Technical differences between combative and sport arts

[Taikudo-ka]

What do you think are the technical points that differentiate a combative and a sport style of martial arts.

 

The question of which art is what often surfaces on Karateforums. It often degenerates into ridiculing a particular style for being "too sports oriented", or general style bashing.

 

Rather than rehash the old style arguments, I'd like to throw down the gauntlet and ask people to qualify just what they mean by a "combative" martial art. What are the points of your art that you believe makes it "combative", that stops it from just being sport. OTOH, what do you think "makes" a sport art. What would you look for (and maybe avoid)?

[Martial_Artist]

51 posts about this. See url below.

 

http://www.karateforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=3168&forum=25&51

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Hmmm, mostly the old trashing of styles there, or more about the "essence" of martial arts. I'm not asking about the "essence" of budo here, forget all about the names and labels you've heard...

 

I'm saying, imagine there are no "style" names - every dojo out there just teaches something called "fighting", no fancy names. Looking at it from a purely practical point of view, what would you look for to differentiate the "combative/self defense" fighting vs the "sports" fighting.

[Tapout]

Combative vs. Sports...mmm...?

 

I will start with examples... Boxing is a sport yet it's combative... Judo is a sport yet it's combative... Kickboxing is a sport yet it's combative... NHB or MMA is a sport yet it's combative? OK, now won't it make all of these sports "combative sports"?

 

The only arts that are pure combative are the ones trained in the military (Combat Sambo, Krav Maga, SAFTA...) These arts are made for survival on the streets and war, NO GI'S, NO KATA'S, NO BELTS, only combat survival techniques.

 

Yet does it mean that their training is better then others or they can beat anyone up? NO NOT AT ALL no matter what art you know, no matter how many years you have trained in the martial arts, no matter if your a grappler, striker or both, no matter if you a Karate black belt, champion Boxer or a NHB fighter, if you get jumped by 10 guys your gonna get messed up, if you get a knife pulled on you your gonna get messed up, if you get shot at your gonna get messed up, if you pick a fight with some guy and all of his friends come after you your gonna get messed up. The only thing that's gonna save you from all of these events from happening to you is by using your intelligence!

 

http://www.nhbcanada.ca/Photo%20Files/NHBshadow.JPG

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Some good points, Tapout.

 

But by your criteria any martial art could be considered combative. TKD is a sport yet it's combative. (Or is a kick in the head not considered an aggressive move?). Perhaps you are rating the "combativeness" of arts based on their success in NHB type contests? It can be revealing, but I don't think it quite tells the story I'm after.

 

Boxing, for example, you say is a "combative sport". OK, but if we weren't concerned about the sports aspect, and just wanted to make the most "combative" form of boxing possible, how would you go about it?

 

The basic hand work and striking techniques in boxing are fairly advanced, so those would be kept as is.

 

Well, we could start by going back to bare knuckle fighting as the basis for the system. Gloves for full contact sparring but knowledge of proper bare hand striking techniques for actual application.

 

Because the hand is not in a glove, you might want to learn some other useful striking surfaces like the palm heel, hammer fist and elbow.

 

The basic evasive weaving and bobbing maneuvers of boxing are also advanced and effective.

 

To this we might want to add defenses to get out of the clinch when theres no referee, i.e basic grappling defenses - escapes from locks, holds, chokes, etc, plus of course ways to use this against an opponent, by grabbing, clinching, etc.

 

We'd also have to worry about attacks below the belt, attempted throws, tackles and assorted takedowns, etc.

 

Maybe we could go to our rugby football mates to find out about defenses against tackles, stable stances used to hold your own in a scrum, resist leg tackles, etc. Also how to use these against an opponent. They could even let you in on illegal takedowns like the coathanger and other high tackles.

 

You might end up bouncing around less and adopting more stable, subtle footwork for evasion and deception of your opponent.

 

You might even want to add a few low kicks to knees and groin, plus of course using the knee itself, and any other illegal but devestating moves you want to add, like grabbing your opponents head and slamming into said knee. (Not a very sporting thing to do).

 

And of course, with no need to hit "above the belt" you could concentrate on finding the most dangerous points on the body to strike.

 

Yet the implications of these changes could turn out to be greater than you initially think.

 

How would you practise some of these things with the realistic, fight as you train attitude of boxing?

 

 

[Bon]

I don't think you can make a generalisation to say whether it's combative or not.

 

Okay, maybe you can now I think about it..

 

With a lot of the sports, you have to work on technique and skill to hurt the opponent. In boxing, you work on hitting vital points and your timing so when you connect, it hurts! You don't just throw big swings and hit him on the arm, it's not going to hurt. You've been training like this, you get into a fight, you'll automatically start striking at vital points since this is how you've been training, effectively hurting him.

 

Take grappling, a lot of people think the gi takes the reality aspect out of it. This couldn't be further from the truth really.. When working with the gi, you MUST learn technique to get out of holds, the gi makes it much easier to control an opponent, effectively making it harder to get out. The only way you'll get out is with technique. With no gi, it much easier to escape, but most people wear a shirt which can be effectively used to choke, control, them, whatever.

 

In conclusion, I'm going to say if the sport builds up your skill and technique, it's combative. However, I don't consider point sparring a skill!

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

On 2002-07-27 00:16, Taikudo-ka wrote:

 

Hmmm, mostly the old trashing of styles there, or more about the "essence" of martial arts. I'm not asking about the "essence" of budo here, forget all about the names and labels you've heard...

 

I'm saying, imagine there are no "style" names - every dojo out there just teaches something called "fighting", no fancy names. Looking at it from a purely practical point of view, what would you look for to differentiate the "combative/self defense" fighting vs the "sports" fighting.

 

I don't recall trashing the thesis of the posts. Anyhow, what are you trying to get at? You want to know what constitutes the difference between sport and combative, right? Yet, the answers have already been given. Sure both train to punch and to kick, to injure and to win. But you forget, 'sport' martial arts have all evolved from their original combative progenitors. So, in form--for the most part--they're going to look the same. You train to punch in one and the punch in the other, so there's no difference there.

 

So where's the difference to be found? In the core of the art, in its essence. The heart behind sport martial arts is the contest. That is the 'why' behind their training. The heart of combative martial arts is mortal combat, that is the 'why' behind their training. That is the difference between the two. Their core essences defining the approach they take when tackling techniques that are basically similar. Punches, kicks, etc. So, what are you trying to get at?

 

Sure, on the surface they are closely related, but why shouldn't they be when one is spawned from the other? The difference between sport and 'combat' is the reason behind the training in the two category of arts. Boxing is a sport, that's the heart of it. A boxer trains to win the boxing match, set rules, guidlines, etc. Sure it IS combative, but why is not a combative art? Because it is a sport. Could it become a combative art? Sure. Just train to box not in the ring, but on the street without rules, and you've changed the essence behind your training and changed the art from sport to 'combat'.

 

Ranking, as much as my personal opinion deters from it, has no bearing on whether an art is combative or sport. The USMC(United States Marine Corps) has a martial arts program instigated that has belts and a ranking system. Does this mean that it is a sport? That it is useless in combat? You decide.

 

The points behind my art and what makes it 'combative' and not a sport is that I don't train to enter the ring and win a match. Thus my art is not a sport. What makes the art a good friend of mine teaches a sport(Grandmaster Kang of Brother's Tae Kwon Do)? Because they train for the ring and competition. That's why they're a sport and I am 'combatitive'. Our movments may be similar, a punch is a punch, a kick...etc. But not the reason or training that backs them up.

 

Sure a sport martial artist could probably fight on the street. But don't suppose raw emotion, anger or fear--it helps, but can ever suffice for proper training. A sport martial artist is trained to throw a punch, but don't expect that training to be sufficient when more than a trophy is at stake.

 

Also,

 

I have had 1 knife fight, my brother two. Neither of us are messed up. I have fought a guy and his friends, I am not messed up. True as it is that your mind is the greatest asset a fighter possess you must not assume possible things are impossible.

 

Taikudoka, I think you truly missed the point of the posts under the link I posted. The answer to what defines the two(sport vs combat), makes them different is found there. Stated clearly, of course the emphasis was on the individual, then later the art, the answers were still there.

 

Sport vs Combat, the difference is the essence between the two. This essence changes the attitudes behind training and the methods and spirit in which training is approached. Very little differs when speaking of technique. What does differ is the approach to the use of that technique.

 

It's that simple. If you want to talk differences, the core differences, that's them. Maybe, if this doesn't answer your question, you're not stating what it is you really want to question.

 

But even then, combat is fighting. Sport martial artist fight too, just under a different spirit. Combat martial artist fight, but under a differnent light than sport artists. So the defining difference is the essence, the reason behind training and the approach to the techniques being learned. One prepares the fighter for a contest, the other for survival.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Excellent points, thanks. I do agree that intelligence and attitude are the most important characteristics. I contributed myself to the discussion linked above.

 

However, I was trying to get down to some gritty details here, rather than broader conceptions, however noble. The jutsu, not the do, for those into the Japanese speak. Hehe I guess I didn't really expect anyone to reveal their "secrets" here.

 

 

I'll tell you the story that inspired this post, and you decide if I'm on to something or not.

 

I initially signed up as a novice at a particular karate school, with no idea what to expect. I studied hard and thought I was making good progress.

 

However, I began to notice the sports competition focus of the school, and decided to "shop around" a bit. I went to another dojo, and signed up for a lesson.

 

First thing the instructor did was rip apart my stance, pointing out various weaknesses, particularly to a groin kick. He was right, I realized I WAS wide open, but my previous teacher never mentioned it. Perhaps because groinkicks are illegal in sports competition, hence no need to worry about them?

 

Here's another - the roundhouse kick form I learnt was "for kicking the head only", and a slight variation on the form was used for lower body kicks... hmmm, I didn't know that one either. There is more...

 

In hindsight it becomes obvious that the first system was designed to make us good competition point fighters very quickly, largely by cutting out anything not directly related. The second teacher is intent on teaching the full traditional karate system, even if it means doing lots of stuff that is useless for point fighting.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this rather Sherlock Holmes like detective work? Okay, something else of interest was my research into the "old style fist" and other striking techniques apart from the "universal almighty seiken fist", palm horizontally down, that symbolizes "fighting" to everyone nowdays.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

I see. Perhaps this is what you are looking for:

 

When training in sport martial arts the punches and kicks so core to every martial art are 'tailored' to the rules of the sport. For example, as you mentioned, a stance being to wide and open to groin kicks. Whereas in the 'combative' martial art the punches and kicks are 'tailored' to more graphic violence.

 

So the approach to training seperates the sport from the combat. When training for a sport martial art, all your movements are tuned to win the point, without having to factor in all sorts of loose variables, like attacks outside the rules. When training for combat all your moves are tuned to winning the fight, whatever the means, without focusing on limitation to rules.

 

As for "old fist style" and "universal almighty seiken style" I'm afraid you'll have to explain those two to me. I'm a bit senile at times.