Well, this is an interesting little thread... honestly, there's a lot I'd love to say (Hanzou is wildly off-base in almost everything, TFP is missing quite a lot, Kframe [sorry bud] is deeply off in a lot of his comments, I have no idea what planet John [kung fu wang] is on, and far, far more), but that'd mean going over the whole thing, cause I'm kinda OCD that way, and I just don't have that kinda patience. So, I figure I'll just address a few things from recent pages, and then put in a few thoughts... and maybe revisit the, you know, actual topic...
TFP that video of the ninjutsu guy is disheartening.. Christ he didn't even look like he trained. No kamae, no good foot work, no distance control.
What ninjutsu guy? There wasn't one in the clip.... frankly, the guy may have claimed ninjutsu (or, tellingly, "ninjitsu") but he showed less exposure to any Japanese art (ninjutsu or otherwise) than you get exposure to the French language by reading Asterix comics. To emphasise the point... it'd be like having someone claim that their art is Judo, and only using (poor, imitation) kickboxing actions. That's how far off ninjutsu he was... it wasn't just a poor example, it wasn't an example at all.
But, for the record, as there have been a few claims that Ninjutsu has never "stepped up", I am aware of a few Bujinkan members who have also trained and/or competed in MMA competitions, the third UFC was won by someone with a Ninjutsu background (well, an eclectic one that included Ninjutsu, from Robert Bussey's group), so....
Whats stupid about that moron was, I have only done BBT for a very short while and I know that there is a low kick defense in the Kata I have done. That video is a perfect example of what happens if you don't pressure test your self in some fashion. Idiot backed him self into a wall didn't have his guard up, only moving back wards. It honestly looked like a very low level practitioner. I don't think it would have mattered what art he was. He was clearly not prepared for the pressure that was being put forth.
Look, I'll deal with the idea of "pressure testing" in a bit, because it really isn't what you're thinking here (or many proponents of sparring and competition training, honestly), but again, there is no indication of ever stepping foot inside any Ninjutsu dojo here.
Your last statement it total nonsense. It will need someone like Chris Parker to speak on your assertion that Ninjutsu have incorporated BJJ into their training but it sounds like a fairy story to me. As for Krav and Systema, they are neither sport nor TMA. They are constantly evolving and they make no secret of the fact they will take the best of any style if it works within their system. BJJ is a tiny part of Krav and Systema and in no way supports your assertions.
Hmm? Oh, okay...
Ninjutsu (as an art) has not, in any way, incorporated BJJ into itself. Some Ninjutsu instructors (coming primarily from the Bujinkan) have incorporated aspects of, or the art itself of, BJJ into their classes. People such as Simon Yeo in the UK train in both, and teach both (often separately, sometimes together) in their schools. Personally, I have trained in BJJ for a little while myself (a Gracie school, for the record... attended a seminar under Royce at one point... guys a great technician, but the blinders shown really put me off), and (in our "street defence" section) we do sometimes deal with ground work... with the dominant aim of getting up off the ground. In order to do that, I do teach a number of positions and reversals, and my time in BJJ did certainly help me in my understanding of what is real and what is not on the ground... and if a BJJ practitioner was to watch what I teach, they'd probably recognise what I was showing (with some alterations)... but I don't teach BJJ, nor have I really "incorporated" it into my methods. What I teach is our modern street defence (Goshinjutsu), in a different context entirely to BJJ, with a number of adaptations to bring it all in line with the rest of our methods... because BJJ, frankly, just doesn't cut it for me there.
But, of course, to follow what I'm saying, you'd need to understand that a martial art is not defined by it's techniques...
Didn't want to further sidetrack the "Is BJJ good for SD" thread, so I figured I'd start a new one. In that thread, Steve and I were talking about sport and TMAs, and the misconceptions that some people may have, as to the effectiveness of sport fighting arts.
This is a comment that I made:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...JJ-work-in-a-real-fight?p=1610425#post1610425
I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts. I'll use Kenpo for example. There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc. Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy. I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
So, what are your thoughts? Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?
Ah, the OP.... good to see you again.
Before I deal with it specifically, there's a few things I'd like to mention. Namely, that the first thing that needs to be defined is "what is a TMA, and what is a 'sport' martial art"... then, we need to answer a more important question...."Are they different?"
Let's be clear. There are a large number of traditional martial arts that are sporting, or sporting centric (or, at least involve sporting methods through their teachings). There are a number of modern systems and non-traditional ones that have no sporting aspects whatsoever. "Sport" versus "Traditional Martial Arts" doesn't really exist... as Steve has mentioned a few times, by a huge list of criteria, BJJ is a Traditional Martial Art. Which, of course, takes us back to looking at exactly what a traditional martial art is.
A traditional martial art is a martial art that employs an established methodology that matches previously employed methods, typically those employed in previous generations of the art. It has nothing to do with the use of forms/kata, or anything similar (I know of traditional arts that don't use them, I know of modern, eclectic or non-traditional arts that do... all it means is that that is one teaching and training method used by that system). It has nothing to do with sparring or not. It has nothing to do with sporting/competition or not. All it has to do with is whether or not the approach or methodology being employed was established in previous generations.
Traditional non-sporting arts include Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (might revisit this one in a bit...), Araki Ryu Kogusoku, Takemusu (Iwama Ryu) Aikido, and so on.
Traditional sporting arts include Sumo, Shudokan (Tomiki) Aikido, Judo, Kendo... an argument could be made for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu as it's primary contextual origins are based in duelling methods, and so on.
Traditional arts that are non-sporting, but include forms of competition include Iaido and Kyudo.
Modern non-sporting arts include Systema, RBSD systems (Tony Blauer's SPEAR, Richard Dmitri's Senshido etc), Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (I know, based on traditional stuff, but trust me, it ain't really traditional... it's a modern system), and so on.
Modern sporting systems include TKD, modern Karate forms (not all karate, of course), and so on.
So this idea of "if it's traditional, it's not a sporting system/doesn't spar" is patently false, really. Same with the idea that modern systems are all sporting ones. It just ain't reality. And, more importantly than anything else, none of these forms are better than any other... provided the approach is congruent with the system, and it fits the context and aims of the art, it's perfect. The problem is people thinking that the context of their art is "THE context" for martial arts... which is honestly far more common in the BJJ/MMA/Sporting approach (as they feel their art is "proven" there).
The OP mentions that sporting systems don't often train things like weapon or group defence, or against (or with) many "rule-breaking" tactics and methods. As has been attempted to be explained through the thread, each martial art is a response, or an attempt at addressing, a specific question (or group of questions) in a specific context. In order to begin to compare and contrast them, you have to know both what questions they're attempting to address, and the context in which they're addressing them. I mentioned Katori Shinto Ryu before... this is about as "traditional" as it can get. And they have survived for 600 years as one of the most eminent schools for Japanese warriors throughout their history... but they have a rule which actually forbids competition. Why? Well, according to the teachings of the school, the concept of "shiai" (a match, or competition) is just one character removed from "shiniai", or "a fight to the death"... in other words, the way they train, if you go in for a match, you're risking real injury or death. Bear in mind, this is a system of swordsmanship... get your reaction wrong, and you get badly cut, or, if using bokuto (wooden swords), broken. But really, what it all comes down to is that each art is answering a different question... a sporting art is asking "how do you win in this [particular] sporting context?", whereas a non-sporting art is asking a different question, which might be "what attacks am I likely to face in this [particular] context, such as a bar, or a mugging, or a sexual assault etc?" followed by "what are my best responses to such attacks in such contexts?"
What all that means, of course, is that you simply can't compare the context of BJJ with the context of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, for instance. It's like comparing diets... one might be for weight loss, sure, but another is a detox... and another might be to actually put weight on (for health reasons, or as a body-builder, or similar). If you insist that all diets are to lose weight, how does the body-builders diet fit into your scope? By the same token, you just can't say that "Well, BJJ proved itself in the ring, therefore that's where every other art should prove itself!", as that denies the very reality of different arts for different contexts and questions. Hell, if we genuinely look at the idea of the early UFC's being "NO RULES!" (they weren't, of course... there were quite a number of implied rules, in addition to the scarce codified ones), and I get to use my art, then I'm going to poison my opponents before hand, bribe officials and refs, have hidden weapons on me, and ambush them before the actual event. Sporting? Not a chance! But hey, we don't concern ourselves with such things. If I was following another favourite system of mine, I might wait until the face-off in the middle of the ring, and, before the ref starts anything, suddenly attack without warning (special points for guessing where that tactical approach is from...). Of course, all of this would be against the rules... not that there were any rules, of course... ha!
So, we've established that traditional arts can be sporting, modern systems aren't necessarily sporting at all, and you can't use a single context to test all arts. Cool. We're getting to it, then.
The crux of the OP is asking if we, as martial artists, practitioners of myriad systems and approaches, need to have a range of pre-set techniques against the different attacks likely, or if simply working on "fighting ability" in the ring is enough. And, really, the answer is "either"... provided, of course, that it's not done with your eyes closed.
The first thing I'd say is that the idea of needing a range of pre-set techniques as "answers" to these potential attacks is not the point. The pre-set techniques aren't there for you to memorise, they're there to allow you to ingrain the tactical responses (which are found in the techniques, but are not limited to the techniques). In other words, if you're wanting to learn a martial art (by which I mean wanting to learn a particular systems approach to combative situations, rather than just learn a generic skill of "fighting", or "grappling", or "kicking", or whatever), you have to embrace it's methods. You train in the pre-set techniques as they are teaching you how the art moves, how it works, and so on. You can't just "go for it" and still think it's the same art, really.
When it comes to the idea of "pure fighting ability", to my mind, that best suits the approach of MMA, rather than anything else. Systems such as BJJ really do keep to their own context, and add other methods for engaging in MMA competitions (in other words, BJJ, as with pretty much all other arts, rely dominantly on the "pre-set techniques" approach, not a "pure fighting ability" one). But the real essence of the question is whether or not such an approach is all that's needed for developing the ability to defend yourself. And, really, yeah, it can be. A real encounter is rarely the clean, technical engagement we might want it to be... so the ability and willingness to simply take and give a hit, to not get flustered and flummoxed by someone trying to hurt you, to have the confidence to know that you can dominate (physically) another person really can't be undervalued.
But here's the thing. Is that ability, that mentality, really unique to, or even best achieved by sporting methods? I don't think so, on either count. This attitude is highly prevalent in traditional systems... I'd say even more so that in modern ones, for a variety of reasons, and certainly more than in sporting arts. But that's to be expected, really, when you start to look properly at what the sporting aspect actually is. Here's the secret...
Sports are nothing to do with pressure testing. Sporting methods and sparring are not pressure testing anything.
Sporting methods (sparring, competitive training, competition) are far more about development. Development of the system, as well as the practitioner. What does that mean? Well, the idea of a competitive engagement is that both partners are attempting to apply their techniques while attempting to prevent the other from applying theirs. This naturally leads to better, more effective ways of both application and defence... but isn't really the same as pressure testing. Pressure testing is about purely assessing the ability to apply a defined skill, with typically one side attempting to apply the skill (escape, control, defend, etc) against someone who has a different aim. This is more in line with self defence than sporting contests, of course.
Of course, training in sporting systems and methods can have a lot of cross-over into "street applicable" skill-sets. There's no reason a "sports" martial artist can't do what they do in a self defence situation (within reason, of course... Kendoka might have to make more of an adjustment than a TKD or BJJ practitioner...), but that in no way means that a sporting approach is optimal or geared up for self defence. It really comes back to understanding the question and context the art is addressing... and trying not to equate one arts answers (and questions) with anothers.
