So Let Me Get This Straight-- Why Don't We Have New Arts?

[Graywalker]

You can spar with people you know or don't know. Either way is fine. The person doesn't need to try to kill you in order for you to validate your skills. Killing and Fighting are not the same thing. A person doesn't have to fight someone in order to kill them.

If you fight with hands then the fear is getting hit, kicked, or put in some kind of lock that breaks a bone or causes you to passout.
If you fight with knives then the fear is about getting stabbed
If you fight with guns then the fear is about getting shot.

Seems pretty basic to me. There's a lot of people who get killed in the U.S. where it goes from argument to gunshots then death. In those situations your hand to hand combat skill may be totally irrelevant.

Although true, as long as there is some sort of safety net...it's not reality. It's like when I took up Kickboxing, I had been in many fights before I even walked into the place and I realized although it was aggressive and at times brutal, I would never use it exclusively, if at all in an actual fight. It was simply incomplete. But, from past experiences I had no fear of dying in the ring, compared to the battles that took place in the street. Most of that was for life or death.

But then again, I grew up in the hole in central Washington. Where murder was and still is a daily thing. A cross roads for drug delivery and violent gangs.

I no longer live there, but have relatives and friends that still do and not much has changed from what I understand. Albeit, they are out of the lifestyle, the violence didn't change...it just moved on to the next generation.

 

[Hanzou]

My friends, call me wrong if you like but perhaps the reason there are no more new arts is because the original creators of these fighting systems have pretty much explored everything. There's nothing else to discover or invent at this point.

Nah, I don't think that's the case. Again, I think what we have now is greater communication, a global community, and the universal wall that is MMA. Anything that pops on the scene will automatically be brought before MMA and be tested. We see this with the erosion of traditional MA around the world, and the rising popularity of the MMA-based arts. If you create "BeeDo", your initial students are going to compare what you're teaching to the MMA-based arts, and if it doesn't measure up, its going to place a permanent ceiling on the growth of your style, if not destroy it completely.

 

[Hanzou]

Ps also, welcome back Hanzou

Thank you.

 

[dvcochran]

I agree with your quote overall, except for your use of the word "only." There are a few big differences IMO.

While theoretically, sparring may be the same as fighting, the mental awareness of full contact, no rules, no second chance and the very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered. It is hard to replicate this in sport vs real fighting. It's a different mental paradigm. To be able to make this mental/spiritual shift takes many years of practice and discipline. (There are some natural fighters out there and those who had to fight for survival since childhood. I'm neither one of those two.)

Another big difference is that there are moves you may use in light sparring, that you wouldn't use in a real fight. High risk, fancy kicks for example. Also, you can score points with moves that would not work in real fights such as hitting while off balance, leaning, over-committing, falling a little short on distance...

Conversely, there are moves in a real fight that you can't use in sparring such as eye, groin, throat, joint strikes and some takedowns. Head butting, spitting, finger breaking and biting are also frowned upon in tournament sparring).

Don't get me wrong - light sparring is great practice to develop technique, speed, tactics and a great sport. But in the real thing, nice guys finish last, so shifting into another mental/spiritual gear is a must. The concept of points must be replaced with the concept of inflicting injury.

This is a great post. Very spot on.
We used to do what we called action/reaction drills. I haven't used or heard this term in some time but I am sure it is still actively done in many schools/systems, possibly by different names.
One of the hardest things to teach and learn is the mental component of true self defense. When to turn things like aggression on, and how Much they are turned on, is a very personal and different aspect for each person. Very hard to teach and learn sometimes.
Action/reaction drills by name alone can really help set the tone in a class/session and be used as a tool to help people 'see' and conform their thought process. I like starting with a small sample of possible defense scenarios and talking/working through a set of techniques/counters. Early on when someone is first learning I will frame the training almost purely technical/mechanical. Then I will start introducing the deeper mentalities and the need to feel and understand intent. Eventually learning how to deal with, or more importantly how to visualize the outcome.
One of the most important concepts is seeing the training as a tool, not just a hobby with only health value.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can only speak for myself on this, but when I hear of a martial art that is designed to be a combination of two or more others; what immediately comes to mind is a 2-in-1 as opposed to separate shampoo and conditioner (or, even these days, a 3-in-1, which adds body wash).

Sure, a 2 or 3 in one will get the job done in a pinch... it's cheap, and saves time... but you don't get the full benefits from this product that you would get from separate shampoo, conditioner, and body wash.

I imagine that, in order to combine two or more martial arts into, certain aspects from each are going to be discarded.

While that last statement is almost certainly true, most arts have parts that either have been discarded, or should have been. If an art is focused in a single area, it will have more solutions in that area, but none in other areas. So, which is better? It depends. There are long-standing "single arts" that are just as diversified as "hybrid arts" that happen to come from two (or more) root arts.

More diversified doesn't mean less effective. It may mean more effective because it handles more situations. Depends how you look at it, and how the art is trained.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In a few months, someone else like tony will say the same thing and it will click for you. You'll agree with him because that's how you roll. I've sincerely given it my best shot.

Nope. Because what you're saying doesn't make sense. Application is not a binary thing, and doesn't magically stop occurring when there's no ref.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You're completely missing the point. What I can't tell is if it's on purpose or not. Either way, I just can't give you any more of my energy. Go ahead and teach folks self defense. I just hope for their sake they never have to use it. I just don't know how your conscience can bear it.

You keep saying that. I've told you many times that I don't teach self-defense. I teach with a self-defense orientation. But you keep distorting my point to fit your narrative.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My friends, call me wrong if you like but perhaps the reason there are no more new arts is because the original creators of these fighting systems have pretty much explored everything. There's nothing else to discover or invent at this point.

There's always new ways to combine things. Besides, you're operating from the false premise that there are no new arts, while new systems continue to pop up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bro, you said "Jujutsu" instead of "Jiu-jitsu"...

I love that!

Different styles use different spellings for the word. "Jiu-jitsu" is actually an older usage, as I understand it.

 

[Steve]

You keep saying that. I've told you many times that I don't teach self-defense. I teach with a self-defense orientation. But you keep distorting my point to fit your narrative.

It's really as simple as this. If neither you nor your students have experience fighting and are not actively accumulating any fighting experience, you are not learning to fight. You might be learning Aikido or some other martial art, but you aren't learning to fight. And if you lead people to believe you are teaching them to fight, when neither you nor your students are experienced fighters (or accumulating any experience fighting), whether that's self defense or otherwise, you are misleading them. You might be misleading yourself.

The fine distinction between self defense and a self defense orientation is, in my opinion, meaningless, because to a student it would be a meaningless distinction. I mean, are you seriously suggesting that students will divine some meaningful distinction between "I teach self defense" or "I teach martial arts with a self defense orientation"?

Nope. Because what you're saying doesn't make sense. Application is not a binary thing, and doesn't magically stop occurring when there's no ref.

I recommend you read it again. It's all there. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. But if you actually think I'm suggesting application is binary, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I said yesterday, I'm not sure whether you can't or won't understand. Either way, I'm putting more time and energy into explaining this to you in different ways than you are. @Tony Dismukes seems to understand, and so maybe he can explain it to you someday in a way that clicks.

 

[Hanzou]

There's always new ways to combine things. Besides, you're operating from the false premise that there are no new arts, while new systems continue to pop up.

That's true. Toshindo, 10th Planet, Guerilla Jiujitsu, Gaidojutsu, and whatever Josh Barnett was trying to do with CACC are such examples.

 

[Buka]

Just want to pull these two statements out. I hope you don't think I have any issues at all with them. You focus on what you do and don't imply you know things you don't, and I don't see any reason why you would or should need to limit yourself to saying you teach the cultural heritage of BJJ.

Not thinking about Gerry, but we have others on this forum who do in fact present themselves to be self defense experts, including at least one mentor, in spite of having no relevant experience. It's not the lack of experience alone, because, really, who cares? It's that, at least in the particular case of this particular ninja, we have a guy who suggests expertise where none exists and implies experience he doesn't have. It's dishonest. But he sure does know a lot about samurai swords, so....

In fact, many years ago, it was this person that created the need to distinguish between application and training, and to articulate things that seem obvious, like you need experience to be an expert. And to say seemingly obvious things like, "You can be an expert ninja without fighting. But that doesn't make you an expert fighter."

An analogy I think about - others may disagree - is the process in which Major League Baseball players are elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

They are voted in by Sports writers, people who have never actually played the game, just watched it, then talked about it (wrote about it).

Since I was a kid, I always thought the only people who should vote on inclusion to an entity like a hall of fame are players and coaches. Maybe umpires.

Sports Hall of Fames sometimes remind me of Martial Arts and their related forums.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's really as simple as this. If neither you nor your students have experience fighting and are not actively accumulating any fighting experience, you are not learning to fight. You might be learning Aikido or some other martial art, but you aren't learning to fight. And if you lead people to believe you are teaching them to fight, when neither you nor your students are experienced fighters (or accumulating any experience fighting), whether that's self defense or otherwise, you are misleading them. You might be misleading yourself.

This comes back to your odd concept of application. I've fought. A few times "on the street" (to use one of the odd phrases found in SD-oriented schools), and more often in controlled situations (heavy sparring). Some of my students (as well as some partners and instructors) have been folks who fought "on the street" more often (bouncers, cops, prison guards, etc.).

The fine distinction between self defense and a self defense orientation is, in my opinion, meaningless, because to a student it would be a meaningless distinction.

That's not the distinction I'm making. As we've discussed before, self-defense is a concept, not a thing you can teach nor really practice in the dojo. Fighting is a thing that can be taught and practiced in the dojo/gym.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that students will divine some meaningful distinction between "I teach self defense" or "I teach martial arts with a self defense orientation"?

When they think of "self-defense", what they're thinking of is generally fighting skills. And that's mostly what I teach. When I say "I don't teach self-defense", I use that language because you and I seem to agree (based on past discussions) that it's a concept that can't be taught, and I'm drawing the distinction that what I teach is fighting skills. Whether that's the same as "teaching self-defense" is pretty much a matter of semantics. You say it can't be taught, then turn around and say I'm teaching it, which I find confusing.

I recommend you read it again. It's all there. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. But if you actually think I'm suggesting application is binary, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I said yesterday, I'm not sure whether you can't or won't understand. Either way, I'm putting more time and energy into explaining this to you in different ways than you are. @Tony Dismukes seems to understand, and so maybe he can explain it to you someday in a way that clicks.

I typically re-read your posts more than once trying to find nuance I feel like I've missed. But you've made a very strong point in the past that competition is application, and what you do in the dojo isn't. That's pretty binary, and an artificial distinction, in my opinion.

 

[Steve]

This comes back to your odd concept of application. I've fought. A few times "on the street" (to use one of the odd phrases found in SD-oriented schools), and more often in controlled situations (heavy sparring). Some of my students (as well as some partners and instructors) have been folks who fought "on the street" more often (bouncers, cops, prison guards, etc.).


That's not the distinction I'm making. As we've discussed before, self-defense is a concept, not a thing you can teach nor really practice in the dojo. Fighting is a thing that can be taught and practiced in the dojo/gym.


When they think of "self-defense", what they're thinking of is generally fighting skills. And that's mostly what I teach. When I say "I don't teach self-defense", I use that language because you and I seem to agree (based on past discussions) that it's a concept that can't be taught, and I'm drawing the distinction that what I teach is fighting skills. Whether that's the same as "teaching self-defense" is pretty much a matter of semantics. You say it can't be taught, then turn around and say I'm teaching it, which I find confusing.


I typically re-read your posts more than once trying to find nuance I feel like I've missed. But you've made a very strong point in the past that competition is application, and what you do in the dojo isn't. That's pretty binary, and an artificial distinction, in my opinion.

Hey man. I'm done.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey man. I'm done.

We're both getting snippy. Probably best we let it drop.

 

[_Simon_]

While that last statement is almost certainly true, most arts have parts that either have been discarded, or should have been. If an art is focused in a single area, it will have more solutions in that area, but none in other areas. So, which is better? It depends. There are long-standing "single arts" that are just as diversified as "hybrid arts" that happen to come from two (or more) root arts.

More diversified doesn't mean less effective. It may mean more effective because it handles more situations. Depends how you look at it, and how the art is trained.

Yes! This! Well said.

Yeah an art doesn't have to have or BE everything. But of course, the intention, goal and orientation of the club/style come into this. Some require a broader skillset to cover as many potential hypothetical situations possible. But it's okay for an art to simply be good at a certain aspect/area.

 

[Rusty B]

Yes! This! Well said.

Yeah an art doesn't have to have or BE everything. But of course, the intention, goal and orientation of the club/style come into this. Some require a broader skillset to cover as many potential hypothetical situations possible. But it's okay for an art to simply be good at a certain aspect/area.

Okay, let's take the kudo example again. As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo. The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.

Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?

I say taking them separately.

The only advantage I can see kudo having is specific on training on how to use karate striking and judo grappling techniques in tandem.

 

[_Simon_]

Okay, let's take the kudo example again. As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo. The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.

Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?

I say taking them separately.

The only advantage I can see kudo having is specific on training on how to use karate striking and judo grappling techniques in tandem.

That's actually really great question Rusty B..

It's hard to say, as it depends so much on the separate curriculums, and also on what you want out of the arts. If you're wanting to learn the art in its completeness so to speak, separate makes more sense. However if you're looking for a more well rounded fighting game which isn't as one-dimensional (for lack of a better term), kudo, or one that combines disciplines, makes more sense.

You'd really get the benefit on how to incorporate and integrate each art into a more cohesive process in the moment, like you said, and learn how to flow between them, rather than a completely different focus of sparring sessions.

I have a feeling threads may have been made about this very thing by members asking what they should personally do, and I guess it comes down to what they want out of their training.

Training them separately is also going to be quite a big demand of your time, whereas a combined art is all there.

Would be interested in others' thoughts, although not the original topic, still semi-related

 

[Hanzou]

Okay, let's take the kudo example again. As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo. The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.

Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?

I say taking them separately.

The only advantage I can see kudo having is specific on training on how to use karate striking and judo grappling techniques in tandem.

But why would you take Kudo when you can take MMA instead? I’m willing to bet that there’s more MMA schools in Japan than Kudo dojos.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, let's take the kudo example again. As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo. The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.

Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?

I say taking them separately.

The only advantage I can see kudo having is specific on training on how to use karate striking and judo grappling techniques in tandem.

That depends how much time you have. If you're going to train 3 times a week, an integrated single curriculum might be more learning-efficient. If you've got more hours (and money) to dedicate, there's a slew of advantages in training at the two places, and most of them have less to do with how complete the two arts are or are not.