What do you think of this composition?

[drop bear]

Everything works and nothing works

It not all down to the Art or system it is down to how it is taught and then bluntly it is down to the student if they can absorb it and then apply it ...........so much these days is blamed on the specific art etc etc etc where it might possibly be ...the student or the teacher

You have to start with a cart with round wheels. Before you blame the guys pushing.

 

[drop bear]

In my opinion, the issue is less what else has changed (other than information available for developing the art). The issue is mostly that it’s impossible to transmit an art exactly. There will always be “loss of signal” in transmission. If there’s no attempt to improve, there can only be degradation over time.

There is stuff that will work on guys who can't fight.

The sample size of fighters in the day wasn't very big.

You can see this when the uberkavbekistan swimming champion enters the Olympics and does times that would get him smoked in a little athletics in a first world country that has a million kids swimming in a million pools.

 

[now disabled]

You have to start with a cart with round wheels. Before you blame the guys pushing.

This is true else you can look like hengis pod

 

[now disabled]

There is stuff that will work on guys who can't fight.

The sample size of fighters in the day wasn't very big.

You can see this when the uberkavbekistan swimming champion enters the Olympics and does times that would get him smoked in a little athletics in a first world country that has a million kids swimming in a million pools.

A very good point that and maybe that is the point as the Arts these days are really open to all and thereby open to more opinion and ridicule.

And yes I can remember watching at the Olympics and thinking jeez that person gonna drown but there again he made it there

 

[now disabled]

There will always be “loss of signa

I agree there and that could lead onto things that have already been discussed. things that have been taken out or added or when a more spiritual dimension is added

 

[now disabled]

...But oftentimes better than a master of one".

Can i just chip in for the above argument.

Most civilians opt to wear concealable armour for many valid reasons. If you get into a fight you 90% of the time wont know if they have it or not. obviously punching somones solar plexus when they have a kevlar plate there is not going to go down well for your hand. Fighting against armour for the modern day would be a full time consideration and fighting strategy not how it used to be as a battlefield orientated concern and less for civilians.

I dont know if thats relivent, but its a good bit of information to remember that concealable armour exists and is in fashion,

What concealable armour are you talking about as ummm if you mean tactical body armour then it kinda obvious and a kevlar plate well never known anyone to go about their daily business wearing one (I mean everyday folks)

 

[drop bear]

What concealable armour are you talking about as ummm if you mean tactical body armour then it kinda obvious and a kevlar plate well never known anyone to go about their daily business wearing one (I mean everyday folks)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What I believe has changed is that for much of the world, life is generally safer and most of us have no need to defend ourselves with any regularity, if at all. As a consequence, we have less need and little urgency to train with the intensity needed to develop truly effective skills. So most people who train martial arts can do so for other reasons such as exercise, the social connections, etc. and fewer people end up developing useful skills or understanding how to go about training properly to develop those skills, even when the system they train still is inherently viable and intact.

I also think this calls for - in some cases - a change to how we teach. What works when working with people who train every day, with high intensity, for a few hours isn't the most effective approach for working with someone who trains twice a week for an hour or two. And even that branches, depending whether the person in question seeks fitness elsewhere or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with you on all counts.

However there are a couple situations where I think there could be limited truth to these notions, outside the obvious example of a system that trains in an archaic weapon that nobody carries or uses anymore for personal defense or on the battlefield.

One is if the system was developed with the expectation that all of some parties in the mele would be wearing armor of some kind. I can see where movement or application of techniques would be affected by that assumption. If nobody adjusts those concepts to reflect the fact that people generally do not wear armor anymore, then they might be practicing methods based on an outdated reality.

The other example is if techniques rely on heavy body or hand conditioning, and people no longer put in the time to do that conditioning. Their hand may not survive being used as designed by the technique. A spear-hand is an example.

I'd put staff work in this category, too. It, as far as I know, was largely based on the premise that travelers carried a long stick to use as a walking stick. Most of us don't have that, so depending upon it as primary defense is not sensible. Adapting the techniques to make use of what might be at hand is an adaptation of staff work to modern reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well...

Even a sword could be considered archaic really, given I've never seen anyone carry one habitually.

As for armour - anything that trains for the opponent wearing it would actually still work. Surely it'd be trained to go for weak points that were necessarily present to allow movement (like under the arm, back of the knee, around the neck) and those areas are just as susceptible without armour. So I'm on the fence with that one.

Conditioning, definitely. I'll spearhand (well, fingertip thrust actually, but same same) on pads or boards. I'll forearm or leg block against doorframes.

And everyone thinks I'm mental

But, I could go a lot harder with that too, there's just I feel no need to go further as I'm not the one padding up to drill with me.

Approaches designed to work against armor might or might not work on someone without armor. A t-shirt doesn't provide the same gripping opportunity as armor, nor the same off-balancing opportunities. And the t-shirt wearer is almost certainly more agile.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

...But oftentimes better than a master of one".

Can i just chip in for the above argument.

Most civilians opt to wear concealable armour for many valid reasons. If you get into a fight you 90% of the time wont know if they have it or not. obviously punching somones solar plexus when they have a kevlar plate there is not going to go down well for your hand. Fighting against armour for the modern day would be a full time consideration and fighting strategy not how it used to be as a battlefield orientated concern and less for civilians.

I dont know if thats relivent, but its a good bit of information to remember that concealable armour exists and is in fashion,

I know it exists. Most people don't wear it, and it's certainly not "in fashion". Not even in the very gun-friendly areas of the South in the US.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The folks who train for self defense mostly don't.

While I'd agree that's more prevalent among that group than among some other groups, I don't think "mostly" is at all accurate. Most of the folks I know who train SD do some amount of sparring and resistive grappling - punching, pulling, and pushing each other (even occasionally poking at each other with non-pointy sticks). Most do less than they probably should, but still...

 

[Flying Crane]

For entertainment or because you think you might happen to have one to hand if attacked though?

Entertainment is a valid reason, as is being able to translate portions of it to things that may be available, like a pointed stick.



I'll make a sweeping assumption here - would training with the idea that your opponent is wearing armour not include looking for any weak point, rather than just concentrating on those that are omnipresent?

Like, maybe their armour is already damaged, so take advantage of that.

Maybe their armour amounts to a t shirt, so take advantage of that...



Conversely, restricting my training to only being barefoot in pyjamas would put me at a serious disadvantage when I am wearing armour.

Yes, it happens, fairly often.

Boots with reinforced soles and ankle joints, trousers with semi rigid inserts in the knees and hips, jacket with similar inserts on the elbows, shoulders and back, gauntlets, and a helmet.

Aka, bike clothes.

I train weapons because they are part of the system I have learned, and they are interesting which I guess could classify as entertainment. However, the weapon methodologies also reinforce the same principles used in our empty-hand methods so there is a direct and relevant connection. However, I realize there is little probability that I will ever need to use them unless there is a zombie apocalypse or some other global technology collapse. These things happen in movies and novels, and not real life.

As to the particulars of armor, I cannot say. I was pointing it out as a possible exception to the rule. But as an exception, it does not support the argument that people fight differently now than in the past.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

He doesn't even use Keysi, he has no right to wear that armour.

 

[pdg]

He doesn't even use Keysi, he has no right to wear that armour.

But it does explain the amount of capes and pointy ears I see around town...

 

[Flying Crane]

I'd put staff work in this category, too. It, as far as I know, was largely based on the premise that travelers carried a long stick to use as a walking stick. Most of us don't have that, so depending upon it as primary defense is not sensible. Adapting the techniques to make use of what might be at hand is an adaptation of staff work to modern reality.

I agree but was reluctant to include it because some small number of people do still carry a walking or hiking staff, especially on trails. So maybe that one isn’t quite so obsolete as a glaive or a bil hook or a greatsword.

 

[DaveB]

This is what Shane Fazen feels is the current martial arts composition within MMA.

BJJ - 25%
Muah Thai - 25%
Boxing - 20%
Wrestling - 20%
Other - 10%

This is just his opinion. It looks about right to me. I think in the beginning of UFC other was a lot larger, but over time certain arts have proven to be more effective. What appears to be the obvious common denominator is boxing is the best base striking art, and BJJ/Wrestling are the best ground arts.

BJJ, while still one of the most dominant arts to know, has lost a bit of it's dominance to counter takedown defense and better striking.

This leads me to a question, for every day self defense what do you think is a better approach or more pragmatic:

A. Learning a little bit of the aforementioned arts above and getting the very basics of each down pretty well.
B. Learning one art at a time and becoming extremly proficient in it.

It's nothing to do with the effectiveness of the art and everything to do with training for competition.

Combat sports only train to fight, TMA train a bunch of other things that are tangential to fighting but which develop overall skill. When a karate club starts training towards a sparring competition the gap between how they train vs a boxing club is much smaller.

Now add the fact that UFC is full contact fighting and the arts listed engage mostly in full contact competition and you have the why for this mix.

MMA has developed this myth that the mix involved is based on people exploring the world to put only the most potent fighting styles together. In actuality mma fighters learn what is taught in mma gyms.

If karate isn't taught its not because anyone has spent time training to use it's methods in a full contact fight setting and dismissed them. Machida proved that.

Eventually every art will get its day in the ufc.