Theory vs Practicality

Do you find that a majority of Martial Arts are based on theory and not practicality?

Theory define: concept or untested method based on hand downs from previous generations.

Practicality: principle of tested methods based on experience from Instructors or system in real life incidents.

 

Was taught Fact, Theory, Speculation:

Fact = Got it to work successfully yourself or witness it done successfully in real world situations

Theory = Got it to work in training against resistance or generally proven to work by others

Speculation = Only got it to work against compliant partner

Basically you want as much of what you practice to be Fact and Theory (this will help make it practical for you). Stay away from speculation, especially if what is speculation is claimed to be fact or theory.

 

Based on theory to a point! I would disagree though with the vast majority of training being theoretical to a degree. If you look at systems like MCMAP, Krav maga, JKD, those systems are based on both experience, practicality, and to a certain extent theory- however there all aimed towards actual fighting situations. While a certain majority of systems tend to still use 16th century mentality and training, instead of keeping current with self-defense changes such as street environments, opponent capabilities and so forth.

I really didn't mean having an Instructor who gets into fights just to prove his/her point. I myself wouldn't want such an Instructor.

 

I'd agree with speculation, but I would call that more of a theory since it may not be tested and it's (usually) going by stuff being handed down from Instructor to student for centuries.

Unfortunately, there's still a tendency in Martial Arts to use stuff being handed down from Instructor to Student. This is fine up until you get to real world application. Mainly because self-defense changes through time as well as conditions, opponents, and so forth.

 

What is practical is relative. What is practical for you may not be practical for me or the converse. Developing practical application has two parts... developing what is practical for you and sharing that so that others can develop what is practical for them.

For example, an FMA grandmaster was able to do some things I could not ever do. He told us because it took years of practice to make these moves practical for him. He gave us much simpler technique to start with, stuff that was practical for us to use with just a few hours of practice.

 

Ummm... not really. Most don't even know how techniques were actually done centuries ago. What was passed down were principles that do not change. The techniques could change purposely or unintentionally.

The issue is when principles are neglected or fail to be passed down. Principles being the underlying reasons why technique works.

 

How do we know that the arts you listed are largely based on live fight experience, and not what people imagine a modern fight to be like? What if the only thing that sets them apart from the guys in armor and kimono is the setting that they imagine their fights taking place in?
I mean, how often do the people that practice these martial arts actually get into fights where they get applied?

 

Related question: can you think of any styles where people practice how to do something, and then do it for real every class?

 

I think you might be forgetting about sport MA

 

Depends entirely on their environment.

Also, once you get a few people with practical experience together, then the principles you can infer from their experience are greater than the sum of those people's experience.

 

Id hope for just the opposite, but I think our definitions vary. I'll agree that using something in a real life conflict is the best way to know it's worth while. The problem is some people never get in real life conflicts, and you don't want to find out something doesn't work in that situation. Testing for me equates to sparring and training with aggressive and resisting opponents. Everything that can reasonably be tested should be. If you're system has punches and kicks you should test them via sparring on a resisting partner, same for grappling. I wouldn't want an instructor teaching me to defend myself based on theory alone. To me theory is just thought without any kind of testing. If your instructor hasn't sparred it applied his technique in real life how will he know how to correct you and teach you how to fight? This is the problem with some systems today. Some systems don't spar, haven't developed a way to safely spar, or convince themselves that their system is too deadly to spar. What you end up with are generations of instructors who've never fought teaching students how to fight based on theories. You have to test via sparring.

Boxing, kyukoshin karate, savate, judo and many more. This is the best way to train imo, you find out what works for you.

 

I'm with Aegis at Kurtka. The question isn't really whether martial arts are based on theory. It's what theory they're based on. You cited JKD. It's still largely theory. People train to gouge eyes and stomp knees. But they don't actually DO that to one another in training. Not without some mitigating factor in place: armour, structured drill, light contact, etc. It's not an exact recreation of the real event. Therefore, it's to some degree theory.

That's not to say that some theories aren't better than others. The theories behind JKD are more solid, in my view, than those behind no-touch knockouts. But it's still based on someone's theoretical conception of what happens "in the streets."

My own theory is this: There are basically two tracks you can go. 1) Narrow the goal of your art, and minimize the discrepancy between training and application. 2) Broaden the goal of your art and accept a higher degree of theory.

Take muay thai. (Seriously, take it. It's awesome.) It's a ring sport. Application BEYOND ring sport becomes theoretical again. But within that narrower goal of ring sport, the gap between theory and application is pretty small. They train the way they fight.

Take krav maga. People train to disarm firearms, turn them on their aggressors, feed knives back into their attackers' important bits, rifle butt people in the face, etc. How many krav exponents do you suppose have every actually done any of those things in reality? A percentage?

As Kurtka pointed out, what's changed is the theoretical model. It may be more realistic. But it's still just an approximation.

 

Which is more realistic?

I would expect 80-90% of a syllabus to have been used, or observed, for real in the living memory of a system that claimed to be "practical".

The remaining 10-20% I would expect to be based on principles drawn from experience and robustly pressure tested.

 

I'm no streetfighter myself, so I'm not going to pretend to know a watertight definition of realistic. I think we have tools and process that allow us to use critical thinking. Like my favourite MAP quote ever. From Yoda, many moons ago. Something like: "If you can't hit my head with a boxing glove, what makes you think you can hit my eye with your fingers?"

 

Oh, I wasn't asking you to define "realistic", it just wasn't clear whether you were saying "street" styles were more realistic than sport styles. Or maybe you meant something completely different, as the distinction doesn't make much sense to me?

 

Oh no, I didn't mean that at all. I think street styles are, by definition, far more theoretical.

 

I agree, in some arts aspirations of being realistic they seem to overlook one of the key components of a real fight; hard contact and aggression. I'd argue that in some respects that is what makes a sport like boxing more realistic than an rbsd school that only trains compliant drills. You can drill theoretical "realistic/deadly" techniques and that's a good component to a self defense system but the reality of someone trying to punch your head in shouldn't be ignored.

 

Martial Arts are based are based practicality. The practicality of the place, time and aim they were created for.

 

Really?

Personally, I think that erroneous speculation, without the guiding hand of experience or robust testing, is rife.

I'll just leave this here...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4B1iu0Uv8g"]Reprimanding The Bears - Multiple Attackers defense for a rear bear hug and a front punch - YouTube[/ame]