Archive through December 26, 2002

Tim's Discussion Board: Tim's Featured Articles: Combat to Sport: Archive through December 26, 2002
   By Tim on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:50 am: Edit Post

This is an interesting article on the argument that combat sports are somehow inferior to deadly, "streetfighting" martial arts as preparation for self defense in the real world. Especially interesting is the concept of developing a "delivery system."

Tired Debate

by Matt Thornton

Taken from Straight Blast Gym Website

Subject: tired debate

I see some of you still don't understand the distinction. The street vs sport, BJJ has rules, grappling should include biting, hair pulling, etc, is a straw man. It's a tired and meaningless debate. Its also the excuse that every master of DEAD martial arts from the traditional schools uses to explain his arts non effectiveness in a full contact environment. So anyone seeking to use this argument should be wary.

Let me be as clear as possible. I will borrow some of Dan Inosanto's terminology here, and yes Mr Inosanto is a Black Belt with the Machados, whom I consider some of the best GRAPPLING coaches in the world. (Try biting Rigan sometime, I worked it with him once and it sucks!).

You need to make a distinction between a "delivery system" and a sporting application of an art. As an example we will use a man I admire very much, Renzo Gracie. Renzo could see a bite, a foul tactic, a version of an armlock, from Silat, or White Crane, or Yellow Monkey Fever, etc etc, and probably be able to INTEGRATE and apply that move very quickly. Why? Because he already has such a strong base on the ground. He understands the positions, and he has a great delivery system. Compare that with say an Aikido stylist. He may see the same application for a bite, or a choke, etc, but never be able to effectively use it. Especially against a wrestler or another groundfighter. Why? Because he doesn't have that delivery system.

Mo Smith could see a punch or a kick or an elbow, from just about any striking art and probably apply it very quickly to his game. Why? Because he has a STRONG BASE in the delivery system of western boxing. Boxing has the body mechanics, footwork, timing, etc, that allow Mo to INTEGRATE those moves.

Randy Couture could see a sweep from say. . Judo, and probably use it right away. Why? Because he has a strong base in wrestling, and Greco.

My main job at the SBG is to see that everyone that walks through the door develops that strong base in the delivery systems of stand up, clinch, and ground. Because they have a strong base in BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, etc, DOES NOT therefore mean that they are "Sport Fighters". That's faulty logic and poor assumptions.

In fact some SBG Instructors, including myself, spend a large percentage of time teaching law enforcement, and civilian self defense. Many drill daily using "foul tactics". It would be a HUGE mistake to assume that because they are very good at the delivery systems that they are not self defense orientated.

Without a strong base on the ground, on your feet, and in the clinch, you can attend every "streetfighting" seminar in the world. Study every grappling art in existence, and still never be much of a fighter. That's the problem with the JKD Concepts paradigm. Does that mean all JKD Concepts people are like that? Of course not. Some have taken the time, and the pain that's involved in earning that strong base.
continued. . . . .

I have people walk through my Gym door every week from out of town. They are here to take privates, and many aspire to be SBG Instructors. The first thing they do is roll on the mat, and most cannot hang with the white belts at my Gym, let alone the Blue or Purple belts. Then they box, and often they turn their back, reach out, fold under the pressure of being hit. It's just an environment they are not used to. They go away with a list of things to work on, a true knowledge of where their real skill level is, and hopefully a positive and productive experience. But, they do not go away with Instructors certificates.

In a few cases I have looked online and seen that a Month or so later these same people have traveled to other JKD Instructors and become "certified" Instructors. I think that's fine. But that's not what the SBG is about. Even if someone says that the only goal they have is to teach beginners 'self-defense', they still must OWN a good BASE in stand up, Clinch, and Ground. That doesn't mean we are a SPORT Gym. It just means we have high standards.

Once that BASE is acquired, then an athlete can go on to integrate other moves, or ideas very easily. They will be able to put those moves into CONTEXT because they have a strong base of skill. Without that base people become lost in a classical mess very easily. Led astray very easily, because they just don't understand.

A purple belt in BJJ who knows how to bite and gouge eyes is a COMPLETELY different beast from a "streetfighter" who bites and gouges eyes but doesn't have the base in that 'delivery system'. If you want to be a good fighter, and reach your own personal full potential, you MUST have that base.

Also, I do not dismiss the danger of blades. In fact I know just how dangerous they can be, and so does every other SBG Instructor. They are part of the curriculum, and they are addressed. But, I am very wary of people who talk about cuting arteries, and stabbing people in the guard, etc. Many times (not always) these people tend to be the kids that got picked on in school, lack a certain sense of self esteem, etc. I believe that people like this can be greatly helped through SPORTS. Whether it's boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, NHB, etc. This type of athletic event can help someone like this gain real self esteem. But too often, instead of going down that route they I see them being drawn into the "streetfighting/ tactical" stuff. And I think this usually just increases there paranoia and fear, and eventually leads to anger.

This is why I think the sports paradigm is much healthier. The weaker members of our society are the ones that can use sports to improve their life the most. True self defense skills like awareness, maturity, lack of substance abuse, firearms, pepper spray etc, can always be added. And should always be added. But the scared kids that get picked on are best helped through sports, and they are the ones I enjoy teaching the most because I have seen such a productive and great change that sports can bring to them.


Article courtesy of Matt Thornton


   By Man from Missouri on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:15 pm: Edit Post

Tim,

In your opinion, what constitutes a good 'delivery system?' Also, isn't 'clinch' an aspect of 'stand up?' The distinction seems strange to me.

Steven


   By Jeff on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 08:40 pm: Edit Post

That is an interesting and well thought out article, and I do agree that sports are healthier than fighting, are generally more effective in improving the lives of people that play them, and have an important place in the curriculum of a martial arts school. But I am still not convinced that sport-based approach is the most effective approach to combat.

The fundamental framework of sports is the idea of what can happen in a situation in which both sides have an even chance of winning, so that the game is such that the one with more skill will win.

However, in non sport situations - "If you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan well enough." Being effective in this realm involves learning how to be sophisticated and cagey about never, ever giving anyone a "fair" chance. This goes directly contrary to the underlying idealism of sports - "may the best man win." Instead it aims at mastering the art of breaking the rules, or rather, of using any unrealistic expectations held by your opponent against him so that you can dictate the nature of the fight to your advantage. I.E. Box a wrestler, wrestle a boxer, shoot a MMA fighter, kidnap the children of a gun nut, crash airplanes into the WTC, etc. "Breaking the rules" is not a superficial addition on top of a sport-like BASE, like biting in a grappling match, rather it is a fundamental tactical principle of always targeting the BASE of your opponents effectiveness in such a way that they never see it coming until they are crushed like an egg under a boulder.

So I dont think you necessarily need to be an accomplished athelete and sportsman to be an effective fighter. All you need is to be able to box better than a wrestler, wrestle better than a boxer, shoot better than a MMA fighter, and realize your "personal full potential" to be a heartless vicious suicidal fanatic hellbent on murder and mayhem. Look at Columbine High School, it wasn't the football team that "won" that "game."


   By Chris Seaby on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 12:08 am: Edit Post

The way i understand it, MT is arguing that you have to 'play' within a set rules or guidelines (limit the possibilities) initially to know them inside out, find the patterns and rhythms inherent within them, maybe crack the 'universal code' if you like.

Once you've achieved that (through a huge amount of hard work) you should then have the capacity of going BEYOND the rules, being able to intrepret and adapt to NEW situations with relative ease and confidence, having a base or solid foundation to work from.

I'd contend that 'simply' breaking the rules IS a superficial, artificial, and mechanical response, assuming of course you 'know' what the rules are.


   By Tim on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 03:56 am: Edit Post

MFM,
As for a "delivery system," I'd say it's the concept of developing a framework of practical skills (most notably set-ups, entries and controls)for strategic superiority. Techniques are added into the framework once it is developed.

Some schools divide fights into "ranges," long range (punching and kicking primarily), short range/clinching (knees, elbows, headbutts and standing grappling to throws) and ground fighting.
I believe the author is making a distinction between standing striking ("on your feet" ) and standing grappling ("in the clinch" ).

Jeff,
You make some good points. And then you say "So I don't think you necessarily need to be an accomplished athlete and sportsman to be an effective fighter. All you need is to be able to BOX BETTER THAN A WRESTLER, WRESTLE BETTER THAN A BOXER, SHOOT BETTER THAN AN MMA FIGHTER...."

According to your definition of an effective fighter you don't need to be an accomplished athlete, you need to be a SUPER athlete (kind of confirming the author's original point, that the best way to develop practical skills is through combat sports, or at least through arts that allow mutual resistance and competition).


   By european on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 07:00 am: Edit Post

Being myself a muay thai & boxing coach and an internal m.arts instructor, I've spent the last 20 yrs researching the effectiveness within the m.arts/combat sports. The main question is NOT if combat sports (boxing, wrestling, muay thai etc.) are effective, you can bet your ass they are, but if people who really need self defense (women, elderly, weak individuals) can ever attain such skill doing those sports. The answer is negative, of course. Combat sports are conceived and enginieered to work for very conditioned, healthy and young people. A techer who promises a skinny girl she will defend herself with boxing vs. bulky rapists is either a fool or a criminal. This is not detrimental to the Noble Art, it's just that boxing and combat sports are for tough guys (or to make them tough in the long run). Can ever a sane person imagine to teach the average family mother, who trains two hrs. a week, let's say wrestling (a fantastic art, let me tell you) and hope she's going to be able to handle a man twice her size?
Another silly aspect of the question is that some not-so-serious teachers keep bragging vs. 'foul' tactics, traditional martial arts etc. WITHOUT having a direct experience in it. I do work as a bouncer, and all my fellow co-workers are combat athletes and combat sports' coaches. Yes, they are the typical big, tough guys. What I can say is that they don't need and cannot deserve time to such a long training such as the chinese internal work, but also they all respect it very much, and now if they had to instruct their sisters/girlfriends in selfdefense, for sure they would think of a teacher in something similar to an art whom was created and developed to estinguish quickly a fight without brutal force, with highly refined skills in redirecting the aggressor's energy away while striking his eyes/throat/testicles/kneecaps. An art who teaches how to relax and use the body as a whole, thus allowing a small person to issue an exploding percussive energy.
Moreover, some childish 'fighing fans' should definitely stop mentioning BJJ as if it was not a traditional art only because it doesn't resemble what karate is in the Usa. It is, and its most prominent exponents (Gracies, Machados etc.)started training full time even before they learned how to walk.

If we are not Hulk Hogan we cannot imagine to fight the way he does, my friends..


   By Man from Missouri on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 12:42 pm: Edit Post

Tim,

The post by 'european' brings up some interesting points. The question 'if people who really need self defense...' and 'combat sports are for tough guys' got me thinking. I once asked you about why Vince Black's classes contained so many difficult calisthenics, like fingertip pushups, etc. You said you thought his idea was that in the 'old days' people lived more difficult lives doing a lot of hard labor and were already strong. So, when they learned martial arts they only needed to learn how to use that strength in the best way. Nowadays, we live mostly sedentary lives and have gotten kind of 'soft.' So, it's necessary to develop a foundation of strength in order for the techniques to be effective. Also, when people live through hardships in life they seem to become 'toughened.' Can that toughness be acquired without actually suffering in some way?Getting your face punched in repeatedly during full-contact sparring may have the same effect, but most people aren't down with that.

And, what about teaching self defense to women and the elderly? You told me that if I just wanted to learn how to fight, you wouldn't teach me Ba Gua. I figured that's because the training is pretty involved. What can people do who are physically weaker, but not willing or able to devote long hours to practice? Buy a gun?!?

Steven


   By Jeff on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 12:32 am: Edit Post

Merry Christmas everyone.

Tim,
Sorry about my poor communication skills. With the "wrestle better than a boxer" statement I was attempting to somewhat metaphorically imply that if, strategically, you make a central principle of the intention to structure the way you engage your opponents so that your strengths are matched to their weaknesses, then your training does not have to aim at making yourself the greatest and most powerful human being on the planet. Instead, it should just aim at getting good at weaseling your way out of ever meeting the opponent on his terms.

Of course, you wont ever win a reputation as a great human being by being a skulking weasel. It wont improve your self esteem, increase health and longevity, help scared kids grow into happy adults, inculcate values of fair play and good sportsmanship, create lasting friendships among practitioners, spread the glory of the traditions of XX-Nation, etc. etc. But it might, occasionally, be able to get you out of a tight situation more effectively than rolling up your sleeves and acting like the hero of a martial arts movie.

What do you think?

PS. Chris - Wow, man, I am super curious about this 'universal code'. What is it, like E=MC2 or something? The formula for cold fusion? The secret to immortality? How bout tossing a fellow pilgrim on the path a little more information, man?


   By Jeff on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 12:36 am: Edit Post

Oh, and MFM,

"...not willing to devote long hours to practice. Buy a gun?"

"Buying a gun does not make you armed any more than buying a guitar makes you a musician" (Jeff Cooper, if I recall correctly).

:)


   By european on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 01:50 pm: Edit Post

The point, 'Man from Missouri' and others, it's not "my martial art's better than yours", I guess. Is it possible to teach boxing/wrestling/thaiboxing/valetudo to a person who CANNOT train and strive as a young lion and expect he/she will ever be able to handle somebody twice as big as him? No.
The purpose these arts/sports have are different from the pure self defense. Of course this must not be understood like if I was saying they are not useful for defense, just they are for steel-tempered athletes who will face people that fight the same way they do, do it fairly and weight almost identically.
It should be avoided as hell to think about specific martial arts outside their environement. I like soccer and I don't care if basketball players jump higher than soccer players; at the same time please don't say they are able to dribble better with their feet because of that superior elevation.
"Winning a combat trophy does not make you a combatant any more than buying a guitar makes you a musician"

Merry Xmas to all of you people there in the Usa.
Peace.


   By Steve James on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 05:49 pm: Edit Post

Hi All,

this is a fascinating thread. I think Matt's article is right on, if the main point is that "sport" combat is an effective base for "street" or actual combat. Of course, an Olympic sprinter will be more prepared to outrun any problems. It might sound funny, but I think it also illustrates the validity of the European. The very young, the very old, and the very weak will always be at the greatest risk. But, they will not *all* be able to train or become competitive with a young, fit street thug. Imo, if that's the ultimate goal of any martial art, then I agree with European --someone is being sold a bill of goods. Well, another example might be a champion mma fighter who has a broken leg. Martial arts training will help, but the issue would no longer be the martial art. :)
Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth!

Steve James


   By Tim on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 07:40 pm: Edit Post

MFM,
You asked if people can become "toughened" without some kind of serious physical (and by extension mental) training. I think the answer is no. I'm not sure why you assume that serious and productive training needs to include "getting your face punched in repeatedly during full contact sparring." Properly trained teachers of combat based styles that include free sparring will understand how to train students in a safe environment (ocassional injury is unavoidable, even in schools that train in a completely cooperative manner).

"Self Defense" is less about conditioning and technique, and more about awareness and survival strategies. If your goal is self-defense, some basic physical skills are all most students will be able to internalize. The most important part of the training should be on awareness, and gradually acclimating the student to stress so they will be more likely to make rational decisions and choose constructive responses in case of the real event. It still helps to be in good shape however. Carrying and being willing to use a weapon you are proficient with is very often also a good idea.

Jeff,
Oh. I agree that it is very important not to fight against an opponents' strengths if you can help it. But these considerations most often only apply to a sporting venue. In the "street", there is usually little time to size up your attacker or investigate his background in the martial arts. In "real fights", I believe the only strategy should be escape (with the exceptions of dust ups, friendly fights and posturing to impress girls).


   By Chris Seaby on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 07:42 pm: Edit Post

Alot of 'successful' fighters from different styles and backgrounds appear on the surface, especially to the uninitiated to have very little in common. However with experience i'd argue that most, especially the 'greats' adhere to a basic 'set' of fundamentals or principles and anyone who trains long enough and hard enough (and possibly with an open/unbiased mind)can discover these.

For me that's simply the base or code, and the differences you see are more to do with fighters emphasising one or more aspects over others perhaps because of different physical, mental, cultural, environmental influences (possibly include socio/political and economic).

As i wrote ages ago, its like tennis and golf swings which can look very different, but again the pros all do the most CRITICAL aspects well, and the best even better. Being able to
FIND and IDENTIFY those for yourself is where all the fun and games start. Again for the same influences as above certain parts of the set may be more important than others to certain individuals.

The silly 'mugs' however come along however and just think they can COPY someone or go to the same coach or school etc and be as great as them.

I find it funny that supposed great
'NATURAL' talents also usually happen to be the hardest workers and sons and daughters of greats are rarely as good as their parents.

SEASONS BEST TO ALL... AND SUNDRY


   By Skeptic on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 07:48 pm: Edit Post

European,
In your first post you said "A teacher who promises a skinny girl she will defend herself with boxing vs. bulky rapist is either a fool or a criminal."

What do you call a teacher that promises the same skinny girl she WILL be able to defend herself against the same bulky rapist with "an art who teaches how to relax and use the the body as a whole, thus allowing a small person to issue an exploding percussive energy"?


   By Dragonprawn on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 08:18 pm: Edit Post

Matt & European both make good points. I am learning that even when two theories on martial arts seem to contradict each other there is often wisdom in both.

Of course from my perspective substituting TCC for SBG in Matt's article would reconcile some things along the lines of what European was saying.

I'm not going to argue that street fight training vs. combat sports is a false dichotomy. It seems clear that the philosophy & training are very different. But I will argue that these are not the only possibilities. My TCC training is qualitatively different from both.

I'm not sure what Matt is trying to insinuate when he speaks of excuses made by masters of "dead" arts. I certainly may have a bone of contention with him on that count. Do you think he is making reference to TCC & other internals?

I mean, the way most people teach, train & understand TCC (even if they do so with self defense applications in mind) they probably do have limited success in tournaments. But TCC done correctly & over a relatively long period of time provides a VERY strong "base".

I would even go so far as to correct European in his assessment of those big bouncer types. They may not need IMA for what they do now, but they should train in them for down the road (especially if they already respect them).


   By Dragonprawn on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 08:38 pm: Edit Post

As I was writing my last post Skeptic was writing theirs so I didn't see it. I feel I must respond.

Skeptic,

On this count European is correct, but at first glance it does seem to be (yet another)contradiction.

If you are unfamiliar with IMAs then I would have to type all night to explain why he is right (though it looks like I'm getting snowed in at work anyway - yes I'm working on Xmas).

My teacher always says he is teaching us to handle the bigger opponents. Using the whole body to yield & counter is the key, but as you might imagine understanding & utilizing IMAs takes a while & is not easy.

While I have respect for Western Boxing & feel it is much more sophisticated than many people realize, it does not have the 4 oz. deflects 100 lbs. philosophy of TCC. That is why, although it might serve someone well in a real situation (after all, it is fairly "real";), there are weight classes in competition.

P.S. As I was previewing my post I noticed that smiley face. I didn't put it there. Can somebody explain to me how the whole smiley face thing works. Then I can use them when I post to the "Magic the Gathering" bulletin boards!


   By Jeff on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 11:45 pm: Edit Post

At the risk of being irritating, I am going to belabor my little point within this broad and interesting discussion. Tim, you say that not fighting against an opponent's strengths is a consideration unique to sporting events, and in the real fighting, the primary strategy is to escape. I would have to say I strongly disagree. First of all, there is an almost unlimited number of objectives that might be relevant to a situation where you need to 'apply' your training. For primary example - where are the rest of your people? You cant very well escape from a location where your wife and kids are in danger, or your friends, or your client, etc. Your objectives in applying the skills you develop in training are only limited by whatever values you choose to take responsibility for cultivating and protecting in this world, and I trust that for most of the enlightened members of this discussion that encompasses more than our individual selves. Which brings us then to the idea that analyzing your opponents strengths and weaknesses is impossible in a situation where you are taken by surprise by an unknown assailant out of the clear blue sky. Very true, but as you yourself state "its ... about awareness and survival strategies." In other words, its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY not to get caught flatfooted and confused by reality, so put some time into developing your all-important awareness and survival strategies. Analyze the types of people that you expect to meet in the types of situations where your values could come under attack. This naturally leads to an alternative training frame from the sports-oriented one - scenario training. Check out how professionals practice, they don't spend all their time honing their target shooting basics and playing paintball. Rather, they meticulously research and build replications of the types of situations they expect to confront, and then practice succeeding in achieving their objective without getting killed. Why not take the same approach ourselves? It is not that difficult to research the situations you can plausibly expect to face - Is it in your car? Your home? The convenience store? The dark parking lot outside of work? Is it going to be the same guys that killed someone last week across town? Those thug kids that live across the street? Drunk psycho crack addict uncle Bob? John Wayne Gacy? Colonel Mustard in the study with the candlestick? When you make a training drill out of analyzing the possibilities inherent in particular hypothetical situations, you start paying attention to things that I don't think you could ever discover as latent 'codes' within the more fundamental technical training exercises. Lines of sight, light sources, accessible communications, etc. And its natural to start orienting your actual physical training around the paradigm of successfully achieving an objective under particular conditions rather than winning a game with general rules.


   By Tim on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 01:42 am: Edit Post

Jeff,
Again, It's my belief that if you are with your wife and kids and are attacked, your first priority should be to escape (taking your wife and kids with you of course, I didn't think that detail would need to be spelled out).

I completely agree about the usefulness of "scenario" training. I think it should be the primary method of training for "self defense" once the basics are understood.

Come to think of it, "scenario" training exercises are very much like sport martial arts (games/competitions) played in different settings. "Professionals," like soldiers, play war games as a kind of competition (with rules) that approximates the conditions they will meet on the battlefield. Kind of like a combat sport (at least that's what it looks like on the Discovery Channel). Wouldn't that make scenario training part of the same training methodology suggested by Matt in the article above?(i.e. develop a strong base of practical skills so you have the delivery system to absorb new techniques and modify existing strategies to whatever scenario you choose to address).If so, we are saying the same thing.


   By Chris Seaby on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 02:58 am: Edit Post

Jeff its not dead yet, but the horse is labouring.

Tim, exactly; special forces aren't picked as conscripts or from recruitment offices, but from serving soldiers who already have the basic pre-requisite skills, which are then honed with specific training for specific situations.

That said, there might also be a case for 'too' much specific training. Some groups of special forces haven't come off too well (too set in their ways?), when things haven't gone to plan, suggesting as usual some sort of balance is the best way to go.

In respect to issue of self defence for the general public, i think a distinction has to be made between SKILL (quality)and ATHLETICISM(quantity how many,high,fast...).

Modern sport in all forms seems to place more emphasis on the athlectic qualities. I've read that in sports where it is possible to have some meaningful analysis of data, that in the last twenty or thirty years skill levels have basically stayed the same, while the athletic abilities have increased rather dramatically. A cynic might note, that the period is roughly synomous with the widespread use (abuse) of drugs and that in general skillful movements are not positively modified by drugs, in some cases they are reduced.

The 'rules' of modern sport are such that they may bias the situation in favour of the 'athlete' rather than the skillful, but in the real world, where the options maybe less limited, i would think the skillful are at less of a disadvantage.

This gives hope to the wily veteran and women and the other 'physically' challenged. I would add that athleticism suffers quite badly from diminishing returns (limited), while alot skills can be almost continuously refined. The downside is those skills become less transferable (always remember to keep up the fundamentals), while if your six feet five, you'll still be that in all situations.

I hate writing long posts, if you can't say it quickly and succintly.... you aint got it yet.


   By Jeff on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 03:29 am: Edit Post

Well, if I can manage to end up agreeing with both Matt Thornton and Tim Cartmell in a single thread, then I am going to go to bed tonight feeling like I am in pretty good company (at least in the world of internet martial arts chat boards) :)

By the way, another guy who has a lot to say about senario training is Tony Blauer, for examples you can check the archived threads on his board at MMA.TV, the one concerning development of SPEAR has some particularly interesting stuff about what he calls "BMF" training.


   By SysOp on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 12:26 am: Edit Post