combat arts effectiveness in 10 years time

[adamuk]

With MMA being such a fast growing sport and advertised on tv, in mags, etc, the next generation will possibly have some form of training or experience with it....if only from watching it on the sofa.

What are members thoughts on the possibility of Traditional martial arts (not combat sports) becoming 'effective' again in 10 years time, like back in the 70's.
When Karate, Kung Fu, Jujitsu, etc were first being seen........and being kicked in the head was the last thing you expected, whilst still standing!

I think we are building a generation of mma fighters, but could the TMA's like karate, jujitsu, aikido, kung fu, silat,  etc come back as more effective for the street in the future?

Be interested in everyone thoughts as we are seeing some of the TKD and karate kicks landing more and more in recent MMA bouts. Previously Muay Thai was the best striking system, but GSP and others are using spinning back kicks, spinning back fists, etc and landing them!!!

Expect the unexpected........the saying goes.

Cheers,

Adam
UK

[Walker]

While I definitely think that mma is the most "realistic" martial art out there, especially for the street, I think the biggest problem with the TMA's is the way that they train.  I think that if the training is done correctly, most martial arts out there will be effective in a street situation.  However, it's my understanding that most schools DON'T train realistically.  I only have about 6 months experience with TMA (karate when I was about 12), but I remember doing some ridiculous stuff. 

So if you train with resistance and speed and actually spar, then sure, karate, TKD, aikido (for some things), etc. can be effective to a certain point.

Just my thoughts.

Walker   

[Kentao5]

The arts are always evolving and changing.  That's why there are so many.  No bad art, just bad training.  I am sure any art can be and at times are & were effective with resistance training and no/limited rules.  A lot of what is around is Martial Sport not Martial Science.  Also a lot of myths and misconceptions derived from demonstrating as apposed to applying or theorizing how "deadly" a technique can be.  You would not believe how many times I had to practice tearing out someone's heart.  Got it..no that's the lung, no that's a kidney.  Got to be no one would train with me anymore.

[Ryan McT]

I agree with Walker that the training methods are the most important aspect when considering if an art will be effective in the street or not.  One major problem I see with TMA's and there ability to stay relevant is practitioners belief that training methods have not evolved at all in the last 50 years.  Most TMA instructors I know tend to believe older is better and are always searching for knowledge on how someone trained and applied the art 10, 20 50 years ago.  In my opinion this is great for historic preservation but it is not the best method for creating people who are capable of defending themselves in the real world.  MMA on the other hand is always evolving to met new challenges as they arise.  I think this is one of the major reasons MMA is so effective.  That and the amount of time spent training against a resisting partner.

[Hertao]

I agree with everyone here that training is probably more important than any specific style or technique.  However, there are certainly poor techniques, and no matter how you train, someone with similar training in more effective techniques will beat you.  I've trained Japanese and Chinese TMAs, FMAs, and MMA.  The problem I have with most TMAs is their lack of footwork and cover.  Most TMAs still train from a "front stance", "horse stance", "cat stance", etc. and generally punch from the hip.  In MMA you don't have "stances" but footwork, and the same goes for most FMAs. 

If you look at static moments in time in FMA footwork you can see similar stances to TMAs, but they're positions you transition through to get power in striking and blocking.  Maybe if TMA practitioners would get out of the stance mindset that would help a great deal.  Additionally, the whole punching from the hip business is horribly ineffective, even in a fight against someone who knows nothing.  If they're punching at the same time as you are you're far more likely to get hit than if you keep your head down as a good boxer or MMA fighter would do.

So although TMA practitioners could spar using their own techniques, I think they're still going to have a hell of a time against someone who has spared with more effective techniques.

[Burton]

Good question and very good answers.  Yes, training methods are paramount.  But, I believe Adamuk's question also is in line with what the philosophy is for our program-  our training methods are very similar to MMA (with some street specific scenarios added), but we don't stick to the rules of MMA. We use effective street self defense techniques and tactics from more traditional arts like kali and silat, but applied within the training environment of MMA.  That sort of training allows us to develop the fighting skill necessary to apply the street specific techniques.  By sparring every class, we know what "stances" work and which don't, and everyone learns in a hurry to keep their hands up! 

[Luis Barneto]

Hertao, I am sorry to say but I believe that you are not understanding quite well what "training methods" really means to some os us...
It means that, like in any sport, you define technique according to what you, along with others, using environment, time, natural skills, and a lot of "honesty" and "objective reasoning" search to achieve.
An example of another sport: I believe you call it High jump bar. For us is "salto em altura".
Well, anyway, the way people jump over the bar changed with new presentations of styles, until in 1968, I believe, a guy called Fosbury researched on an University, and "created" the Fosbury flop, where you pass first the head and shoulders, and then the rest of the body. That style became, at some moment, the only style. Why? Because any athlete using this style improved his own outcome, much better then using the old styles. So, being a sport, someone have tried, and tried, and discovered a good way, and tested, and a lot of people tested, and... It became anyone's style, because everyone has the same purpose: To have the best result, jumping through the bar.
In martial arts, this is not true. Everyone, almost everyone actually, has one soul purpose: To make clear, to the world and himself, that what he choosed to train is the correct thing to train. So, when some people insert sparring in their practice, they only do so to justify what they train, so they lack objectivity and honest reasoning. They also lack the key of that "special locker room" where we are suposted to "keep the ego", while training. Even in TMA, I saw a lot of people training stuff, and then proving their stuff correct, by putting some helmets and using some soft sticks, "suposedly" to give realism to the thing, but if you look closely to many of them, you will observe that even going full out in beetwin, when it is the moment to prove their point, on efectivness, the velocity is there, the striking force may be there, but the resisting factor decreases...
So, in short (english is not my language, so when I write directly in english, most of the times I get confusing results, in terms of writing...), I believe that proper, honest and objective training methods, with the goal of efectivness always focused, WILL change what you train.
It's not the sparring. Is the way you sparr. If you sparr to prove what you already believe is right, most of the times you will, even without realising it, find a way to prove what you believe in.
If you, by the other hand, believe in sparring, and believe sparring will help you define if something you think (ratter then "believing", a very different thing)  capable of being efective... is or is not, you will, eventualy, decide to "jump with the head and shoulders first". 
Just my thoughts...

[Shelt]

Of primary concern is the training method, it is the vetting process for technique.

Whether a style/art/system is "effective" depends upon it's training method, when and how its techniques are applied, the attributes of the individual performing the technique, the attributes of individual the technique is used against,position of the planets, stars, cosmic energy  and luck......we really only have control over the first three 

[Burton]

Good one!

[adamuk]

The pure silat guys in the UK I've spoken to say that silat can't be tagged on to other systems/art/styles....I'd be interested to know other peoples views on this, if they have studied silat to a fair level.

So I'm interested in what sort of things have been taken from silat systems taught in the USA and what can be used in an alive manner when sparring.
(Pure silat meaning not FMA, but Cimande, Harimau, Walisongo, Lincah, sera, etc silat systems)

The little silat I've practiced used stance work and also always started from the ground, e.g. harimau/tiger and then as you progress through the system you learn mid level, then standing. again these were all taught in form / stance manner as  Ryan McT pointed out.

We have a system in the UK called Goshinkwai Yawara Remei, I understand it's NOT jujitsu, but a Yawara art and there are a few clubs still teaching in the old style of how it was supposed to be taught. This makes these sessions very brutal and punishing. Having seen these sessions, I believe that this TMA could stand up to a modern street assault.
Saying that, the instructors teaching it, have worked the door and been bodyguards, so they have a knowledge of modern day assaults/ attacks.

Kenshiro Abbe, the master that brought his arts to the UK, later teaching them to the Goshinkwai founders- The Warfield brothers, originally taught Aikido and judo in the UK seperately and a few of the original instructors are still teaching Aikido the old way(1960's) and believe in it's effectiveness.

So defineately....it has to do with the way TMA's are still being practised and taught that will make them effective IMO.

Also, If we are seeing the odd, capoera kicks in mma landing.......because of the unusual way they are delivered, I suspect TMA arts will not be the norm in 10+ years and there practioners WILL come full circle and be effective again in street encounters.

[Shelt]

in regards to Goshikwai.....

http://www.streetdefencetbd.co.uk/

Check out the clips at the above posted link.

Again, it's not about techniques so much as the training method that is determining factor of a style/system's effectiveness.

As for the term "Yawara" perhaps Jim can chime in as he is our resident expert on all things Japanese, but it is my understanding that the term is simply an older name for Jujutsu. I see nothing in the clips I loooked at on the website to really distinguish it from any other non-koryu or gendai jujutsu styles.

[Kentao5]

Seems like another choreographed, non restitan, committed to 1 attack demonstartion.  At JKDU we don't demonstrate, we applicate (is that a word?)

[Shelt]

To be more precise.....we do "demonstrate." It is part of the learning/teaching process. The differemce is that the technique being demonstrated by an instructor has timing, distancing, movemnt, etc and look strangly enough like it would be done under resistance.

Say for example I am teaching a crash cover.......I actually make people take a swing at me to connect. Heck I've actually berated people for their lack of commitment, pulled shot, improper distancing and general poor attempt to hit me upside the head 

Another example would be something from the clinch.... well of course we need to demo the steps and key points, but then we progressively increase our levels of resistance as we drill whaetever it is was demonstrated and perjhaps introduce other techniques, movemnts, etc in response to resistance, movemnt, etc of our partner until it all goes to hell and begins looking to people beating the hell out of eachother.....then we call it sparring. 

[adamuk]

From what I understand, these are not great clips to represent the Goshinkwai.

I agree totally though, 100% static attacker.

[Kentao5]

I think our demonstration is more of an intrduction.  We then continue to intigrate and then see if we can place the particular response option under unpredictable situations and resistance.  What happens with a lot of people is they never take it beyond the demonstration/introduction stage and they become "Masters" of demonstrating.