Pure styles vs MMA

Hey everyone,

Id like to give everyone some background into myself before I get way into the topic.

The studio I train at teaches traditional N&S shaolin (mostly animal styles totaling about 30 kung fu styles/systems)We train in the classical manner, warm up workout lasting for a good portion of the class, new material, then usually open floor workout on what ever we want.

Now for the topic

I know not everyone here does kung fu, and not just pure styles. But for those who do, does anyone else believe that because we dont do as much competition fighting that we are looked upon as weak? I know that it might be hard to imagine someone using a Wu Mei crane style during an entire street fight, which would be rediculous and probably not the best choice, but I feel like the tapout UFC MMA style fighting is sort of destroying the pure ancient styles that have been refined for thousands of years. I know that if I fight someone I will mix styles like dragon, crane, or mantis... but it isnt the same as modern MMA stuff. I actually felt bad when overhearing someone say that kung fu artists should do more UFC style MMA competitions while leaving out (what I would call important stuff) many moves such as eye attacks, pressure point strikes. I dont believe that you can have a real Kung fu fight if the fighters werent ready to be severly injured or killed. (obviously illegal). I guess I am just tired of the bad rep that prue styles are starting to get in the fighting world that is killing strong good attacks and replacing them with western style wrestling.

I just wondered what y'all think about this and I'll be sure to add more about what I think since that was pretty broad.

Hope you all are having a great day and I await your replies!

Hello and welcom

Have studied some Taiji, but I am total noob regarding CMA.

The problem you detail isn't unique to traditional Chinese Martial Arts. It is a problem many Traditional Martial Arts face, be they Chinese, Okinanwan, Indonesian, Japanese etc....

The first thing a person has to do is ask WHY AM I TRAINING? Is it as a hobby? Excercise/Wellbeing? For the social aspect? Or do they want to learn how to fight?

Once a person answers that, then they can make a better choice as to what kind of training they want to pursue.

MMA isn't making traditional arts look "weak" because it uses a lot of wrestling. It is making traditional arts look weak because MMA employs an "alive" training method that most traditional arts don't.

Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at critically. If something can be improved by changing the training method (e.g. making "dead" training "alive") then why not do it? A classic example of when old, traditional arts had a successful change in training methodology is when Jirgo Kano developed traditional Ju Jutsu from Koryu arts into an "alive" system called Judo. Judo had many of the same principles and movements of the Koryu arts, but trained in an "alive" manner. It is a matter of historical record about how successful Judo was against the more traditional styles of Kano's era in 1 vs. 1 matches.

There are some people out there who are move their Kung Fu training from a "dead" method (such as form training) to a more "alive" method.

You have to ask yourself why it is more people are moving towards MMA/Grappling training. This training seems to attract people who want to know how to fight. That is their goal. The "alive" training methodolgy employed by MMA and most Grappling arts (Judo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Sombo etc...) and some striking arts (e.g. Boxing, Muay Thai) will generally teach a person how to fight in a more realistic manner, and almost certainly do it a lot quicker.

You have to decide what it is you want to do. Personnally I feel Traditional Arts have a lot to offer, and if you love doing them keep doing them. However, if all you want to do is learn how to fight, then looking in to more "alive" training may be the way to go. That could mean taking up some sort of "alive" art (like boxing or judo) or it could mean learning to make your own training more "alive".

BTW, here is a far more articulate explanation of the idea of "alive" training from Matt Thornton. He compares the idea to that of static/dead training:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doci...ton+&hl=en#

Good video, I completely agree with you, and thats a great way to think about it. Im glad you brought that up. I think to clarify myself is by saying it's more than just using the styles in a fight as much as it is preserving the style to get the maximum benefits in a real fight. like I said, if I got into a fight that was like the one in the movie you showed me, (and it was a serious attack by someone wanting to kill me), you can garuntee I would be ripping out their eyes and stabbing them in the neck. Ive always liked the training that we do for application. fighting a senior student that is going to react to your attacks as well as attack you back (starting slower and eventually adding power and speed after getting used to the sparring for a few times).

I think Im more upset that the art seems to be disappearing and being replaced by the ufc style jabs and entirely strength oriented grappling.

By the way, I do consider origional boxing to be a pure style.

Thanks for that video and explination, makes sense to me.

Amazin' idnit?!

BigWiggly -

Good grappling technique does not rely on strength to be effective. However, strength and conditioning are major factors in a fight. Both skill and conditioning are necessary to be the best fighter. Please do not confuse the two concepts.

yea I shouldve worded it a little more appropriately. sorry, I didnt mean there was no style, timing, or skill. I guess Im just trying to say that It would seem that Kung fu as the traditional art is being viewed as weaker due tot eh popularity of other styles. But I clearly see how "Prizewriter"s idea of the alive-ness of practice can really affect how people view it and how it's used in modern times.

Honestly, its not the fault of the martial art that people in the mainstream look down upon TMAs. Who is it to blame? The practitioners, plain and simple, because they fail to realize that their training method lacks aliveness. If you want to compare this to a handyman and his tool box. Well, many TMAs out there simply train enough to get the tools. They have the ability to hurt somebody if they land the technique. Now how to ACTUALLY apply the technique they don't really know. So its kind of like a handyman with the best tools he can buy, but he has no clue how to use them. Or maybe he does, but he sucks at what he does.

Again this only goes for people who train MA with fighting as one of their goals. Train applications, yes please do. BUT, you need to eventually step up the resistance so that you learn to apply the technique to a resisting partner.

No I'm not hating on TMAs or Chinese Martial Arts (I practice CMA too) but its up to the person to realize the limitations of their training method. And many times people don't see it, so they continue on their merry way getting a false sense of confidence that they could pull off the techniques they know.

Great metaphor, made me laugh. I completely agree with you, and nothing came off as trashing TMA's. I guess I just never looked at it quite like that. I think subconsciously I was thinking the same sort of thing but couldnt word it correctly. In all seriousness, thank you for all of that, Im glad I started this.

I don't personally know very much about kung fu or other, as you call them "pure" styles.

However, one of my good friends has been doing kung fu for a long time and is now training for his black belt. He is extremely quick and more versatile than I would expect.

I personally believe that in a real anything-goes fight, ground work in general is really not a good idea. In my gym we train with fake eye gouges and saying "bite" when a bite is possible... my kung fu friend has also told me it is easy to rip off someones ear or tear open their cheek.

He's got a good point. In a real fight if someone tackled me and i had a line on their eyes or ears or cheek i would tear their face apart. someone trained to fight only under MMA rules would be in some ways at a disadvantage to a kung fu black belt.

That being said, most martial arts styles have been altered for MMA. Some have been able to hold their own, some not.

In general it's my opinion that well kung fu has something to offer in self discipline and a few brutal techniques, overall it has too many vulnerabilities to a versatile fighter trained in multiple more viable forms of no-rules combat.

I'd like to see a fight to the death between a MCMAP black belt and a Kung Fu one.

Bas Rutten on eye-gouging - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_NYMPVL8c

"Never [censored] off someone who has a dominate position on you."

MMA isnt simply wrestling and boxing. Though that is what most people who practice MMa choose, MMA simply means mixed martial arts. Whether you mix Wing Chun with Shotokan, or Muay Thai with BJJ, its still MMA.

With that said, MMA schools that adopt these "Hard Styles" Like Western Boxing will tend to have tougher students IMO because less time is taken away from the student learning forms and flowery movements, and more time is emphasized on application against resistance. and thats fighting, application against resistance. Point sparring and forms is not.

Hey BigWiggly,

IMO people tend to generalize TMA training too much. I think it came from a MMA marketing strategy to create a weak TMA stereo-type. There are many good TMA schools who train realisticly and produce effective fighters. There are even kung fu schools (although rare) that teach ground fighting skills as part of their art (not a BJJ immitation).

Most of my personal experience is training in traditional kung fu. I have also trained for a short time in a strictly MMA school. In my experience, MMA didn't add anything - it just removed some things to make it viable for competition. MMA did not emerge out of a vacuum, it's roots are in TMA.

Great vid Prizewriter. Clear and concise. I'll have to pass that along to a few people. Thanks.

Agreed, Chen. And to expand on that slightly, MMA is not simply this or that style style mixed together - it is the process of fighting in all ranges simultaneously. As such, it is a method (or style) unto itself.

Looks like resistance to me. Maybe its not what you do, but how you do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5faGD5b6Zw

Agreed, Med - although the "point sparring" they were doing is miles away from what is normally thought of in that respect. No doubt that Elwyn Hall was a fantastic fighter, and would have probably done well in the UFC (with a bit of submission defense, of course).

you need resistance and aliveness for application, sometimes it comes in different forms whether its an mma match or point sparring.

however, in that video his skill is tested only up to a certain point. As your skills get better so does the resistance. If you can handle yourself against another karateka then next step is to maybe spar with non-karate people. Slowly taking away the rules to the point where its MMA.

Not a bad vid, but not exactly what is thought of as point sparring, though it has contact and resistance its still stop and go and one dimensional in its approach.

But that's just it, ALL sport fighting (competition with rules to enhance its entertainment and "sportive" value rather than a realistic measure of fighting ability) is limited. Boxing is one dimensional and MMA's rules severely affects one's fighting to create an unrealistic approach to fighting, while a good format is also limiting with the stand ups and limiting striking on the ground rules. Not that point fighting is the end all and be all of anything because it clearly is not. However, it is one dimensional because is was developed to develop one dimension of fighting.

True, its all got its limits. We need Kumite, to the Death, like Bloodsport.

I think the problem comes in when people try to create a fighting format to mimick a street fight or SD situation. The truth is the goal of any method of sparring is to develop skills to assist one in a real fight, not to simulate a real fight.

another problem is that people have a higher risk of getting some serious injuries

The question then becomes, If you arent simulating a sd situation, then will your training and preperation be adequate?

I think it should be as realistic as possible, without having to go to work with a busted rib and a black eye the next day. IMHO, MMA has come the closest to capturing that. It's far from perfect, and there are still tons of limits. I think that the answer to the problem may eventually come in the form of computer programming or virtual reality. Even still, nothing replaces the real thing.

Exactly. And the answer is you will NEVER know until you actually have to use your art for real.

MMA sparring should be where you're at, imo when you do train a fighting situation

yea you never know, but if your sparring has less rules then it is closer to a SD situation. Since you've trained against a more unpredictable opponent then you are better equipped to deal with an unpredictable opponent in the street than if your sparring sessions contained more rules, making it more restricting.

The problem with sparring to "MMA rules" is that pure SD techniques are omitted. Each player is trying to "win" the sparring match. If instead you look for openings and initiate non-sporting techniques (but don't finish them for safety sake), IMO it is better SD training. The training should still be continuous, just continue to spar assuming the technique did not work. By initiating attacks that are not carried out to completion in sparring, a player may "lose" the match but will gain insight on "openings" and recovering from failed actions. Of course the more fully completed nonsport techniques should be practiced in a more controlled fashion with drills.

just because UFC's MMA rules say one thing doesnt mean that YOUR MMA rules have to be the same. I'm saying MMA sparring as in sparring with all kinds of techniques allowed, whether its stand up or grappling or ground fighting. All ranges should be in effect so that the players have to use everything they possibly can to "win" (whatever that means).

sure use the pure SD techniques, on the ground/standin whatever u want. thats what I mean when I say MMA. Theres MMA as a sport, and then theres MMA as a way to train.

Exactly. UFC isnt the end all be all of SD. MMA is much more than what gets shown on PPV and Spike TV. Incorporating all ranges of attack, and a variety of attacks is whats going to be important to your training. And always, resistance. Many of the things that are generally allowed in MMA are frowned upon in "Pure" styles. Like choking and opponent. Easily acceptable in a MMA gym but likely to get you thrown out of a Karate Dojo.

Unfortunately that is usually the case (but not always). Another example would be groin strikes. There are many karate schools and tournaments that allow strikes to the groin during kumite, but repeated low blows in an MMA gym would probably get one expelled as well.

What exactly do you consider a "non-sporting technique?"

A "non-sporting" technique is one that is intended to, and has the capability of, causing permanent injury or worse.

Thats likely true, though do we train only the things that are taught in the Gym/Dojo?

I remember the first UFC's when the only things against the rules were biting and eye gouging. Ah, the good ol' days.

Many sparring techniques (especially in MMA) would fit that description.

honestly, any technique can cause good harm out there. Of course exercise some caution when engaging in something like sparring. And even more caution if you're going for like an eye gouge or a punch to the throat.

Ways to look at martial arts training:

For sport
For fitness
For fun
For combatives
For self defense (different than combatives)
For culture study

Why go at it just one way? If you embrace all six of these views on MA training, you'll never run out of reasons to keep learning and sweating. I think that's the pinnacle of what MMA should mean. Like it's already been said, the methodology is different than the prescribed 'system'.

Shikata

I agree, though I don't train for sport I do essentially train for all the other reasons you listed. It makes training that much more enjoyable and enlightening. Thats why I enjoy training in just about all martial arts, because theres always something to learn. Whether its the application & fighting aspects of the art or the culture! Its the educational experience I get that makes martial arts fun for me. If I had all the time and money in the world, I'd go and train in every single martial art out there....i'll just keep dreaming

idk how old this thread is but i would like to add my opinion, traditional kung fu as mentioned earlier in the thread wont always be applicable in modern day life threatening situations.
Remember Kung Fu was orignated in a time where people ran around with swords and bows and arrows, long staffs etc, those were normal back then, but obviously not today.

A lot of the kung fu tactics were meant to deal with those type of weaponry and fighting styles, where MMA isnt. MMA in my opinion is merely for entertainment, imagine this, if youre attacked by a bunch of thugs, would you want to get one of them in a foot lock or would you rather fight them off with a style like Wing Chun and get out alive?

I do strongly believe that MMA is the wrong name for the brute like brawl happening in the cage, Kung Fu, Aikido, Karate etc are martial ARTS, there is a more delicate artistic side to it as well, which you dont see in MMA.

FWIW I don't think ANY unarmed Martial Art is going to be overly useful against multiple opponents. Equation may change if the defender has a weapon and knows how to use it, but having drilled multilple atttacker situations many many times in Aikido were the attackers could do what they wanted (grappling, some striking).

The Aikido instructor encouraged the people defending to try whatever they thought might work against multiple attackers. No one ever faired well, even people who studied other systems like Wado Ryu, TKD and MMA. They were good martial artists who had years (some had decades) of experience, but they just couldn't do much against multiple attackers. Even using pure Aikido, at best all we could do was avoid the attackers for so long.

So from the point of view defending against multiples, I don't think it makes much difference whether you study Traditional unarmed fighting or modern MMA. Just my opinion.

Neither, I would run away.


MMA isn't a martial art, it's a rule-set.

And, "art" as it's used in "martial art" refers to skills, techniques and principles of combat, just as the "art" of "art of war" refers to the strategies, tactics and principles of warfare. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or a "delicate artistic side," as you put it.

MMA doesn't teach only ground fighting, has a very good standing fighting and clinch work. And if you get the rules out of MMA i assure you that it would be a very brutal and deadly fighting system. What if you studied Wing Chun and you are attacked by a thug by surprise and he takes you to the ground and mounts you, what do you do then if you didn't trained in ground fighting?

Good point sstefan, personally i also want to do judo, but more for the throwing techniques, but an overall familiarity with standing, ground and throwing techniques is never a bad idea.

@mastafighta, like high school literature, there are many ways to interpret the word "art", art of war, is indeed correct, I had more the idea of Tai Chi in mind when i was typing out that post.

Eventually what it boils down to I believe, is to find a martial art/fighting style, which you find most applicable to yourself, some people really like grappling and taking a person down, some are good at beating someone standing up :), so to each his own ^^

Ninpopo,

If you ever have the chance to meet Gavin King, you will seriously consider taking away the word 'ART' from MA when you refer to Taichi Quan. He's a mod on this forum so hit him up if you have a chance.


As for grappling this is my opinion;

Good ol' collegiate/free style wrestling is mandatory for cross-training. Without it you will be broken and 'incomplete' as a fighter. It doesn't matter if you can do 50 different judo throws, if you can't 'control' your opponent in an 'alive' environment, then you're pretty much useless.

When I say wrestling, most people instantly think about using strength and brute force to slam your opponent. No, it's not. It is far from that (not sure about Greco-Roman though.. looks weird)

Wrestling is about gaining dominant position, and getting in control of your opponent's movement/position.

It's the science of body mechanics.


Judo is also a required assest to cross-training.
You can get into dominant positions, and get in control. Now what? You don't have fight 'finishers'. That's where Judo comes in.

-Donnie out

sstefan

"what if.....you are attacked by a thug by surprise"

I would (gently ) suggest no matter what martial art you study, if your taken "by surprise", your in serious trouble.

Your point about the benefits of being well rounded is accurate and important. But playing "what if" has some limitiations....mainly because there is always another "what if?" to each and every situation.

I presume that Wing Chuan might just have at least "some" training about what to do if someone tries to take you down and what to do if they get you there......in my experience most arts do.......If they are being properly taught....always a big "if" of course.

Taichi looks all nice when people are practicing and doing forms, but it doesnt make it any less brutal when you break someone's arm or poke their eyes out.

haha that video is epic