Ultimate Fighting

[viskous]

i just wanna say one thing truly traditional martial artists did train with everything they had they did do alot of the hardcore training that mixed martail artists seem the characterise as there new invention, what people refer to as traditional martail arts schools are schools that teach one incomplete art, but thats not tradition............................i'd also like to say that the line between a mixed martail artist and a "tradiational" martail artist is very fine......for example ive never heard anybody refer to shoalin monks as mmartists but they trained many different styles night and day......the tradition lies in the training not in the art.........like why must we all train muay thia and bjj to be the best, why not chin na and hung gar? or any other mix aslong as trained with the same intensity........its like saying 5+5 is better then 6+4........see my point.....i'd also like to say that we can not all test ourselves in the ufc or in any nhb way, alot of people train hard but gotta go to work without a black eye and still could defend themselve if they put effort into it without full contact

[Adonis]

depends on the techniques being employed. IF they aren't high percentage moves you can work on alot of resiting opponents your not going to fair to well especially if giong for them leaves you open.

[Sauzin]

The saying goes that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Karate may teach grappling to an extent, and it may work against other people who do karate or are untrained. The problem is, most people who teach karate grappling have less experience than say a 3 month white belt. It doesnt matter whether it not its "in the curriculim" but rather on the expertise of the instructor. Strikes are in the BJJ and Judo curriculum, but you dont hear anyone claiming that they got their striking skills from those arts.

Because they don't need to.

I'm having a difficult time breaking this part down but let me give it my best shot. A complete art isn't about grappling and striking. When you separate these things as much as many non-traditional striking karate schools or Mcdojo's have then you loose something. Same with any school that just looks at grappling. What makes a good strike, makes a good throw. You may disagree with me here and that's fine. But at some point most people come to the conclusion that there are physical principles that make things work. Every art uses them to some degree. The epiphany is that you're not practicing how to throw or lock up someone you're practicing a principle, that if in a given situation a throw, lock, strike or any combination of the above happen to present themselves that it will be the principles you practiced that allow you to do it. Not the technique. Because the opening for a technique might not be there, but the principle will aways work. You just have to know how to apply it.

So to say that a karate practitioner has the equivalent of a 3 month white belt in a grappling art is inaccurate in my view. He doesn't even have that. What he has is a certain development of principles, that if he's learned, he can apply as well with a strike as he can in close. As I have learned recently, even on the ground, principles remain.

Usually what happens when you see someone who works more on principles then techniques is most things he does are a combination of strikes and grappling. When you've got principles you learn to do whatever presents itself, effortlessly flowing and combining both. In fact it looks less like a combination and more like the whole thing was set up from the beginning as one technique. But it's never performed the same way twice.

Now it is true. Many karate "traditionalists" have fallen victim to practicing techniques and without realizing the broadness of the principles. But is the same not true of grapplers, even mixed martial artists? How about we not assume that all that exists in an art is what we've seen from the masses? As I said, any art looses things like the understanding of principles over techniques when it is catered to the masses.

As far as not practicing resistance, I agree here. Practicing with a resisting opponent and an understanding of what a resisting opponent might do is critical. There are two problems though. When you are first learning principles, too much resistance too early on prevents you from seeing their effect. You have to get good at applying the principle before it works well against any or all types of resistance. So first you start off with minimal resistance. Then you build.

The second problem is safety. The effect of a good principle against full resistance is often painful, debilitating, or worse. So you have to learn safeties and control. Not automatic control. Real control. This also requires a gradual building process.

As far as the adrenalin rush and targeting goes, I also agree. Fine motor control and especially targeting while under increased stimuli and no time is definitely not something that should be taken for granted. That's why you need techniques that target for themselves. As a grappler you know that you have to learn to feel where the joint is and you have to have techniques that place themselves there automatically without having to make unnecessary on the spot changes to what you practice to make them work. It needs to work instantly and to do that your technique has to place itself guided only by your feel and instinct. This is true of traditional karate as well. Karate should work blind. Techniques should place themselves. The primary use of looking should be for balance and focus, not to identify an attack or target. You should feel those things coming before your opponent even thinks about it or realizes it's there.

In my opinion karate works very well against non-lethal combatants after about 3 years depending. Before that it might help, but chances are you're going to hurt someone, possibly yourself if you try to water it down and use it. Usually by the time you're a black belt you're in enough control to know what needs to be used and what doesn't. Still this isn't much of a gain in my opinion since, unless I feel a life is on the line, I'm either leaving or not there to begin with.

Lastly, while I don't want to turn this into another kata/form debat, I really feel that's what it all really boils down to when you're speaking Traditional vs MMA. The only real way to practice full bore, no rules, go all the way, is to do it without an opponent. This is the only way to remove the body bag factor. This is what kata/forms are. Yes resistance is important, so no I don't think kata should be practiced alone, but if you get rid of kata, of practicing everything you got, no holds barred, then you risk seeing arts that don't train lethality and rarely understand principles over techniques. If you get rid of resistance drills then you risk seeing arts that practice things that don't work. You need both, and I don't think you can judge any art just by looking at one or the other, which is why I don't think that UFC is by any means the ultimate judge of an art.

[moneygqj]

Martial arts are great, they teach you respect, honor, discipline and are a great way to get in shape. Some martial arts may also teach you principles in which to defend yourself, but the bottom line is, learning one martial art will not make you a great fighter.

Take anyone that has only trained in one MA (judo, karate, BJJ, etc) and they would get pummled by anyone who traines in MMA.

The key word here is mixed. You cross train in many arts to become well-rounded.

[AndrewGreen]

Just out of curiousity, What principles of working from guard has karate taught you? How about defending a shoot?

The principles idea is a nice idea, but I'd like to see someone make it work in practice, not just as a idea and that is where it usually falls apart...

[Sauzin]

You know for the longest time I didn't think much of what we do worked on the ground but I've since learned differently. Principles that translate to guard positions are fulcrum and lever, isolating a limb to gain control, overextending your opponent, working in your power zone, redirecting an opponent's force while collapsing, joint trapping especially against the ground, and weight shifting and timing while doing so.

Defending against a shoot was something I was playing with last month and again last week. The primary principles I used there, weight dropping/shifting, splitting the attack, redirecting an opponent's force, and dynamic use of low stances. Each of these principles used other principles such as fulcrum and lever, what happens to a body in motion and one portion of that body gets stopped, how to generate power by dropping weight, a low center of gravity makes something harder to tip over, etc...

Really there are too many to list.

As far as making them work, well I'd like to think that they work pretty good for me. Having seen my sensei use these principles I have to say that I'm no where near the definitive testament to what can be done though. I'm a work in progress.

[AndrewGreen]

What was the grappling experience of those you made these things work on?

[Sauzin]

Admittedly not huge. One guy (who was amazingly strong) had about a year of Judo the other 2 guys had high school wrestling. As I said, I'm a work in progress. The more experience I have in applying these principles and refining their practice the better the results will be. So far, so good. But if at some point, something that I try doesn't work then I'll either learn more about the principle I'm applying or I'll work a slightly different set of principles. That's why I have a sensie and why I'm always looking for test subjects.

[AndrewGreen]

I would reccomend finding some higher level opponents to test on. Neither Judo or High School wrestling give people great ground skills, both of them tend to focus far more on takedowns and pins then groundfighting.

[SubGrappler]

Just out of curiousity, What principles of working from guard has karate taught you? How about defending a shoot?

The principles idea is a nice idea, but I'd like to see someone make it work in practice, not just as a idea and that is where it usually falls apart...

This is the very emphasis Im trying to make.

Once again, in theory, you're very correct. Principals are very usefull things that should often be followed. Now, first thing Im interested in is this statement

When you separate these things as much as many non-traditional striking karate schools or Mcdojo's have then you loose something.some point most people come to the conclusion that there are physical principles that make things work. Every art uses them to some degree

Once again, this is yet another theory in martial arts that sounds very logical. Physical principles allow many techniques to work, but theres a huge difference between mind and matter. The idea of practicing a move is to get your body to do what you're mind wants it to. There can be so many details to a single technique that its almost ridiculous and those are the times when it pays to have a competent instructor who's qualified in whatever hes teaching.

For instance, I know practically all the same principles and techniques that my instructor does, yet he still manages to tap me out. The reason is due to human error. A skilled teacher is going to be able to teach techniques with much more proficientcy than someone less skilled, much the same way a general with combat experience is going to be a much better leader than some recruit fresh out of camp. My instructor has performed the same techinques he taught me thousands of times more than me, which is why he wins.

According to your theory, everyone wins, which is impossible. A striker does everything right when his wrestling opponent attempts a takedown, so he shouldnt be taken to the ground. On the other hand, a wrestler shoots in and does everything right, so theres no possible way that his opponent can escape. Thats when it comes down to who's more proficient at the move they're attempting. If a wrestler does everything right in the clinch and a striker does everything right from the same position, who's going to win? The person who's better at their respective move. If the striker is better at breaking the clinch than the wrestler is at finishing the clinch, then he'll break free, and vice versa. Then there is also the the concept of timing as well (i.e. a "well timed shot", or a "perfect punch") which give considerable advantage to whoever executes the move.

Martial arts/fighting is a great enigma. Sometimes it can be a complex mental game with so many possibilities. Then there are times when its something pure and simple as a physical skill. Fighting is a physical activity, therefore the physical aspect of it is going to be the most important. I believe the mental aspect of it becomes more and more important the closer in skill the two fighters are.