Combative Martial Arts: Aren't they all?

[bushido_man96]

This struck me a while ago, and so I thought I would open it up for discussion.

It seems odd to me that we consider some Martial Arts as combative arts; shouldn't we consider all MAs combative?

I know we have the different headings and what not as identifiers and the like, and perhaps this is just a point of semantics. Is there something that now lends some of the MAs to be more combative than others? Perhaps the training methods? Perhaps the philosophy behind the style? Perhaps it depends on the person training, their ideals and mindset?

What do you think?

[tallgeese]

I think that "combative" can encompas alot of things.

For starters, I think arts need to look at what they are primarily training for. If the main focus is on anything other than defending ones self, then it is less combative than one that primarily focuses on this. Combative arts are, by definition, one's whose prpimary purpose in use in combat.

Mindset is a second key that goes hand in hand with the first of my staements. You must be mentally training to hurt someone, bottom line. That's the mental preperation needed to prepared for a fight.

I think that certain training methodologies lend themselves to conducting a combative martial arts class. For instance, an art which focuses on fluid attack and defense is probibly getting the student more prepared for a fight quicer than one which focues on less than real simulations. Contact stressed from time to time will also go a long way to prepping a fighter. As will cross training in a variey of arts and ranges. Again, these should all be with the intent of fighting for one's life.

I think that these three things together are what make an art "combative" in nature. Should all martial arts be combative? Yes, they probibly should be. Are they? No, not really.

Lots of schools are focues more on the sport or art side of the ma's without much emphasis on the martial aspect at all. Others train on historical weapons that have no bearing in todays world, again, this is hardly combative (not anymore, 200 years ago....yes, but not now).

It's a shame how so many schools have lost sight of the main intent of the ma's.

[bushido_man96]

Good response, tallgeese.

I think that it is very important for more sport related styles to at times focus on things that allow them to be flexible in a way to work outside of the ring and rules of the sport. This could be said of Boxing, Wrestling, and Olympic TKD. However, most trainers are focused on the sport, because that is what many come to them for, to compete.

I do believe, however, that combat sports can be used for self-defense. After all, most combat sports have their roots in a self-defense version of itself; even Bare-knuckle Boxing was more inclusive of throws and pins prior to the Queensbury rules. All it takes a little bit of extrapolation.

It also appears that many times, our combat sports tend to keep the spirit of contact more alive in their training than many of the more self-defense oriented MAs. It seems the trade-offs work this way: more rules and target restrictions, more heavy contact permitted....more target areas/vital points available/used, less contact. I think that there are more training options available now that allow us to bridge this gap more now than before.

[tallgeese]

Agreed, there are alot of great training options out there now. Cross training is key to expanding your skill sets and should be encouraged.

I do alot of sport ma's if you consider mma training to fall into a sport catagory. But, I think the contact and mindset tools learned there are invaluable for self defense.

[Karateka_latino]

Well, i always thought that the title of the this forum "combatives" was about the arts that doesn't train for sports or have no use in a ring. There are a few arts around there that doesn't have ANY sports like drills.

[bushido_man96]

I honestly feel that the difference between sport arts and combat arts tend to be more related to the training methodology than anything else. I think that many would view JKD as a very combative style, but there is a guy who now competes in MMA competitions (his name escapes me now, but I will find it) and trains in JKD. Its all about adapting the training to suit your needs, I think.

[Karateka_latino]

And you are right. People tend to believe that because you do a sport martial arts you can't be effective in real fight. That's not true, in fact, i think that people who do contact sports are more prepare for a real self defense situation that a person who knows all the "killing hands" but they never do any real drills and sparring against resisting oponents. There'll always be that "what if it doesn't work?" ...

You practiced certain technique like 1,000 times in the gym with the colaboration of your partner and when you find yourself in a self defense situation you try the technique and doesn't work... You lost the element of surprise and now your oponent knows you train some sorth of MA and he's not going to attack you straight forward.

A person who train with a live resisting oponent in a sparring fashion. If he fails to perform a technique, he's used to chain techniques because of his training. He just needs to adapt that sport training to a street self defense. Not easy, but can be done.

[TraditionalDan]

I can only agree with karateka latino, there is a good balance to be struck for self defence to work. But it is also as much about the situation in which you may have to use it.

[Bushido-Ruach]

I have to defend my self-defense here.....if self-defensive techniques are practiced and trained correctly, they have as much possibility of working as simply punching the attacker. To me, the difference is all in the training of your students. Lets face it, people are different.....different sizes, shapes, flexibility levels, etc, etc, and if we are good instructors we will be teaching each individual as they are, individuals.

McTechniques don't work for everyone. Each person can learn what the basic technique is, but it is because of differences that we have so many alternate versions or variations of basic techniques. We should be working with individuals to find the variation that works for them and then drill it into them until it is second nature.

In some situations, an Aikido or Hapkido technique will work were techniques from, say Jujitsu, won't work, which is one reason why I am all for training in MMA instead of just sticking with one art. I do not beleive that one art is better than another, I beleive that each style has weaknesses that other styles have extremely adequate techniques in dealing with that area of weakness in the other.

While there are some techniques where you can't practice in full-contact, there are many, many more that you can to the point that you know that you know that technique WILL work.

In answering Bushidoman, I think that all the martial arts originally began as strictly combative sciences, but down through time some have become sport (Judo to Jujitsu, for example). I think that these sports can still be utilized in self-defense situations, sometimes more so than some who are trained in some karate studios (I have seen some who trained strictly for tournament fighting and then get their butt kicked in street fights because they "tapped" their opponent when striking them the way they train...the guy just looked at him and proceded to wail the day-lights out of him).

I know that all studios don't train like that, and that would be what I would call a non-combative school (not style) of martial art....and people can get themselves hurt thinking they can fight someone who is not bound in their minds by tournament rules. I learned a long time ago that, if you get into a street fight, you will fight the way you train.....that's why I train and train my students in semi-contact to full contact in applicable techniques.....and why I spend soooooooooo much money on protective gear to insure that my stidents aren't hurt during training.

Hasta!

[joesteph]

I have to defend my self-defense here.....if self-defensive techniques are practiced and trained correctly, they have as much possibility of working as simply punching the attacker. To me, the difference is all in the training of your students. . . .

In answering Bushidoman, I think that all the martial arts originally began as strictly combative sciences, but down through time some have become sport (Judo to Jujitsu, for example). I think that these sports can still be utilized in self-defense situations, sometimes more so than some who are trained in some karate studios (I have seen some who trained strictly for tournament fighting and then get their butt kicked in street fights because they "tapped" their opponent when striking them the way they train...the guy just looked at him and proceded to wail the day-lights out of him).

Your thoughts are rather insightful, Bushido-Ruach. The dojang where I study is relatively new, my instructor, who is the owner, training at an out-of-town dojang that's been in business for a number of years and where she earned her dan ranking. I'm mentioning this because the average student where I study is therefore of a lower ranking and limited in experience.

My school is a non-contact one in sparring, but we do self-defense drills that my instructor and her assistant instructor introduce to us. They emphasize that the way we train is the way we will fight in a street situation. What I've found is that our school's average teenage or adult student is very concerned with not hurting anybody. That's not a bad thing, of course, but it limits how realistically self-defense can be presented. I myself am not interested in harming a fellow student too, of course, but I've found that it can get in the way of my own learning, and I've had to prod my "opponent" along, with my instructor knowing that I'm not afraid to take a shot or really feel it in a joint lock. The "tapping" you referred to is actually something that students have to be made to do; they will make certain, and all-too-certain, that their punches and kicks fall short of their target-opponent. I've sometimes been paired with a student who is like that, with the instructor emphasizing that s/he has to try to hit me; it's my job to get out of the way. I've even insisted that my opponent redo the strike because it fell short; I should have felt it against my body, even if it's only a tap. My voice does carry, and when we were doing joint locks recently, I'm certain my instructor heard me insist to my opponent "Crank it up!"--but nothing was said. I do the same with my fellow students, knowing not to strike the face (my instructor is conservative on that point when we do self-defense drills), but at least to tap the body, and even to apply that joint lock pressure until the signal is given that pain is registered.

I remember when I was tutored in Isshinryu by a friend of mine, and we were spending no time on kata, some time on striking exercises, and lots of time sparring. We first started with no safety gear, striking moderately, and then added gear on bit-by-bit because we were soon-enough trying to kill one another. But I learned how to take a punch and hit back.

I would like it if my school permitted controlled contact when sparring, especially since sparring gear is readily available, but it's got to build up, and the individuals who are the teens and adults (especially those of us in middle age) are not of the same mind as I am regarding contact sparring. I'm still new to karate anyway, and I've got time to see what develops. But as my boys grow older, and I really want them to do well in karate, they're going to learn from me, their father, what my father never taught me. They're going to learn how to defend themselves. Not be bullies. Not start fights. Defend themselves.