Life according to Chuck: IF YOU DON’T FIGHT, YOU DON’T TRULY KNOW IF YOU CAN WIN

[Zero]

There's a chapter in Chuck "the Iceman" Liddell's book (Iceman: My Fighting Life) that is titled:

“If you don't fight, you don't know if you can win.”

I think this goes a long ways in the martial arts, be it in the sports styles (or competitive side to styles), to the SD schools, to the TMAs.

Some people (including some people on this site that seem to be very knowledgeable in their style) question or devalue sparring (and even go so far as to state it is counter-productive to one’s ability or skills) and question the need for tournament fighting.

I try to see the logic in this approach but on the whole I ain’t getting it. If you haven’t got in the ring numerous times and whooped on some fella to the best of your ability and skill level and at times had a whoopin yourself by those better than you, I really don’t see you as a getting to grips with the true intentions of the martial arts and the application of the skills that they can gift you with. Further, I am not sure how you can be confident that those skills you are learning have been learnt and practiced correctly. Now clearly in the ring is a very specialised and focused environment and it is not conducive to trying out all those techniques that may be handy outside of a rule set or otherwise in real life. But that don’t add up to a hill o’ beans or take away from tournaments, and I’m talking full contact tournaments here, not ballet sports or clicker karate/TKD etc. Something’s gotta be on the line (ie your jaw) if you are truly to implement techniques and see if they and you hold up.

Anyway, it's acknowledged that half-arsed sparring where there is just a whole heap o' flailing about with poor skills and control probably is nothing more than an abomination. But proper continuous (not stop-start) sparring with good implementation of skills and with a degree of contact so one knows if one is being for real or just playing at it, is in my mind only a good thing.

Taking that to the next level, full contact competition again is the real test of one’s ability (short of getting in a real life altercation) and the training required for this is going to get one generally conditioned to a level far in excess of your MA fella or fellarette who is just going through the school yard motions.

Many (and I know this from personally questioning quite a few) SD and TMA teachers have not applied their techniques under stress or even been in a real fight or SD scenario and so have not actually dealt with the adrenaline dump and mental aspects of a full on violent altercation or life and death situation.

Now this is a trickier situation as it’s a lovely place where no one and no sifu has had to use their learning in the real world. But when real aggression and violence is not something one is familiar with, I gets me a thinking as to how the overall teaching for the real world is going to be. Sure it may be better than nothing, a heap better, but does it really stack up?

A teacher may be a great teacher and very skilled but what exactly is he/she passing on and, importantly, is the right mind set getting passed on also? I wonder…

Is there anyway the above can be shown to be other than the gospel truth when it comes to MA (real MA)?

 

[Danny T]

There's a chapter in Chuck "the Iceman" Liddell's book (Iceman: My Fighting Life) that is titled:

“If you don't fight, you don't know if you can win.”

I think this goes a long ways in the martial arts, be it in the sports styles (or competitive side to styles), to the SD schools, to the TMAs.

Some people (including some people on this site that seem to be very knowledgeable in their style) question or devalue sparring (and even go so far as to state it is counter-productive to one’s ability or skills) and question the need for tournament fighting.
...

Now this is a trickier situation as it’s a lovely place where no one and no sifu has had to use their learning in the real world. But when real aggression and violence is not something one is familiar with, I gets me a thinking as to how the overall teaching for the real world is going to be. Sure it may be better than nothing, a heap better, but does it really stack up?

A teacher may be a great teacher and very skilled but what exactly is he/she passing on and, importantly, is the right mind set getting passed on also? I wonder…

Is there anyway the above can be shown to be other than the gospel truth when it comes to MA (real MA)?

Define 'real MA' and define what one is fighting for, and specify what it means 'to win'.
Here is the crux; there are many reasons, goals, needs, desires that practitioners train in the martial arts. They are all real. What one fights for and what is called a win is different for everyone of us. For some being able to fight has absolutely nothing to do with the training. For others fighting and winning means everything.

 

[jezr74]

Many (and I know this from personally questioning quite a few) SD and TMA teachers have not applied their techniques under stress or even been in a real fight or SD scenario and so have not actually dealt with the adrenaline dump and mental aspects of a full on violent altercation or life and death situation.

This would be equally true for all MAs.

 

[tshadowchaser]

It depends on what your calling winning. Contact may be needed to see if you can take or throw a punch, hip throw, submission , etc. but take the case of the blind person who studies to learn more confidence or better improve his coordination. How about the paraplegic who studies to regain confidence or just to prove he/she can still do things. Have they not won a great battle just going on the floor? I would say those people fought and won a fight but it may not be the fight Liddell was talking about.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Reasons for taking up martial arts vary from person to person. While I personally agree in my own case that periodically sparring and applying statically drilled techniques, transitions and combinations in sparring are essential to progressing in my practice of Sambo, other people may be taking up martial arts for other purposes.

What about the overweight student with self-esteem issues who takes up Judo or Kenpo to gain confidence and prove to himself that he's capable of succeeding at something, or the older student taking up Taiji or Aikido in an effort to combat Sensory Motor Amnesia or conquer Osteoarthritis? All these too are "fights" in the sense that they are challenges or conflicts one must overcome to truly discover one's true, inner self.

I agree with Chuck's statement here, but I would caution against exclusively taking it literally and at face value. That you are your own greatest enemy in the practice of martial arts is very true, and that statement encompasses your opinion of yourself, or limitations you may place on yourself after assessing your body's perceived capabilities. Martial arts can help you transcend these barriers your mind and body faces.

Dr. Kano, founder of Judo wrote that the art is a form of self-expression of the deeper, inner self; that Judo was about the correcting of negative thought processes and habits and replacing them with new, functional, practical and positive ones. This too is a "fight". I think a real martial art should really focus on making a practitioner the best version of herself, regardless of for whatever reasons she has chosen to pursue it.

 

[Zero]

It depends on what your calling winning. Contact may be needed to see if you can take or throw a punch, hip throw, submission , etc. but take the case of the blind person who studies to learn more confidence or better improve his coordination. How about the paraplegic who studies to regain confidence or just to prove he/she can still do things. Have they not won a great battle just going on the floor? I would say those people fought and won a fight but it may not be the fight Liddell was talking about.

I agree, those people have absolutely "won" (ie, gained something) and possibly of more value, at least to them, than winning a tournament or even commercial fight. I can't speak for the man at all but I would wager Chuck and some others of his level may even agree with that.

 

[Buka]

I haven't read the book yet. My question is - when Chuck says "fight" is he talking about sparring or is he talking about competing?

 

[Zero]

I haven't read the book yet. My question is - when Chuck says "fight" is he talking about sparring or is he talking about competing?

Fighting as in actually competing on the whole.

While I was referring to his line, I was trying to use it more in the context of or as a basis for the premise that unless you are actually truly testing yourself and/or your techniques and applying them in a situation that will quickly establish if you or those techniques are failing, not being applied correctly, or simply have no real world application, then how much credence can you really put in those techniques or yourself holding water in a real situation (being that as a "real" fight on the street or a "real" fight in the ring)?

My take is this:
1. If I don't spar (serious sparring, very much like in boxing), then I don't know if (i) I can actually use my techniques to hit someone, (ii) I can use my evasion, blocking and timing skills to slip/negate someone's strikes or attacks, and (iii) whether my takedown counters and jams are actually effective.

In addition, proper sparring is a great forum in learning and honing timing. Outside of actual fighting and sparring it is very difficult to get your fight reflexes and timing down. Look, there are plenty of drills and partner or individual work you can to do better these skills. But personally, I (and my friends and peers) found my own hand speed and reflexes were at their peak during the period I was sparring through the week and regularly competing (on sometimes a weekly or fortnightly basis).

2. If I don't actually compete (full contact or something close to that), I don't know just how well (i) my sparring is going and if the skills I am supposedly enhancing and employing while sparring and (iii) my mental state is for holding up, where an opponent is simply fighting me with the drive to defeat me and not holding back on their moves.

3. Again, I am the first to say that a lot of the aspects of tournament, even full contact, fighting (in whatever style(s)) are a world away from equipping you with the mental and physical tool-kit for dealing with on the street and SD situations.

But I do think it can come in very handy, both on a physical and mental level, to have gone through the process, maybe numerous of times, of hitting, submitting, beating down an opponent in the ring (and having the same done to yourself), if you find yourself being jumped or caught up in a violent confrontation you were unable to avoid.

And those few that have actually come through a SD situation for the real and that have a decent skill level, I would generally put them at a level of readiness somewhat above martial artists that have not gone through any of that. Although this has to be qualified as everyone is, while very much the same on a basic level, also quite different. And just because you face one SD situation and equip yourself well mentally and/or physically, it can't surely be certain that the next time you won't you freeze up, etc...

 

[Paul_D]

A "win" in self defence could be to run away, as it prevented you form being harmed and got you home safely. In the cage or ring if you run around in a circle trying to get away form your opponent you will lose as you will be disqualified for failing to engage.

A pre-emptive strikes is a valid SD technique, but hit your opponent before the bell in competition and again you have lost by DQ. A win in one scenario is a loss in the other. Nothing has changed in terms of skill and technique ability, the only thing that has changed is the judging criteria by which you decide what constitutes a "win".

I get what Chuck is saying of course, and it is valid, but only valid in terms of judging sports/combat skills. It's not valid in judging someone's SD capability.

 

[chinto]

A "win" in self defence could be to run away, as it prevented you form being harmed and got you home safely. In the cage or ring if you run around in a circle trying to get away form your opponent you will lose as you will be disqualified for failing to engage.

A pre-emptive strikes is a valid SD technique, but hit your opponent before the bell in competition and again you have lost by DQ. A win in one scenario is a loss in the other. Nothing has changed in terms of skill and technique ability, the only thing that has changed is the judging criteria by which you decide what constitutes a "win".

I get what Chuck is saying of course, and it is valid, but only valid in terms of judging sports/combat skills. It's not valid in judging someone's SD capability.

I agree completely. when you are talking SD, the sport rules and measure of a "win" or "loss" means nothing!!! Do you have to have a fight for your life to be legitimate in what you teach? No, I would say not. and I have had to fight for my life, so I feel that I have a valid Opinion.

 

[Zero]

A "win" in self defence could be to run away, as it prevented you form being harmed and got you home safely. In the cage or ring if you run around in a circle trying to get away form your opponent you will lose as you will be disqualified for failing to engage.

A pre-emptive strikes is a valid SD technique, but hit your opponent before the bell in competition and again you have lost by DQ. A win in one scenario is a loss in the other. Nothing has changed in terms of skill and technique ability, the only thing that has changed is the judging criteria by which you decide what constitutes a "win".

I get what Chuck is saying of course, and it is valid, but only valid in terms of judging sports/combat skills. It's not valid in judging someone's SD capability.

Agreed, there are numerous forms of "wins" and often what may look like a loss (ie running away or actually taking a punch in the mouth and handing over your wallet but staying calm and getting to walk away with your life) is actually win, maybe the most important win of all.

I think the line from Chuck does not need to be constrained to its context and to the example of a fight tournament, even though that is what he was using it for.

 

[Balrog]

I try to see the logic in this approach but on the whole I ain’t getting it. If you haven’t got in the ring numerous times and whooped on some fella to the best of your ability and skill level and at times had a whoopin yourself by those better than you, I really don’t see you as a getting to grips with the true intentions of the martial arts and the application of the skills that they can gift you with.

I have to disagree with this. Yes, sparring is integral to training. You're putting theory into practice. But I do NOT believe that one has to go all out trying to hurt someone else in order to consider oneself capable. That, to me, is totally contrary to (IMNSHO) the true intention of martial arts training: enabling oneself to live in peace.

Sun Tzu says it best:

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

 

[K-man]

I would say that in a real situation you will never know that you can win. That is why self defence is about not having to fight. Fighting is for when all else fails so unless you are training for the ring then why should you 'fight'?

Fighting in the ring or sparring will not prepare you for the moment the guy pulls the knife on you. If you are training for competition 'fighting' is essential. If you are training for self defence there are other means of testing your skills.

 

[Zero]

I have to disagree with this. Yes, sparring is integral to training. You're putting theory into practice. But I do NOT believe that one has to go all out trying to hurt someone else in order to consider oneself capable. That, to me, is totally contrary to (IMNSHO) the true intention of martial arts training: enabling oneself to live in peace.
Sun Tzu says it best:

Balrog, if you are talking about battle and warfare, I absolutely concur with Sun Tzu's philosophy, and therefore with yourself.
However, I have never personally seen competitive fighting, amateur or for a purse, as akin to a battle (although much of the Art of War is applicable strategically to a one-on-one sport/tournament fight).
There are some that compete that do go all out and from the start with the mentality of proving themselves by hurting others, these are very, very few and far between. And there is little or none of such fighters at the highest levels with this attitude as a general encompassing approach to their fighting.

Tournament, even full contact, fighting is not about going all out to hurt someone else. That is, I would admit a possible and common by-product. Never-the-less, this is not the essence of full contact sanctioned fighting. The real drive is to fully challenge oneself and hopefully against a highly skilled adversary. In defeating the opponent in the ring you are actually defeating yourself - your weaknesses (of both a physical and mental nature with respect to fighting ability). This is not at all contrary to the intention of martial arts, this is the essence of martial arts.

You go into the ring to push yourself, to enhance yourself and to challenge yourself to the highest degree possible, that can be provided in a sanctioned environment.

I have hurt numerous people over the years fighting, most of who I like (or at least don't dislike), some of who I respect and some of who are friends.

For example, I want to see if I can do a foot sweep and follow through into a head kick if the opportunity presents. Yes, the contact hurts and/or KOs the other person but it is the execution of the technique while at the same time avoiding theirs. I am not thinking I want to split open this guys forehead. Again, I would concede that in some fights there is an injury that you seek to repeatedly punish and exploit to enable you to win the fight, such as a cut or bruised eye or knee or thigh that has born the brunt of several leg attacks. But again that is fight strategy to win the fight and it is the fight which the focus is on and not the hurting of the individual in itself. You may not be able to see a difference but I do.

The level of intensity while competing in the ring is never matched by that of free sparing in the club, if it is, then you are doing the same thing in any event.

 

[Buka]

I think there is truth to both sides of the discussion. But I believe sparring/competing can give you some things that other training methods might not necessarily do as well. One is a better understanding of distance and how it can change during an actual fight. The change of distance can not only help you win, it can offer a quicker understanding of escape possibilities. I believe that some people who never spar might possibly have a skewed understanding of distance.

There is also a stress factor. Nothing matches the ugly, horrible stress of a fight. But sparring, especially with a large enough group of people,can create a certain level of sustained stress.... because we ALL know what some folks in dojos are like.

Competition can create stress at even a higher level. Especially as you progress in your skills, your opponents progress in theirs. And competing against somebody you've never seen before makes for interesting study. We all know how some folks look. Like they ate nails for breakfast. And sometimes you'll beat them flat out quick. Some folks look like absolutely nothing, physically. Then they'll take you to school and spank you in ten seconds flat.I think being exposed to the stresses of hard sparring and competition help in the long run. Maybe not necessary, but they certainly don't hurt.