Traditional styles vs Full contact: An observation

[Kusotare]

This comes down to an old chestnut that has been discussed here many times before....

"What do you want from your martial arts training?"

We all have different goals and as we get older our reasons for training may change.

Most folk here know my view on traditional martial arts and their TRUE effectiveness when it comes to self protection. Frankly there are far more expeditious ways to achieve that end. Unfortunately the world is full of deluded and in some cases downright dishonest "traditional" martial arts instructors that are lying to their students by claiming they are teaching decent self defence... when they are NOT!

As for whether the sporting arena is a good test of whether or not a martial art "cuts the mustard" well that again depends depends on what your goals are and frankly - that's not really the point.

Traditional martial arts are however far more than self defence or sport and the rewards that come from the diligent training and study of a good system are what keep people studying and practicing all their lives – thus reaping the long term benefits.

People that mock (good) traditional systems for their lack of "perceived effectiveness" don't really understand their raison d’être.

It’s not about self defence, it's not about sport - at best they are happy by-product (and again I caution against believing in your MA style would actually help you),but that's about it.

K.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Kusotare

[sensei8]

This comes down to an old chestnut that has been discussed here many times before....

"What do you want from your martial arts training?"

We all have different goals and as we get older our reasons for training may change.

Most folk here know my view on traditional martial arts and their TRUE effectiveness when it comes to self protection. Frankly there are far more expeditious ways to achieve that end. Unfortunately the world is full of deluded and in some cases downright dishonest "traditional" martial arts instructors that are lying to their students by claiming they are teaching decent self defence... when they are NOT!

As for whether the sporting arena is a good test of whether or not a martial art "cuts the mustard" well that again depends depends on what your goals are and frankly - that's not really the point.

Traditional martial arts are however far more than self defence or sport and the rewards that come from the diligent training and study of a good system are what keep people studying and practicing all their lives – thus reaping the long term benefits.

People that mock (good) traditional systems for their lack of "perceived effectiveness" don't really understand their raison d’être.

It’s not about self defence, it's not about sport - at best they are happy by-product (and again I caution against believing in your MA style would actually help you),but that's about it.

K.

Solid post!!

I believe it bears repeating...Imho, it's NOT the style, but the practitioner that lacks effectiveness!!

[bushido_man96]

I don't know that it has more to do with a "quick fix," some people learn better in different ways. I think the attitude of "lifetime study" for what are viewed as the traditional styles is misrepresented; one should be able to spend a lifetime doing it, but it shouldn't take a lifetime to get good at it, to realize an ability to make the art useful. But, if someone comes in and states that they would like to learn how to defend themselves in an efficient amount of time, and they get told that there is no "quick fix," and they should go train Boxing or MMA or something.

There is also a misconception that there isn't as much to learn in a style like Boxing, Kickboxing, or MMA. There is a lot to learn. It just isn't all covered in a philosophical manner.

So honestly, I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.

[sensei8]

I don't know that it has more to do with a "quick fix," some people learn better in different ways. I think the attitude of "lifetime study" for what are viewed as the traditional styles is misrepresented; one should be able to spend a lifetime doing it, but it shouldn't take a lifetime to get good at it, to realize an ability to make the art useful. But, if someone comes in and states that they would like to learn how to defend themselves in an efficient amount of time, and they get told that there is no "quick fix," and they should go train Boxing or MMA or something.

There is also a misconception that there isn't as much to learn in a style like Boxing, Kickboxing, or MMA. There is a lot to learn. It just isn't all covered in a philosophical manner.

So honestly, I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.

To the bold type above...

I agree, however, imho, I believe that it takes a lifetime to fine tune it. Otherwise, why am I still doing it as long as I've been doing it?!? I want to get better than I was yesterday.

[cheesefrysamurai]

But isn't there something to be said for style??

I take traditional Goju Ryu. I would say a cornerstone of our training is sparring. And not for points!! If I am unlucky enough to be forced to fight, I will be doing exactly what I train to do.

Kyokushin is another example- doesn't get more real IMHO

There are some arts tha are simply not geared for combat and shouldn't be judged along side.

I agree wholeheartedly with what people are saying regarding it being the practitioner who lacks effectiveness.

I have had the unpleasant experience of sparring a woman who literally half my weight and 5 or 6 inches shorter then I am who happened to have a 2nd degree in tkd, anytime I came in hard, she would do a spinning back kick so fast I couldn't see it coming.

[andym]

Since when has 'traditional' meant non-contact ?

[cheesefrysamurai]

Since when has 'traditional' meant non-contact ?

Thank you - precisely my point!

[sensei8]

Cheesefrysamurai and andym...Solid posts!!

[chrissyp]

Since when has 'traditional' meant non-contact ?

Who said it meant non contact?

[cheesefrysamurai]

Since when has 'traditional' meant non-contact ?

Who said it meant non contact?

The subject of the thread is "Traditional styles vs Full contact: An observation"

What I think was probably meant is "traditional vs UFC style MMA"