Effectiveness vs Showiness

[PhotonGuy]

So I know that lots of people who train in the martial arts do so because they want it to be effective, they want to be able to use it in a real fight or to be able to defend themselves with what they learn. There is also the showiness side, when martial arts is used to look fancy and good in Hollywood. While the showy side might not be all that street effective, it does have an appeal nonetheless.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

What I remember being told when I first started training was that there were two sides to MA. One side was the "Martial" side, and the other was the "art" side. Now each art has its own mix of "Martial" and "art" in it that makes it what is. Some have more M than A, and other have more A than M. Movie makers will use certain styles, and even different arts will have "demonstrations" that are flashier than that of the regular techniques. It is also good to mention that, while a move might look flashy to some, it is a regular and effective move to others. It really depends on the styles, those teaching it, and what the person wants out of it.

 

[JR 137]

Not trying to be a jerk, but is there a question in here?

"Showiness" definitely has its benefits. Not SD per se, but there's definitely benefits to training a 360 degree jumping kick - balance, coordination, flexibility, and all the other stuff that goes with athleticism.

I worked out with an Okinawan karate group for a few months. They practiced some flashy kicks during line drills. The sensei always said "for flexibility and coordination only! Not for self defense!" I totally agreed.

 

[Flying Crane]

What I remember being told when I first started training was that there were two sides to MA. One side was the "Martial" side, and the other was the "art" side. Now each art has its own mix of "Martial" and "art" in it that makes it what is. Some have more M than A, and other have more A than M. Movie makers will use certain styles, and even different arts will have "demonstrations" that are flashier than that of the regular techniques. It is also good to mention that, while a move might look flashy to some, it is a regular and effective move to others. It really depends on the styles, those teaching it, and what the person wants out of it.

I would disagree with you here. The word "art" in the martial arts is not in reference to artistic expression. The word has another definition that means technique or method or skill with something. That is how the definition is meant, with martial arts.

Any use as an artistic expression in terms of it being aesthetically pleasing, is purely modern for things like movies, choreography for a viewing audience, and is not how the term was originally intended.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

Any use as an artistic expression in terms of it being aesthetically pleasing, is purely modern for things like movies, choreography for a viewing audience, and is not how the term was originally intended.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe the OP was referring to the modern martial art, ant thus I addressed it as so (plz correct me if I am wrong). I agree that the original term of martial art is like you say, but modern renditions of the styles in movies and other medias have changed it

 

[Andrew Green]

So I know that lots of people who train in the martial arts do so because they want it to be effective, they want to be able to use it in a real fight or to be able to defend themselves with what they learn. There is also the showiness side, when martial arts is used to look fancy and good in Hollywood. While the showy side might not be all that street effective, it does have an appeal nonetheless.

There are more then those two sides as well.

But the problem is never whether it is showy, or practical, or useful for sport only, or self-defence only, or health only... It doesn't matter.

Where things go sideways is when you start thinking or selling what you do as something it isn't.

 

[Steve]

I don't think they're on the same scale. A person can be effective and "showy." Or ineffective and showy. Or ineffective and not showy. Some things are effective because they're showy.

Point is, showiness is a pretty superficial attribute that speaks to aesthetic. Effectiveness is a term that SHOULD BE measurable, based upon some specific criteria.

 

[CB Jones]

Fake it til you make it!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think they're on the same scale. A person can be effective and "showy." Or ineffective and showy. Or ineffective and not showy. Some things are effective because they're showy.

Point is, showiness is a pretty superficial attribute that speaks to aesthetic. Effectiveness is a term that SHOULD BE measurable, based upon some specific criteria.

Steve beat me to this one. In most cases, the showy stuff is less useful, but less useful doesn't mean less effective. I'll take the Kyokyushin kicks. I don't even know what to call them - flipping axe kicks?? Those things are definitely showy. And if they hit you with it, it's also very effective. It wouldn't be as useful as a front kick, because it fits a more limited number of circumstances, but it might even be more effective than a front kick.

I suspect there are moves like that in most arts, if not all.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

My instructor says that a true Master of Martial Arts can make even the most basic of techniques look amazing. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it cannot be aesthetically pleasing to watch.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

My instructor says that a true Master of Martial Arts can make even the most basic of techniques look amazing. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it cannot be aesthetically pleasing to watch.

Same with mine. We even ask gups if they want to become black belts (Because that is what the majority think about), and to show us what a "Black belt" quick looks like.

 

[JR 137]

Steve beat me to this one. In most cases, the showy stuff is less useful, but less useful doesn't mean less effective. I'll take the Kyokyushin kicks. I don't even know what to call them - flipping axe kicks?? Those things are definitely showy. And if they hit you with it, it's also very effective. It wouldn't be as useful as a front kick, because it fits a more limited number of circumstances, but it might even be more effective than a front kick.

I suspect there are moves like that in most arts, if not all.

I don't know what that kick's called either. I rarely see it land. But when it does, the fight's over.

You'd have to define effective in your post though. More effective than a front kick? Front kicks land exponentially more often than that kick, so I wouldn't say more effective. That kick has a far higher KO percentage WHEN IT LANDS, so I guess you could say it's more effective in that regard.

And there's a reason why it probably hasn't been thrown in MMA - miss and you're flat on the mat. Miss it on concrete? Absolute disaster. My feeling is if I could connect with that kick, I could most likely land something else. Why take the chance?

I've never tried it, nor will I foreseeably ever try to. All of this coming from a former knockdown guy.

 

[Jenna]

If practitioners want to demonstrate their arts in a showy fashion that is perfectly fine that they do.. What irk me is showy MA which is not even meant to be for show and but is flamboyant nonsense to entice consumers.. like a spin class is good cardio yet it do not prepare anyone -nor make any claim to prepare anyone- for a cycling race..

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't know what that kick's called either. I rarely see it land. But when it does, the fight's over.

You'd have to define effective in your post though. More effective than a front kick? Front kicks land exponentially more often than that kick, so I wouldn't say more effective. That kick has a far higher KO percentage WHEN IT LANDS, so I guess you could say it's more effective in that regard.

And there's a reason why it probably hasn't been thrown in MMA - miss and you're flat on the mat. Miss it on concrete? Absolute disaster. My feeling is if I could connect with that kick, I could most likely land something else. Why take the chance?

I've never tried it, nor will I foreseeably ever try to. All of this coming from a former knockdown guy.

You're right, I should have defined effectiveness. I was referring to the effect it has when it connects. From what I've seen, if it connects, it is more likely to end the fight than a front kick. Of course, for that effectiveness to matter, you have to be pretty sure it will connect, which is a very limited scope, for that kick.

The problems with it are why I consider it less useful. I think I've seen it once in an MMA video, and I was pretty surprised it showed up (I'm assuming the other guy was, too).

 

[DanT]

Not trying to be a jerk, but is there a question in here?

"Showiness" definitely has its benefits. Not SD per se, but there's definitely benefits to training a 360 degree jumping kick - balance, coordination, flexibility, and all the other stuff that goes with athleticism.

I worked out with an Okinawan karate group for a few months. They practiced some flashy kicks during line drills. The sensei always said "for flexibility and coordination only! Not for self defense!" I totally agreed.

I agree 100%, flashy kicks and drills can help coordination and stuff.

 

[Danny T]

I agree 100%, flashy kicks and drills can help coordination and stuff.

Agreed.
Some are used in training as an attribute development rather than an actual action to be use in fighting.

 

[Steve]

Hold on. I am worried I might have given the wrong impression. I think there's still an inappropriate link between flashiness and effectiveness. My point is that one may very well have nothing to do with the other. It's an association fallacy.

It's like old biases against pretty women. There was a time in our country when pretty women were presumed to be dumb. And plain women were smart. Think Daphne and Velma, or Chrissy and Janet on Three's Company. But, the truth is, some pretty women are really, really smart. And some plain women are plain and also dumb.

In this case, we presume that flashy techniques are less effective, or lower percentage. And we presume that non-flashy techniques are more effective and higher percentage. Why? Because we can think of some examples which support our preconception.

This is only a problem when we start to look at Velma techniques and presume that because they're not flashy, they must be effective. Or we see a Daphne technique and think, "Man, that's flashy. No way that's a reliable, high percentage technique."

I've seen a lot of well executed, spinning back kicks in the UFC (a Daphne for sure) and they end fights, and they land. And while flashy, when well executed, they are relatively low risk to the kicker.

So, to sum up:

• Flashiness/Showiness is a characteristic, one of many that MAY be considered when evaluating effectiveness of a technique.
• Effective is a determination, and in order to really evaluate effectiveness, one must have in mind a set of measurable criteria.
• I will forever more refer to flashy techniques as Daphnes, regardless of whether they work or not.
• I will also refer to boring techniques as Velmas.

 

[JR 137]

Hold on. I am worried I might have given the wrong impression. I think there's still an inappropriate link between flashiness and effectiveness. My point is that one may very well have nothing to do with the other. It's an association fallacy.

It's like old biases against pretty women. There was a time in our country when pretty women were presumed to be dumb. And plain women were smart. Think Daphne and Velma, or Chrissy and Janet on Three's Company. But, the truth is, some pretty women are really, really smart. And some plain women are plain and also dumb.

In this case, we presume that flashy techniques are less effective, or lower percentage. And we presume that non-flashy techniques are more effective and higher percentage. Why? Because we can think of some examples which support our preconception.

This is only a problem when we start to look at Velma techniques and presume that because they're not flashy, they must be effective. Or we see a Daphne technique and think, "Man, that's flashy. No way that's a reliable, high percentage technique."

I've seen a lot of well executed, spinning back kicks in the UFC (a Daphne for sure) and they end fights, and they land. And while flashy, when well executed, they are relatively low risk to the kicker.

So, to sum up:

• Flashiness/Showiness is a characteristic, one of many that MAY be considered when evaluating effectiveness of a technique.
• Effective is a determination, and in order to really evaluate effectiveness, one must have in mind a set of measurable criteria.
• I will forever more refer to flashy techniques as Daphnes, regardless of whether they work or not.
• I will also refer to boring techniques as Velmas.

So what are Scooby Doo techniques in your analogy?

 

[Steve]

So what are Scooby Doo techniques in your analogy?

LOL. I don't know. Stoned and cowardly? I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Hold on. I am worried I might have given the wrong impression. I think there's still an inappropriate link between flashiness and effectiveness. My point is that one may very well have nothing to do with the other. It's an association fallacy.

It's like old biases against pretty women. There was a time in our country when pretty women were presumed to be dumb. And plain women were smart. Think Daphne and Velma, or Chrissy and Janet on Three's Company. But, the truth is, some pretty women are really, really smart. And some plain women are plain and also dumb.

In this case, we presume that flashy techniques are less effective, or lower percentage. And we presume that non-flashy techniques are more effective and higher percentage. Why? Because we can think of some examples which support our preconception.

This is only a problem when we start to look at Velma techniques and presume that because they're not flashy, they must be effective. Or we see a Daphne technique and think, "Man, that's flashy. No way that's a reliable, high percentage technique."

I've seen a lot of well executed, spinning back kicks in the UFC (a Daphne for sure) and they end fights, and they land. And while flashy, when well executed, they are relatively low risk to the kicker.

So, to sum up:

• Flashiness/Showiness is a characteristic, one of many that MAY be considered when evaluating effectiveness of a technique.
• Effective is a determination, and in order to really evaluate effectiveness, one must have in mind a set of measurable criteria.
• I will forever more refer to flashy techniques as Daphnes, regardless of whether they work or not.
• I will also refer to boring techniques as Velmas.

It's not just about how effective a technique is, but how economic it is. Let's compare for example a roundhouse kick with a tornado kick. Both kicks are relatively safe to perform and can do a lot of damage, but the tornado kick requires a lot more energy to pull off. In a fight you don't know how long you will be fighting for, and generally want to conserve your energy. After all, there's no point in doing a bunch of tornado kicks and exhausting yourself at the start of the fight.