Long Term vs. Short Term Arts

In my research about the martial arts, many views have come up, and with my limited experience in the martial arts, I would like to know what people's opinions are.

In the MAs there seems to be almost different "classes".

You have your Western Arts, such as wrestling and boxing, which seem to have techniques but not a philosophy per se. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Then you have some different martial arts views, where arts that have a competitive aspect, such as Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, and the WMAs mentioned above.

Chinese martial arts, such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar, and Long Fist are all reputable in the martial arts communities but not so much in the eyes of an MMAer.

Another interesting phenomena, it seems as though some more modern "ring martial arts" have been spawned from these other MAs, such as Sanda from traditional kung fu, judo from ju jutsu, BJJ from judo, and Kyokushin from karate.

Do people that study arts such as Wing Chun, Silat, or FMAs believe their arts are effective regardless of exposure in NHB fighting, or are they in MAs for other reasons than fighting.

Wondering what folks have to say in regards to this.

Also, any thoughts about linear vs. non-linear martial arts, such as kyokushin karate vs boxing?

IN SUMMATION:

Do practitioners of more long term (WING CHUN, CMAs, SILAT, FMAs) believe at some point these arts with a core method or teaching will surpass the quick arts (BOXING, WRESTLING) in terms of effectiveness.

Why don't those arts show up in MMA, and what is the appeal to those who practice them.

Any input welcomed, but please keep it friendly, I don't want to incite a war, just a discussion.

 

first of all wrestling, mt and boxing ar not short term arts......per say

take an olympic wrestler or a pro boxer.

alot start out at about 10years old (the real good ones anyway)

ao that about 10 to 35 thats 25 years.

now the fact that its competitive puts a bit of a halt on your career....cause you cant stay at such a high level forever.

 

I think you're under some preconceived notion that the arts you've listed above only have a competitive aspect. They don't. Those arts have literally thousands if not millions of practitioners who do them and never compete.
That you can compete if that's the route you wish is not the same as the being limited to competition.

I'm not so sure this accurate either. Wing Chun is the classic one. Anytime it comes up within martial arts discussions there are never more than two people that can agree on anything about it. Even among Wing Chunners. So I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the arts listed above are 'reputable' in th eyes of 'martial arts communities' - one only has to read the copious amount of criticism of Wing Chun on just about any MA forum to know that it's not exactly held as reputable by a vast number of martial artists. A great many do hold it reputable... but that's just really case and point. It's a mixed bag.

And?

It's strange because you start out with Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai and WMA and then it quickly heads in th directon of NHB fighting. Again as I pointed out earlier there are good many practitioners in any of the arts you've mentioned that never fight (LOL! For Wing Chun it's becomes the vast majority of them).

How are you using the word 'linear' here? Are we talking physio mechanically? Or do you mean some form of historical progression? Not sure what you mean.

I'd say you have an agenda you're trying to push or you're very good at muddling terms to suit your own preconceived notions. Oh wait... that is an agenda.

Seriously... since when WC, CMA's, Silat and FMA's become long term and Boxing and Wrestling relegated to short term in terms of effectiveness. It sounds like your pushing an agenda. I'm also curious what you base your concept of short term and long term on. I mean what is it that qualifies the arts you mentioned as either short term or log term. Certainly it can't be historically. Both boxing and wrestling have been around for centuries - both in fact centuries longer than Wing Chun.

Christ... you' could have put this at the start of the thread. This crap has been done to death. This thread will end up being locked... we'll no doubt get Wing Chun nuthuggers rushing in to defend their honor... and issuing bareknucks street fight challenges via PM.

Seriously... have you NOT been reading other threads here at MAP recently?!

:bang:

 

IMO, I think you're creating some artificial barriers here, with all due respect.

Linear vs. circular? Except for maybe Wing Chun and Bagua, I'd say most arts include both linear and circular techniques. I'm also pretty sure that there are exceptions in WCKF or Bagua (hueh sao in Wing Chun?) I mean, practically all punch-kick systems will have a straight rear punch and a circular roundhouse or crecent kick, at the very least.

As far as the ethos of Western MA's, they may have philosophies in the way of combat goals and strategies, or emphasise things like hard work and good sportsmanship, but you're not going to see the psudo-religous teachings that have come to accompany some Eastern MA's in the last century or so.

I think there might be something to the notion that certain systems are worth studying for years before they become effective. But I feel that it's largely impractical to teach these if someone is looking for self-defense. Learn something with a short teaching-to-application time, then explore other systems.

Incidentally, I'll tell you that although wrestling and boxing may seem simple on the surface, there's a depth that must really be trained to be understood. I'd say this goes more for wrestling, in my experience.

It's also my honest belief that one must train in a way that resembles actual combat. Here, the "sportive" arts excell. While not many of them train for situational self-defense, such as being held at knifepoint, they do teach you how to deal with the stress of an encounter, give you a specific combat goal (pin, throw, submit, KO) and also give you the objective of avoiding the same, and train with a degree of contact that's not always present in other systems.

The reason why you don't see certain systems in the UFC is twofold:

1) They do not spar in any manner close to what you'll find in "sport" arts.

2) Their combat strategies are vague or difficult to pull off in a match fight.

A lot of the techniques and body movements cross over, so it's not inconcievable that training similar to MMA would produce an MMA fighter. But without a clearly stated objective, a game plan designed to accomplish that objective, and a way to test that game plan, this potential goes unrealized.

 

When I said linear, I meant it as a method of fighting.

In traditional karate fighters you see more blocking of shots, and then attacking. In an art like boxing it has more flow, jab, cross duck, jab, if you know what I mean.

Watch a video of a karate full contact fighter and then a boxer, then you can see where I'm coming from.

Sorry to cause confusion with that.

 

That's essentially what I mean. My post asks whether or not you agree with that.

Do some arts take longer to see the benefits, or is better to take some of the more combat based arts for a longer time.

 

The empty hand FMA I was trained in wasn't really functionally different from any kickboxing/standup grappling style I can think of. The tools (kicks, punches, elbow, knees, headbutts, bars, chokes...) are basically identical, there's some variation in footwork options... When it came to a real fight I doubt I'd be able to pick out an FMAer from a bunch of random brawlers.

Except that the FMAer would be winning, obviously.

 

cluebird-just fyi-Kyokushin is not a "modern ring MA "-spawned from Karate- it's a Karate system based in Shotokan and Goju, officially founded by Mas Oyama in 1964.

As to Judo being a modern-( it's over 100 years old)- ring martial art,you might wish to read the founder's writings.Although admittedly it is mostly practiced strictly as a sport these days.

 

wc

I do Wing chun been practising for 2 years now (over 1 year with sifu + about 6 months without) I find it effective my self even though it failed in mma world for various reasons that hasent turned me down from it(love the techniques). You cant really tell if someone is going to be better at fighting then someone elses who has been tranning something simpler for shorter time it all comes down to the person doing it. Dosent matter the art for example a person like bruce lee very dedicated to it could learn any martial art and be effective at it with really hard work. I think that even though you can have many years of expierance in whatever art you can still get messed up by a boxer who been tranning hard for 1 year it just depends how hard your willing to take your tranning.

 

short term? you are aware it takes almost 10 years to get a BB in BJJ, right? you'll be hard-pressed to find a reputable BJJ BB with less than 8-10 years in the art...

EDIT: And the fact of the matter is that you've oversimplified the concepts in various arts to come up with your very off-kilter ideas of "short term" versus "long term". Learning to press your weight, slip a punch, perfect the clinch and takedown... none of those concepts are learned in six months or less. I find it ironic that arts which take years to grasp are being described as "short term" by the OP, who seems to seriously consider some of the least effective and most commercialized arts "long term".

 

The style of Wing Chun does seem to get criticized here on MAP a great deal in various forums/threads. Yet I have some doubts the style of Wing Chun is largely to blame. The fault in many cases seems to be students of the art form making outrageous claims about what can and can't be done with the material offered in Wing Chun.

If a person looks at Wing Chun from strictly a stand-up endeavor maybe some of thier concepts and techniques are usefull depending on what kind of strategy they are being used for. Best example simple trapping can work yet the multi-hand buisness has always seemed wishfull thinking. Although it seems likely that other posters might disagree I think an honest evaluation would support the usefullness of Wing Chun to some extent there.

While it may be fair to say that arts like Judo or Taekwondo has specific competitions for practitioners of thier style and all those mentioned in the first post in terms of having a sporting aspect I'd have to agree with Slip that a fair number (if not the majority) of students representing those arts never compete. Besides grouping those styles as sport-oriented really is'nt fair as they could provide more to a student. The're not one-dimensional.

And I'm not really certain about how classifying the linear as opposed to the non-linear is supposed to work. By my definition Karate and Boxing would be linear as opposed to maybe Aikido being non-linear. Having never seen Bagua that's something I can't really comment on.

No martial art in my view should ever be considered short-term. Maybe some arts deliver quicker results as they are easier to learn yet the part about developing skill remains a product of hard work over time.

This could be an interesting thread and I hope that everyone behaves despite having different views.

 

Whatever they're worth, they're all yours.

You're wrong. Martial arts and philosophies are grounded in cultures. And since many of us are firmly embedded in the culture(s) of origin for boxing and wrestling, we might not recognize the philosophies inherent in those styles.

We might also miss them because they're not "packaged" as martial arts philosophies. Look at taijiquan for instance. You get a lot of talk about yielding, flowing, and that sort of thing. But those aren't solely the purview of taijiquan. They're elements of Daoism. And they're pointedly different enough from our typical Western view that they stand out.

So you've got two forces at work. 1) The philosophy has "exotic appeal." It's different and, therefore, striking. And 2) for many of us, studying a martial art was our first exposure to concepts from this other culture. I know that when I started studying, my interest in philosophy followed. And, in retrospect, I was introduced to concepts from Confucianism ("ancestor" worship, clearly defined hierarchy, ritual), Daoism, and Buddhism before really recognizing them as elements of these belief systems. They were, at the time, elements of this "martial arts philosophy."

I have more experience with boxing than wrestling. So I'll limit my comments to that. But studying boxing (albeit briefly) in a local recreation center, it was clear that there is very much a philosophy. They'd probably wince at that word. But it's a belief system that pervades their practice all the same. That hard work and faith will overcome adversity. Respect for your coaches. Respect for your opponents. (Be careful not to confuse the business of boxing with the study of boxing.) The importance of self-evidence and proof. (There's little room for theory in the ring. You either make something work or you don't.) All of these things are important philosophical points. And we, as a group, are dreadful at recognizing their importance.

Competition is also a philosophy. And competitive martial arts in the West share many of the same origins as philosophy in the West. Ancient Greece. Boxing, wrestling, and pankration were all competitive sports in the Ancient World. Some people like to characterize competitive martial arts as some modern contrivance or "compromise." And suggest that it's only recently that people have started fighting for glory and/or trinkets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fighting for title, glory, trophies, and prize money is about as traditional in the Western world as anything could be. Competition has always been thought to promote excellence.

There are philosophical lines of thinking (though I don't think they represent whole cultures) that suggest that "competition with the self" or "inner development" are the goal. And it's a very different view to say that an alternate goal is competition with others. And that development is more easily established (and generally more useful) in relation to others.

I don't think that's true. Except in so far that they violate a couple of the philosophies described above. If people from these arts showed their disciplines to be applicable, MMAers would take notice. The MMAers I've known have been an open minded lot. But there's a saying about not keeping such an open mind that your brain falls out. There's a strong emphasis on critical thinking. Evidence-based martial arts. Show them it works and they'll listen.

The lei tai (sanda) in kung fu is hardly a new development. Recently reignited perhaps. But it's long been there. And challenges and duels have always been in the background. Competition.

I'm a long-time FMAer. And I believe that my art can be effective. It can also be utterly useless. Look at the spectrum. Even just the relatively recent history, so we don't have to deal with shadowy, unverifiable legend. You've got groups like the Dog Brothers and the Black Eagle Society. The Dog Brothers were told by the folks at UFC that they couldn't showcase their art at UFC because it was "too hardcore."

So is everyone that studies FMA a badass? No, of course not. I'm not. I'm not a pushover, but I'm not a particularly formidable fighter either. And I refuse to bask in the reflective glory of people who train harder than I do, put more on the line than I do, and put their money where their mouths are.

Then there's people like Guro Leo Giron of largo mano fame. In World War 2, the man routinely put his FMA to the test as a pointman in the jungles. So am I going to dismiss his skills because he didn't get in the Octagon? No. His FMA succeeded in precisely the way he needed it to succeed.

But again, that ain't me. I didn't do that. I'm responsible for making my art applicable. Nobody else. And in doing that, I employ a lot of ideas from competitive martial arts. Accountability, demonstrability, self-evidence, critical thinking, and testing.

Anyone who views boxing and wrestling as "quick arts" doesn't know a great deal about boxing and wrestling. You don't stop getting better at them with more training. A good boxer who keeps training will become a better boxer (effects of injury and aging aside, as that holds for anyone training anything). Will a long-time FMAer beat a long-time boxer in a knife fight? Likely yes. In a fist fight? Much less likely. You get better at what you practice more. Simple as that.

Even assuming that I trained as much in a given week as a typical competitor does (and I DON'T), if the competitor is spending 6 hours a week on a very specific set of skills (say boxing and takedown defense) and I'm spending that same time practicing single stick, double stick, knife, empty hand, etc., it's not rocket science to see who's going to be better versed in those specific skills. Will I be better outside of that skill set? Logically, yes. An hour a week of knife fighting is going to produce a better knife fighter than zero hours a week, logically. In reality, it's never quite that simple.


Stuart

 

1. Kyokushinkai is a martial arts association or style - the martial art that they teach is karate.

2. Kyokushin style karate is not a ring art - many schools expressly forbid the use of their karate in ring sports. I seem to remember quite a few Japanese kickboxers having to leave the kyokushinkai as they would not have been allowed to remain in the association and compete professionally.

I know this is difficult to understand for a lot of people, but there really are people/martial artists out there who are utterly utterly disinterested in MMA. I'm one of them. Why do I practice an art that isn't common in MMA? Because MMA success is not a benchmark I use when looking for an art.

 

Ap, I commend you on your graceful response.


My views:

OK, first things first, Wing Chun Sucks. So do Longfist and Hung Gar. You will not see these arts in the UFC because using them to fight in a ring would be like bringing a pair of chopsticks and a bowl to a sword fight. The only place you would not get destroyed is in movies.

As everyone has pointed out to you, it takes a really long time to get good at Boxing, BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai and Sanda. People who train in Wing Chun and Longfist and Hung Gar can't fight, so they say it wil take 10 years in order to keeps students around. People who train in real Martial Arts do not need to say that because people know they are getting better and know it will be a gradual process. Essentially, people who peddle that "take 10 years to get better nonsense" are clowns who substitute learning to fight with fake eastern myth nonsense. It's ridiculous.

To recap: Wing Chun Sucks. LongFist Sucks. Hung Gar sucks. They are pretentious excuses for MA.
Train in real MA to get better at fighting.

 

Slightly less graceful. Point well made though. lol

 

@Scarlet Mist

Lol just because something aint in ufc dont mean it sucks i can agree that alot of people suck using cma as they dont train hard enough but that dont mean the whole art is useless. UFC fighters train daily to basiclly crash their opponet with brute strenght around their rules while cmas dont tend to train as hard as them but they got moves not allowed in the ufc and im not talkin about "teh deadly dim mak" here im talking bout hits to the throat eyes and temple. UFC fighters do very well in their ring and also can mess people up in real fights with their expierance no doubt but once u fighting in the street cmas are usefull too as long as you train for street fighting with them. A lot of cma schools dont even train that way no sparring just drills and forms that will not get a person ready for a fight so in my eyes thats why cmas have a bad rep now but that dosent mean that they "suck"

 

Dude, paragraphs are your friend. The friend you haven't seen in a long while and really should.


Stuart

 

Though I don't agree 100% with ol' Misty that CMA's or other tradition-oriented arts are "useless", I do want to talk about two things:

1) "brute strenght"... while fighters train to be strong, the good ones don't dominate because of strength. They dominate 'cause they know what they're doing. It's much more technical than a lot of people who haven't trained MMA or it's related arts give it credit for.

2) In regards to the "no strikes to the throat, eyes and temple": the temple is a legal, valid target. As for the other two, if you have the coordination and penetration power to successfully attack two small targets that are protected by a natural flinch reaction and loads of bone, or a highly-recessed target that's protected most of the time by the jaw anyways, you can certainly make a fist, change your aim by less than a centimeter, and start punching the guy in the jaw or nose. It's not like regular, closed-fist punches are devoid from the CMA arsenal. This is a very poor excuse for not participating in sport-fight events.

 

Good points, all tho i dont like jumping into these types of discussion as i think any MA can give you the ability to fight but why, oh why do ppl think that a trained MMA fighter couldnt attack areas like the throat and eyes is beyond me.

Maybe they may not train to attack these areas, as eye gouges etc are against the rules but as they are more expierenced fighters than we may ever be chances are they can think a lot faster than us meaning they would be able to pick out our eyes, teeth, and most probably our ear wax while we're still standing there waiting for the opening to actually attack.

Anyway i'll fade back into the backround and continue my lurking

 

The argument you have posed is based on some fundamental misunderstandings you have about Chinese Martial Arts and on your own desire to validate an opinion that is based on those misunderstandings, and your own negative experiences with CMA. Wing Chun doesn't suck. Neither does Hung Fist and Chang Chuan. There are plenty of people in the world who can prove just that. Problem is, you won't take the time or energy to find or seek those people out, due to your preconceived notions about them.

It does take longer to get good at applying your art under a traditional teaching structure than it does at applying your art under a modern teaching structure. Why? Because, as Ap Oweyn says, you spend more time applying technique and less time theorizing and perfecting technique.

First off, no one in real, effective traditional arts says "It will take 10 years to be able to fight using this style." Why? Because it's not true, and it's totally subjective. I think that the idea that you need to practice for 10 years to get good at Kung Fu comes from the fact that it supposedly took 10 years of study to master one of the Shaolin Arts. It doesn't take 10 years to learn to fight with Kung Fu. It might take a week, and it might take a month, but every day that you spend sincerely studying Kung Fu, you'll be able to handle yourself better than the day before (assuming you are practicing in an effective manner).