martial arts are better now

[puunui]

Rules have change, the way the sport is played now compared to back than. The athletes now are faster, stronger and have more agility.

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

But this brings up an interesting new topic. If our athletes are faster, stronger and have more agility, no doubt because of improvements in training, nutrition, etc., then how does that fit with the idea that traditional martial arts is somehow superior to "sport"? How would a 5 foot tall, 100 pound Okinawan man from 100 years ago, in his loin cloth secretly practicing nothing but kata and makiwara in his backyard by moonlight fare against today's average UFC fighter? Will those secret pressure points hidden in the kata really be enough to take Lyoto Machida or Brock Lesnar down?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

Absolutely!

But this brings up an interesting new topic. If our athletes are faster, stronger and have more agility, no doubt because of improvements in training, nutrition, etc., then how does that fit with the idea that traditional martial arts is somehow superior to "sport"?

Superior is a relative term. Personally, I don't consider one to be superior to the other, but each is superior for its intended purpose with a fair amount of overlap in between. Not to menion that defining traditional needs to be done effectively before making a declarative statement of superiority of one over the other.

How would a 5 foot tall, 100 pound Okinawan man from 100 years ago, in his loin cloth secretly practicing nothing but kata and makiwara in his backyard by moonlight fare against today's average UFC fighter? Will those secret pressure points hidden in the kata really be enough to take Lyoto Machida or Brock Lesnar down?

Who knows? Depends on the five foot, 100 pound man. I've seen smaller guys fare well against bigger guys, so it is certainly possible that he might hold his own against a larger opponent.

Since we're talking about an opponent who's day job is fighting and training to fight, however, I'd suspect that the 100 pound man who practices kata and makiwara by night and works the fields by day would probably be on the losing end.

It isn't a question of traditional vs. sport. Its a question of incredible specialization (a guy who fights for a living) versus being more well rounded (the Okinawan farmer/shop keeper/whatever he did by daylight). The well rounded guy will be good at more things than the guy who spends his days and nights training to fight, but he probably won't be as good at fighting.

Perhaps a better theoretical comparison might be Ed Parker in his prime in a fight with either of the aforementioned gentlemen.

Sport vs. traditional is kind of like comparing a 2010 ZR1 to a 2010 Cadillac CTS-V. Which is better? Kind of depends on what you want to do. If you want to go faster and win races, you're better off in the car with the purpose built chasis, lighter weight, and higher horsepower. If you want to have more speed and power than you'll ever need on public roads and need to carry actual people in your car on occasion and would like your car to not ride like a race car, well, the CTS-V is a much better choice.

It all comes down to flavor. What do you want from the class you are taking? One of the things that I love about taekwondo is that there are so many different expressions of it.

You can be a dedicated athlete with dreams of olympic gold.

You can be an eight year old who's getting to kick and punch in real life (instead of on a video game) and who is learning discipline and commitment.

You can be an average person who would like to do something that is both physically healthy and offers tools to defend one's self in a positive atmosphere with like minded people.

You can be a hard core fighter type who spars with others of his ilk sans pads and who goes into work with giant knuckles and bruises from all that hard training.

You could be a woman who was recently mugged and simply doesn't want to be afraid anymore.

or a the 100 pound man who's hooked on poomse and kyuk-pah.

You name it and somewhere, there's a taekwondo dojang that will meet the needs of one or more of the aforementioned, as well as of several that I did not.

As for the fighters of the past, they should be recognized and honored for their achievements, achievements made at the time that they were fighting. Had any 'modern' athlete fought at the same time, they would have had the same training and nutrition as anyone else fighting at that time.

Daniel

 

[StudentCarl]

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

But this brings up an interesting new topic. If our athletes are faster, stronger and have more agility, no doubt because of improvements in training, nutrition, etc., then how does that fit with the idea that traditional martial arts is somehow superior to "sport"? How would a 5 foot tall, 100 pound Okinawan man from 100 years ago, in his loin cloth secretly practicing nothing but kata and makiwara in his backyard by moonlight fare against today's average UFC fighter? Will those secret pressure points hidden in the kata really be enough to take Lyoto Machida or Brock Lesnar down?

One old question this goes back to is attributes vs. skills. Strength, speed, and agility do make a big difference. It's part of the judgment anyone makes when they think "Do I think I could beat him?" Predators of any species go after the weak, not the strong. Good technique is decisive with surprise and good execution. Nobody in the first couple UFCs knew how to deal with Royce Gracie's BJJ.

In a sport context of any kind, the rules are a factor too. If you ask the Okinawan man a hundred years ago about rules, he wouldn't come up with the big laundry list of excluded techniques that the UFC currently bans. With a fight using UFC rules, I'd have to bet on the modern athlete whose attribute advantage would probably be decisive. Take out the rules and let the little guy get in a poke to the eyes, a pop in the groin, and then a good shot to the back of the head or neck, and it's a new game.

For me the lesson from history is to be thankful for the advancements in training science that we have, and to do all I can to maximize both my attributes and my skills.

Carl

 

[Earl Weiss]

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

But this brings up an interesting new topic. If our athletes are faster, stronger and have more agility, no doubt because of improvements in training, nutrition, etc., then how does that fit with the idea that traditional martial arts is somehow superior to "sport"? How would a 5 foot tall, 100 pound Okinawan man from 100 years ago, in his loin cloth secretly practicing nothing but kata and makiwara in his backyard by moonlight fare against today's average UFC fighter? Will those secret pressure points hidden in the kata really be enough to take Lyoto Machida or Brock Lesnar down?

Don't know about the secret stuff but seen many a highly conditioned Pro MMA athlete stopped by an accidental illegal technique that the 100lb guy would have no trouble executing. Now, if the MMA guy trains to defend against that stuff as well as excute it, then the equation falls to the other side.

 

[terryl965]

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

I agree the best was the best at that time frame, just to be clear I do not believe Jean was the best. He did win a World Championship and for that year or few tournaments he was the best, but over a 10 year span I would not consider him the best. Now Steven on the other hand over a ten year span is simply the best at his wieght catagory.

As far as small guy going against MMA fighter to many varibles like are we playing by rules or anything goes? If so tthat little guy may know some hidden secrets to make the MMA fighter look bad but in the end the MMA fighter would probaly win.

 

[dancingalone]

I have nothing to add to the sport discussion, but I believe excellent martial arts instruction is more available now than ever before. The information age has allowed students to realize that there is more to train in than cookie cutter templates, and from the instructor side it's made teachers realize that there are others willing to share their knowledge to anyone willing to pay the price for it (not necessarily monetary), so they too better step up or risk falling back.

And you don't necessarily have to travel too far to obtain this instruction either. It's 2011 and Eastern martial arts have been in the West for decades now with the home grown talent to show for it. You can now find excellent karate and taekwondo in North America, some from expatriate teachers, some from the natives.

Too often we focus overly much on the McDojo and how it is responsible for everything this side of the fall of the Roman empire. Well, it's not all doom and gloom. I see the little pockets of sterling martial arts growing in places like my neck of the woods, and I'm very encouraged.

 

[Archtkd]

That's true, but at the time, the best were the best and we shouldn't take that away from them.

But this brings up an interesting new topic. If our athletes are faster, stronger and have more agility, no doubt because of improvements in training, nutrition, etc., then how does that fit with the idea that traditional martial arts is somehow superior to "sport"? How would a 5 foot tall, 100 pound Okinawan man from 100 years ago, in his loin cloth secretly practicing nothing but kata and makiwara in his backyard by moonlight fare against today's average UFC fighter? Will those secret pressure points hidden in the kata really be enough to take Lyoto Machida or Brock Lesnar down?

Maybe this is question for another thread. Who would be the better human being? Often that's what many of us in Taekwondo and other martial arts focus on in he dojang: Becoming better human being and that includes having a good mind.

 

[puunui]

I agree the best was the best at that time frame, just to be clear I do not believe Jean was the best. He did win a World Championship and for that year or few tournaments he was the best, but over a 10 year span I would not consider him the best. Now Steven on the other hand over a ten year span is simply the best at his wieght catagory.

I was thinking more generically and globally rather focusing in on Jean Lopez, who was the best in his division for several years in the US. Also, he never won gold at Worlds. He did win silver in 1995 in Manila, and was about fifteen seconds away from winning gold, but there was a disruption in the cosmos (I think that is how Jay Warwick put it) and it wasn't meant to be. His brother Steven was the first US male to win gold at world championships, in 2001 I think. Jeju.

One question though: Anyone know why Steven Lopez didn't fight at team trials? What happened there?

 

[Steve]

One old question this goes back to is attributes vs. skills. Strength, speed, and agility do make a big difference. It's part of the judgment anyone makes when they think "Do I think I could beat him?" Predators of any species go after the weak, not the strong. Good technique is decisive with surprise and good execution. Nobody in the first couple UFCs knew how to deal with Royce Gracie's BJJ.
Carl

Emphasis mine. This is a bit of a myth. There were judo guys, sambo guys and shoot fighters in the first few UFCs. I went back and watched them all again a while back and was surprised at how many technical ground fighters were there. Granted, not all of them were comfortable on the mats, but a good percentage were. Frank Shamrock in particular was very comfortable on the ground, having fought for years in Asia, but he wasn't the only one.

 

[Steve]

Maybe this is question for another thread. Who would be the better human being? Often that's what many of us in Taekwondo and other martial arts focus on in he dojang: Becoming better human being and that includes having a good mind.

What exactly are you implying?

 

[Gorilla]

I was thinking more generically and globally rather focusing in on Jean Lopez, who was the best in his division for several years in the US. Also, he never won gold at Worlds. He did win silver in 1995 in Manila, and was about fifteen seconds away from winning gold, but there was a disruption in the cosmos (I think that is how Jay Warwick put it) and it wasn't meant to be. His brother Steven was the first US male to win gold at world championships, in 2001 I think. Jeju.

One question though: Anyone know why Steven Lopez didn't fight at team trials? What happened there?

Probably focusing on the Olympic Qualifying Event. Same for his sister!

 

[jks9199]

I don't think it's a fair comparison at all to match the founders of what's become modern martial arts like karate and aikido (Funakoshi, Shimbaku, Ueshiba, et al); and the various arts that came out of them (like Tae Kwon Do, et al) with a modern UFC fighter, or even the top level international TKD competitors. We're comparing people whose professions are training, and who use all the modern technology and knowledge available to enhance their training for their sporting events with people who trained in the evenings and off times. I'm not at all suggesting they weren't deadly serious about their training -- but they had to support themselves other ways, too.

I wouldn't even consider it a fair comparison if to match the martial monks of the Shaolin Temple or similar groups with modern elite competitive martial artists.  Again -- their training was only a part of their duties and activities. Comparing samurai to the elite competitors is a little more fair, as would be the military martial artists who took refuge in the temples. But even there, we're talking about people training for a very different situation, in a very different environment. I'm not taking anything from any of them -- but there's a difference in what they trained for, and in the realities of their training.

 

[puunui]

Probably focusing on the Olympic Qualifying Event. Same for his sister!

Good point. World Championships are May 1-6 and World Olympic Qualifier is June 30-July 3. So if you get knocked out or suffer a concussion at Worlds, you would disqualified from the World Olympic Qualifier. I would think that they would schedule these things far enough apart such that our best athletes wouldn't have to choose between these events. I don't think it was a problem in prior Olympic quadreniums.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

What exactly are you implying?

He may be implying that supposedly "back in the day" martial arts were as much about developing good character, honour, modesty etc as they were about 'fighting'. These days many ma clubs just teach you to "beat the crap out of someone". I know of one club that tells its black belts to go out and start fights against guys they know they will beat so they can test new moves/ideas to see what works for them. Im not saying this didnt happen "back in the day" but the perception is that their was more honour and dignity back in the old days. Its probably way off the mark but I hear many people voice those sentiments.

 

[puunui]

I don't think it's a fair comparison at all to match the founders of what's become modern martial arts like karate and aikido (Funakoshi, Shimbaku, Ueshiba, et al); and the various arts that came out of them (like Tae Kwon Do, et al) with a modern UFC fighter, or even the top level international TKD competitors. We're comparing people whose professions are training, and who use all the modern technology and knowledge available to enhance their training for their sporting events with people who trained in the evenings and off times. I'm not at all suggesting they weren't deadly serious about their training -- but they had to support themselves other ways, too.

Not really. Ueshiba Sensei, for example, had no other job but teaching and training. Same for Funakoshi Gichin Sensei, at least when he lived in Japan.

But even if you are correct, what about the perception out there, at least aimed at Taekwondo competitors, that the regular dojang student, training 45 minutes/one hour per day two or three times per week, is superior in skill, ability and also morally and philosophically because they focus their training on "self defense", with their sweeps, groin shots, elbows, knees and face punches, in comparison to the mere sport competitor, who only trains for points and nothing else, no poomsae, no self defense, their arms dangling at their sides (except when they are self cheering), their face exposed.

 

[puunui]

He may be implying that supposedly "back in the day" martial arts were as much about developing good character, honour, modesty etc as they were about 'fighting'.

Here is what the Olympic Charter says is the purpose of the Olympic Movement:

1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.

5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

6. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and
recognition by the IOC.

***

Sure sounds like the martial arts to me.

 

[searcher]

I feel it would truly impossible to determine if the old masters were better than those today. What if say Choi, Kyan, etc were brought to today's world and allowed to do it all over again? What if we took today's fighters and put them in the late 1800's or early 1900's and let them train the way the old masters did, would it make a difference on how well they excelled?

The big difference I see outside of the obvious things that have changed(training methods, training materials, nutrition, equipment,....), the big difference between today and even 75 years ago is the reason why people trained. Even 50 years ago, there were still people in Asian countries who were training to survive. More so, 75 to 100+ years ago. Even the best UFC fighters, Olympic TKD fighters, Knockdown Karate fighters, and the like, truly have very little risk of death fi they lose a fight compared with those training in the past.


Does this make sense to you guys or does it only work out in my head? Sometimes things make sense to me, but not to others.

 

[puunui]

IThe big difference I see outside of the obvious things that have changed(training methods, training materials, nutrition, equipment,....), the big difference between today and even 75 years ago is the reason why people trained. Even 50 years ago, there were still people in Asian countries who were training to survive. More so, 75 to 100+ years ago.

I think that is a myth, the idea that in asian countries, people took up martial arts in order to survive. Places like Japan or Okinawa, even Korea, are incredibly safe, 100 years ago even more so. Now in the United States, it might have been a different story. But in Okinawa, Japan, Korea, not so much. I walk around in an asian city and feel absolutely no danger. I can't say the same thing in certain parts of the United States, especially at night. This might be a situation where people take their perception of their own environment, and project it to another country and another culture.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Here is what the Olympic Charter says is the purpose of the Olympic Movement:

1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.

5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

6. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and
recognition by the IOC.

***

Sure sounds like the martial arts to me.

I wasnt talking about tkd in my post. One positive about tkd that I have seen is that any club I have ever come accross has had a heavy emphasis on the tenants of tkd. Things like modesty, integrity, avoiding fights etc have always been high on the agenda and this is probably why so many parents put little johnny into tkd. The club I referred to in regards to encouraging students to start fights was not a tkd club. There are many clubs out there (and some would be tkd), where it is all about learning to 'beat the crap out of someone', which in my eyes goes against the martia larts philosophy.

 

[puunui]

One positive about tkd that I have seen is that any club I have ever come accross has had a heavy emphasis on the tenants of tkd. Things like modesty, integrity, avoiding fights etc have always been high on the agenda and this is probably why so many parents put little johnny into tkd.

The tenets are a General Choi creation; it is not part of Kukki Taekwondo, although many dojang have adopted it as part of their curriculum.

The idea of walking away from fights is, I believe, a uniquely Japanese concept. I am told that Chinese martial arts had no such prohibitions, at least not as strongly stated as in Japanese styles. In Japan, the concept was necessary because Samurai would test themselves against other Samurai, and their tests were with live blades. Ordinary Japanese did not have swords and in general did not attack each other anyway so it was unnecessary for them to have any sort of formalized code. But samurai were a different story, hence the concept that the sword should remain in its scabbard.