist and a fighter simultaneously?

When it comes to traditional martial arts, this term is used loosely. What constitutes as traditional varies from style to style, and person to person. In my eyes, traditional martial arts training involves hardcore conditioning, such as bone conditioning and hardcore stretching. Wouldn't that make the physical fitness of the TMA practitioners, by these standards, superior for fighting? Furthermore, the end goal of TMA practitioners and athletes in combat sports is different. Athletes competing in fights, whether it be professional MMA or Amateur Boxing, in reality, are just athletes. Their goal is to win, whether by points or by knockout, not to kill or injure. The athletes are just athletes, and of these few athletes, only a few of them would classify as real fighters.

These boxing bouts and MMA matches are just rehearsals for the reality of the dangers in the world; where there are no rules or referees. TMA practitioners, again by my standards, take this into account. They understand that there is a difference between a fight and sparring. By all these standards, TMA practitioners seem superior, don't they?

But the quality of TMA has dropped. It's maddening to see. We have these so-called martial artists and fighters with insane superiority complexes, bullying anyone who dares to touch weight training. For some reason, physical strength is despised and made fun of in the martial arts community nowadays, even though it should go hand in hand. They don't practice sparring and preach inner peace, even though they don't have the strength for battle.

The reason combat sports athletes are kicking *** right now is that TMAs have dropped. They are an embarrassment to their history, and I have seen very few schools that teach what needs to be taught. Martial arts were created so that the weak could become strong and defend themselves; now weakness is encouraged with participation trophies, "no contact sparring" and other crap. However, there is no doubt in mind, that real TMA practitioners, the ones that came before us and our ancestors over a century ago would floor almost any modern athlete except for the fact that MMA is a thing now that makes the athlete "fighters" of this generation more flexible than any other fighters in history.

That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.

So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.

For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;

This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?

Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;

Again, nothing really all that impressive.

The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.

You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Do I have to answer that? I would shed a tear.

Knowledge is a treasure.

Practice is the key.

I didn't say that.

 

[Ivan]

That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.

So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.

For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;

This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?

Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;

Again, nothing really all that impressive.

The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.

You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.

That's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now? They kicked ***. As for Kung Fu, I'm not all that knowledgeable or experienced. When it comes to TMA I mainly refer to Japanese MA e.g. Jujitsu, Karate, where the conditioning was insane and Karate masters wuld pressure test their techniques by picking fights with Yakuza in the streets.

 

[Hanzou]

That's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now? They kicked ***. As for Kung Fu, I'm not all that knowledgeable or experienced. When it comes to TMA I mainly refer to Japanese MA e.g. Jujitsu, Karate, where the conditioning was insane and Karate masters wuld pressure test their techniques by picking fights with Yakuza in the streets.

Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.

The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan.

hat's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now?

Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.

Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.) You can't judge much of anything regarding the quality of traditional fighting systems based on how one country fared against another in wartime at a given point in history.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Let's say that, all other factors being equal, a practitioner of this martial art will defeat a practitioner of that martial art, and that's how we're determining which is "superior."

And in that case, I'm going to say that competitive sports martial arts are superior.

A TMA'ist is trained how to fight. A combat athlete is trained to fight.

 

[Ivan]

Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.

The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.

I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).

 

[isshinryuronin]

the technique looks like garbage

Reminds me of junior high school fights behind the gym. Slop. Quite amazing. Hard to believe these guys were genuine experts.

The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan.

You're being unfair, here, by comparing the power of a few guys against a small army! There are several stories of individual Okinawan te experts standing up to the Satsuma clan (physically and against the political power behind them) to protect against the Satsuma mistreatment of the townspeople, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.

THIS is what the old karate and bu code taught - Stand up for what is right, protect the common people and promote a peaceful society. Karate then, and now, was about more than just fighting.

 

[Urban Trekker]

But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).

For example, who? With training in both boxing and pankration and a six-inch height advantage, I would put my money on a Roman legionnaire over a samurai; and I could probably say the same for ancient Persian warriors, such as the Immortals.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).

Why are you sure of that. What do you base it on?

 

[Urban Trekker]

Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.

The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.

Another thing that was happening around the same time was the Anglo-Zulu war. Shaka had a policy against guns, and considered them to be tools of cowards. The Zulu did get their hands on guns, but they were obsolete muzzle-loaded muskets; which meant that in the face of modern firearms, the Zulu were better off with their traditional weapons.

In any case, the British Army was arguably the world's most powerful army at the time - and it took six months for them to put the Zulu down.

I agree that people put too much faith in Asian martial arts over western.

 

[Cynik75]

..... But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).

And probably would be beaten by many too. I do not see small tiny Japanese naked warrior against naked senegalese traditional wrestlers...

 

[dvcochran]

Let's say that, all other factors being equal, a practitioner of this martial art will defeat a practitioner of that martial art, and that's how we're determining which is "superior."

And in that case, I'm going to say that competitive sports martial arts are superior.

A TMA'ist is trained how to fight. A combat athlete is trained to fight.

So what is the definition of a 'combat athlete'?

 

[Urban Trekker]

So what is the definition of a 'combat athlete'?

Someone who competes in combat sports. It's a lot shorter and more efficient to say than "combat sports player" or the like.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).

Read again:
"Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.)"

You are arguing his point from a completely different position. At best you would win by the law of averages but never overall.

 

[caped crusader]

Another thing that was happening around the same time was the Anglo-Zulu war. Shaka had a policy against guns, and considered them to be tools of cowards. The Zulu did get their hands on guns, but they were obsolete muzzle-loaded muskets; which meant that in the face of modern firearms, the Zulu were better off with their traditional weapons.

In any case, the British Army was arguably the world's most powerful army at the time - and it took six months for them to put the Zulu down.

I agree that people put too much faith in Asian martial arts over western.

Zulu lad..Zulu !

 

[caped crusader]

Getting back on topic i think sport karate is OK for some sparring and fitness but for real self defence "our" sport training is nothing to a traditional Dojo teaching say real Goju Ryu body and mind hardness.
Just my 2 cents bros !

 

[O'Malley]

That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.

So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.

For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;

This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?

Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;

Again, nothing really all that impressive.

The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.

You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.

TMA make sense in their historical context. The skills that you deride allowed those people to be regarded as the best in the context they were in. If they had fought Leonard or Dempsey, they may have gotten beat, or they may have kicked or grappled them, or they may have adapted their own training to deal with boxers.

Put people in armour and striking becomes an inferior strategy. Royce won the first UFC doing stuff that would have gotten him killed on a medieval battlefield. And even today, martial arts are more useful in countries with strict gun control laws than, say, the US.

It's fair to have a critical eye and say "this wouldn't work in the UFC because X". But I find that style comparisons often hit a limit where things are compared outside of their respective contexts. We end up with discussions that are as pointless as saying "are cars superior to screwdrivers?". And often, the real subtext is "my style/dad can beat your style/dad therefore I am better". That's playground-level discussion.

People refine their methods based on their goals and context. You know how William E. Fairbairn reinvigorated Western combatives? By incorporating Japanese Jujutsu...

 

[hoshin1600]

What I find most annoying within this thread is people's insistence that the value of an art is in direct relationship to its ability to produce superior fighters. That is strictly a modern interpretation and value.
Aikido's O sensei would be outraged at the modern validation of fighting skill. He blatantly said his style is not about fighting. Traditional karate masters rebuked students who were at their dojo to learn to fight.
There is a rational argument that martial arts IS about fighting , yes and no. Traditional martial arts often use fighting as a vehicle for other purposes and not as the end in and of itself. Karate is designed to be practiced throughout one's lifetime. Thus in your younger years , yes sure you can focus on fighting but as you age fighting becomes less important. 10th Dan of uechi Ryu George Mattson is in his 80's to what use is karate to him if it is only about fighting? And yet he trains every day. O Sensei trained right up to a few days before he passed away. Was self defense really why he practiced? No. Fighting is a preoccupation for the young and insecure. It is a focus of training for those still young enough to care. But eventually age will catch up to you and you realize fighting is for the young and those days are behind you. And yet some still love to train. If you trained properly you can still move and do so without the replaced hips and joints, without the wires holding your spine together or whatever other injuries top level competition puts on us. Non sport training becomes a necessity. All those arts the young made fun of because it didn't work in the octagon start to have value because fighting wasn't the point to begin with.

 

[Hanzou]

Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.) You can't judge much of anything regarding the quality of traditional fighting systems based on how one country fared against another in wartime at a given point in history.

Meh, I was just pointing out that the only reason samurai were "badasses" against the Okinawans was because they had superior weaponry. The samurai in turn became obsolete when better weapons were developed within Japan.

My point is that we put WAY too much stock in Asian martial arts systems. People think samurai were some magical beings who could defeat anyone in swordsmanship. In reality, they were simply guys with swords, and you can find guys with swords pretty much everywhere. However, for some reason, we in the west mystify Asian guys with swords. It's downright silly.