I came across this article today, and thought that SOME people might be interested in it. It's a fascinating look at how the introduction of rules and government oversight have helped UFC grow into a legitimate SPORT. http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5373408?print=true Seeing how we always seem to come back to these same arguments of "martial arts" vs. "martial sports," I thought it would be nice to preserve this link. -ben -=-=-=-=- UFC conducts its bouts under rules that are becoming widely accepted as industry standards in commission states. Here is a partial list of UFC do's and don'ts: What's legal Punching Elbowing Kicking and kneeing standing fighters Wrestling takedowns and throws Olympic judo-style chokes Submission joint locks What's not Head butts Eye gouging Hair-pulling Groin strikes Strikes to the spine or back of the head Kicking, kneeing or stomping a grounded opponent Holding the fence for leverage Throat strikes
Not really. There's been a number of discussions on this forum where the subject of UFC and the sporting mentality (not being negative there) has come up. I would say that's one of the reason why Ben posted it here. So no it's not the wrong forum and if you were a regular here you'd probably realise why it's been posted.
Sport vs. Martial Mentality This seemed like a good place for an article that my friend Luke Molitor turned me on to, originally posted just yesterday at Aikido Journal:
The anecdote Mr. Threadgill recounts sort of parallels the one I brought up regarding my wife and a "jujitsu" guy in this post: In my wife's case, the jujiitsu guy was trying to go "out of the box", or paradigm, that he assumed was operative: Non-competitive, mutually supportive training. But he was still within her paradigm, which specified that if someone wants to hurt you you make yourself safe and, if feasible, warn them; and if they persist, be prepared to kill them. (Notice that I said he was still within her paradigm, not her box. I worded it that way lest someone comment in a fashion that might make me very, very angry. )
I like that article, and I read it when you posted it the first time. I do have a few questions, though. While I think instilling the idea of "Defense at Extreme" could be a life saving device (pulling a knife when threatened with physical violence, using a shoelace against an unarmed foe, etc...) when truly threatened, it makes sense to fall back on "What you know" when forced into compromising situations. The use of legal fixed blades was never covered in my Ninpo classes, as training with "Traditional" weaponry (Bo, Bokken, Jo, Hanbo, etc...) engulfed the entirety of our weapons training. Of course, I never thought to ask my instructor if Genbukan Yudansha train with modern weapons and/or weapons of opportunity. How would one cultivate spontaneous "Box-less" reactions? Is such the norm for training within the Bujinkan? The reason I ask is that you made a great point about "Thinking outside of the box"...and I BELIEVE you were alluding to the idea that taijutsu training doesn't work with assumptions...but aren't there ingrained "basics" within the style that even a taijutsu student would fall back on? As such, I'm genuinely curious if students under your instruction would think to utilize a legally carried knife (in a situation during which they truly felt threatened), since I doubt my old Ninpo classmates would even think of that if put in that situation simply because the training of said weapons was left out of our "Basics". My first thought was "Mrs. Seago is a remarkably prepared and cautious woman. I wish my fiance were that trained like that", and I read it with the idea of "This is how a well-trained person responds to the stimulus of threat...out of the box". I didn't at first believe any reference to stylistic training methods or a comparison of said methods and/or practitioners was at hand...until I re-read it. The only way I can think to encourage such spontaneous reactions would be to constantly change the curriculum, style, and techniques so as to avoid any type of "Set Response" to a stimulus. Is this how training is done within the Bujinkan? Every style I've encountered (even in the Genbukan) worked within a set of "Parameters" that reinforced specific responses (whether it be avoid/redirect/attack/counter/run screaming)...and the idea of "Formless" training seems near impossible to pass on to less than extremely talented practitioners. In other words, I can read your anecdote, and easily say, "Mrs. Seago was able to formlessly interpret a stimulus and react with de-escalating force to negate a potential threat." What I'm having a hard time figuring out is, "How do we learn from that anecdote to promote/develop formless action that steps outside our standard basis of practice in order to deal with potential threats" Wow...did I actually write that? I believe I'll come back later and edit it after the espresso wears off.
I agree with Dale, there is no perfect martial art. Just as there is no perfect car, screwdriver etc. etc. Essentially probably the best way to train to fight in combat is to learn some moves and get in a streetfights. If you then survive go back and learn more techniques and return to the streetfight (or cqb if warfare related). Continue this process with increasingly difficult situations untill either A: You are dead/ crippled or B: the meanest/baddest person around. The reality is that this just wont work for 99.95 of the folks out there. There is to much risk of injury/death not to mention legal problems etc. So in the end you end up using various models of training to try to simulate as many aspects of combat as possble without actually engaging in combat yet done in a reasonable safe manner. One way would be to use sparring or sport training. Another like what the bujinkan uses ( I would call this combatives for lack of a better word). Another is the use of armored opponents you can beat the crap out of. They all have relative merits and deficiences and which model you prefer depends upon availability personal preference. health and physical constraints etc. So I dont think it is an either or situation but more of which one or ones do you prefer,
Either this reflects your lack of "seeing" what was being taught, or this reflects a fundamental difference between the Bujinkan and the Genbukan. I cannot comment on either but perhaps those who have experience in the G-kan could comment on the latter point.... This reminds me of a conversation that I had with Hatsumi-sensei once about the dangers of teaching "responses" or focusing on kata too much. If not properly framed, those ways of teaching turn Taijutsu into "mathematics" (e.g. "they do this, I do this") when Taijutsu is, in fact, "music" (e.g. "certain principals underlie everything"). Not really. A good teacher who truly understands the essence of the art can easily do it. Too many teachers only understand the shells, so that is what they teach in the hopes that some day they will "get it." There are certain "principals of movement" that guide all Taijutsu, such as the use of spine, etc. So long as those principals are not violated, it is very easy to be "formless." Granted, this is just my own personal opinion. When I teach, for example, I do not teach any responses or any kata. What I teach are tools that emphasize the principals of movement, so that no matter what the situation, those principals will emerge. -ben
sweet as a nut i like that analology alot... next time i get asked, 'but what if...' the answers gonna be, 'don't try a new algorithm, change key instead' cheers ben
My first class in the Genbukan we worked on tantojutsu, or "legal fixed blades". If this helps the conversation any...
I don't get why people always use the example of someone with a knife when it's not even remotely near a fair criticism of MMA. If someone else has a knife and you're unarmed, you're screwed no matter what training you've done unless you can leg it. A weapon like a knife is just too big an advantage for any amount of unarmed martial arts training to counteract. All it takes is one hit to somewhere that's not even vital and the fight is over. This is largely why many people consider MMA competition to be the best form of testing - you have to prove that you can win a fair fight. I don't care what Takamura Sensei can do when he has a weapon and the MMA guy doesn't, if he cannot win without an unfair advantage, he is an inferior fighter. No-one assumes that there are rules on the street, that attackers are always unarmed, or that they always fight you one-on-one. Not even MMA fighters. But there are some things that you just can't prepare for realistically. EDIT: You may not believe that MMA is perfect. I don't either. But you can't criticise it for not satisfying impossible requirements. EDIT #2: Before I get flamed and accused of trolling, I will admit I know very little about ninjutsu training, and I wouldn't pretend to be able to judge it. I'm merely talking about the "what if you got attacked by someone with a weapon" argument.
Even though I am a beginner, this comment surprizes me. My experience is that many teachers assume the attacker has a knife, or try to quickly search for any weapons during the attack. At least two of the shihan in Japan spoke at length about "checking for a knife". Fighting a person with a knife always seemed to be part of my training. What is this "fair" of which you speak? Caveat: I'm a beginner.
No worries Timmy Boy, you aren't trolling. The reason I bumped this thread is just to show that we (on the ninjutsu forum) once had intellectual debate that actually benefitted everyone, and what better way than by this thread (2 arts that are completely different). I will admit, I like to watch UFC, and I am interested in what people in MMA can do. However, I would never study it. Why? Cause I am 5'7 and weigh about a buck 35. There is no way I can overpower someone due to sheer physical strength. I do disagree that seeing who wins a "fair" fight is the best form of testing. I also disagree that if someone cannot win without an unfair advantage, they are an inferior fighter. A fair fight would be to team 2 people up with the same skill level, the same speed, the same strength, the same reflexes, the same intelligence levels, etc... which is nearly impossible. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. Unfair advantages take precedent in all sports. Luck is an unfair advantage. I once saw a Tito Ortiz fight in which the opponent glanced away for a brief second, only to be hit and KO'd. By him looking away, did he not give Ortiz an unfair advantage? :woo: I don't train to fight competitions. My competition days are way over (since like 94 when I quit TKD). Actually, I don't train to fight on the streets either, I train to not fight at all. If people want to train for the ring, then by all means, please do, cause I really enjoy watching it.
Did you actually fight people with a live blade or did you just do drills? Fair is simply where both fighters are on equal terms. If one guy doesn't have a weapon, the other one won't either. If one guy doesn't have his mates backing him up, the other one won't either. Now of course, things don't always happen this way in the real world, which is one of the main arguments against the validity of MMA as a test. But if you can't handle that one unarmed bloke on equal terms, how the hell are you going to handle something even worse? Maybe there are some ninjutsuka out there who can handle a fair fight. As I've said, I know very little about it. But this is no excuse for people who can't.
Mate, you watch the UFC. Surely you must know that it's not just about sheer physical strength, but also skill. If it wasn't, Royce Gracie wouldn't have had half the victories he did, and there wouldn't be weight categories. Sure, strength is still important, but that's just life and it's true regardless of what martial art you do. MMA has weight categories to eliminate massive size advantages, meaning that what is tested is the relative skill of the combatants. Luck is also capable of being minimised, because fighters have a lot of fights. Take Wanderlei Silva for example. He's been beaten in the UFC by Tito Ortiz, and Vitor Belfort knocked him out in under 40 seconds. Yet people still believe him to be one of the best, if not THE best, middleweights in the world. Why? Because instead of looking at individual fights, they look at his career as a whole. If he had a rematch with Ortiz now, he'd stomp him into the dirt. You don't judge an MMA fighter purely by his performance on the day, you consider his record as a whole. It's not the same as if you were to give one fighter a weapon, because the guy with the weapon would ALWAYS win. Skill wouldn't come into it. Just out of curiosity: how does learning how to fight stop you from fighting?
