Flashy, Stylized and Useless

[ap Oweyn]

Well, we've managed to get from "Do some martial art systems have flashy methods which are not useful, and is that a fair criticism?" to "Is kata really useful?" now through to "Is MMA realistic?". Hmm. Okay, I've tackled the others, I'll have a go at this latest aspect as well.

The way I see it, MMA is a very different approach to street defence. That is not to say that it cannot, or will not help you should you find yourself in a bad situation, just that that is not what it's purpose is, and that should be recognised (a few of the more insightful here are already more than aware from the looks of things here, so I ask you to bear with me as we go through this once more).

To give an idea of the difference in what the two ideas train for, here is me from another thread:

Remember that anything that starts with a referee in a ring, no matter how "no-holds-barred" it is, is not real fighting as you would encounter on the street. It is simply competition, and that is a very different environment with very different needs.

"The timeline between a real fight and a MMA bout is very different, and if you are training for one, then you are not training fof the other. In an MMA bout, you have any number of years of general preparation (your regular training), usually between 4-6 weeks specific preparation (training for a known upcoming fight, typically a known opponent who you can study form their tapes and records, and train for the expected techniques and excapes/defences), a pre-fight experience (getting to the ring, the ref's anouncements etc, usually getting a hit of adrenaline here already as your body prepares), the fight itself lasts in most cases for up to 15 minutes, broken into 3 x 5 minute rounds, with 2 minute breaks inbetween (this gives you an adrenaline rush, five minutes of very intensive activity, then a break in which you get an endorphine release, then a second adrenaline hit and repeat), finally followed by a very managed post-fight experience (with the trainers and physios to manage any physical injuries, as well as the come-down from the multiple adrenaline hits).

To compare that with a real violent encounter, the tmeline is usually something like this: Any amount of time in general preparation (like the general prep of an MMA fighter, except that the MMA fighter can limit his general prep to techniques and tactics that are within the defined parameters of his competition, whereas the street defence student cannot know exactly what they may encounter, so the general prep needs to cover as many different conditions as possible; striking, grappling, weapons, multiple opponents, ambush, intuition, talk-down [de-escalation], and much more), 0-60 seconds specific preparation (let's face it, the first warning most people are aware of that they are in a fight is "why does my nose hurt, and why am I bleeding?", so if you are aware enough to realise that someone is about to launch an attack [hit them first, for crying out loud!], you get very limited time to prepare for their attack [which is still unknown], their body type, and any other piece of information you may glean), 0 seconds - a few minutes of pre-fight (yelling, puching, or even your opponent feigning a lack of aggression to open you to a sucker-punch), the fight itself (which is typically from 3 to 10 seconds, sometimes longer, but typically not, and during which you will get a HUGE adrenaline rush, so it'll help if you've experienced adrenaline training as well), and then the post-fight (diring which you need to manage any injuries, the surrounding environment [does he have friends that are about to start something as well?], the security and police, any legal repercussions, and the endorphin release after the adrenaline burst, as well as getting home safely... just a note on this post-fight, after one encounter, I had to ask someone if they knew the number for the police. In Australia it is 000, I couldn't remember that at all. My mind simply shut down), which could last up to years, particularly the legal and emotional aspects."

Now, as I said, I am not suggesting that MMA training will not help, I do believe it will to a fair degree, but it is certainly not the be-all end-all that some proponents make it out to be. And, along with all other visual competitive mediums, there will still be a degree of "flash" here (although not quite as much as in a typical WWE bout... ), and it's usefulness is only relative to it's purpose. If they are flashy to get the crowd onside, then it could be incredibly useful. But if it is to attempt an overly complicated combination which results in the competitor telegraphing every movement and getting knocked out with a simple counter, then maybe no. Hey, what do you know, back on topic!

Here's the problem though: You can't set this tone in your post that says *heavy sigh* "here we go again" and then proceed to debate something that nobody is currently saying. I'm certainly not saying that MMA is the same thing as SD. And I think I made that clear. I'm saying that there's crossover. If it were a Venn diagram, you wouldn't have two totally separate circles.

I think we're basically in agreement on this. But these debates always seem to settle in along party lines anyway. To whatever degree I end up doing that, my apologies in advance.

The chief objection seems to be that MMA doesn't accurately model reality. And, as I said, nothing does. You come from an art that makes extensive use of weapons. So do I. Have you ever accurately modeled the experience of getting hit with a sword? Or of hitting someone else with a sword? Or crushing someone's windpipe? Or any of the other things that we could point at and say "see how much more our system of choice addresses?"

As for the original question about flash, I think a discussion of how flash manifests itself is both logical and pertinent. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that there's flash in MMA. You don't become the most popular fighter without inciting the crowd's imagination and awe. Taking someone out with a spinning back kick will have people talking for a good long while. So yes, MMA is an imperfect model of utilitarianism. There's certainly an entertainment element to it.

At the same time, when you see Georges St. Pierre beautifully slip a jab-cross combination and flow seamlessly into a double-leg takedown against a highly trained and conditioned combat athlete, I personally don't have too much trouble believing he could do likewise against a less trained and conditioned aggressor. Nor do I think that said aggressor is likely to have the takedown defense of a world-class UFC competitor, so that Pierre would be unlikely to have to get into a prolonged grappling match on the ground when he could just as readily drop the guy through a coffee table.

We can't have it both ways. We can't, on the one hand, say that MMA doesn't model reality and then, on the other, insist that any MMA fighter who got into a real-life dustup would approach it exactly the way they'd approach a match in the aforementioned unrealistic model. This people are professional fighters. Not automatons.

Now, I know you didn't say that MMA would be useless. Just as I didn't say that MMA would be the do-all, end-all. (Which would be pointless for me to say, given that I don't even train in MMA) At the same time, I hope that between us, we can present a fairly balanced look at the merits and limitations of the MMA model.


Stuart

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Stuart,

Actually, I agree completely with you, and didn't mean to infer that I didn't. I was just adding my take on the new corner the thread had taken, more for others reading than for those who had commented in regard to MMA here... And all I meant by the beginning of my post was that we had continued to drift from the original topic again...

There are some around who have the feeling that MMA is the answer to street defence, so this was my addition to the pros and cons, and the differences between the methods. So, yes, I feel that, as you put it "At the same time, I hope that between us, we can present a fairly balanced look at the merits and limitations of the MMA model."

Good to hear from you again.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Hi Stuart,

Actually, I agree completely with you, and didn't mean to infer that I didn't. I was just adding my take on the new corner the thread had taken, more for others reading than for those who had commented in regard to MMA here... And all I meant by the beginning of my post was that we had continued to drift from the original topic again...

There are some around who have the feeling that MMA is the answer to street defence, so this was my addition to the pros and cons, and the differences between the methods. So, yes, I feel that, as you put it "At the same time, I hope that between us, we can present a fairly balanced look at the merits and limitations of the MMA model."

Good to hear from you again.

Good to hear from you too, Chris. Your point about topic drift is well taken. As well as your points about relative newbies to this debate and that segment of the population who do maintain that MMA is the answer to all questions.

I'm just glad that it's possible to sift through some of that stuff and get to something more useful. Thanks very much for that.


Stuart

 

[Omar B]

Great points you guys. I've had talks with guys who are of the MMA ilk who look down their noses at karate. They'll say things like "It's all style" or "it'll never help you on the street." Completely blanking out the fact that it is created for that. I think the MMA blinders have people thinking that because you can learn the MT curriculum and have some fluency within a few weeks you'll become some sort of fighting superman. Fact is, if you are not squared up face to face with the guy from the begining of the conflict you are at a distinct disadvantage. Where in karate we break holds, fight out of multipe attacker situations. They see kata as useless, I see it as a tool for dealing with groups.