Too deadly for competition rant

[Flying Crane]

True...unless of course you are talking Xuefu :EG: :uhyeah:

Xuefu works well in ALL venues.

 

[GBlues]

If the 'art' is to deadly to use in competition then it's to deadly for the street, for there will be times on the street you will have to techniques that are not designed to kill, but to control.

And it's a poor art that cannot handle that.

Deaf

I would like to ask you guys to name a strike, and target, that is not potentially an injurious technique to your opponent or even lethal. Because every single technique in martial arts has the potential for both of these things regardless of whether you train for competition or for self-defense. Regardless of whether you wanted to serve a death dealing blow or not, it can very quickly become one. No matter whether you train for sport, or for self-defense. IT makes no difference. Hit a guy the wrong way, or with too much force, or he has a bad heart or any number of factors, and potentially you could KILL a man, even if it's just an accident. The reality is all martial arts are too dangerous for the ring, in reality. We have rules and regs to make it as safe as possible. There are no guarantees. You step into a ring or octagon and you are literally placing your life in your hands everytime that you do. YOur life is potentially at risk. Worst part is if you train for competition you chose to do that. IF you train for in the street, when you are forced with a conflict the same is true, your life is at risk. Or at risk of having serious physical damage done to it. How is any of any different except one has rules and ref, and the other doesn't?

 

[searcher]

There are some styles that DON'T WORK WELL in a competition venue. This is not the same thing as saying that they are too deadly for competition.

Exactly.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are some styles that DON'T WORK WELL in a competition venue. This is not the same thing as saying that they are too deadly for competition.

Exactly.

I should have completed my thought in my prior post: people who train in one of these arts may be reluctant or disinterested in competing or even sparring outside of the class, or with people from outside the training group. This reluctance may be misinterpreted as claiming that the art is "too deadly".

 

[Cryozombie]

I hate the ones who are too sexy for competition.

LOL.

 

[searcher]

The real question should be, do they think that the art is to deadly or do they think they are to deadly.

Just because something is not made for competition, does not make it s deadly art. I think someone forgot to tell some of our brothers-in-arms this little tidbit.

 

[Carol]

And I've never said you should or must compete -- just that the whole argument that any style is "too dangerous" as a whole for competition is silly. Many styles have some or even many techniques that wouldn't be appropriate for competition. That doesn't mean that there's no way to use those styles in a competitive environment. Maybe you can't use a neck throw... but there are other throws. I'll come back in just a moment to two issues that kind of come up here...

I agree with what you are saying. I don't have a whole lot of tolerance for the posturing "I can't fight you, my art is 'teh deadlies' " or some such carp.

However, I'll admit to having commented on the dangerousness of art in the past - not because I was invited to spar but because I was invited in to spar by someone that wanted to see "a little Silat" and was perhaps a bit surprised with how I stuck with kicking and punching and not taking the guy to the ground for a roll or showing him some nasty techs. I'm OK with going in and banging for a bit, even if its another "learning experience" but I'm a bit more particular as to who I trust with my neck (literally)

 

[MJS]

I would like to ask you guys to name a strike, and target, that is not potentially an injurious technique to your opponent or even lethal. Because every single technique in martial arts has the potential for both of these things regardless of whether you train for competition or for self-defense. Regardless of whether you wanted to serve a death dealing blow or not, it can very quickly become one. No matter whether you train for sport, or for self-defense. IT makes no difference. Hit a guy the wrong way, or with too much force, or he has a bad heart or any number of factors, and potentially you could KILL a man, even if it's just an accident. The reality is all martial arts are too dangerous for the ring, in reality. We have rules and regs to make it as safe as possible. There are no guarantees. You step into a ring or octagon and you are literally placing your life in your hands everytime that you do. YOur life is potentially at risk. Worst part is if you train for competition you chose to do that. IF you train for in the street, when you are forced with a conflict the same is true, your life is at risk. Or at risk of having serious physical damage done to it. How is any of any different except one has rules and ref, and the other doesn't?

I was debating back and forth as whether I should make this post, but decided to go ahead. At the risk of turning this into a my art vs your art thread, I often hear certain arts make the claim that the reason they don't spar is because their art is not designed for competition. The art is not deisgned for the ring, its designed for combat. These types of discussions usually take place between guys who do compete, such as MMA, against (insert other art here). Once the comment is made that its too deadly, that sets the ball into motion.

Once those statements are made, it gives the impression that the art that doesn't compete, can't do so, because they can't modify their training, techs., etc., for the ring, hence giving the too deadly impression.

I've gone to a number of tournaments. I've watched the UFC since it started. Is there a history of deaths in the ring caused by a punch or kick? Sure, we get the minor injuries, but I havent heard of many deaths. There may be some cases out there, I don't know.

This is why, in my last post, I commented on being able to turn up or tone down whatever it is that we do, depending on the situation.

 

[arnisador]

It's certainly true that some techniques are too risky for sparring--you could really hurt ssomeone. Some throws, joint manipulations, etc. You practice at speed with a partner getting into the position, then very slowly executing the technique.

But if that's all your art has...you may be kidding yourself about your effectiveness.

As a sidenote, weapons are different. I don't need to cut someone to know that cutting people is effective, though practicing actual cutting on inanimate objects certainly does certainly inform how one cuts for maximum effectiveness.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

There are 2 general version of Sanda/Sanshou depending on how you classify it. Sport and non sport but there are Sport, Civilian, and Police/Military versions

But I will go with Police/Military Sanda and Sports Sanda.

Sports Sanda is made for fighting in the ring

Police/Military Sanda is obviously not, I will just go with non-sport from this point on.

A whole lot of Police in China fight in Sanda/Sanshou matches however they learn the rules and regs of the sports Sanda match and do not use a lot of what they train for their every day job. They are trained pretty heavily in non-sport Sanda for the job but that means greater emphasis on Qinna, Shuaijiao and of course weapons defense that you will not get in the ring version. But then how many times ina sporting match is your opponent going to pull a gun or a knife and I don’t really think you get any points for breaking your opponents knee so why bother training it for the ring. However watch a YouTube vid of one of Cung Le’s old Sanshou matches and you tell me if some of those take downs would feel real good if you were outside on hard ground.

Cung Le is Sports Sanda/Sanshou and I most certainly would never say anything that he does would not work outside the ring since it most certainly would. He however does not train as much Qinna or some of the strikes or the extent of Shuaijiao of non-sport Sanshou.

My Sanda sifu's very first statement to me was he knows nothing about the sports side of Sanda. Does that mean he lacks control to jump in the ring and stop himself from breaking someone’s knee? Well no.

What it means is he has no interest in the sport side of Sanda. And to be honest if someone came up to me today and said you have a choose Xue... fight Cung Le or your Sanda Sifu... I got to tell you I would be looking for a third choice called RUNNING. Frankly I have no desire to fight either, because I really don't want the beating and I am pretty sure my Health Insurance would not cover injuries one gets through stupidity.

Also just as a note the 2 really do not look all that similar;. Sports Sanshou has a specific fighting stance, non-sport sanshou does not. A fight, not in the ring, does not always give you time to take a stance so why bother

One of Cung Le's students works out at our studio during open mat. I have a fair history in judo and jujutsu, and am not opposed to getting dumped, and many of the sanshou throws are reminiscent of judo. After taking some pretty big air on a couple, and thanking the gods under my breath that we were on a crash pad -- and not a regular floor mat or (forbid) concrete -- I reaffirmed my belief in the combative applications of sportive techniques.

You can use a hadaka jime to score a point in a match, render an opponent unconscious, or hold it for a really long time until his corpse starts to smell. Same tech; different applications, depending on purpose and intent.

D.

 

[punisher73]

I don't see any problem with people and styles NOT wanting to compete. That is everyone's own business and to each their own.

I DO see the problem for saying it's "too deadly"...when you say that you are one of two things.

1) Igorant of your martial art because you don't know how to apply it in less than lethal situations that you are most likely to encounter anyways.

2) Lazy because you don't want to actually delve into the philosophical explanations of why you or the style you study doesn't believe in competition.

I have heard students from my own style say that, and I had to ask them what they meant. A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. Besides, how can you jab me in the eyes or give me a throat strike if you can't even hit a moving opponent with a simple punch to the face?

Also, look at BJJ and many other grappling styles. They have neck cranks and other certain holds that are banned from competition because the risk of injury is too high, yet they still compete.

I see many styles shy away from tournaments because it has become in many cases, point jousting with things that might win a point, but would get you hurt in the street because you didn't do anything and left yourself wide open for the follow up when the ref doesn't yell "point" or "break".

 

[CDKJudoka]

I am too deadly for competition because I have been a trained Ninja since before I was born. I was able to do a 960 spinning side kick by the time I was 2 years old.

Now that I have made you laugh, anyone who spouts that nonsense is talking out of their posterior waste disposal hole. I heard that once at a school that I was trying out. After they found out that I had previous MA knowledge, they asked me to teach there. I try to stay away from people who say that, or call themselves Saiko Shihan while wearing a Mullet.

There is a lot of stuff that I have trained in that would be deadly in competition, but as stated above, there is a time and a place as to when that training and techniques should be used. I will not try for a spear hand throat strike in competition, unless I am in the Kumite fighting Frank Dux.

 

[jks9199]

I was debating back and forth as whether I should make this post, but decided to go ahead. At the risk of turning this into a my art vs your art thread, I often hear certain arts make the claim that the reason they don't spar is because their art is not designed for competition. The art is not deisgned for the ring, its designed for combat. These types of discussions usually take place between guys who do compete, such as MMA, against (insert other art here). Once the comment is made that its too deadly, that sets the ball into motion.

Once those statements are made, it gives the impression that the art that doesn't compete, can't do so, because they can't modify their training, techs., etc., for the ring, hence giving the too deadly impression.

I've gone to a number of tournaments. I've watched the UFC since it started. Is there a history of deaths in the ring caused by a punch or kick? Sure, we get the minor injuries, but I havent heard of many deaths. There may be some cases out there, I don't know.

This is why, in my last post, I commented on being able to turn up or tone down whatever it is that we do, depending on the situation.

That's a great point.

There's a very big difference between "we don't compete because our art is designed for combat, not sport" and "we can't compete 'cause we're too deadly." The sport/non-sport Sanda example above is one sample of this, and I'd include Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, Krav Maga, MCMAP, and I'm sure there are others. Like I said earlier, it's one thing to be against using an art in sports competition philosophically; it's another to make claims that you can't use it in sports because it's too dangerous.

And, it's absolutely possible that, if you strip too much out of the skill set included in a particular style to fit the rules of a competition, it won't fair well. To use a sort of ridiculous example... if an aikidoka or BJJ student were to enter a boxing competition and try to use only aikido or BJJ, I kind of suspect it won't work so well.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Both of these statements serve the same purpose: to salvage the ego of the incompetent who still feel the need to be competative.

I just tripped, once again, over the classic phrase "x-art is too deadly for competition" or one of it's innumerable variants ("you can't compete with y because it's only made for killing", etc.).

This is the guy who wants to be perceived as a bad a$$ but knows he doesn't have the chops to compete. So to beat you, he claims his techniques are all lethal and that he's doing you a huge favor by not walking onto the mats with you. In my opinion, he is the smarter of the two: Nobody else really believes him and since he never actually spars or competes, nobody gets hurt and everyone's ego ends pretty much in the same place it begins. Usually this is the guy who gets frustrated when the verbal sparing begins because he can't actually elaborate on what makes his art so much deadlier than everyone else's. Often, these are what I call MA fanboys who watch too much Bruce Lee coupled with too much Naruto.

Just as bad are the guys who will horse around, and then cry about how they would have beaten you if they could do those things...think...If you could do them, I could do them, if I bested you without them, would it really be that different?

These guys are actually more of a problem. In order for them to lose in competition and then make their 'if this, if that' comments, someone else has to put in the hard work and effort of gaining the skill to be competent, only to have some loser try to discredit the effort and work by essentially saying that they are really the guy in the the first scenario, but holding back for the benefit of the winner's health. Often, these guys are incompetent and are likely to either be hurt or cause injury to their sparring partners.

I've personally known very few people outside of gamers and comic book fans who make comments along the lines of 'my art is too deadly to compete...', though my response is always, 'be careful if the legal consequences if you ever use it in self defense' and then tell them that I like an art that provides me with a range of techniques and simply compete with the appropriate ones.

I've known tons of losers who say, 'if they'd let me hit you in the knees I'd have won' to which I always say the same thing that marius said: "If they let us attack the knees I'd still beat you: I was faster to you head, I'd be faster to you knees."

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If the 'art' is to deadly to use in competition then it's to deadly for the street, for there will be times on the street you will have to techniques that are not designed to kill, but to control.

I'll take this one step further: the majority of times on the street that you need to use your art in actual self defense will require a less than lethal response in most places. Why do I learn TKD and hapkido? Because I can't use my sword art and accompanying katana without getting locked up for manslaughter at the very least, possible unpremeditated murder, and even perhaps premeditated murder if the prosecution is really good. And that assumes that you can walk around with a sword legally long enough to actually find yourself in an SD situation.

Now, if they break into my house, all bets are off and I'll use that sword if I feel that I need to to protect my family. And even then, I still want to have a good toolbox of nonlethal techniques: I don't want to go to jail and I don't want to clean the carpet.

Daniel

 

[Sukerkin]

I was going to quote that phrase from Marius too - I thought it encapsulated the wrong-headed-mythology of the Too Deadly Krue perfectly.

I also have the problem that my art really is too deadly for use in competition ... :lol:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I was going to quote that phrase from Marius too - I thought it encapsulated the wrong-headed-mythology of the Too Deadly Krue perfectly.

I also have the problem that my art really is too deadly for use in competition ... :lol:

You practice a sword art, as I do, and there are no non-lethal or non-permanent injury inflicting techniques in a sword art. Funny, but we sword guys found ways to have competitions: the eastern styles use bamboo swords and bogu and the western styles use padded jackets, masks, and car antennas with guards, hilts, and pommels.

Daniel

 

[Sukerkin]

the western styles use padded jackets, masks, and car antennas with guards, hilts, and pommels.

Daniel

ROFL - took me a second to figure that out as I was having a conversation about the decline of the ceramics industry at the same time :rei:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Once XM radio completely replaces FM in cars (the AM part of the radio doesn't use the antenna whip), cars will no longer have whip antennas and nobody will get my referrence.

Daniel

 

[celtic_crippler]

I just tripped, once again, over the classic phrase "x-art is too deadly for competition" or one of it's innumerable variants ("you can't compete with y because it's only made for killing", etc.).

I HATE this phrase! And I hate the concept behind it, too.

This is the thing... ANY style should (in theory, 'cause I know some now are designed for sport) have techniques that are too dangerous to use in mere competition -- but any style should also be usable at a less-lethal level. Instead of punching to the throat, you punch the chest. Instead of using a throw to dump the guy on his head, you drop him more on his back.

Sure, you lose many of the techniques in some styles -- but you can still use others. And, absolutely, some styles aren't going to mesh with every competition. A striking style isn't going to do well in a grappling tournament, any more than a wrestler will do well in a boxing match. And there's no guarantee that you'll win, even in a competition environment that's well suited to your style.

But to claim that a particular style is "too deadly" to use in competition suggests either that you don't think you can really use it -- or that you just don't want to take the chance or that you don't think you have the control to obey the rules. After all, if the style was really too deadly to use -- how would you practice?! You'd kill all your training partners!

I agree with your post for the most part, but will play Devil's Advocate (just a tad) because there is always more than one side of any story.... and it's fun to play Devil's Advocate!

I have observed that all martial arts share the same components of sport, self-defense, and artistic expression.

There is a difference in "FOCUS" from one style to the next however.

Some arts focus more on self-defense and the training reflects that. It has long been held that you will "execute on the street, the way you train in the dojo."

Every single one of you have been told and instructed to perform maneuvers over and over and over....repitition is the key to learning, no?

Why do you think this is the case? So that your reactions are embedded into your subconcious so that concious thought is not needed to deal with a threat. Why? Because concious thought means hesitation, and he who hesitates...meditates...in the horizontal position (to steal a quote from SGM Ed Parker.)

Therefore, depending on the focus of one's training, it may be more natural to execute an eye-poke for example instead of a simple punch. Now, that DOES NOT mean self-control and good sense is not required for the situation so please don't jump me yet....lol.

I agree that any MA worth it's salt should have practicioners that can adapt to a sport environment. Key word is "adapt" though. One does train differently for a sporting competition than one does for self-defense.

That's because the situations are different.

In a sporting environment, there are preset rules one must be familiar with. Rules that are set up in part to help prevent serious injury and/or death. In a self-defense scenario, there are no rules and the goal is to at least injure your opponent enough so that they are no longer a threat.

Sports are equated to games....it's not a game to play with one's life. Of course, you have the right to choose how much force you use in either a sporting event or in self-defense. The difference is that if you make a miscalculation in judgement in the ring, you may only lose the fight and/or a couple of places in the rankings; however, a miscalculation where your life & limb are concerning could land you in the ICU or morgue. So... I think you have a little more margin for error where "sport" is concerned.

Is it BS to claim one's style is too deadly for competition? Absolutely. It's also BS to claim that one can change the results of their training at the drop of a hat as well. Especially where a lot of time has been put into it. It's like saying that I can do any dance because I can do the Funky Chicken....not so....I still can't Break Dance worth a damn!