[David Black Mastro]

[Marc Pengryffyn]

[David Black Mastro]

[Chad Arnow]

I'm surprised how many posts have been spent on one simple comment. Certainly there are better things to discuss, right?

Let's all get on with more important and fun things. Let's stop the quibbling and fights between organizations. Let's stop taking everything personally and realize it's just not worth getting so upset over.

Let's get on with a good, informative thread.

[Max Chouinard]

I don't think this debate is going to end here but...

I think it's a fairly known thing that when you "sportify" something the rules are used and bent by the fighters. Take pre 20th century bare knuckle boxing and modern boxing. They just don't look alike. People have different blocks and guards, stepping and even punches because of the use of gloves and the interdiction of grappling. It results in broken wrist (at best) in real life encounters or death. It is the case of every sportified martial art that I know of. Take fencing, if someone uses his hand be it to grapple or grab the blade, the fencer just won't know what to do, it's not a programmed possibility in his mind.

I think it's Royce Gracie that recently came up and criticized the current state of MMA (I also practise BJJ and did 8 years of kyokushin), saying that people weren't there to test their methods but to learn MMA and win competitions, a style which is now usefull in the rule set of ultimate combat. This is what always happen, at first it seems good, gets more people interested, but then people get to know the rules and use them to win. Of course it is very usefull in most confrontations as people today aren't that much trained in general and most are in medicocre physical shape, but it just takes one mistake from you or one crafty street fighter to bring it all down.

Every culture had combat sports, but none of them saw it as a complete system for fighting. The japanese for example had sumai (ancestor of sumo) which pretty much everyone practiced, so there was not much need for free fighting in regular MA classes. Today things changed, people don't have the time to practice sumo anymore, so some schools adapt and practice randori or other methods to replace it. We can't just see those methods as black and white in their training, some have shades of grey.

[Ben C.]

experience is one of the most important factors in developing a fighter's ability and best way to gain experience is to practice against fully resisting opponents in as open an environment as possible. most people will only have a few confrontations in their lives, if that, and even a professional fighters usually have only 20-30 fights. By comparison you can spa hundreds of times against many opponents within a single month hence why it is such an important development tool.

Now unarmed combat can be broken into 3 categories; striking, wrestling and submissions. It doesn't matter if it is in the ring, between two disarmed knights on a 15th century battlefield, or in an alley outside a bar; those are the basics of fighting. Even eyegouging, biting and strikes to the groin fall into these 3 categories. Various sporting competitions implement rules which limit the use of certain techniques however the skills that are allowed are still transferable to a more open environment.

For example boxing is an extremely restricted sport yet the skills it develops in terms of punching, head movement and footwork are easily transferable into less restricted sports such as kickboxing and MMA. It also transfers extremely well to real fighting. This is not just an assumption on my part and I can back up my claims with numerous video evidence of the effectiveness of boxing on the street.

Of course boxing is not a complete art but my point is that the skills it's develop still apply regardless of whether they are used in a ring or on the street. Of course a boxer who fails to develop other skills is going to be very vulnerable in a real fight but his boxing skills are not going to magically disappear. Any sport that allows people to fight at 100% against fully resisting opponents and develop skills in these 3 areas is going to be applicable to real fighter. The more techniques it allows the better prepared for street fighting that person will be.

A person who is unable to compete or win at all in MMA is also extremely unlikely to be able to fight for real. If you can't strike in a sporting event you are not going to be able to strike for real. The same goes for wrestling and submissions, if you can't manage it in the ring, you are not going to be able to do it on the street. either. Eye gouging, biting and slamming someone on concrete makes things a lot different but I can guarantee that it will be the better and more experienced grappler/wrestler who will be the one who can put himself into position to use these techniques. Again I have videos of these exact situations. Groin strikes too changes things a lot but it's going to be the guy who has good footwork and is good at striking who is going to be able to land those groin strikes.

Simply put sport fighting is not the same as real fighting but the vast majority of techniques can and do still apply. A punch is still a punch, a kick is still a kick and a slam is still a slam. I would always put my money on a guy who has hundreds of full contact sparring matches under his belt over a self defence guy who likely doesn't know how to punch, doesn't know how to wrestle and who has likely never had a real fight against a skilled opponent before in his life.

[Ben C.]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Maybe one can keep this simple by focussing on " intent ":

1) Fighting is using any and all means to win without rules ( Well, normally without rules unless we count duels which may have rules or cultural rules limiting what is considered honourable fighting ).

The intent is to kill or overcome the opponent and avoid death and injury to oneself: There is no restraint on what can be done based on the wellbeing of the opponent.

2) Training for real fighting: Almost the same as above except that some techniques can't be fully utilized safely and the most important difference from real fighting is that some restraint is needed to not harm one's training partners.

The acceptable risks taken may vary if one is training to learn a martial art that one will probably never need to use or if one is training for actual fighting in war, law enforcement or selfdefence and one knows they are actually going into battle: In such a case one might risk serious injury or death during the training as it's the best way to later survive !

The Intent is to learn to fight and not get killed while doing it.

3) Sports training were the intent is to win competitions which can change the nature of the techniques used to reflect winning strategies and where the combat value becomes secondary.

[David Black Mastro]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Chris Fields]

"When no-holds-barred (NHB) events first became popular in the early 1990s, it was very much a "Style vs. Style" affair, with exponents from various arts (Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Japanese shootfighting, savate, karate, kung-fu, judo, sambo, boxing, sumo wrestling, et al) pitted against each other. It frankly didn't take too long to see which arts actually worked, and which ones didn't. Eventually, fighters began to cross-train in areas they were weak in, and it totally changed the game. Now, NHB events have evolved into mixed martial arts (MMA)--where fighters have to be competent in a variety of skillsets--standup striking, takedowns, throws, ground grappling, and so forth. What was once a "Style vs. Style" encounter is now much more akin to the Ancient Greek pankration--that is, an "All Powers" mode of unarmed combat."

Dave, I see what you are saying, but I have to use your own words against you here. It wasn't what "Styles" or "Arts" actually worked or didn't. It was more of who was training correctly vs who wasn't training correctly. The first NHB tournaments were a wake up call to all Martial Artist that they need to practice actual practical applications of their art if they ever want to defend themselves or step into the ring. Just practicing forms all day doesn't cut it. This is something many martial artist, including myself, have been screaming for years, even prior to the NHB competitions.

I face this same issue in my own art style. I teach a southern style of Kung Fu, Kun Tao, similar to silat. Most people who hear "kung fu" think of someone doing slow tai chi forms or doing fantsy forms with floppy tin foil swords. This is so because many Kung Fu martials arts started teaching more for sport and lost the actual real training methods of the arts that use to be very effective. This is what brought about the floppy sword and acrobatic Wu Shu, which are fun for sport and show, but not for real application. Most Kung Fu styles are very effective when trained correctly as they should be.

A good example of some one who has brought back proper training methods in Kung Fu is Chung Le and his teachers and students. I have followed his career since the early 90s in San Shou, and am glad he is as successful as he is.

Another good example; I trained with some people from a traditional Tae Kwan Do school, and I was amazed of how well they preformed in contact sparring. They're kicks were like lightening fast hammers, and they rarely kicked above the waist. They're hands needed alot of work, but I loved how they trained they're kicks. Again, when you think of Tae Kwan Do, many people think of the corner McDojo, but this group was doing it right.

[Dan P]

I've studied sambo for self-defense for many years. Many people I met and worked with in the classes did not have any experience with any kind of martial art or martial sport before joining (including myself). Many people took classes with previous experience in sports like judo and boxing. These people often pick up self-defense techniques faster than people with no "sport" experience, at least from my experience.

I think the reason for this is that most sports derived and formalized from fighting still preserve the fundamental skills required to be a fighter- balance, distance, and aggression. A person who knows all the techniques in the manual, and maybe even can perform them under controlled circumstances, cannot be a good fighter without being able to move on his feet, judge the distance from which an opponent can strike, and be bold enough to take the initiative when an opening is available. But every good sportsman already has these fundamentals, in one form or another, regardless of any artificial set of rules the sport itself operates under. So I would never discount a person as a fighter even if "all that he knows is boxing with gloves"- he's certainly got a better chance to survive a real combat than lots of other people. And after all, that's the point of combat training.

[Bill Tsafa]

BTW, I did not intend to steer this discussion into an SCA specific debate. I was actually thinking of Hugh Knight's position within the WMA community that takes a strong stand against free-sparring because in his opinion their is no "perfect sparring" and anything less is "distorted" and not good training (I think that kind of waiting to find the perfect woman). There is a balance between perfect technique and experience. I think that somewhere in the middle yields the best result. I don't think that good fight training is possible without experience in fighting. Things happen in a real fight that can not be anticipated, you may have to settle for throwing that Zornheu from an unbalanced position when the ground under you is not even. Being able to execute your technique as best as you can when the situation is not ideal is where experience weighs in and fills the gap.

You can read his opinions here:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/bouting...l-art.html

He also takes a strong stance against test-cutting.
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/myth-of-test-cutting.html

Huge Knight has done his own historic translations and published books, he has his own students, so you can't just dismiss him. We need to consider what he is saying and decide if he is wrong or right. That is the purpose of this thread I started. Please don't attack the man himself, let us consider the points.

[Lucas LaVoy]

I think Steven and Ben's points actually dovetail nicely; it looks like everyone can agree that different arts/sports/events/what-have-you all focus on different, limited sets of skills? So, boxing is a very limited set of techniques, just like jousting was, or wrestling; you get the idea. It just makes sense that each of them would comprise a small part of the complete "package" that would be applied in a war situation. They all incidentally are limited in such a way that you don't (theoretically) get killed while competing, and they probably are more fun for the spectators that way as well (or at least most spectators...hooligans excluded).

I think another effect of the limited rule sets is that the athletes (as opposed to soldiers) have the opportunity to develop a huge degree of depth in what they do; in other words, a boxer gets really really good at punching (and, without wanting to rekindle any latent SCA-related angst, the limited rule set makes good SCA fighters tough customers in the areas/situations in which they specialize). In fact, because of the limitations, they have to develop great skill and depth in order to succeed in competition (as well as athleticism of course). And likely, that development wouldn't occur in real-life martial situations, because (a) the stakes are too high to experiment (b) the limitations aren't there so there's no reason to focus on say, punching exclusively, and (c) the payoff for successful innovation isn't necessarily there the way it would be in a sporting context.

If this is true, then the development of technique and strategy for the limited situations that results from the narrow application of a combat sport can actually come back around and be applied in the broader context of real-world or military situations. Maybe these sports can function as R&D departments in that respect.

[Lucas LaVoy]

sorry about that Vassilis, didn't mean to redirect but you beat me to the post button

[Bill Tsafa]

[David Black Mastro]

[Max Chouinard]

[Gary Teuscher]

Thought I'd post this both here and in the Spartan/Samurai topic, as it is relevant to both.

First Dave, I'd like to make clear what my point was initially when the debate started. We could go on and on about Roman Legionairres and antyhting else, but I'd like to get back to the specific issue.

In response to a few posts that thought a samurai would have an advantage against a Spartan due to the Samurai's knowledge of the Martial arts, I pointed out that there were western combat martial arts as well. Wrestling and boxing are decendants of these.

I made a point that it is not uncommon for many (by many I am speaking of many with little knowledge of martial arts in general) to give the Eastern Martial arts a mystique that is not warranted. This IMO is due more to a lack of knowledge of western martial arts, and that the mainstream ones we have now are designed to be used in very controlled bouts, trying to limit injury.

I think you made the assumption that I was downgrading or had little respect for western martial arts, which was clearly not my point, I think your misunderstanding of my point led to some of the debate.

Now as far as whether combat sports make a good real fighter - Of course they do! Any martial training is better than none. Of course a wrestler or a boxer has an advantage over an unskilled opponent. There seems to be some statements on the combat training thread to where if someone knows boxing, and they are a better fighter than one who knows nothing, than Combat sports must be effective methods of training. Well that's a no-brainer.

My point was and still is that if someone trains striclty tournament style, they will be lacking in both attacking and defending things which are outlawed in their sport.

Now when you compare a style of martial arts taught with an unresisting opponent but designed to teach self defense, i.e. no holds barred you say they will not do well in true combat against someone taught "tournament style" for lack of a better word. I fully agree.

Tournament type fighting is of course important to learn many things about combat you cannot learn from fighting an unresisting opponent.

It's like the old pressure point move - "See, all I have to do is grab you here, here and here, and I win" - but of course to be able to do that particular move against a resisting opponent is rather impossible.

There are things however that are these type of moves that can work against a resisting opponent. There was a self defense move I learned to get out of a headlock - put your hand under neaththe nose of who has you in the headlock and pull the head back. It's hard to resist. Tried this in wresting practice, worked well but my coach told me I could not do it in the ring. Got into a scrap a few years later, tried it and the other person was resisting it pretty well, they were more focused, had more adrenalin going or something. I changed my grip to the eyes, and it worked well. This would not be allowed in MMA to my knowledge, similar to eye gouging. It also works best of the two parties are at least somewhat close in strength.

Take a boxer - most fights, if one party desires and are somewhat equally matched will wind up at least some of the tme in a grapple, barring the one punch and done. A boxer who has no knowledge of wrestling, Judo or some other grappling art will get eaten up by a skilled wrestler. Thats my whole point - Boxing is striking, no real grappling, wrestling is grappling, no real striking.

While a trained boxer can hit hard, he can only do well in his particular specialty. That is why I used the term "dumbed down"

A good MMA fighter an handle both striking and grappling. They may be better at one, but the understand and can at least defend against the other. This is why I also said MMA has brought some more respect back into western Martial arts.

Whether people get injured or not in a combat sport is somewhat irrelevant. The point is is that if they learn say boxing only, and fight a skilled opponent with a broader skill level like MMA, they will struggle as long as both are roughly evenly matched in size, athletesism, and skill in their particualr form.

This idea also is why one needs to learn technigues that might be illegal in ones combat sport to be most effective in a real fight . Both so they can anticipate and defend and use offensively.

Same goes for weapons use. I have never participated in SCA, but my understanding for safety reason there are not a whole lot of shield strikes you can use, nor can you intentionally bowl someone over using a shield. If an SCA fighter were not exposed to this and placed in a real fight with weapons, hopefully the learn to defend against things like this quickly, and they won't get to many second chances in real combat.

Unfortunately true training in this area would lead to too many deaths and injuries to make it effective for both hand to hand or weapons combat sports.

My guess is training done my knights and legionairres was not quite as restricted. After all, they are learning to defend their own life, not training for a fun sport or even just a means of making money. They learned to deal with real issues that may come about in combat, at least they did if they were trained well. I'm sure they still had some safeguards in effect though. The Spartans I am not sure of. From what I know many trainees died before they became Spartan Equals. This may have had something to do with the manpower shortage they started experiencing after the war with Athens.

[Greg Coffman]