The problem with "traditional" martial arts part 3

[Flying Crane]

There really is no need to post in such an adversarial tone.

I agree with Anarax to a large degree. Like anyone who has a theme and is trying to make a point in a blog post, I think Rackemann is guilty of somewhat "overstating" his case in most of these blogs he writes. But he does make some excellent points, and ones that do often apply to "traditional" schools. I do believe that you can't generalize what he says to ALL "traditional" martial arts, and he would probably tell you the same thing. And a lot of what he says could also apply to the local boxing gym or MMA gym. But most of his points are well-founded. Rackemann never said that he is the only one that "doesn't suck" and "has it all figured out."

Again, this article was all about the "mindset" of a lot of traditional martial arts. Obviously you can't generalize it to ALL of them, but I've seen it as well. If you don't have this "mindset", then you have nothing to worry about.

Then maybe rackemann would do a better job if he qualified his comments more. Honestly, when I start to read things like his blog, my first thought is “yet another wack-job who thinks he knows it all” and I rarely finish reading it. If he has a message he wants to get out, he does a pretty poor job except when preaching to the choir.

 

[pdg]

Do you sell drugs or owe money?

Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.

I know a few people who have been burgled, a couple of them while they were in.

None of them sold drugs or owed money (unless you count owing to the bank, but banks don't generally send the heavies in...)

 

[now disabled]

All

Then I can't agree with all your points.

I would site the schools of Kenjutsu, iaijutsu, battojutsu I don't think any of them make claims for self defense in the modern age, nor would I think any of the heads of the ryu would make those claims either. The schools may have at one time claimed to be the best et al but that was a long long time ago.

Also the use of "ART" I feel is a western that does not have the same context in the east so confusion does arise.

The fault you said was not in the "art" but in how it is being taught. Without getting into major historical discussions lol, The current heads of the Koryu teach what has been passed to them and it is their decision as it was the masters before on what to teach (and what not to) and how, eg some of the schools had many different teachings contained within them, that over a period have not been taught, when they decided not to teach certain parts is up to the master that decided that (now that could have been out of there was no necessity or it could have been forced on them) and that could have been a long time ago. It doesn't mean that the teachings are not there (or the scrolls etc) it means that the current or for that matter many previous masters were not taught that part or parts and therefore they may hold the scrolls but not hold the relevant licenses to teach that (nor want to for that matter) and due to that they will not teach it nor I would suggest resurrect any teachings, that hey leave to others.
So you cannot really blame a current master of a school for not teaching until it is ascertained if it is his decision not to teach that and not that he can't.

just my opinion

 

[hoshin1600]

In this case it doesn't matter how you train. It is a direct response to training with the concept of winning. I am not making assumptions about your training here. I am reacting to your comments.

If you don't include winning an loosing in to your training method you are probably going to be crap.
.

when you state it in this way i understand and agree. as i said earlier i just have a hard time using those terms in my own training because of the competitive connotations involved. that doesnt mean the principals are not there. i might just term it different. for me i use the term survive or a successful outcome.. on the other side i often use the term .."dude your dead" as i said my primary core revolves more around weapons use so in that circle we dont use win or lose, it's survive or die. semantics for sure, marketing if you want to see it that way but in no way does that mean the pressure testing isnt there and everyone goes home feeling happy because they got a trophy or medal. and i fully agree that mentality fosters issues or as you say "you are probably going to be crap".

 

[Poppity]

I would like to add another element which is that of rules...

pre 1743 and the Jack Broughton rules, boxing, or bare knuckle prize fighting, consisted of grappling techniques, throws, arm locks, chokes and kicks and included rules like continuing until one man could no longer carry on (there were also quarterstaff and short sword rounds as well interestingly enough, together with their eerily similar man sau stance).... anyway Jack Broughton due to killing a man, brought in safety rules and gloves and then the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came in, in 1867 making boxing even safer and more sport-man like.

Boxing now has huge developments in scientific advances in training and understanding, but would a champion bare knuckle prize fighter win against a champion contemporary boxer in a street fight, in my view I think they probably would, but I think the bare knuckle boxer would probably lose in a boxing match with gloves on if forced to abide to the contemporary rules. (please no-one mention the Mcgregor-Mayweather match, as I am still disappointed I paid to watch that).

So there is an element of framing going on.... I am not peddaling out the old "wing chun is too deadly to ever work in a competitive environment" but I am saying that advances are sometimes only good for turning a fighting system into a sport and increasing that sports entertainment value and safety. I may be wrong but I think something similar may have resulted in the emergence of Judo from Jujutsu.

Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:

• Head-butting

• Biting or spitting at an opponent

• Hair pulling

• Eye gouging of any kind

• Groin attacks

• Downward pointing of elbow strikes

• Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh

• Kicking the head of a grounded opponent etc.etc.

From the MMA schools I have seen, they don't train for this in their sparring, maybe cause its against the rules, again I don't know. But what I do know is that these rules are not making MMA better more efficient and more effective, they are turning it more into a sport. If more rules come in, MMA will become more of a sport, safer and more entertaining. Which is fine, but when I read stuff about MMA leading to being the ultimate fighter or ultimate fighting technique...

I think you would need to strip all the rules out to get there.

 

[hoshin1600]

Do you sell drugs or owe money?

Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.

so the story i posted was mean to be the extreme. its an exagerated example of retribution. in the real world most guys dont have the balls to walk up and ring a door bell, that i will admit. but drive by shootings in certain parts of the States happen every day.

retribution happens. i know ..
i know because back in my 20's i was the guy who got into a confrontation and was sitting in his car outside the bar, crowbar in my hand waiting for the dude who was 2 times my size. waiting for him to walk out so i can club him over the head from behind.

it was my friend who was shot and killed because a few people i knew got into a confrontation with a couple others out in a public space and those two backed off only to return 20 minutes later, jumped out of the car and started shooting into the group. my friend Sean wasnt even there when the earlier fight happened but he is the one who took the bullet.

if its never hapend to you or you have never taken part ...bless you... but it happens.

 

[Martial D]

Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:

• Head-butting

• Biting or spitting at an opponent

• Hair pulling

• Eye gouging of any kind

• Groin attacks

• Downward pointing of elbow strikes

• Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh

• Kicking the head of a grounded opponent etc.etc.

From the MMA schools I have seen, they don't train for this in their sparring, maybe cause its against the rules, again I don't know. But what I do know is that these rules are not making MMA better more efficient and more effective, they are turning it more into a sport. If more rules come in, MMA will become more of a sport, safer and more entertaining. Which is fine, but when I read stuff about MMA leading to being the ultimate fighter or ultimate fighting technique...

I think you would need to strip all the rules out to get there.

Ahh this one again. I actually just watched a video from one Ramsey Dewey where he does a really good job of debunking this very common argument.

Here, have a look. Well worth the watch.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:

• Head-butting

• Biting or spitting at an opponent

• Hair pulling

• Eye gouging of any kind

• Groin attacks

• Downward pointing of elbow strikes

• Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh

• Kicking the head of a grounded opponent etc.etc.

From the MMA schools I have seen, they don't train for this in their sparring, maybe cause its against the rules, again I don't know.

I'm not an MMA competitor, but I am a BJJ instructor at an MMA gym. I can (and occasionally do) teach how to use and defend against all* of these tactics. For those who train with a street focus, it's worth touching on them occasionally. However, both effective use of and defense against these techniques are based on the same fundamental physical skills and movements that are used in sport competition.

*(With the exception of spitting. I can't spit for distance or accuracy worth a darn. Fortunately, I can come up with plenty of other distractions which work just as well.)

 

[now disabled]

I would like to add another element which is that of rules...

pre 1743 and the Jack Broughton rules, boxing, or bare knuckle prize fighting, consisted of grappling techniques, throws, arm locks, chokes and kicks and included rules like continuing until one man could no longer carry on (there were also quarterstaff and short sword rounds as well interestingly enough, together with their eerily similar man sau stance).... anyway Jack Broughton due to killing a man, brought in safety rules and gloves and then the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came in, in 1867 making boxing even safer and more sport-man like.

Boxing now has huge developments in scientific advances in training and understanding, but would a champion bare knuckle prize fighter win against a champion contemporary boxer in a street fight, in my view I think they probably would, but I think the bare knuckle boxer would probably lose in a boxing match with gloves on if forced to abide to the contemporary rules. (please no-one mention the Mcgregor-Mayweather match, as I am still disappointed I paid to watch that).

So there is an element of framing going on.... I am not peddaling out the old "wing chun is too deadly to ever work in a competitive environment" but I am saying that advances are sometimes only good for turning a fighting system into a sport and increasing that sports entertainment value and safety. I may be wrong but I think something similar may have resulted in the emergence of Judo from Jujutsu.

Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:

• Head-butting

• Biting or spitting at an opponent

• Hair pulling

• Eye gouging of any kind

• Groin attacks

• Downward pointing of elbow strikes

• Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh

• Kicking the head of a grounded opponent etc.etc.

From the MMA schools I have seen, they don't train for this in their sparring, maybe cause its against the rules, again I don't know. But what I do know is that these rules are not making MMA better more efficient and more effective, they are turning it more into a sport. If more rules come in, MMA will become more of a sport, safer and more entertaining. Which is fine, but when I read stuff about MMA leading to being the ultimate fighter or ultimate fighting technique...

I think you would need to strip all the rules out to get there.

I liked your post however I would caution you that there is no ultimate fighting system and never will be as no matter what you are taught it is the human being that has to apply it and there in lies the flaws

I do get what you are saying about street fights I've seen many of them and to teach those things you mention you have to be careful. When I did (and I haven't in a long time taught) mention things that you "could" do I was careful as to who I said it to maybe overly so but I didn't want a few getting the wrong idea and saying oh sensei told us to do that lol.

That said I do think that once you have reached the point of applying techniques then it should become pretty obvious where you can apply things lol

 

[now disabled]

Snark

I will probably get jumped on for saying this but

MMA is not the ultimate fighting system it is like back in the day when Karate and Judo (I ain't knocking those in anyway btw) were the "in" thing MMA is that way now and it has a lot more coverage and media attention than any of the Arts of systems did in the past. I am not saying it does not have it's place and I do think it is more adapted to the times we live in but in 20 years will there be another system taking over with another name, who knows lol. The test will be time and if it is still around in 50 years time

Now I'm off to get my tin lid on and duck lol

 

[Poppity]

Ahh this one again. I actually just watched a video from one Ramsey Dewey where he does a really good job of debunking this very common argument.

Here, have a look. Well worth the watch.

Thank you.

I am going to give a lengthy response... but the crux of it is, in my view is that he is describing a sport, saying that anything outside the sporting rules will not help you in the sport and giving vague unfounded suggestions as to why they would not work generally.

I am sorry to say I cannot follow him on his head butt "rationale" ... "if you don't know how to grapple head butts will not help you"... well ok, but if you don't know how to grapple shrimping will not help you, side mounts will not help you, the turtle will not help you... hell lets list a bunch of elements in grappling which if you don't know how to grapple... will not help you.... and then he says if you use these techniques the opponent will too... well yes... that is the point... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Biting... well here is Bruce Lee's view alternative musings on the subject... unless we are going to all sing: Aids, Aids, Aids, Aids everybody's got Aids!

On hair pulling, I'd say this guy does not see a lot of street fights, he works out, probably does not drink too much, seems pretty even tempered, probably goes to bed before he gets too messy, good on him... there is one reason drunk guys don't pull a man's hair. Most have short hair. You see a guy with long hair in a fight, it always gets pulled at some point because it creates an opening, which is what fighting is generally about... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Hmmm.. my understanding of the fishhook is to rip the cheek and disfigure quickly... not hold on to the inside of the cheek allowing the opponent to bite you. neck holds can take a while before the guy loses consciousness, it is not a sudden sharp pain which will sicken and shock the opponent as they spit blood, allowing for you to follow up, so again why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Again.. the eye gouge, from my understanding would be used to blind the opponent whilst you have them trapped and/or are grappling as opposed to give them a gentle push in the eye with your thumb whilst standing next to them, so why you would you try and cut them across the top of the eyebrow which is much more difficult to do... I cannot agree with him at all on this point.

His groin comment is pure BS. Loads of fights start and end with someone kicking or kneeing the opponent in the nuts... especially when big men stand with the feet way apart looking all big and intimidating as they push someone around... he makes it sound like its difficult to do... Jesus, a man's legs create a funnel shape leading to the nuts, your accuracy does not even have to be that good.... and with regard his comment on cups, no-one plans on getting in a street fight... hmmm.. he goes off a bit on this...on how street fights happen...He comes across as a guy who has seen two people squaring off on youtube and says, oh that's how it happens... those are gentlemanly nice fights... some people are just angry drunks and they will look for fights... not for squaring off, they just attack someone.... some guys do it in groups... and if you are minding your own business and this happens to you or a group of people your with the best you can do is try and defend yourself...

His comments on gloves is 100% distilled BS and flies in the face of every stoic standing fact established in history, but hey, he has a youtube channel. and looks like he works out.... gloves were brought in by Jack Broughton... the prize fighters before 1740 would fight bare knuckle with one recorded match lasting over 6 hours.. there were very few recorded injuries of broken hands and knuckles... gloves were brought in to protect the opponent after Jack Broughton killed a man.

the video 12:38 to 13:10 is gold. I agree with everything he says there.

I stopped watching at that point. Because nothing he has said has changed my view of anything...

sorry.


***EDIT: sorry for what might appear as an aggressive or angry tone, I read it through again and just wanted to say that was not what I was aiming for.... sorry again.

 

[Poppity]

So after my rather gruesome post and describing techniques that some competitive MMA does not appear to train defending against (which creates a bit of a double standard when criticising traditional martial arts in my view).... anyway, I am going to refer back to Hoshin1600's post on winning, which I reckon depends on your objective:

1) I want to fight whilst abiding by a set of rules which are there to assist in ensuring that I do not get seriously/permanently injured or seriously/permanently injure the other guy but prove my skill against a similarly weighted/skilled/minded opponent = winning by training for an MMA or boxing match
2) I am an angry drunk/ want revenge against a person or the world and want to hurt someone = winning by seriously hurting someone generally by attacking from behind (until jail)
3) I want to learn to defend myself = winning by learning any MA which teaches how to stop an antagonist without getting seriously hurt and ensuring no-one else gets hurt by controlling the situation
4) I want to learn something for health = winning by studying a non-antagonistic martial art
5) I want to learn techniques for fighting, some of which have the potential to permanently disable, disfigure and even kill but don't want to fight competitively = winning by studying certain martial arts from certain schools
6) as at (5) but I also want to fight competitively = winning by studying certain other martial arts from certain other schools

I don't think this broad paintbrush called MMA should be the gold standard for anything but winning in objective (1). I also don't think MMA guys should go round saying that TMA are useless, anymore than I should go round saying MMA is useless cause they limit their repertoire in training....which I did.... so I guess I am a hypocrite.

 

[Martial D]

Thank you.

I am going to give a lengthy response... but the crux of it is, in my view is that he is describing a sport, saying that anything outside the sporting rules will not help you in the sport and giving vague unfounded suggestions as to why they would not work generally.

I am sorry to say I cannot follow him on his head butt "rationale" ... "if you don't know how to grapple head butts will not help you"... well ok, but if you don't know how to grapple shrimping will not help you, side mounts will not help you, the turtle will not help you... hell lets list a bunch of elements in grappling which if you don't know how to grapple... will not help you.... and then he says if you use these techniques the opponent will too... well yes... that is the point... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Biting... well here is Bruce Lee's view alternative musings on the subject... unless we are going to all sing: Aids, Aids, Aids, Aids everybody's got Aids!

On hair pulling, I'd say this guy does not see a lot of street fights, he works out, probably does not drink too much, seems pretty even tempered, probably goes to bed before he gets too messy, good on him... there is one reason drunk guys don't pull a man's hair. Most have short hair. You see a guy with long hair in a fight, it always gets pulled at some point because it creates an opening, which is what fighting is generally about... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Hmmm.. my understanding of the fishhook is to rip the cheek and disfigure quickly... not hold on to the inside of the cheek allowing the opponent to bite you. neck holds can take a while before the guy loses consciousness, it is not a sudden sharp pain which will sicken and shock the opponent as they spit blood, allowing for you to follow up, so again why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Again.. the eye gouge, from my understanding would be used to blind the opponent whilst you have them trapped and/or are grappling as opposed to give them a gentle push in the eye with your thumb whilst standing next to them, so why you would you try and cut them across the top of the eyebrow which is much more difficult to do... I cannot agree with him at all on this point.

His groin comment is pure BS. Loads of fights start and end with someone kicking or kneeing the opponent in the nuts... especially when big men stand with the feet way apart looking all big and intimidating as they push someone around... he makes it sound like its difficult to do... Jesus, a man's legs create a funnel shape leading to the nuts, your accuracy does not even have to be that good.... and with regard his comment on cups, no-one plans on getting in a street fight... hmmm.. he goes off a bit on this...on how street fights happen...He comes across as a guy who has seen two people squaring off on youtube and says, oh that's how it happens... those are gentlemanly nice fights... some people are just angry drunks and they will look for fights... not for squaring off, they just attack someone.... some guys do it in groups... and if you are minding your own business and this happens to you or a group of people your with the best you can do is try and defend yourself...

His comments on gloves is 100% distilled BS and flies in the face of every stoic standing fact established in history, but hey, he has a youtube channel. and looks like he works out.... gloves were brought in by Jack Broughton... the prize fighters before 1740 would fight bare knuckle with one recorded match lasting over 6 hours.. there were very few recorded injuries of broken hands and knuckles... gloves were brought in to protect the opponent after Jack Broughton killed a man.

the video 12:38 to 13:10 is gold. I agree with everything he says there.

I stopped watching at that point. Because nothing he has said has changed my view of anything...

sorry.


***EDIT: sorry for what might appear as an aggressive or angry tone, I read it through again and just wanted to say that was not what I was aiming for.... sorry again.

Hey there.

I do believe you may have missed a few points of context.

On headbutts: the point is that if you don't have grappling skills, it isn't a very high percentage move without them. So to say you would win if only you could headbutt is a bit of a red herring if you can't already grapple.

On biting: firstly, Bruce Lee was an actor, not a fighter. AFAIK there is no evidence he ever fought anyone. Sure it can cause pain, but it won't stop anyone. To say not being able to bite inhibits ones fighting ability raises questions about ones skill set.

The same can be said for hair pulling. If you don't already know how to grapple, or against someone that does, it won't add or subtract much.

On groin kicking: again, this is in the context of an opponent that knows how to fight. If you can't reliably land inside leg kicks, you also won't land groin kicks. They are pretty much the same kick, only the latter presents a much smaller target.

The ultimate point here is that these are suplimental techniques. If you don't already have good grappling, striking, and distance control, these things won't help much /against a trained fighter/.

Yes all of these things can and will work on drunken bar schlubs. So will anything though.

 

[Anarax]

Yeah I did security for 20 years

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I understand you did security. However, that doesn't equate you seeking out conflict, security is mostly about deterrence and prevention. I was asking did you go out and look for fights?

 

[Poppity]

Hey,

I am going to disagree about me not getting the context but it's the internet and disagreement is what is all about.

Headbutts work standing up as a surprise attack

Bites can make someone release their grip as a last resort.

Hair pulling can open the neck up for attack.

Fishhooking is nasty and fighting with gloves is for sports.

Kneeing anyone in the nuts even if their trained is easy if your close They will not even see it. But it is not entertaining for sports.

The ultimate point for me, is MMA is limited by the rules and is effective as a sport, but it does not utilise or train for a variety of techniques.

 

[Nobody Important]

Then I can't agree with all your points.

I would site the schools of Kenjutsu, iaijutsu, battojutsu I don't think any of them make claims for self defense in the modern age, nor would I think any of the heads of the ryu would make those claims either. The schools may have at one time claimed to be the best et al but that was a long long time ago.

Also the use of "ART" I feel is a western that does not have the same context in the east so confusion does arise.

The fault you said was not in the "art" but in how it is being taught. Without getting into major historical discussions lol, The current heads of the Koryu teach what has been passed to them and it is their decision as it was the masters before on what to teach (and what not to) and how, eg some of the schools had many different teachings contained within them, that over a period have not been taught, when they decided not to teach certain parts is up to the master that decided that (now that could have been out of there was no necessity or it could have been forced on them) and that could have been a long time ago. It doesn't mean that the teachings are not there (or the scrolls etc) it means that the current or for that matter many previous masters were not taught that part or parts and therefore they may hold the scrolls but not hold the relevant licenses to teach that (nor want to for that matter) and due to that they will not teach it nor I would suggest resurrect any teachings, that hey leave to others.
So you cannot really blame a current master of a school for not teaching until it is ascertained if it is his decision not to teach that and not that he can't.

just my opinion

Your comment actually reinforced my point. An art cannot teach itself - a person is needed. Fault in transmission is solely on the understanding of the person instructing it and what their emphasis is on. So to disparage an art as useless or antiquated based solely on opinion and by comparing it a similar method taught differently, is disingenuous. Example, one instructor teaching Shotokan solely for Kata competition, another teaching Wado Ryu for kumite competition. In this context is ALL Shotokan useless for kumite competirion and ALL Wado Ryu useless for kata competition? The art is not at fault, the teacher is. You can blame culture, but ultimately the blame lies in the hands of those responsible for the WHAT and HOW is taught.

 

[Martial D]

Hey,

I am going to disagree about me not getting the context but it's the internet and disagreement is what is all about.

Headbutts work standing up as a surprise attack

Bites can make someone release their grip as a last resort.

Hair pulling can open the neck up for attack.

Fishhooking is nasty and fighting with gloves is for sports.

Kneeing anyone in the nuts even if their trained is easy if your close They will not even see it. But it is not entertaining for sports.

The ultimate point for me, is MMA is limited by the rules and is effective as a sport, but it does not utilise or train for a variety of techniques.

Question, how much MMA experience do you have? I feel like you are carrying around some misconceptions.

 

[Poppity]

Question, how much MMA experience do you have? I feel like you are carrying around some misconceptions.

Oodles. Together with a few fights on the weekend, even have a scar on my arm from a broken bottle slash. I see my view does not fit with yours, so I must be wrong. I thought TMA practitioners were supposed to be the blinkered ones.

 

[TSDTexan]

The whole premises that martial arts is not about winning sort of encompasses the whole issue here.

Well, it just has to work.

When you convert a martial art into a combative sport a lot of crippling and killing techniques get dropped from the class syllabus.

yes, pressure testing is still required. no you don't have to maim or kill your partner.

 

[TSDTexan]

No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.

Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.

And you won't even know you are mediocre because there will be no way to judge.

And it is not about being macho. It is about having enough personal courage to try to win while risking loosing.

Which is about learning to be humble. Learning the true you.

I can get behind all of this post.