Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[drop bear]

Where a guy can run through an entire gym of practitioners.

It is also a very hard environment to pretend you have the same ability as those guys.

 

[Hanzou]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the art itself. It only changed how ranks were given and how the public school program was structured. Funakoshi, like Kano, was a teacher, and schools have grades and lesson plans. Okinawa was slow to adopt Kano's ranking (and gi as well), doing so only because of pressure from the "mainland" and for the sake of harmony in Japan's growing nationalistic climate.

Karate was systemized. New kata were structured. Old kata were reorganized and altered. New methodologies were developed to coincide with the new ranking system. New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.

And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.

Judo replaced Kyudo, kobudo, karate, jujutsu???? Well, yes, jujutsu to a degree, but only in the sport context.

Nope, in its entirety. Judo was utilized by police departments and the military throughout the
Imperial era of Japan.

Keep in mind that BJJ is an "infant" art, and still developing as you said. Karate has over 200 hundred years of development, so perhaps is a more "matured" art, having already undergone constant development for many successive generations.

Actually BJJ is older than Isshin Ryu. I do believe that Isshin-Ryu was created in the 1950s, while BJJ was created around 1914, also making it older than Shotokan Karate, the first modern karate style.

I would hardly consider a martial art that's over a hundred years old to be an "infant art".

Contrary to what you assert, karate has changed in the last hundred years or so. Most of today's styles evolved during the last century. My style's founder made several changes that met much resistance from the karate community, but I think were for the best. He was one of the first masters to utilize body armour to allow full contact sparring, and modified several techniques to make them faster and do more damage. So your last sentence in the above quote is not quite accurate. Again, you are assuming facts that bolster your position.

Yeah, but that was almost 70 years ago. What has changed since that time?

Since Ali, how much has boxing changed? Not much, although it changed a lot and more often 150-90 years ago when it was a less matured art. The different arts all have their own timeline of development and maturation. Kids change more than adults. It can be said that competition can hinder development by rules which only allow certain things, so the sport is confined by those rules. Sure, rules can be changed - but it is another viewpoint that can be considered. Multiple factors are involved so broad statements can have inaccuracies.

That depends on which style of boxing you're talking about. There's 4 of them, and all 4 of them are fluid depending on the boxer utilizing it. For example, despite both being heavyweights, Tyson and Ali have two very different boxing styles.

I'm not saying you're wrong in much of what you are posting. Just that you are a bit too focused onto your position and neglecting (or uninformed of) other aspects and facts of the big picture.

I'm simply curious of how a style that exists in a closed environment can continue to evolve in an ever changing martial arts environment. Like, all you're practicing against is Isshin-Ryu, and based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.

 

[Oily Dragon]

New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.

And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.

Not entirely. More like he was the nail in the coffin.

The war to remove Chinese ideas from Karate took a long time.

And it failed anyway, because of kaizen.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Karate was systemized. New kata were structured. Old kata were reorganized and altered. New methodologies were developed to coincide with the new ranking system. New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.

And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.


Nope, in its entirety. Judo was utilized by police departments and the military throughout the
Imperial era of Japan.



Actually BJJ is older than Isshin Ryu. I do believe that Isshin-Ryu was created in the 1950s, while BJJ was created around 1914, also making it older than Shotokan Karate, the first modern karate style.

I would hardly consider a martial art that's over a hundred years old to be an "infant art".



Yeah, but that was almost 70 years ago. What has changed since that time?



That depends on which style of boxing you're talking about. There's 4 of them, and all 4 of them are fluid depending on the boxer utilizing it. For example, despite both being heavyweights, Tyson and Ali have two very different boxing styles.


I'm simply curious of how a style that exists in a closed environment can continue to evolve in an ever changing martial arts environment. Like, all you're practicing against is Isshin-Ryu, and based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.

Yes. BJJ is the ultimate martial art.

 

[Hanzou]

Not entirely. More like he was the nail in the coffin.

The war to remove Chinese ideas from Karate took a long time.

And it failed anyway, because of kaizen.

Are you implying that the Japanification of Okinawan karate somehow made it weaker?

I would say that Kyokushin Karate disproves that notion rather thoroughly.

 

[Hanzou]

Yes. BJJ is the ultimate martial art.

Interesting that you believe that, since I don't.

In the end, I'm merely pointing out how sports and competition can benefit a style. BJJ developed within a history of challenge matches, NHB competitions, and street fights, so yeah it has a culture of its exponents constantly looking for a way to have an advantage over their peers. That has resulted in an overall better system that improves upon itself over time.

Obviously competition can have its downsides as well. Judo's current situation is a very good example of that where the art loses its overall effectiveness in order to achieve a "standard" that is believed to be the true essence of the art and the original intent of its founder. However, that same mindset can emerge in styles that do not compete, and cause stagnation and a loss of overall effectiveness.

Which again illuminates my point on MMA and BJJ's codependent relationship and how it keeps the latter "honest". We can never go too far off the pasture in BJJ because MMA depends on BJJ for its submission grappling element. So no matter what, we have to show up in MMA gyms and get punched in the face and brought back to reality. However, in turn we get the benefit of learning how to deal with boxers, wrestlers, kickboxers and street fighters as various forms of martial arts get mixed into the MMA stew.

 

[Steve]

Yes. BJJ is the ultimate martial art.

Well, compared to some infant arts like Isshin Ryu Karate, it may seem so.

 

[isshinryuronin]

based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.

Hmmm, I wonder why I've had these knuckle prints on my ribcage for the past two weeks? As I mentioned, we don't sport/competitely spar in the manner of "fencing", going back and forth for a few minutes. We just go forth for a few seconds. This is unique to our particular school's method of training (see next quote).

I had my share of sport sparring throughout the entire 1970's. We still do sparring on belt tests, not to primarily judge on points, but to observe tactics, use of angles, entering strategies, checking and fighting spirit. Many "points" scored in modern tournament sparring would not be effective in actual combat, and many techniques that would be effective in combat are illegal in competition.

Well, compared to some infant arts like Isshin Ryu Karate, it may seem so.

You should know, the ART is Okinawan karate, Isshinryu is simply a style, a "flavor" of the art. The various Okinawan styles are 90% the same. What is most important is HOW these styles are taught by the instructor - how to deliver the goods to the opponent in the most effective way possible.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Interesting that you believe that, since I don't.

In the end, I'm merely pointing out how sports and competition can benefit a style. BJJ developed within a history of challenge matches, NHB competitions, and street fights, so yeah it has a culture of its exponents constantly looking for a way to have an advantage over their peers. That has resulted in an overall better system that improves upon itself over time.

Obviously competition can have its downsides as well. Judo's current situation is a very good example of that where the art loses its overall effectiveness in order to achieve a "standard" that is believed to be the true essence of the art and the original intent of its founder. However, that same mindset can emerge in styles that do not compete, and cause stagnation and a loss of overall effectiveness.

Which again illuminates my point on MMA and BJJ's codependent relationship and how it keeps the latter "honest". We can never go too far off the pasture in BJJ because MMA depends on BJJ for its submission grappling element. So no matter what, we have to show up in MMA gyms and get punched in the face and brought back to reality. However, in turn we get the benefit of learning how to deal with boxers, wrestlers, kickboxers and street fighters as various forms of martial arts get mixed into the MMA stew.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc. I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult. its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.

 

[Steve]

I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc. I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult. its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.

It's actually the opposite, I think. Kind of a mixed bag, where some rules definitely keep grapplers safer. Overall, though, the net result is a pro-striking MMA rules are, in my opinion, much more favorable to striking than grappling.

 

[drop bear]

I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc. I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult. its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.

Not really.

The gloves make striking easier than say boxing.

The cage wall favors grappling.

The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you.

Time limits favor stand up.

The stand up rule favors stand up.

 

[Steve]

Not really.

The gloves make striking easier than say boxing.

The cage wall favors grappling.

The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you.

Time limits favor stand up.

The stand up rule favors stand up.

The lack of grips and general sweatiness favor strikers. Lack of footwear, too... shoes are great for heel hooks.

 

[Hanzou]

I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc. I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult. its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.

Considering a friend of mine got his collar-bone dislocated from being slammed on that "bouncy padded floor", I would say no. This is a common excuse that popped up after the first UFCs because "strikers" didn't like how they performed overall. Grapplers don't have an advantage because of rules, equipment, set-up, etc. Grapplers have an advantage period because of how they train, and how grappling works.

A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so. If a wrestler is coming in for a DLT and the striker screws up and doesn't stop the shoot, it's pretty much over. Grapplers on the other hand have multiple opportunities, and can actually set up strikers to throw a strike that will more easily open them up for a takedown. BTW, this isn't to say that a striker can't knock out a person moving in for a takedown, I'm saying that a grappler has a higher chance of accomplishing that takedown than the striker has of knocking them unconscious.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It's actually the opposite, I think. Kind of a mixed bag, where some rules definitely keep grapplers safer. Overall, though, the net result is a pro-striking MMA rules are, in my opinion, much more favorable to striking than grappling.

Ok why? Give some examples please.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Not really.

The gloves make striking easier than say boxing.

The cage wall favors grappling.

The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you.

Time limits favor stand up.

The stand up rule favors stand up.

Ok thanks!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Considering a friend of mine got his collar-bone dislocated from being slammed on that "bouncy padded floor", I would say no. This is a common excuse that popped up after the first UFCs because "strikers" didn't like how they performed overall. Grapplers don't have an advantage because of rules, equipment, set-up, etc. Grapplers have an advantage period because of how they train, and how grappling works.

A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so. If a wrestler is coming in for a DLT and the striker screws up and doesn't stop the shoot, it's pretty much over. Grapplers on the other hand have multiple opportunities, and can actually set up strikers to throw a strike that will more easily open them up for a takedown. BTW, this isn't to say that a striker can't knock out a person moving in for a takedown, I'm saying that a grappler has a higher chance of accomplishing that takedown than the striker has of knocking them unconscious.

So that sounds like you say it’s a toss up?

 

[Hanzou]

So that sounds like you say it’s a toss up?

That’s correct. It comes down to the skill of the fighter.

What always puzzled me is why we don’t see traditional styles like the hundreds of Chinese Kung Fu styles, Classical Japanese Jujutsu, or more traditional karate styles in MMA? Since they’re supposedly complete systems, they shouldn’t even need to cross train,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That’s correct. It comes down to the skill of the fighter.

What always puzzled me is why we don’t see traditional styles like the hundreds of Chinese Kung Fu styles, Classical Japanese Jujutsu, or more traditional karate styles in MMA? Since they’re supposedly complete systems, they shouldn’t even need to cross train,

I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.

 

[Hanzou]

I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.

Now that is interesting. So you believe that systems that teach relevant skills more quickly are better suited to the MMA/NHB environment than systems that require more dedication?

It is interesting that nearly all of the arts that form the basis of MMA don't contain kata training.