Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[_Simon_]

Any devotion to a physical discipline can bleed into other aspects of your life. Professional Basketball players are highly disciplined, incredible athletes, and have to conduct themselves in a certain manner in order to be better members of a team. Heck, Phil Jackson even incorporated Zen meditation and philosophy into his basketball coaching.

However, it still all revolved around putting a ball through a hoop.

Sure, absolutely.

However, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that Aikido teaching her how to snap someone's wrist isn't a major reason why she's on that mat.

Bit of an assumption there .

I do, because there's inherent hypocrisy involved. Take Aikido for example; I've seen people claim on one hand that it isn't about fighting ability or violence. However at the same time they like to wax nostalgic about their founders supposed fighting prowess. I also remember several posters telling me that Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.

Obviously Aikido isn't the only culprit in this, it's rampant throughout nearly all martial arts, including BJJ. Only cults and religion breed that level of illogic and cognitive dissonance. I would say though that BJJ as a whole doesn't hide what it actually is with unnecessary layers of fluff and silliness.

Ah okay. Well I know I wasn't saying that at all and didn't think the discussion was actually about this. You've blanket labelled the discussion to be about something else entirely. Of course there is some funky stuff and misguided beliefs surrounding some MAs and also what people believe they're practicing or not practicing. I wasn't claiming that the martial arts aren't about fighting let's hug it out and sing around the campfire. Fighting is involved. Whether the goal is to perfect fighting, using fighting as a tool and vehicle for expression or self-transformation... and not to mention the term "fighting" is so contextually different within each art. I just don't think this is such a black and white issue, as in, "the meaning/value of something is only the literal action of what it is, and ONLY that."

I mean to say something like pens are just for writing... I mean ahhhrgh, that just feels so disconnected from life to me XD

 

[caped crusader]

So. Say we wanted to move away from fighting and look at mental health.

There is still an argument for competitive martial arts.

MMA and Yoga May Offer Benefits as PTSD Treatment

Yoga and MMA may help PTSD

www.psychologytoday.com

interesting, fighting PTSD with fighting which probably caused the PTSD in the first place.

 

[caped crusader]

Tae Bo

Billy Blanks... my wife did this when it was popular in the Gym. She kept insisting it was a real martial arts... bless her

 

[dvcochran]

I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs, choke people, or kick folks in the face.

It is not an either/or argument @hoshin1600 is making. It is simply a 'part of the whole' statement being made.

Why people refuse to believe that both can be included in a comprehensive program is beyond me.
Lazy I guess.

 

[Steve]

Ehh... I actually don't think the analogy holds up... cooking without producing food is obviously not cooking. But it sounds like some are making the argument that if your sole goal is to only make better food, that it's not really cooking.

I don't think that's quite got it. The point is that if you are cooking but not producing any food, that whether or not any other goals unrelated to food can be achieved is questionable. Because cooking intrinsically involves preparing food. Just as martial arts intrinsically involves fighting. And, as with tai chi, when you remove the fighting you are no longer doing martial arts.

You do cook to cook better (or become a better cook), but perhaps the sole end for you is not that (yet is of course still the process. Getting better is integral). Perhaps you're bettering your cooking as an expression of love to a dear one and wanting to take care of them, you're still producing food, and you're still aiming at getting better, but the "being a better cook" is not really what it's ALL about.

Once again, it's not what the primary goal is, because for some cooks, the primary goal may not have anything to do with food. In fact, some cooks don't enjoy cooking and do it only because they don't want to starve, and are tired of microwave fare.

But here's the thing. They may never be really good at it. In fact, they may not care at all about being good at cooking. They may hate the idea of cooking. But through the act of cooking, they are achieving alternative goals (whatever they may be)... and they are also getting better at preparing food, because food is intrinsic to the activity.

In the same way, a person who studies in a martial art should, even if they have no interest in fighting, be gaining functional skill as a fighter. And I would say that, if they are not gaining skill as a fighter, they aren't ACTUALLY doing a martial art, even if they are enjoying themselves and gaining some other benefits. And to be clear, I have no problems with other goals. But if you aren't learning to fight, you are basically doing Tae Bo, and if you're good with Tae Bo, more power to you.

Where I start to get really irritated isn't with people just doing what they want. Even if you're a little misguided, I don't care about that. It's when people start selling that bunk to others. I think that's sneaky and deceitful at best, and dangerous at worst.

And it gets too tricky here because we all seem to have different definitions of what "fighting" means, and some equate that with ability to defend oneself on "dah streetz", some would say you're improving your fighting ability within the context of your martial art (its ruleset, skillset, strengths etc)... there are so many things I feel like we're confusing and overlapping. But ah well hopefully we can still share respectfully and in a civil way.

Shoot, I am willing to be about as flexible in this regard as possible. If you're learning to physically impose your will on someone else reliably and in an objectively measurable way, I'd say fine. And I would also say that while being well rounded is a goal for some, I'm even okay if folks embrace gaps in their training, though I recommend people be self aware. So, if you're a TKD competitive and you know your punching skills stink because you keep your hands down in competition, fine. If you're a butt scooting BJJ competitor who doesn't like training takedowns, fine. Those are still martial arts, because the skills these folks ARE learning are related to physically imposing their will against an opponent in a way that is reliable and objectively measurable.

And further, if you are in a style that teaches actual martial arts, the learning curve is going to be relatively predictable.

 

[Steve]

interesting, fighting PTSD with fighting which probably caused the PTSD in the first place.

Trauma causes PTSD, not fighting.

 

[Steve]

It is not an either/or argument @hoshin1600 is making. It is simply a 'part of the whole' statement being made.

Why people refuse to believe that both can be included in a comprehensive program is beyond me.
Lazy I guess.

You have it all flipped around. No one believes that martial arts should ONLY impart martial skill. As has been said by everyone at different times, there are a lot of great reasons to train in a quality school learning functional fighting skills. @drop bear just shared an article about treating PTSD through training.

The inverse, however, isn't true. A lot of people argue that fighting skills are optional. Which is where it starts to look like cooking without food.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, but as we have discussed in the past, if you cook but don’t produce food, you aren’t really cooking. And any other benefits you might glean from the activity of developing the skill to cook will be lost because the activity you are engaging in is, ultimately, just pretend.

or look at it this way, if you pretend to cook and call it cooking, you are disrespecting the craft. You can toss dishes around all day long but there is no difference between that and what a child does with a pretend kitchen.

This is what martial arts without fighting is.

If someone isn't trying to learn to fight, then them not fighting is not relevant to their pursuit. If someone wants to learn to mix ingredients (not necessarily in any way that works for cooking) then whether those ingredients or their proportions work in cooking or not isn't relevant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Kind of what hanzou said. Kind of not.

It might be more effective to achieve those aims if the person competes. It might not.

But they don't cancel each other out. We are all kind of assuming they do.

And it doesn't matter what people like. If say I wanted to be an Aikido black belt. There are some non negotiable requirements that would go in to making me one.

I can't just do what I like. It is a different conversation

I'm not sure anything there disagrees with anything I said. If it does, let me know.

I agree that competition might or might not help. Certainly if someone just wants fitness benefits, and they are motivated by competition, then competing will likely lead them to better fitness, whether they care about fighting skill or not. If they are looking for relaxing meditation, then forms competition might be of benefit - unless competition causes them anxiety, then they'd probably achieve their aims better without it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’m a black belt in aikido. It’s just a different kind of aikido which focuses on drinking good scotch. And I’m really good at it. You might say I need to do some aikido, but that’s not why I train. I train for the scotch.

I’m going to open a school when I retire to teach aikido to people who want to be good at aikido without doing aikido.

I'm pretty sure you're aware this is a ridiculous attempt at a logical argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But it being a martial art, has to be related to fighting or "martial" activities in some degree or another, you would think.

This gets into part of the problem we have in these discussions. I do think a lot of folks feel the "martial" means it must be centered around fighting. But we don't have a good term for martial-derived arts that no longer have any focus on fighting. I think (I'm certainly no expert on this) that Ki-society Aikido (Shin-shin Toitsu) is explicitly not about fighting, and all about ki development. Within my admittedly vague definition, it's still a "martial art". Cardio kickboxing isn't, in my mind, for reasons I can't explain. I'd have no problem with someone using a definition of martial art that included both or neither, so long as we understand (even vaguely) what the definition being used is.

 

[Steve]

If someone isn't trying to learn to fight, then them not fighting is not relevant to their pursuit. If someone wants to learn to mix ingredients (not necessarily in any way that works for cooking) then whether those ingredients or their proportions work in cooking or not isn't relevant.

You think if you're in a school that has "martial arts school" on the shingle outside, folks don't think they're learning something related to fighting? It's very relevant.

Or maybe more to the point, they don't have to learn to fight, but they really ought to be told they aren't learning to fight. There is a very real difference between being told you're learning to cook and actually learning to cook, or being told you're learning to cook, but really you're just playacting. There is nothing inherently wrong with learning zen through the act of pretending to cook, provided you aren't being fooled into thinking real food is in your future.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah ...but it's annoying when they then try and convince us that it's of any use outside. This is the root of the problem in most cases, on here and any other forums.
If people want to do Meditation, go with the flow, enjoy the Tradition as in aikido..Tai chi, then do it but just don't try and tell us it's like Tai Boxing or full contact Systems.

Some of it (whatever "it" is) will be useful "outside" (I assume you mean outside the dojo). It will depend what "it" is and how it's taught/trained. So if someone takes BJJ purely for fitness and fun (because you'll get a lot of both in the right gym), they will also get some useful skills that translate outside that gym.

 

[hoshin1600]

Living creatures have requirements and needs in order to survive. Food, drink, shelter, procreation, etc. In order to know when to eat and when to +□@/♡, the person has to arrange all these needs and desires in a linear, hierarchical manner of importance. This is called a value. To value one thing over another and place it up higher in the hierarchy. But the values are not static meaning they have to rearrange themselves, otherwise you would always be looking for food and never point your aim at any of the other needs. Where you aim your attention is what ever value you are currently placing at the top of importance. So, sometimes Food and other times shelter or sleep.
While we may share values, we do not share them equally at all times. It only makes sense that one person would be hungry and another person thirsty and would be looking to fill that need.
It is well studied and documented that violence and aggression wane as the person ages. So as we age the need for aggression diminishes. As the brain develops we find more complex and subtle alternatives to aggression to solve problems. We also no longer have the need to compete for sexual mates. All species either pair bond for life or compete for mates, where winner takes all. Humans are a combination of the two so the need to compete for mates is within our DNA but we age out of that prime pool.
As we age our values obviously change. Everyone knows this is true because you no longer place your child security blanket at the pinnacle of your values.

Now to address Drop bears point,
The method to attain your need, your need to fight in this case, can also be ranked within a valued hierarchy. I was never disputing this. Some arts are obviously going to produce better results on certain aspects. We place value on all of the aspects of a martial art and we rank order those. One example of opposing values might be , Does your value of fighting out weigh your value of safe training? So yes can can find very realistic and effective methods of training but at what cost? The military has a very high value on effective training but it is not uncommon for that training to have casualties and loss of life. Elite special forces have had to balance these values. One person may value fight competence but need to go to work in the morning so they would choose TKD over an MMA school where the likelihood of injury is greater. While some schools may advertise an over stated ability to produce results, I feel that the results speak for themselves. It is true dunning Kruger effect afflicts some people and can over estate their ability. I do feel in general people choose an art in which their needs are met. Weighing out their values and finding the right combination that expresses itself within the right school for them. Or they quit all together not knowing that their are options, or a third option of starting in one school and when their values change they find a more suitable school that fills those needs.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have trained somewhat in Aikido years ago & i honestly still despair when people go on about their founder O`sensei like he was a God with magical powers. Really teaching "self Defence" which is just not going to work. I have also met people in these circles who were honest and said it was just for some training, history and tradition. They knew it was just not for street situations. Still you will get people who still think it´s going to be like Seagal flipping people over with his Kote Gaeshi throws in bars.
I trained for a time with a Master of Iwama Ryu who was in Iwama training. Even he said you´re better off with a hard martial art like karate, was not a dreamer and was also a high ranking Judoka. so no fool !

I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it.

It's possible I'm wrong.

 

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure you're aware this is a ridiculous attempt at a logical argument.

If you think it's ridiculous, you're just not getting it. Is this where you're going to pivot to ad homs and attacking me? If so, please, just save it.

Nothing wrong with the analogy, as it's supported by quite literally EVERY OTHER activity in the human experience, without exception. Self defense/fighting is the only activity I have literally ever heard of where some folks are tricked into thinking they are learning something they are never asked to do. The entire story of the Music Man (great movie, btw) is based on a con man doing this very thing with music.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So. Say we wanted to move away from fighting and look at mental health.

There is still an argument for competitive martial arts.

MMA and Yoga May Offer Benefits as PTSD Treatment

Yoga and MMA may help PTSD

www.psychologytoday.com

Agreed. Not universal (nothing is), but as with any sport, there's some benefit for the right folks.

 

[Steve]

Some of it (whatever "it" is) will be useful "outside" (I assume you mean outside the dojo). It will depend what "it" is and how it's taught/trained. So if someone takes BJJ purely for fitness and fun (because you'll get a lot of both in the right gym), they will also get some useful skills that translate outside that gym.

Outside the gym? Maybe. If someone trains in BJJ, they will definitely gain useful skills that translate to practical skill INSIDE the gym. The better they are at those skills, the more likely they might be useful outside. The difference is what they're definitely learning INSIDE the art, not whether it will be useful outside the art.

Some folks aren't learning anything inside the art, either. That's the problem. Or more accurately, not learning what they think they're learning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And I would say that, if they are not gaining skill as a fighter, they aren't ACTUALLY doing a martial art, even if they are enjoying themselves and gaining some other benefits.

I think this might be the basis of any disagreement here - it's about the definition of "martial art". I'm okay with this statement - it just means you and I include different things in that category. What would you call an activity that is almost (by this definition) a martial art, but is not at all about developing fighting skill (though it may use the movements once meant for that purpose)?

 

[Steve]

I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it.

It's possible I'm wrong.

So, if you agree that aikido isn't for learning any practical fighting skills, we're all in agreement.