Why oh why oh does political rivalry still exist in Martial Arts??

Doug Cartel

DaBrow wrote: »

Out of the traditional styles, it really does aim at ending the fight quickly.

So much better than all those other styles that aim to draw the fight out as long as possible...

Ug Lee

Doug Cartel wrote: »

So much better than all those other styles that aim to draw the fight out as long as possible...

I think Da Brow is comparing Wado Ryu Karate against other "traditional" styles where they would not emphasise finishing the fight quickly. Other arts will focus on "winning" the fight by accumulating more points within a certain time limit or by using ring craft/wearing their opponent down.

siochain

reading down through this just sums up the answer to the tread title

Why oh why oh does political rivalry still exist in Martial? Egos.

I have seen many positive people do great work to promote and improve Irish MA's nationally and internationally.

But unfortunately the sports attracts a lot of egos’ which can be argued can help drive talented competitors on to be winners in their chosen MA. But ultimately it’s the egos of club instructors and organisation heads that causes political rivalry and in some cases are holding back the sport nationally and internationally.

Some times people just never grown up and can’t accept their chosen MA’s weaknesses and see the positives in other MA’s.

Back to one of the original questions, Open tournaments and organized in this country and do work.

cowzerp

Lots of the coaches know there weak in lots of ways and dont like to admit that 20 years of there life was dedicated to a 2nd rate martial art or fighting system-these type of coaches would not want to compete against other arts for this reason-plus they only want people in there martial art so dont even want you knowing about other options as they could lose out on money..

arybvtcw0eolkf

cowzerp wrote: »

Lots of the coaches know there weak in lots of ways and dont like to admit that 20 years of there life was dedicated to a 2nd rate martial art or fighting system-these type of coaches would not want to compete against other arts for this reason-plus they only want people in there martial art so dont even want you knowing about other options as they could lose out on money..

Very true.

If you'd been around the Martial Arts scene when MMA was in its infancy here in Ireland you'd have witnessed this alot.

Can't name names because the lad is still involved in my old kickboxing club, but when we got involved in (I think) it was Ring of Truth II both the fighter and myself were threatened with expulsion from our club and organisation and your's is the very argument I used at the time.

Needless to say my involvement with that club & organisation came to a very quick end.

Something I have to say in favour of the MMA community here in Ireland (north and south) is if your willing to get stuck in both coaches and fighters will welcome you with open arms and minimal fuss.

YamaMotoYama

Having read most the thread... I think its fair to say that everyone thinks their own style of MA is the best... and nobody wants to be training in a perceived "weaker" or less relevant style.

Horses for courses - I says - and who cares if other folks think you are studying a lesser style. (Sure you'll be able to kick their a$$)

*Oh I would like to add - that I don't think its the style that counts completely... its the fighter and the quality of tutition that they are under. Great athletes with poor coaches will be average at best!

cletus

YamaMotoYama wrote: »

its the fighter and the quality of tutition that they are under. Great athletes with poor coaches will be average at best!

Thats true only to a certain extent. If the techniques being taught aren't effective, it doesn't make any difference how good the teaching is, its still ineffective technique.

YamaMotoYama

cletus wrote: »

Thats true only to a certain extent. If the techniques being taught aren't effective, it doesn't make any difference how good the teaching is, its still ineffective technique.

I think that is a good point... but a good coach will know what works.

A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick - after all.

smacl

cletus wrote: »

Thats true only to a certain extent. If the techniques being taught aren't effective, it doesn't make any difference how good the teaching is, its still ineffective technique.

Effective in what context? What is effective in a semi contact sport fighting context will be ineffective in a boxing ring, and vice versa. If the technique wins you a competition, and you're training solely to win that competition, was it an effective technique?

Now if you're talking about how well a style will stand up to another style in an environment with far fewer rules, it is a different story. Point scoring will have difficulty with continuous sparring, similarly light and heavy contact, similarly adding striking and wrestling to pure striking or pure wrestling. It all depends on what game you want to play; IMHO stick to the one you enjoy most; good club, people you enjoy training with etc... How it all stacks up 'in the cage' or 'on the street' doesn't matter a damn unless you plan to fight in either of those venues.

siochain

smacl wrote: »

Effective in what context? What is effective in a semi contact sport fighting context will be ineffective in a boxing ring, and vice versa. If the technique wins you a competition, and you're training solely to win that competition, was it an effective technique?

Now if you're talking about how well a style will stand up to another style in an environment with far fewer rules, it is a different story. Point scoring will have difficulty with continuous sparring, similarly light and heavy contact, similarly adding striking and wrestling to pure striking or pure wrestling. It all depends on what game you want to play; IMHO stick to the one you enjoy most; good club, people you enjoy training with etc... How it all stacks up 'in the cage' or 'on the street' doesn't matter a damn unless you plan to fight in either of those venues.

best bit of sence all tread,

most important have fun

cletus

smacl wrote: »

Effective in what context? What is effective in a semi contact sport fighting context will be ineffective in a boxing ring, and vice versa. If the technique wins you a competition, and you're training solely to win that competition, was it an effective technique?

Now if you're talking about how well a style will stand up to another style in an environment with far fewer rules, it is a different story. Point scoring will have difficulty with continuous sparring, similarly light and heavy contact, similarly adding striking and wrestling to pure striking or pure wrestling. It all depends on what game you want to play; IMHO stick to the one you enjoy most; good club, people you enjoy training with etc... How it all stacks up 'in the cage' or 'on the street' doesn't matter a damn unless you plan to fight in either of those venues.

Completely agree, and I have no problem with any martial art really, however the quote I was refering to was

Oh I would like to add - that I don't think its the style that counts completely... its the fighter and the quality of tutition that they are under. Great athletes with poor coaches will be average at best!

its when the technique does not do what it purports to that it becomes ineffective, so to me an effective punch, for instance, is one that will land and cause some sort of damage, or at least have the potential to cause damage.

YamaMotoYama

cletus wrote: »

its when the technique does not do what it purports to that it becomes ineffective, so to me an effective punch, for instance, is one that will land and cause some sort of damage, or at least have the potential to cause damage.

I have never heard of a MA that teaches punches - that would not land and/or not cause damage - unless shadow boxing is a MA... if that counts

But point accepted!

Doug Cartel

YamaMotoYama wrote: »

I have never heard of a MA that teaches punches - that would not land and/or not cause damage

I have. Some of them are perfectly honest about it, like performance wushu, where their aim is to put on a show, not win a fight. Other styles teach really horrible punching mechanics, yet claim to be deadly fighting arts.

smacl

cletus wrote: »

its when the technique does not do what it purports to that it becomes ineffective

I'd say that a technique in and off itself can't purport to do anything The problem arises when someone comes to believe that the techniques they've learnt apply to situations for which they obviously aren't suited. The fault sometimes lies with the dogma attached to the teaching of some styles, sometimes it's the individual who is self delusional. I personally think open competition is great here, where you can get a reality check in a safe environment, with a range of rules to suit how much you want to take on. Cross training can be good too, walking onto the other guys mat to see how they do things.

I don't know if it still goes on, but back in the distant past of my Karate days we used to get mixed Karate seminars, with a senior instructor from Wado, Kykushin, Shotokan and Kenpo giving an hour each of instruction, followed by a bit of light sparring at then end. Similarly in UCD in freshers week there used to be the opportunity to take a 'sampler' class of all the various styles to compare notes, and you'd see a fair amount of cross training.

All that said, I've seen plenty of techniques put forward that we have dubious value at best, in any situation. (There style does knife defense, so we should have knife defense. Lets play around with a rubber knife for awhile and see what we can come up with :rolleyes: )

cletus

smacl wrote: »

The problem arises when someone comes to believe that the techniques they've learnt apply to situations for which they obviously aren't suited. The fault sometimes lies with the dogma attached to the teaching of some styles, sometimes it's the individual who is self delusional. I personally think open competition is great here, where you can get a reality check in a safe environment, with a range of rules to suit how much you want to take on. Cross training can be good too, walking onto the other guys mat to see how they do things.

All that said, I've seen plenty of techniques put forward that we have dubious value at best, in any situation. (There style does knife defense, so we should have knife defense. Lets play around with a rubber knife for awhile and see what we can come up with :rolleyes: )

THis is essentially what I was trying to say. Apart from the "what works in competition" argument, it cannot be denied that there are a great many techniques taught in martial arts that are ineffective; that is, they do not do, or do badly, that which they are supposed to do, whether it be striking, blocking, weapons disarms, whatever.

It is these techneiques that I am refering to when I say that the greatest teaching methodolgy in the world wont make these techniques effective.

Whether or not the people practicing these tech's would agree is another matter entirely

Dyr

cletus wrote: »

THis is essentially what I was trying to say. Apart from the "what works in competition" argument, it cannot be denied that there are a great many techniques taught in martial arts that are ineffective; that is, they do not do, or do badly, that which they are supposed to do, whether it be striking, blocking, weapons disarms, whatever.

It is these techneiques that I am refering to when I say that the greatest teaching methodolgy in the world wont make these techniques effective.

Whether or not the people practicing these tech's would agree is another matter entirely

How do you come to a conclusion that these techniques cannot do what they are supposed to do?

smacl

Bambi wrote: »

How do you come to a conclusion that these techniques cannot do what they are supposed to do?

I think this often comes back to what you think a technique is supposed to do. Take a rising upward block in some karate styles, was called jodan-uke in Wado back in the day. The technique is taught as a block to a straight punch to the head to beginners, pretty much from day one, typically followed by a counter punch. Watch karate guys sparring and you rarely if ever see this technique used in this way. I suspect this is because the technique is actually designed more to train and accentuate preferred karate body mechanics, rather than be applied unmodified in sparring. You modify this technique very slightly to punch underneath an oncoming punch, to simultaneously deflect and counter, and you have a much more realistic technique. (One we drill a fair bit in tai chi FWIW). Same gross body mechanics, slightly different application.

Stylised techniques coming out of kata, forms etc.. typically need to be modified to become effective. My guess is that many such techniques aren't effective fighting techniques at all because they were never intended to be used in that way. They could be primarily there to improve strength, conditioning, dynamic tension, focus, body mechanics, balance etc.. You see this in tai chi nei kung, and some karate katas such as sanchin.

Similary, extended sequences of attacker does this, then defender does that, then attacker does something else etc... are ever more unlikely to occur with each extra techniques you add, and as such are statistically unlikely to be effective.

Of course if you want to find some really dubious ones, you could always search for likes of empty force. Only the most devout believers would countenance this type of technique as delivering the goods.

Niall Keane

Smacl, to add to your point, re. reasons behind practicing techniques in particular ways, the TCC classics (as you know) state:
“We practice technique to acquire principle, once we have acquired principle we abandon technique.”

Take “Grasp the Birds Tail”, in orthodox application it is used against a hook, one arm parries to the side (LU) the hook while the other hand jars / jambs / strikes (JI) the other side’s shoulder or bicep to prevent a cross. What do we learn, well we learn how to use footwork and soft sideways diversions to receive powerful force, we learn how to jar a strike using the first gate (shoulder) and how to simultaneously parry and strike (yin and yang aiding each other). Of the thirteen tactics we have learned to combine Lu and Ji with Gazing left or Turning right. Now when we fight, for myself I often add “Peng” (upward diversion) to the deflection as I tightly guard (like combing my hair) and keep the other side tight and use my elbow to strike / jar the chest / face of my opponent. and so I add “jow”. But all the footwork is generally spot on, the diversion and attack seamless. Because I spent time and effort on learning the hard way. I.e. learning techniques that had isolated different skills until they were internalised and then being able to combine such skills as I wish.

Conversely I spent last night bringing some reasonably competent kickboxers back to basics with seven-star step tui shou and applications. This is often required.

Good conditioning, power and speed (all necessary) can often carry someone through journeyman level bouts, it acts as a “martial skirting board” hiding the cracks, joints and poor craftsmanship of the technical application, but to beat world class athletes you need near perfect movement, angle, timing and dynamic structure and an innate reflexive awareness of how to apply such. This is why I drill all my sanshou fighters in traditional Wudang tui shou and sanshou drills, sparring is of course essential, but it is not enough!

I think the contemporary thinking has rightfully pushed against the many ineffectual traditional martial arts practices and practiced, but perhaps in some cases the pendulum has swung too far into the much admired punk DIY ethic, assuming good technique will automatically manifest itself through simply sparring. It’s kind of like the Irish built environment, many thought Architect’s (the word means master builder) were a waste of time and money, and contractors designed and built all over the place. Some of it was o.k. fling enough at a wall I guess, but you got to admit there’s a hell a lot of pure ****e out there. Likewise in MA, good skills will not come from traditional styles nor from modern methods but from “masters” in the traditional sense, i.e. those with plenty of experience guiding and training their students with their hard won thorough understanding. It’s not that traditional arts fail, it’s that some teaching such fail to understand their curriculum’s relevance, nor will a modern “scientific” approach work if it simply amounts to building muscle groups, speed and mindless repetition. It’s also nice to blame styles, systems and methods; it means we can forgive ourselves.

“To walk through the gate, and be lead along the path, oral instruction is necessary!”