"Fighting is Easy"

[MightyB]

In another thread people kept saying "fighting is easy" and then went on to justify TCMA practice as different and somehow better. This bothers me.

If fighting were easy, and TCMA practitioners can discount it as such, then you'd expect to see amazing TCMA fighters. But you don't. They're alluded to in mysterious ways, but you never see them. You could say that the masters feel no reason to boast, so you won't see them, but if it were easy like they say, then you'd at least see some brash todai out there kicking arse and taking names... but you don't.

Fighting isn't easy - if it was, then you wouldn't have TCMA or MA. Fighting's not easy and you have to know, understand, and breathe this thought if you want to truly understand your art. Fighting is hard, fighting is difficult, mastery of fighting is nearly impossible, but it's what you should be striving for if you want to be a master.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If fighting was easy then everyone and his sister would be a fighter.
If fighting was easier than TCMA then every person that trained a TCMA would be a great fighter.

[Jimbo]

IMO, it goes beyond a TCMA thing.

There are some (many) people who have difficulty fighting, or simply freeze up when the situation calls for them to fight out of necessity. So if fighting were as easy as a snap of the fingers, they should have no problem, either. Not everybody has the mindset or disposition to be a fighter, or even just to fight back when they need to. Then it wouldn't matter what type of training they had.

Of course, depending on the situation, almost anyone will fight, like if their children are being endangered, etc. The question then becomes, can they fight well, or effectively?

True, there are prodigies who can fight well almost from the womb. Such a person will be effective in most hand to hand situations, unless the odds are totally against them, regardless of the style they might learn. Or even if they receive no MA training at all. There are many examples of the latter.

[Scott R. Brown]

I think you missed the point.....

fighting is easy, its very easy.

Anyone can fight....its winning that is the hard part! Unless you are smart enough to only pick fights with people more inept than you are!

[wenshu]

Remember anyone can walk into a boxing or mma gym and just start kicking a$$ because boxing and mma are primitive and don't really take years of conditioning and training.

[hskwarrior]

Fighting isn't easy - if it was, then you wouldn't have TCMA or MA. Fighting's not easy and you have to know, understand, and breathe this thought if you want to truly understand your art. Fighting is hard, fighting is difficult, mastery of fighting is nearly impossible, but it's what you should be striving for if you want to be a master.

people who say fighting is easy most likely never had a real fight in their lives. no one is just gifted in fighting.

[David Jamieson]

I think what is meant is that it is not a difficult thing to understand.
It certainly isn't something that requires a lot of thought and it is as natural as taking a dump when it gets down to it.

Once you start applying a bunch of rules to how you are going to fight then yes, you can make it more difficult.

Fighting well isn't easy in that respect, but toddlers fight. It's natural.

[hskwarrior]

I think what is meant is that it is not a difficult thing to understand.

righ. doing it effectively is much harder than just understanding it.

Fighting well isn't easy in that respect, but toddlers fight. It's natural.

like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzR86l8QwsQ

[brothernumber9]

I think we can add a dimension to this discussion if we look at the proportionate number of the kind of people that make up a fair chunk of the student body in KF schools today, compared to the proportion of the kind of people that were in KF at the onset of popular MMA.

What I mean by this is that, (and I am projecting and assuming a bit but I think most will agree), a larger proportion of guys/gals that joined KF schools in the 80's and early 90's did so because they had an interest or affinity to fighting, or even just the idea of being able to fight, or be a badass or whatever. A lot of these kinds of people already had been in some fights in thier life, either on the street, or in school, clubs, against thier siblings, backyard boxing, etc.
In my opinion. These "fight" minded folks are the extreme minority in most KF schools now, more so than they were back then. The general model has changed, for various reasons, economic sustainability, increased marketing to health and holistic ideals, as well as an increased and less violent oriented marketing to parents and children. The "vein" of KF schools has shifted away from just self defense, fighting, and discipline.

I think a fair number, if not most of these kind of "fight" minded people, many of us on these boards included, would likely have joined an MMA school if it was as organized and spread out then, as it is now. At the onset of UFC, all "styles" were open to be represented and put to the test. Unfortunately "Kung Fu" as generic as it was categorized, did not show so well, although a few people with KF backgrounds have had some success, they didn't credit or wear the badge of "Kung Fu" (Cung Le, Felix Mitchell, Luke Cummo). I think Onassis is one of the only ones that come to mind that has openly credited his Hung Kuen background to a good part of his success.

I agree many traditional ideals of adhering solely to the parameters of such styles were exposed, particularly in the ground game. The global visibility of BJJ and it's effectiveness changed everything. A whole lot of these "fight" minded people that have come along after MMA's spread, have joined fight gyms instead of KF or other traditional labeled arts. With less "fight" minded folk in KF schools now, I believe the chances of a breakout "kung fu" fighter in MMA are even less than they were to begin with. Many of us who knew guys or gals that we assume would do well against some of these professional MMA fighters today are generally too old to jump in the cage, and most may even have solid careers and faimilies to support that make it too risky to fight even if they think they can still compete.

[hskwarrior]

What I mean by this is that, (and I am projecting and assuming a bit but I think most will agree), a larger proportion of guys/gals that joined KF schools in the 80's and early 90's did so because they had an interest or affinity to fighting, or even just the idea of being able to fight, or be a badass or whatever. A lot of these kinds of people already had been in some fights in thier life, either on the street, or in school, clubs, against thier siblings, backyard boxing, etc.

on point!

In my opinion. These "fight" minded folks are the extreme minority in most KF schools now, more so than they were back then. The general model has changed, for various reasons, economic sustainability, increased marketing to health and holistic ideals, as well as an increased and less violent oriented marketing to parents and children. The "vein" of KF schools has shifted away from just self defense, fighting, and discipline.

again, on point

I think a fair number, if not most of these kind of "fight" minded people, many of us on these boards included, would likely have joined an MMA school if it was as organized and spread out then, as it is now. At the onset of UFC, all "styles" were open to be represented and put to the test. Unfortunately "Kung Fu" as generic as it was categorized, did not show so well, although a few people with KF backgrounds have had some success, they didn't credit or wear the badge of "Kung Fu" (Cung Le, Felix Mitchell, Luke Cummo). I think Onassis is one of the only ones that come to mind that has openly credited his Hung Kuen background to a good part of his success.

I would never had joined an MMA gym back in the 80's when i first started hung sing choy lee fut. from day one, i was sparring and we did so every single day. we got good with our HSCLF because our sifu encouraged us to fight. at that time, the only realistic fighting one can do was get into a street fight.

I don't think i have ever stated HSCLF made me a better fighter. I BECAME a better fighter by getting into fights. I was taught to use what i wanted but become good with it. NOT EVEN MMA will make you a great fighter if YOU just can't fight.

[tungmojingjung]

In my experience we were always taught that our traditional Chinese martial arts was personal and not sport. Some have entered the area of entertaining sport and come to find out that there are adjustment that are essential when moving from a system of personal self preservation and sport or competition. On the personal side we practice with a intent that is practical and definitive and in sport we have to adjust to rules and regulations.

Real fighting is liken unto a brute beast, no rules and by any means necessary, this mentality is not welcomed in the sport arena. In TCMA we practice to maintain our health and to be able to protect ourselves and loved ones in dire circumstances, that's it point blank. Now others may have a different opinion but as I was told, "never let your right hand know what your left is doing", in others words conceal your skills until you have to use them and when you have to use them fight to win with a determined mind set.

[GeneChing]

Anyone can fight....its winning that is the hard part! Unless you are smart enough to only pick fights with people more inept than you are!

Very true. You don't have to be a martial arts expert to be a bully. Quite the opposite, I would hope.

no one is just gifted in fighting.

I know a gaggle of professional bouncers that would beg to differ. Many of my bouncer friends haven't studied any formal combat method. They're just huge dudes with attitude.

A factor we must always consider is that everyone here (I hope) is a practicing martial artist. That gives us all a pretty skewed view of the world, as I oft quip 'martial myopia'. As I've mentioned many times here, I do volunteer medical work at concerts and street gatherings; I specialize in managing combative patients, so I see more street fights than the average joe. And lemme tell ya, almost all of them involve combatants with no skill whatsoever. That's one of the fundamental issues I've always had with the ol' "won't work on the street" argument. You'd be amazed what kind of stupid crap works on the street because many street brawlers can't even throw a basic combo. We, as martial artists, tend to look at combat from a more critical, tactical perspective. We imagine the worse-case scenario - facing a trained fighter. I've been doing this street medicine for over a quarter century now and faced countless combative and belligerent patients. Only a few had any training whatsoever. Most all of them were easily restrained with very basic takedowns. There have been a few exceptions, of course, but for the most part, the population engaging in street fighting can fight - do fight - but don't win - at least not when they face me and my krew.

[Robinhood]

It all depends on the context of easy,

Easy as it takes no training..

Easy as everyone naturally resists and literally fights back ..

Easy as if used that being efficient makes it easy.

If someone is efficient at doing something it always looks easy, and is easy for that person, it is only not easy when you have to use excess force to make something happen, which again boils down to skill level in MA.

So a good measure of easy, is to measure your physical output, if you need a lot of conditioning to apply yourself then you are not very efficient .

[sanjuro_ronin]

It seems people are confusing brawling with fighting, which is understandable.
BUT this is a MA forum and as such, it is SUPPOSE to cater to,*gasp* MA and MA relevant discussion and as such, for MA, fighting is a science.
Or at least it should be.

[MasterKiller]

Fighting is easy. 2 year olds do it instinctively.

Competing is not easy.


Know the difference.