The Resurgence of Traditional Martial Arts in Modern Mixed Martial Arts

[Kung Fu Wang]

Fighting is pretty obvious to anyone who watches a combat sport match. Two people locking horns.

This is ancient fighting.

In Chinese

Shuai = wrestling
Chiao/Jiao = horn
Shuai Chiao = wrestle with horn

 

[drop bear]

The idea that TMAs do not produce skilled fighters because they lack public competition ignores important points.

Many TMAs were developed for real-world combat, not sport. Their techniques are often tested in sparring, drills, and scenario training, even if not in public view - especially koryū. TMAs also focus on skills like weapon defence and handling multiple attackers, which are rarely part of competitive sports.

TMAs emphasise discipline, strategy, and awareness, all essential qualities for skilled fighters. Fighters like Lyoto Machida (karate) and Ronda Rousey (judo) have shown that traditional techniques can succeed in modern competitions. TMAs are also used in military and police training.

Competition is one way to test skill, but it is not the only way. TMAs and combat sports have different goals, and skill depends on the person and their training.

Not all fights are public, and not all skill is for show. TMAs produce fighters in their own way and deserve respect for their contributions to martial arts.

In my opinion there's little "art" in the combat sport martial arts.

Let's hypothetically imagine a duel between Connor McGregor and Miyamoto Musashi. Get it?

Ok.

Do you know what scientific method is?

 

[Haruhiko]

Ok.

Do you know what scientific method is?

That's a non-sequitur but to indulge you I'll let you be condescending and pretend that I don't know what the scientific method is. What's your point?

 

[Haruhiko]

Without sparring/wrestling, how do you test/maintain your combat skill? In school, is there any class that doesn't require midterm examine and final examine?

Are you saying, "game is not competition/sport"?

Depending on the martial art there are many ways to correct a student and to receive correction from your teacher. In educational theory this is usually referred to "assessment-as".

And yes, not all games are competitive and not all competitions are games. Hence the term "play-fighting". Which is what we would be doing in your scenario.

 

[drop bear]

That's a non-sequitur but to indulge you I'll let you be condescending and pretend that I don't know what the scientific method is. What's your point?

Scientific method is about the most consistent way of determining a thing is a thing.

Competition is an experiment to determine if a hypothesis is valid. Multiple competitions are a .ore comprehensive method.It essentially uses Scientific method.

If you have another process that uses Scientific method but is not competition that would also be valid.

But saying a result might happen because we can't see it due to stories and excuses isn't as valid. And is mostly used to defend things like magic and healing crystals.

Basically a person who has never fought might be an amazing fighter. I don't know.

But if I am going to create a process where I identify amazing fighter. I will not include that person because it will create too much misinformation.

 

[Haruhiko]

View attachment 32635


Scientific method is about the most consistent way of determining a thing is a thing.

Competition is an experiment to determine if a hypothesis is valid. Multiple competitions are a .ore comprehensive method.It essentially uses Scientific method.

If you have another process that uses Scientific method but is not competition that would also be valid.

But saying a result might happen because we can't see it due to stories and excuses isn't as valid. And is mostly used to defend things like magic and healing crystals.

Basically a person who has never fought might be an amazing fighter. I don't know.

But if I am going to create a process where I identify amazing fighter. I will not include that person because it will create too much misinformation.

Your false equivalence of "competition:scientific-method" oversimplifies virtually everything I said.

You can use the Monte Carlo method to calculate hypotheticals over N iterations (usually 10,000+):

Score = Reaction Time (RT) × Accuracy (A) × Damage (D)

Where:
RT = Speed of reaction
A = Probability of landing an accurate strike
D = Lethality or impact of the strike

Random variations (±10%) are applied to simulate variability in performance.

Here's a graph I hobbled together (as an example - I didn't draw from many data points, it's just to show how this can be done):

I only processed 1000 iterations. Needless to say it respects the scientific method using data sets to model, simulate, and reproduce iterations depending on the reliability of data. The main criticism of the model is that it can draw on low populated data sets and too populated data sets, leading to dimensionality issues that require additional computing to weigh the data as significant or insignificant in the simulations. It's not conclusive, obviously, as it's a model, and the falsifiability is too high.

And that's just one method.

I don't know what to do with all this straw, man.