Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Hanzou]

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.

Except we have data of what happened when those Karate and Kung fu experts met boxers and wrestlers.

It didn't go well for the former.

Boxing and wrestling has obviously improved since those old bouts. Someone earlier in this thread stated that TMAs have been "watered down" in the same period of time.

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...

Well why wouldn't it be fair to compare GJJ to Wing Chun for example? Both are modern martial arts designed for general self defense and self improvement. I wouldn't consider that a comparison of a car and a screw driver. Instead, I would say that you're looking at two types of cars and their overall performance.

And yeah, Royce's style probably wouldn't have done very good against a samurai, but it worked really good when a huge wrestler pinned him to the mat and tried to bash his head in. Interestingly, those same techniques worked really good for me when a huge guy tried to bash my head in too.

 

[isshinryuronin]

People think samurai were some magical beings who could defeat anyone in swordsmanship. In reality, they were simply guys with swords,

No, Samurai were not magical, but they did devote their life, both to the sword, and to developing the unique mindset/spirit of life/death from childhood. In this respect they were similar to the ancient Spartans, though were much more cultured. (The Spartans had little interest in art, poetry, or philosophy.) The Samurai were considerably more than "simple guys with swords."

only reason samurai were "badasses" against the Okinawans was because they had superior weaponry.

The Satsuma army, like all other Japanese armies, were composed mostly of common foot soldiers armed with spears. The Samurai class were a small portion of the force. The Okinawans had their own "samurai," but being such a tiny nation they fielded a much smaller army and fell very quickly to their more numerous invaders. It was not so much a matter of weaponry than of numbers.

As for being "badasses" due to their weapons, the Samurai were badasses even without their swords. Being badass is not dependent on what one holds in his hand, it's what he holds in his heart and spirit.

 

[Hanzou]

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

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.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with are tall tales where Okinawan masters armed with farm equipment jump kicked samurai off of horses, when the descendants of those masters couldn't even beat a boxer or a wrestler centuries later.

 

[Hanzou]

No, Samurai were not magical, but they did devote their life, both to the sword, and to developing the unique mindset/spirit of life/death from childhood. In this respect they were similar to the ancient Spartans, though were much more cultured. (The Spartans had little interest in art, poetry, or philosophy.) The Samurai were considerably more than "simple guys with swords.

More like medieval knights honestly, potentially along the same lines as the fanatical Christian knights who formed orders like the Templars. However, medieval knights don't have the Asian mystique, so they're simply not viewed as cultured or cool.

The Satsuma army, like all other Japanese armies, were composed mostly of common foot soldiers armed with spears. The Samurai class were a small portion of the force. The Okinawans had their own "samurai," but being such a tiny nation they fielded a much smaller army and fell very quickly to their more numerous invaders. It was not so much a matter of weaponry than of numbers.

As for being "badasses" due to their weapons, the Samurai were badasses even without their swords. Being badass is not dependent on what one holds in his hand, it's what he holds in his heart and spirit.

Again, no different than any other decently trained medieval fighting force. As with all decently trained medieval fighting forces, they were eventually pushed into the dustbin of history by modern weapons.

 

[Oily Dragon]

The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China.

Shaolin has no kung fu masters.

They are Chan masters. Big difference.

This is a kung fu master.

 

[drop bear]

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...

You are comparing a skill people do. To a skill people don't do. But think they understand.

Basically you are describing sandra bullock from demolition man.

 

[caped crusader]

not about fighting.

This is very true.

 

[_Simon_]

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.

100%, well said

 

[Hanzou]

Shaolin has no kung fu masters.

They are Chan masters. Big difference.

This is a kung fu master.

You know what I was talking about. Let's not play semantics please.

 

[Hanzou]

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.

What I find most annoying are people trying to pretend that one of the main reasons they're practicing Aikido isn't because of the stories of Ueshiba being a badass and supposedly throwing around big burly men with his index finger.

Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.

 

[caped crusader]

Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.

He did not like it when Tomiki formed his own System with randori like judo. Got to agree though for outside fighting it's just not useful. Regardless how much "KI" O Sensei used...

 

[O'Malley]

What I find most annoying are people trying to pretend that one of the main reasons they're practicing Aikido isn't because of the stories of Ueshiba being a badass and supposedly throwing around big burly men with his index finger.

Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.

Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?

 

[O'Malley]

He did not like it when Tomiki formed his own System with randori like judo. Got to agree though for outside fighting it's just not useful. Regardless how much "KI" O Sensei used...

He let Tomiki do his stuff. He was against turning aikido into a sport, like Funakoshi and Kano initially...

 

[caped crusader]

Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?

Oh come on...what he tought Especially later was a far..far cry from Daito Ryu. His students threw themselves around out of respect. Why do you think Tomiki formed his System as he was a high Ranking Judoka too.

 

[caped crusader]

He let Tomiki do his stuff. He was against turning aikido into a sport, like Funakoshi and Kano initially...

Well Tomiki was correct to go his own way. Just my opinion.
Aiki ki aikido is for harmony and perhaps self development of ones self but not fighting.

 

[O'Malley]

Oh come on...what he tought Especially later was a far..far cry from Daito Ryu. His students threw themselves around out of respect. Why do you think Tomiki formed his System as he was a high Ranking Judoka too.

Morihei Ueshiba taught Daito Ryu until his death, that's well documented. The fact that his students may have tanked for him in his later years does not change that. The whole evolution of Tomiki aikido is a completely different discussion (for example, he wanted to incorporate competition, which is also absent from Daito Ryu).

 

[caped crusader]

Morihei Ueshiba taught Daito Ryu until his death, that's well documented.

Where? When?

 

[caped crusader]

The whole evolution of Tomiki aikido is a completely different discussion (for example, he wanted to incorporate competition, which is also absent from Daito Ryu).

The thread is about competition, useful or not. I think for Tomiki students it's good. AIKI KI ...is not for fighting.

 

[Hanzou]

Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?

I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.

 

[caped crusader]

I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.

On the subject of competition..there is perhaps a reason why Aikido is not in any MMA or any combat sport regardless if Steven seagal says he trained people ...