Martial arts discussion thread

[GoktimusPrime]

We try not to encourage any form of style discrimination by labelling any particular style as "crap."

The individual matters more than the style. Learning a 'good' style doesn't mean you can fight, and conversely not learning a martial art doesn't mean you can't. Arguably one of the greatest fighters of the late 20th Century was Mohammed Ali - who didn't learn any traditional martial art, but a fighting sport (modern boxing). Yet if we took Ali in his prime and put him up against say Bruce Lee in his prime, I'd put my money on Ali.

A more important question over "what style do you do?" is "Can you fight?"

Now having said all that, I'm speaking from a combat/self defence martial arts perspective. People do martial arts for different reasons - not everyone learns it for fighting. There are some people who learn it as:
+ a sport, e.g.: Olympic Wrestling/Judo/Fencing/Taekwondo etc.
+ a performance art, e.g.: Capoeira, Modern Wushu, Pencak Silat etc.
+ for holistic health, e.g.: non-combative styles of Tai Chi

None of those reasons are "wrong" or "crap." The best style is the style that works for you.

[5FDP]

The term 'martial arts' speaks for itself - it is a form of art. The term 'self defence' is also self explanatory.

I don't think that it's either necessary or practical for someone to self-profess that they can fight. It should be "can you defend yourself".

In my experience, the first person that says they can fight is usually the first to hit the pavement.

[GoktimusPrime]

The term 'martial arts' speaks for itself - it is a form of art. The term 'self defence' is also self explanatory.

I don't think that it's either necessary or practical for someone to self-profess that they can fight. It should be "can you defend yourself".

In my experience, the first person that says they can fight is usually the first to hit the pavement.

Erm, I think this is a matter of semantics going by one's definition of "fight." From a traditional combat POV martial arts isn't about winning. It's not about defeating an opponent or even smacking their heads in. It's about survival. From a personal perspective, being a good fighter isn't about hurting or killing lots of people - it's about coming home in one piece.

And this is where combative martial arts differ so much from other forms of martial arts like sports martial arts. Because the core definition of "fighting" is entirely different (i.e.: survival), it is substantially different from martial arts used in competitions where the definition has changed to victory (i.e.: winning points, matches, tournaments etc.).

Hence why if someone tells me they want to learn martial arts for self defence, I recommend that they consider studying a traditional style rather than a competitive sport style. In traditional martial arts the only competition you have is with yourself in an effort to achieve continual self improvement.

From a self defence perspective, if someone gets into a fight the question is not, "Did you win?" but rather, "Did you survive?" Well... if the person has _lived_ to tell you that they've been in a fight, then the answer is obvious.

So yeah, when I say "fight" I don't mean fighting in terms of winning and losing - but just in terms of surviving. If a person swings a hit at you and you manage to block or dodge that hit, then quickly turn and run away - then "Great Success!" =D

[5FDP]

So yeah, when I say "fight" I don't mean fighting in terms of winning and losing - but just in terms of surviving. If a person swings a hit at you and you manage to block or dodge that hit, then quickly turn and run away - then "Great Success!" =D

Agreed, however while we're on the subject of semantics, I would suggest that in order to survive you have to be able to defend yourself first which brings me back to my point

BTW - I am referring to the traditional styles rather than any competitive sport style.

[GoktimusPrime]

Perhaps we can simplify the question into "Are you competent?"

Cos ultimately competence is more important than stylistic differences. Now that's not to say that it's wrong to ask about styles or to discuss them... but simply not consider styles as the penultimate factor that defines fighters.

Another factor to consider is finding a good teacher. I've seen lots of students who study traditional martial arts styles, but are not competent fighters because of the teacher. For example, I've come across a lot of schools that are really good at teaching forms, moves etc., but hopeless at teaching application. So their students become really good at performing the movements and are probably brilliant at passing grading exams... but are incompetent fighters.

[5FDP]

To be honest, I don't think there would be any way to simplify the question "are you competent", "can you defend yourself", or "are you a good fighter" because they're all subjective questions anyway with no real way to gauge the accuracy of the response.

Obviously in western cultures there are grading systems but as you said, you may have an incompetent teacher and by no fault of your own, may be an incompetent fighter (yes, I used the word fighter only for lack of a better word ) however do not know any better.

I completely agree with your statement to "not consider styles as the penultimate factor that defines fighters", as this means nothing and only highlights further that assuming someone is a good defender / fighter / competent is impossible and potentially a dangerous assumption at that.

[SamLoi888]

Language warning on this and even though the main purpose of the article is humour it does make some very relevant points about modern day martial arts.

McDojo

[GoktimusPrime]

Sadly the majority of martial arts schools I encounter are McDojos. Finding a good authentic non commercialised martial arts school is becoming increasingly hard.

Having said that, I guess McDojos are kinda like knock offs. Just as people say that so long as KO sellers openly let people know that what they're selling are KOs then there's no harm or foul because then consumers can make an informed choice. It's more of the sellers who don't admit it, or even claim that their KOs are legit that infuriate collectors more because they're actively deceiving collectors.

Likewise I personally get miffed when I see really McDojos who use the words "Self Defence" in their marketing. I understand that different people do martial arts for different reasons, and not everyone is necessarily interested in doing them for learning how to fight or for self defence. Some people just like to do it for the sport, or for fitness... or just as a fun hobby. Whether they can actually defend themselves in a real fight or not isn't terribly important to them. It's not my thing (cos personally if I wanted to play a sport but had no interest in fighting, then I'd play football or tennis etc.) -- but hey, everyone has different opinions.

I've come across ONE martial arts school that didn't use the words "self defence" in their marketing, and when I spoke to the instructor, he admitted that what they were doing was just a sport and advised that I look elsewhere if I wanted to actually learn fighting. And I can respect that -- they're open and honest about where they're coming from and what they're doing. This school happened to be teaching Olympic Judo and they were teaching people aspiring to win competitions (possibly even compete in the Olympics); they didn't really care about practical fighting.

So my objection with most McDojos -- aside from the commercialisation -- is the dishonesty. It must be awful to attend one of these schools, pay loads of money for membership, lessons, uniforms, gradings, belts etc., then one day if you actually get into a real fight (or even a friendly spar with someone from another style/school), realise that everything you've been learning for months/years (and PAID for it with your money) has been a complete WOFTAM in terms of learning practical self defence (being being led to believe that you were learning just that).

There was one time I met a dude who recently returned from overseas after winning a trophy from coming first place in an international tournament. He was boasting and bragging about how great he was and how easily he beat his opponents. So I invited him to a friendly spar at a mutual friend's garage. He threw out a few kicks which I easily blocked, then in my opening move I just grabbed his throat and put him onto the floor where I then placed my knee onto his upper chest (across the pectoral muscle). He was so inept at trying to counter my grapple that he reverted to scratching my hand with his nails (umm... okay). Because it was just a friendly match I only squeezed his throat hard enough to restrict his breathing but not actually choke him (so it would've felt more like an asthma attack - he could still breathe, but it was shallow and uncomfortable). And the entire fight only lasted about 3 seconds tops.

But yeah... it was a bit of a rude reality slap... I could tell he was heartbroken after being defeated so easily (and anyone who's met me knows that I am NOT the most athletic person in the world - so if I can beat you then you know you're in trouble! )

[GoktimusPrime]

A colleague of mine has black belts in 3 different kinds of martial arts and he wants to do a demonstration - which I volunteered to assist with. Today we did our first practice and... well... here are my thoughts.

He did one thing that I see in a LOT of martial arts demonstrations that I don't quite like - and that is he asked me, as the attacker, to be a very _compliant_ attacker. i.e.: I launch my attack then pretty much LET him counterattack me. He doesn't want me to continue fighting him once he's started his counter.

Umm... buh!?

Sadly this is an all too common occurence with martial arts demonstrations. At one stage I asked him why I couldn't counter him and he said, "Cos I need to win." In other words, in order for him to demonstrate his techniques nicely he needs me to be perfectly compliant. Now it seems that this is the way he normally trains too. So he's very, very good at beating up compliant attackers who just throw 1-3 attacks then pause. Right now I'm sore all over from being twisted, thrown about and hit over and over again... each time, as per his request, offering virtually no resistance against him.

For example at one stage he told me that I had to punch him like this. Now I understand the use for the fist's nest in drills, set forms etc., but in actual application against an opponent I'll always instinctively punch more like this (i.e. with my guard UP). It's not something I even think about, it's just instinctual, so naturally when the threw hits at me, I just automatically responded with a block or evasion etc. Each time he either told me to lower my guard or stand still and not move out of the way!

IMO that's not a really good way to demonstrate martial arts. Of _course_ someone can beat me if you've explicitly instructed me to stop resisting or countering you! I'm not having a whinge because he beat me; what I'm a bit miffed about is the way I got beaten... on completely unfair terms.

Imagine if we had a Chess game and I told you that:
a/ You could only take my pieces in the first two or three turns.
b/ You CANNOT enforce Check or Checkmate on me.
...only under such conditions can I show you how awesome my Chess playing skills are!

I can understand reasonable restrictions for safety reasons, e.g. light contact, no full force throws etc. - but beyond such restrictions I'd expect to be able to move as I'd like.

Another interesting moment was one of his defence techniques against a downward knife attack. He intercepted my incoming hand holding the knife (empty plastic water bottle ) by crossing his forearms together (like this but raised up against a downward stab). After we finished rehearsing, I asked him if he would indulge me curiosity and show me how he would defend against a fighting opponent. So I did the downward knife attack, but this time not a straight stab but a hooking raking action. He did the same block but this time the knife went down and 'cut' across both wrists. I pointed this out to him as he didn't seem to notice (or mind). So we tried again and he countered with a crescent kick and said, "See, I've kicked you." Yeah sure, you kicked me, but I've slashed both your wrists open! -- guess who's worse off? But yeah, once I could actually fight back he wasn't able to twist or throw me about like he was doing before (how about that eh?!)

The thing that I dislike about such demonstrations is that they're approaching it with such an unrealistic scenario. NOBODY would ever throw an attack and then just pause! Even a person with no fight training, no sport experience and poor athleticism would still put up _some_ kind of struggle... even if it's just flinching. A lot of our counterattacks actually start from a flinch movement because that's what your body naturally wants to do.

But anyway, for the purposes of my colleague's demonstration I'm gonna have to play nice and be this "brainless thug"... simply because he doesn't seem able to execute his moves if I put up a resistance. Blargh. (-_-)

[5FDP]

I have no problem with a senior belt being compliant when teaching a junior belt; it's the best way for a junior belt to learn... but the other way around seems a bit pointless as you would expect someone who has trained in martial arts for years to be able to counter an agressive attack i.e. it should be second nature.

When I first started out learning Hapkido I appreciated it when the black belts would take the time to show me the various techniques in slow motion. It wasn't until I progressed through the belts that I gained speed and could execute movements without thinking about them. As they say - you need to learn how to walk before you can run.