So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[BigMotor]

This is a good thread, there are those things that I agree with, and those that I do not, but this is a dynamic sorting of things.
I wish that there was more of it in life, some people in general society, have become so stupid in their beliefs, and cannot change them.
I am trying to change, and find what works in a fight, whether it is Tae Kwon Do, or a street fight. This thread has helped me. Thanks guys.

 

[BigMotor]

See what I mean? Just look at that fish, it is humorous, it is funny. I take this to mean that this poster considers the whole discussion as bogus. This is America, so to each his own, I think that it is relevant to me and many others,.

 

[Steve]

Yes, and that wasn't a competition. Interesting.

You don't think so? Huh. I think it fit the definition of competition very well.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that competition is the only way to actually apply technique in context. It's just the most accessible for most people. If you are in a profession where you routinely put your hands on other people, you may not need competition. If not, you may need to be more creative and more specific.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't think so? Huh. I think it fit the definition of competition very well.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that competition is the only way to actually apply technique in context. It's just the most accessible for most people. If you are in a profession where you routinely put your hands on other people, you may not need competition. If not, you may need to be more creative and more specific.

Okay, maybe you and I are using different definitions - it has happened to us before. When I speak of competition, I'm referring to something that goes beyond the training group. I think I actually adopted someone else's view on MT that though sparring in the dojo may become competitive, it is not a competition. I've been using that distinction in my discussions.

The quote seems to refer to fighting within the training group, which is why I referred to it not being a competition.

 

[Buka]

See what I mean? Just look at that fish, it is humorous, it is funny. I take this to mean that this poster considers the whole discussion as bogus. This is America, so to each his own, I think that it is relevant to me and many others,.

Actually, I don't think any discussion is bogus. I was just kind of funnin' with Hanzou, who beside being a great poster, is one hell of a fisherman.

 

[drop bear]

No, it doesn't. You're missing what I described. There are breaks (destructions) that are done from a point where there is no base for holding the lock. Imagine an arm bar where I'm standing under your arm, breaking upwards. There are too many ways to escape and even counter that application if it's used as a standing lock, but it works well as a break. There's no way to adapt that position to a submission - as soon as someone tries to pause at the lock to submit me, I can counter easily. There are many other examples of these. They aren't likely to be included in the training of someone preparing for competition, because they'd be worse than useless there.

Bloody hell. You think you are describing something that nobody else has experienced.

A decent arm drag is an arm destruction.

Watch the arm go straight. Give that a decent reef and see what happens?

Wrestling arm destruction.

Jujitsu wrist locks.

Standing arm breaks are perfectly legit. Not very nice. And not very easy to get on a guy that is trying to beat you up.

You can choose to do them or not as your morality dictates.

You could compare that to a fighter who does part of his training in Gi and goes for a collar choke that is not there. Because he is competing no gi. Or a BJJ guy who has trained wrist locks but is not allowed to do them in MMA.

Exept nobody has that problem.

And because nobody has that problem. You may have to consider it is you with the issue. Not the rule set.

Everybody else can ajust to different circumstances. You can't Juanny can't a few other posters who don't like rule sets and competition. Can't.

There is a trend that reflects the sort of training people do to the inability to make fast effective adaptations while fighting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bloody hell. You think you are describing something that nobody else has experienced.

A decent arm drag is an arm destruction.

Watch the arm go straight. Give that a decent reef and see what happens?

Wrestling arm destruction.

Jujitsu wrist locks.

Standing arm breaks are perfectly legit. Not very nice. And not very easy to get on a guy that is trying to beat you up.

You can choose to do them or not as your morality dictates.

You could compare that to a fighter who does part of his training in Gi and goes for a collar choke that is not there. Because he is competing no gi. Or a BJJ guy who has trained wrist locks but is not allowed to do them in MMA.

Exept nobody has that problem.

And because nobody has that problem. You may have to consider it is you with the issue. Not the rule set.

Everybody else can ajust to different circumstances. You can't Juanny can't a few other posters who don't like rule sets and competition. Can't.

There is a trend that reflects the sort of training people do to the inability to make fast effective adaptations while fighting.

I'm not even going to finishreading that, because you are once again commenting on something I didn't say. I never said nobody else dealt with these issues. However, an arm drag is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about something that can be used also as a destruction. I'm talking about something that doesn't actually have another purpose. I could transition into an arm drag instead of one of the standing arm bars, but that's not the same thing as not setting up for that arm bar in the first place.

I'm not sure why you have such a fit over this, DB. There are techniques that suck for competition use. Some arts have more of them. Those arts could be adjusted to be better suited to those competitions, but what would be the point if that's not the goal of those studying the art? I have said I could probably adjust and put in the extra effort to prepare for MMA-style competition, but since that type of competition holds no interest for me, that would be a waste of my time. Why do you want me so badly to compete?

 

[drop bear]

I'm not even going to finishreading that, because you are once again commenting on something I didn't say. I never said nobody else dealt with these issues. However, an arm drag is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about something that can be used also as a destruction. I'm talking about something that doesn't actually have another purpose. I could transition into an arm drag instead of one of the standing arm bars, but that's not the same thing as not setting up for that arm bar in the first place.

I'm not sure why you have such a fit over this, DB. There are techniques that suck for competition use. Some arts have more of them. Those arts could be adjusted to be better suited to those competitions, but what would be the point if that's not the goal of those studying the art? I have said I could probably adjust and put in the extra effort to prepare for MMA-style competition, but since that type of competition holds no interest for me, that would be a waste of my time. Why do you want me so badly to compete?

I never said you should compete. I am saying that not competing because you cant use arm destructions is a cop out.

It is a basic variation on too deadly to spar.

If you dont want to compete that is fine. If you don't want to spar that is fine. If you are suggesting that you cant do either of these things because it takes away from your training as this limb destroying weapon.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I never said you should compete. I am saying that not competing because you cant use arm destructions is a cop out.

It is a basic variation on too deadly to spar.

If you dont want to compete that is fine. If you don't want to spar that is fine. If you are suggesting that you cant do either of these things because it takes away from your training as this limb destroying weapon.

It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.

It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.

And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".

 

[Juany118]

It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.

It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.

And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".

Okay, I am fairly certain I understand what you mean and, for the sake of illustration I will use an EXTREME example. Before I started studying Kali I used expandable batons for control. The dynamic controls start with an angle 5 (thrust).

Now the baton I am issued is not a friction but rather a "positive" lock which requires the depression of a button in the butt of the baton for it to collapse. Ergo I can use it to thrust for blunt force trauma and not risk it collapsing. As such I can also thrust like a sword, meaning to do damage. So while yes, I can aim my angle 5 to do a lock, there are also angle 5's that have no other purpose than to do blunt force trauma.

There are attacks to the joints that are similar. The movement, if done from a different angle or different target can result in only a break just as an angle 5 can only result in trauma, or turned into a lock. The difference is the detail and intent on the maneuver being trained and if you train with a particular maneuver and intent, changing it to another takes effort.

I would NEVER try a dynamic lock with a baton now. I have changed my methodology due to my Kali training. If I use an angle 5 dynamically it is to cause blunt force trauma, my locks with a baton now are if I need an escort hold or if the target is static, say holding onto a banister for dear life to avoid cuffing. Why? Because I want to limit the amount of thought I need to do mid fight. I don't want to have to "switch gears" depending on my context which is why I prefer sanctioned weapon competition vs empty hand. In weapon competition we wear armor and use padded weapons so I only have to worry about the same "red zones" I do at work (angle 5 to the "family jewels" is frowned upon as an example )

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.

It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.

And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".

You were reminded of a karateka who was too deadly for a competition but was defeated because of rules.


Sigh.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, I am fairly certain I understand what you mean and, for the sake of illustration I will use an EXTREME example. Before I started studying Kali I used expandable batons for control. The dynamic controls start with an angle 5 (thrust).

Now the baton I am issued is not a friction but rather a "positive" lock which requires the depression of a button in the butt of the baton for it to collapse. Ergo I can use it to thrust for blunt force trauma and not risk it collapsing. As such I can also thrust like a sword, meaning to do damage. So while yes, I can aim my angle 5 to do a lock, there are also angle 5's that have no other purpose than to do blunt force trauma.

There are attacks to the joints that are similar. The movement, if done from a different angle or different target can result in only a break just as an angle 5 can only result in trauma, or turned into a lock. The difference is the detail and intent on the maneuver being trained and if you train with a particular maneuver and intent, changing it to another takes effort.

I would NEVER try a dynamic lock with a baton now. I have changed my methodology due to my Kali training. If I use an angle 5 dynamically it is to cause blunt force trauma, my locks with a baton now are if I need an escort hold or if the target is static, say holding onto a banister for dear life to avoid cuffing. Why? Because I want to limit the amount of thought I need to do mid fight. I don't want to have to "switch gears" depending on my context which is why I prefer sanctioned weapon competition vs empty hand. In weapon competition we wear armor and use padded weapons so I only have to worry about the same "red zones" I do at work (angle 5 to the "family jewels" is frowned upon as an example )

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

That's a pretty good example, Juany. If you trained that movement, you'd have to keep enough conscious control to avoid using it at work. If you started that movement then caught yourself and stopped it, you might provide enough opening that they get out of it. In your case, that could eventually mean injury to someone - most likely the person you're trying to control. In competition against a highly skilled opponent, it probably means they get in a counter in that little gap (because, let's face it, little gaps are where most fights are won/lost).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You were reminded of a karateka who was too deadly for a competition but was defeated because of rules.


Sigh.

I'm not saying I (or he) thought he was too deadly. The rules were changed, most likely by someone who thought he was - this was during the heavy Norris/Van Damme era, so people running these contests thought kicks were some super-deadly thing, apparently. He would have readily used them - as kickboxers do - had he been allowed. They removed some of his primary weapons - which would have made him roughly equal to the other competitors.

 

[dowz]

(off-topic alert!)

good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?

 

[Steve]

(off-topic alert!)

good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?

Ever see the movie, the music man? A marching band that can't play music is a con. All of the other stuff is a byproduct of being able to fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ever see the movie, the music man? A marching band that can't play music is a con. All of the other stuff is a byproduct of being able to fight.

Unless being able to fight is not the point of a person's training. For many of us, and I count myself in that number, we tend assume that is the primary purpose (at least at the onset of training). There are some who train in some of the "internal" arts specifically for those reasons, rather than them being a byproduct. For some of them, the ability to fight is a byproduct, if it develops at all. It's not my path, but it's no different than someone using any other discipline (yoga, a daily exercise regimen, etc.) for those same purposes.

 

[Steve]

Unless being able to fight is not the point of a person's training. For many of us, and I count myself in that number, we tend assume that is the primary purpose (at least at the onset of training). There are some who train in some of the "internal" arts specifically for those reasons, rather than them being a byproduct. For some of them, the ability to fight is a byproduct, if it develops at all. It's not my path, but it's no different than someone using any other discipline (yoga, a daily exercise regimen, etc.) for those same purposes.

I disagree. We can discuss primary and secondary purposes of training, and that's all fine and good. But if you aren't learning to fight, you aren't learning a martial art.

Or said the other way, if you're interested in training in Tae Bo, just don't kid yourself. This is true whether your personal flavor of Tae Bo is called Karate, Aikido or whatever else.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. We can discuss primary and secondary purposes of training, and that's all fine and good. But if you aren't learning to fight, you aren't learning a martial art.

Or said the other way, if you're interested in training in Tae Bo, just don't kid yourself. This is true whether your personal flavor of Tae Bo is called Karate, Aikido or whatever else.

I don't think we actually disagree on this, Steve. It's just a matter of what we include in "martial arts". 10 years ago, my use of that term would have only included training intended to prepare fighting ability. In the last decade, I've found that definition less rigidly applicable, and now I tend to include anything drawn from fight training. So, if someone wants to call Tae Bo an "exercise martial art", I don't really have a problem. I'd just call it exercise, but I don't really have a problem with their usage. Just as I once referred to competition training as "martial sports" (after seeing some point fighting that I didn't feel was at all applicable to actual fighting), but later determined that some (though admittedly not all) of that training was also actually preparing the folks for fighting outside that competition, so now I only use the term "martial sport" as a way to distinguish training that is primarily aimed at competition, rather than as a distinction from ability to fight.

So, if you use "martial art" to refer to something that's preparing students to fight, I can roll with that. Or not.

 

[Steve]

I don't think we actually disagree on this, Steve. It's just a matter of what we include in "martial arts". 10 years ago, my use of that term would have only included training intended to prepare fighting ability. In the last decade, I've found that definition less rigidly applicable, and now I tend to include anything drawn from fight training. So, if someone wants to call Tae Bo an "exercise martial art", I don't really have a problem. I'd just call it exercise, but I don't really have a problem with their usage. Just as I once referred to competition training as "martial sports" (after seeing some point fighting that I didn't feel was at all applicable to actual fighting), but later determined that some (though admittedly not all) of that training was also actually preparing the folks for fighting outside that competition, so now I only use the term "martial sport" as a way to distinguish training that is primarily aimed at competition, rather than as a distinction from ability to fight.

So, if you use "martial art" to refer to something that's preparing students to fight, I can roll with that. Or not.

Personally, I would say that it should teach someone practical fighting skills within some context. "Some" can refer to really anything that fits the bill. I have a pretty broad and forgiving definition myself, but it does stop short of none.

For example, I would consider kyudo a martial art, even though it's not very practical in the 20th century. You're actually learning to shoot real arrows. Wrestling is a martial art, too, IMO. Even if the context is limited, if you're learning actual fighting skills, you're learning a martial art.

It's about defining the salient characteristics of a martial art. I think there's really only one, but without that one thing it's no longer a martial art.

Going back to the Music Man analogy, I'd say that a marching band has two salient characteristics, without either of which it would not be a marching band: marching and music. If you're not playing music, you're not a marching band. You're just marching while carrying musical instruments and while that might be all kinds of fun, it's not a band without the music. Similarly, without marching, you're just a band.

All of that said, I get queasy when I hear people talk about how martial skill or fighting skills aren't a necessary part of martial arts. Once again, primary or secondary purposes of training, no problem. I completely understand that people don't all train martial arts to be a hardass. No problem. But just like people play music "just for fun" they're still playing music (even if it's not very good music).

 

[jks9199]

(off-topic alert!)

good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?

Good point -- but very off topic. Perhaps you'd care to start a new thread about how you test(?) non-violent/non-competitive aspects of the arts?