Don't understand why faith is placed in noncontact arts

[SBN Doug]

And if you want to get technical, bare chested and bare-footed or ring shoes (on a level surface) are not real life a large percentage of the time either.

[White Warlock]

Jumping back in a bit late, but here goes:

Even if some people have witnessed this first hand, how is the conclusion arrived at that this applies to "most" people, and not just the few that were 'observed'?

Hehe, well... as i see it, most people breed, but only a select few should.

 

Seriously though, the basis for the argument about, "most people don't get it" is that... well, most people don't. In my line of work, small business consulting, i encounter thousands of close-minded individuals; people who think they know what they're doing and insist upon the effectiveness of their approach, but who fail to recognize they're simply keeping the boat afloat and not actually sailing to a destination.

 

All in all, what i'm saying is... the vast majority of persons on this planet simply do not delve deep. Essentially, their studies are shallow and they learn only what they need to function. This applies to understanding politics, international relations, economics, child psychology (child rearing), sociology, etc. Martial arts is not merely hitting a bag or entering a ring and making points for a win, yet so many don't really see it as much more.

 

Through my early years, i found my mind constantly challenged by my friends and so i didn't really feel too smart. But, when i joined the military, i was surrounded by friggin' idiots... and that's when i realized that my early years were designed. I chose who i hung around with, and i found out later that my friends were to be physicists, bio-physicists, top-ranking government research analysts, geologists, etc.

 

Where am i going with this? Well, part of the problem with "looking at the big picture" is that we invariably do not. We instead look at our small little pocket of the universe and make assumptions as to how the rest of the world functions, based on the empirical evidence obtained from our personal examples. In the case for these discussions, all of us work out with like-minded individuals. In my case, i work out with those who strive to understand more. Beyond that which is presented.

 

As to generalities, it is 'generally' not a good thing to do, but it is important, nonetheless, to realize that most of us do generalize, to one extent or another, especially when it comes to communicating concepts or ideas to others. For example, i'm sure nobody would be reading my posts if i were to break each and every aspect of my examinations into detailed dissertations. Instead, i shortcut it with generalities, making my thoughts seem less insightful, but nonetheless succeeding in providing a more lucid presentation of my ideas.

Some have talked about "facts" to support this, but I've yet to see any. Only theories.

Facts for my above-stated argument are everywhere, but it is most notable in the way most people respond to (or fail to respond to) international and political issues. It is these facts which substantiate the overall argument.

And last, I've experienced it when running techniques. Time and again, I learn a technique cold, then fall apart when we up the level of force.

You bring up a good point. Prior to 1992, I would get into countless 'friendly' arguments with fellow martial artists about training, and how many schools practiced in a "test tube" environment. Thier systems would work well when subjected to same or similar techniques or under optimal training conditions, but that when subjected to the harsh reality of a street fight... where people "don't fight the way you do, circumstances and terrain are not pristine, and your own body doesn't seem to work quite as well as it did during those friendly training sessions," these very same techniques would prove ineffective or inadequate. Shortly thereafter, the UFCs came to be... validating many of my assertions. Not all, mind you.

 

note: as the UFCs slowly morphed away from a grand educational spectacle for martial artists, into a marketing project geared toward the ignorant masses, the messages i iterated became muffled. Such is the case now and i hold far less value in the lessons provided by the modern-day UFCs, as opposed to the early days.

So.... let's assume that what was meant by this post is HEAVY CONTACT ARTS.

Although it may be fun to add new definitions, i don't think it is necessary to do so. As it stands, most everyone has been using the word, "street" to define what you call "full contact." Since the overwhelming majority of people have been using the definitions of, "non-contact, light-contact, full-contact, and street," i think we're set already and really don't need to redefine things.

[delta1]

...i'm sure nobody would be reading my posts if i were to break each and every aspect of my examinations into detailed dissertations. Instead, i shortcut it with generalities, making my thoughts seem less insightful, but nonetheless succeeding in providing a more lucid presentation of my ideas.

 

Could ya run that by me again...?

 

Just kidding! You make some good points. I would point out, though, that the early UFC's were dominated by grapplers because the strikers did not know how to handle their attacks. Now that strikers are training to defend takedowns, or even cross training, the grapplers are having a tougher time of it. That and some rule changes. As I said, sport is sport, and self defense is something else.

[White Warlock]

I would point out, though, that the early UFC's were dominated by grapplers because the strikers did not know how to handle their attacks.

That is actually one of my assertions, in that i was an avid practitioner of wrestling, judo, and ju-jitsu at the time, yet found so many ju-jitsu schools putting way too much attention to stand-up techniques and other schools (primarily TKD) that were churning out tons of black belts with false confidence.

 

But, that's another discussion.

[White Warlock]

ooo, i just turned red!

[Shawn]

Delta1,

 

When I did Kenpo and Karate, we were taught with moderate/heavy contact and yes I do agree with what you are saying about understanding the mechanics of a technique. I do believe though that there are particular styles that are effective even though they are not trained with full force/contact. For example, when I was a bouncer (crowd controller) I found that I used my Jiu Jitsu the most by far out of anything else I had learned. It worked well in most of the frequent real life situations that were part of my job. These were not simulations and they were with real people trying to attack me and in some instances, multiple attackers... and the Jiu Jitsu worked. But what is interesting is, when I trained in Jiu Jitsu, it was done slowly and gently. Bare in mind, this was not simulations, this was the real thing! We actually did train gently and it still worked. So yeah to summarise, I think that contact training is good and can produce certain positive results, infact, I myself enjoy training this way, but it is not the only way.

 

I guess it comes down to personal preferance.

[White Warlock]

I guess it comes down to personal preferance.

It also comes down to circumstance. In the circumstance of being a bouncer, the opposition isn't initially targetting you... you're more often the third party participant, which lends itself to being given the opportunity to implement submission techniques. Add to this your position of authority, which tends to buffer the likelihood of outright assaults, and you're mainly using the martial arts as a tool of your job.

 

Martial arts can serve as tools for various jobs, but it is when they come into play in surviving a 'life-threatening' altercation that things change dramatically. I worked in the crisis center for mental health and my skills at aikido, conflict resolution, and my tendency to respect people regardless of their condition, worked well as tools. However, in a 'life-threatening' altercation, i abandon the tools of aikido altogether and go right into rending and pounding the crap out of the opposition.

[delta1]

I do believe though that there are particular styles that are effective even though they are not trained with full force/contact. For example, when I was a bouncer (crowd controller) I found that I used my Jiu Jitsu the most by far out of anything else I had learned. It worked well in most of the frequent real life situations that were part of my job.

 

Yes, it works. But Kano proved that a few techniques learned under force are better than many learned without it. And, I have also had to subdue violent patients useing non-destructive techniques. White Warlock is correct, it is a different environment and situation altogether to a sudden, violent assault.

 

Taiji is another art that is done slowly, repetitively, and generally with little force. And it is effective. But, it too is more effective if you take the time to work through the applications, and the effort to test them under force. And, if you've ever seen someone get carried away with push hands- it can get ugly! That's what happens when you get a few externally oriented, competitive ( ! )'s doing the 'gentle' arts.

[delta1]

I'd like to go back a few posts and answer something that has been bothering me:

...light contact training takes an extreme amount of control and thought, and there have been many times where we've had slips in control and someone ends up getting hit pretty hard. That's when we have to re-focus and concentration back to "light contact". Just going from my own personal experience, the natural tendency is to not pull my punches or kicks. Either I'm "different", or the whole idea that training light contact causes bad habits is somewhat flawed....

...the tendency is not to pull punches and kicks, and it actually takes conscious effort to not hit someone. In fact, it happened to me this weekend. My friend and fellow instructor were demonstrating free-flowing sparring, basically where techniques are thrown at one another non-stop, full poweer, but under conrol. Well, i got off-balanced and took a shot to the ribs.

 

First, you are pulling those punches so as not to hurt your opponent. But, even if they land, they are not going to do seriouse dammage. TSG's ribs may be sore, and it may have hurt at the time even. But that is a totally different situation to being in a real fight with the adrenalin flowing and your focus on surviving and destroying your opponent. In a real fight, you wouldn't even feel that shot until much later, probably after the shakes settle down and you start to inventory yourself for dammage. Doing no contact, that is the point of reference you are training, to do minimal dammage at full range of motion.

 

There is a big difference in tagging someone hard and hitting him with the intent to take his head off. The first just makes him angry, the second momentarily stuns him so that he doesn't even see your follow up strike comeing.

 

I'm not saying here that no contact has no value. But it can develope bad habbits, and it does not develope some critical skills for reality situations. You need to periodically fight with contact to develope the timeing, awareness of distance and relative angles, develope your defenses as well as in close weapons, learn to move and check in close... .

 

I just did a light workout with a high school kid that has only ever done no contact sparing. Fortunately, it was continuous sparing. He told me of an experience he recently had- he was cought in a lot by a punk (and everal of this guys friends) who had been harassing him. They fought, and he destroyed the guy, technically. The punk was a bloody mess, and this guy was hardly touched. But he just couldn't put the punk away. He's built like a tank, so he finally just threw the punk down and went into ground-n-pound mode, at which time the punks friends steped in. He was lucky, they didn't pulverize him, but just stoped the fight. Point is, this kid should have been able to KO the punk with a good jab, let alone all the shots he landed. But, they were ineffective, because his point of reference was out at no contact range. He didn't really hurt the punk until he closed the gap and bounced him off the pavement, then sat on him and delivered a lot of force to the target.

 

Oh, the reason I met this kid- he was at my brothers. He wants to start doing contact training.

[DLopez]

I'm not trying to pick on you Delta1, but your recent post of how this guy should have been able to put the other guy away, and concluding that he couldn't because he didn't train with heavy contact is a little bit of a reach.

 

Why isn't the reason that the other guy didn't quit was because he was just a tougher hombre than he appeared? "Occam's Razor" - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

 

It's kinda late now, but this debate about training for real-life begs the question: If "real-life" training is the only way to go, then why, as has been hinted at by KSN Doug, don't we all train in a suit with our dress shoes on, or even jeans and sneakers?

 

I am beginning to understand more of what Shawn said earlier about it just being an ego boost to some, being able to say that they train with heavy contact and then go around like the originator of this thread and proclaim that the rest of us are wasting our time with light/no contact training and are in denial about it.

 

Someone even mentioned that the reason I don't pull my kicks when I kick the bag even though I practice light contact sparring is it's because I kick a bag. To that then, I say "Whatever works!" Because, even if it were true that light contact teaches you to pull kicks, evidently all I need to do is kick the bag and those bad habits go away. So again, where is the need for heavy contact?

 

Anyhow, I don't think that anyone is going to change their opinion, so I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree.