Martial sports vs. martial arts

[BlackMaskX]

Note: I started a thread similar to this on the fightingstyles.com forum:

I don't think I've introduced myself on this forum, either. I'm BlackMaskX, and I studied Songahm tae kwon do (practically worthless) for three years, but quit about 5 years ago and want to start a different martial art. I would prefer a traditional martial art that is fairly comprehensive but slightly more striking and kicking-based, and can be used for self-defense as well as in a fight with limited rules. I never start fights, but would like to be able to fight very well if necessary. I'm thin, about 5'9" and 135 lbs.

I like the way TMAs look, and I like their "traditional" atmosphere, but this question has been bothering me: Are sport styles like Western boxing, muay thai, and BJJ superior in unarmed combat to TMAs (kali, silat, hapkido, jujitsu, etc.)? Traditional martial artists have told me that no style is better than another; it depends on the intensity of training and the student, teacher, and school. They have said that TMAs usually take longer to learn than boxing/kickboxing/MT but are just as effective, if not more so, in the long run. But MT and BJJ people have said that TMAs themselves, not just the way they are practiced, are inferior to MT and BJJ because TMAs teach too many flashy, impractical moves, and styles like MT are more aggressive and straightforward. Also, they have said that MT and BJJ have had higher success rates in events like UFC matches. UFC matches don't completely simulate a street situation, but aren't they as close as you can legally get?

So I guess my main question is: Can I study a TMA, and, assuming I train hard at a good school, expect to be as good a fighter as people with training in boxing, MT, BJJ, vale tudo, etc.? Can a wing chun practitioner be just as good as a Western boxer in a fistfight? Can a karate, TKD, kung fu, or silat guy expect to stand as good a chance as someone who has trained in MT for the same length of time? Or are TMAs, even when practiced hard, impractical? Please reply, especially if you have experience in real fights; this question is bothering me. Thanks.

[aseepish]

Originally posted by BlackMaskX
Can a wing chun practitioner be just as good as a Western boxer in a fistfight? Can a karate, TKD, kung fu, or silat guy expect to stand as good a chance as someone who has trained in MT for the same length of time? Or are TMAs, even when practiced hard, impractical?

Welcome to the forum!

First of all, let me give you the set reply - no style is superior, it is the individual fighter that matters. I'm sure you've heard it before. But the important question is what makes a superior fighter? Besides genetics (and an athletic background helps a lot), the key lies in training methods.

Sports-based arts have an advantage because they have superior training methods. Even if you strip TKD down to 5 or 6 techniques and only practice those, MT would still come out on top because of the WAY they train. Another advantage for the sports is that they by and large fight the way they train. They spar full contact with full speed and power.

TMAs are not impractical per se. There is a time and place where any technique from any art will work, but that window of opportunity gets very small with some styles. A karate reverse punch can certainly knock someone out - but is probably better applied as a pre-emptive strike rather than against an amok who is charging at you sword raised. Some styles have some great drills, strategies, and concepts. There is also the cultural/spiritual value of practicing a traditional martial art. Although it shocks most of us on this forum, some people take martial arts for reasons OTHER than self-defense.

So if you want to take a traditional martial art (like me - I am currently studying Wing Chun and Hapkido), implement some of the training methods from sports. Spar full contact. Cross train! Use drills from other arts.

Talk to a JKD instructor.

Good training!

Tony

[Kingston]

my two cents

I agree with alot of what aseepish said...
heres my asnwer.
As far as wether to take a TMA or a sport fighting "style" i think it depends alot on the teachers you have. boxing is good for conditioning and such, but the nature of it is a point system, with wieght classes, in real life you mite find that even if your a welterwight champion some 6'3 240lbs monkey would rip you a new arse. Also most TMA's can sometimes concentrate more on tradition and edicate.....wich is useless in a fight....even i know that
its your serious about self defence....train in many different MA's then drop the kata's and keep what works for you, or if your a big guy, maybe something like boxing is all you need. if you want the "most" usefull TMA that will give you the most practical techniques then i would say pick an MA with the least amount of limitations....(whatever that means). Use your better judgment.. JKD's always nice...the more situations a martial art covers the more usefull it is. just my opinion
hope i havn't totaly imberassed myself anywere in this post.
i know it was long thanks for your time, hope i could be of some help (note, my opinion may change due to future information)

[H@pkid0ist]

Here is my personal viewpoint on it. I study Hapkido and we train full contact. We learn demo techniques, but focus more of our attention on the simple pratical things. The answer is, its all in how you train. If you train like there is no tomorrow using practical, realistic, effective techniques the reguardless of what you study I think you have a great chance of surviving a conflict. Always remember though that reguardless of your training STUFF happens.

Sport MA: They have great timing and aim. They can be learnt in a relativly short time. They are not so used to the dirty stuff that goes on outside of the ring that many TMA train for. Eye gouging, pressure points, finger grabs, Bitting (except Boxing ) ECT.

Traditional MA: Training is complete. There is little to no emphasis on sport, and things like ideaology, philosophy, healing, counters, follow throughs, pressure/pain points, subtlies in all the mention areas that SMA doesn't cover. Focus on street training and weapons defenses. Probebly better for older people.

Both have more pros and cons, but the probebly even out. THe deciding factor would lie in 2 Things. How you train and what you personally like more.

[BlackMaskX]

Adapt TMA training methods?

Thanks for your opinions, guys (or girls, if applicable .

I want to clarify something, though. Aseepish said, " . . . if you strip TKD down to 5 or 6 techniques and only practice those, MT would still come out on top because of the way they train." But if a TKD guy trained just as hard as a MT guy, with full-contact sparring and less emphasis on forms, would the TECHNIQUES commonly taught in TKD, particularly the spinning kicks and jump kicks, be inferior in a real fight or in the ring to the simple and brutal Thai round kicks? Similarly, many types of karate teach students to punch by chambering their hands next to the ribs. This might add power to the punch, but would this practice leave the karateka open to attack? Would a full-contact Western kickboxer who punches from a guard position be able to defeat most full-contact karatekas not because the way the karatekas train is impractical, but because the karatekas' techniques are impractical to begin with? Also, many kung-fu styles, contain techniques that seem, for lack of a better word, artificial (not what most humans would tend to do when threatened). Wing chun, for example, looks better than western boxing (at least IMHO). But do WC techniques work as well in a bare-knuckles fistfight as western boxing punches do? I think that when most people fight, they would instinctively fight more like Western boxers than like WC practitioners. But is an experienced, well-trained WC player likely to defeat an experienced, well-trained Western boxer in a fistfight? In short, if TMA techniques are trained just as hard and realistically as sports-style techniques, can the TMA techniques be just as, if not more, effective?

So if I preferred the aesthetic and traditional aspects of TMAs to sports styles, could I adapt my TMA training, maybe by practicing more "elaborate" TMA techniques through more full-contact sparring, heavy bag and striking pad training, etc., and expect to achieve the same combat proficiency as a Western or Thai boxer who uses more "simple" techniques? Or should I just forget TMAs and study MT, boxing, and BJJ? I know I'm making an over-generalization here, but I think you all understand what I mean when I compare "elaborate" to "simple."

[H@pkid0ist]

Re: Adapt TMA training methods?

In short, if TMA techniques are trained just as hard and realistically as sports-style techniques, can the TMA techniques be just as, if not more, effective?

So if I preferred the aesthetic and traditional aspects of TMAs to sports styles, could I adapt my TMA training, maybe by practicing more "elaborate" TMA techniques through more full-contact sparring, heavy bag and striking pad training, etc., and expect to achieve the same combat proficiency as a Western or Thai boxer who uses more "simple" techniques
____________________________________________________

I would say Yes. Simple answer to your question. IMO TMA are a more complete art, hence it would take longer to learn them and get them down. As for Wing Chun, it is a very effective art. Bruce Lee may have had a Napolean complex, and a tad bit overrated, but the fact is even as just a WC practitioner he was devestating.

[aseepish]

Originally posted by BlackMaskX
But if a TKD guy trained just as hard as a MT guy, with full-contact sparring and less emphasis on forms, would the TECHNIQUES commonly taught in TKD, particularly the spinning kicks and jump kicks, be inferior in a real fight or in the ring to the simple and brutal Thai round kicks?

Full contact sparring - now we're on to something!

If our hypothetical TKD player only spars against other TKD people with TKD rules (albeit full-contact), then the answer is no. But on the other hand, if our TKD player is sparring with Thai boxers, kyokushin karateka, western boxers, wrestlers, BJJ players, he/she will quickly learn which techniques work, and which techniques get you knocked out. If our fighter fights with his/her guard down, he/she will quickly learn the importance of keeping it up. He/she will be familiar with the tactics and angles of attack of other styles. Now our hypothetical TKD player is still doing pure TKD, right?

The techniques themselves are of secondary importance. Effectiveness comes from one's attributes (developed through combat and conditioning drills) and experience (through realistic sparring). Granted some arts, because of the more realistic training, will have a head start, but even if you learn the hard way, you still learn.

The question is how many people are willing to put themselves through that, regardless of style? Even with the sport MAs - a western boxer who has no experience with dealing with kicks is going to be in serious trouble. A BJJ player who has never sparred with a striker is vunerable to a striker who has experienc e sparring with grapplers.

T.

[eXcessiveForce]

Okay, I need to comment on this. First since I am well versed in Songahm TKD. I will say that it is not "pure TKD"

However usually is is not taught well. Songahm TKD has FMA influnces in their stick and knife work. The ground fighting is based on BJJ specifically Gracies. With the addition of Krav Maga into the system they are starting to be more well rounded as a system. However most instructors are worthless.

It can be made combat effective. The trick so to speak is to learn that everything must be trained for real and forget about tournament technique. It is how you train it.

Develpe an understanding of what each technique is for and then find out why it is to be performed the way it is taught. most instructors imitate their instructors. Not a good thing for TKD. It is up to you to learn strategy, and balance of your techniques. However with only 3 years training you are only beginning in the songahm system so unlike most other arts after 3 years you probably do not have enough background to progress with out a very good instructor.

Cross train with JKD and working your grappling and if your instructor taught well and if you are observent you might be able to find the similarities.

When I trained with JKD. It was interesting how much I already knew and taught to my students. I just knew things by different names. Unfortunately you must look below the surface with songham TKD to find value. The techniques are there but most instructors do not even realize it. So it can be almost impossible for beginning students to find them.

It really is how it is taught and trained. Even with poor training you may be able to use some of the skills you have learned, but you may not have enough background to make it effective. That would be up to you.