Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Oily Dragon]

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

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

"Nail in the coffin". Ponder that on the Tree of Woe.

 

[Alan0354]

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 just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.

Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street, BITE and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.

 

[BrendanF]

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

It is interesting that MMA and BJJ people are seemingly invested in distancing themselves from any notion of 'kata' practise.

Every single time someone practises a anything with another person... kata training. The notion that solo, 'karate' style kata = kata is erroneous. Kata traditionally means two person drill.

Beyond which.. how do you distinguish 'shadow boxing' from your definition of 'kata'?

Please bear in mind I am in no way defending solo kata style training as being optimal - I'm saying two people doing any form of drill or practise.. of anything.. is in fact kata training.

 

[drop bear]

Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.

Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street, BITE and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.

If you are wrestling well. That isn't as big an issue as you would think.

If the other guy wrestles better than you it can set him up for all sorts of striking. Legal or illegal.

Otherwise you can downward elbow. You just can't 12 to 6. So you see a small kink thrown in to the technique.

 

[Hanzou]

It is interesting that MMA and BJJ people are seemingly invested in distancing themselves from any notion of 'kata' practise.

Every single time someone practises a anything with another person... kata training. The notion that solo, 'karate' style kata = kata is erroneous. Kata traditionally means two person drill.

Beyond which.. how do you distinguish 'shadow boxing' from your definition of 'kata'?

Please bear in mind I am in no way defending solo kata style training as being optimal - I'm saying two people doing any form of drill or practise.. of anything.. is in fact kata training.

That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.

If I’m showing someone how to pass Guard, and then they drill that Guard pass, that really isn’t the same thing. The person doing a Guard pass will immediately know if they’re doing the pass incorrectly because they won’t pass the guard. That’s immediate feedback against a resisting partner.

If we did it like a kata, the student would be doing the movement alone with an imaginary partner, or two people would be doing some exaggerated movement that looks like a dance floor routine with little to no actual application.

 

[Hanzou]

Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.

Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street, BITE and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.

Downward elbows to the back of the head were legal in the first UFCs. Didn’t do much to alter the outcome.

Also I seriously recommend against biting or eye gouging someone who has you in an inferior position. I suppose if they’re trying to actually murder you, you do what you gotta do. However if it’s just a dumb brawl and you’re losing, don’t escalate the violence.

 

[BrendanF]

That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.

It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries. The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.

Because I'm too lazy to spell it all out, here is some information on the term kata:

https://www.reddit.com/r/martialarts/comments/1u864b

Is kata training too rigid and mechanical?

I've heard many people criticize kata training in classical martial arts over the years, but I think it is an essential practice. I wrote this blog post in response to the critics. http://budobum.blogspot.com/2013/11/kata-is-too-rigid-and-mechanical.html

www.e-budo.com

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I don't think it's so much about dedication (I don't think we could doubt the dedication of a high-level BJJ practitioner). Some systems simply have an approach that seems designed around slow development. I suspect that was at least partly designed for the purpose many of us like it for: it forces folks to deal with that slow progression, exhibit patience, etc. Nothing you can't do elsewhere, but I think it's part of many systems. Of course, if I want to get into a competition, I'm much better off focusing on what prepares me fastest for that competition.

There's a reason I don't get into the formal NGA curriculum (even my version of it) until someone has been training with me for some time. I focus early on things that develop basic fighting skills faster. But then we get into the NGA work, and things slow down. It's not a fast development process.

 

[Hanzou]

I don't think it's so much about dedication (I don't think we could doubt the dedication of a high-level BJJ practitioner). Some systems simply have an approach that seems designed around slow development. I suspect that was at least partly designed for the purpose many of us like it for: it forces folks to deal with that slow progression, exhibit patience, etc. Nothing you can't do elsewhere, but I think it's part of many systems. Of course, if I want to get into a competition, I'm much better off focusing on what prepares me fastest for that competition.

There's a reason I don't get into the formal NGA curriculum (even my version of it) until someone has been training with me for some time. I focus early on things that develop basic fighting skills faster. But then we get into the NGA work, and things slow down. It's not a fast development process.

Wouldn’t you also want faster progression and development if the goal is self defense?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.

If I’m showing someone how to pass Guard, and then they drill that Guard pass, that really isn’t the same thing. The person doing a Guard pass will immediately know if they’re doing the pass incorrectly because they won’t pass the guard. That’s immediate feedback against a resisting partner.

If we did it like a kata, the student would be doing the movement alone with an imaginary partner, or two people would be doing some exaggerated movement that looks like a dance floor routine with little to no actual application.

A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They are often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are using kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.

I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Wouldn’t you also want faster progression and development if the goal is self defense?

If it's the goal, probably. If it's a goal, then it depends. What's most important, in my experience, is that the student keep training and developing skills. For some folks, that means training in a system that particularly captures their attention, even if it's not the fastest method of developing fighting skill.

I shifted that starting portion of my curriculum specifically because of the point you're making. I felt folks could develop basic skills (striking, controlling distance, simple groundwork, controlling structure) much more quickly, then have those to practice and sharpen while they are working on the more difficult and time-consuming portions of the curriculum. If I were teaching solely for self-defense (the goal), I'd stick mostly to those parts.

 

[dvcochran]

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,

You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles.
The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.

 

[dvcochran]

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.

A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so.

This is simply not true in the bigger picture. You do go on to clarify this somewhat, but then you close by confining your argument to a takedown.

It is a head scratcher that you seem to think a striker's mindset it that every strike Has to be a knock out.
In proportion to the number of boxing matches there have been, how many have finished with only one punch?

 

[Steve]

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.

This is similar to the old canard that MMA and BJJ only teach the simple techniques which explained why they were able to apply them so quickly. Personally, I believe that when you apply skills, your skills improve fairly predictably. And when you don’t, skill development is very unreliable.

So, I’m a nutshell, if people become skilled in a plodding manner… that is a pretty good indication something is up with application, a disconnect between what they are learning and what they are doing.

It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries. The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.

Because I'm too lazy to spell it all out, here is some information on the term kata:

https://www.reddit.com/r/martialarts/comments/1u864b

Is kata training too rigid and mechanical?

I've heard many people criticize kata training in classical martial arts over the years, but I think it is an essential practice. I wrote this blog post in response to the critics. http://budobum.blogspot.com/2013/11/kata-is-too-rigid-and-mechanical.html

www.e-budo.com

Some folks around here who are really into kata are going to be surprised to learn that they don't really understand it. That might be worth another thread. Because the karate folks seem to have some real opinions on the topic.

 

[dvcochran]

A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They are often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are using kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.

I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.

I feel your 'footwork' comment nails it. As long as it is in the realm of correct/functional And the execution of the technique is sound, balanced, and firmly based, I do not get too hung up on stance. So much has to do with anatomy, which seems to be overlooked sometimes.
I have always wondered if some of this derives from societies where the average body height was/is shorter and possibly more consistent.
I also think it gets exacerbated when forms used in competition are introduced into the argument. These should completely live outside the argument and are much more akin to precision dance competition. Things like foot placement are very critically judged.

 

[Hanzou]

It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries. The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.

Except it's also in JJJ as well, and the same issues emerge within those arts. Those issues are techniques that tend to not be able to be applied in live fashion. You see this with karate exponents pretty much fighting like kickboxers instead of anything remotely similar to their katas.

 

[Hanzou]

A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They are often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are using kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.

I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.

I completely disagree. Drilling a single technique and saying that is the same as kata is a highly dubious statement, because kata is highly complex and intricate. Judo 2-person kata is a prime example of this.

I would say that the above is nothing remotely similar to drilling a single technique with a partner.

 

[Hanzou]

You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles.
The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.

Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.

 

[Steve]

You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles.
The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.

Hold on. I think I get your point. If you're saying that historical training was for a different purpose, and in a different context, I agree. It makes sense. People trained with swords in medieval Europe because they used them in combat.

But are you suggesting that they didn't "tap out" in training? Are you talking about the literal idea of "tapping out" or are you saying that the idea of any kind of symbolic defeat did not exist?

 

[Steve]

Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.

If nothing else, it makes getting really good at using a sword very difficult, because you can't ever really use it anymore. Which leads to sport...