 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
REALISTIC SPARRING AND GRAPPLING... THE GREAT DIVIDE
Hi folks. Several times lately I've had the opportunity to have several conversations with self proclaimed
"traditional" martial artists. I have been a bit surprised at what I have been hearing. When they asked me what I
train, I just say "Mixed Martial Arts or No Holds Barred Fighting" for the sake of simplicity and saving time.
Usually they would ask what that is, and I would try to explain it to them. I'd explain that I crosstrain in several
martial styles, but instead of being loyal to a certain style, person, or system, I really only care about what really
works in all ranges of combat against a fully resisting opponent. I would tell them that I test this by fighting in
my training, and competing in NHB events. Most of them haven't heard of NHB, so I would say it's like the
Ultimate Fighting Championship they might have seen on TV.
I would imagine that this is a simple idea that wouldn't involve much debate. The idea that you have to fight in
your training to actually be able to fight well. Well, I ran into a lot of disagreement. There must have been at least
a dozen "Martial Artists" tell me that NHB is not realistic, so they don't do it. They often said that their
techniques are too deadly for a competition or to even train them against resistance. I've heard things such as
"against a groundfighter I would just bite him and rip his nuts off". I told them that by merely eliminating a few
things, like biting, eyegouging, and attacking the groin, we are able to still realistically test what really works in
all ranges of combat. I have been preached to about the benefits of forms, katas, and not doing any sparring
until you are "4th dan".
I have learned something from them though. Not everyone is into the martial arts to learn how to realistically
fight in all ranges of combat. I have had to accept that. Judging by these traditional martial artists I've been
talking to lately, most of them have never even thought about fighting in all ranges of combat. They are into chi,
and claim they have very deadly techniques that they can't practice. I've asked them what they would do if
someone was sitting on their chest, and I've heard things such as "I'd just knock them out before they got me
there". Well, what could I say to such wisdom?
I tried to explain the idea of training with submissions and tapping out; but I ran into more interesting
responses. They said they don't tap out in training. Their techniques don't allow for it... they just break stuff
immediately. I asked how they were able to train that way, and they said through katas. Just so you know, must
of them were into TKD, kung fu, and lots of different Chinese sounding arts.
I'm really not trying to put down any traditional martial arts. I truly believe that every martial art has some
positive things to offer. However I also believe that no individual style or system is completely well rounded in
all ranges of combat; thus the need to crosstrain. It seems to me that a person is going to be relatively tough
and competent in all ranges of combat if they simply train realistically, even if they haven't had any instruction
in it. Take 2 brothers that grew up fist fighting each other in their backyard on a regular basis. They are gonna
be some tough dudes, I don't care if they never officially studied martial arts in some school. One interpretation
of "Martial" is "Combat", and they have been combating each other regularly. The same can be applied to
someone that has studied a traditional martial style. If they have gone beyond those techniques and actually
done a lot of actual fighting, then they are still going to be a pretty competent fighter.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but here's my point. It seems like the great divide between traditional martial
artists that study one style or system of combat, and Mixed Martial Artists, is that typically the traditionalists do
not engage in realistic training. They don't actually fight each other in their training. They don't kickbox, strike
from the clinch, throw/ takedown, and go to submissions against a training partner that is trying to do the exact
same thing. They don't ever get bruised or bloody in their training. They also seem to take great offence to this
idea being somehow better at preparing them for combat.
Well, I appreciate any contribution and discussion on the subject. I've been going crazy debating all of this stuff
lately with guys that don't train this way.
Vincent Fields
September 5th, 2004
Hi folks. Several times lately I've had the opportunity to have several conversations with self proclaimed
"traditional" martial artists. I have been a bit surprised at what I have been hearing. When they asked me what I
train, I just say "Mixed Martial Arts or No Holds Barred Fighting" for the sake of simplicity and saving time.
Usually they would ask what that is, and I would try to explain it to them. I'd explain that I crosstrain in several
martial styles, but instead of being loyal to a certain style, person, or system, I really only care about what really
works in all ranges of combat against a fully resisting opponent. I would tell them that I test this by fighting in
my training, and competing in NHB events. Most of them haven't heard of NHB, so I would say it's like the
Ultimate Fighting Championship they might have seen on TV.
I would imagine that this is a simple idea that wouldn't involve much debate. The idea that you have to fight in
your training to actually be able to fight well. Well, I ran into a lot of disagreement. There must have been at least
a dozen "Martial Artists" tell me that NHB is not realistic, so they don't do it. They often said that their
techniques are too deadly for a competition or to even train them against resistance. I've heard things such as
"against a groundfighter I would just bite him and rip his nuts off". I told them that by merely eliminating a few
things, like biting, eyegouging, and attacking the groin, we are able to still realistically test what really works in
all ranges of combat. I have been preached to about the benefits of forms, katas, and not doing any sparring
until you are "4th dan".
I have learned something from them though. Not everyone is into the martial arts to learn how to realistically
fight in all ranges of combat. I have had to accept that. Judging by these traditional martial artists I've been
talking to lately, most of them have never even thought about fighting in all ranges of combat. They are into chi,
and claim they have very deadly techniques that they can't practice. I've asked them what they would do if
someone was sitting on their chest, and I've heard things such as "I'd just knock them out before they got me
there". Well, what could I say to such wisdom?
I tried to explain the idea of training with submissions and tapping out; but I ran into more interesting
responses. They said they don't tap out in training. Their techniques don't allow for it... they just break stuff
immediately. I asked how they were able to train that way, and they said through katas. Just so you know, must
of them were into TKD, kung fu, and lots of different Chinese sounding arts.
I'm really not trying to put down any traditional martial arts. I truly believe that every martial art has some
positive things to offer. However I also believe that no individual style or system is completely well rounded in
all ranges of combat; thus the need to crosstrain. It seems to me that a person is going to be relatively tough
and competent in all ranges of combat if they simply train realistically, even if they haven't had any instruction
in it. Take 2 brothers that grew up fist fighting each other in their backyard on a regular basis. They are gonna
be some tough dudes, I don't care if they never officially studied martial arts in some school. One interpretation
of "Martial" is "Combat", and they have been combating each other regularly. The same can be applied to
someone that has studied a traditional martial style. If they have gone beyond those techniques and actually
done a lot of actual fighting, then they are still going to be a pretty competent fighter.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but here's my point. It seems like the great divide between traditional martial
artists that study one style or system of combat, and Mixed Martial Artists, is that typically the traditionalists do
not engage in realistic training. They don't actually fight each other in their training. They don't kickbox, strike
from the clinch, throw/ takedown, and go to submissions against a training partner that is trying to do the exact
same thing. They don't ever get bruised or bloody in their training. They also seem to take great offence to this
idea being somehow better at preparing them for combat.
Well, I appreciate any contribution and discussion on the subject. I've been going crazy debating all of this stuff
lately with guys that don't train this way.
Vincent Fields
September 5th, 2004