Do Martial Arts NEED Competitions?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2021
- Competitions are, by far, the best method to pressure test a martial art. A martial art that doesn't have competitions is like a field of science that doesn't run experiments.
Background music by Alexander Kehoe. Go check out his music!
/ @alexkehoepwj
I wanna go find the URLs for all the clips I used, but I'm tired... Please forgive me.
I'm going to comment before and after this video. I think you are wrong. Just straight up. There are a lot of concepts and techniques that are in martial arts, even ones that are used in sports, that aren't safe for sparring or competition.
Either way it's not the same. I respect your perspective but yeah. I think you don't fully understand traditional arts or how they are realistically taught. That isn't completely your own fault as most cases of traditional arts are completely what your mindset is. But none of those are really trained the way they would have been done so in the past. But now I'm going to see if you can change my mind.
Okay, so your first point is... wrong. Literally every art with a history is being advanced over hundreds of years over times of conflict and wars in which they were used. So that point is mostly moot, unless we are talking about aikido. No real history in that art really.
The rest of your points are sort of one sided. You are assuming every art without competition has no pressure testing when some of these people live violent lives in which they use it.
Then you are assuming the idea of an art is to be famous. The people who created those moves that weren't famous didn't need that competition publicity to be efficient. People in an art that works want to make it their own.
I also disagree with you about competition and real defense. You train for competition and that doesn't translate 1/1 into reality. Who was that mma fighter who struggled with one guy who broke into his house? His vase experience did not give him the ability to overpower his opponents in that case. Fights aren't the same as matches. That's one of the reasons why people who go into competition to "kill" like Mike Tyson does so well. But not everyone who competes does.
I also don't follow into the ground that I think competition is bad. Learning how to handle stress again someone who really means you harm is good. I don't fully disagree with you on any one point but I just understand the one sided of your outlook by your experience. People are dumb.
Too many people say exactly what you believe they say and I'm pretty sure none of them can really fight. Eye jabs and groin hits don't end fights and are really hard to land against a real person.
But thousands of years of killing people while learning how to be better at it doesn't just stop mattering because no one competes. The point of martial arts is that. Making it a sport doesn't help it, unless you've already neutered the art. Which in your defense most eastern arts have been.
Sorry, this long. I did it over my phone and not really sure I said everything of if it was in order enough to make sense.
I forgot to say this I think: not every martial arts that works wants people to know it. Eastern arts had a lot of secretary. Those people will go to other gyms to learn their stuff but just not share and not compete. Not everyone has an ego and wants to be famous.
@@9usuck0 Martial arts being advanced through warfare is a common misconception. Hand-to-hand skills have had very little use in warfare both then and now, because people have weapons. Hand-to-hand fights were very infrequent. Because of this infrequency, getting accurate feedback on what works and what doesn't is exceptionally difficult. This is compounded by the fact that most scuffles on battlefields have very few witnesses, and no one that is truly focusing on that exchange (except for the people involved). By comparison, combat sports are often watched and analyzed by massive communities of people. A scientific paper is only any good if people read and peer review it. Imagine a scientist that performed a really great experiment, but nobody saw it and they didn't record any of the data. Their experiment is now absolutely meaningless. Same with martial artists. And, even if those martial arts actually DID get valuable testing out of warfare (which they didn't), most of those wars were hundreds of years ago. The moves have been handed down through a centuries long game of 'telephone'. How do you know it's even still good information unless you test it in the modern day?
I'm actually planning a video that will explain why martial arts used in the military are very different than a martial art that you would want to use for self-defense. So, stay tuned for that.
People using martial arts in violent lives suffers from many of the same problems as martial arts in warfare. Except that it has the additional issue of being from one specific person's perspective. If one single scientist got an experimental result 30 times in a row, that doesn't really matter until other people are able to replicate it. That one person might be an exception, or they might be doing something specific to make it work. The only way to know is to have other people replicate it, and for all of those experiments to be peer reviewed.
I'm not assuming that the goal of martial arts is to be famous. I'm saying that the people that are good at martial arts often BECOME famous, which is kind of the point. If someone learns a TON about martial arts, and refuse to share it with anyone, they're kind of a jerk. Imagine if a scientist found the cure for cancer and just kept it to themselves! The point of research and innovation is to make the world better by sharing knowledge. If you have a lot of knowledge to share, in a field that people care about, you often end up becoming famous. Fame isn't a bad thing. Especially when it's because you contributed to the world.
I agree that competitions don't translate perfectly into reality, but no martial art does. If I want to be prepared to fight off someone breaking into my home in the middle of the night, how do I test that? Hire someone to break into my house and attack me when I least expect it? I'll know I probably hired them! And, if I didn't, that's a horribly unsafe way to test my art. No martial art perfectly translates to reality, because we can't test reality. But imperfect tests are FAR better than no tests at all.
The guy you're thinking of is Anthony Smith. While things like that can happen (BJ Penn getting knocked out in a bar fight is another example, although he was far past his prime), they are usually the exception. If a pro MMA fighter gets into a scuffle with a random person, who's PROBABLY going to win? The MMA fighter. 9 times out of 10.
And we have to remember that Anthony Smith was woken up at 4am and was immediately in a fight. Smith didn't know if the guy had a weapon or not (that adds a ton of anxiety, which does hurt your performance) and the bad guy, who happened to actually KNOW combat sports, was also on a ton of drugs and basically felt no pain. And Anthony Smith still won. The bad guy was less skilled, but he did have a lot of other advantages.
I wish it were true that people had been perfecting violence for thousands of years, but it's pretty much a myth. We know that the vast majority of traditional martial arts are terrible. But then why is there a select group of traditional martial artists that would be able to fight BETTER than an MMA practitioner? What makes them different? Did they hold onto the "true" way to do their art while everyone else forgot? Or did they somehow continue testing and refining it? Without competition, and with warfare switching over to guns and bombs, I don't see how they could have continued to test it, especially since the world has largely become a safer and more peaceful place over the decades. Plus, even if they did try using it in street fights and warfare, it would have all the problems listed above.
The only reasonable option is that they held onto the effective techniques while everyone else forgot them. But how did they do that while barely anyone else did? And what about their style works in street fights but NOT MMA? I get that they might not want fame, but they SHOULD want to advocate for their art and pressure test their own abilities!
The idea that there are small, reclusive groups of martial artists that have mastered long-forgotten, deadly techniques that would put modern athletes to shame sounds REALLY fake.
It's much more likely that the traditional martial artists that can fight have A. exceptional physical talent or B. cross-trained in competitive martial arts. The other option sounds like the plot to a bad movie.
Sorry, my comment ended up being WAY longer than yours lol.
I pinned the comment because I ended up typing a super long reply and I want people to see and discuss these points.
@@ArmchairViolence I just want to say sorry. I have all the thoughts at once and can't make them short. lol
You don't have to read those. lol
It just baffles me why wrestling and boxing are not considered traditional martial arts. Both of these have been around from ancient times.
Well, the modern incarnations of boxing and wrestling don't have continuous lineages back to ancient times, but they are still older than a lot of other "traditional" martial arts.
It's honestly just because they are combat sports, and therefore evolve. They are "old" but not "traditional" because they innovate!
That being said, it is kind of weird where we draw the line on categorizing some martial arts.
@@ArmchairViolence despite taekwondo being a super recent art in comparison to something like boxing, tkd is the tma and boxing is considered modern
@@Rex-golf_player810 taekwondo actually has a modern side and a traditional side, ITF being more "old" as in, it wasnt even taekwondo, it was taekkyon and there's WTF which is the modern, the one used for olimpics
@@SleeplessBrazilLimbo even if you consider the oldest possible form of taekwondo
Fuck lets make it tangsoodo literally proto tkd
Im pretty sure boxing is older
@@Rex-golf_player810 yeah boxing is older
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens
Sums up most of those quack martial artists.
Really great video by the way. The work paid off, excellent little video essay.
YES IF YOU DON’T HAVE COMPETITION YOUR MARTIAL ART IS BS. Except Ameridote.
I agree that competitions advance a martial art more than anything, look at historically functional ones like muai Thai. Tho there’s something Rokas pointed out, all the functional strikes thrown in most functional martial arts are quite similar, it’s just how they’re utilised makes em different I guess..
Great video btw, and really loved the editing, whoever did it.
Most martial arts if they work are pretty much the same. It's like every road leads home, you can only efficiently manage to punch someone in so many ways. Lol
Yep! Functional martial arts looking similar is a great example of how two groups that both do good research will end up agreeing with each other!
Thank you! The editing was all me. And it was super rushed, so I'm glad it ended up turning out well!
@@ArmchairViolence I know I've already commented a lot on this video but I'm bored and this comment reminded me of two panels I've seen in a a medieval fight book and a Japanese fight book. In all the books I've read I've only seen this depicted in Europe fight book and on Japanese fight book but both panels showed the exact scenario which I thought was interesting because feudal Japan wasn't yet talking to feudal Europe. Anyway, the scenario is an unarmed mounted warrior is passing an armed foot soldier. The way to dispatch footed warrior is to ride pass and as you do so you grab the back of his head and chin and snap is chin up and the back of his head down as you ride past. Obviously wasn't a big enough issue that multiple people thought it needed a solution but happened enough that two people who never talked to each other came up with the same solution. Evolutionary convergence is fun.
I'm bigger than you and not 100% confident I could defeat your windmill after seeing how solid your technique is.
"Solid windmill technique" is a phrase that has never before been uttered! lol
Quijote de la Mancha:
This is crazy. Recently one of our black belt BJJ guys is transitioning to MMA. He did a belly down knee bar for a cage fight submission in the first round. That’s still making waves in the Houston area. We of course started training this technique and i almost tapped one of our purple belts with it. I thought I was messing it up and bailed on it. Later he told me I had it perfect but he was waiting for me to crank more on it, but I bailed.
As a mixed martial artist currently doing a degree in History&Philosophy of science, this video was a pleasure to watch. Most people COMPLETELY misunderstand how advancements and innovation in science work, and you casually throw it out there to discuss martial arts. Nice job.
This is such a great argument, I really like the niche philosophy and fighting intersection your channel has found.
At the risk of citing an anecdote, I recall a time when I was training Krav and BJJ. The BJJ guys was watching tape of the best guys in competitions (Gi and nogi worlds, adcc) and studying their technique. They were constantly innovating and trying new things. The krav guys were teaching mostly the same thing over and over again, with the occasional "oh my instructor likes to do it like this" where techniques got modified, but weren't really open to new approaches.
This comment is mostly for the algorithm, looking forward to the next vid!
Imagine you want to teach an AI how to fight
In one test, you feed the AI hours and hours of karate drilling and sparring footage, and reward the AI for correctly repeating that footage. This AI will be able to perfectly emulate karate flawlessly without fail.
In the second test, you give the AI only a basic understanding of karate, and then put it through millions of trials against AIs which have mastered a number of other martial arts. This second trial will never be perfect at karate. Instead, it will be perfect at fighting.
Ok why did I get chills from this though
@@wynsonrao5177
Probably. Because. This guy, just used, what the bible. Call WISDOM
And WISDOM. IS. VERY. CREEPY. SCARY 😱. AND
BEAUTIFUL 🏵️. ALL. AT. THE.
same time
And. Oh. Yeah, knowledge. Was. It's. Student.
Probably. Middle school. At. That. And. I'm. Not. Being. Funny
Shout. Out. To. Knowledge 😁
But. I. Think. He's. Trying to use. WISDOM. In. A. Position. From. Non- experience. In. Some of the fighting. Topics and. Even though. WISDOM KNOWS. ALL THINGS, I. Believe that. Making. Someone. A. Psychic. Ain't. One. Of. Them
Because. He. Using. DIVINE-PERSPECTIVE. WHICH. IS. USUALLY HOW WISDOM. RESIDES. HERSELF IN. human beings; from our brain. Curriculum.
But. Not. Entirely. Giving people the ability to see things. They. Have. Never seen. Or. Knowing things that were. Never proven; TO THEM!!!!!!
Otherwise it's. That's. Not. WISDOM, that would be. Sorcery. Or. Witchcraft. Because. WISDOM. Can. Do. Far. More. Than. Any. Magic. Can ever. Do, but. She. Won't. Really. Partake in it. At all. If. IT. Not. Glorifying. The. ALMIGHTY FATHER. IN. HEAVEN.
But. However. I've. Believe. Once. You have WISDOM. You can. Use. Her. Abilities. Without. Her. Permission.
But. That. Would. Gei. You in. Trouble. With. GOD 😱🙏
I'm. Not. Saying. That's what. He's doing tho.😂👍
Jesus. Why oh why does everyone think that we are computers? Why does the OP think that martial ARTS develop in a way akin to SCIENCE. You don’t hVe to actually have an honors degree in philosophy to see that this is flawed, but I happen to have an honors degree in philosophy, so allow me to tell you that these are category mistakes. People do things with their skills that computers don’t and probably never will - we improvise. That means I can learn to punch a face by learning to punch a bag. Martial Arts proceed the way all arts do - by stylistic invention, NOT by linear, teleological progress (in fact, the idea that even science proceeds by way of the accrual of more and more perfect information is quite old and basically no longer held by anyone). So while competition may be necessary for capitalism, and ARGUABLY for scientific invention, it is the emergence of style, form, tradition, community, and shared standards that make an art move forward (if forward is even the right word, which it is not).
Besides, I feel like we all really know that you can’t actually compare entire arts to one another and expect any kind of granular analysis.
I like the mention of rulesets changing the martial art to fit it. The same thing happened in fencing. In foil, there is a right of way system that was meant to encourage good defense by forcing the defending fencers to first parry or making an attack miss before counterattacking. What ended up happening was that the attackers simply held their blades almost behind their back so they couldn't be parried, but they had the right of way so the defender couldn't launch a counter. If they did, the attacker just finished their attack and got the point before the lockout kicked in. Rather than properly defending, the attackers simply forgo defense entirely because it's a sport, not a life-or-death fight, and that is how you win at the sport.
Regarding groin strikes and eye gouges...I always see them as the fighting equivalent of mutually assured destruction. Aside from being quite difficult to pull off accurately in one try (at least to the extent that it will immediately end a fight, which these moves are purported to do), attempting them and failing WILL enrage your opponent and if you don't outclass them already, they'll probably level you completely for doing it. Conversely, if someone tried it on me and failed, I'd probably try to murder them, too. Maybe I'm just too naive, but I'd never go for an eye gouge or a groin strike in a real fight unless the alternative is certain death or they do it first.
I started watching this chan a few days ago, I haven't heard a single thing I disagree with. You're spot on
Competing in Brazilian jiu-jitsu has actually made my jiu-jitsu better because you really know what works and what doesn't. And if your techniques and systems are not pressure tested, you can't improve them or to actually find out if they work
I mostly agree with your points, as they're pretty darn solid and clarifications you've made in response to Hodgson's comment. Yet I can't help but feel like sports only carry a martial arts progress so far before becoming a detriment. Specifically, because of competition rulesets, athletes will try to exploit those rules for their benefit. Which is logical and natural to do: in order to win you should use all tools available to you. This however, in my opinion, will lead to some really weird habits that would be to the absolute detriment of actual combat. I'd like to use Icy Mike's argument about him being in paintball and law enforcement: the paintball (competition sport) had a bad, rule imposed, effect on his law enforcement training.
So in short: competition are necessary, but should be handled with care as to avoid becoming a detriment.
Sorry for weird english, I'm no native.
Your English is great! Completely natural!
This is very true. It's the cost of all training, really. The real key is to design the ruleset well enough so that you minimize that problem. Although it can never be 100% eliminated.
But, even then, imperfect preparation is far better than no preparation at all.
Do you know which video Mike talked about paintball in? I kind of want to see it.
@@ArmchairViolence I'll need to search it. I believe it's in one of his vods of a past stream. If I don't find it, you should just ask the man, I presume he'll be likely to respond to you
Also the other problem, the bigger the competition get, the organizer will care more about making it commercially viable. Every combat sport that is represented on the Olympics is a water downed joke of itself.
Big organizers have two priority.
First avoid injuries that are bad for business
Second encourage, their athletes to do more spectecular technics to get more views.
And also just wierd stuffs happens all the time. Hey judo, no more double leg, we have wresstling alredy. Hey karate, no you can't throw each others with two hands in a gi, we have judo alredy.
Hey boxing, it would be so much safer to you if you had to wear a gear that makes your had a twice as big of a target.
I agree with all your points but I actually think you undersold the importance of competition.
Competition also plays a role in improving your individual martial arts even if you a only doing them for self defense.
Competition gives you a chance to fight people that you are not accustomed to fighting who may favour a different moves as well as putting you under more stress than usual sparring which can help simulate some of the stress you may feel in a real world situation.
*Sees 16 minute video saying how only combat sports are any good*
"You undersold the importance of competition!"
Now that's some commitment to competition! xD
What you say is very true. Competing is a great way to put yourself under pressure! I honestly didn't mention it in the video because I didn't want people that only do sparring to feel TOO attacked lol
@@ArmchairViolence Ha Ha
I guess a lot of why I think stressing the individual importance of competition is so important comes from my own personal experience. I have understood the benefits of competition to the martial art for a long time but never took part in competition as I never felt good/prepared enough.
When I finally bit the bullet and went away I learn't so much it made me regret never going before. Moves that my training partners had wised up to working again, experiencing fighting people who fought very differently from what I was used to and fighting a guy who was so good that he was able to exploit holes in my game that I did not even know I had.
I am now doing Jiu Jitsu and I am finding some of my training partners doing the same thing I did wanting to get to blue belt before competing despite white belt comps being available and them being more than good enough to compete in them.
I think people assume that only people that are good should compete. While in reality people become good by competing.
Yes but not the point based competitions that are used in Karate.
This is really well understood when you compare martial arts to science. As a scientist and martial artist, it hits home far more than this would have before my science career began. This is likely because most of the martial arts in my wheelhouse do not have readily available ways to compete (as there is primarily just in-house sparring). When we think about scientific advancement, discrete fields can come up with useful solutions for a problem, but that is uncommon (especially in dealing with more difficult scientific quandaries). Difficult problems are best and more often tackled through interdisciplinary approaches, and we can't tap into such approaches fully without things such as competitions or MMA sparring events that shake up the training we do in a vacuum.
Quick question though. Do you have science in your professional/educational background? I'm asking because you come across as being well-versed in the basics of research methodology.
I like what you point out about discrete fields vs interdisciplinary approaches. It kind of reminds me how a lot of advancements in the late 19th and early 20th century were made by scientists working in discrete fields, but most recent advancements have come by combining different expertise. I think martial arts did a similar thing. Boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and BJJ all advanced very well separately, but subtly started hitting ceilings that could only be broken by interdisciplinary approaches.
Unfortunately, I do not have much of a science background besides a few college courses. But the scientific method is something that anyone can benefit from applying.
I do have a philosophy background, so that got me more familiar with different ways of reasoning.
I'm glad I could successfully impersonate a scientist, though! Lol
Hema is a fun example of several comments I see. For now I'll choose medieval longsword fighting. There's a few systems that had a rich and well documented tradition in which you can actually see innovations get added. However, almost all the techniques (not all but most) are more than likely techniques you'd see in a competitive dual. This is further supported by the fact that modern day longsword competitions can use many of these techniques effectively. I've even seen some that almost looked like snap shots of the drawing from these books. But even more fun is that modern day longsword competitions are already changing because modern fighters don't wear plate and maille and don't use sharp swords so even though it started out as a way to revive a lost tradition, it is turning into something else. Not an expert, just trying hema is fun as it is less well known so it doesn't quite have the level of toxicity that other more well known arts have.
Good points about Hema, but though partly Hema is destroyed by competitions because of used rulesets, which cause suicidal running into each other, destroying the techniques provided in the treaties and cause bad fencing habits. The fencers behave like they would never do with sharp swords. Turning it from a martial art and combat sport into something like medieval olympic fencing. There are good tournaments however using proper rulesets, which support clean fencing according to the principles of the art.
agree with most of what you said but worth noting that most longsword stuff is based on unarmored fighting treaties. As even back then they had very different ways of fighting for people in armor and people without. HEMA groups that study armored fighting do exist but most of us can't afford the 30K for a suit of full plate.
@@locky7443 true. I'm mostly just a guy who reads books and watches videos so I know less than a novice haha. But your point brings up another thing. What you wear makes an impact on the techniques and strategies one would employ. Look at gi bjj vs no gi vs mma BJJ. Same art, very different strategies.
@@jomess7879 yeah no problem I novice once to(still arguably am). Armoured sword fighting is honestly so different from unarmoured I consider it an entirely separate martial discipline . Even armed wrestling is very different from unarmoured due to being able to grab the armour and most submissions not working.
Yeah, weapons, armor, and rule sets all change the equation massively. Manipulate any one of these factors and outcomes shift.
Your opening point about the importance of replication is central to my own research! I’m going to have my students watch this as an example of the importance of meta-analytic work.
Good points, keep up this style of video
Interesting and really well argued. Keep it up!
While you might offend some with your candor, I applaud you young man.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
This guy is really good at explanation
Someone who understands statistics... Very good. Keep it up
100% agree with everything you said. I definitely think MMA is the best testing method Currently, my only beef with it is they aren't allowed to wear jackets. Those poor judo players are getting shafted 😂
The shoulder lock was invented hundreds of years before Kimora used it to beat Helio Gracey but it was named renamed Kimora because he made the move famous.
Quite a few Jujitsu moves was renamed after a practitioner made it famous.
One of the biggest reasons wrestlers have been dominating MMA is because of how they train and how often they compete. Weekly wrestling meets is intense. The average BJJ guy competes maybe once every two years if ever. Competing also simulates a higher level of actual intensity more similar to a fight than sparring . A competitor always stands out in terms of athleticism compared to non competitors because they’re training harder usually and doing cardio etc
I feel like this guys channel is good but only is attractive to a very specific demographic of people
The target demographic is ME! I just put out the kinds of videos I want to see lol
And I love them. Keep on keeping on man. I'll watch every one.
I feel like you've basically summed up Mr. Violence's whole personality.
Great video!!! Fully agree with all of what you say. We need a sort of UFC for weapons based arts. Sport fencing, HEMA, Kendo, FMA, and a whole bunch of other disciplines really are still where unarmed martial arts were at until 90's as far as what works in a "real" fight. High level competition pushes everything, but the rulesets and potential damage or reward one could recieve highly affects the outcome. As of right now, Boxing and UFC are at the top of the food chain for payouts and real risks but if I can get someone to promote me, I assure you any weapons based art showcasing their skills in a situation that could involve death or permanent disability would easily surpass both boxing and ufc in popularity.
I reject all other research and rely on my own theory that my water gun will save me in a life or death altercation
Nice video you have one new subscriber.
Very nicely said. The system I teach has always had this "sport is not a real fight" philosophy.
But since I was made head of the system, I have started to see it's weaknesses.
Ultimately there are a few different things in the ring, but not as many as people think, someone who wins in the ring is still most likely to win in the street.
Since I'm 35 and have two little girls, I am not willing to put my health at risk to test my own stuff in the ring, however what I have done over the last few years, is to train the methods from what I practice, that are actually the same as you'd find in MMA. This means most of what I teach, so I know it's good, not because I've tested it in the ring, but because it's the same techniques as what the pros use.
I have a question for you though?
Your mate Ice Mike said something about it. If you only practice the sport, you train your body to leave your groin wide open, this doesn't matter so much from a kicking distance, but does from a clinch, when I work with Muay Thai guys, it's so easy to lift the knee.
So what I'm thinking is the "ultimate" self defence system, would be to use tried and tested MMA stuff, but with a few small changes, such as guarding your groin, training the 12 to 6 elbow to the back of the head/neck, and lastly making your ground work focus on getting back up rather than applying submissions, which is what I heard BJJ was originally for, not sure if that's right though.
I am going to a semi real fight next year though, rather than enter into a tournament, I've got a mate who is fighting armature MMA, so I'll ask him if we can do a mock fight, to get a reality check.
Thanks for the video.
I respect what you are doing. Not many heads of their arts are willing to evolve their art from its traditional roots.
Eddie bravo part got me lol
Good points but I would argue that you can get good results from testing ideas by cross training with other clubs as an alternative to competition. For example the dog brothers don't have competitions yet have pretty intensive sparring at their gatherings.
When you have intensive sparring, with rules, between groups of people that don't normally train with each other, you basically have competition! It doesn't always have to be a world-wide sport. Two gyms competing against each other is a really good place to start, if what you want to do doesn't already have a larger sport around it.
From their videos, it looks like the dog brothers are slowly starting a kind of competition. Which is great!
@@ArmchairViolence In that sense I agree. Maybe its just semantics and my perception of the meaning of the word "competition". In my head I think of the focus being about points and the competition being the end goal. In that circumstance you may (not always) end up with some "tippy tappy" like Olympic taekwondo or Olympic fencing. Compare Olympic fencing to HEMA sabre fencing it's a different kettle of fish. However from same origins. The problem with Olympic fencing is that focus turned to the game (ie the competition) and lost sight of the martial aspect. That's the point I was trying to make in a long winded way!
@@AlexanderGent Yes, that is true. And having competitors care more about the ruleset than fighting is the necessary price that must be paid to have competitions.
But a well-designed ruleset can largely overcome that problem. Tawkwondo rewards contact, Muay Thai rewards damage. Simple things can make a big different in how effective your art ends up being
@@ArmchairViolence a good example can be seen in the rule styles of the same art. Some examples from karate, kyokushin, shotokan, and karate combat. All karate but three district rule sets.
@@AlexanderGent yet whenever an "olympic" style fencer shows up at HEMA events, he mops the floor with them. Most of the best HEMA fencers have done sport fencing or even started there. Go figure.
I 100% agree, a good example of this is judo actually! Judo has tournaments and randori. And in randori when I would try doing osoto gari I kept messing it up and didn’t know why! So I modified with sideways movement. You step off with your off leg, pull them to the side with your main arm, then suddenly stop wrap your arm around their and.. Osoto Gari! I ONLY would’ve ever found sideways osoto if I tested it in randori. That’s why competition cuts BS! For perspective I’m a blue belt.
Edit: I was going to try it in competition. But unfortunately all of my opponents were black and brown belts. Also my weight class is the 200^ guys. So they were probably the BEST martial artist there other than the actual OLYMPIAN we had on hand!
I agree for the most part with this, I still stand by the Mortal Kombat suggestion if we lived in a world devoid of ethical, moral or legal impediments, a competition whose only rule is the fighters are both aware and agree to fight, and where death is the expected outcome might be the only way to truly test efficacy. There are other variables, however, that we must consider. Things like genetics, mental state, cumulative or systemic fatigue, incentive (willpower to fight) etc all play a role. Consider if one fighter is told he and his whole family could be killed vs the other being told he could steal an iPhone and a TV (robbery situation). The man whose family is on the line we can assume will fight harder than the man looking for a quick pay out. Morale plays a huge role in fighting wars or competition between teams, even where there is a disparity in strengths. Similarly size, strength, fatigue etc. So whilst I agree that competition is a good indicator of efficacy, one should start with asking how to define efficacy in relation to the goal. I don't think there's any formula for the perfect fighter who will excel in every situation. It is why, much as I am loathe to say this, the "self defence" artists who do create unfalsifiable hypotheses do have a point in that what's effective in the cage may not be effective for civilian or tactical use in life threatening scenarios. I say this with humility and respect to your points, given that in my nation (3rd world hell hole), we are under constant threat of crime; murder, rape, maiming etc whether from criminals or even the authorities. I don't claim to have the rebuttal either. Competition is the only controlled way we can use in an ethical society. But it is still heavily imperfect.
You're absolutely right. Even though the gym doesn't represent the streets it can mimic it with the extra caviar that your opponent actually knows what to do to take you out so you can argue it's an even better testing ground than the streets. When you put variables into it like knives or guns of course you're going to have a hard time finding solutions to it unarmed cuz those tools were invented to put you into an inherent advantage over your opponent independent on size and skill.
I m in martial arts for 27 years (I m almost 40),I've tried competition, non competition although my main bases are karate and judo. And you are right, from top to bottom. Martial arts need competition. Forget that street stuff arguments. If I can inflict a high speed front punch (mae te zuki) in a trained oponent, I can do it in someone ho don't expect or even know what the hell it is (Tried it, done it, it just works).
What about the moves that were used in the 80’s and are now no longer allowed? Doesn’t that take away from the art?
But but the streets bro the streets! Me and my Krav instructor practice fuckin killing there’s no way we could compete
Couldn't agree more. I'm glad I quit Karate after 1 year. That was enough to gain some basic kicking skills but every additional year would have been a waste of time.
Competition can be a double edged sword however… or triple edged under the right criteria or circumstances.
The first edge and benefit is everything that you described in this video. The second edge however is that competition can and has fundamentally changed the understanding/effectiveness of the martial art in question because of the rule set, an example would be Karate. Up until Japanese influence over the competitive rule set, it was already an effective and pressure tested system of combat and self defense, it was also a very early example of a mixed martial art borrowing techniques from Chinese, Filipino, Thai, Indonesian, Korean, French, Japanese and of course Okinawa influences. While yes there was striking an actual majority of the art was clinch fighting, stand up grappling, throws/takedowns and all forms of joint locks.
However when the art went to Japan, the Japanese already had competitive Grappling/Wrestling in the forms of Judo, Jujitsu, and Sumo and they were looking for something to compete with the newly introduced to them Western Boxing, so the competition rules of Karate put emphasis on the striking and kickboxing aspects changing Modern Karate into what we see today and only recently has there been a resurgence in in interest for the old which only a small handful of very old masters know.
The third edge is in the competition of styles… basically early UFC. The problem with this is creating a rule set that favors a particular system or style (which has been slightly rectified since and continues to improve to this day). Not to get even longer winded but the first few UFCs were essentially giant marketing tools for the Gracie family with the rule set heavily favoring BJJ. You can look at the interviews with Bill “Superfoot” Wallace (the first Commentator) who talks about some of the behind the scenes choices and the fighter selection, and also check out Ken Shamrock’s interview about his first 3 fights with Royce Gracie. The style vs. style type competition works great in martial arts movies, but to pull it off effectively to try to accomplish the benefits that you are talking about is a monumental challenge, and one which I don’t know will ever be pulled off 100% effectively.
I agree with you that competition is a good tool for improving a martial art that has otherwise no other means of pressure testing. However there are some arts that have been fully pressure tested in the past and are effective in what they do without needing a competition format simply because what the art is seeking to accomplish whether that be self perfection (various internal arts) or because the art is one of death (some of the weapon based arts).
Competition can also change a martial art to the point where it resembles very little of what it once was, in some cases leaving just an empty husk of the Art that was originally there (I.E. Olympic Fencing, Kendo, Taekwondo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Olympic Archery, hell even modern sport Judo is going this way)
You present your points very well, look at multiple sides of an argument, and do quite a bit of research for your videos, so I'm curious - do you have a hard science background? It's nice to see someone bring a bit of elegant academic discourse into the world of combat sports/MMA, where the broscience is strong and empty bravado and anecdotal evidence are the order of the day.
Thank you!
No hard science background, but I do have a philosophy background which gives me some knowledge on schools of thought and types of evidence. And then I just did my best impression of a scientist. 😂
Masterpiece
"Do Martial Arts NEED Competitions?" shortly ... YES IT DOES
Question :
What about competitive martial arts with a very limited rule set such as pushing hands ?
In wich the objective is to basically to move the other person without moving yourself , by using joint locks and weight shifting ?
Basically a test of balance and sensibility ,
How limited can a ruleset be before it's a competitive game and not a fighting style ?
One thing I liked when doing Krav Maga, is to throw groin shot as a teep. So when applied to kickboxing/Muay Thai, the movement is essentially the same, just aimed slightly higher.
I think this is a good way to practice non-competition strikes for practical purposes
One thing I would love to see, but I have no idea how it could even possibly be implemented safely? Team MMA. 5 vs 5 (or even 3 vs 3) in a sufficiently large ring. It is often argued that teams of equal size will often just be divided into 1 vs 1 fights until someone wins, and then that team will win because they now have numbers, but I'm honestly unconvinced. Many of the current crop of pro fighters might end up doing this because they have trained almost exclusively for 1 vs 1, but all it takes is for one team to have the bright idea to specifically train for the group fight and discover that stuff they'd previously ruled out as too low percentage is actually higher percentage in this new situation.
Again, I have no idea how this could be handled even remotely safely. You'd need a whole team of referees able to stop what's effectively a brawl whenever someone gets KO'd or taps, and if some of the fighting ends up on the ground, someone could easily catch a stray foot to the head. I do think it would be incredibly interesting if it could be made to work though.
I agree that sparring and fighting is important for a proper martial art. However I see, as you mentioned about BJJ, that competition can have the negative sideeffect of destroying the real world fighting purpose of a combat form. See the changes olympics made for Judo, which took away so many great and effective techniques. Also I would say competition in the traditional sense of the word is not enough. If we look at the gatherings of the Dog Brothers, these are stickfights as real as they can get. Stress testing in the best sense of the Word. It is not a competition as we would expect, there are no prices, no trophy’s, no referees, no places to win, just the fighting experience itself, the comradely and spirit of these fighters.
Techniques have been taken away but what Judoka gain from all that randori is so much more valuable. Imagine having a colleague who knows more about your job than you but has no practical experience. There's no doubt who's better at their job. Besides that, you can still learn everything you want
Excellent clip of Jonathan Jarry of the excellent "The Body of Evidence" at 14:22
Wait, an MMA champion became a champion by getting knocked out? Wow! I better stop making jokes about Olympic Karate.
The Eddie Bravo comment has me crying 😂😭😂😭😂😭😂
I agree with this video. Martial arts need competition. You can't fight if you don't fight or only spar in a closed pool of biased information. But I don't agree with how people look or treat some traditional martial arts, which in a way, have been tested even further than what we have today.
Many Chinese styles, even Japanese JiuJistu lasted hundreds of years and were used in real warfare by historical generals. If a top BJJ guy was sent to Feudal Japan to fight the legendary Musashi (let's say Vale Tudo style) would they win? Are we really more developed in martial arts today than any other time? Musashi probably focused way more on sword but It's still hard to believe someone living in our safer modern environment would out class a guy who faced actual death on the battlefield. I think with non-competitive traditional styles, the only problem is, we don't have all the specific "proofs" anymore. It's like having a library of scientific data at your disposal that is out of order, with missing chapters and hidden meanings. I'm simply saying, it's worth any serious fighter's time to be more curious about the stuff that lost its competitive edge, instead of dismissing anything that isn't currently being used to win fights by saying "it doesn't work." Nothing lasts hundreds of years and gets invented by real killers because it sucked. Even Albert Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.
Another thing... When picking a martial art people should investigate where it comes from. When and why was it invented? Is it an off shoot of a much older style? What was that time like? It actually says a lot about the style and why somethings don't work, it's attitude and philosophy. If you're using an art in a way that is incongruent with its philosophy or approach it won't work.
Competition can serve as good pressure testing for martial arts efficacy in the competition scenario. However, not all martial arts view winning an encounter with a single opponent as its primary goal. To win one must control and dominate the opponent. If one is wanting to survive an encounter that desire for dominance and control is removed. It is replaced by the desire to be free of the threat. This means that a success is to be free of the threat, which opens up an avenue that is not about win or lose that competitions rely on.
Lastly, pressure testing is simple to set up in the gym by using a group of opponents. This ensures victory is never an option but the skills of the exponent are tested to the ultimate limit.
Competition should not be the center, but it's a must have.
Good arguments.
Can you make a video about disarming techniques and martial arts, which teaches you how to fight against armed opponent and disarm him? A lot of people still believes than "it's better than nothing, there is always has a chance to disarm" and etc.
I like the way ypur brain works
The oldest martial art? A sharp, pointy stick wielded by a lunatic screaming out “BLAAARRGGGHHHH!”
Also just to note all the modern forms of and approaches to karate are intended for sport, and to be cool and flashy as a way to draw people in , generate revenue etc, people gotta eat and I'm not hating but those are facts
One of my favorite arguments is "well, in MMA people are trained to try and not do lasting damage or kill each other, where in the real world there are no rules." Like, you think an MMA guy can't slam you on the concrete, step on your balls and then hit you with a chair until you are bleeding out of your ears?
4:03 I only hear " Samba". :'D
Solid video though.
#FoodForThoughts
How do you feel about open mats?
The adrenaline dump in a real fight outside of competition is different from the adrenaline in a competition don't get me wrong you get adrenaline in a competition and it's definitely great to compete but I still don't feel you have to compete in order to learn how to fight and protect yourself I feel sparring is important and going up against a resisting opponent is important there's no easy answer however because self-protection is not black and white but more shades of Gray in the real world let's not forget situational awareness weapons multiple attackers you could get your pistol permit conceal and carry if you're worried about protecting yourself in the real world as well just some of my thoughts but yes competition is great and it's a great way to test and challenge yourself
Also sometimes competition can develop some bad habits at times like in point sparring you get into the habit of tagging him once and stopping in a real situation that person can easily hit you back or double leg you same thing in BJJ competitions a lot of people in competition like to pull guard if that happens on concrete or blacktop the outcome won't be so great for that person unless they're taking down and wind up in guard in the first place so competition is good but then you have to tweak it because you're developing bad habits sometimes along the way
The second oldest martial art? A swift kick to the bollocks.
If competition is what creates a viable martial art for self defense, what would you say about TKD and Karate then? They've had competitions for a LONG time. They aren't as popular now, but they were VERY popular back in the day.
They have overly restrictive rule sets, but they're still probably better than they would be if they didn't have any competition.
They are limited, but they are at least very good at what they do. TKD practitioners have very high and very fast kicks. Karate practitioners have great linear movement.
They may not be the best striking arts, but they at least have some elements that work
@@ArmchairViolence Good point. Like Kyokushin guys have insane composure when it comes to body and leg shots. It's a shame TKD has been so ruined from the Olympics.
I know it's likely a different story for another video.
But sometimes training vs competotion is no different. What I mean is, some training partners in gyms are very likely to try to win rather than try to learn. Which of course leads to injury sometimes.
Even when your sparring or live rolling your fighting ability gets better because you are still working against resistance but in the gym you don't want to hurt your training partner but make them work hard.
Where did you buy your t-shirt?
I get them all as gifts, so I have no idea lol
if it works it works homie
So this makes me wonder how to create a competition that rewards being a non-consensual fighter in a consensual way. Like how does one create a rule set that only rewards counter punching and escaping the mount. I know it is possible. I know combat sports are the most likely key to figuring it out. What would that look like though?
A 2 round match. Each round, one fighter gets points for offense and the other fighter gets points for defense (counters, escapes, etc.). It could also tell us whether defense or offense has an innate advantage, because I don't think anyone's ever asked that question.
However, it will likely be more boring than other combat sports. Since you have someone actively trying to stall the action.
@@ArmchairViolence I would be totally down for something like this as I don't have much interest in the spectacle of it.
Why do martial arts competitions (MMA included) forbid a whole list of techniques - most of which are striking ones - unless these techniques do work.. and terrible well?
Martial arts do need competitions. On the other hand, the bad attitudes at BJJ comps are really getting awful. Even 10 years ago people were hitting grab and rips (at the intermediate level - they should know better) and the refs weren't disqualifying the perp. One of my guys had his ankle ripped by a toe hold while finishing a really fine kimura from guard (correctly, too). The guy just grabbed his foot and pushed it into his butt and it ripped - no time to tap whatsoever. And other examples, canopeners at white belt level. Sandbagging is most regrettable of all.. coaches enforcing sandbagging on the students by refusing to promote... lame.
Incidentally, in the case of that ankle injury above, it was one of my guys - so I went to the ref - and said "Hey buddy, that was a grab and rip - why isn't the other guy disqualified?"... to my amazement, the ref actually said "I didn't really see.." WTF?! I said "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking to the ref that officiated this match.. where is he?" "Oh, that was me"... (blank stare at him)
Not to mention, several time taking our team to NAGA locally, I saw afterwards they just rolled up the mats and put them on the trucks... no mops, no disinfectant... I don't know if that's always the case, but if you got ringworm or staph at NAGA, you might know why now.
Yeah, competition is needed. But, what has it become?
I just see red iN Da STRetS and bodies hit the floor!!! Hahaha
Personally, I think the best method is to always be reviewing the fundamentals and regardless of experience keeping the mindset of a student ready and eager to learn something new or refine fine motor movements and such, spar often, and compete occasionally.
I am NOTHING CLOSE to a pro, and my opinion shouldn't be considered as if I am, but I just feel like this is the most practical way to improve. I feel like, based on what I've been told, seen, and what Armchair Violence is saying, there's a much greater chance of injury from competition. Maybe it is the case that this threat and the other factors that make competition mirror realistic fighting scenarios makes it the best form of training, I feel like for at least some people, incurring an injury will, at best, slow their progress down significantly, and at worst, cause them to simply quit. I accept any and all criticism over what I just said, but remember, I don't actually compete, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.
I think a distinction must be drawn between advancement of the individual and advancement of the art. An individual may improve through study without competing. But the art must pressure test to improve.
Not saying you are wrong I do agree with manyof your point but many competitions are not safe. Sparring is competition with less ego and chance for injury. There are plenty of very good MA such as Bruce Lee and Ed Parker who did not complete
Hey who got shot in the last video?
❤️🥋❤️I like this video, but i think there are 2 exceptions to this concept... When scientists want to investigate the dynsmics of riots they dont use real riots, and one thing they sometimes use is moshpits... Wich look close enough but arent actual riots... However it ends up creating the idea that in riots people would be much more cooperative than they actually are... And i know, ive been in both moshpits and riots...
This, translated to martial arts is like this... Doing forms gives you the idea ofnhownthe technique looks... Drills with resistence lets you get a feel of what its like to aply the technique... Sparring allows you to test the technique in a more complex context, wich complicates its use but presure test the technique in a better way... Competition allows for experimenting against others who have not been present up to this stage of testing a technique, who sre tryong to aply their own... This is as realistic as you can get while staying relatively safe... This is the moshpit...
Now... I have practiced sumo, sanda, boxing, bjj, sipalki, karate, soo bahk do, aikido, shaolin kung fu and bujinkan ninjutsu... Of those, aikido, with the instructor i practiced, was just a bullshit dance... The footwork was cool tho... Bujinkan has sparring, but not as often as competitive styles... It doesnt have competition... But all drills are with resistence... I got punched in the face more while grappling in bujinkan than while doing boxing... All others have a competitive aspect one way or another, some better than others... But as the guy from hard 2 hurt said once... If you take a combat sport athlete and teach them the self defense/combatives of the "to deadly to spar" arts they can make it work... But if you only do the forms or you only compete you will never have the full picture... Of all those arts i did, soo bahk do, karate, sipalki and sanda were the best for self defense because the competitions keep it real(sipalki in particular much more than the others... It allows so much stuff that a famous muay thai world champion who did sipalki compared it to mma) but they still make you do the weird forms that come from the time it was military training, that if you actually pulled it off in self defense you would gonto jail for excesive use of force... So... The mix between having the competitions to test whats the dynamic of facing someone who wants to beat you... With the techniques that help outside of that... Thats the best...
Now... If you want tonactuslly test stuff in real combat instead of competitive combat... You have basically 4 options... First one, become a criminal snd start fights in rough neighborhoods, you could die... Second, move to a very dangerous place where your chances of being attacked are higher... You could die... 3 start working in a security job, be it as a bouncer, sn snti riot cop, a normal cop, a security guard, etc... You could die... Last, become part of some armed forces or militia, you could die...
So... The "its not fornthe streets" logic is actually good... Everyone whondoes a combat sport should recognize that their experience might help in am actual fight, but its not exactly the same... There have been multiple cases of pro mma fighters getting destroyed by regular people with a stick or a knife... Or because they were grappling with one guy on the ground and got suckerpunched by another guy... Ive seen at least 4 news articles and multiple videos of that... Would a non competitive kravmakido dojo prepare you for that? No... But we have to be honest about combat sports being limited in how much they prepare you fornthisntype lf.stuff
The second exception is... If you are from one of those non competitive kravmakido schools and you work one of those dangerous jobs and get to test your stuff... You dont need any competitive fighting to prove it works... You would be dead if it didnt, its a dNgerous bet, but it proves that you can actually be a good fighter and not have a single competitive fight as long as you have enough real life combat experience... Wich you should hope to never get...
I have a key criticism that I need to make. I don't know how to create a fair competition for when you make inherent to your martial system asymmetrical goals. If you are trying to make a martial competition on the theory, you are facing somebody don't get hurt, what system solves this problem, both competitors cannot share that goal, and testing by both facing symmetrical opposition is difficult, as having them face the same opposition is really hard. I mean, most competitions intentionally make stalling a losing strategy to promote action, but stalling is definitely a good strategy in self defense, where as the defender time is often on your side. So there exists the possibility of strategies that can work that are really hard to create competitions to test for not because they are too dangerous, but because they are too hard to make fair.
If you can get to an advantageous position where your opponent can't do much, or submit them outright, both buy time. Stalling has to be discouraged by rules because it's inherently easier than actively going for offense. It's not like in a real fight you're going to suddenly not know how to "hold them in this position until help arrives."
Armchair is a black belt in ufc and slander against him will not be tolerated
Since you're using a scientific paradigm, how about martial arts which were tested throughout history for long periods of time (i.e. battlefield martial arts, or those used in "lei tai" in China (the ridiculous "proving ground" of kung fu styles)). There are arts which have definitely worked previously but can't really be tested in competition now. I'll give the specific example of Bujinkan Taijitsu; the previous Grand Master was actually famous for going from one martial arts school to another, killing their best fighter, taking their scrolls, and going on to another one (hence why Bujinkan is a combination of nine schools' teachings). That Grand Master was famous for ramming his fingers into steaming sand for hours at a time to make massive green calluses on his fingers. He would use these to do ridiculous things like tear bark off of trees with his bare hands. In a fight, he would use his hands to tear faces off or remove chunks of flesh from the bodies of his opponents.
The show, Human Weapon, had a Bujinkan Taijitsu episode where they did a form of competition with weapons, but it wasn't adopted by the martial art because it didn't seem to make any sense. Yes, your sword-fighting might improve, but everything you throw (i.e. shuriken, spikes) or using the bo don't really lend themselves to competition.
I think your point is most applicable to empty-handed martial arts. However, it's also important to see where it also fails. In 1885, the Tokyo Police were first created and they held a competition between Judokas and Jiu-Jitsu practitioners to see which art worked best (the winner would teach the police their art). 15 Judokas and 15 Jiu-Jitsu Masters fought, with Judokas winning 12/15 matches. Judo showed it was the superior art due to its ability to train full-force against fully resisting opponents. However, the Jiu-Jitsu Masters still won 3 matches, and their techniques don't lend themselves well to competition. If you've ever trained Japanese Jiu-Jitsu, you'll know that the throws practiced are often arm-breaks which would work if performed correctly. Hence, why Japanese Jiu-Jitsu doesn't have competitions. These martial arts, however, were battlefield tested for generations, even though they cannot compete now.
Whilst I agree that competition is a great way of forging a martial art into it's purest form, what do you think about competitions ability to remove useful things?
e.g. Jiu Jitsu used to be a complete martial art, but the desire for focused competition led to Judo, which removed all striking and almost all groundwork, and then the desire to keep people safe meant the remove of certain now-banned techniques. (I'm not talking about lol eye gouges, but things like that flying double leg take down)
Has Judo's competition meant its gotten less effective? Or is the cost of a few moves better as it means the remaining moves get stronger?
Also, one only needs to look at a TKD competition to understand how laughable sport TKD has become as an effective martial art.
ps, you say martial arts are late to the party on this, but OG martial arts back in ye olde times had quite literal tournaments (tourney) with live weapons on a constant basis, so much so that they banned in England at one point by Henry II for causing too many injuries and general chaos. Even bareknuckle and wrestling had a long history of tournaments and prizefights in England that eventually went the way of the dodo due to legislation and the advent of boxing.
Recording and comparison of large numbers of anecdotes is quite reasonable...
I believe that's called observational data. It's better than a single anecdote or case study, but not as good as a controlled study. There's a whole spectrum. Observational data is most often accepted in scenarios in which it's not ethical to impose certain conditions.
"Relying on anecdotes, no matter how numerous, fails to specify any value of the independent variable, or the intentional state of an animal. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"
~Irwin S. Bernstein
@@ArmchairViolence I'm afraid i didn't understand the quotation. I think I get the bit about not specifying the independent variable, but what does the 'the intentional state of an animal' part mean?
Perhaps, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'," would have been enough to shut me up without confusing me :)
@@malkomalkavian Ok, so the original context of the quote is actually in a paper on primates. And the author was directly criticizing the use of anecdotes to ascribe "intentionality" to animals. So, that particular part makes a lot more sense in the context of the paper.
I liked the earlier part of the quote, so I included the whole thing. Understandably confusing. Sorry!
Irwin Samuel Bernstein, expert on primates fornicating and fighting. Cool :)
Some competition is detrimental… I haven’t seen the entire video yet… but: in TKD and Japanese jujutsu, you can not punch to the head even though both systems include these techniques… in judo they have deemed some techniques illegal in competition. I would argue this way of competing is bad. Generally, I would agree that competition is good but only if it doesn’t hurt the art by crippling it.
Pressure testing is possible outside of competition. Not only is it possible but it has the freedom of eliminating rules that are only there to create a better spectacle. The rule set that you speak of then becomes the art because that is the problem to solve. So the martial artist pursues winning as defined by that rule set. This seems the wrong way round.
If a martial art pursues something other than winning an encounter, then it frees itself of some of the rules that limit performance. It is also hubris, to use your words, to think that sparring is what occurs in all martial arts schools as their form of pressure testing. This is not the case for us.
Nitpick: the process your describing is cultural evolution, not the scientific method per se. Joseph Henrich has some fantastic literature on how this process allows indigenous peoples to develop highly sophisticated and effective food detoxification techniques while having no grasp of the underlying science at all.
I agree with most of what you say.
The guy talkin bout martial arts using moves mma doesnt has validity to his statement. Saying make a competition for eye gauges, biting, groin attacks, ect is a mute point because no govts will allow that. The ufc had to implement rules just to operate. 1 of those rules was no 12 6 elbows.
Im not saying mma isnt better than a single martial art. I am saying if someone attempts triangles on you and you lock your jaw as hard as you can on their inner thigh, theyll let go. If you lay on top n bite their face or chest, they gonna have trouble thinkin bout a kamura.
@@UnjustVerdict i didn't say bite out of every hold. I dodnt say bjj training is useless either.
You took one sentence from my comment and separated it as if it stood alone.
I know this video is a year old but I still want to comment. There is a good reason the Martial Arts enlightenment is happening now. Video. Just as the enlightenment required lots of books created with the printing press. Video is the best way to communicate martial arts. books just don't do a good enough job. and Just as Protestantism led to the enlightenment through the printing press, so too Brazilian Jiujitsu and the UFC through recorded videos is leading to the martial arts enlightenment.
I don't disagree with your point that competition is necessary for the evolution of martial arts.
I do disagree that competition is the only way to produce good data. It is certainly the most immediate (and probably the most cost efficient) way to produce a large amount of good data, but it does have the same limits that you highlighted regarding rule set. You can produce valuable data for the study of unarmed combat in a self-defense context (ie, no rules and grievous stakes) by reviewing crime statistics, police/military reports on unarmed combat instances, streetfight videos, and other scenario-based observation.
Yes, you want things that are tested in a controlled environment, but you can also learn from systematic observation. For example, your cancer analogy. If I look at hospital records from around the world and note that a certain population has a statistically significant lower incidence of cancer, then I need to have a look at that population's diet, environment, lifestyle, etc to determine what the causation is. I may learn more from that approach than the linear process of laboratory testing. That said, ideally, I use observation to develop theories that I then lab test -- so the two methods should work together as they have in the scientific method for centuries.
if a martial art style teaches you pull back instead of hitting someone be skeptical about that martial arts style and instead look for full contact no bs martial arts like Muay Thai, Western Boxing, Kyokushin, savate, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Wrestling. And The Martial Arts to avoid are Wing Chun, Krav Maga, Shotokan, Silat, Aikido, Judo, Kalari, Japanese Jiu Jitsu, Qin-Na, Ninjutsu Budo Taijutsu Ninpo, Shaolin Gong Fu, Bajiquan, Hung Gar, Wushu, Taichi, Hapkido, Taekwondo both WTF and ITF TKD and Animal Styles of Kung Fu
"my martial art focuses on eye gouges and throat strikes"
-umm ok so convert that to punches to the face.
"well my martial art covers the elbow which is illegal in boxing"
-it isn't illegal in ufc, try it there.
The stupid thing about eye gauging and groin striking martial arts is that kick boxers would literally be the best at it from standing and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu practitioners would be the best at it from the ground, they would get clowned at the own martial art by people who didn't even intend on doing it
What is your perfect BJJ ruleset?
Vale Tudo? ^^
I like no-Gi submission only, but that's just because I find it more fun. It creates a lot more action and crazy positions which is just more entertaining to watch and learn. I can't really say which one is more effective in a fight, though. More research is needed!
@@ArmchairViolence Check out Kudo and Combat Sambo for more "freestyle" fighting with grip fighting with clothes. :)
@@ArmchairViolence what about scoring. For instance I think that a gradient scoring system should be implemented for takedowns in order to encourage big takedowns.
@@christophervelez1561 That might make it more entertaining to watch, but I don't know how much the amplitude of the takedown should really matter. A hard outside reap and a hip throw are both going to have similar impact with the ground and potentially land you in the same position. Should it really matter that one of them made your opponent go "Wheeeee!"?
Might be best to just have Mortal Kombat, no rules, fights until death.
You don't need competition. All you need is an Ameridote Hurticane™ and Groingrab™. It's too effective for MMA, that's why they don't use it.
Just like the gaming community.... Devs can spend thousand of hours... As soon as the game is released to millions, watch how quick the public finds all the kinks and tricks the devs never thought of.
One thing to keep in mind about competition, though, is that it doesn’t really train you in self defense.
Bear with me for a minute.
While I agree with you (mostly) about competition honing effective technique through testing, the main argument *against* competition is that it trains you to win a fight, and that is not always good self defense.
If you knock a brother out but end up going to prison for assault (he’s backing away palms out and you step in and finish him), that’s bad self defense. If you pin a guy and his friend (or a non involved bystander) comes by and boots you in the temple, that’s bad self defense.
I see you equate fight training with self defense training a lot on here and I think you’re very wrong about that. (I do enjoy your videos and get a lot out of them, however)
Self defense is self defense and fighting is fighting. There is a ven diagram with some overlap but, frankly, there’s overlap with fighting and ballet (or ice skating, CrossFit, etc) as well.
A lot of people like to say that "sports isn't self-defense!" and they're USUALLY idiots, but you've touched on good, valid points.
Being able to fight is just one component of a good, layered self-defense strategy. And fighting is the layer that most needs competitions.
It's true that there is a lot more to self-defense than fighting. The first step is to not go to any dangerous places, but a "stay at home with locked doors" competition sounds REALLY boring lol
So, I think that fighting is an important layer of self-defense, but I do agree that you definitely need to be aware of many other variables. This video pretty much just focuses on the fighting element.
You only have to go to one BJJ class to understand this. Drill an armbar (never having done one before) 20, 50 or 100 times. Now try to put the armbar on an experienced resisting opponent. Your technique does not work. You can't perfect a technique against a non-resisting opponent.
Hmm do martial arts need competitions, or do martial arts techniques need competitions?
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. Look at karate competitions, taekwondo, even judo, kendo, olympic fencing. All of these arts turning into mainly sportive competitions has diluted them to the point that people have had to start actively trying to put some of them back into a realistic context to make them effective again.
Competition is only useful if the ruleset is geared toward achieving martial goals, otherwise I'd rather just spar, because then you're not looking for a perfectly balanced 'fair' set of rules to create a sport out of - you're just trying things out and seeing if you can make them work with non-compliant opponents, both in your club and with other clubs. It also allows for different intensities which lets you try out other things.
Weight classes reduce the value of combat sports. Not applicable to self defense.
Martial arts are not and have never been intended for competition or for sport. The modern ones used in such sports were specifically designed for the sport, which works very well within a sports but outside of that is not nearly complete as true martial arts
@@UnjustVerdict your comment makes zero sense. Js. You also missed the entire point being made. Next lesson should probably be reading comprehension.
The “My Martial Art is too deadly to compete” really falls on deaf ears for me as well. Particularly since bladed weapons martial arts have managed to be safe, a la HEMA, and even cops and militaries have managed to make guns safe to train with using simunitions. Anyone who is making that claim is really just too lazy or unimaginative to create a safe rule set.
This video was great
But 1 thing you assumed was that there's an open question as to what works. I think this is a valid question in today's modern and globalist (and largely "new world" as well) MA context. But, TRADITIONAL MAs are just that; passing on a tradition of what works (or what was found to work in comparativly isolated and closed societies with far smaller populations and population densities). We are sort of in a MetaMA territory now where we are trying to blend them all and find new stuff (some probably old and forgotten, some possibly genuinely new).
What made me think if this because as a former wrestler (whose grappling style still crutches largely on my wrestling) i was watching the video like: Sparring ("Live-Rolling")... Competition... ok ok but what about DRILLING!?!?!? Drillers make Killers!
In wrestling, sure there are new moves and variations every now and again, sometimes (but not always) motivated by slight ruleset changes, but for the most part we have a set ruleset and we know what tends to work, so we DRILL. Of course wrestling still places a massive emphasis on sparring and competition too.
But similarly, TMAs are like 'we know what works. That said I think that's still flawed because
1. We are in New territory, and that makes all of your arguments/criticisms here valid
2. The Traditions have arguably been massively lost, mostly over time (like what you said about telephone), but also in their importation to the US