Different Arts, Different Applications

What does everyone here think about the differences in what certain martial arts are good for.

For example, many of the Filipino arts are looked upon as good for, "on the street" fighting. Arts such as Aikido may not be good for the ring, but are good for some types of street encounter.

Then there are arts such as Muay Thai, wrestling, boxing, and BJJ that have made their name in the ring.

What do you think makes arts effective in certain situations. For example, why are the Filipino artists looked upon as good street-fighters, but don't make an appearance in MMA leagues.

Why is Aikido still respected, yet not in the UFC. Why is Wing Chun considered useful, but is not in the UFC. I.e. are the ring type arts just more effective overall in any situation.

Are the arts that deal with more untrained people just as good as the ones training for competition? Can competitive arts cross over into the street and vice versa?

Is it the training methods, the art itself, the body conditioning, the intensity of the athletes (i.e. certain arts breed more competition)?

What are everyones thoughts on this.



P.S. If any of the examples above are seen as offensive, they are not meant to be viewed in that manner.

 

1997 called, they want their discussion back

 

1986 called, they want their joke back

 

1986 just called me actually. They said you weren't even born yet to know their joke. They also insulted your mama and called you a poser.

 

lol just cos you're not down with the kids anymore

 

Question - Why are you comparing arts to the UFC and MMA?

I think that you don't see specific arts in the UFC and MMA for a multitude of reasons but the main ones are that essentially they just dont really go well. They were created for different reasons, have different objectives etc etc.

I dont know whats happened with the other responses this thread has got, i think kempofist isnt getting enough attention.

 

That's right. Many arts don't go well with actually fighting.

Never enough

 

Spoken like a true MMA'er


Slowly backs away from the conversation as i know i'll get in trouble for this comment

 

If I talk enough smack people may think I'm tough

 

Not with a Bruce Lee Quote for a sig they won't!


REALLY done it this time...

 

it's not the style , it's the fighter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KP- you are'nt tough

 

What I mean is specific. Like do you think that arts thad don't work in MMA don't work on the street or in reality?

Also, I think it may help to at first train in something alive, so you know what it's like to fight a resisting opponent, then add in a style with non-compliance. Maybe this would help people learn to adapt techniques better?

 

thats what people are trying to tell you, it's what you put into which determines how effective you'll/it will be

alive training is a good thing but some will argue the opposite.

find an instructor that you can connect with and see how it goes

 

Think about it.. Is MMA 'the street'? ... No

Does MMA have rules?...Yes

Does it give you a better ability to defend yourself in a street situation over something like aikido?...Some people believe yes, Some no. Although i dont really think most people can truely say Yes or No as many people haven't trained and tested both.

 

This is the second time this week I've seen this line of logic come up, of training a live art to give you a base in reality to gauge other techniques that may be lower percentage used in dead training arts.

Quite an interesting POV. In short despite sounding cliche'd it's not the art that doesn't hold up in the street, it's the practitioner. Some arts have little to no practitioners who can fight, and this is because the training regimen lacks aliveness and/or the techniques are not founded on proper knowledge of anatomy and physics of combat. This doesn't make all of what they teach useless, but it does say that there is more bad than good, thus making it not worth your time.

There are arts in between, such as Kyokushin Karate, where you have a blend of dead and live training, as well as a not-so-realistic ruleset in sparring of striking to the body. But what that ruleset does offer to the "complete" martial artist is the toughening of wrists and knuckles through bareknuckle, wrapless combat that most other arts do not possess.

It's all about looking at what you are actually developing and testing yourself outside of your limited training bubble. In doing so, everyone realizes they have something to learn. Hell I personally just received a first-hand demonstration of the utility of Judo....never realized how quick those throws and sweeps get put on once you clinch up with them. It may look long and drawn out in competition, but that's because they are both good....that's what I get for judging a book by its youtube video....or something

 

demonstration of the utility of Judo, you know every time Im having a play around with someone and they do something i dont expect, my first reaction is to throw my hip in and toss them on the ground, I did judo when I was young and those hip toss,s have just come second nature now lol, not that they look like a hip toss it just kinda works out that way if you know what i mean, kinda.

 

That's cool. I gots to learn me some of that

 

Yup. Judo's really great. I started about a month ago and love it.

 

Right there is a statement I have never agreed with or even understood the logic behind for that matter. It's not the style? It's the fighter?

Granted every school has thier better and worse students. Largely because of the effort made or lack therof. That seems true reguardless of what is being taught in a school. If the student does'nt work hard and gets beat up who's to blame?

There are certainly poor quality schools and instructors. The 'belt for money' programs are perfect examples. Without going into more detail as that's really not a necessity if a student remains in a place like that and gets run down because of the low quality instruction again who's to blame?

If a student learns a stlye that is entirely based on stand-up fighting only to find themselves a victim of a good single-leg takedown who's to blame? Do we still hold the student accountable despite thier effort to learn the stlye with thier best effort?

It's not the fault of the style? Why not? Should the forementioned student be held responsible for not realizing they were learning something less than complete? The best I could go along there with is the style and student are at fault.

 

Style and practitioner is interesting. Not least of the reasons for that being because people read it in at least three different ways.

1) People think the practitioner just needs to train harder (A possibility)

2) People think that the practitioner needs to take it on themselves to do the right sort of trainning with the art (Something I've always disagreed wityh as I think the method you use to teach people to do something is as important as what your teaching them to do)

3) People think the practitioner should know what to get from an art, again something I find semi baffling as if an art says self defence on the flyer then it doesn't teach it I don't think it's the practitioners fault

Anyway, thats really another argument.