Martial Arts Evolution/Revolution?

[Bill Mattocks]

To be honest, I haven't heard of what you're mentioning here.

The Bubishi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubishi

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Karate-Patrick-McCarthy/dp/0804820155

The diagrams show the methods of attack and defense. The point here is that people attack using hands and feet, the same as they always have. If Americans tend to throw the haymaker overhand right more than other punches, that's OK, people threw that punch then too, and it was accounted for. There are dozens if not hundreds of defenses to that one punch alone.

I quickly went thru some of the other posts on this thread, later on yesterday, however, it seems there are some things that were mentioned that I neglected to mention myself, such as the way techs were applied back then, compared to today, the legal issues, and things of that nature.

The way techs were applied have not changed. I keep hearing the statement that they HAVE changed, but no statement showing in what way that is true. You can't make it true by saying over and over again.

Legal issues - again, I spoke to that. For one thing, it again doesn't say anything about the original point - that attacks have changed. For another, self-defense means what it means. One defends oneself until the threat is gone. It is up to the individual to know and obey the self-defense laws of their location, but it has nothing to do with TMA.

Things of that nature?

Let's go back to the O/P's statements/questions...

"Times change. People change. Do/should Martial Arts change?"

OK, so times change. Yes, they do. People change? No, they do not - or at least they have not in any way that anyone in this thread has demonstrated. They just keep saying that people DO change (or rather, that methods of attack change) without backing it up with any facts at all. My argument is simple - people (and their attacks) have NOT changed. This means that the last part of the statement/question is moot. The martial arts do not need to change if the first part of the statement is incorrect.

The second part of the statement/question was equally invalid:

"As Martial Artists should we be focused/concerned with preservation or progression of the combative arts?"

As a martial artist, *I* am focused on learning the style I am training in. I cannot speak for others, but I am not interested in "preserving or progressing the combative arts."

So the statement is just stuffed with poor logic, which renders it meaningless.

It would be equivalent poor logic to say something like "As human beings, should we be focused on learning to speak Chinese or Japanese?" Well, as a 'human being', I am focused on neither, so the question makes no sense. It proposes only two alternatives, both of which are not valid answers for me.

If someone wants to start a thread and argue that most traditional martial arts dojos in the US are not teaching traditional martial arts skills, I'll go along with that and even agree with it, based on my observations. If they want to argue that people fight differently nowadays than they did in ancient times, and that therefore martial arts training must change to accommodate that, I'm going to ask (again) for proof of that statement, rather than simply repeating it over and over again. I don't think that the way people hit each other has changed at all, and that therefor what worked in the past, works now. It's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed.

 

[Wo Fat]

I'm fine with evolution of the Arts when it's necessary. And I'm OK with revolution if evolution is unreasonably stifled or restrained.

Martial arts, to me, is first and foremost about defense of self and family. While the need for self defense has not changed, the manner or application of self defense has evolved. It's not much different than the evolution of warfare. If our militias and military stuck with tradition for tradition's sake, we'd still be doing battle on horseback with arrows. As well, battle was revolutionized through the use of gun powder and explosives.

Similarly, methods of attack have evolved. So then have methods of defense. It's natural, and as such I'm not worried too much about the pendulum of evolution or revolution swinging too far.

If anything, I am concerned about the dilution of serious self defense and the public's mis-education of martial arts, in exchange for maximum $$$ profit -- all under the guise of "revolutionizing" martial arts.

 

[Drag'n]

Originally posted by Bill Mattocks:

Then your dojos were indeed different than mine. What training equipment do you refer to? What science have we not accounted for? I'm just asking.

For an example they didnt have mitts. They had to hit stationary objects that didnt strike back. Which fine for strengthening your tools but doesnt do a lot do develop your timing and defence while also developing your ability to hit hard and fast. Standing there hitting a makiwara just isnt quite the same is it.

Another example: stretching. Even my art Kudo, still which is supposed to be a modern progressive form of budo still clings to the archaic stretching practices adopted from our mother art Kyokushin, that do more damage to your muscles than help you get flexible.

Another example: Strength training. Up till about 10 years ago most people were just either doing a lot of push ups /sit ups etc or they were using body building oriented weight training routines. Luckily we have a lot more knowledge available to us now on how to get stronger and fitter for fighting.

Another; head gear. I use what is called "super safe head gear". It has a full plastic face guard which means you can hit it full force without big cumbersome gloves on. You can even use knees to the face, elbows, head butts you name it, and still go to work the next day without a scratch.

Not all of these examples relate to SD but they certainly do point out the benefits of utilising new knowledge and technology.

I have not experienced that attitude, so I can see we have a different basis. We routinely examine techniques from outside our own style in my dojo. We try them, we see that many of them work quite well. Perfectly usable and quite acceptable for self-defense. It is made clear to students that it is not part of our style, but we also are taught that what is important is that the technique does or does not work, not where it came from.

So you ARE progressive in your attitude then!

Actually, many traditional martial artists in Okinawa worked their techniques by maiming and killing each other. Not in a sporting event, but from bar to bar, village to village. They were also not uncommonly called upon to defend themselves against drunks, bandits, and even invaders. They honed their skills by seeing what worked for themselves and for others when they were defeated. It was in fact a matter of life and death for them to get it right. I actually think that trumps protective equipment that allows people to hammer each other hard to see what works.

You and I may live our entire lives without ever having a brigand jump in front of us on a path and demand our money. In older times, this was just not that uncommon. We live in a much more peaceful world in many ways than our ancestors. Their martial arts inventions were designed to counter threats which actually existed, not theoretical threats which might happen. They had to find out if their skills worked as they hoped they would by applying them for real, against real people who were really trying to kill them.

Sure they may have had the odd brush with life or death. But I dont think as often as you believe. I f I was to bet my money on 2 fighters where one of them had been in a few life or death encounters and the other had been in daily encounters with other trained fighters who pushed him to defend himself or get hurt. I'd bet on the guy who faced daily beatings.

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you there. I'm sure you're right. I'm glad to say that I can demonstrate that my skills work. And if my abilities are not yet up to my statements, I have senseis who can and do demonstrate it with alacrity. I have never yet seen anyone say "Oh yeah? Then what do you do when THIS happens [throw technique]" and not have it utterly defeated with extreme ease.



Again, not my experience. And I've got a solid background of law enforcement and military experience fighting that tells me what's BS and what isn't. I'm not claiming to be a great fighter or to have even had that many 'street' fights, but I've had my share. I am not going to tell tales on my senseis, but suffice to say they have been around the block more than once. They walk it like they talk it.

Sounds like you are in a good dojo. Which is probably why you dont feel the need to change any thing.

This is where, in my world, it becomes more difficult to explain to those who dislike TMA. No, you won't commonly see a lunge punch in self-defense situations. But what you will see is that the defense to a lunge punch is very useful for very many things - if you've been shown the bunkai by people who know how to teach it and understand how it works. The same block I would use against a lunge punch (as an example) applies just as easily to a punch to the head or even a kick. I raise or lower my arm a bit. The mechanics are the same, the movement is the same, and if applied correctly, the result is the same.

But the timing is completely different. I dont know what kind of defense you use though so I cant really comment. Boy have I seen some rediculous counters to the lunge punch though. And if you have been around for a while I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

As regards the self-defense to a punch to the head, in my experience, most non-trained Americans wind up and throw a haymaker. So yes, they telegraph. However, part of our training is learning to look for the 'tell' that lets us know the punch is coming. Nearly everybody telegraphs their intentions if you know how to look for it. And we practice those fast-twitch reflexes that let us throw our counter before the punch even draws back to be thrown at us if we want to respond that way.

Thats fine against completely untrained opponents and when you are expecting it. But what if you come up against someone whos done a bit of boxing or wrestled in college? Its not that rare.
Personally I want to be able to deal with the attacks from anybody. Including those with MA training.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe an awful lot of people with a negative view of TMA have only had experience with poor teachers in bad dojos teaching watered down skills that have drifted and become more-or-less useless. And there are a lot of those, and yes, that's a real shame. But I have NEVER had an instructor of mine say "We do it that way because that's the way it is done!" NEVER. We ask and we are shown - often painfully - what the technique is for, how it is applied, why it works, what the variations on it are, and so on. This is what good instruction does. And (again, no insult to you intended), there are also a lot of crap students out there. Two years of training, 1st degree black belt, and they open their dojo and start teaching. It's BS, IMHO. That's a business, it's not an art.

I dont take it the wrong way at all. I'm quite enjoying this conversation. I totally agree with you on this. Of about 30 something TMA dojos I've visited over the years only 1 of them trained like yours. It was the only one that had students with the skills to really defend themselves too.
I'm not really a TMA hater. Techniques from TMA are the base of what we all do. Like you say there is just a hell of a lot of BS being passed off as TMA

We don't have any secrets. I communicate here all the time. What would you like to know?

Have you ever sparred with a competent boxer/ Muay Thai fighter/ wrestler/ judoka? If yes, then what did you learn from the experience? Did it change any of your perceptions?

As to UFC fighting and evolving, yes, indeed. And do you know why? Because fighting in a cage for sport with two men and a referee is relatively new in this country. People are still figuring out what works and what does not. This was done a long time ago with regard to hand-to-hand self-defense outside of a ring or a cage.

Against less skilled opponents with much fewer techniques in their arsenal.

I still remember what it was like before the UFC. We used to all sit around and argue about who would win if a boxer fought a karateka etc.
Then the first NHB events started and shock horror it was the grappling arts which came out on top! None of us strikers expected that. It was a life changing experience.
We dont have to imagine scenarios of x style vrs Y style any more. We pretty much know. MAny of us have adapted to this new knowledge. Others just find more and more ways to deny it.

First, I don't ignore those things. If I wanted to fight in a cage, they'd be excellent skills to have. Second, you assume a great deal.

I wasnt talking about you personally with that comment or any of my comments. Just some of the people I have dealt with in my life.

Or maybe the concept of mastery is lost on some. 20 years should get a person well on the way towards mastery. I can defend myself now, after 4 years. I'm just going to keep getting better.

I wasn't talking about mastery. Thats something I guess we will all be striving after for the best part of our lives.
Just being able to defend oneself effectively in a violent encounter is a common goal for some one starting MA. But I've seen so many black belts who couldnt fight their way out of a paper bag after 5~10 years training its sad really.
After just 4 years it may seem as if your teachers are untouchable and have a counter for everything. But 10 ~15 years down the line you may have a different perspective. Maybe. Maybe not

So we agree that people who teach crap skills are harming martial arts. And it doesn't matter if they teach so-called TMA or more modern combative arts. Right? So yes, crap is crap. That does not easily extend to a blanket condemnation of traditional martial arts. I'm not sure how you are making that leap.

I'm not condemning TMA just those who think they are above the need to evolve just because something worked well for someone a long time ago. The whole idea that something is perfect and beyond improvement.I dont think thats what the founders of TMA were doing. They were constantly looking to improve and learn. Thats the spirit with which a MArtist needs to live by. Not just sitting there waiting to be spoon feed the same ol recipe as yesteryear.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of rate of change. Yes, everything changes. But we will not all have three arms in the next generation. Change is constant - and often quite slow. There is a need to change responses to threats which have changed. But if the threat has not changed, then the response does not need to change.

Well you have to take that one up with Lao Tzu who I stole the quote from.

The first question is to evaluate the basic premise - have threats requiring self-defense capability changed? If yes, then how have the threats changed? If not, then the ways that worked then, work now. And we're not a whole lot smarter than the people who thought up and tested self-defense techniques that got them dead or maimed if they didn't work.

[/QUOTE]

Well you are presuming that everything you are being taught was tested in battle. I'm not quite so quick to believe. Call me a sceptic.
The techs I learn I get to test for myself against opponents who are doing their best to give me a good *** kicking. I KNOW everything I do works against an aggressive attack when done right. I dont need to rely on faith.

 

[MJS]

Ok, since we have split thoughts on this, lets answer this question: Some are saying the method of attacking has not changed. Some are saying that it has changed. For the sake discussion, can we get clarification on what has/has not changed?

 

[MJS]

The Bubishi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubishi

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Karate-Patrick-McCarthy/dp/0804820155

Cool. Thanks for that.

The diagrams show the methods of attack and defense. The point here is that people attack using hands and feet, the same as they always have. If Americans tend to throw the haymaker overhand right more than other punches, that's OK, people threw that punch then too, and it was accounted for. There are dozens if not hundreds of defenses to that one punch alone.



The way techs were applied have not changed. I keep hearing the statement that they HAVE changed, but no statement showing in what way that is true. You can't make it true by saying over and over again.

Legal issues - again, I spoke to that. For one thing, it again doesn't say anything about the original point - that attacks have changed. For another, self-defense means what it means. One defends oneself until the threat is gone. It is up to the individual to know and obey the self-defense laws of their location, but it has nothing to do with TMA.

Things of that nature?

In a post I just made, I asked for clarification on what people think has or has not changed. Yes, in Jasons' OP, he only mentioned the arts, however, the reason why the attacks came into play, was most likely because some feel the method of attacking has changed. Thus the reason for the question I asked below.

Let's go back to the O/P's statements/questions...

"Times change. People change. Do/should Martial Arts change?"

OK, so times change. Yes, they do. People change? No, they do not - or at least they have not in any way that anyone in this thread has demonstrated. They just keep saying that people DO change (or rather, that methods of attack change) without backing it up with any facts at all. My argument is simple - people (and their attacks) have NOT changed. This means that the last part of the statement/question is moot. The martial arts do not need to change if the first part of the statement is incorrect.

Ok.

The second part of the statement/question was equally invalid:

"As Martial Artists should we be focused/concerned with preservation or progression of the combative arts?"

As a martial artist, *I* am focused on learning the style I am training in. I cannot speak for others, but I am not interested in "preserving or progressing the combative arts."

So the statement is just stuffed with poor logic, which renders it meaningless.

It would be equivalent poor logic to say something like "As human beings, should we be focused on learning to speak Chinese or Japanese?" Well, as a 'human being', I am focused on neither, so the question makes no sense. It proposes only two alternatives, both of which are not valid answers for me.

If someone wants to start a thread and argue that most traditional martial arts dojos in the US are not teaching traditional martial arts skills, I'll go along with that and even agree with it, based on my observations. If they want to argue that people fight differently nowadays than they did in ancient times, and that therefore martial arts training must change to accommodate that, I'm going to ask (again) for proof of that statement, rather than simply repeating it over and over again. I don't think that the way people hit each other has changed at all, and that therefor what worked in the past, works now. It's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed.

Points taken.

 

[Wo Fat]

Ok, since we have split thoughts on this, lets answer this question: Some are saying the method of attacking has not changed. Some are saying that it has changed. For the sake discussion, can we get clarification on what has/has not changed?

I think it depends, in large part, on what we currently train to defend against. If you train to defend against a right handed step-in punch toward the chest area, it would seem that the method of attack hasn't changed much. But if you train against the former AND against a "skilled" street fighter who attacks from all angles and situations, then the method of attack has changed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ok, since we have split thoughts on this, lets answer this question: Some are saying the method of attacking has not changed. Some are saying that it has changed. For the sake discussion, can we get clarification on what has/has not changed?

In my opinion, the things that have changed about self-defense are related to weapons far more than methods of unarmed attacks. And, I feel that we as Westerners are far less likely to need to defend ourselves from physical attack than the average person in areas where traditional martial arts first arose.

And as far as weapons are concerned, our major threats appear to be knives and guns. Knives were comprehended in traditional systems, guns were not. However, guns are threats up close or they are threats far away. If they are threats far away (as in you cannot reach them with your hands), then there is no self-defense skill to be improved. If they are up close, then traditional tuite techniques are generally* as useful as any other, more 'modern' techniques.

* I concede that one aspect of hand/wrist/release techniques is that one does not want to have the barrel pointed at oneself whilst performing the maneuver. This is one aspect where I concede that 'modern' techniques developed specifically for this situation make perfect sense.

To the extent that people in different cultures use unarmed attacks differently, I agree that they may prefer different attacks, but not that the attacks are in any way different than they were. We may tend to use the overhand right punch more often in the USA, for example, but they were still used in ancient times, and there are great defenses against them that still work just fine. No, we don't tend to kick as much, or to throw thrusting straight punches; but the skills used to defend against these work just fine for other forms of attack.

I have yet to hear someone describe a method of hitting a person with the empty hand that was never done before and for which TMA has no defense. So I must conclude it has not changed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it depends, in large part, on what we currently train to defend against. If you train to defend against a right handed step-in punch toward the chest area, it would seem that the method of attack hasn't changed much. But if you train against the former AND against a "skilled" street fighter who attacks from all angles and situations, then the method of attack has changed.

So you are arguing that in the past, there were no skilled street fighters who attacked from all angles, etc? So therefore, TMA has no defense against this kind of attack? I'm looking for something a little more specific, or at least some kind of cite to back up what I think you are saying. If I am misunderstanding you, please explain how.

 

[Wo Fat]

So you are arguing that in the past, there were no skilled street fighters who attacked from all angles, etc? So therefore, TMA has no defense against this kind of attack? I'm looking for something a little more specific, or at least some kind of cite to back up what I think you are saying. If I am misunderstanding you, please explain how.

No, sir. Not saying that skilled street fighters didn't exist in the past. I'm saying that they did and many styles did not adapt.

I never met Bruce Lee, although he did train for several months with my original instructor. Lee once said to my instructor essentially what I think you're saying: "... a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick." Some truth to that.

On the other hand, that's also like saying a gun is a gun and a bullet is a bullet. And while the concept of shooting hasn't changed, the methods have. Similarly, while the concept of using hands and feet has not changed, the methods have changed in terms of using hands/feet/elbows/shins. People who otherwise have no traditional or even actual martial arts training, can acquire rudimentary skills through YouTube, DVDs, etc., making themselves just enough of a backyard MMA'er or Fight Club'er to be dangerous.

But here's what you're right: some of the same grappling defenses that someone used in their Japanese jujitsu 70 or 80 years ago, could still be use in essentially the same way today.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On the other hand, that's also like saying a gun is a gun and a bullet is a bullet. And while the concept of shooting hasn't changed, the methods have.

Yes, they have. As we have come to understand more about how to accurately fire a hand-held weapon, we've adapted our techniques.

On the other hand, firearms, and specifically, handguns, have existed in their present form (revolvers, semiautomatics) for at most just over a hundred years.

How long have we been throwing fists at each other?

My point is that eventually, one takes it about as far as it can be taken.

Similarly, while the concept of using hands and feet has not changed, the methods have changed in terms of using hands/feet/elbows/shins. People who otherwise have no traditional or even actual martial arts training, can acquire rudimentary skills through YouTube, DVDs, etc., making themselves just enough of a backyard MMA'er or Fight Club'er to be dangerous.

I completely disagree with this. If they attempt to throw any of the things they see on Youtube, etc, against a skilled martial artist, they're in serious trouble. AND the things they throw, even if properly thrown, already have defenses built right into the existing martial arts. I think the danger they pose is mostly to themselves.

But here's what you're right: some of the same grappling defenses that someone used in their Japanese jujitsu 70 or 80 years ago, could still be use in essentially the same way today.

The point has been made, and I agree with it, that cage-style fighting continues to evolve. We see how it went from stand-up punching and basic brawling to grappling, and from there, to very specialized grappling, but with some of the strongest elements of stand-up fighting included. The sport evolved and continues to evolve. But it's what, 20 years old? I remember the very first UFC fight.

I think people who are young (sorry, can't help it, it is what it is) tend to see history through the lens of their own life, where UFC has always been around. They see it evolving and think that means fighting is evolving. It's not. A particular style of fighting in a cage is evolving, because it's new, in relative terms. Boxing occasionally gets innovative fighters, but not that often, because it's pretty much been explored. And it's NOTHING near as old as just plan basic fisticuffs, which has been around since dirt.

 

[Wo Fat]

Actually, Bill we might be pretty close in age. I'm in my late 40s and began MA training in the 1970s. We probably have more in common than in differences. You make mention of UFC-style fighting, and what I find ironic is that MMA/cage fighting has been with us for a couple of decades and seems pretty homogeneous in that so many of the fighters differ only in varying degrees (as opposed to the first UFC fights).

I foresee someone evolving that particular fighting style, and revolutionizing the sport.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually, Bill we might be pretty close in age. I'm in my late 40s and began MA training in the 1970s. We probably have more in common than in differences. You make mention of UFC-style fighting, and what I find ironic is that MMA/cage fighting has been with us for a couple of decades and seems pretty homogeneous in that so many of the fighters differ only in varying degrees (as opposed to the first UFC fights).

I foresee someone evolving that particular fighting style, and revolutionizing the sport.

I think we see it all the time. You get someone showing up with a skill not seen (yet) in UFC style fighting and for awhile they dominate, until others learn how to counter it. If it represents a power skill that works well, you see them start to adopt it into their own bag of tools. I'm not a huge UFC fan, to be honest (nor Strikeforce, nor whatever-else-cage-match/MMA du jour) but I accept that it's an up and coming sport. It's an entertaining cross between staid boxing and professional wrestling. And the skills are real, the fighters tough as nails. I would not want to have to fight any of those dudes, ever.

But let's think about this. They're building a toolset that is perfectly suited to their environment and the rules of that environment. Imagine for a moment that the matches were three or more fighters at once. Do you think for a moment that grappling would still be a viable tool when you've got a guy ready to kick your head in as soon as you go to ground with a different opponent. That's just one example of how specialized rules and conditions breed specific valid techniques.

This is what I mean when I say that fighting (per se) has not changed. Yes, many dojos which might call themselves 'traditional' are more interested in teaching flashy katas and point-sparring, which have little or nothing to do with self-defense or traditional karate as such. But that doesn't mean that traditional arts - real traditional arts - are no longer valid in self-defense situations.

Someone (MJS?) mentioned the self-defense versus legal response question a bit ago. In traditional martial arts, there might be a specific defense against a knife that would have the karateka disarming the attacker and then stabbing him with his own blade. I do understand that this is not something that would be considered 'self-defense' in many jurisdictions (generally, the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends), but that's focusing pretty narrowly on one technique. Anyone who is going to employ self-defense should be aware of their rights and responsibilities under the law. And of course, not only can lethal techniques be modified, but there is seldom just one way to do anything in traditional martial arts, as I have learned from my instructors. Can't disarm and stab? OK, then, just disarm and stomp the groin, etc. The act of disarming the assailant is the important bit, and knives haven't changed much in a couple thousand years...

I am actually very interested in this thread, and I'm not simply trying to 'win an argument' about it. I have thought quite a bit about what threats I might face that my art doesn't prepare me for; I can't think of any save handguns, and that's a pretty specific condition. If need be, I can adopt a specific and appropriate defense for that threat into my skillset without abandoning or changing my other skills.

I realize there are people who see MMA as some sort of modern answer to self-defense requirements (or Krav Maga, etc). I'm not dissing any of those styles; if they work, they work. But I am saying that there is nothing I can think of that an unarmed opponent could throw at me that wasn't thrown a thousand years ago at some guy in India (or China or Malaysia or etc) who was trying to figure out how to defend himself against such people.

 

[WC_lun]

Keep in mind that the "new" things that come into MMA rarely are new to the world of martial arts. Usually it is some technique that the MMA fighters have not had to deal with up to that point. Once they recognize what is being done they are generally pretty quick to adapt.

I just don't see how real hand to hand fighting has changed much. It isn't like our tools have changed. In the scope of weapons, the tools changed (guns) and so our use of that tool had a time in which to grow to be more effecient. How long have we used our natural tools for fighting? I would argue that for the common man, the skills of unarmed combat are degrading, not improving or adapting to anything. The reason is those skills are not needed or used in real life. Sure, there are many sporting venues to apply what is being taught in most schools, but that is not the same. It is good that most people do not need those skills, but it is also sad that those skills are fading into history.

I also believe that many people want to reinvent the wheel and say it is some new breakthrough in martial arts, when it is just a repackaging of something that already exsist.

 

[Drag'n]

Ok.If you are in a school that has you practice defending and countering jabs/ crosses /uppercuts /hooks/overhands/straight blasts/thrusting attacks/ takedowns/ throws /grabs /submissions/headbutts elbows/knees etc thrown at you in random combinations with realistic intent then maybe you dont need to evolve much in your unarmed SD training.

Very few schools do all that in my experience. Multiple step drills against telegraphed reverse punches and hay makers just dont cut it.

A lunge punch is completely different to a jab. A punch is not just a punch. Each variation requires a different type of defense. I think people these days are far more aware of a variety of techniques than the average thug in ancient Okinawa. But if you think your defenses will work against any kind of punch. Cool! Go try them out with a good boxer. Dont just think about it.

 

[WC_lun]

Drag'n, I agree there. In fact, the Bruce Lee quote used in one of the above post is not quite complete. Paraphrasing, he said a punch is just a punch and a kick just a kick when you are a beginner. Then you start learning and a punch becomes much more than a punch and a kick much more than a kick. When you are very skilled, it comes full circle, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.

If you are not training for all facets of self defense, such as striking, grappling, take downs etc, then you aren't training for self defense.

 

[Aiki Lee]

If the 'historical' system is adept at self-defense, then it does not need to change. I think the assumption that 'old' systems are not able to handle 'new' threats is not very accurate.

Neither do I. I wasn't trying to say that a historical system isn't able to handle new threats. I meant that you need to look at what the system taught and consider its historical and cultural context. For example, JMA often teach techniques from seiza, but westerners do not sit like that so an outsider might consider it pointless. What that outsider would miss are the principles taught through the use of seiza that can be applied in other circumstances.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A lunge punch is completely different to a jab. A punch is not just a punch. Each variation requires a different type of defense. I think people these days are far more aware of a variety of techniques than the average thug in ancient Okinawa. But if you think your defenses will work against any kind of punch. Cool! Go try them out with a good boxer. Dont just think about it.

If you try to down block a jab, and you're not a very tall person, I think you're going to eat some fist. So that's different than a lunge punch.

On the other hand, if you slip a lunge punch, the same technique slips a jab. Huh, wonder how that worked?

My point is that a down block has lots of valid applications, but if your opponent doesn't throw anything that would respond well to a down block, it would not be smart to try to use it. However, there are an awful lot of ways to respond to a lunge punch; some of those ways will also work on a jab. A well-trained martial artist will (hopefully) know when to use which defense.

One of the drills we've done in my dojo is pretty enlightening to me; you might enjoy seeing it. Our instructor will tell us to use a particular defense and then have our partner start throwing whatever at us. We have to make the defense he gave us work. Most of us can't (I sure can't) do it all of the time. But can it be done? You bet. Our instructor will demonstrate by having someone throw whatever punch and he'll defend it using the same technique. When we do this, we throw just as hard and fast as we can - he gets mad if we throw slow, off-target, or wimpy punches at him.

I understand what you're saying about schools that don't teach a full range of skills to their students. That's a shame, those students are being robbed.

But that doesn't really say anything about the applicability of TMA to the modern world, since we both agree that sub-standard schools aren't representative of TMA, right?

 

[oaktree]

Hi Drag'n

Depending on the school. A traditional school will have the beginner focus on understanding principles of the techniques first.
Again if you can not defend against a slow lunge punch drill with the school's principles how can you apply it against other factors that you have listed?

There has been many times and examples given through out time of people being able to use traditional methods against modern type punches such as the jab and cross.
If you dig into the history you will find many masters of old accepted challange matches from wrestlers and boxers one of the most famous is Huo Yuanjia.
So again nothing new with traditionalist being able to defend themselves against "modern fighting"

In most street fights I have been in which of course is not as many as others, the person threw haymakers, took multiple steps to throw them too.
In other cases the fighter assume a pseudo boxing stance and threw jabs with his head down trying not to get his in his face. Of course there are
skilled fighters in the street who based on fighting so long have perfected their skills and know how to box. But again, why would you want to box a boxer, and play into his strength?

A lunge punch differs from a jab to a certain degree. Both punches are straight line punches. If your opponent knows how to create distance you still have to step to him in order to deliver the punch. The lunge punch is a training tool now a days because realistically people do not punch like this however the lunge punch has all the characteristics of the haymaker that most people use on the steet.

I have tried my techniques against people in self defense situations why would I need to try it in a sport competition under boxing rules?

 

[Drag'n]

Hi Drag'n

There has been many times and examples given through out time of people being able to use traditional methods against modern type punches such as the jab and cross.
If you dig into the history you will find many masters of old accepted challange matches from wrestlers and boxers one of the most famous is Huo Yuanjia.
So again nothing new with traditionalist being able to defend themselves against "modern fighting"

I'm aware of some such matches. Usually involving exceptionally good masters who weren't afraid to test their skills and walk their talk. Also I think they were people who were open to adapting growing and learning from such experiences. Thats just the kind of attitude I'm trying to promote. So because they did it and faired well does that mean you dont need to ever follow their example?

I would love to see some modern examples of this on film. 2 decent practitioners of about the same experience level where a traditionally trained MArtist uses his techs effectively against an experienced ring fighter. I've never seen that. Most of the vids I've seen of this nature result in the TMArtist getting whipped.

I have tried my techniques against people in self defense situations why would I need to try it in a sport competition under boxing rules?

I'm not saying you have to fight under boxing rules. Just find a boxer willing to go a couple of rounds with you to test your skills against that type of attack. If you consider yourself a serious martial artist I think you need to be willing to step out side your comfort zone and push your boundaries.

If you've been able to defend yourself in a couple of situations thats great. So you dont feel the need to expand your horizons any further?
I guess we just have very different personalities. I'm always looking to take my skills to another level and expose myself to new situations that will help me to grow as a person and as a MArtist.

 

[K-man]

I'm not saying you have to fight under boxing rules. Just find a boxer willing to go a couple of rounds with you to test your skills against that type of attack. If you consider yourself a serious martial artist I think you need to be willing to step out side your comfort zone and push your boundaries.

so you head into the ring with a boxer. What next. Is the boxer wearing gloves? Can you kick or grab his throat? Unless your going to impose rules to limit the attacks it is an uneven playing field and if you say you will just work against the boxers punches then what is the point? You are only using a part of the TMA's skill set.