No announcement yet.

Criteria for effective martial arts?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    I doubt many people do.
    I do. A few more months, and that credit card will be paid off.


      Originally posted by ermghoti View Post
      I do. A few more months, and that credit card will be paid off.
      Not that there's anything wrong with that.


        Originally posted by ermghoti View Post
        No, Alot is his instructor.
        Ah, now I understand. Comment withdrawn. May he continue enjoying to do Alot.


          Well in china 1920s and 30s the government held several national tournaments where many kungfu masters and what not joined up lured in by a huge prize pool. However from i heard many of these practitioners who claimed to be masters and whatnot got their asses handed to them.

          There a Nanjing Guoshu Guan in China back then and the requirement for getting in was sparring with an instructor. I don't know where the article is now but it shows photos of them sparring in OMG gloves and having a section for 拳脚 kickboxing...

          These kungfu masters thought sparring and competitions was necessary and kungfu has many illegal strikes...


            Originally posted by icemaster2340 View Post
            Now here's the issue: From a very brief reading of posts on this site, the general consensus appears to be that effectiveness= proving it "in the ring".
            So your issue here is your lack of reading comprehension?! Thanks for sharing.
            Last edited by cualltaigh; 6/08/2014 7:33pm, . Reason: good edumacation


              Nihao, while a little off topic, you've touched on a very fascinating time in the history of Asian fighting arts. is a follow-up read for those interested in your post. There is a whole history of individual combat training during the Chinese Civil War and the following Anti-Japanese War that is somewhat lost to time. The chaos of the Chinese civil war and the invasion of China by Japan and the tens of millions killed in those conflicts overshadowed niche histories, such as the validity of traditional martial arts of the period. The Wikipedia page is somewhat thin, but it provides a starting point. "The Xingyi Quan of the Chinese Army: Huang Bo Nien's Xingyi Fist and Weapon Instruction," by Dennis Rovere, is a translated 1928 Chinese army manual with some historical background for context, and it gives a flavor of the period.


                Originally posted by icemaster2340 View Post
                What do you consider as key criteria for an effective martial art?

                I know alot of people have probably asked this at one point or another, but I'm still going to beat this dead horse because I'm spoiling for a good round of debate-fu.

                Now here's the issue: From a very brief reading of posts on this site, the general consensus appears to be that effectiveness= proving it "in the ring". I have quite some serious issues with that, as indicated by the subsequent points

                1) Rules? What rules?

                That title is probably one of the most annoying things i've ever heard, often parroted by my Krav Maga instructors. See the problem I have with sports fighting is mostly with the rules. A few of my go-to moves in self defense literally can't translate to sports fighting without myself losing by default from penalties. For example, I tend to do alot of stomp kicks to the groin region when sparring (it's not as bad in Krav because we wear two layers of groin cups and fight 30% power), simply because I do think that if I face a male assailant that would be the one move that could bring a man down to his knees, even if he was Goliath reincarnated.

                But it's not just the "illegal" moves that I have a problem with. The entire environment of sports-fighting is very unrealistic to me. I don't remember the last time I had a fight with someone on a smooth, polished canvas mat, wearing nothing but a small pair of shorts. If anything, Murphy's Law would suggest that you probably be caught in a life-or-death situation in the worst possible attire (ie tight jeans and restrictive leather jacket whilst in a cluttered and crowded bar).

                There are many other points with regards to the issue of using sports-fighting as a criteria for evaluating martial arts that I would like to bring up, but I think I'll get to those abit later if this thread generates some degree of interest.

                2) Sports vs fighting

                I think another issue is that we get so obsessed with winning in a sports fight that we lose sight of what's really more important: surviving in a self-defense situation in real life. No matter how many times we've TKOed someone, or forced them to tap-out, it all doesn't really matter if one day we get stabbed in the ribs and bleed out on the side of the street.

                For me, martial arts can only considered be truly effective if we can use it to survive in real life encounters. The bigger problem is: we can never truly be confident that we could do so. Anyone who thinks different is probably deluding themselves. You can never be sure if your opponent has a rock concealed in his hands, a gun in his coat pocket. Your opponent may be a 5 time MMA champion, or worse, a knife wielding expert. No matter how skilled/badass you think you might be, in a real life hostile situation all that training may just increase your survival chances by 10%. Claiming that putting up a good fight/win in a ring will indicate effectiveness just creates, in my opinion, a dangerous delusion and arrogance that one has become another "deadly weapon", and if reflected into one's daily behavior, could easily get one killed.

                Also, although I really don't think I'm trying to troll here, I just want honest, rational answers to my questions and a good healthy debate on a topic that is quite important since this site claims to be about no BS.

                Your post starts off with a false premise and then argues from there, among other logical fallacies.

                Hence, non of it is valid.

                Please post video of your "training", I'm curious to see exactly how groin stomps are such a high percentage "technique" for you.


                  I always find it funny that these "too deadly, no roolz!" people think that sports fighters are helpless against slight modifications of stuff that already do during training.

                  Your kick is aiming for my groin? Oh no, all my experience avoiding inside leg kicks is useless!

                  Your hand is aiming for my eye or throat? Oh no, all my experience dealing with a variety of punches just flew out the window!

                  You're going to try and strangle me or gouge out my eyes while in my guard? Gah, if only I hadn't wasted all this time training to break postures and control limbs!

                  Oh, you're going to try to hammer my balls while I have dominant position on the ground? AIIIEEEEE!!!
                  Last edited by karma2343; 6/09/2014 10:08pm, .


                    Another sport vs. street guy. Sigh. It was particularly douchey of him to title his thread with a question, to give the impression that he was actually interested in learning something.


                      Originally posted by karma2343 View Post
                      Oh, you're going to try to hammer my balls while I have dominant position on the ground? AIIIEEEEE!!!
                      This video doe belong in this thread


                        Let go with good old Bas to explain stuff


                          Both of those videos belong in literally every thread.


                            Takes 2 things to be effective.

                            1. Control of emotions:

                            Someone attacks you with bad intentions, do you freeze up, hesitate or are you avoiding, bobbing and weaving, have the ability to gain dominate position.

                            2. Ability to do real damage:

                            Are you attacks and defenses actually effective, have you ever really stopped an determined aggressor with one, just because Bill Wallace can put you to sleep with a front leg round kick doesn't mean you can.

                            That's the big advantage so called "sports fighters" have, no matter what art, BJJ, boxing, grappling, etc... their techniques are tested under fire, they work and they work very well against an aggressive but untrained opponent.


                              Bas..."I had ninjas come into my class one time".

                              Boy, that is a dream of mine... to be Bas and have ninjas show up.


                                It blows my mind how people can form this concept in their head that a style can be too deadly to practice, and that aliveness somehow dilutes the martial art.

                                I still remember the first time I sparred as an early teen -- despite 2 years-ish of Muay Thai training, the moment I stepped in the ring for light sparring I realized how insanely difficult it is to land even the most basic 1,2 and how jarring it is to eat a full kick to the body or hooks, and yet keep your eyes on the opponent and avoid dropping your hands.

                                You realize how utterly useless shadow boxing and mitt/bag work is compared to actually having to range find, absorb blows going in and controlling your reflexes against an opponent, and you realize how unique every individual opponent is and what it means to account for size, speed and strength differentials. I knew nothing of my sports until I had the chance to spar and even now I still barely know anything -- so to see people obsessed with compliance-based arts and put such faith and confidence in their untested (or rather, very poorly tested) abilities is alien to me.

                                ...I feel like people who don't spar are just hopeless optimists. They're happy to trust a system or instructor without proof, and they'll believe in a technique's effectiveness without any empirical evidence.

                                Not to mention, old NHB/Vale Tudo matches and even original UFC had like 3 fucking rules to distinguish it from a pure self defense scenario.
                                For Chrissakes, I'm sure we all remember Keith Hackney karmically bashing that bowler hat throwing rapist Joe San in the balls, right? So with such little differentiation from a pure street fight scenario, how did we see all those bullshidos get reamed in the early matches? (lol at ninjutsu)
                                Like no biting, fishhooks, and eye gouging were the SOLE rules, and yet all those deadly standing joint locks, throat punches and monkey grips peach techniques were nonexistant. For fucks sakes, the real nerds probably even remember that disgusting Nakao Gordeau fight were even after suffering a PERMANENTLY SCARRING AND BLINDING eye gouge, Nakao was able to fight through and win. So suddenly all those insta-kill shot eye gouges, groin strikes and other techniques don't seem so infallible lol

                       be more on point OP and without addressing all your ridiculous arguments, try to use an Occam's razor approach if you're too lazy to do the research and find proof. If a technique seems really damn practical it probably is. Even better if there's a ton of evidence showing it effecting against a resisting opponent. I mean Christ, I can't count how many times I've easily been able to win a street fight simply because I punch straight... No one throws Godamn straights, it's incredible lol



                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.