Traditional styles vs Full contact: An observation

[chrissyp]

(This is not a debate between which is better, but just by observation on why I believe traditional martial arts are written off.)

So for starters, a little bit about myself. I've trained boxing and muay thai mostly...though I started with tae kwon do years ago, my experience is mostly been in full contact styles.

And like most guys who train full contact, we tend to write off the traditional arts do to the lack off full contact sparring and training. We think it's "unrealistic" and "not effective"

As over the last year, I've been learning shotokan, mostly for kicks and giggles...but as I've progressed and learned, i've had this realization why people have this mentality about traditional styles.

I've learned and realized, shotokan is a VERY effective style...and MMA fighter can gain a LOT from it...but the problem is for most people, they're not willing to put the work in.

In my opinion, to be effective with Karate techniques, you have to train in not only realisticly, but diligantly. That the learning curve is much greater then boxing or kickboxing...to get the techniques to be practical and useful, takes more time and effort...and most people want a quick fix...so they never see or realize what they can truly offer, because they've never put the work or time in to make it useful.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[wagnerk]

IMO, it's a two view thing - internally and externally.

It's also about implementation, I mean take a look at Lyoto Machida, a very successful traditional karate-ka and he brings what he has learnt to the MMA field, see

. And he's not the only one...

Another issue is that you have "traditional" martial arts that are popping up that don't know their left from their right, yet market themselves as the "ultimate" self-defence art while not teaching how to form a fist properly. It gives a wrong impression of all traditional martial arts.

You've also got the belt misunderstanding. A lot of people when they see a black belt automatically assume that is the pinnacle of all your training, when it's not. It's just the beginning really. Added to that standard, requirements, etc change between organisations.

[chrissyp]

IMO, it's a two view thing - internally and externally.

It's also about implementation, I mean take a look at Lyoto Machida, a very successful traditional karate-ka and he brings what he has learnt to the MMA field, see

. And he's not the only one...

Another issue is that you have "traditional" martial arts that are popping up that don't know their left from their right, yet market themselves as the "ultimate" self-defence art while not teaching how to form a fist properly. It gives a wrong impression of all traditional martial arts.

You've also got the belt misunderstanding. A lot of people when they see a black belt automatically assume that is the pinnacle of all your training, when it's not. It's just the beginning really. Added to that standard, requirements, etc change between organisations.

You are right, good points. There are some "traditional" MA's that are just crap.

Lyoto is a great example and is an inspiration for how I fight and train. He's someone who took his shotokan based, trained it realistically, made it effective. He put the time and work in.

That's my big reason I think people write off shotokan, to be good at it, and to use in a real combat situation/MMA fight, the techniques have a higher learning curve to be efficent in them, compared to boxing or kickboxing, and requires more work and effort to use them properly...at least this is how I felt with my personal training. I picked up boxing and muay thai much easier.

[Zimlock]

Absolutely right! That video you posted is really fantastic.

Traditional martial arts are bigger and broader and much harder to use, but they're still all there. They're still martial arts, for fighting, for defence, to use.

[sensei8]

Imho, it's NOT the style, but the practitioner that lacks effectiveness!!

[DWx]

I agree on the learning curve aspect. Proficiency in the so called traditional styles takes much longer to gain and you could argue that this is why they are less effective at producing good fighters quickly.

I would say that traditional styles have more complexity and depth to them. There are a great many intricacies that do not lend themselves to an overnight study. It's an average or 3 - 4 years in most styles to gain blackbelt (what most would consider basic proficiency). The relative simplicity of kickboxing / boxing means that individual techniques can be learnt much quicker and in the same 3 - 4 year time span more time can be devoted to practicing them. As Bruce Lee said "I fear not the man who has practiced 1000 kicks once, but the man who has practiced one kick 1000 times".

Without wanting to get into and effectiveness of kata debate, non-"traditional" styles also have a greater amount of training time allocated to sparring and partner drills. Their practitioners have all great deal more live training and are pressure testing the techniques every session.

[Zaine]

I think that your observation is spot on. There is a reason we call MA journey and this is because it takes time and love. We, as a society, not just those who scoff at tradition MA, are a culture of instant gratification. What was the score to last nights game? Let me check my smart phone. I want a burger NOW! I'll go to the nearest fast food place. Is there something inherently wrong with this? Maybe, maybe not, but it has taught us that the best things are those which we can get our hands on quickly and that is the opposite of was tradition MA teaches in my opinion.

Then of course, as Wagnerk pointed out, some "tradition MA" schools (not the scare quotes) aren't worth anything and, as Sensei8 points out, it's the practitioner that lacks effectiveness. I've seen some fantastic karateka come out of less than fantastic schools and some sub-par karateka come out of fantastic schools. Unfortunately, it is often those that are less than great (whether it be in what they think or their skill level) are often times the loudest voices.

[ShoriKid]

A big driver, as I see it, in the difference of training for sport vs. traditional MA are the goals. Sport MAs have a clear goal. Competition, the fight and those training in them understand that point and know they have to put in the work. Conditioning, attribute development, tons of sparring and drills. In traditional arts the goal is not as clear. Competition? Maybe. Fitness? Maybe. But, without a focused goal, it's hard to get people motivated to train hard and put in the effort to bring their techniques up in effectiveness.

[Archimoto]

A big driver, as I see it, in the difference of training for sport vs. traditional MA are the goals. Sport MAs have a clear goal. Competition, the fight and those training in them understand that point and know they have to put in the work. Conditioning, attribute development, tons of sparring and drills. In traditional arts the goal is not as clear. Competition? Maybe. Fitness? Maybe. But, without a focused goal, it's hard to get people motivated to train hard and put in the effort to bring their techniques up in effectiveness.

That's an excellent point! For those that don't compete that's where I see sparring as being super beneficial. It's an integral part of training and a great motivator!

[CredoTe]

A big driver, as I see it, in the difference of training for sport vs. traditional MA are the goals. Sport MAs have a clear goal. Competition, the fight and those training in them understand that point and know they have to put in the work. Conditioning, attribute development, tons of sparring and drills. In traditional arts the goal is not as clear. Competition? Maybe. Fitness? Maybe. But, without a focused goal, it's hard to get people motivated to train hard and put in the effort to bring their techniques up in effectiveness.

Absolutely... Great post I continually remind my students that they must have a clear purpose in mind for their training, for their being in class, so that they're not there "just to do it"...