Fighting experience ?

[Archimoto]

Hi everyone,

I've noticed many posts recently asking for help with selecting a style, an instructor, or more often a school. The advice is always good and tends to hinge on the same key elements. Quality of instruction, location, etc.

So what is my point?

Well, during a long run today - working on my cardio - I thought about the two most influential instructors that I've ever had. I'll mention that while I've studied a variety of arts to appease my curiosity, I'm fortunate to have spent my time thus far under two instructors. Now, in addition to lineage and certifications both of these instructors had a tremendous amount of ring experience. In my opinion the ring experience made them both better teachers. As a result, following in their footsteps I made sure to compete and I must say it had an effect on everything, my understanding of my art, my interpretation of drills, and generally on how I trained.

In this regard, I'm curious to hear your views on "ring experience" as a possible requirement when selecting an instructor and/or a school. By the way, I'm not saying that you can't be a good martial artist without competing - I'm not saying that at all. I'm just curious if it factors in to your collective or individual selection process when evaluating a possible school for instruction.

[mal103]

I think there are thousands of different applications with a large number that will only work between two MAists and are not practical in a scrap.

I have no experience but teach, but then i only teach things that are practical or material that i have been taught by seniors who know their stuff. For example my Sensei worked as a prison guard so when he shows a wrist lock and tells you he's used it in anger i believe its worth training. I have recently added something to my syllabus because an instructor with doorman experience said it was very effective.

I don't think ring experience is essential, just be wary of people telling you that their way is the best way unless they can back it up. Especially if it involves dodgy basic blocks.

[Harkon72]

This is an interesting question. I'll give you a clue to our situation here in North Wales. Martial art schools exist, but in relation to more densely populated areas of the UK, they are quite rare. Usually the choice is Karate or Kickboxing, western boxing or Judo. There are other styles below the surface but you need to look for them. Ring fighting, apart from boxing is a relevantly new thing here, some kickboxers are good enough to enter the national circuit of fights, we have a few MMA schools who enter the cage, there is also a Muay Thai gym not far from us. But I wouldn't measure any of these schools of martial arts by their ring experience. My first teacher was a veteran of the far east, fighting for his life took presidence over getting some gloves on and entering a ring. After returning from collage, I was taught by a JKA karateka who had experienced Ippon Kumite on the world stage. I've had kung fu lessons from a professional bodyguard who trained in China, and I would hardly say that my Aikido Sensei would be comfortable stepping between the ropes as he does not consider his art to be a sport. The short answer is no, I think ring experience may reflect some fighting prowess, but in relation to real fighting and practice of Budo not at all important.

[Spartacus Maximus]

I will give a logical answer and say that ring experience should only be relevant to those who hope to learn how to prevail in that context. In other words, only people who are interested in competition would make ring experience a deciding factor for choosing an instructor or training place.

I chose my instructor because what he teaches is Okinawan karate as it was originally intended: effective defense against violence using the body as a weapon. He has never competed I any ring as far as I know, and often repeats that he has never practised or taught for competition as the goal.

The most important deciding factor was his ability to explain so others can understand and apply his knowledge. Without an ability to pass on techniques accurately and effectively, all the experience in the world would be wasted. There are many champion competitors and people fight well using a given system, but how many are also good at getting others to become skilled as they are?

[Archimoto]

Thank you guys all good comments. I completely agree that there are many accomplished competitors that simply can't teach. Ring experience would simply be in my opinion, one of the many factors to consider when evaluating an instructor. Also I've heard many say that focusing on sport or competition devalues a style's efficacy as a self defense. I agree to some extent but not entirely. Many use sport as a part of their overall MA curriculum and in this capacity competing can be a terrific way to test your mettle. Would love to hear more !

[IcemanSK]

I've trained under a very experienced fighter (who was also a great trainer), as well as folks who have had little competition experience. While the fighter who was a great trainer was able to discuss nuances that non-fighters missed, I think it was because he was a teacher at heart. I think it comes down to whether or not a fighter can teach. I've trained with several excellent fighters that couldn't see beyond themselves enough to teach well at all.

[DWx]

I will give a logical answer and say that ring experience should only be relevant to those who hope to learn how to prevail in that context. In other words, only people who are interested in competition would make ring experience a deciding factor for choosing an instructor or training place.

I chose my instructor because what he teaches is Okinawan karate as it was originally intended: effective defense against violence using the body as a weapon. He has never competed I any ring as far as I know, and often repeats that he has never practised or taught for competition as the goal.

The most important deciding factor was his ability to explain so others can understand and apply his knowledge. Without an ability to pass on techniques accurately and effectively, all the experience in the world would be wasted. There are many champion competitors and people fight well using a given system, but how many are also good at getting others to become skilled as they are?

This is a great answer - sums up my thoughts, especially the bit in bold.

Perhaps not even personal competition/ring experience is necessary for the trainer if they have a good portfolio of successful fighters who they trained. For one reason or another they might not have gotten into the ring themselves but doesn't mean they can't be successful at training others.

In the end I don't think it's 100% necessary but it can be something that sets apart one teacher from another.

[devil dog]

I kick boxed when I was in high school. Great experience but I found out latter in life that it does not always translate to real life because there are no rules and no referee or bell to stop the fight. When I joined the USMC I got into the occasional bar brawl and found this out first hand and ended up falling back on what I was taught in class and not in the ring.

Kickboxing is great for getting into peak physical shape but I would not translate it to self defense just like I would not confuse point sparring with Kumite or a street fight. Just not the same animal.

Here is what I do know... you do not need to be an expert fighter to be an excellent teacher.

I had a teacher when I was young that was short and skinny and told us that he had never been in a fight in his life. When we sparred with him we would usually score more so than he would. However he had such a knowledge about the art that even though we would be able to score on him he would correct the way we were doing things and make us even better.

This is not to say he was a push over by any stretch of the imagination. He could handle himself and he practiced what he taught. The difference was he was better at passing on that knowledge than he was implimenting it himself. Didn't make him any less of a great teacher in fact he may have been the best teacher I ever had now that I look back on it because his lessons still stick with me to this day.

So no ring experience in my mind is not a prerequisite for teaching. Knowing your art inside and out and being able to logically explain it and show it to others in a way that they understand and benifit from it is.

[Archimoto]

So no ring experience in my mind is not a prerequisite for teaching. Knowing your art inside and out and being able to logically explain it and show it to others in a way that they understand and benifit from it is.

Very well said !!!

Interestingly I also think there are some instructors that can be far too academic. But back to your point, it boils down to an instructor's ability to impart knowledge AND inspire.

Consider this however, let's say you have two gifted instructors, one with ring experience and one without. Which do you pick?

There is a huge difference between sparring (even if you go hard) with your schoolmates compared to stepping in a ring with someone that wants to physically harm you as quickly and as violently as they can.

I have found that instructors with an ability to pass on knowledge AND who have ring experience tend to focus their curriculum moreso on efficacy and efficiency when compared to their counterpart. Then again maybe it's just the instructors that I've had...I don't say any of this with any misguided assumption that I'm right. It's simply my observation. Curious to hear more!

[devil dog]

Consider this however, let's say you have two gifted instructors, one with ring experience and one without. Which do you pick?

There is a huge difference between sparring (even if you go hard) with your schoolmates compared to stepping in a ring with someone that wants to physically harm you as quickly and as violently as they can.

I have found that instructors with an ability to pass on knowledge AND who have ring experience tend to focus their curriculum moreso on efficacy and efficiency when compared to their counterpart. Then again maybe it's just the instructors that I've had...I don't say any of this with any misguided assumption that I'm right. It's simply my observation. Curious to hear more!

Well that is food for thought. I guess if they were both equally knowledgeable and equally skilled I would chose the one with the additional experience.

There is alot of good that can be learned from the ring. How to take a punch/kick and maintain your senses, how to control your emotions (which is hard for most young people and some adults), physical fitness, etc.

However I do not think based on my experience that it out weighs good reality based self defense experience. Having said that if given the choice between two equal instructors I would probably pick the one with ring experience because it compliments the training as a whole and may give you the edge you need if you ever needed it.

I am a firm believer in finding what works best for each individual. I tried as many arts as I could gain access to. Each and every discipline has something of worth that can be taken and made your own. This can only make you a better more well rounded Karateka.

However I would not choose an instructor solely based on their ring experience. it's just my humble opinion but based on my experience it does not replace good common sense self defense.

The problem that I would have with a system that puts heavy emphasis on the ring would be that there are rules inside the ring. There are things you can do and things you can not do. This limits you and builds in mental blocks that could get you seriously hurt or even killed in a street fight or out of ring confrontation. I teach self defense similarly to how I was taught in the Marine Corps. End the fight quickly because you never know if they have buddies waiting in the wings.

Obviously we do not teach our students to use deadly force unless warranted but as I said in my previous post, ring experience is great but I always fell back on my self defense and tradional training.

I agree that there is someone in the ring trying to knock you out to end the fight, but I also know that the mind set is different. Your opponent is trying to win a fight and knock you out not kill you.

The violence of force is not the same in these two instances which is why I personally would choose a traditional based art with a good reality based self defense curriculum (Tegumi, Kumite, Tuite, Kyusho Jutsu, Etc.) over ring experience. IMHO they are just two different animals really!

However it is a good compliment to any MA program and does have a lot of value and worth to it.

And just a quick clarification. I am not trying to minimize your thoughts on ring experience. We all join the arts for different reasons and to get what we want out of it. If you have a good instructor and you love to get into the ring, then by all means thats what you should do. There is no wrong or right when it comes to what you want out of the arts. Only you can decide that. I am merely giving an opinion as food for thought.

Look at Mike Stone, Joe Lewis and Chuck Norris. They made their entire careers on their time in the ring. Competion was what they loved. There is nothing wrong with that but if you are asking is ring experience a necessity for some one to be a good instructor or for others to learn under that instructor, I say no. It does not take ring experience to be a good instructor. In fact most of the old Sensei had zero experience in the ring including the aforementioned Karateka's instructors. Their experience was life or death. One of the greatest teachers I ever had the priviledge to study under, albeit a short time frame, was Hohan Soken. He had zero ring experience but I would think more than twice about attacking him and he was twice my age at the time.