Reality Based Martial Arts: Are They Teaching Us Anything New?

[pstarr]

As one well-known comedian asked, "So, are these 'reality-based' martial arts the answer to the all of the other 'fantasy-based' martial arts?"

 

[James Kovacich]

I wouldn't recommend any of the named reality based martial artsists because I don't know them. Also all of my posts ( if it wasn't clear) are based on training methodology.

I don't think of TMA as fantasy martial arts either. I have traditional instructors but what I get from them is not what most get at the local dojo.

When comparing the backroads to the freeway. The backroads may be beautiful and much to see but the freeway is faster and more efficient.

 

[DeLamar.J]

There are many RBSD instructors out there, such as Peyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung, Tony Blauer, etc. Many times they take 'heat' from people due to the fact that some tend to look down at the TMA's, speak negative about kata, say that certain things won't work, etc. The material that they teach is usually said to be the best, when it comes to dealing with a real world attack.

However, are they really teaching us anything new? Did they create a system that is not lacking? If we look at much of the material that we see in these courses, its appears to be nothing new, per se, but the application of the material tends to be different.

What are your thoughts on the material, the people and their overall view on the arts?

Some people want to teach pure fighting, and other people want to teach traditional.
Pure fighting is exactly that, traditional teaching is designed to give you more than just fighting ability.
With great power comes great responsibility, we have all heard that one. Thats why traditional martial arts would teach people all of those extra things that go with fighting ability. Why train a monster that will abuse its power?? The traditional teaching is disgned to weed out the bad apples by teaching things that require patience, anger management, and dedication. However, no matter what you do, a bad apple will slip through. I am a fan of traditional teaching, because it causes those with little patience to quit, and people with little patience dont need to know how to hurt people.
There are situations where people need to be trained quicker such as military situations, but everyone should not be taught combat techniques without first having to go through some character building.

 

[CuongNhuka]

1) True. many preach this but when we visit their school this is not what we see.

2) Yes, "some" is differant but the "some" is what is most important. Most schools say that they did "this and that" all along or it's hidden in their techniques but they're fulling themselves. I pick holes in a lot of systems because they make those claims but in reality this trainer and his school in one of the "few" that are actually "living it."
http://www.knucklepit.com/mixed%20martial%20arts-john%20hackleman.htm

"Most" of the rest, if their "preachin' it," still have their blinders on.

true. what i meant is most claim that. i should be more specific

 

[stabpunch]

Hi DeLamar.J,

I like the way you think, character building should be integral in martial arts. I don't feel that tradition is necessarily the answer though. Many people tire of katas and a good percentage of our students are just there for fitness with self defense being a bonus. I find that the bad apples usually do not hang around for very long, due to lack of patience and dedication anyway. People who want only to learn to fight generally don't like drills much. We do heaps of full contact sparring but only after the general class and at specific times. We train with many women in our class, this can also deter the hard heads because they generally don't value women as fighters much less someone they can learn about control in conflict from. My feeling is that it all comes down to the instructor, as i feel good people attract good people.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Hi DeLamar.J,

I like the way you think, character building should be integral in martial arts. I don't feel that tradition is necessarily the answer though. Many people tire of katas and a good percentage of our students are just there for fitness with self defense being a bonus. I find that the bad apples usually do not hang around for very long, due to lack of patience and dedication anyway. People who want only to learn to fight generally don't like drills much. We do heaps of full contact sparring but only after the general class and at specific times. We train with many women in our class, this can also deter the hard heads because they generally don't value women as fighters much less someone they can learn about control in conflict from. My feeling is that it all comes down to the instructor, as i feel good people attract good people.

Thank you. I also see traditional teaching as, sort of like teaching combat techniques in parables. If your smart and dedicated, you will get it. If your dedicated, but still cant get it, then I will give it to you, once I know your a person who wont abuse it.

 

[Kempo-Jujutsu]

I think there's nothing new about any of it really, save for maybe gun defense, which in my opinion is the single biggest "change" in human to human conflict in the last few centuries. Other than that, a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick.

There's nothing wrong with them doing what they're doing in my opinion. We all have to find our own way afterall, but it's nothing really new.

Unfortunately (and perhaps the reason they felt the need to go the RBSD route) is half the people practicing a "traditional" system aren't, but a shadow of what their art once was. They're not aware of the fact that in the old days in Okinawa even the "father" of modern hard style karate (Funakoshi) studied grappling, and recommended the same for all of us, and that they also recognized the value of psychology in self defense as well (playing the victim for instance)...so there were just so many things not being taught in the modern variations of martial arts, whether it be because of sport reasons, philosophical reasons, or pure insurance liability reasons.

 

[Instructor]

Technically, nothing new and the same can be said about the systems we first learned because someone did those same techniques before those systems were created.

But what the (good) new systems have that the olds ones don't have is "less." Less is better because they've whittled their systems down to the bread and butter. Not just technique wise but also conceptually.

Training only the best and most effective technique rather than starting off with the standard yellow belt kata and self defense techniques, excelerates an individuals training progression. It allows a person to "possibly" use some the material "they just learned" the same day, versus having to wait until "we figure it out."

Everyone lashes out at the 2 year blackbelts but 2 years of better training "can" go farther than alot of the 5-6 year black belts. I think that we could at the military and see who are they "hiring." Really hiring, not the fakes that advertise they trained the military but really didn't. I know of "one" traditional instructor who claims to teach the U.S. military but from what I've seen they are going after the "modernized" instructors rather than the old.

Military programs don't have the time scale to teach martial arts. Trainees are pushed through too rapidly to learn much. They should not be the example. I say this as a nineteen year veteren.

 

[chinto]

Most so called reality based systems are basically repackaged troop/ military systems. The big factor in a Troop system, is time! They do not have any kind of time to really teach martial arts to troops in the military. The end result of that is that they distill a few techniques, comparatively simple ones at that, but brutally effective, and teach them. In short a few dozen at best basic techniques and leave your scruples at home, go in with total intent to finish it.

Is this type of thing intended to equip the troop to face a trained martial artist? NO! Is it intended to teach them enough to hopefully survive an encounter with a street thug or some conscripted soldier he meets on a battle field ? YES!

Were did they get the techniques that are in the troop systems? Boxing, wrestling, some. Karate, Jujitsu, Judo, savate, some each again. But new? nope. Defendu, by Fairbairn was the main model for this kind of thing, Krav is similar, and they fill a need, but are a short term fix for a problem where time is the problem.

I believe a good martial artist who trains hard in one of the older TMA's is much better equipped to deal with a deadly altercation in the end. But then he has years of training where as for the most part the "RBSD" trained people do not have that time or level of training.

Does this mean that such systems are invalid? NO, they are what they are. They can and will do the job they were designed to do if taught properly.
I find the claim that some how they are superior to TMA's laughable, especially as they were not designed to do the same job!

they are a hammer for instance. you do not reach for a hammer when you need a crescent wrench, at least you do not if you know what your doing and have the tools. by the same token, there are jobs that that hammer is what you want and need for that job.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I think it come down to why a person would study one or the other.
If as had been said one is in the military then they need a quick learn defence and attack, the same goes for law officers.
If one is seeking to defend oneslef (only oneslef) then a selfdefence course is most likely best as long as they practice those techniques each and every day over and over till the teccnique becomes instintive.

A reality martial art should cover wepons, not just learning to defend against them but to use them. It should be deadly and will most likely end the person useing in in court on a number of charges.

For the avarge person trditional classes are most liely the best way to go.

 

[blindsage]

Perhaps when I am forty I will take up tai chi and learn some beautiful movements and meditation, for now I am interested in defending myself and my loved ones.

Or maybe then you'll learn how to REALLY defend yourself.

 

[chinto]

I think it come down to why a person would study one or the other.
If as had been said one is in the military then they need a quick learn defence and attack, the same goes for law officers.
If one is seeking to defend oneslef (only oneslef) then a selfdefence course is most likely best as long as they practice those techniques each and every day over and over till the teccnique becomes instintive.

A reality martial art should cover wepons, not just learning to defend against them but to use them. It should be deadly and will most likely end the person useing in in court on a number of charges.

For the avarge person trditional classes are most liely the best way to go.

I would argue that both traditional martial arts and the so called reality based self defense systems are capable of the result you mentioned. namely being very deadly. many systems teach weapons, and some teach fire arms as well as blades and impact weapons... I would say that the traditional arts have more versatility and are as or more deadly if the practitioner wishes. The big factor is the Practitioner!! A troop style like Krav Maga or Defendu or others like it are limited but aimed at basic self defense against the average attacker. You will find that most if not all Special Operations troops take a Traditional Martial art on the side. ( yes I would say that includes the folks who are in the IDF