How Important is Fighting in YOUR Martial Art?

[K-man]

I find that a lot of people's definition of "fighting" is really more hardcore sparring, which, while both are important and complement each other, are very different animals as well.

It seems like people that can spar well (true, full-contact sparring) can usually fight, but people that can fight, can't necessarily spar, or fight against someone that's been trained in sparring. The reason why being that in a "true" fight, by my definition, there is no strategy, while sparring at some level is very much a game, in which you are trained to automatically respond to various different types of force coming at them.

This post got me thinking about a grading we conducted last week. One of the guys was grading for his brown belt. In the kumite he had to take on four black belts one by one. The intention was to attack him as he might be attacked on the street. So two of the four attacked that way ending up grappling and taking him to the ground. The other two reverted to days passed and sparred as we used to spar for competition. Interesting to see that the training was so ingrained that you revert to what you know. What I would have liked the candidate to do is either close and engage, or run for the door when he had the chance. Either way would have provided a satisfactory outcome even if bolting for the door wasn't the intention. In this case all of us had been involved in a sport based style. Exactly the reasons I have removed that sort of sparring from our training. First reason, he engaged when he didn't need to engage. Second reason, he stayed and sparred when he had the chance to avoid the fight.

 

[Hanzou]

But that depends on the context of the 'fight'. In the ring that is true. It is a game as you say, no different to playing chess. So that is what you train for. In the outside world you want to be out of the 'game', not in it. Hence the different emphasis on 'fighting' when we train.

The mental aspect is the same either way.

I would say that its true in every case. In your game you're at your strongest. Why wouldn't you want to fight from that advantage point?

 

[elder999]

I would say that its true in every case. In your game you're at your strongest. Why wouldn't you want to fight from that advantage point?

Someone with a knife was "in their game," once-right up until I shoved a pen in their sub-clavian artery.
just sayin'......

 

[Paul_D]

Fighting should be important in all martial arts.

That's one hell of a statement. To being telling every martial artist on the planet what they should or should not be considering important in their training. Not every martial art includes fighting, and not every martial artist trains for, or has any interest in, fighting.

If you wish to test your skill against another trained martial artist then yes (competition fighting), or as a back up in case your self defence fails (and you end up street fighting figthing) yes, but ALL martial art (and therefore ALL marital artists)? I would disagree.

 

[K-man]

I would say that its true in every case. In your game you're at your strongest. Why wouldn't you want to fight from that advantage point?

Why would I want to fight?

My point is I don't want to be part of someone else's 'game'. If I have to fight it will be from my advantage point if I have the choice. In a sport environment you know where your opponent is. In a street situation you may be ambushed. Even after you engage there may be other opponents of whom you are not initially aware. Worse still you opponent might be armed.

Fighting in the ring, great. Go for it, if that is your passion. Fighting on the street is different and should be trained differently.

 

[Spinedoc]

The goal of a fight should be to get someone into your "game". Once that happens, your chances of beating them is increased exponentially. Sometimes that "game" doesn't even involve anything physical. There's a mental game as well.

Real fighting isn't a game. If you think it is, than that explains why we are world's apart on this issue.

 

[drop bear]

Real fighting isn't a game. If you think it is, than that explains why we are world's apart on this issue.

Different use of the word game there.

And the super serious real fighting thing tends to romanticize real fighting. Makes you sound like you are using your Clint Eastwood voice.

 

[Hanzou]

Why would I want to fight?

My point is I don't want to be part of someone else's 'game'. If I have to fight it will be from my advantage point if I have the choice.

That's the "game" I was talking about.

Fighting in the ring, great. Go for it, if that is your passion. Fighting on the street is different and should be trained differently.

So is kata considered necessary training to fight on the street?

I certainly hope not.

Real fighting isn't a game. If you think it is, than that explains why we are world's apart on this issue.

As Drop Bear said, different use of the word "game" than what you think it is.

Nice necro btw.

 

[K-man]

So is kata considered necessary training to fight on the street?

I certainly hope not.

After all this time and all those posts and you still don't get it. Of course kata is not necessary to fight on the street. Nobody has ever suggested that to my knowledge. However, if you do understand the kata bunkai, then certainly you can use it. But remember, that is totally different to just practising the kata. Practising the kata for twenty years means nothing in a fight if you don't know how to use it.

 

[drop bear]

After all this time and all those posts and you still don't get it. Of course kata is not necessary to fight on the street. Nobody has ever suggested that to my knowledge. However, if you do understand the kata bunkai, then certainly you can use it. But remember, that is totally different to just practising the kata. Practising the kata for twenty years means nothing in a fight if you don't know how to use it.

I am not sure how bunkai address the issue that the other is denying you the ability to do all of these moves to him.

 

[drop bear]

I am not sure how bunkai address the issue that the other is denying you the ability to do all of these moves to him.

eg.

I will call it the bad partner. (yes another made up term)

Sparring/fighting exposes you to a different dynamic. And it is an important one.

 

[Gnarlie]

An opponent who deliberately tries to prevent me from doing one thing is inadvertently helping me do another.

When demonstrating a specific move, that sucks. When sparring or struggling for advantage, it totally helps and resistance is something I hope for.

 

[ShortBridge]

Very important.

and in the words of the great Forrest Gump..."that's all I have to say about that."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Real fighting isn't a game. If you think it is, than that explains why we are world's apart on this issue.

The real fight still need to have

1. your effective "finish moves", and
2. your effective counters to your opponent's "finish moves".

IMO, those 2 are the main reason that we train MA. Whether you take the sport approach or self-defense approach, the goal is the same.

- Try to finish your opponent, and
- try not to let your opponent to finish you.

 

[Spinedoc]

An opponent who deliberately tries to prevent me from doing one thing is inadvertently helping me do another.

When demonstrating a specific move, that sucks. When sparring or struggling for advantage, it totally helps and resistance is something I hope for.

Yeah, I made this mistake once with a 5th dan Aikido Sensei. I was resisting a little too hard during a kaitenage technique, he simply blended and before I even knew what happened I was being thrown in a soto kotegaeshi. As soon as I stood up he had me going over in a hard kokyunage and then looked at me and said "done yet?" It was quite humbling.

Mike

 

[K-man]

I am not sure how bunkai address the issue that the other is denying you the ability to do all of these moves to him.

I'm not going to go down that track again. I have described the use of bunkai in great detail in other threads. You don't decide ahead of time that you will use any particular defence. You work with what you are given. The secret is in the ability to recognise the opportunity to use the bunkai. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone denying you the ability to use bunkai. If you can't use it you can't.

I was reading an article recently where troops in the Middle East were suddenly engaged in CQC and couldn't draw their weapons. They were fighting literally hand to hand. Bunkai is a little like the weapon on your belt. You can choose to use it or not, or you may not be given the opportunity to use it. However, if the opportunity arises you have it available.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I'm not going to go down that track again. I have described the use of bunkai in great detail in other threads. You don't decide ahead of time that you will use any particular defence. You work with what you are given. The secret is in the ability to recognise the opportunity to use the bunkai. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone denying you the ability to use bunkai. If you can't use it you can't.

|
If the uke was wrong, the instructor was WRONGER. IMO, the instructor should have either selected another uke, or demonstrated the over-riding tactical principle of JUDO which is (I believe) Maximum effect with Minimum effort. In Judo, you don't pit physical force against physical force, even more notable here because the instructor had a definite height & size advantage.
|
So I concur with you IN PRINCIPLE. OTOH, it was a demonstration of the structure of the intended technique, not the competitive effectiveness in this case. I think the instructor sought to get across the mechanics alone. So instructing with a passive uke was proper. The uke was deliberately resisting the instructor. Pretty much a judgment call which the instructor should have handled through discipline if need be. A little image problem took over instead.....

 

[Jenna]

People do martial arts for a lot of reasons.

What are yours? Is "fighting" important in that art? What is it you call "fighting?"

It is a good question.. has prompted an interesting debate.. I would answer your original question?

My MA has changed as I have changed.. it began as one certain thing as an assist for a part of my younger life and I am grateful to have chosen an art which suited my mercurial temperament and was able to keep useful as my life has become first the one thing and then another thing.

I imagine this is not the art.. ALL arts will do this by the willingness of the practitioner to adapt that art..

Is fighting important in my own way of my own art? yes it was imperative when I was younger and but that fighting had taught me to ask myself.. why am i fighting and what is it to me if I win or do not this battle or that war..

For me there are many lessons I had taken from years of fighting all of which were asking me to take a long look at my self.. I have done.. I still fight.. Some times.. the world can be harsh.. as can life.. as can I.. sometimes.. Jx

 

[K-man]

eg.

I will call it the bad partner. (yes another made up term)

Sparring/fighting exposes you to a different dynamic. And it is an important one.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

As for the 'bad' partner. I have no problem in him resisting in that way, particularly with a supposedly proficient instructor. Where resisting like that is wrong is in the learning phase. If I am demonstrating a technique I want guys to use everything they have to stop it working against them including every ounce of strength and punching if necessary. If there is a flaw in my technique I want to find it when practising, not in real life. To say, ok "just go along with me" is BS. Either the technique works or it doesn't. Learning it, sure, go along with it. Testing it, totally different.

 

[K-man]

|
If the uke was wrong, the instructor was WRONGER. IMO, the instructor should have either selected another uke, or demonstrated the over-riding tactical principle of JUDO which is (I believe) Maximum effect with Minimum effort. In Judo, you don't pit physical force against physical force, even more notable here because the instructor had a definite height & size advantage.
|
So I concur with you IN PRINCIPLE. OTOH, it was a demonstration of the structure of the intended technique, not the competitive effectiveness in this case. I think the instructor sought to get across the mechanics alone. So instructing with a passive uke was proper. The uke was deliberately resisting the instructor. Pretty much a judgment call which the instructor should have handled through discipline if need be. A little image problem took over instead.....

You quoted me for what reason?

Perhaps you were thinking of Drop Bears post?