Vaytw's profileMarathon and SalamisPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
Marathon and SalamisApril 25 On traditional martial arts vs. MMAPlease let me qualify this post by saying that I have nothing whatsoever against traditional martial art styles. In fact - as you will see if you read this entry all the way through - I'm a fan! I spent the first maybe 10-odd years of my long martial arts odessey studying traditional martial arts: originally Goju Ryu karate, then Choy Lai Fut kungfu, finally Wing Chun. Also, a disclaimer: I have in my nearly four decades had the honor and pleasure to come upon the rare traditional martial-artist who is an honest-to-goodness fighter. Some of them have been great teachers too, and I hope they'll take no offense from what I say below.
My perspective is not that traditional martial arts are without value. However, to most who study them, their value lies primarily in the health benefits, balance and coordination skills they confer, the meditative state one often learns to attain in studying them, aesthetically (as a kind of performance art), and as living records of culture and history.
If one is studying a traditional martial art for these reasons, great! Down the road I will probably resume my own study for the same reasons.
However, I get annoyed when I hear practicioners of a traditional martial art say things like, "Oh, MMA's great as a competetive sport, but it's not for 'real' fighting." Or worse, having seen how traditional martial arts fare in free competition (the UFC, Pride, King of the Cage) against modern fusion martial arts styles (without exception, they lose!), the traditional guys make excuses: There are too many rules! You can't bite! You can't eye-gouge! You can't headbutt on the ground! They practice on mats! It isn't REAL!!!
This point of view is annoying enough when it's held in begrudged, harmless isolation back in the various dojos where so many - though not all - traditional martial arts teachers have got their students brain-washed into thinking they're learning real combat skills. But recently, much like those infamous martial artists of old who thought their bodies could be hardened to deflect bullets, these traditional guys have been coming out of the woodwork to test their theories in the real "open market of ideas". With essentially the same predictable result -- they get hurt!
The most recent case in point that I have direct knowledge of was the last TFKC (the no-holds-barred competition bi-annually held here in Taipei). In it, a 58-year-old Taichi Master actually thought he could hold his own against a 30-something full-contact kickboxer/submission grappler. (I can imagine his students, typically brainwashed, saying, "Gee Sifu, why don't you go in there and teach those heretics a lesson?") Sadly, he left in a strecher. Hopefully next time he'll be a bit more objective and empirical when assessing his chances against Westernized, modernized "external" training methods!
Another instance was a guy who showed up to the last Brazilian jujitsu competition (held at Taipei's Living Mall), all suited up in a kungfu uniform. Not that a uniform means anything, but the guy had the nerve to insist that he compete at the brown/black belt level! When dutifully warned that these belts were considered elite in jujitsu, he just shrugged. I'm sure his teacher had given him lots of propoganda about how useless these modern, "external" training methods are. (Much like Western medicine: how many times have you heard this one: "Western medicine only treats the symptom. Asian medicine treats the root cause." But which kind of doctor would you go to if you got cancer?)
No doubt the broken elbow that guy received probably 10 seconds into the match was a wake-up call for this unfortunate romantic!
Now I'm sure if anyone bothers to respond to this post, it'll be something about the unrealistic nature of having those pesky no-biting rules or fighting on mats. Or else it'll be some moron, telling me, "Well dude, your modern martial art is gonna be pretty useless too - against my GUN!"
Actually, these arguments contain basically the same flaw. When I hear the lame "gun" comment about why it's useless to study martial arts, I always ask, "So where's your gun now? May I see it? Do you even own one?" If you're not packing, it's pretty damn-well useless to you right now, isn't it? And even if hypothetically you did happen to pick one up, what makes you think you could use it any better than I could? Or that I might not be packing, say, a rocket-launcher? See, martial arts training precludes neither the usage of nor ownership of modern weapons! It does, however, give one the advantage that, should those weapons not be present or fail to function, one can still engage the enemy!
It's the same with the biting, eye-gouging, scrodum-sack ripping, what have you argument. Does any of those traditional martial artists out there actually bite, eye-gouge, mouth-hook, etc their training partners? Has any of them ever defended against such an attack? Has any of them ever done full-power throws and falls on concrete? Not likely. If so, they wouldn't be training long. (Even their arts were, at some point, empirical enough to have found that out!) So what's to make them think that a practicioner of a modern training method (which emphasizes empiricism over mysticism) is going to be any less able to bite, eye-gouge, or whatever nasty attack you can think up... ...while at the same time, employing a method of combat which is constantly evolving through the laboratory of open competition, rather than being stifled under the weight of centuries of cultism and dogma?
Before going on with this rant, I'd like to repeat that I hold a deep-seated love of the traditional martial arts, probably stemming from romanticism and my particular background. I also like chess. However, I wouldn't support a chess-player in thinking the strategies he learns in the game will help him kick someone's ass, or protect him from having someone do so to him -- particularly if that someone is a hardened veteran of real competition!
As I noted above, there are upon occasion those who achieve genuine, practical martial skill through learning the traditional arts. I theorize that they are primarily the products of natural aptitude, a good background in strategy, empirical inclination and rare levels of dedication. But that doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking there are some down-right serious flaws with the typical methodolgy of traditional martial arts that make them inadequate in training the average person to face an actual hand-to-hand combat outside of the dojo. I will outline some of the more obvious ones quickly below and then flesh them out later as I have time...
1) little or no time spent scrimaging with an un-cooperative partner
This is probably THE biggest flaw. In jujutsu, MMA or just about any modern training system, non-cooperative scrimaging is the most important component of the program, and that is as it should be.
I personally believe that this aspect of training is de-emphasized in traditional schools because of the potential for loss of face it brings in cultures such as those of Korea, Japan and China which so strongly emphasize hierarchal order. For a "shi-xiong" to lose to his "shi-di" would be major face issue, much less a "sifu" to his student! Hence, opportunities for this situation to occur must be extremely limited.
2) Over-emphasis on learning of pre-arranged "tricks" (often referred to as "techniques") which are practiced against cooperative partners
I absolutely HATE this kind of crap. You've all seen it: here's what you do if someone grabs you by the lapel of your gi (I don't know about you, but I wear one all the time on the street!) Here's what you do if someone gets you in a bear hug. Here's what you do if someone puts a gun to your head. Here's what you do if someone threatens you with a spatula. Ad nauseum.
This kind of "self-defense techniques" are often taught to hapless women for purposes of rape prevention and whatnot. I STRONGLY hope the majority of women who pay for such nonsense have never had their "skills" tested in the real world.
Some of the stuff they haven't learned that they'll sure wish they had would be... how to deal with adrenaline dump. How to not get scared shitless when some ugly piece of leather and his two buddies are getting right up in her face. Or worse yet, how to deal with being flat-out tackled - which is something those traditional arts never seem to teach, even though it's the easiest thing for any lame amateur to do and the hardest thing to stop someone from doing.
(On a side note, this is one thing I really appreciate about Wing Chun: WC teachers rarely teach such "tricks" explicitly, but the awareness of how to deal with a variety of 'self-defence situations' such as various grabs, bear-hugs and what-have-you is developed organically through chi sao [sticky hands] practice, and outside-the-dojo experience has shown me that, having learned in this way, one can employ these moves against genuine attackers.)
3) Standing with the chin straight out (instead of tucked).
Good way to get knocked out in a fight, but makes seeing much easier when wearing a big piece of protective headgear!
4) Using static "blocks" instead of slips, rolls and parries.
There was an empirical study done on the use of classical Kali blocks against random stick attacks, and it was found that anyone with some athetic aptitude who'd never been trained in stick-fighting could hit a trained stick-fighter repeatedly with a stick if that person attempted to block, rather than dodge, the incoming attacks. I'd say - and obviously anyone who dares enter the UFC Octogon would agree with me - that the same holds true for blocks in hand-to-hand combat. In how many years, I have hardly ever pulled off a full-on traditional karate/kungfu block against an incoming attack. What I have done successfully, is dodge, duck, slip, roll and parry attacks - as just about anyone could -- once they developed adequate reflexes and sense of timing and distance.
Now traditional martial artists would probably argue that I didn't understand... that those blocks were only the most basic level and the partial blocks, slips and whatnot would come later. But frankly, if one can't employ the basics, why bother learning them? In MMA, "the basics" are what one uses time and again in non-cooperative scrimaging, and as far as I'm concerned that's as it should be.
It was actually in those "hard blocks" -- at a Shotokan Karate tournament umpteen years back -- that the seeds of my suspicions about the efficacy of traditional martial arts were sewn. I noticed that, in the sparring portion of the competition all the fighters used movement, striking and defenses similar to standard (but very bad) kickboxing. Morever, the types of movements I had learned and which were demonstrated in the kata portion of the competition looked absolutely nothing like what those guys were doing in their sparring.
As I went to more and more competitions -- whether Choy Lai Fut kungfu, Karate, or Kenpo -- I saw the same strange phenomenon: while their forms varied enormously, their sparring looked basically the same, and none of it looked anything like the forms. At first, I'd criticize the fighters: Heretics!!! Why are they bouncing around instead of using deep stances? Why are they using boxing jabs and slips instead of full-waist-rotation Zenkusu-dachi punches? WHY DON'T THEY FIGHT LIKE THEY TRAIN???
Then it began to dawn on me: perhaps the reason they didn't fight like they trained was because what they were doing in class had very little to do with real fighting! In that case, instead of trying in vain to make their sparring conform to their impractical training, what they really out to have been doing was figuring out how to make their training conform to the reality of their sparring! That is, what I should've been asking all along was, "Why don't they TRAIN like they FIGHT?"
Then, in the late eighties, I saw the first UFC. I saw a tenth-degree black belt curled up on the floor in a fetal position after taking a brutal beating from (in my opinion) a mediocre kickboxer. And I saw Royce Gracie, again not even that highly regarded among his dojo brothers, just cleaning house. All those doubts that'd been floating around in my head for years were suddenly and dramatically confirmed. Sadly, nothing I've been exposed to since that time has proven otherwise -- and hence this post.
Since I mentioned Royce, I'd like to put in a few words on grappling. Now, I'm not a practitioner of Brazilian jujustu and don't mean to make my post sound like an ad for it. From what I've heard, even the Gracies have their own 'orthodoxy' issues and so have not themselves attained the open-mindedness set as an ideal by Bruce Lee in his art. I just speak of BJJ as an example as a modern martial art which places high emphasis on grappling (which anyone who's ever seen the UFC or Pride knows is crucial in a man-to-man match) and knows that not static techniques or flashy pre-set forms but frequent and full-strength scrimaging is the key to success.
As for the multiple opponent issue (IE, if you go to the ground with someone, what if his three buddies take the opportunity to bust beer bottles over your head?) which traditional martial artists will inevitably bring up with regards to the emphasis on grappling in MMA, I have a few opinions about that. One is that, while grappling training cannot prepare one for that experience, neither can any martial art, and any that pretends to is misleading its students, in my opinion.
In my old wing chun class, we used to play multiple-opponent attack games, but I've seen the Taiwanese broken-bottle and lead pipe version of that game and trust me IT AINT THE SAME THING! If you're ever in that situation, you'd better take your best running-the-ball stance and book like hell or you're gonna be a sorry sucker, case closed.
And what people forget about grappling, if it's taught realistically, is that one who knows grappling doesn't necessarily try to force the fight onto the ground. He may USE the ground as a weapon by throwing his opponent onto it (hard)...
However, the point is not that you should study grappling because you want the fight to go onto the ground. The point is that in SO many instances, the fight WILL go onto the ground, whether you want it to or not! (As happened numerous times to non-grapplers in the last TFKC. Also check out the video tape series "Backyard Fight Clubs" for innumerable instances of this.)
This being the case, shouldn't you at least know what to do in that situation, instead of rolling up into a fetal position? Moreover, he who trains grappling will develop a very strong base, have good sound takedown defence, and will hence be much harder to take down himself. IE - he is far better equipped to choose whether he wishes to go to the ground or not than the non-grappler.
That's why in Pride and the UFC you see a lot more striking these days than you did in the past. Because EVERYONE who goes into Pride or the UFC knows grappling now, which is going to make taking the other guy down a lot more work, and not necessarily the big payoff that it used to be when total non-grapplers went in.
Thus we see how, through the galvanizing forge of open competition, martial combat is allowed to evolve naturally. At first, no one knew how to grapple, so the grapplers just took the stand up guys down and creamed them. Then those guys learned how to sprawl, how to scramble, and grapplers began having to learn how to defend against ground-and-pound, and to strike. Now Cro-cop is even knocking guys out with head kicks! Good for him! If one day someone goes into the UFC and uses a dragon-tail sweep or fa jing to propel the guy across the mat, I'll stand up and cheer!
The moral is not that grappling is superior. No way! Nothing is superior. There are no "ultimate secrets" or "dim mak" or any of that crap. Only hard work, plenty of reps, physical fitness, and lots and lots and lots of time on the mat with a real live partner doing un-predetermined moves against full resistance.
In wrapping up, I'd like to point out that I'm well aware the above "comparison" weighs heavily in favor of MMA, and the few positives points regarding traditional martial arts I've made thusfar would seem to be mere token compliments. Based soley on a person's desire to learn to fight as quickly and effectively as possible, that would basically be an accurate assessment of what I've said. Keeping that precept in mind, however, I would now like to jump the fence and weigh in on the side of traditional martial arts against MMA.
First of all, like most Western sports, the primary emphasis of MMA is athleticism. That is great in the sense that it is an eminentally practical view of combat training, precluding any mystical notions or ornamental practices. However, the downside to this is that, as with any athleticism-centered activity, any MMA practitioner's peak potential as a fighter is going to be in his twenties or early thirties. Even if his skill level increases, there is an unavoidable realtiy that as one ages, injuries start to acrue, aerobic fitness starts to degenerate and tendons start to harden. As recovery takes longer and longer, any sane MMA fighter is going to be less and less eager to mix it up as hard as the art requires.
This not only tends to lead to heavy atrition among older practioners, but tends to prevent anyone my age from seriously considering starting (or re-starting) training. Also, as effective as it is as a system of combat, MMA is simply not suitable as a hobby. To keep up the level of aerobic fitness necessary to do heavy scrimaging (whether it be kick-boxing, stand-up grappling or guard work) requires serious commitment. It requires a minimum of several classes a week, and probably a lot of supplemental cardio training such as running or bicycling.
Moreover, while MMA is great for physical fitness, it lacks some unique forms of practice one finds in other traditional martial arts, such as chi sao in Wing Chun, tui shou in Taichi or sanshin in karate that have a very gradual but profound effects on body awareness, sense of balance, physical sensitivity and so on. These kinds of training, while not translating quickly into fighting ability, are great fun and non-stressful on the body; more importantly, with regular practice one's ability in such skills can continue to improve right into the onset of old age.
Finally, it is a sad truth that while MMA produces great fighters, it does not necessarily produce great people. It makes no attempt at instilling any sense of higher wisdom, morality or purpose in its practitioners. It is simply a weapon, indifferent to how, by whom or with what intention it is used. Early in life, many of us -- young dumb and full of cum as we are -- do not go seeking such things when selecting an art to train in. As we age, however, we begin to realize if it is to fulfill our deepest craving, any activity we pursue must serve as a doorway to that higher path. Pure self defence is ultimately pointless. What self is there to defend, if that inner purpose be lacking?
Since, in my opinion, he is the unofficial father of MMA -- while also standing as a great among his traditional martial art contemporaries -- in closing I'll quote the late Bruce Lee:
以無限為限 (Use no limitation as your limation.)
March 29 Probably the best relationship advice there isLast night for about the umpteenth time I sat and listened to some woman complain about her guy troubles. Like a lot of Taiwanese girls, she finds foreign (meaning Western) men attractive, but comes up against the unfortunate reality that they often take advantage of their higher market value here to be unfaithful.
"You treat your wife so WELL! Why can't I find a NICE foreigner like you???"
Immediately I pointed out the erroneous reversal she was doing - a critical error in reasoning that ruins the relationships of countless people.
"Hang on. The reason I'm treat my wife so well is NOT that I'm such a nice guy. Given the right opportunities, I have as much capacity for lousiness as the next guy!" (When I say this I immediately think back regretfully to how I treated my most recent ex-girlfriend.)
"Of course I love my wife, but all romantic fantasy aside, probably the main reason I treat her so well is that THAT'S HOW SHE TAUGHT ME TO TREAT HER."
And there it is. The "best advice", given to me by my big brother and Karate mentor a decade before I could possibly understand it: WE TEACH OTHERS HOW TO TREAT OURSELVES.
When I told my relationship-troubled female friend this, her response was predictable: "Yeah sure. Of course you spoil her. She can make you do that because she's so beautiful and has such a great figure."
Wrong again. Sure, my wife is and does, and like most guys, I appreciate those qualities. Still, I've had girlfriends equally as gorgeous in their own special ways, yet like most men, as time took its toll on the pheremonal attraction and my male hunting instinct kicked in, I began to undervalue or neglect them in the way that men typically do.
Why hasn't this happened with my wife? Simple. She taught me to treat her the way she wanted to. How did she accomplish that? Simple. She enforced what she'd taught me. She demanded it. She let me know in no uncertain terms that I was not irreplaceable, and that if I didn't treat her as she wanted, my only role in her life would be as a conversation piece for her and her next boyfriend.
Sounds mercenary, I know, but the reasoning behind it is rock-solid. Instead of saying, "why can't I find I find someone who values me the way I want", one should start with this premise: I'm valuable. If someone wants to be with me, they'd darn well better value me for what I'm worth.
Think - how many times have you given your significant other a carte blanche for transgression with the refrain, "I can't live without you"? What could be more boring, more of an invitation to cheat or beat or retreat than that?
Now I realize the facts of life: 7-11 can't charge the same $10 that the Hyatt Hotel charges for a glass of beer because, although the merchandise is the same, the price people are willing to pay is based primarily on the setting in which the product is sold, rather than the actual value of the product. Nevertheless, an important factor that allows this principle to work is that value is based not in reality but in psychology. Hence, in terms of desireability, if you start from the premise that your value is high, you take the first step towards making it true.
This is just a manipulation, however. The more important notion at stake here is that by demanding that we be treated as we believe we deserve, rather than wishing others would treat us as we'd like, we are uttering a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are precluding the possibility that we will ever be habitually mistreated, and conversely we are pre-determining the reality that others will have the privilege of our companionship only if they treat us in the manner we want.
October 29 an important lesson: stay off the wheelProbably the most important lesson I've learned in the time I've been here - or at least the one that's coming to mind right now - is to put my past mistakes to good use when confronted with similar situations in the present. I try to force myself to look through the lense of past experience to project what the future consequence will in all probability look like, and make my decision based on that projection.
I've repeated mistakes so many times and watched others go around and around pathetically like mice on a wheel. To stay off that wheel myself is probably my biggest goal.
A corollary of that goal is to finally devote myself to something. I've studied so many skills in my life, and never gone fully through to the other side. How many times have I asked myself, how good would I be at Jujutsu, or guitar, or Salsa or whatever if I had just kept at it? I want to know the answer, finally. |
|
|||||
Send a private message
Subscribe to RSS feed
Tell a friend
Add to My MSN
Add to your network
Sign up for alerts
|
|
