Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sport Combat vs Real Combat. Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 
Author Message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max Chouinard wrote:
Quote:
Just because the bare-knuckle pugilism of the London Prize ring was different from modern boxing, it does not mean that the latter is ineffective. They emphasize different skillsets and attributes. LPR rules allowed standing grappling. LPR bare-knuckle contests were also gruelling affairs of endurance, since a man had some 30 seconds to rest after going down--this explains why LPR bouts were often so long. For what it's worth, even after the introduction of gloves, boxers still taught their art from both a "sport" and "street" aspect--that's where the notion of "foul blows" and/or "dirty boxing" comes from. Gloved boxers from "Terrible" Terry McGovern (c. 1899) onwards have taught the street self-defense aspects of the "Sweet Science".


Of course, but I put them under the same umbrella as bare knuckle fighting.



Who? The early gloved boxers?

FYI, some had backgrounds in bare-knuckle fighting AND gloves (eg., the amazing pugilists from Larry Foley's school in Australia--the great Peter Jackson, Bob Fitzsimmons, Frank Slavin, and Young Griffo), while others did not (eg., Jim Corbett, who was also critical of the technique of the earlier LPR fighters).


Quote:
They came from a tradition that didn't concerned itself to winning by the new rules.



I'm not exactly sure who you're talking about, exactly.


As I said, there have been gloved boxers that have taught the street application of boxing from at least c. 1900 onwards. Jack Dempsey did too, later in life. He even knocked out two muggers who attempted to assault him in NYC, when he was in his early seventies!


Quote:
Do you see boxers with no other training winning in MMA? No, or at least very rarely.



LOL--you don't see exponents of ANY single discipline winning in MMA.

But ALL the competitors have to learn how to box. They may or may not specialize in it, but they have to at least know the basics. That should tell you something right there.


Quote:
You are actually helping me making my point.



No, I am not.


You have claimed a lack of effectiveness for so-called "sportified" methods, and I question that.






Quote:
Quote:
That is both a gross over-simplification and rash assumption, on your part.


i actually experimented this first hand. Of course some might be able to do it if they have a wrestling or HEMA background, but someone trained only in olympic fencing? It's like saying that a kickboxer would have a very good chance if he was actually grappled by a judoka.



It's still and assumption on your part, because there certainly are fencers who have grappling training and experience--I know a couple, including myself. (!)

Not to mention that there have been "sport" fencers with no other background, who have done well outside of their ruleset. Filipino martial artist Ray Floro credits much of his success not only to his Kalis Ilustrisimo training, but to his sport fencing background as well.

I personally know a good foilist who did quite well with reconstructed singlestick, despite never having trained even in modern saber. His foundation in foil still gave him worthwhile attributes in timing, distance, and point control, that applied to the use of cuts/blows as well. He had excellent stop-cuts to the weapon hand/arm of his opponents. The assertions of past fencing masters--who always insisted on having the foundation in foil--were borne out in bout after bout.

I also knew a Russian sabreur at my old salle--he was an ex-Olympian--and having both bouted him myself, and watched him bout others more able to cope with his skill level, I can say that he could probably have done very well in other weaponed systems.

Then, there's the old story of the famous knife sparring tournament from many years ago, that was hosted by John Perretti (the founder of Extreme Fighting Battlecade, an earlier competitor of the UFC). The majority of the contestants were apparently Filipino knife stylists, but the winner of the competition was actually an Olympic-level Russian epeeist. This probably shouldn't be all that shocking, since fencing can certainly be applied to the duelling range of knife fighting. The famous old maestro, Marcel Cabijos, apparently had amazing dagger work himself.



Quote:
Quote:
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.


Well traditionnal karate did work, after all kyokushin did.



Show me a traditional karate exponent who really made a mark in those early NHB contests. I cannot personally think of any, and karate does not exactly figure too much in the current game.



Quote:
Quote:
But all of them found combat sports to be essential for the training of their troops.

Yes, it's again just what I said, but not by itself. Combat sport isn't useless, but it needs other elements.



I am personally of the opinion that combat sports are the single most important aspect of a good training methodology, for any truly effective martial art. History has repeatedly shown this--those who use the "live" training typically prevail, while those who rely on cooperative "opponents" typically fail.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Black Mastro wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
But all of them found combat sports to be essential for the training of their troops.

Yes, it's again just what I said, but not by itself. Combat sport isn't useless, but it needs other elements.

I am personally of the opinion that combat sports are the single most important aspect of a good training methodology, for any truly effective martial art. History has repeatedly shown this--those who use the "live" training typically prevail, while those who rely on cooperative "opponents" typically fail.


Please, see my above post. [I think you were probably working on yours when mine posted.] Combat sports are not the only alternative to cooperative "opponents." Sparring! Sparring! Sparring! As a disclaimer, I am coming from a background primarily of Renaissance Martial Arts: mostly weapons with grappling.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
David Black Mastro wrote:
Quote:
Every culture had combat sports, but none of them saw it as a complete system for fighting.



But all of them found combat sports to be essential for the training of their troops.


I'd like to see this claim substantiated. I don't see it that way.



There are plenty of historical examples, from virtually all successful martial cultures.


Quote:
For Rome, while there may have been overlap and communication between legionaries and gladiators, that doesn't mean that combat sports were used in the Roman army to train their soldiers.



What do you think sparring with a blunted gladius and scutum is? It's a combat sport. What do you think javelin throwing is? Or wrestling?


There's no mystery to all of this.


Quote:
Rather, the gladiatorial games seem to have existed as an entertainment industry separate from the Roman military enterprise.


The gladiatorial games certainly had the entertainment factor, but the connection with the Roman army is certainly there, and it has been recognized by experts on that period, like Peter Connolly.



Quote:
In the Medieval period, tournaments seemed to be exclusively for the upper class. While they were the fighting class of the Medieval period, they were not the only people who trained to fight. Sergeants and other retainers received their combat training without any experience in combat sports as far as I know.



C'mon bro--what do you think archery tournaments were?

Or bouts at sword-and-buckler or quarterstaff?

Those are all combat sports. The ruling warrior caste (the knights) had their martial traditions of fighting on horseback and on foot, and the lower classes had their own traditions. Just look at the yeomen of England, who were so famed for their skill with the longbow, the bill, and the sword-and-buckler.

Or look at Northern Italian crossbowmen. The Venetians had a tradition of rich and poor training side-by-side, and there were regular marksmanship competitions with the crossbow, Turkish bow, and arquebus.


Quote:
Towards the end of the Medieval period and going into the Renaissance this become more apparent as the middle class makes us a larger portion of those who fight. Where was their combat sport?



They had swordplay, polearm use, and wrestling, among others.


Quote:
Some people on this forum have argued that combat sports can make up a portion of a larger more holistic training regime and that combat sports can constitute one element of that training. I would agree that multiple areas of training do yield a better training regime than relying on just one practice. This is especially true in an area like HEMA where nobody is using the weapons to really kill each other anymore. Combat sports can be one element, but they don't have to be. Certainly, combat sports can have application to martial preparation for real combat. That doesn't mean they all necessarily do. Not all training is equal nor are all combat sports equally beneficial for training. The way I see it, we can't dismiss combat sport out of hand, but that does not mean that they are necessary or integral for combat training. Their are other ways to train which may be just as good or better than combat sports.



Such as?


I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
David Black Mastro wrote:
And take a look at the folks who dismiss combat sports out of hand--they are folks who don't typically work with resisting opponents. Many of them are pretty clueless to begin with. They deal purely in theory.

This is not true of ARMA. We are highly committed in keeping our art from devolving into a combat sport, but we also put a very high value on working with resisting opponents.



If you're sparring with resisting opponents, then you're engaging in a combat sport. You're using the combat sport training methodology--the methodology of "live" training.

You can avoid the "sport" connotation all you wish (for whatever reason), but it changes nothing.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Black Mastro wrote:
What do you think sparring with a blunted gladius and scutum is? It's a combat sport. What do you think javelin throwing is? Or wrestling?


There's no mystery to all of this.

C'mon bro--what do you think archery tournaments were?

Or bouts at sword-and-buckler or quarterstaff?

Those are all combat sports. The ruling warrior caste (the knights) had their martial traditions of fighting on horseback and on foot, and the lower classes had their own traditions. Just look at the yeomen of England, who were so famed for their skill with the longbow, the bill, and the sword-and-buckler.


So that is where we disagree. I do not think sparring is the same as a combat sport at all. Training to fight somebody is not a sport. Javelin throwing is not a sport. Javelin throwing competition is. The same goes for archery or modern marksmanship at the gun range for that matter. If two Marine riflemen have a friendly competition at the rifle range at base that does not make what they are doing into a sport. It is training. When two Renaissance fighters practice sword and buckler against each other, that does not mean they are practicing a sport. They are training for combat.

But in principle I think we agree. Partnered adversarial training is key to combat training.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Black Mastro wrote:
If you're sparring with resisting opponents, then you're engaging in a combat sport. You're using the combat sport training methodology--the methodology of "live" training.


I don't agree at all. "Live training" is certainly not the methodology of all or even most combat sports. Nor does it come from combat sports historically. It comes from training for real battle. Combat sports developed out of training, not the other way around.

But again, otherwise I think we agree.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
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.



Go right ahead, bro.


Quote:
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.


As is fencing.


Quote:
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.



Gary, with what you say above, it most definitely sounds like you are downgrading modern combat sports.

You offer backhanded compliments to these methods, like "any martial training is better than none", and "of course a boxer or wrestler has an advantage over an unskilled opponent".


This is precisely the area where we disagree. Boxers and wrestlers not only have an advantage over "unskilled opponents"--they also have an advantage over trained ones, like karateka. Boxers may have a seemingly limited repertoire, but they are very good at what they do. The same goes for wrestlers. I have seen countless practitioners of Asian arts--people who are teachers, and thus profess a certain level of competence--who could not stop the takedown of a highschool-level wrestler, let alone more experienced grapplers. I've seen plenty of karate & TKD black belts who wouldn't last 5 seconds with a decent boxer. What does that say about these so-called "street lethal" methods?



Quote:
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.


You're assuming that boxing and wrestling exponents will invariably limit themlselves to those rulesets, and that's yet another rash declaration on your part.


Quote:
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.



Well, there you go!



Quote:
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.



Exactly.



Quote:
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.


They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but their weaknesses are minimal compared to the nonsense taught by so many traditionalists and RBSD types.


Quote:
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"


And "dumbed down" isn't a particularly useful or descriptive term, in this case.

The simple fact is that boxers train in a highly specific skillset--the offensive and defensive use of the fists.


Quote:
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.



And that is precisely what "dirty boxing" is, as I mentioned earlier.


Quote:
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.



What about boxers typically coming from the lower strata of society? There have been countless fighters in the history of the sport who were also known as formidable opponents on the street. The same goes for many wrestlers.

What about Mitsuyo Maeda, the man who brought judo/jujutsu to Brazil, and taught the Gracies (which of course led to the creation of BJJ)? His greatest opponents weren't kung-fu guys or karateka (though he fought his share)--they were Western boxers and wrestlers.

Food for thought...

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
David Black Mastro wrote:
If you're sparring with resisting opponents, then you're engaging in a combat sport. You're using the combat sport training methodology--the methodology of "live" training.


I don't agree at all. "Live training" is certainly not the methodology of all or even most combat sports.



LOL, of course it is!

"Live" training is working with resisting opponents, as opposed to cooperative partners.


Quote:
Nor does it come from combat sports historically. It comes from training for real battle. Combat sports developed out of training, not the other way around.



Uh, the oldest martial art is wrestling, and it has served as both a sport and fighting art since the beginning of time.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
Towards the end of the Medieval period and going into the Renaissance this become more apparent as the middle class makes us a larger portion of those who fight. Where was their combat sport?


The Marxbruder, the Federfechter, the Lukasbruder, and all the "Belgian" Longsword fencing guilds across northwest Europe, the Italian "Bridge Battles", and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

-Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
David Black Mastro wrote:
What do you think sparring with a blunted gladius and scutum is? It's a combat sport. What do you think javelin throwing is? Or wrestling?


There's no mystery to all of this.

C'mon bro--what do you think archery tournaments were?

Or bouts at sword-and-buckler or quarterstaff?

Those are all combat sports. The ruling warrior caste (the knights) had their martial traditions of fighting on horseback and on foot, and the lower classes had their own traditions. Just look at the yeomen of England, who were so famed for their skill with the longbow, the bill, and the sword-and-buckler.


So that is where we disagree. I do not think sparring is the same as a combat sport at all. Training to fight somebody is not a sport. Javelin throwing is not a sport. Javelin throwing competition is.



That's like saying "wrestling's not a sport--a wrestling tournament is".

You get the idea.

The fact is that they ARE sports. And arts.


Quote:
The same goes for archery or modern marksmanship at the gun range for that matter. If two Marine riflemen have a friendly competition at the rifle range at base that does not make what they are doing into a sport. It is training.



It is both. They are still competing against each other--testing their skills against each other.


Quote:
When two Renaissance fighters practice sword and buckler against each other, that does not mean they are practicing a sport. They are training for combat.


Again, they are doing both.

Not to mention that Renaissance fighters regularly engaged in sanctioned competitions--eg., the "Playing the Prize" of the London Masters of Defence, as well as the Fechtschule competitions of the German fencing guilds.

And I already mentioned the public marksmanship competitions of the Venetians.

All combat sports.



Quote:
But in principle I think we agree. Partnered adversarial training is key to combat training.



Indeed.

If you really feel the need to avoid the "sport" term, then knock yourself out (pun very much intended Wink )

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven H wrote:
Greg Coffman wrote:
Towards the end of the Medieval period and going into the Renaissance this become more apparent as the middle class makes us a larger portion of those who fight. Where was their combat sport?


The Marxbruder, the Federfechter, the Lukasbruder, and all the "Belgian" Longsword fencing guilds across northwest Europe, the Italian "Bridge Battles", and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

-Steven



Thank you.


It's also interesting to note that at least one English king differentiated combat sports (like archery, sword training, & wrestling) from games like bandyball, which were known at the time as "vain plays", because, unlike combat sports, they were obviously useless as a preparation for war.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Fields




Location: Tampa, Fl
Joined: 03 Aug 2008

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 6:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes, I think alot of us are agreeing with each other but not realizing it due to miscommunication.

I was away for only a few hours and I missed alot!

Ben Condon - sorry I missed this earlier

-"anyone can claim to be an "mma guy" but I doubt the guys you are describing had any real experience other than watching a few UFCs on TV. Nothing you mentioned is illegal in MMA or grappling, especially in training, and the techniques you mentioned are things beginners learn to deal with in their first couple of weeks."-

The guys that came in to train were from a local MMA school that competes in tournaments all over the US, each of them had 4 to 5 years experience. I don't know more than that. Kneeing someone in the crotch, and pressing the blade of your hand into someone's throat is illegal in MMA to my knowledge, and according to those who trained with us. I know it's illegal in UFC, PRIDE, and others.They were good, and I know they were hold their own on the street.

-"I think you might be surprised at how much rough housing and dirty play actually goes on during MMA training. As for your specific techniques, putting your knee on someone's crotch is a pretty standard way of making room to pass guard. The problem being that a even a half decent BJJ guy won't give you even the initial space to allow you to do that and will have your posture broken down in no time unless you know how to grapple too. Putting our hand on someone's throat while still in their guard is an extremely bad idea too because it leaves you wide open for arm locks or triangle chokes." -

Again, I mentioned this above, the moves i was speaking of are illegal to my knowledge. And putting your hand on someone throat while they're trying to be in the guard from the bottom always works, the opponent can not doing anything if all your weight is on their throat and their head is against the ground.

-"It's also a common misconception among self defence guys that MMA guys wouldn't be able to perform on the street but what you have to realise is a lot of these guys come from very rough backgrounds and have a lot of street fighting experience."-

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think this at all, MMA guys will definitly do well on the street. All I'm saying is MMA doesn't teach everything, like striking to eyes and such, because of saftey, and it's hard to train some of the best real world, no rules, fighting techniques because they are just dangerous to your partner.


Dave - no offense taken, it's good talking to you. Again, I think we are saying the same things alot of the time, though you may think we are disagreeing.

Except for this "It's not the art, it's the practitioner"., of course this is true. That is why people from many different backgrounds win all sorts of NHB tournaments.

-"Ever notice how numerous martial arts are markedly absent from the modern MMA mix? The arts that have actually proven themselves to be effective include: Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Japanese shootfighting, judo, sambo, Western boxing, Western wrestling (freestyle/folkstyle, Greco-Roman, and catch-as-catch-can), and muay Thai. Combat sports. The ostensibly "street lethal" methods--traditional karate & kung-fu, Israeli HTH, etc.,--have singularly failed, when put to the test."-

I have to disagree here as well, and here is why, ... it may not be what you think. Karate and other Japanese martial artist are a much larger world that what most people think, it could be argued that Japanese shoot fighting is an off spring of Karate. For Kung Fu, again, look at Chung Le, 6 and 0 in MMA, he used a variety of Chinese Kung Fu techniques. San Shou is a form of tournament for Kung Fu fighters. There are over 350 types of Kung Fu, so, it is true that some have no practical application at all, however, others, infact most, have very practical application. The ones that have no practical application are probably modern creations or distortions of older styles. Also keep in mind, there is only so many ways a body can move, a punch can be thrown, a kick can be thrown, so you will see overlap in technique from all types of martial arts... for instance, many proper Kung Fu Kicks are very similar to Muay Thai kicks, same with close quaters elbow and knee strikes.

Here is where we are in agreement, though i think you thought we disagreed.

"The lack of effectiveness of most current kung-fu has nothing to do with the advent of "sport"--far from it. I'd say the biggest single factor that has led to the ineffectiveness of most kung-fu today is the functional dilution that occured over the past 150 years or so. During that time, China went through various crises, including her beatdown by the Western Colonial Powers and Japan (eg., look at the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion), and the horrible Cultural Revolution, during the mid-20th century. During those periods of violent change, it's clear that a great number of Chinese martial artists were killed. We may never know just how many talented fighters were lost. In any case, the end result was a functional dilution of the existing methods, where martial arts often became warped into performance art (eg., modern "wushu"), and where there was an increasing emphasis on the "fantastick", for lack of a better term."

We are actually saying the same thing. You are absolutly right, but realize that the "sport" side of Kung fu came from the functional dilution that you speak of. This is what I was referring too, though I used different words. The particular style I teach was born during the boxer rebellion and spread into indonesia, then the phillipines, then eventually to the US. I'm sure most of it is lost, but myself and others over the US are trying to piece it together, I'm sure we'll never have all of it.

And going back to Chung Le, saying he is a chinese martial artist,... a kung fu martial artist... is not a stretch at all. Many forms of Kung Fu include throws and grappling, muay thai types kicks, and boxing like punches and strikes, and many other martial practices, like I mentioned up above. Chung Le definitly does stop shoots and take downs with techniques from Kung fu. Again, they may seem similar to other style techniques, but that is just because there are only so many ways to defend against take downs and shoots, that styles are bound to over lap.

I think we all agree that practicing martial arts in as real of a situation as possible, yet still controlled, aka Sparring, is definitly useful for any real world situation, though it's never possible to practice for all real world situations. And, the more you know and experience... the better.

Thanks, and again, this is a great conversation.
View user's profile Send e-mail
Chris Fields




Location: Tampa, Fl
Joined: 03 Aug 2008

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 7:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Also, Dave... I don't know how we can say that wrestling is the oldest martial art... we just don't know... stone throwing could be for all we know... Ahh... I need that time machine!
View user's profile Send e-mail
Max Chouinard




Location: Quebec, Qc
Joined: 23 Apr 2008

Posts: 108

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 7:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
If you're sparring with resisting opponents, then you're engaging in a combat sport. You're using the combat sport training methodology--the methodology of "live" training.

You can avoid the "sport" connotation all you wish (for whatever reason), but it changes nothing.


Youre mixed up on the definition of sport. Sparring is not automatically sport. A sport is a practice for the goal of winning competitively. Martial arts are a set of skills practiced for the goal of winning or at least surviving a non competitive encounter. Both can build skills which are transferable to the other but they have different goals.

Clarify your point, are you arguing for the practice of free sparring or combat sports?

Quote:
LOL--you don't see exponents of ANY single discipline winning in MMA.

But ALL the competitors have to learn how to box. They may or may not specialize in it, but they have to at least know the basics. That should tell you something right there.


That's the whole point youre missing. Combat sport is not useless, but it is not effective if not used with other skills and with lesser rules. You just said it right there, no one is winning without it.

Quote:
It's still and assumption on your part, because there certainly are fencers who have grappling training and experience--I know a couple, including myself. (!)


You see? You again reitarate the same point. Would fencing alone prepare you for it? No, you would have to learn skill sets that were part of ancient martial arts but were cut out of olympic fencing. Your grappling skills would not develop out of thin air from fencing alone.

Maxime Chouinard

Antrim Bata

Quebec City Kenjutsu

I don't do longsword
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 7:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chris Fields wrote:
Dave - no offense taken, it's good talking to you. Again, I think we are saying the same things alot of the time, though you may think we are disagreeing.

Except for this "It's not the art, it's the practitioner"., of course this is true.



No, it isn't.

Both the practitioner AND the art are important. Some arts clearly ARE better than others, at least for given applications. That's why you see martial cultures making changes to their arsenals and fighting repertoires over the centuries.

If arts didn't count, then the Republican-era Romans never would have switched from the Greek-style spear-based phalanx, to the sword-based "manipular" legion, to cope with folks like the Samnites and Celts.

And that's just one obvious example.


Quote:
That is why people from many different backgrounds win all sorts of NHB tournaments.



The number of different arts that dominate MMA is pretty limited, actually.



Quote:
-"Ever notice how numerous martial arts are markedly absent from the modern MMA mix? The arts that have actually proven themselves to be effective include: Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Japanese shootfighting, judo, sambo, Western boxing, Western wrestling (freestyle/folkstyle, Greco-Roman, and catch-as-catch-can), and muay Thai. Combat sports. The ostensibly "street lethal" methods--traditional karate & kung-fu, Israeli HTH, etc.,--have singularly failed, when put to the test."-

I have to disagree here as well, and here is why, ... it may not be what you think. Karate and other Japanese martial artist are a much larger world that what most people think, it could be argued that Japanese shoot fighting is an off spring of Karate.


Suggesting that shootfighting "is an offspring of karate" is an even bigger stretch, Chris. In fact, it's patently false.


Shootfighting is derived predominantly from catch-as-catch-can wrestling, along with judo and muay Thai. The latter day CACC "shooter" (legit wrestler) Karl Gotch settled in Japan in the 1960s, and impressed many local martial artists with his grappling skills. He was a former Olympian, and had trained in catch wrestling at the infamous Billy Riley "Snake Pit" in Wigan, England. He taught such men as Yoshiaki Fujiwara, Akira Maeda, and Masami Sorananka. These men took that Western catch wrestling, and combined it with judo and kickboxing arts like MT. The very NAME of shootfighting indicates its Western wrestling origins ("shoot" being a term that refers to a legitmate contest, as opposed to a predetermined "work").

The students of Gotch went on to train other legendary Japanese fighters, like Masakatsu Funaki and Minoru Suzuki, who later founded PANCRASE.


Quote:
For Kung Fu, again, look at Chung Le, 6 and 0 in MMA, he used a variety of Chinese Kung Fu techniques.



Such as?


Quote:
San Shou is a form of tournament for Kung Fu fighters. There are over 350 types of Kung Fu, so, it is true that some have no practical application at all, however, others, infact most, have very practical application.


And your proof for this is where?

Where are all these vaunted kung-fu fighters? I don't see them in K-1. I don't see them in MMA.

Where are they?


Quote:
The ones that have no practical application are probably modern creations or distortions of older styles. Also keep in mind, there is only so many ways a body can move, a punch can be thrown, a kick can be thrown, so you will see overlap in technique from all types of martial arts... for instance, many proper Kung Fu Kicks are very similar to Muay Thai kicks, same with close quaters elbow and knee strikes.



Ah...



Quote:
Here is where we are in agreement, though i think you thought we disagreed.

"The lack of effectiveness of most current kung-fu has nothing to do with the advent of "sport"--far from it. I'd say the biggest single factor that has led to the ineffectiveness of most kung-fu today is the functional dilution that occured over the past 150 years or so. During that time, China went through various crises, including her beatdown by the Western Colonial Powers and Japan (eg., look at the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion), and the horrible Cultural Revolution, during the mid-20th century. During those periods of violent change, it's clear that a great number of Chinese martial artists were killed. We may never know just how many talented fighters were lost. In any case, the end result was a functional dilution of the existing methods, where martial arts often became warped into performance art (eg., modern "wushu"), and where there was an increasing emphasis on the "fantastick", for lack of a better term."

We are actually saying the same thing. You are absolutly right, but realize that the "sport" side of Kung fu came from the functional dilution that you speak of. This is what I was referring too, though I used different words. The particular style I teach was born during the boxer rebellion and spread into indonesia, then the phillipines, then eventually to the US. I'm sure most of it is lost, but myself and others over the US are trying to piece it together, I'm sure we'll never have all of it.


But again, nothing above has anything to do with "sport". Things like modern "wushu" are about as far from a combat sport as something can get.



Quote:
And going back to Chung Le, saying he is a chinese martial artist,... a kung fu martial artist... is not a stretch at all. Many forms of Kung Fu include throws and grappling, muay thai types kicks, and boxing like punches and strikes, and many other martial practices, like I mentioned up above. Chung Le definitly does stop shoots and take downs with techniques from Kung fu. Again, they may seem similar to other style techniques, but that is just because there are only so many ways to defend against take downs and shoots, that styles are bound to over lap.


No, it's actually because Chung Le has a strong Western wrestling background, as I already pointed out.

You can choose to ignore the facts if you wish, but it doesn't change what Chung Le actually uses. At least give the credit where the credit is due.



Quote:
I think we all agree that practicing martial arts in as real of a situation as possible, yet still controlled, aka Sparring, is definitly useful for any real world situation, though it's never possible to practice for all real world situations. And, the more you know and experience... the better.

Thanks, and again, this is a great conversation.



Likewise--thank you.


Chris Fields wrote:
Also, Dave... I don't know how we can say that wrestling is the oldest martial art... we just don't know... stone throwing could be for all we know... Ahh... I need that time machine!



We know. It's wrestling. Animals wrestle. Ever watch male komodo dragons during the mating season? They engage in a ritualistic form of wrestling, where they rear up on their hind legs, and lock up in a sort of Greco-Roman clinch (and what's really cool is that they can "base" with their tail--lucky reptilian bastards). Ever see lions, or any other big cats grapple? Hell, little cats do it too. Cats are very adept with the open guard--they're good at fighting off their back. And they know how to take the back of an opponent--Google around and you can find that film of a tiger killing a mugger crocodile. Cats are masters of what I call "Primal Jiu-Jitsu" (PJJ).

Wrestling. The oldest martial art.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Max Chouinard




Location: Quebec, Qc
Joined: 23 Apr 2008

Posts: 108

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 7:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Show me a traditional karate exponent who really made a mark in those early NHB contests. I cannot personally think of any, and karate does not exactly figure too much in the current game.


Georges St-Pierre, Pat Smith, Seth Petruzelli, Bas Rutten, and no need to mention Masutatsu Oyama himself who defeated various Muay thay, boxing and wrestling exponents.

Maxime Chouinard

Antrim Bata

Quebec City Kenjutsu

I don't do longsword
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 8:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max Chouinard wrote:
Quote:
If you're sparring with resisting opponents, then you're engaging in a combat sport. You're using the combat sport training methodology--the methodology of "live" training.

You can avoid the "sport" connotation all you wish (for whatever reason), but it changes nothing.


Youre mixed up on the definition of sport. Sparring is not automatically sport. A sport is a practice for the goal of winning competitively. Martial arts are a set of skills practiced for the goal of winning or at least surviving a non competitive encounter. Both can build skills which are transferable to the other but they have different goals.

Clarify your point, are you arguing for the practice of free sparring or combat sports?


They are the same thing.

Definitions of "sport": an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition; an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively; any athletic activity that uses physical skills, often competitive.


It's not really difficult to understand. What is free sparring? It clearly qualifies as an "athletic activity that uses physical skills" which is "often competitive".






Quote:
Quote:
LOL--you don't see exponents of ANY single discipline winning in MMA.

But ALL the competitors have to learn how to box. They may or may not specialize in it, but they have to at least know the basics. That should tell you something right there.


That's the whole point youre missing. Combat sport is not useless, but it is not effective if not used with other skills and with lesser rules. You just said it right there, no one is winning without it.



What are the arts that comprise MMA competition--they are ALL combat sports. Why? Because combat sports have proven their effectiveness, time and again.

You don't see the ostensibly "street lethal" methods--the ones that are supposedly so superior to mere "sports"-- winning in MMA.

And that is the point that you are apparently missing.



Quote:
Quote:
It's still and assumption on your part, because there certainly are fencers who have grappling training and experience--I know a couple, including myself. (!)


You see? You again reitarate the same point. Would fencing alone prepare you for it? No, you would have to learn skill sets that were part of ancient martial arts but were cut out of olympic fencing. Your grappling skills would not develop out of thin air from fencing alone.




Evidently you chose not read my entire post. I also mentioned fencers that have functioned well under unfamiliar formats and circumstances.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 8:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max Chouinard wrote:
Quote:
Show me a traditional karate exponent who really made a mark in those early NHB contests. I cannot personally think of any, and karate does not exactly figure too much in the current game.


Georges St-Pierre, Pat Smith, Seth Petruzelli, Bas Rutten, and no need to mention Masutatsu Oyama himself who defeated various Muay thay, boxing and wrestling exponents.



Georges St Pierre is a modern MMA practitioner, and he therefore trains in a combination of disciplines, like everyone else. Yes, he has a karate background, but he owes his success far more to things like muay Thai, Western wrestling (which he has an absolutely amazing aptitude for), and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (which he has learned under many excellent instructors).

Pat Smith was submitted via heelhook by shootfighter/MMA legend Ken Shamrock, in the first UFC. When asked to compare Smith to the PANCRASE veterans he routinely faced, he said that Smith was "easier". Why? "Because he doesn't understand submissions". Smith faded fairly quickly from MMA after that.

Bas Rutten did do karate, but his main striking background was in muay Thai (he's Dutch, after all). He then learned a really solid ground grappling game, while fighting in PANCRASE.

Seth Petruzelli is another modern MMA practitioner, and thus he trains in a variety of disciplines. He also has a wrestling background.

Which Thai boxers, wrestlers, and boxers did Mas Oyama supposedly defeat? How about some names?

I only recall him knocking the pre-cut horns off of sickly bulls. Oyama's student, the dreaded Dutch karateka/judoka John Bluming, once joked to his master, that he should try that stunt with a Spanish fighting bull.

Oyama didn't find that funny.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 8:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Folks,
Please don't post the same text in two different threads. It's unnecessary and against our rules to boot.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ben C.





Joined: 01 Dec 2006

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max Chouinard wrote:
Quote:
Show me a traditional karate exponent who really made a mark in those early NHB contests. I cannot personally think of any, and karate does not exactly figure too much in the current game.


Georges St-Pierre, Pat Smith, Seth Petruzelli, Bas Rutten, and no need to mention Masutatsu Oyama himself who defeated various Muay thay, boxing and wrestling exponents.


none of them are traditional karate exponents. All of them did kyokukshin karate, or one of its derivatives, which is a heavily modernised version of karate that was created after exposure to muay thai and western boxing. Most of the traditional ineffective techniques were dropped and full contact sparring became the main focus of training. I have a lot of respect for Kyokushin as a striking art (you forgot to mention Sam Greco, Semmy Schilt, Francisco Filho and Andy Hug as other exponents of the style) but it is in no way any less a modern style than boxing, wrestling or muay thai.

As a general rule you can rate the effectiveness of a style based on how much they practice full or close to full contact against fully resisting opponents. San Shou fighters do a lot of sparring and hence they are somewhat effective at fighting. Most other styles don't and that's why even so called 'grandmasters' look like complete rookies when the actually step out and fight.

An easy way to prove a style is legitimate is simply to provide video footage. That's one of the the great things about the modern age, it is so easy to take and distribute video now that it's very easy to prove that something is legit if you have the inclination to do so. If a style is heavily based around striking or grappling or whatever, then there should exist videos showing the effectiveness of it's striking in either those types of sporting competitions or in real fights. At the very least that style should be able to provide sparring footage to prove that their training is legit. With BJJ, Boxing and other effective styles there are countless videos available on the web proving their effectiveness, even in no rules street fights. If the only videos that can be provided are of those fighters losing in competitions then it's a natural conclusion to assume those styles are ineffective for fighting.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sport Combat vs Real Combat.
Page 3 of 9 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum