Reality, Discovery, Aliveness, & MMA

One of the things I like most about teaching is the interaction between my students and I. Especially those interactions were my students ask insightful questions, or question the validity of something I said. Needless to say I’m often taught a lot, or at least giving information that might help me consider an alternative point of view.

I recently wrote two entries on Combat versus Combat Sports (here and here), and sure enough Spencer wrote an essay (here) quoting sources that had a slightly different opinion. Now Spencer’s essay wasn’t contradicting anything I said, or what he knows I feel regarding the topic, his essay was just a different way of looking at things.

In fact I found both the sources he listed very interesting, insightful, and to some degree I agree with both.

Not that either essay changed my opinion, but I would like to clarify a few things.

Reality Based Martial Arts

I’m not sure just what this “catch phrase” means, but it is definitely very popular to today. I mean, just pick up any issue of Black Belt Magazine and there is going to be at least one or two articles claiming to be about “reality based martial arts.”

Now, I understand the business of martial arts is all about what’s hot today. Just think about how many Ninja instructors appeared in the early 80’s when there was a ninja craze, and wasn’t it amazing how of all of a sudden there were so many jujutsu instructors when the UFC became popular. In my city alone it was amazing to see numerous Tae Kwon Do schools add the word jujutsu to their window displays. I didn’t even know jujutsu was Korean!?

My opinion on martial arts is that they are all “reality based;” it's just that a few have forgotten their roots. Some have forgotten the reality behind what they are now passing off as traditional martial art techniques.

After all, didn’t a Samurai have the need to learn reality based fighting skills? How about all the other warriors of different nations? Weren’t martial arts developed, tested, and refined during periods of time when hand-to-hand fighting was the norm not the exception?

The answer is of course they were.

Obviously, when discussing the sword fighting skills of the Samurai one can argue that people no longer fight with swords, and sword duels are a thing of the past. True, but that does not mean the techniques taught are not viable, or based on reality. It's just that in modern times it’s impossible to test these skills and we have to rely on the information being transmitted correctly.

If one really wants to know my opinion, the only people practicing “reality based” fighting skills are those that are in the military, and to some extent those involved in law enforcement.

While the argument can be made that the average soldier and police officer learn very little unarmed combat, one would be missing the point of what "reality based" means. Or more importantly, what the definition of “MARTIAL” is. The reality is that the martial arts of the 21st century involve guns, explosives, and dropping bombs from airplanes.

Soldiers no longer fight hand-to-hand on a regular basis, if at all. They shoot the enemy form long distances, normally while seeking cover.

The same line of thinking applies to unarmed fighting skills for any countless number of armies of the past. No one went to battle unarmed. Just imagine an army of Okinawans preparing to face an army of invading Japanese with just unarmed karate skills. Wouldn’t be much of a battle.

The truth is that all authentic traditional martial arts start their practitioners off with weaponry and then eventually train them in unarmed fighting skills. Weapons first, since that is what one will use in a real fight, and then unarmed skills in case one happens to lose or break their weapon during a battle.

The problem today is that to many schools specialize in only one facet of what once were complete fighting systems. That is especially true in many Japanese Budo forms. Because of specialization, few martial artists are well rounded enough to be prepared for any eventuality that may occur in the real world.

Add this element to the fact that many arts have become extremely stylized in their movements, and you have the making for a disaster. In fact, “stylized” movements are one element of martial arts that has led to its detriment, and if the process continues they will lead to the eventual uselessness of training altogether.

Worst yet are styles that practice one way, which is suppose to represet “real world fighting,” yet spar in a totally different manner. Now, does that make any sense at all? After all, if one’s forms are so lethal, and sparring is suppose to help one learn to apply those techniques then shouldn’t both methods resemble each other? Maybe that question alone can answer why I have such a problem with sparring, and why I said I didn’t care for it in my previous essay.

Now don’t get me wrong, I understand what proponents of “reality based” fighting system are trying to say, and the message is a good one. However, claiming that this is something new or innovative is a joke. People have been seeking out and developing reality based fighting methods since the dawn of our species.

The real reality is that what may work for one person may not work for another. Furthermore, what may work on one opponent may not work on another. There are just too many variables to say any one method is better or “more real world” than another.

Discovery

How often have I read about a new martial arts discovery? Something new and innovative, that’s never been seen before. Something revolutionary, which will change everything, and make everyone a better more effective fighter.

Really!!!!?

Unless the human body has changed recently, whom are these practitioners trying to fool. What have they discovered that wasn’t discovered centuries ago?

The truth is that the only things these people have discovered are concepts and techniques that someone senior to them either failed to teach or didn’t know.

To come out and claim in a public forum that you’ve discovered something new is the worst case of ego gratification I’ve ever witnessed, and those that applaud these individuals should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact of the matter is there is nothing new to discover, or should I say to claim to invent. How to attack another person, where to strike them, anatomical weak points, and the most efficient way to kill’s one opponent were already known in ancient times.

Let’s be honest, our ancestors actually used these skills; knowing how to fight hand-to-hand was a necessity for them, not a hobby like it is for so many of us.

They learned this stuff the hard way, by trail and error, and those who lost, or should I say died, didn’t have a chance to pass on their knowledge. In other words, what worked was passed on to future generations. What didn’t work, or was deemed less effective wasn’t propagated.

Whenever, I hear someone claims to have discovered something new or developed a new innovative method of fighting I just have to chuckle.

I mean Ed Parker, father of American Kenpo, and Morihei Ueshiba (1883-1969), founder of Aikido never claimed to have invented new methods of fighting. If anyone could make such an assertion it would definitely be people like them. However, they never claimed to have invented anything. They simply took elements of other systems and restructured things to suit their needs, and how they perceived martial arts should be taught.

Did these pioneers, and others like them discover or gain insights to new things over time? Sure, and changes within their systems are evident. However, they didn’t announce to the world that they discovered something new, something that had never been seen before.

That’s because they knew it wasn’t. They knew that if they could figure this out, if they could gain some insights to the techniques they’ve been doing for years, than someone before them could have also done the same.

Just because they had been show something, or had never seen it before, didn’t mean it didn’t already exist and that hundreds of other practitioners in the world weren’t doing this on a regular basis.

The simple fact is—and it is fact—there are only so many ways the human body can move, only so many ways the body can be used as a weapon, only so many ways the body can be attacked.

As a species, we may not have been on this planet for that long, but it has been long enough to discover just about everything that we can do when it comes to fighting each other.

Aliveness

This is a term I had never heard before, and one that I think has some real merit to it. The article "Why Aliveness?...." as posted in Spencer’s previous post is definitely worth reading.

For the most part I agree with the author’s assertions, and I really have nothing to disagree with in his overall argument that in order to see if one’s techniques are viable they have to be done in such a manner where there is a degree of realism.

It is the “realism” part I have issues with, or at least his thoughts on how far should this realism be applied.

For example, there is a video on “YouTube” where a practitioner of Systema, (a Russian Martial Arts System) does a gun take away with a firearm that is actually loaded with live ammunition and ready to fire. I mean how much realer can things get?

Another question about realism is how much do I need to see if something is really effective. In other words, do I need to test everything out to see if it actually works for me? Do I need to shoot someone with my gun to see if that will kill him? Do I need to stab a person to see if a knife will really penetrate flesh? Do I need to hit someone in the windpipe to see if they will actually stop breathing?

Sure these are extreme examples, but hopefully they make my point. My point being that sometimes certain things can’t be practiced realistically because they would cause great bodily injury.

In addition, there is a big difference between applying a technique to someone who is aware of what you are trying to do, and the poor sucker one catches by surprise in the alleyway when attacked.

A lot of martial arts skills, especially for the hobbyist, rely on the element of surprise. That’s how a lot of “real world” life protection techniques go for the kill, and are designed to inflict serious damage. You may only get one chance.

Sparring, no matter how realistic or alive will always have a degree of unrealism about it. It has to, because the intention is different. I’m not trying to hurt my sparring partner. I don’t want him to hurt me. I’m going to hold back to some degree.

In addition two trained fighters approach things differently than two strangers on the street. Fighters entering a match have some anticipation, some foresight that their opponent has the skill and ability to cause damage. They approach each other cautiously, “feel each other out,” I believe is the expression. They only go for the kill, the knockout, when they feel they have the upper hand.

Two strangers on the street have no expectations, nor are they aware that either person has any fighting skills. There is no time to “feel each other out.” The fight is on and it is life or death. That’s realism.

Is there a place for "aliveness" in training? Yes, there definitely is. Further more, there has to be. But there still has to be a distinction made between aliveness, and sparring. They are not the same.

While I won’t claim every technique I teach involves "aliveness," some techniques are done in a manner that is as close as it is possibly safe to do. They all require that the attacker attacks with intent, and that the defender defends themselves fluidly and with precision. These techniques also require immediate corrections as one’s opponent moves, balance shifts, and all the other countless things that can go wrong do go wrong.

In other words, our techniques cannot be done robotically, and no one technique is ever done exactly the same way twice. Each attack is different and changes one’s ability to instantly react, adapt, and modify things as they are happening. That real-time adaptation is the difference between success and failure.

In other words, the techniques become "Alive." They are constantly changing based on what is happening at the moment. The "aliveness" comes from not being restricted by overly stylized form, and the practitioner having the freedom to make adjustments as needed.

MMA

Unfortunately I have mixed emotions regarding the current trend in MMA (mixed martial arts). On one hand, I feel that that the MMA practitioners have clearly pointed out some major weaknesses within the state of martial arts today. On the other hand, I have a hard time with many of the claims they make, and frankly with the attitudes many have regarding other martial art systems.

First of all, MMA is not the end-all system of fighting so many claim it to be. Now, before the local MMA guys come looking to kick my butt, hear me out.

MMA is great for the ring, and there are a lot of MMA guys I’d like to have backing me up in a street fight. Some of these guys are very good fighters, and more importantly, they like fighting—which is diametrically opposed to me who hates fighting.

However, the way some MMA guys claim their system is the only viable fighting method is ludicrous, if not all out arrogant. I won't go into all the reasons I believe this, but if you read "Assumptions" by Toby Threadgill (also on Spencer’s post), you’ll get some idea.

Furthermore, let's not forget that MMA is a sport. There are rules. They do things that if done in a real life or death situation on the street would get them severely injured even killed. Go to the ground in a fight in my neighborhood, and see what happens.

They don’t train in weaponry or prepare for an opponent who is armed. That is a serious oversight in today’s world.

However, MMA practitioners do train hard. They constantly test their skills, honing them to a degree where they actually can use the skills they learn. Akin to warriors of the past, they constantly work to improve their abilities, and become the best fighter possible.

More importantly, the MMA fighter shows what type of physical condition one must achieve and maintain in order to be a “professional fighter.” Most of us don’t have the desire or determination to train in such a manner. Once again, this shows a major difference between the warrior and the hobbyist.

The most important thing the MMA has done is making people reevaluate the martial arts and their effectiveness. People are starting to understand that there are differences, and that there are martial arts that are less effective than others.

Let’s face it there are numerous schools that can be labeled Mc Dojos, Fu Fu Jujtsu, and belt mills. Many are nothing more than martial aerobics, or watered down shells of what once a real martial system. Many schools are nothing more than gloried day care, with a few adult classes.

The MMA has opened the door for people to question the arts that they do, and more importantly cross-train. Yes, cross-train.

Cross-training, seeking out techniques that cover the deficiencies in one’s system is nothing new. It’s been done since antiquity. No one person can know, or possibly transmit everything.

Unfortunately, for many years there has been a belief that is disrespectful to cross-train. Some teachers even forbid it. Because of this, many practitioners have been brought up to believe their style is the only method of fighting, the best of the best. These practitioners will vehemently defend their art, even when faced with overwhelming facts contradicting what their teacher told them.

In the end, the funny thing is that there is really no major difference between reality, aliveness, and MMA. They are all seeking pretty much the same goal, which I’ll sum up in one word: EFEECTIVENESS.

They want to go back in time to when martial arts were martial arts, and all the fluff, all the Hollywood, and all the BS weren’t so prevalent.

I may have issues with the arrogance of many of the proponents of these systems, but I have absolutely no issue with what they are searching for. I’m also searching for effectiveness. I to have problems with martial art techniques that have no basis in the real world, or would get a person killed if they ever attempted them in the real world.