4 ms·

You may have your opinion, but having it does not make it right. Ir your teacher does not know how kata applies to real fight — that's just too bad.

roel_v 15y ago
I've trained with dozens over the span of almost 20 years, and none of them could even hold their own (let alone win) a fight against even moderately skilled fighters in modern fighting styles. Of course, every single one of them would have lots of theories on how the various kata / poomse / whatever could/would apply in a real fight, but most of the explanation I heard were ok-ish in theory but had been definitively disproved in practice for years. Even I, having had only rudimentary training in more 'goal-oriented' fighting styles, fairly easily dominate practitioners of more 'classic' styles (not because I'm good, but because of the ritualisation and artificial limiting to make things 'more pure'). I catch every judo player (once it goes to the ground, which is not hard to do with them with a single leg takedown since they don't know it...) in either a guillotine or straight leg lock. I mean, come on - that's groundfighting 101 right there. (it's a bit unfortunate that I use judo here to illustrate, since they much less pretend to be a 'martial art' and refer to themselves much more as a sport than others do, it's just the example that was the first that came up to me). And it's true that opinions don't make anyone right, but I consider it generally accepted and broadly empirically proven that practitioners of 'traditional' martial arts stand no chance against more goal-oriented and broadly skilled fighters. I'm not going to go into a 'my teacher could kill anyone with his death pinch if he wanted' argument here (bullshido.com forums style 'discussions' get old very soon).
- pnathan 15y ago
  Completely tangential, but what are the modern fighting styles, as opposed to the traditional ones?
  - barry-cotter 15y ago
    Krav Maga and Combat Samba are the first two that come to mind. MMA is good, as are boxing and wrestling but they're not designed from the ground up for getting you as good as possible at beating people up as fast as possible.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      Combat Samba, as in, rhythmically beating each other in the face to the sound of a conga with scantily-clad ladies shaking it in the background ;) ? (yes I realize you mean Sambo ;) )
  - roel_v 15y ago
    Purely functional (meaning: bringing an unskilled person 'up to speed' as quickly as possible, en masse), mostly Krav Maga and "applied" Sambo styles (as mentioned above), or other military systems like the Modern Army Combatives Program. For 'systems' that don't have 'minimize the time to learn it' as a goal, there isn't one style as such any more, imo. This is the beauty - no holds barred MMA competitions let the superior techniques float to the top, and everybody else learns from it and includes it into their training regimens. There isn't one 'style' that is taught, it's only people who are tested on their skills as a whole. And if one guy thinks he holds the truth in what style or techniques are superior, great - step into the ring, and put up or shut up. No more guild-like secretiveness, no more mystical uberman techniques or meditating for 15 years on a mountain top, no more 'I can't show you because I'd kill you'. In MMA, rationality prevails, once again.
    - aphyr 15y ago
      I think it's great that people are sparring between disciplines and integrating various styles--but at the same time, this system can only act on its inputs, which are MMA fighters. I do wonder whether the culture of MMA prevents some talented martial artists from participating. I'm somewhat inclined to consider MMA more of a sport than a martial art--but perhaps this is just tradition talking.
      - roel_v 15y ago
        Yes, I agree, MMA is more a sport, but as I mentioned in other posts in the discussion on what constitutes an 'art', what are considered 'martial arts' don't really have the 'fighting' aspect as a central goal any more. Which is OK, I'm not making a moral judgement against traditional martial arts, I'm merely classifying. And yes, some of the rules of MMA make it so that some techniques (groin shots, hair pulling, nipple twisters) cannot be used. But if the underlying suggestion is that there are somewhere out there in the jungle people who do use these techniques but they just have to suffer their superiority in solitude because their lethal pinky fingers prevent them from having interactions with mere mortals, I strongly disagree. My point throughout this discussion is (and I guess it's way off topic for this site...) that 'martial arts' have had their time in the context of systems who claim to contain or teach effective fighting. They're OK as systems of ritualized techniques to be practiced recreationally, but have been proven as in the best cases inefficient and in the worst cases wrong when it comes to teaching practical skills. The early UFC fights (for all their faults) did show conclusively (at least, I don't really see how to explain it differently, nor have I ever heard anyone doing so) that one-sided training and a reliance on stylized movement are inferior, even when deployed by top practitioners, against techniques that were trained and developed in circumstances that mimic 'real' fights more closely. And I do understand the apprehension the more traditionally schooled feel against the new breed of fighting styles; but that's just another manifestation of man's natural tendency towards conservatism, I guess.

roel_v 15y ago

I've trained with dozens over the span of almost 20 years, and none of them could even hold their own (let alone win) a fight against even moderately skilled fighters in modern fighting styles. Of course, every single one of them would have lots of theories on how the various kata / poomse / whatever could/would apply in a real fight, but most of the explanation I heard were ok-ish in theory but had been definitively disproved in practice for years. Even I, having had only rudimentary training in more 'goal-oriented' fighting styles, fairly easily dominate practitioners of more 'classic' styles (not because I'm good, but because of the ritualisation and artificial limiting to make things 'more pure'). I catch every judo player (once it goes to the ground, which is not hard to do with them with a single leg takedown since they don't know it...) in either a guillotine or straight leg lock. I mean, come on - that's groundfighting 101 right there. (it's a bit unfortunate that I use judo here to illustrate, since they much less pretend to be a 'martial art' and refer to themselves much more as a sport than others do, it's just the example that was the first that came up to me). And it's true that opinions don't make anyone right, but I consider it generally accepted and broadly empirically proven that practitioners of 'traditional' martial arts stand no chance against more goal-oriented and broadly skilled fighters. I'm not going to go into a 'my teacher could kill anyone with his death pinch if he wanted' argument here (bullshido.com forums style 'discussions' get old very soon).

pnathan 15y ago
Completely tangential, but what are the modern fighting styles, as opposed to the traditional ones?
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  Krav Maga and Combat Samba are the first two that come to mind. MMA is good, as are boxing and wrestling but they're not designed from the ground up for getting you as good as possible at beating people up as fast as possible.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    Combat Samba, as in, rhythmically beating each other in the face to the sound of a conga with scantily-clad ladies shaking it in the background ;) ? (yes I realize you mean Sambo ;) )
- roel_v 15y ago
  Purely functional (meaning: bringing an unskilled person 'up to speed' as quickly as possible, en masse), mostly Krav Maga and "applied" Sambo styles (as mentioned above), or other military systems like the Modern Army Combatives Program. For 'systems' that don't have 'minimize the time to learn it' as a goal, there isn't one style as such any more, imo. This is the beauty - no holds barred MMA competitions let the superior techniques float to the top, and everybody else learns from it and includes it into their training regimens. There isn't one 'style' that is taught, it's only people who are tested on their skills as a whole. And if one guy thinks he holds the truth in what style or techniques are superior, great - step into the ring, and put up or shut up. No more guild-like secretiveness, no more mystical uberman techniques or meditating for 15 years on a mountain top, no more 'I can't show you because I'd kill you'. In MMA, rationality prevails, once again.
  - aphyr 15y ago
    I think it's great that people are sparring between disciplines and integrating various styles--but at the same time, this system can only act on its inputs, which are MMA fighters. I do wonder whether the culture of MMA prevents some talented martial artists from participating. I'm somewhat inclined to consider MMA more of a sport than a martial art--but perhaps this is just tradition talking.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      Yes, I agree, MMA is more a sport, but as I mentioned in other posts in the discussion on what constitutes an 'art', what are considered 'martial arts' don't really have the 'fighting' aspect as a central goal any more. Which is OK, I'm not making a moral judgement against traditional martial arts, I'm merely classifying. And yes, some of the rules of MMA make it so that some techniques (groin shots, hair pulling, nipple twisters) cannot be used. But if the underlying suggestion is that there are somewhere out there in the jungle people who do use these techniques but they just have to suffer their superiority in solitude because their lethal pinky fingers prevent them from having interactions with mere mortals, I strongly disagree. My point throughout this discussion is (and I guess it's way off topic for this site...) that 'martial arts' have had their time in the context of systems who claim to contain or teach effective fighting. They're OK as systems of ritualized techniques to be practiced recreationally, but have been proven as in the best cases inefficient and in the worst cases wrong when it comes to teaching practical skills. The early UFC fights (for all their faults) did show conclusively (at least, I don't really see how to explain it differently, nor have I ever heard anyone doing so) that one-sided training and a reliance on stylized movement are inferior, even when deployed by top practitioners, against techniques that were trained and developed in circumstances that mimic 'real' fights more closely. And I do understand the apprehension the more traditionally schooled feel against the new breed of fighting styles; but that's just another manifestation of man's natural tendency towards conservatism, I guess.