Does CMA Need a Heavy Sportive Aspect?

[Water Dragon]

OK, I'm going to try and break this down in points. That way, we can try to discuss this in a more constructive fashion than usual.

Point 1. In CMA, you really need to check out each individual school as there is a good chance you will not be learning useful skills for dealing with a physical confrontation. The opposite occurs in the following disciplines: Boxing, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ. In these schools, chances ARE that the school you run into will be the real deal. All of these schools have a heavy sportive aspect to them.

Point 2. Wars are much different then they were 100 years ago. Wars are now fought with bif boomie things rather than fists and sharp pointy things. Also, society is much safer than it used to be and violence is definately frowned upon. This removes the traditional litmus test of personal violence that kept CMA honest. Basically, the old proving ground has been removed and not replaced with anything else.

Point 3. The hardcore competitive personalities are being drawn to the combat sports. This removes the level of competition within the CMA school and drops the level to which we are challenged. (I like to compete, but I'll never be a top class competitor. But the chance to work with those who CAN be top level competitors increases my ability as well)

My question is as follows: Can/should we attempt to develop a strong sporting arena that would increase the skills specific to CMA? This could be in the lines of style specific tournies with rules designed to enhance the desired traits of that particular discipline or local tournies between schools in the same area.

2nd Question: This would definately change the arts we practice. Would this be seen as a good thing? Also, there are techniques that cannot be safely used in competition. Should these be preserved in some capacity or abandoned in favor of techniques that can be used somewhat safely in competition?

Now, I know that some schools do compete at some level, but I would like to see a bigger (regional or national) system set up with more frequent tournies.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[Fu-Pow]

My thoughts is that CMA = street fighting and street fighting=CMA.

That's why in CMA's we wear our shoes and never take things "to the mat" or for that matter to pavement.

Only in CMA the streetfighting is organized into more of a system.

As long as this is the case it can never be "sport-a-sized", it's simply too dangerous.

As well it should be.

The sport MA's that exist would not be street effective because by making it a sport you immediately cut out many techniques that people on the street would not be afraid to use.

It also doesn't address things like weapons multiple attackers etc.

CMA developed on the street or the battlefield and not in a gym or a ring so you are really talking about two different things.

I'd hate to see Kung fu "sportisized."

[Paul]

Point1: this is true. People are going to find a school where they are comfortable with the level of contact or aggresivness. Doesn't matter whether it's BJJ or CMA. Generally speaking the sportive MA's are most likely going to attract more competitive people.

Point2: ok

Point3: I agree to a point. Kung fu schools with a harder edge will still attract good people doesn't matter if they are sportive or not.

I don't know about the whole tournament thing there.

At my school the emphasis is on street fighting but if you want to fight in the ring, sifu is more than happy to train you.

Sparring is different with gloves and without. I can't hit someone with a phoenix eye or palm in the ring, for example.

[dezhen2001]

depends on what you want.

If you want to compete, there are avenues for that. If you want to train for health, it can be covered also. But i know plenty of people who generally kick @ss and they have never competed in their lives! Training with people who have just 'got it' brings up your level. It doesn't matter if you want to compete or not.

I agree that competition fighting is not the same as defending yourself. Even if i am fighting NHB there is not anyone really trying to kill me. Nothing can scare the crap outta you as much as a real encounter, no matter what you do.

I think there are different schools that cater for different things, and attract different people. Some of the more traditional schools do have methods of 'testing' yourself in a controlled environment. Hence, increasing your understanding and level. Not really any 'competitive' element to it though.

Competitions are fun though. I think it really depends on what you want, and what you think is best for yourself and the art you practise.

david

[Water Dragon]

Fu Pow, You have given the essence of the debate. I would reply that the skills gained in competition and the attributes you acquire do carry out on to the street. I would claim that they do even more so. Also, you can develop a safer version of the technique which will work with or without the destruction. I have seen examples of qin na combined with Throws that actually made me get queasy. We don't do those in competition. But, by practicing the throw and the lock seperately, and understanding how they are joined, allows us a better chance of combining them on the street. But we can't practice that. We CAN practice them seperately in competition.

Paul, The NHB style gloves allow both palms and phoenix eyes. Granted, you can't throw phoenix eyes to the head in a comp, but you could hit the torso and use flat fists to the head. Again, with the understanding of what those flat fists signify.

[Paul]

the understanding of what it signifies vs. getting cracked in the head with one is a big diff.

I've just started training for san shou a few months ago. To me there is a big difference between fighting with or without gloves.
kind of like the difference between tying your shoes and putting on a shirt. As in very different.

[Black Jack]

Fu-Pow,

I just wanted to add something to your streetfighting viewpoint, IMHO their is no such thing as pure when we are talking about what is needed in a streetfight, no style has a claim to it, anything that can be used to damage or destroy the opponent is a legitimate accessory to the students "core" martial system, be that armed or unarmed, as long as it can be applied under the pressure of stress, something which a sportive aspect can help refine as long as the student is being honest that what they are doing is based in a sporting enviroment.

By doing hard freestyle sparring or as WaterDragon stated a sportive based contact event it will remove a number of the techniques that are more based on myth than in real life, by that I think it will let KF players who do not freestyle spar to understand that brute power can win over finesse of technique, but that technique is still important if one is to maximise power and avoide self inflicted injury, though this will all be moot if the person does not train with the right mindset, that the objective of hand to hand fighting is to survive by any means possible.

If not tempered with the other traditional & modern training methods I think a pure sportive approach can be a bad thing. I just look at it as another training tool.

My thoughts, :D

[ewallace]

My general answer to the questions is: I think anytime you are presented with an opportunity to get your ass kicked in a controlled environment it should be taken advantage of. Obviously there is a difference between the street and the kwoon or the mat or the dojo. But getting hit in the nose is getting hit in the nose no matter where it happens. The more prepared you are do deal with the shock of being struck for real the better off you are when stuff gets serious.

I don't think that competitions should be held simply for the fact that CMA has drawn criticism for it's lack of sport and competitions. I think that there should be an increase of events that give more of an opportunity to put what you know to the test against other skilled fighters.

[bamboo_ leaf]

WD,

good post


Point 1. I would say the opposite is true what you are learning is how to deal with opponents are the same wt and doing the same things that you are doing. The difference that you may be alluding to is the level and intensity of the practice which can be found at some CMA schools and always on your own as many here say they have done to test their art.



Point 2. CMA is part of a historical culture the training terminology and philosophy are all part of the art. While it is good to say “hey I came here to learn how to kick butt” I think many of the higher levels will not be available this kind of mind set. to busy trying to learn how to kick butt.

Look at all the western arts and all others that switched to competition as there primary focus...


Point 3. if you like to compete then I would say compete. But to infer that by not competing or having no competition drops the level of practice. I can’t agree with this. there are a number of combative arts not widly known that don’t compete but are said to be highly effective.

My old teacher changed many things to compete in full contact in the 70s using white crane. It really changed the essence of the art. and took time away from the real training. The use of gloves and all the rest not good for the development of real skills for this style.

Point 4. this has been done and is being done in many areas, but lets look at something like TC which I think we might have some common understandings in. take push hands. A kind of a test and development exercise now a competition in many areas. Are the winners the best guys that really demo true skills? did they use real skill to win? what i see is that much of their ideas are about how to win and not about developing real skill.

they don't care as long as they can win and you lose, then i think all lose.

[Braden]

No. Doing hard sparring in front of a camera, after paying more money, and after signing more forms doesn't make the time you spend doing it any more valuable. The potential pitfalls of competition have nothing to do with what techniques are allowed.

Seriously though. Bamboo leaf brought up a good example. Look at what competition has done to push hands.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Basically sportive aspects are fine - as long as you DO NOT TRAIN FOR THEM.

Train for the street. You'll lose occasionally to those that play well whatever rules you are following, but so what. The experience helps you identify holes in training and mindset. Treat sparring as a drill, just like any other.

I have had matches in the ring that have gone several rounds. I used to fight a lot in the street, and I rarely had a fight that lasted more than a few seconds once flesh met. But my quick wits in the street were available because I worked out weaknesses in the kwoon ... and the ring.

The danger is when you start training for the 'sport'.

Oh, and I know a lot of guys talk tough and are internet warriors - I'm not asking you to beleive my experience (although you can ask my friends and students), but please consider what I say.

It will keep your blood circulating in your body rather than the sidewalk.

(Too bad I couldn't say that in a Raymond Chandler voice...)

[Mutant]

Good question, Water Dragon.
I think the answer is YES, CMA needs a strong sporting aspect.

I think the key word here is 'aspect'...CMA is so huge and widely encompassing that cannot all be changed just because there is an element of sport that is available. The other arts mentioned are mostly sportive, but CMA is so many other things too.

So there will always be finger strikes, etc....all the other aspects of the art, self defence, yadda yadda. There will always be a place for non-competitive individuals, its not like everybody has to compete or experience that, to each their own.

But I think it needs to be tested hard against other arts and within the many various CMA styles, it is the most realistic (and legal) simulation and method of testing ourselves and our arts that we have. And if you really 'know' all the nasty techniques that arent enabled or allowed in the ring, then great, its not like they'll evaporate just because you put gloves on, and then you won't know them or they won't exist in the style anymore....and sure its different with gloves and rules, but it puts all arts on a level enough playing field to actually test the techniques...and of course kung fu is not just about finger strikes or whatever, you can still use all the basics we train, footwork, etc.

So i don't think it will change the arts for the worse, but we need a hard-core forum in which to test our kung fu, or else other important combative aspects of the art might be lost, and all we'll be left with is a bunch of dance moves and 'too deadly to use' snake venom strikes, that will get crushed in real life, or in the ring, if the basics arent pushed as far as they can be in competition, the only real forum where we test ourselves against trained and skilled people, and techniques can't be well honed or gauged, or even evolved if we only train for an unskilled assailant or become inbred and dulled within a school with cooporative classmates.

Besides, its just like like the yin and yang, on one side exists the ring-capable training, and on the other side is the more traditional, training and street techiques. I believe both can and should coexist in harmony within CMA.

[fightfan]

Water Dragon, good post!
IMO sparring is THE most important tool in learning how to fight. Thats where you make the moves your own by gaining a higher understanding of what its like to apply them on a resisting (stronger) opponent. Not sparring is compareable to taking drivers ed. for years without actually getting behind the wheel. Until you feel the momentum pulling at you and the different scenerios popping up without warning that you have to react to, you really dont have a physical understanding of it.
To answer your question, yes, there should be an attempt to develop a strong sporting arena that would increase the skills specific to CMA. That may be the only thing that saves it in the future!

[Ky-Fi]

Well, I like swords, so I'm going to use that for my sport vs. traditional debate.

I've studied Taiji saber fairly seriously for the last year, and I've been taking Western fencing for a couple months now. To me, it seems that ultra-realism would be to fight full contact with live blades. The lethality of that, of course, makes it impossible. It seems to me that the traditional arts strive to keep in all the really deadly aspects (power generation, using full weight weapons, sliding the blade to increase the cut, aiming for any vital target, sealing or grabbing the other person's weapon, and moving in for body contact, etc.), but in order to keep that in there they tend to de-emphasize the full speed fighting against a resisting opponent. With more sportive martial arts, they tend to train with blunted, lighter weapons, more protective equipment, and with more limited targets---but they strive to keep in the full speed, totally non-cooperative combat and mindset. To be honest, if you put a real rapier in the hands of a 2 year fencing student, and a real sword in the hands of a 2 year Taiji sword student, IMO the Western fencer would destroy the Taiji guy easily. If you're talking 10 years though, and the Taiji guy has gone through the traditional training which does include free sparring, then he's going to be a much more powerful swordsman, IMO, at the end because of the depth of art he's learned.

I don't know--it's a tough call, and it depends on what you're looking for. Right now, I'm enjoying both and don't see myself giving up either. Actually, I totally agree with what Black Jack said about sport martial arts:

"....it will let KF players who do not freestyle spar to understand that brute power can win over finesse of technique, but that technique is still important if one is to maximise power"

I agree it's good to get a dose of reality and get humbled occasionally. That's one important thing I got out of my karate days in high school---the ones who are great at forms and 2 person drills are not necessarily very good at free sparring, and vice-versa. But, people who REALLY understand what the forms and 2-person drills are teaching can increase their arsenal and potential ability.

[rogue]

To stay with the question "Does CMA need a heavy sportive aspect", I'd say no, not heavy, but it should have some kind of sportive aspect.

I do a style of TKD that isn't a sport style. We practice three things every class, forms, one steps or drills and most importantly bare knuckle sparring. At a lower level the sparring is light but by black belt it's heavy medium to heavy. By senior blue belt you should have a good idea of what works, what doesn't and what's it like to be hit hard. If you've never felt pain or discomfort how do you know you can handle it?

I don't feel that we need to be sportive. By the same token if you can't spar live with your art then you're being short changed.

[HuangKaiVun]

I don't think a sportive aspect is absolutely necessary.

There are many people who want to learn kung fu but not necessarily for fighting or competing. Look at all the old people practicing Taijiquan in the East - should they be fighting or competing?

For example, I have one student without any vision in one eye. She's 11 years old and studies violin with me. Her mother wants her to join my school because it'll give her a bit of a physical workout without putting her in direct competition with classmates.

I used to want to open a school so that I could teach a fighting art, but I've changed my focus. Even if a person can't fight nor compete, he can still have kung fu 100%.

[neptunesfall]

hey guys and girls....
IMO - the first and foremost thing that kung fu needs is standardization and regulation. i really don't have a clue how this can be accomplished, so i'll spare talking out of my butt about it.
in short, without a set quality of training, etc, kung fu has become more chaff than wheat.
aside from that, competition-friendly kung fu is just that, friendly.
to use the current standard martial sport - nhb - as an example, the majority of my techniques
would get me disqualified the moment i used them and, no, i'm not talking about biting and eye gouging.
that argument for kung fu, IMO, is weak and pathetic.
anyway, current competition standards rule out strikes to the neck, hammer strikes, open hand strikes, etc.
these are the things that make up almost all of my personal arsenal.
admitted, they are ruled out in favor of the competitors.
in a san shou competition, more than likely i would get creamed.
i'm pretty much going on about nothing at this point so i should stop.
too much coffee and not enough sleep i suppose.

and no, that isn't me in my avatar.

[Kristoffer]

Hey neptune, ya look like a girl :p

[Water Dragon]

Wow, good discussion so far. A couple of points I’d like to present.

I’m not advocating that everyone within a particular school compete. My argument is that by having this emphasis, even those who choose or cannot compete will get a lot of benefit due to two things. The curriculum would be geared toward competition. This means that the training would standardize itself to some extent simply because what does not prove itself valuable to competition will be discarded.

Granted, the above point does have a few problems. The first is the classic argument of efficiency of training methods. Basically, are the traditional methods currently used highly efficient or is there room for improvement. That’s a whole ‘nuther argument that might fall outside the scope of this thread. Also, by the nature of some techniques, they can’t be used in competition. What should be done with these techniques? Should they be abandoned? If not, how should these techniques be preserved? Again, although these are important and valid questions, I feel they me be outside the scope of this thread.

I do feel that my first question has been answered with a solid YES. That question, quite simply is: Will the introduction of a sporting aspect be beneficial to the development of CMA as a whole?

The next point takes the form of a question. There seems to be a consensus that although a sportive aspect would definitely be beneficial, a purely sportive art would not. What I would like to determine, is exactly how heavy that aspect should be. If I compete 2-3 times a year, and use as many effective traditional training methods to achieve that (forms, 2 man drills, power exercises, push hands, etc) I would consider that a heavy sportive aspect. Although my physical training may change only 10 %, the mindset will force me to look for efficiency in everything I do. Is this considered “heavy” or just another aspect to training?

I guess the question is, Will the aspects developed during traditional training carry over to the competitive arena? If they do not, and we have no means to test the methods, how do we know that they are valid at all?

Again, looking forward to your replys.

[Sharky]

Hi.

A quick point here.

I think that because these are more sport orientated styles, the less useful aspects are USUALLY filtered out. Now, what i mean is.... well, if you watch them they aren't pretty - you realise how hard it really is when you try it yourself.

Now the danger comes in when the "sport" is so far from reality that the students start training "bad habits" that will hinder them in the street (ie point sparring or v light contact - they won't follow through).

However, on the whole, these are "show and tell", "put up or shut up" styles, so the crap is filtered out.

IMO.

You will notice that the simple things work best, and these styles emphasise the basics. Not that CMA don't, and i'm not trying to say that these sport styles are "simple" but lets take boxing into account - there are only 4 common types of punches.

Bleh.

Edd

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Water Dragon

I guess the question is, Will the aspects developed during traditional training carry over to the competitive arena? If they do not, and we have no means to test the methods, how do we know that they are valid at all?

That indeed is the question. Though it might not necessarily always be a question so much of whether the methods themselves work, but a question of if YOU yourself can make them work.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Well, in my most competitive time period I trained so-callled 'traditionally.' My teammates and I won and won often. Sure our arsenal was limited in different competitions, but the skills and attributes developed work.

If you just want to do kickboxing and wrestling, one should do kickboxing and wrestling. Don't try to turn CMA into it, because it ain't.

On the other hand, there are modern training methods that do help - I've really gotten into Eastern European atheletic training methods - some of them really complement my martial arts practice. Evolution is natural, just don't lose the way.

While I am not totally pro-competition, I have to admit, the schools I did my best training at were pro-competition schools. But the rules were any rules, any time. Which meant under some rules you were under a severe disadvantage.

The problem with being heavily competition oriented is exactly what WD pointed out: "If it's not good for competition, it gets sidelined" This is what creates point Karate and TKD. I find this idea loathsome as we will lose the practical skills from our training in favor of winning according to a specific set of rules.

Understanding what is valid in a non-sportive arena can be very dificult. I'd wager to say MOST martial artists don't really know, as they have never lived in an area where they had to fight all the time. Some know what works without realizing it, others have false confidence. How do you know what is real? Unfortunately, you really can't, unless it something just obviously bogus.

However, a lot of what I teach is innapropriate for competition. But it ends fights quickly. I know, because I lived in a crappy neighborhood in my early twenties. As a teacher, I am honest about things I am not confident in. But if you REALLY need to know, challenge the point. Just be prepared for one of you to go to the hospital and possibly be harmed for life. After all, in martial arts, not sport, that is what we are talking about.

Just looking at Shuai Chiao alone, there are non-sport variations that will wreck you for life. Is that what you want to experience just to see if you are right? Or can you be confident in learning the sportive side to find flaws in your training, and seek an understanding of physiology and kenetics so you can give the dangerous stuff a reasonable nod?

The problem is not traditional material, it is people who 'think' they are doing CMA when they aren't, and it gives us a bad name.

The choice is the students. Have fun.

[Water Dragon]

Just looking at Shuai Chiao alone, there are non-sport variations that will wreck you for life. Is that what you want to experience just to see if you are right? Or can you be confident in learning the sportive side to find flaws in your training, and seek an understanding of physiology and kenetics so you can give the dangerous stuff a reasonable nod?

This is what I’m thinking currently. MonkeySlap, you’ll be receiving a video tape of what I’m about to describe next week. I’d like to break this down in non-specific terms so that others can contribute to this thread.

Basically, I’ve been working one throw (w/ variations) since January. I’ve made a lot of progress with it, went and tried it on the BJJ guys and failed. (competition) Now I know that there is no way that throw would have worked the way I was doing it. The problem has been fixed since then and I do have a chance of pulling it off now. Point is, it took me trying and failing to realize what I was doing wrong. Now, I have no doubt that the traditional training I was put through gave me the attributes to pull the basic throw off, but the lack of trying it on a resisting individual left me with a couple false assumptions.

We’re actually trying to work this out somehow in class, which is why I’m posting this thread; to get as many opinions as possible. One thing that was pointed out to me was that there are a few variations that we CANNOT do against a resisting attacker. That’s fine with me, I have no problem with that. I still want to learn those too. In fact, I am confident that when I gat to the point of pulling off the safer variations, the other ones will work too.

One thing that did come from this is that the traditional methods make a lot of sense to me now. They all develop specific aspects that are vital to pulling off the technique “for real.” One of the big problems I had was thinking the tools were used differently than they actually are. I’m emphasizing different things now in my training, and so far, my teacher has been happy with the results. Again, those results were initiated by my attempting to pull off the throw in a live situation, and failing.

Thoughts?

[MonkeySlap Too]

Sure - that's the purpose of using competition as a training methodology. What concerns me is the intent to change a method to fit competition.

Most of the things that are 'big' issues to me in training are things I discovered needed to be emphasized in order to really pull something off - and I agree, without practicing against a resisting opponent you won't really know if you know how to pull the technique off.

So yeah, I agree with you. Within the structure I've outlined before. Heck, that was Brian's intro for me - 'this guy fought everybody, all the time.' It is how you learn.

No I gotta go grouse about something else...

[ShaolinTiger00]

sportive = competition.

competition will sort out the effective from the useless, and your training will be better for it.

sports also mean better conditioning and athletisism and that is a huge part of being a sucessful martial artist.

take my beloved cma sanshou (Ok so I'm a judoka now but you know what I'm saying) It has synthesized effective kicking, punching and throwing from the traditional cma.
And make no doubt about it the guys training for sanshou have strength and endurance. The guys who just competed at the NY tournament could attest.

Does that mean it has the answer to everything. No.

No way, but it is a great nucleus or foundation for training. adding sanshou's military applications and self defense and groundwork make for a VERY well rounded martial artist and athlete. How many times has your instructor stressed knowing your fundamentals? What better opporitunity to test these skills than in a safe enviornment. Its much better to test them there then on the street.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
[b]Basically, I’ve been working one throw (w/ variations) since January. I’ve made a lot of progress with it, went and tried it on the BJJ guys and failed.
Thoughts?

I don't think you should be trying to hone your throwing skills against BJJ practioners. As a rule, thier takedowns and defenses are not very good. If you want to test your takedowns and throws, you should be working out with a judo club or college wrestling team. I was a wrestler with below average takedowns and could pretty much walk through the BJJ guys in takedowns from the time I started.

[DelicateSound]

In the end - it's all just about what you want from your training no?

IMHO, tournaments are too far removed from reality, and if you train for competition then your redirection will hamper slightly your street-effectiveness.

Most competition in schools is Semi-Contact, where speed and accuracy are the main important factors. Street survival is about power, ruthlessness and a "never-say-die" attitude.

If you are training to win a championship, your onus will be different.


No? At the end of the day, I know a lot of semi-contact fighteres who have won tournaments, and are still pretty tough, but they don't compare to a nutcase who cares less about the shape of his face.


As for CMA "needing" sporting elements: To draw a higher attendance yes they do - as this is what most people want, competition + fitness work.

Do I want this? No, it leads to commercialisation. And the less people that do CMA the better - I can reinforce my elitist "One of a kind" attitude :)

[Chris McKinley]

This is one of the better threads in a long, long time...thanks Water Dragon. I'm pretty much on the same page as MonkeySlapToo in that in many cases it can keep a school/style of martial arts from getting too artsy ****sy. However, there are definitely a whole class of tactics which simply don't have a sporting equivalent to them. Not just certain targets, but methods of sneak attack and certain follow-ups come to mind.

The way WD's questions were phrased also implies two and only two diametrically opposed camps on these issues. IME, there is at least one other "faction" that seems never to get mentioned in these kinds of debates. It is neither those traditionalists who never make contact with another human and only practice forms NOR the "competition is everything" crowd whose entire training is geared toward a spectator arena. Instead, it would be those people who, like the NHB folks, aren't interested in anything artsy or unrealistic, but who also, like the traditionalists, aren't interested in training for any kind of sport, trophy, title or validation through competition. I'm talking of those who are interested in training in reality combat for reality...for REAL life-or-death combat. It may be a smaller group than either of the other two, but it's large enough for their objectives to be considered a factor in these types of discussions.

Another separate point to be considered here is that what is good for the art isn't necessarily good for any given individual artist. In evidence, history is strewn with many broken bones, ruined joints, skewered eyes, ruptured organs, crushed throats and dead bodies to give us many of the arts we have today. Without what was learned by and through these unfortunate souls, the art wouldn't necessarily be as effective as it is today.

What this points to is the need for a crucible of whatever sort in order to prove, maintain, innovate, and evolve any martial art. Traditionalists may do well to remember that in days when their arts had no sport applications, people were regularly getting hurt or killed in the learning and development of their art. In lieu of that, such as the climate we generally enjoy today, sporting events can at least provide some form of crucible that most arts no longer have, at least in Western societies.

However, despite the vociferous claims by certain NHB supporters/competitors, sporting events, no matter how bare-bones in terms of rules, are but a pale shadow of real life-or-death combat in terms of providing an effective crucible. I say this as someone who has participated in all three aspects: I've competed in full-contact sport martial arts, I've lived through real life-or-death combat, and I've practiced traditional methods including various forms.

While it definitely affects certain styles more than others, creating a sport version of a martial art DOES water down its real combat effectiveness. The trick is, how easily can a given practitioner drain off that water when faced with a real fight in the street. Again, doing so is easier with certain styles than it is with others.

Now the question becomes a choice that is dependent on one's priorities. Do we hold to only the highest standard in terms of an effective crucible? If so, we no longer need sport versions, but we must be prepared to endure a society where hand-to-hand violence is commonplace and innocent people are hurt or killed in large numbers on a regular basis. Do we lower our standard and instead use sporting competitions as our crucible? If so, while we may have to endure the watering-down of our arts, we also get to enjoy a society where people are basically safer in their everyday lives. Where, if you make a mistake or their is a hole in your training, you will probably live long enough to fix it.

The crucible is needed, whatever form it takes. Without it, our arts become empty ritualized choreographies useless for anything but entertainment. But that crucible comes at a price, one way or the other.

[MonkeySlap Too]

What Chris said...

[Water Dragon]

Cool. I'm actually working on another thread for that topic. i.e. Does a venue exist that would meet these goals, or does it still need to be created?

[Mutant]

Agreed with you guys.....I think the challenge is finding the right balance so that as much as possible is honed and improved and as little (or nothing) as possible is lost, watered down or atrophied. Just what is the optimal format and balance, as WD is getting at, is the next question.....a tough one. I really don't know, I'm trying to find that balance myself, and I really don't have an answer....A good question to think about over the weekend.

[stonecrusher69]

One thing I notice when you try to combine street defence and teach competive sparring is most students just tend to jump around throw a jab, hook ect. Where is your art then.I see very little real tech. it all starts to look the same.

[dre]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ky-Fi
[B]To be honest, if you put a real rapier in the hands of a 2 year fencing student, and a real sword in the hands of a 2 year Taiji sword student, IMO the Western fencer would destroy the Taiji guy easily. If you're talking 10 years though, and the Taiji guy has gone through the traditional training which does include free sparring, then he's going to be a much more powerful swordsman, IMO, at the end because of the depth of art he's learned. [B/]

I see no one has taught you Epee yet. . . Which can be free sparring. . .

~6 year fencer dre

[Braden]

Dre - Epee rules, while more liberal than foil or saber, are still a very far call from free sparring, as you must know if you've been doing it for six years.

[Shooter]

Many of my FIRST-YEAR training partners have, and are competing in MMA and sub-wrestling at a decent level with their basic Tai Chi training.

What's stopping anyone with 5 or more years of training from getting in the ring already? It's not a stretch to think that years of "traditional" "authentic" "deadly" training can't be dumbed down for such a low-level test of basic skills as what MMA provides is it?



"If you just want to do kickboxing and wrestling, one should do kickboxing and wrestling. Don't try to turn CMA into it, because it ain't"


That's a matter of your own limited perception....


The problem is not traditional material, it is people who 'think' they are doing CMA when they aren't, and it gives us a bad name.

Giving "us" a bad name? Who's "us"? I read statements like that all the time. Who are these people that give CMA such a bad name?

[old jong]

I believe that there is a lot more to gain in martial arts than winning some competition.Kung Fu needs only to be studied and be passed down to the next generation as it is in it's many aspects.

If someone want to do sport...Well, he just has to join a BJJ,MMA,kick boxing or whatever school!

I like what I do and I like it as it is.

[rogue]

Oh, you silly intellectual wing chun guys!:D

[Chris McKinley]

Shooter,

I can appreciate what you're trying to do in general. I have to admit to a certain curiosity as to how it'll turn out. That's the nice part. Now here comes the spanking part. RE:"What's stopping anyone with 5 or more years of training from getting in the ring already?". Man does THIS ever reflect a limited perception. For starters, I'd say lack of interest. Ya gotsta gotsta gotsta remember that the vast majority of average Joe's and Josephine's get into the martial arts for self-defense purposes. Some may be interested in competing in the sport versions. Statistically, most are not.

I like that you encourage folks to try their hand at it; that may tip some of the fence riders off into a new world of fun competing. But please don't make the mistake of lumping EVERYBODY else in with it. I mean, by the reasoning you're using here, I could very well say something like, "What's stopping anyone with 5 or more years of NHB experience from practicing a form already?", or just as logically, "What's stopping anyone with 5 or more years of MMA training from trying their hand at real life-or-death combat already?".

Those kind of questions look a little silly from a distance, but the same logic is used in all three of 'em. The obvious answer is probably the most correct one in all three cases: "because they don't want to".

Regular testing, whether for real or in the ring, is good for any art to keep it healthy at what it's supposed to do. However, it doesn't take every single practitioner of that art to keep it tested. Additionally, the testing that's good for the art isn't always in the best interest of any given individual artist. Those that don't want the job of keeping their art regularly tested can simply enjoy practicing it, perhaps with a certain awareness of appreciation for those who ARE willing to get in there and play the role of the guinea pig.

Bottom line is: not all those who believe they have the ABILITY to compete in MMA/NHB necessarily have the DESIRE to do so. To each, their own.

[David Jamieson]

CMA are sportified now.

Competition wushu is part of the 2008 olympics and is already a big deal in China as well as other countries.

San Shou in the form of an offshoot of the competition wushu styles in China is pretty popular as far as "ring" fighting goes and in North America and some other countries it is used not only as the offshoot of wushu but also in many forms coming from traditional stylists who wish to compete in the "Lei Tai" type competitions of days gone buy. (without the "to the death" aspect of course)

San Shou is also an alternative to the very popular Muay Thai fights that have recently emerged in the west here but have been very popular in southeast asia for some time.

As far as the mongolian wrestling, sumo etc, these are pretty much -partially- designed as ritualistic and sporting arts (with the exception of the offshoots of them that involve killing people as is demonstrated in some of the particularly damaging tosses learned in the cma/mongol forms of wrestling ) even back in time when these "arts" were used on the battlefield, guys in the field were more likely to be archers , pikemen, spear carriers or swordsman as opposed to wrestling with other combatants.

Hand to hand training of the ancient warrior would likely not focus on wrestling so much as it would look at more succint and efficient ways of dealing with those at close range.

There will always be traditional non sporting types of martial arts schools. These schools usually offer more than martial arts anyway. Often there is meditation, character development, cultural activity innate to the Chinese such as lion dance as well as a variety of other things that one would generally not be exposed to in a typical self-defence centric training hall. Or a sport centric treaining hall.

The same is true of other asian martial arts.

peace

[Shooter]

Chris, point taken.

[Paul]

One thing that I notice is that all the sportive fighting events are h omogenized, everybody does pretty much exactly the same thing. Doesn't matter if it's boxing or NHB. People figure what works in that venue and that is what they train.

I think this has already been said, but I think training for the street should be the number one priority. If you want to go above and beyond and fight in the ring then do it. If not then don't.

If you make the ring the number one priority it's definately going to influence how you train and possibly how you react in a real situation.

[fightfan]

Somebody who "fights in the ring" or spars is waaay more ready to fight in the street than somebody who fights imaginary opponents/scenarios their whole life! Anybody that cant see that is in total denial. IMHO

[David Jamieson]

fightfan,...

fightfan...., over here...:)

You are wearing blinders commonly distributed to individuals by those who thing the nhb and the wwf and the ufc is the be all and end all of martial arts.

please.
ring training? you're comparing it to street training?
They're worlds apart.

peace

[Archangel]

Can you please explain to me how street training is done at full speed and full contact. So far nobody has been able to show how scenario training will prepare you better than fighting against a guy in a ring who is really trying to hurt you.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
please.
ring training? you're comparing it to street training?
They're worlds apart.

Kung Lek. Could you explain how you train for "street effectveness"?

[old jong]

Why....Do you always try to have everybody thinking and doing exactly like you?...Don't you think that some diversity is a good thing in our world?...You make me think about those Jehowah witness who knock at my door every sunday mornings but instead of holding their usual "Watch tower",they would have the last UFC or Pride tape and ask: " Do you know that God want you in the ring?"..."Do you know that if you dont join MMA/BJJ/Muay Thai/Boxing...You will not be chosen in the holy octagon?"...
"Please respect my faith"...I answer,But,I can't expect too much,I'm affraid! ;)

[fightfan]

Kung Lek/Old Jong,
look guys, I didnt intend to sound like the way you guys are trying to make me sound.
I, like my fellow martial artists, started training MA to defend myself and others from common garbage that prey on the innocent. I cannot express myself enough when it comes to peaple messing with others minding their own biz.
Ive seen too many peaple from many different martial arts (including myself) get bulldozed by untrained brawlers to keep "believing" that standup/forms are enough.
Every new experience from grappling to MMA sparring has opened my eyes to a new degree of understanding that I simply want to share with you guys. Some of your narrow minded opinions equally make my teeth clench but I realize that opinions vary, but if your going to cross the street and I see a car coming, Im going to tell you about it.
You guys may/may not have a hidden agenda, and I can understand that buisness comes before anything, but I dont have one and Ive seen too many ugly things happen to good peaple to keep my mouth shut.
Im not saying for a second to stop doing what your doing! I happen to think KF is very effective if trained properly and unsurpassable when it comes to training the soul. Im just saying to realize the world isnt flat.
Respectfully,
fightfan

[Chris McKinley]

This is more of an observation than a reply to any particular post. I've noticed that there is a very typical pattern to the posts of pro-NHB/MMA folks in at least one regard. That is, they contain an implied message that if only traditional stylists would just TRY MMA and/or NHB, they would "see the light", change their minds and give up what they're doing in favor of the new approach. While some might, I think the implied message is not only wildly assumptive, it's also outdated.

In the years since the MMA approach first developed, there already have been traditionalists who have given it a try. Some have fallen in love with it, foreswearing all they ever practiced before. Some were disillusioned, having built up incredible expectations for it as some sort of magic bullet, only to learn the average person won't be any better at it than they were at their old traditional stuff without years of hard work and dedication (surprise, surprise). Many more in between found things they liked about it and things they didn't. Instead of buying into the whole package, propaganda and all, they adopted some things and left the rest on the shelf.

This last category is where I think most experienced martial artists who give it an objective evaluation would end up. I know I have. I was a "mixed martial artist" and preached that message for at least 10 years before the UFC came along, so I might already tend to favor the philosophy. I've done full-contact fighting before, years ago, so that aspect of it doesn't grab me. As for using NHB as the "only true test of my skills", well...I've survived a number of real life-or-death combat encounters, so the NHB ring seems kind of anti-climactic in comparison if that were what I was looking for.

Like many MMAers, I'm an admirer of realism in tactics, and in that respect, I can appreciate how much NHB has shown us all that chaos and Murphy can thwart even the coolest Bruce Lee/Kung Fu/Ninja move when applied against a resisting opponent.

I am today an unapologetic traditionalist in a few arts. I'm also an occasional student and full-time admirer of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and some odds and ends from Sambo. I'm an unabashed chi-hugger, being that I practice TCM, and at the same time, one of the harshest public critics of the realism in training of traditional martial arts.

Maybe the gist of the message that MMAers keep pushing is twofold: 1) everyone would benefit from including some groundfighting training of whatever flavor, and 2) stop believing that practicing flowery-ass, Kung Fu Theatre bullsh*t against only thin air is gonna work for you in a real fight. That's pretty much it. All the rest of the petty squabbles between the two camps either don't really matter much or lead back to these two main points anyway.

Now, as much as I completely agree with the basic message of the MMAers as I've put it above and agree that my traditionalist brethren would do well to consider it, I would still suggest that the MMAers would do just as well to consider ANOTHER message which is just as much common sense as their own. That is, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It amazes me that MMAers are still surprised that, after years of the disrespectful, egotistically-driven slander they've levelled against the traditional martial arts community, they (the MMAers) are having such a tough time selling their message.

Perhaps if the whole marketing campaign hadn't started with "you're all full of sh*t, I'm the baddest motherf*cker on the planet, and you all need to abandon what you're doing and listen to me", there might have been more takers.

[David Jamieson]

Street effectiveness training.

There are a variety of ways to train this.
Obviously, sparring and weapon drills, specifically knife and club/stick attacks for weapons.

Continuous attack and defense drills in multiple ranges.

Contact sparring either full or with standard courtesy protocols acknowledged by yourself and your training partner or the school you are at. This is inclusive to ring training and provides the student with an understanding of what a shot to the guts feels like and how to absorb or at least withstand it. Punching to the face at full contact or vital areas is not really a heavy requirement, unless of course you don't value your prettiness. :D

Awareness training such as scoping rooms or street. Habit training.

Random attack drills without the defenders prior knowledge.

Chin Na (Kum Na/Kum La..etc)
Grabs holds and releases in general.

Kung Training to harden and condition your natural weapons. IE:Your body itself

People skills.

These types of training found in many traditional schools bridge across ring training. But not all of these types of training are found in ring training.

How does ring training prepare you for the street?

peace

[Archangel]

"Obviously, sparring and weapon drills, specifically knife and club/stick attacks for weapons."

Very true, you do need to learn about the truths and the fallacies of weapons and how to defend them. Kali and FMA training would benifit everyone who is serious about street defence.

"Continuous attack and defense drills in multiple ranges."

Once again very true. This is covered well in MMA, where we are forced to deal with every range of fighting.

"Contact sparring either full or with standard courtesy protocols acknowledged by yourself and your training partner or the school you are at."

I don't see how this is much different from MMA competitions that traditionals deem "unrealistic". Every traditionalist on this forum stresses sparring as an element of becoming a good fighter. MMA competitions are just another level of this concept. We take sparring to the ultimate level and get as close to reality as you can get within the law. It's true, it's still not the street but it's closer than anything you can find in the kwoon.

"Awareness training such as scoping rooms or street. Habit training."

Agreed

"Random attack drills without the defenders prior knowledge"

Ok Kung Lek, how do you do this? Do you jump a student on his way to the car, are you really trying to hurt him when you do?

"Kung Training to harden and condition your natural weapons. IE:Your body itself

People skills."

Agreed

"How does ring training prepare you for the street?"

Ring training provides you with real experience against an opponent who is really trying to hurt you and take you out. Competition is at such a higher stress level than sparring, it's not the street but it is a hell of alot more intense than sparring with your buddies in the Kwoon. It gives you experience against other styles, other gyms. It will really give you an idea of how your techniques work against a 100% resisting opponent. It gives you an idea of your chin, your threshold of pain and your "fighting spirit" and heart. I've seen so many fighters dominate in training and then fold when the pressure was really on in a tournament.

People always say that the street is more difficult than MMA. It's definately more dangerous and more volatile than the ring but more difficult? thats a fallacy.

[Shooter]

Chris, I'm neither pro-MMA nor anti. I'm a staunch "traditionalist" who sees the value of extending the training to a venue which addresses Tai Chi's basic attributes - Energy management and physical stucture which compliment sound tactical movement.

As you know, I'm not blinkered in regard to what Tai Chi entails by the same purpose which drives most MMA players. I think there are a lot of grey areas besides my own in terms of what you outlined above.

Also, I've stood against the MMA community's common preconceptions/misconceptions of what Tai Chi is. Most MMAers would like to think that Tai Chi doesn't address all the apsects of their sport as an all inclusive system of martial art. Most would like to think it has no ground-fighting, practical weapons study...hell, they don't even want to believe it's an effective stand-up fighting system. Most would like to think it's just for hippies, housewives and old people.

I'm proud of what I've done to NOT bring things from other systems to my Tai Chi training to make it stand on its own in the MMA arena.

The only thing I advocate is investigating Tai Chi's ideas and applying its skill-sets outside the box. Applying its principles in whatever situation....it's all Tai Chi. :cool:

[Archangel]

Shooter,

Could you describe some of the techniques used in Tai Chi, or better yet point out a website that has illustrations. I really would like to see how they defend takedowns and their methodology and techniques on the ground.

[KC Elbows]

I think one of the problems occuring in this argument is that there seems to be this popular idea that "Either you ring fight or you do forms", which is silly.

NHB fights are not new to this decade, this century, or even this millenia. The organizations that run the modern ones are new, some of the styles are sort of new, but the events themselves are undoudtedly ancient.

Therefore, NHB competitions were basically invented by traditional martial artists. However, by the same token, the competitions might have been made before martial arts was codified into a traditional structure, therefore, the competitions were, once again, organized by contemporaries.

In any case bjj, muay thai, boxing, shoot, and other such styles commonly seen in these contests have no more right to lecture than the san shou fighters, or the kuoshu fighters.

Another foundation for the argument for ring competitions is that it gives you the opportunity to fight other styles. However, I can fight other stylists without paying any entrance fee, with the same rules, and without making a dime for myself or anyone else. I can't imagine I'm the only one who gets together with other stylists and goes at it. When we feel ready to go all out, at the same level as a ring fight, we have every intention of doing so. Knowing that, what have I to gain from actually fighting in the ring?

I'm not against ring fighting, I'm against the supposition that it is essential. I've seen fighters KO'ed in friendly matches without any title on the line, only testing their arts. Would the fights have been qualitatively better if the event were organized in a way that allowed admissions fees for a crowd, etc.? I don't think so.

[Shooter]

Archangel. In my own experience, Tai Chi doesn't really have techniques. Its tactics and methods are all interchangable or rather, transmutatable. They aren't bound by specific applications or set-ups. They're a consequence of flow.

If you do a simple search, you'll find hundreds of websites which show applications. I don't know of any which show ground-fighting though.

In regard to your wanting specifics of take-down defenses, Tai Chi's wrestling is different from school to school depending on the extent to which they incorporate the shuai-chiao aspect of the training.

My own approach to ground-fighting includes sticking, following, linking, adhering, chin-na, and the 8 Gates.

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Fu-Pow,
By doing hard freestyle sparring or as WaterDragon stated a sportive based contact event it will remove a number of the techniques that are more based on myth than in real life,

But sometimes effective techniques or their original more dangerous forms are lost (or misplaced ;) ) Take Judo for example the technique Ippon Seoi nage (http://www.judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/ipponseoi.htm) the traditional jujutsu form which is still in Judo kata(though many judoka don't know judo has kata) is with the elbow on the shoulder to break the arm while throwing, which obviously causes more damage, but also lifts the person up on their toes making the throw easier. The modern version has the elbow upwards (no break) and takes more umph to throw. IN MMA you could do the older version but, as few judoka know the older version, they cannot use it, as it has almost died out in sport judo. Competition is not bad but when your focus is on winning the match as opposed to making your techniques come alive you kill the bu in budo, also the wu in wushu.

[Black Jack]

Since I seem to fit somewhere in the middle of both of these generic labels in terms of "traditional" and "reality" I will try to answer Archangels valid question on the difference between "ring" training and "scenrio" training.

I am not going to be a mudslinger of either, since I believe you need both types of training, though I am going to change the labels up a little bit into something which I find has a bit more multiformity in it than the two above.

IMHO their are only two basic types of MA two-man combat training technologies-

1. "Duelling Based"- This is where sparring and ring training come into play, I believe the Britain Parachute Regiment calls this experiance "milling", this is the squared off mano vrs mano approach, where two or more fighters are aware of the situation and are prepared to fight, this can take the form of a freeform sparring session.

This gives the illusion that unarmed combat is something that always happens at intermdiate range, where both parties are aware, where their are no surprises, in most fights though this is not the case, a large number of fights start and are experianced in close grappling range, often by surprise or very short notice.

Still this is a excellent training tool, among many things, it helps you with understanding aggression, how to maximise your natural attributes, how to strike, how to evade, how to block, how to take a opponent down to the ground, the ability to work out the kinks in real time and under real pressure.

2. "Non-Duelling Based"- This is where enviromental scenrio training and some two or more person excerisce drills take place, these can be based on the element of surprise or formated on a pre-set up plan to work certain skills around certain obstacles.

The goal here at least IMHO is to develop the instinctive reaction, by giving the fighter "no choice" and not a paint by the numbers approach to fighting, in actual sudden violent encounters the forces of stress, fear, and excitment combine to deprive a fighter of much of his capacity for rational or decisive thought. An example is knife sparring, something which is very rare, most knife fights are going to be by suprise, not where two guys are squared off.

Due to the nature of close quater scenrio training, you will see a decline in fine motor skills, and a shift back to gross motor strikes, hitting, chopping, poking, kicking and biting vital points on the bad guys body, techniques which can be applied to all eventualities, but NOT in a 1-2-3-4-5-6 perfect flow of pre-arranged strikes and arranged principles, something which a person who just practices forms and does not spar nor scenrio train will often think is possible.

With scenrio training you may need to role-play a bit, work in different enviroments besides just the kwoon hall, try the bathroom, the car, a park, the stairs, the woods, different weather and light conditions, practice mugging scenrios, car jackings, attempted abductions, work your techniques from odd positions and angles, hands in your pockets, behind your back, arms on your hips or or crossed in front of you, carrying some books, or a drink, pretend that one of the other students is your mother or girlfriend, and she is with you when this happens, take stories of real-life violence from the paper and act them out to see what you would have done or could do.

These are just thoughts on that I believe are the differences so I hope I don't get flamed to bad, IMHO both are a priority, as is impact training, solo work, weapon work, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Peace.

[Black Jack]

Shinbushi,

I totally agree:D

I think a person needs both elements, though it does not have to be a commerical tourney, but one of sparring in your own training group.

[KC Elbows]

I agree as well. I consider traditional kung fu training to include forms, sparring, and fighting. Forms only schools are not traditional, and so this view that traditional kung fu fighters don't fight is misinformed.

Therefore, the contemporary vs. traditional is really reversed. BJJ, muay thai, traditional kung fu, boxing, and other "fighting" arts are more the tradition, whereas tae bo, chung moo quan, point sparring schools, mckwoons, and other arts that do not fight are the contemporary group. Therefore, I believe in the traditional side of the argument, as I study fighting. Confused?

[old jong]

Forms are the textbooks of a given traditionnal martial art.My experience in Wing Chun allows me to act freely with motions from different forms in no pre-arranged manner depending on the situation.After years of practice, these moves are ingrained and are in no means self-defense tricks to be used against pre-determined attacks.
We practice all kinds of drills and various forms of sparring to sharpen our techniques and reactions.
These things should not be missjuged by peoples who prefer to do otherwise.

The fact that most Kung Fu people are not interrested in mma type competition is a question of personnal tastes. I don't say these things are bad.It is not my stuff.
Kung Fu is not the mma guys stuff so they should keep their biased jugements on our methods for themselves.
Do your things and stop trolling around.

[Archangel]

Shooter,

Tai Chi does have interesting principles behind it, however I truly believe that principles need solid techniques to apply them to. The search I did yielded very little, which confused me because you stated earlier that all of the techniques you utilized in MMA were pure Tai Chi. For instance, (indulge me here) how would you deal with a wrestlers double leg - technique only.

[Shooter]

you stated earlier that all of the techniques you utilized in MMA were pure Tai Chi

Nope...I stated nothing of the sort. All I wrote was that I don't go outside of Tai Chi to have it stand on its own.


For instance, (indulge me here) how would you deal with a wrestlers double leg - technique only

I can't answer hypothetical questions from a technicentric view. That's not how I understand Tai Chi. It's not how I coach others to understand it either.

[David Jamieson]

random attack drills don't involve "jumping" anyone hahahaha, i look back on it and it does read like that is what I meant.

oops.

random attack drills are not sparring.

it can be two or more people.
The purpose is to strictly defend yourself from any range and from multiple attackers. That is where the "no prior knowledge comes in".

You can increase the diffculty by bringing in multiple attackers using perhaps weapons, perhaps nothing, both at once, one at a time etc. It is a pretty effective way to get you thinking on your feet.

The amount of force is entirely up to the players or of course the rules of the school.


peace

[Merryprankster]

First, whoever posted the bit about the two fundamental points that MMA guys are trying to make, they hit that dead on. As far as MMA types being disrespectful, that's a matter of individuals, not of style. It's also a matter of 90% of the time somebody claiming to be a "traditional," artist steps into the ring against an MMA type in an event, he has his ass handed to him. Probably speaks more to the training than the style, but thems the breaks.

We are equally tired of hearing:

"MMA is the quick/lazy/impatient way out--you don't have the dedication it takes to master a TRUE martial art."

--good is good, and it takes time to get that way. People with a lack of dedication don't stick around at an MMA gym--it tends to hurt too much and involve too much physical effort for the undedicated.

"A traditional CMA has all the answers if you train long enough and do the forms properly... (esp in response to REAL takedowns from a REAL grappler of some sort (shuai chiao included)"

--I'll just elbow the base of his....Hey! How did I wind up flat on my back? No matter, I'll just gouge his eyes/rip his throat/insert favorite non-groundfighting ground technique here. HEY! How did that guy just break my arm/choke me out/tattoo my face?

"The ring is not the street."

--Nope. It's not. Neither is the Kwoon. You want to 'do a street art', be my guest. I'll send flowers to the funeral. The fact is that only the street is the street. We can argue from here to Sunday about proper methods of "training for the street." I'll take gross motor skills applied against resisting opponents, thanks. I do agree that ONLY ring training misses certain things--surprise attacks, multiple opponent scenarios, etc, but those are easily tacked on given the very solid base that ring training provides in fighting skills.

"Well, THAT fighter (who was one of the 90% above) wasn't a true representative of 'insert art here'"

--Ok, then get somebody who is. Somebody out there MUST want to fight!


Is ringfighting or using a ringfighting style a must for self-defense? No--absolutely not But "TMA" would do well to take a page out of the ringfighting manual when it comes to the training methods. Those that already engage in that sort of training (which is obviously not unique to ringfighting, just more prevalent in that type of training) are certainly on the right path.

[old jong]

Merryprankster just talked about the training who could be the a big factor in the unsuccess of tma in mma events...I agree with that and I said it many times here. Styles or techniques comes second when you want to fight pro. (ring) The average martial artist is not conditionned enough for these kinds of competitions.You need to be tough and strong to make it and ,train like boxers do before an important match. I would not like to fight a boxer during his training camp! Maybe during his six month of drinking beer and putting on weight between fights! ;) He still would use the same moves...but, the quality would not be there so...I believe that MMA is good for the young and strong and I wonder how a 50 years old like me would do in these events,even with good training.I prefer to do something I will still be able to do in my sixties and why not in my seventies?...And I will get even better at it! maybe not for the ring but ,for myself.
Coming back to the top; I think a tma could very well be successfull in mma with the proper training and conditionning.What is the difference between a boxer and a kung fu stylist?...Must be the conditionning. Look at that Igor something!...He throws big looping punches all the times but sprawlls well! Is that what is needed to make it in mma? Now picture a well trained tma guy with a full repertoire of moves,with good take down defenses and a killer instinct!...You may see that pretty soon!...And,for the big mystery!... Maybe a kung fu guy will at last be tough enough to wistand the full insertion of a thumb in an eye socket without any pain or reactions,like any mma guy can do!...It will just makes him a little grumpy,eh?...;)

[Water Dragon]

1. The conditioning you get from competetive training gives you better cardio, better flexibility, more strength and endurance. These are also known as "health benefits" and should be a part of everyone's program as long as they train, IMO. We all want to be old guys in shape, no? Add that to the meditational benefits in CMA and you get a good recipe

2. I don't feel that you need to be competitive for your whole career. It is important at some point in your training (IMO, the earlier the better) Competitive training builds ideas about timing, footwork, combos, and adapting technique that you just can't get anywhere else. Once you get those "in your body" though, they are always there, like riding a bike.

It was hard to learn to ride a bike when you were a kid. Now, you can do it, even though you may not have ridden one in years. Point is, at some time, you had to learn to ride that bike.

[old jong]

I thank you for you explainations but...I already do cardio work. I lift weights.I teach and I train hard and ask my students to go hard on me.I even ride a bike from times to times! ;)I'm not a weakling.I weight 220 and I don't even drink beer!... I do all I can within reason to be in good shape (for my age !). I also know that I can use my Wing Chun skills for defense because, I did before. And ,I'm getting better with time!
But, If I was a little bit younger and I was interrested in fighting in MMA events, I think I would have to train a lot more! Like a pro fighter, I would train all day long for maybe 6/8 weeks to be ready for anything. I think all the hot guys in pride and UFC are doing just that.This is not a kind of physical conditionning someone can have all year long. You have to give the body a rest otherwise it will fall apart.
As for the meditationnal benefits you, mma guys kindly concede to kung fu, you should know that all of us are not hippys anymore. I know for myself that I can punch a hole in anybody's face!..I train hard at this! :mad:

[Shooter]

Old Jong, we were chatting about the same sentiments you expressed above.

For years I've been likening MAs training and the goals of one's training to the ownership of an automobile. Pro fighters drive formula 1 and Indy cars. Very high speed and power, but also very high maintenance. Who, other than a couple hundred or so drivers on the planet, could operate one of those machines in rush-hour traffic though?


Anyway....

[Archangel]

Ok Shooter,

Can you tell me how you'd deal with a wrestlers double leg conceptualy as well as techniques then?

[Ryu]

this is such a hot topic! :D

Ryu

[Ryu]

Arch,
Well chances are I'd be able to sprawl out when I saw that split second change of levels. I train this way and have had many a wrestler shoot in on me so from experience I know that........ uh
:eek: oh, nevermind. :D

(sorry guys, just had too. The MMA people have a very real point. I'm not taking their side because I'm "one of them" or anything, it's just a very logical argument. Other posters have good points too, and I'll never say fighting in tournaments is the only way to be realistic.... but you DO have to train like those tournament people do...)

Ryu

[old jong]

I would not put down the amount of work and dedication these guys put to be able to compete at hight level could it be car racing or fighting. I'm just wondering about those who simply talk endlessly about what others have done like they could themselves!...
I have a life!.... ;)

[old jong]

I'm sure you do!...You sure talk like it! ;)
BTW who are you and where are you living?...Just curious about our most "gentle" tr...(should I say that word?) ;) Nahhhhhh! to much a nice guy! :)

[Ryu]

My real name is Arnold... Benedict.. uh I mean "Bernie" Arnold.
:D

Ryu

[Shooter]

Old Jong, I understand what you're saying and sympathize with your frustration. :)

Archangel, I still can't answer that with any specifics.

It depends on the angle of the shot, what side I have forward or if I'm caught square, how fast the shot is, the opponent's rhythm and my own, my position, the nature of the situation in terms of sportive format or a real assault/attack, etc.

Believe it or not, Tai Chi does have a number of tactical responses to all kinds of takedowns and throws.

Yes, Ryu. You wouldn't want to give away too much info.

[old jong]

Why is it that I smell "rotten eggs" in your name ? ;)

[old jong]

But don't worry for me,I'm not a newby in this forum and I'm not affected at all. Believe me!
:)

[Archangel]

"Believe it or not, Tai Chi does have a number of tactical responses to all kinds of takedowns and throws."

Shooter this is what I am looking for, people make claims but nobody has been able to point me to any websites or give any descriptions. It really does make me wonder...

It's all a big conspiracy isn't it

[Water Dragon]

It's funny how this topic went from the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating competetive training to CMA training regimes to MMA sucks, no, traditional sucks, no MMA sucks, no...

Kinda like that telephone game you played as a kid. Except you can read the original post(s) again if you want :confused:

[ewallace]

That telephone game you played as a kid sucked. :)

[ewallace]

Quite frankly I'm pretty tired of the broken record arguments of CMA this and MMA that and Internal this and external that. Some people like the sport aspect that can go along with martial arts and wish to compete. To others it is a philosophy and a way to live their life. And to others it might just mean a legal way to get together and kick the krap out of other people. Whatever it is to you, it's a lot better than smoking rock on the corner with "2 half tooth" Willie. However, I think it is wrong to try and force opinions on other people (I am not accusing anyone specifically of this). That's what the 700 clubs and PC groups try and do already.

[Shooter]

Water Dragon, what'd you expect, man? Too many avenues of discussion when you ask such open-ended questions. I think it's going along nicely. :p

[Merryprankster]

Hey, the answer, as always, is somewhere in the middle. I apologize for vaguely hijacking the thread, but I figured I'd trot out the "things MMA types," are tired of hearing from TMA practicioners, since it seems to be so popular the other way round.

I don't knock "TMA's" on their "effectiveness," whatever that actually means.

I knock bad training. Period. And the simple fact is that training for full contact ringsports is generally GOOD training. There are some adjustments that have to be made for "street fighting," but those adjustments fall under the category of situational awareness, etc. I mean, your tactics change depending on the circumstances, whether you train for the ring or not.

Bad training includes a lot of different things, but it all boils down to one very simple statement: Bad training is training for an untrained, unconditioned opponent. My favorite examples are Martial Artists, when asked to demonstrate one or two possible ways of dealing with a Boxer's hook, trot out a defense to the drunken roundhouse swipe that would get them buttraped by a competent boxer, or the equally silly "defenses to a shot," that are actually not very good defenses to the "drunken frat boy head down tackle." Do all "TMA's" train in this horrible way? Of course not, and I don't mean to insinuate that they do.

So, Water Dragon--Kung Fu could benefit from a more full contact sportive emphasis. The reason is that ringfighters can't afford to assume their opponents are untrained and consequently train to deal with a trained opponent--they get that exposure to the boxer's hook and good takedowns, and what not, and deal with them constantly against trained, conditioned training partners... need I remind you how comparatively easy it is to throw somebody unfamiliar with grappling? :) Or hit somebody who has never sparred...

So it's more in the attitude of the training than the "style."

Sorry, this was a horribly long, muddled mess. I don't mean it to be insulting to TMA... only to **** poor training :)