Does sport really matter?

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by roninmaster, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    Disclaimer: Its been almost a year since I posted here. Just finally found my login credentials. So if this has been beaten to death please feel free to lock my thread and I'll seek out a past post.


    I've been hearing this come up a couple of times and wanted to bring it to the forefront. I've always looked at the claims of " Art A is good for combat sport but I study art B which is good for self-defense not ring fighting" As frankly " it's nonsense. My reasoning has always been What reason would you have to believe that if you could not do something in a safer setting - be it an open rules sparring session, boxing ring, cage etc that if the situation was worse you'd fare better? Or more so what besides the same bag of dirty tactics everyone knows from grade school that everyone can do and know ( eye gouge, fish hooks, groin strikes ) could you/would you do that a cage/ring/open gym prohibits?Edit: ( that is also high percentage)
    IMHO The claim that my art is good for self-defense but not in open competition essential comes down to claiming you're only good at defending yourself against people whom aren't highly skilled at fighting. It's like claiming you're an amazingly fast runner, but get smoked by everyone on the track. So you then shift to claiming " well i'm not fast on tracks, only on the streets of ( insert neighborhood here).


    Example: I've been doing Judo for almost 3 years and BJJ for 7. I feel pretty confident and safe when my drunk friends try to wrestle me, however should one of my drunk friends also be one of our higher up belts - Now not so much.
    You're average drunk belligerent person makes a large amount of tactical errors. Should you have even slightly more skill you'll do better. However if that same drunk Belligerent person was Shanon Briggs - well now you'll need way more than a slight advantage.


    Now keep in mind i'm aware of the adjustments you'd have to make to training for a full self-defense ability. such as weapon and gun work, multiple opponent strategies and training all ranges. I'm asking more from a technical side.
    My main point: When we take out the plethora of other things that go into self defense ( situational awareness, body language, conflict escalation, and de-escalation, recognizing patterns of criminal assault etc) and speak specifically about the isolated aspect of self defense that is -fisticuffs- what exactly does sport do so wrong that arts that claim they only teach for self-defense do so right? Or more so will give a self-defenser a leg up?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2017
  2. aaradia

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

    Mod Note: Welcome back roninmaster. Since it has been awhile since you have been on here, please take a minute to refamiliarize yourself with our terms of service. (Which canbe found be clicking on the button at the top and bottom of every page.)

    Profanity breaks our terms of service - including masked profanity.

    Thanks!
     
  3. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    my apologies.
     
  4. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

  5. El Medico

    El Medico Valued Member

  6. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    Video removed, as not family friendly.


    :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2017
  7. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

  8. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    sorry simon. i see what got me in trouble. but it was a sweet triangle.
     
  9. EdiSco

    EdiSco Likes his anonymity

    Good post. I thought this street vs sport argument had been settled decades ago? In fact, a fighter who competes is far, FAR more "deadly" than the martial artists who train the deadly moves for the streets. How did this myth start anyway? I don't understand....
     
  10. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    As someone with experience on both sides of this argument I'd say:

    - Many people with a sporting MA background underestimate the adjustments needed for the removal of rules. That video is a good example of it

    - Many people with a non-sporting MA background underestimate the benefits of the sporting training methodology
     
  11. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    I don't think rules are that much of an issue, the big differences are range and the types of pressure you face, coupled with the lack of defined start.
    However yes, the sport training methodology is highly beneficial.
     
  12. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Maybe we have different definitions but I feel that rules (probably better to say constraints on the available options and scenarios) have a profound impact on the development of a martial artist

    I'd argue that the differences between styles is largely down to the constraints/rules that have been applied over time. I say this because the constraints/rules have a huge impact on the training methods used
     
  13. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    People act like excluding unscripted resistant training from classes isn't a rule.

    There is a lot more to navigating non consensual violence than what appears in MMA but the spirit is there. Someone honest about being dangerous will apply the training methods that define open-source fighting communities like MMA to the ranges he needs to become competent at.

    Of course, pre fight indicators, target selection, understanding transitional spaces, legal implications, social confrontation, weapon use, etc aren't taught in MMA classes. As someone who deals with both, I'm confident in saying that combat sports normally provide a far better base for learning the rest of it than martial arts purpose-built to teach the rest of it.

    I mean really, someone who practices strategy at live speed, against real opponents under real violence for fun is going to be formidable in any environment.

    And anyway, there doesn't have to be such a gulf between sport and "street". There is more overlap between the sport MA community and the people who navigate violence professionally than the too-deadly crowd is willing to acknowledge. There always has been. Those that play up the difference are usually trying to minimize their inadequacies. Good non-sport training is pretty hard to distinguish from good sport training. The methodology is the same. Simunition, MMA, DBMA, scenario training, it's all just people actually doing the thing they want to get good at.
     
  14. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I'll start off by saying that I completely agree that any RBSD or TMA student who never engages in unscripted full contact training will never become good at fighting.

    I think that's a given for most people.

    You've framed the terms of your question to give you the answer you want.

    If you take away everything that makes being the target of violence different from a combat sport match, then you are essentially describing an unsanctioned competition fight. If backyard MMA is the context, then of course someone who competes in MMA will have the advantage. Bear in mind, however, that a "square go" should be the absolute last option when it comes to surviving violence, as it infers zero tactical advantage.

    As EdiSco says, I thought the street vs. sport thing was settled ages ago. Rather than thinking it has to be one or the other, how about delineating what the advantages of each are, and also what is lacking from either?

    Absolutely. How many people think that a wrestler would react in a similar way to a boxer if they were attacked? Or a BBJ'er and someone who competes in K1?

    Rules dictate tactics, tactics dictate principles, principles dictate technique.
     
  15. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Very good point.

    Just because competition isn't someone's bag, that doesn't mean that they can't pillage successful training methodologies from sport.
     
  16. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    All the above, plus, sport is great fun! Why wouldn't you do it?
     
  17. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I think I must be missing a gene.

    Beating another person holds no allure for me. Even games that I can get into, like chess or go, it's only the playing of the game and how it unfolds that interests me, I stop caring once someone wins. Winning and losing to a set of arbitrary rules does nothing for me emotionally.

    I'm into skill acquisition and people doing their best to make others better. Sometimes that involves trying your best to "win" against another person, but the result is tertiary to the process of improving.
     
  18. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Oh, I'm with you, it's the playing of the game that interests me, not so much winning or losing, but the playing of the game is fun :)

    Mitch
     
  19. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    lets talk examples!

    Which positions did you find to be inaccurately depicted?
     
  20. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    i think you're spot on with your point. for me, "sport" fighting isn't about winning or losing, even though i'm heavily involved in "sport". more than anything, for me, the process of improvement is the most important thing. it's easy to get distracted by a win during free sparring or competition; it's also easy to get distracted by getting submitted during free sparring or competition.

    as someone that's been on both sides of this divide, in my own experience, sport fighting has taught me so much and improved my skills immeasurably. i would argue that sport sparring actually has less rules in certain cases.
     

Share This Page