A different question about forms, kata and patterns

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Monkey_Magic, Jun 3, 2018.

  1. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Whatever happened to the idea that people should train in what they enjoy, so they practice it more and THAT is what makes it more efficient for them?

    Why does that get left out of the equation in these types of discussions, but is always mentioned in the "what style should I study" newbie threads?
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2018
    pgsmith, Hannibal and Mitlov like this.
  2. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Exactly. Fitness, not street self defense, is the main reason I train (you're about 100x notm likely to die from heart disease than a non-firearm homicide anyway). Some people could say "well if you care about fitness, go jogging instead of going to Tang Soo Do class." But I hate jogging and I love padwork (and yes, I really do enjoy forms work), and so follow through and do martial arts more than I would jog, and martial arts is a better plan for me.

    The "if you're not literally turning yourself into the next GSP, you and your school are frauds" tone of a lot of online martial arts discussions is silly. On bicycle forums, do people continually bash bicyclists who don't train like they're going to compete in the Tour de France?
     
    pgsmith, Hannibal and aaradia like this.
  3. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    And I would argue that despite it not being your goal, doing the pad work, forms, and other training has helped make you a better fighter than if you went jogging.

    What is the "more efficient approach" is not the same for every person. Because every person is different. What will motivate a person to practice more is different. What will work with individual circumstances (like health issues) is different.

    This whole "I can scientifically prove that there is only one true and right way to train worth anything for every person out there" thinking is nonsense IMO.

    (I am not saying one doesn't need to spar at all to learn to fight, mind you.)

    I am saying that the way to get to point B the most efficiently is not the same for everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2018
    pgsmith and Grond like this.
  4. BohemianRapsody

    BohemianRapsody Valued Member

    Goalposts? What goalposts? They keep
    Moving.
     
    pgsmith and David Harrison like this.
  5. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    Actually if point b is to be able to fight, under minimal or no rules then what training is efficient for the vast majority of people has been proven, it was proven about what 25 years ago with the early UFC's and has continued to be proven.

    If your goal is to be able to fight then its proven that the S.A.I.D principle apples and sparring pad work, drilling etc has been proven to be more effective than forms etc

    If your goals are fun and fitness then that's different and I don't think anyone here has said those aren't useful goals or great reasons to train, just that if another of your goals is to be able to defend yourself your training needs to reflect that.

    Just as in if you are training for fitness your methods should reflect this, and change if they are not producing the results you want.

    If someone's goals was weight loss and increased cardiovascular fitness and after 6months training they hadn't seen any improvements they would change their routine, martial arts should likewise be inspected and changed if what you are training isn't meeting your goals
     
    David Harrison likes this.
  6. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Yes, that is a good point.
     
  7. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    You entirely missed the point of my rhetorical question.

    melbgoju's inference with "defend themselves from what?" was that Aikido was more practically useful than an art that teaches one to fight, because the rolls and breakfalls had saved his skin a few times. I asked why he did Aikido, instead of concentrating on the practical life saving aspects of rolling and breakfalls, because I already knew the answer to the question - because he enjoyed doing Aikido.

    Point being, it is not a zero sum game between having fun and doing a practical martial art. Most people ultimately do any MA training for the same reason - because they find it fun to do.

    No-one has said that people shouldn't pursue whatever art makes them happy. That is something you have decided is being said, for whatever reason.
     
    icefield likes this.
  8. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award


    On the opposite of that very same spectrum, people that say "MMA is not the be-all-end-all of fighting" yet won't agree to test their techniques under their own rules. It's very frustrating.

    The Dog Brothers are prime examples of testing knowledge that isn't MMA based or restricted. They don't do MMA or fight without sticks but that doesn't stop them from very occasionally beating the crap out of each other with sticks just to make sure that it works.

    Like, if you make a claim, back it up.
     
    Grond likes this.
  9. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Not sure how directly this was directed at me, and not sure what anti-MMA "claim" you think I made in that post. But for the record about "backing it up," I free-spar on a weekly basis at my club. I have competed locally with other karate/TKD/TSD clubs in tournaments where the "light contact" sparring, while admittedly not full-contact, included hits hard enough that I dislocated my right shoulder while blocking a kick.

    I think Aaradia summed it up nicely. If all I cared about was being the toughest fighter I could in the shortest time possible, my Tang Soo Do school might not be the first choice. But if I did need to fight, it's a whole lot better preparation than jogging or bicycling.

    To analogize, in firearms circles, there's some people who have an all-or-nothing mentality and think a handgun is stupid if it isn't the sort of duty pistol that police and military use (full-size double-stack 9mm with 15+ round capacity). For myself, though (and arguably for a lot of civilians), I like snubnose revolvers for a lot of reasons, many of them not directly applicable to professionals like police and military. And while a snubnose revolver isn't directly equivalent to a Glock 17, it's still a whole lot better than a sharp stick or harsh language.
     
    Pretty In Pink likes this.
  10. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    Actually in your analogy I'd say what you are doing is akin to carrying a big sharp stick, better than nothing but certainly not optimal for self defence

    The snub nosed revolver would be your mma hobbyist ie the same as what the pro fighters do just not with the same stopping power
     
  11. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    No body bashes hobby cyclists because they train the same way as pros just at a different intensity

    Now if they trained on a trampoline all day and said we are getting the same results as someone training for a pro cycling race but using totally different methods then they might get bashed

    If they simply said I like trampolining and I trampoline for enjoyment no one would bash anyone then
     
    Grond likes this.
  12. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    See it taught see it fought

    Ie everything the dog brothers teach you can be sure works because its battle tested

    Something to be said for that if practicality and usefulness are important to you
     
    Grond likes this.
  13. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    No no, not an attack on you at all! I just wanted to point that both bad points do exist and they need to meet in the middle somewhere. Please don't feel you have to defend yourself at all I really was just making a counter-statement from what you posted.
     
    Grond and Mitlov like this.
  14. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Actually, civilian firearms training (except for the wannabe-professional "tactical" schools) is very different than police/military training. It does not cover a lot of what police and military cover, from sweeping buildings, to approaching a stopped vehicle, to engaging targets at range. It covers some things that police and military don't need to worry about, such as drawing from concealment. And the manual of arms for a revolver is totally different than the manual of arms for a semi-automatic duty pistol, especially when it comes to reloads and clearing malfunctions. Certainly there's plenty of overlap--stance work, trigger control, situational awareness, etc...but it's not true that civilian firearms training is simply police/military training done with less intensity.

    Likewise, with martial arts training, it's silly to say that something is no better than a sharpened stick just because it isn't the same full curriculum that professional MMA fighter use. For example, nobody claims that collegiate judoka don't have useful self-defense ability because they spend exactly zero time learning striking and because a lot of their techniques are built around the opponent wearing a gi.

    And remember, I didn't make any claims about "optimal." aaradia and I talked about certain types of training being useful and a whole lot better than nothing, but that's not the same as claiming "optimal." That's a totally different goalpost.
     
  15. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    No body was talking about civilian firearms training I was simply saying if mma is the large calibre gun, tcma isn't a lighter calibre version it's a completely different weapon

    The lighter calibre would be doing mma for fun.

    No nobody says judo isn't useful for self defense but on the other hand not many judo clubs mention fighting or self defence they advertise as an Olympic sport normally, occasionally as a fun workout and rarely make claims about self defence.
    Karate schools and kung fu schools on the other hand do, for example
    I pulled the following from a CLF website
    .

    So if you go there just for a workout and for fun that's great, but if the place is advertising self defence/fighting as one of its main benefits then it is right to question it's training methods especially if prospective students are unaware that what they are learning might not be optimal for what they are after and for what the club is advertising
     
    Grond likes this.
  16. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    If you think that a snubnose and a Glock 17 are the same thing except for the power of the cartridge, you don't have the firearms experience to understand the analogy I made, so I'll drop the analogy.

    About that quote...are you judging the entire TMA scene, including MAP regulars actively engaged in this discussion, off of one random school's website?

    Do you think it would be very hard for me to find an MMA club website that made claims that the MMA practitioners on MAP thought were silly and over the top?
     
  17. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    The quotes from the main website of one of the largest federations within CLF and the Chinese martial arts community of which several posters here belong to its why I chose it

    Here's another one for you from one of yip man's maim students with schools in 64 countries
    I could go on and on if you like but if you are really going to argue people don't advertise there traditional arts as mainly or even wholly for self defense think I too will stop here lol

    If you can find a correspondingly large world wide organisation within the mma community making such claims please post it
     
    Grond likes this.
  18. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Rickson Gracie claimed that, in terms of athletic fitness and in terms of building confidence and handling stress (what Gichin Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan, would call "perfection of character"), "MMA is one of the best—and most beneficial—workouts around." I'm sure plenty of personal trainers would say that while MMA is certainly very good for building fitness, and life coaches would say it's good for building confidence and managing stress...there are plenty of things that are more effective than MMA training if those are your primary or sole goals. In that way, Rickson Gracie's claims about MMA and its non-combative benefits are very similar to that CLF organization and its claims about self-defense.

    As far as I'm concerned, I have zero problems with a TMA school saying "what we teach is useful for self-defense." When we get into "what we teach is the best available for self-defense (making a claim about being "optimal" instead of being "useful"), it gets into hyperbole. Just like I think MMA is very useful for fitness, even though Rickson Gracie's claim that it's optimal for athletic fitness is hyperbole for the sake of advertising.

    I also certainly wouldn't call Rickson Gracie a fraud overall, even though he has engaged in a bit of hyperbole there. But I'd say the same thing about that CLF organization.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2018
  19. BohemianRapsody

    BohemianRapsody Valued Member

    Did you even read the article you linked?

    1) Rickson teaches BJJ, not MMA. Him talking about the benefits of MMA training is not not the same as him promoting something he is trying to sell.

    2) That entire article is Rickson giving reasoned answers to questions about the benefits of mma training. The answers are perfectly viable as well. More viable than “Wing Chun is great for self defense,” or anything else you’re trying to compare them to.
     
    Grond likes this.
  20. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    He's a BJJ instructor, yes...a BJJ instructor who has an 11-0 professional MMA record and famously bragged that he could defeat Fedor Emelianenko and Antonio Nogueira. And BJJ is one of the most common styles that people seek out when they go looking for MMA training. When he talks up the non-combat benefits of MMA training, you really don't think he's engaging in self-promotion?
     

Share This Page