So, most martial arts are useless?

I did some Tae kwon do a few years back and it was all competition training. Their aim was to train me to score points against a similarly trained opponent, not defend myself against an attacker.

So maybe it's not the martial art that's useless, just the type of training you receive.

There's no such thing a useless or superior martial art. It all depends on the individual. I've heard many people say TKD is useless because its mostly kicks invloved. There's other styles like Capoeira and Wing Chun that would also be considered useless by many.

When the UFC started in 1993, their aim was to determine which MA was the best. A BJJ fighter ended up wining the first competition so it was assumed the it was the best. Now all UFC fighters are cross trained, so again it depends on the individual. Some people are just naturally tough irrespective of the martial art they train in.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

LOL. I'm basing that on 15 years of doorwork, at lets say, 2 fights on friday, 2 fights on saturday, and no trouble whatsoever the rest of the week, a very conservative estimate would be 3000 fights.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of those 3000 fights would you say went to the ground?

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well if a top Shaolin monk got into a street fight with a top UFC fighter - who do you think would win?

If it was a street atop a mist covered mountain then without a shadow of doubt the monk has it in the bag..

The difficulty with this question lies in perception.

What is a style? Well style in any art is a peculiar way of executing technique. Its composition is somewhat different to other styles in form or structure etc.

In martial arts, even grappling arts say, take the double leg take down. From my experience (see the difficulty now? I have only my own limited experience, which forms how I perceive reality / truth to be, and I also know truth is unobtainable ) , anyway, from time to time I have competed against or sparred Judo, BJJ, Sambo, Shuai Jiao etc. guys, I have noticed that they tend to “fall into the throw” almost start to kneel when they take the knees, pushing and falling into the void (the direction where the opponent has no supporting leg – obviously this can be forward or back) This allows them to be lower, adding their weight to the takedown (pulling down) and makes a defending standing sprawl slightly more difficult to achieve, an issue of timing.

Now, in my style, Tai Chi Chuan, there is a concept of yin-yang in balance, so the legs would be seized at the knees similarly, but the opponent is hoisted / butted up with our shoulders under his ribs, and turned (turning his void) to be thrown in the direction of one of our legs (substantial) so allowing stability and the ability to recover by bouncing back out of range.

2.10 of clip explains….

http://youtu.be/7xfNAUfME2c

This is one example; styles will differ with leverage preferences, guard preferences, angle, positioning and all the many many areas we study in martial arts.


Through the ages many styles have created specific training drills and programmes to develop the attributes of the style. You may for example hear of “shen fa” in Chinese Martial Arts, (body method). This refers to how power is generated and received while fighting. There are as many “Nei Gung” systems as there are styles in Gung Fu.

Tai Chi Chuan is often referred to as “a trap”, we seek to “lead the opponent into the void, enticing him with profit, so we can use 4 ounces to destroy 1000 pounds” (Fighter’s song) Our Nei Gung system therefore consists of 24 exercises related to martial technique, 12 Yin (to develop fluidity and train the body how to receive force) and 12 yang (to train the issuing of force) The first stage of training unifies breath with movement, beginning and finishing together, the second stage unifies “intent” and movement, so the body does as its commanded, properly, and also so we condition ourselves to KNOW our own limitations, how to fluidly open and close and so the possibilities of recovery WITH POWER (directions, angle etc.) The third stage is called “unity with Dao” here we “know ourselves”, all the potential of continuous yin-yang harmonious movement (and so infinite recovery and counter options) and we understand and can “ting” listen to our opponent and know his AT EVERY MOMENT, through practice of “seven star awareness” we keep in peripheral vision, our and our opponents seven stars (Head, Shoulders, Elbows, Hands, Hips, Knees, Feet) and the surrounding terrain, this is what it means to “embrace the one”, or “Unity”.

Article here by Cheng Tin hung:
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/articles/197xv1n4_1.html


Such “Nei Gung” training is essential for a Tai Chi “Fighter” to be able to ply his trade! The system has other “Gung” methods, Handstand on fists for 2 minutes, followed by 3 sets of 80 rolls done in 2 minutes with 1 minute rest between, 3x3minute “rolling thunder” punching (180 per minute) trying to drive back the pad man, him trying to absorb and structure himself, 3x3 minutes “running rolling thunder” (simple stripped down pad exercise where pad man runs back – good for him incidentally- moves forward, stops and starts, the job of the puncher to develop his range and angle and awareness and to drive back the pad man with punch impact) rolling thunder punching holding 2kg weights in hands for 20 minutes.
Many other punching and kicking and throwing drills exist that MUST be practiced to gain skill and power. And OF COURSE sparring and wrestling resistant partners is part of it, as Cheng Tin hung says in his article above:

“Lacking any or part of any stage, the product is just a cripple.”


And so we start to cut through “le bla bla habitual” of this tedious “style versus style” argument and have to ask:
Does everyone who practices Tai Chi Chuan train like this every day? If not and if the most outstanding grandmaster of the 20th century calls those who don’t “just a cripple” how can one base the “relevance” and “effectiveness” of the “style” on such “cripples”?

Yet many will insist that Tai Chi has no relevance as most “schools” do not fight, I say they do not practice Tai Chi Chuan but “TuFu Chuan”.
All over Ireland there are DIY stores selling, and I use the term loosely, “cubist-influenced” prints to decorate homes throughout the country, people like them and buy them obviously, they are considered trash by any artist, does this mean Picasso was crap? Does it mean that cubism should be considered only as “home décor”?


And so we come to it – “Zhen Chuan” (True Transmission), Chinese Gung Fu is hung up about it! It is not limited to Gung Fu! In 2003 I witnessed an MMA team get destroyed in a sanshou competition in the UK. Despite all their protein shakes between bouts they were embarrassing to witness. They had no “Gung”. I would not expect the same from SBG Ireland’s students; they have clearly demonstrated they possess a “Zhen Chuan”. But BJJ is derived from the best Judo fighters, passed down through men who challenged all and therefore most importantly themselves! It’s a relatively “young” art, and hasn’t yet strayed too far (teacher to student) from its founders, much as Tai Chi was in the nineteenth century Beijing when the best put-down other rival styles could muster was “Tai Chi is superior but cannot go outside for 10 years” , meaning it was difficult to master.

Though my experience with Tai Chi Chuan I have formed the opinion that martial arts get watered down through public exposure. Most people seem to look for short-cuts, cheats in a way, secrets and magic to transform them into fighters. 9 out of 10 people who have come to train with me do not last long, I am not brutal! I don’t hurt my students, but the training is extreme, and maybe not so suited for modern life? I have had the opportunity to ask some of those who gave up why, and they tell me of aches and pains that last days, funny thing is these happen with any sport, try swimming! And go away, or we just get used to them after a while. But I don’t feel that true martial ART is a “hobby” it’s a lifestyle! I teach in UCD these last couple of years, so I do have some “drop-in” type students, I do my best with them, but at 36 I am shocked sometimes at the poor level of fitness and stamina some early 20’s men can exhibit. Basically I feel restricted in what I can do for them, a few have either been embarrassed or inspired, stepped up to train properly and are now currently British Champions.


Why do I say this, well, if I had to rely on martial arts solely to put food on the table, I would have no choice but to water down the training (and so make it not ineffectual, but a pale shadow of what it is) in order to keep the “drop-in” bread and butter students. I understand that is what most if not all “fighter” gyms do as well, public and fighter classes.

In Gung Fu this idea is old, Public student versus Disciple. Before the Bai Shi ceremony in Tai Chi Chuan the student, chosen by the master, must swear to certain “commandments” one of which, is that we practice diligently not only for ourselves but so we can pass down and preserve the art for future generations. Once accepted the student is then taught the Nei Gung and other “inside the door” methods. It is not intended as “keeping secrets” but rather “quality control”.


All of this being taken into account,

The lack of proper training in many “traditional schools”, especially the boring and fundamental stuff! Usually the stuff that trains stamina, intent and power, in other words the ability to weather the storm, the drive to keep on going, ignoring such transitory annoyances such as pain or injury, or even the shadow of a thought of succumbing to fear, and the ability to dish out punishment that will break the opponent or his intent!

The rarity of “Zhen Chuan”, my Sifu Dan Docherty once told me “there are only ever a handful of Tai Chi fighters in any generation”, compared to the many charlatans peddling their wares. I’m sure given the martial arts class on every corner this is true for ALL styles!

The need for instructors and coaches to feed themselves and the masses seeking quick-fix effortless solutions.

I would have to agree “most (of what is publically perceived to be) martial arts is useless”. But I would also believe that the “Zhen Chuan” of any art (IF it ever existed) probably does what it says on the tin.

PS
OP my art is not a “sport style” but we use sport to develop and test ourselves.
Cheng Tin Hung was 1957 middleweight Chinese boxing (lei Tai – early Sanshou) of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia. He also got the nickname “Tai Chi Bodyguard” for fighting with fists and sabre, carrying several scars of such.
His Student Dan Docherty main sports achievement, (he won several tournaments) was winning the Open Weight Division of the SE Asian Chinese Full Contact competition (he was 84kg) in 1980 (the K1 / UFC of the day)
He has had many many successful students, as CTH had, wasn’t just Dan. Dan has guys like Paul Mitchel who was mentioned earlier - European Kaoshu and World Shuai Jiao Champion, Kamal Locke who took UFC Ian “the machine” Freeman to decision. Neil Rosiak (one of the first guys to introduce kettlebells to the uk) who had many Vale Tudo victories, his students include Cage Rage’s Sami Berrik, and Richard Lewis (heavy weight world Kaoshu Champion), Sami, myself and Vince Sessegnon all competed in pro-sanda around the same time, I went on to be raked 4th in world rankings 2005, Sami went into cage fighting, Vince into boxing ranking in Light-heavyweight European. I could go on all night, and it wouldn’t be fair, someone would be forgotten, I haven’t mentioned any of my own students, many of whom are international champions.
Dan was also in the Hong Kong police for 10 years, Vice.

So guess I’m saying that we probably have proved our “Zhen Chuan” again and again, not a lot of styles can turn their had to so many formats? BUT the thing is ask any of us, we compete to progress our art, not to win medals, in other words, we don’t corrupt our art with safe ineffectual sporting techniques, sometimes to our detriment in order to win events. An example would be “low kicks” in sanshou, I use the technique of course, I broke my opponents leg in 2003 British Open with one, but I have come across sanshou schools that train their fighters to use it all the time like a jab, as its one point score, (a clean throw is 2) obviously it’s easier to pull off a low kick than a clean throw where you remain standing. A good low kick, or several are devastating when used properly but you can score with kicks that might look the same in sanshou, if you’re playing the rules rather than fighting. Also I often feel that the majority of judges haven’t an idea, goes for some of those formulating rules too. For me I used to shift the body and turn the knee into an oncoming low round house to injure my opponent, but sometimes I felt they scored them for the opponent though he was visibly hesitant and hurting, why? Because I didn’t clearly raise my leg and block with the shin, which judges are trained for. There are other details like this that separate sport from fighting, but by in large competition and training for it is the best way to develop timing, distance and angle!
Therefore competition results are the only way I would assess a martial art without actually giving it a go. So I would be fairly confident about a school that has success in a full contact format, but would be aware they could be using the rules, unless of course their success crossed a few formats. I couldn’t make any assessment of a school that doesn’t compete without actually training with them.
My advice, for a hobby go for what’s nearest, for serious training remember what I said about “fighters” or “disciple” and “public”, you might have to put in some time to earn your way in. But at least it’s a possible and direct path. “Style” is irrelevant!