Fundamental Aspects of Training Methodoligies In MAs

Mark Hamill

What are the fundamnetal aspects of training that make an activity a martial art?
At what stage can we say to someone that what they are doing is so far from real functionality that we say they are just doing aerobics?

To me, as a scientist, this is incredibly straightforward. Just treat any supposed MA's claim like any scientific claim (or any claim, for that matter): test it under real stress.
What does this mean for martial arts? Just take the material being thought and have two people trained in it spar with aliveness (each sparrer can do what they want, under the moveset constraints) and force (people strike or throw with impact, apply submissions to disrupt comfort). In my eyes, if a martial art doesn not spar in this way, then it is not a real martial art, it is only pretending. (note: the extent to which aliveness and force is incorporated will determine the effectiveness of the martial art, but that is a different question)

As an analogy: imagine if someone is teaching you to swim, but instead of ever bringing you to water, they have you lie on your front, arms and legs out, rotating somewhat as if you wear swimming. In addition to this, imagine you are never told about the effects of buoyancy, the temperature of the water, weather effects. All is taught from the point of view of some ideal situation, where realistic variables are entirely ignored. Can you honestly tell me after a month of doing this you can swim? How about six months? A year? Ever?

There are "martial arts" out there that are,imo, not real martial arts. They are so far removed from reality, even just in terms of their own restricted movesets (ie be they pure striking or grappling) that practicioners can never be said to have gained any combat ability from training them. There just is no martial art in them.

_oveless

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are the fundamnetal aspects of training that make an activity a martial art?
At what stage can we say to someone that what they are doing is so far from real functionality that we say they are just doing aerobics?

To me, as a scientist, this is incredibly straightforward. Just treat any supposed MA's claim like any scientific claim (or any claim, for that matter): test it under real stress.
What does this mean for martial arts? Just take the material being thought and have two people trained in it spar with aliveness (each sparrer can do what they want, under the moveset constraints) and force (people strike or throw with impact, apply submissions to disrupt comfort). In my eyes, if a martial art doesn not spar in this way, then it is not a real martial art, it is only pretending. (note: the extent to which aliveness and force is incorporated will determine the effectiveness of the martial art, but that is a different question)

As an analogy: imagine if someone is teaching you to swim, but instead of ever bringing you to water, they have you lie on your front, arms and legs out, rotating somewhat as if you wear swimming. In addition to this, imagine you are never told about the effects of buoyancy, the temperature of the water, weather effects. All is taught from the point of view of some ideal situation, where realistic variables are entirely ignored. Can you honestly tell me after a month of doing this you can swim? How about six months? A year? Ever?

There are "martial arts" out there that are,imo, not real martial arts. They are so far removed from reality, even just in terms of their own restricted movesets (ie be they pure striking or grappling) that practicioners can never be said to have gained any combat ability from training them. There just is no martial art in them.

Thank you for creating this thread, as this has never been discussed on boards before.

Dyr

I'm not a scientist so correct me if I'm wrong here, you're supposed to have a hypothesis to test. So what's the Hypothesis here?

IMO Training is'nt sparring. Sparring isn't Fighting. Fighting isn't Physical Assault. If you're doing one thing and thinking that the results are wholly valid for another then there's something wrong there.

Imagine is someone taught you to swim in a swimming pool for six months and then left you on the banks of the amazon, would ya go for a swim? :pac:

yomchi

There are "martial arts" out there that are,imo, not real martial arts. They are so far removed from reality, even just in terms of their own restricted movesets (ie be they pure striking or grappling) that practicioners can never be said to have gained any combat ability from training them. There just is no martial art in them.

Of course the persons enjoyment of what they're training in accounts for nothing, does it?
Or should they all pack up their clubs and march in unison to a club or system that is scientifically reinforced for "combat abillity"?

Barry.Oglesby

Whether or not you get "combat ability" from something is largely irrelevant. You train BJJ right? A lot of BJJ is contrived to only work against other BJJ players. Personally I like De La Riva guard but if I did it in a "fight" I'd get my face punched a lot. Thing is I don't care. I enjoy playing the De la Riva guard and in BJJ competition I hope it comes good for me in that arena.

There are a number of things I don't like about my sport but I think one of the things I dislike the most is the persistent sniping by members of the MMA community at others through some idea that they hold the intellectual high ground because occassionally, they spar MMA. The idea that people would give a flying **** what you think because you wear MMA gloves once a week is a conceit.

If I'm pushed to it, I would say that I dislike the quasi-religious elements of a lot of martial arts and the so called "traditions" (actually just misunderstood etiquette in many cases) of those martial arts. There's also some unstable dudes out there involved in a lot of it. Martial arts are a magnet for the stranger members of society.

But do I care what other people do in their spare time? No. Do I feel as though I have to convert or turn people over to MMA? No. I'm more concerned with training and enjoying myself.

Mark Hamill

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not a scientist so correct me if I'm wrong here, you're supposed to have a hypothesis to test. So what's the Hypothesis here?

That "insert martial art here" will work against a resisting opponent.

Bambi wrote: »

IMO Training is'nt sparring.

IMO, Sparring is training. Without sparring, you arent putting what you learn to the test, so its efficiency is undetermined.

Bambi wrote: »

Sparring isn't Fighting.

In what way?

Bambi wrote: »

Fighting isn't Physical Assault.

Really, I think the courts may have a diffeence of opinion there.

Bambi wrote: »

Imagine is someone taught you to swim in a swimming pool for six months and then left you on the banks of the amazon, would ya go for a swim? :pac:

Maybe, i'd do better than the person who has spent the last six months lying on their belly waving their arms.

Mark Hamill

yomchi wrote: »

Of course the persons enjoyment of what they're training in accounts for nothing, does it?

Not at all, why should it? That people enjoy what they learn about creationism adds nothing to its veracity.

yomchi wrote: »

Or should they all pack up their clubs and march in unison to a club or system that is scientifically reinforced for "combat abillity"?

Why so defensive? I'm not saying that anyone doing an activity that I wouldn't label a martial art should stop, regardless of wether or not they enjoy it, I just think they should be honest with themselves.

yomchi

I just think they should be honest with themselves.

Is this the intellectual high ground Barry spoke about?

Why do you think people who enjoy their training in any art be concerned about what you think?

Not meaning to sound combative either (no pun intended)

Mark Hamill

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Whether or not you get "combat ability" from something is largely irrelevant. You train BJJ right? A lot of BJJ is contrived to only work against other BJJ players. Personally I like De La Riva guard but if I did it in a "fight" I'd get my face punched a lot. Thing is I don't care. I enjoy playing the De la Riva guard and in BJJ competition I hope it comes good for me in that arena.

I covered this in my original post, I made caveats for fighting under an arbitrary rule system when I said at the end:

Mark Hamill wrote:

They are so far removed from reality, even just in terms of their own restricted movesets (ie be they pure striking or grappling) that practicioners can never be said to have gained any combat ability from training them.

I'm not arguing that for something to be called a martial art it has to be immediately applicable to a "real world fight", just that it should be realistically tested in the confines of its own ruleset.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

There are a number of things I don't like about my sport but I think one of the things I dislike the most is the persistent sniping by members of the MMA community at others through some idea that they hold the intellectual high ground because occassionally, they spar MMA. The idea that people would give a flying **** what you think because you wear MMA gloves once a week is a conceit.

Why the defensiveness? I never mentioned MMA here. I'm not saying which specific martial arts are better, just which training methods actual define a martial arts.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

If I'm pushed to it, I would say that I dislike the quasi-religious elements of a lot of martial arts and the so called "traditions" (actually just misunderstood etiquette in many cases) of those martial arts. There's also some unstable dudes out there involved in a lot of it. Martial arts are a magnet for the stranger members of society.

I'm not saying I dont dislike these either, but I dont think these automatically preclude an activity from being a martial art. IMO, its aliveness and force that makes a martial art actually a martial art.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

But do I care what other people do in their spare time? No. Do I feel as though I have to convert or turn people over to MMA? No. I'm more concerned with training and enjoying myself.

Again, who said anything about MMA? If you dont care about what other people think or do in their spare time then why even bother posting here.

Mark Hamill

yomchi wrote: »

Is this the intellectual high ground Barry spoke about?

When did it become a crime to criticise what someone is doing? I've laid out my points, hoping fo rsome actual reasoned responses, but all I'm getting are the same type of repsonses you get from any religious extremist when you question them: "who are you to question me". As if who I am and why I am questioning you has any bearing on wether or not my points are right.
Less of this victimisation nonsense please, it detracts from the discussion.

yomchi wrote: »

Why do you think people who enjoy their training in any art be concerned about what you think?

Why should any care about what anyone thinks. Lets let everyone dilute the meaning of all labels until every label is meaningless.
Why allow bullsh*t claims to go unchallenged?
Not a thing you have posted so far has actually been a rebutal of my points, just excuses for ignoring me.

yomchi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why allow bullsh*t claims to go unchallenged?

Show us the bull sh1t you want to challenge.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not a thing you have posted so far has actually been a rebutal of my points, just excuses for ignoring me.

No that's what the 'ignore' button is for.

Why should any care about what anyone thinks

Erm... well then why are you posting here? As you thought Barry shouldn't;

Again, who said anything about MMA? If you dont care about what other people think or do in their spare time then why even bother posting here.

Mark let's be honest, your opinion is important, to you. Posting your opinions that claim some martial arts to be "pretend" martial arts is an attempt at flaming, even if it is wrapped up in scientific mumbo jumbo.
If you think what you do is a 'real' martial art well then more power to you, I'm happy for you. As for victimisation, I do sport Taekwon-Do, you train with me you'll learn how to compete in the field of sport Taekwon-Do along with 1000's of people on this very small Ireland. No crazy claims nor magical fixes, we spar within the constraints of our rule set and enjoy it.

There are others here however who like to practice sword arts and knife arts where sparring is less obvious, that doesn't mean that they cannot train and enjoy themselves learning what they're learning, even if you think they are not being honest with themselves.

So tbh I'm not sure where you want this thread to go.

Mark Hamill

yomchi wrote: »

Show us the bull sh1t you want to challenge.

Any activity claiming to be a martial art, but that doesn't use aliveness and force in sparring is makinking a bs claim.

yomchi wrote: »

Erm... well then why are you posting here? As you thought Barry shouldn't;

I was reflecting the nonsense you posted when you said:

Why do you think people who enjoy their training in any art be concerned about what you think?

as if it doesn't apply to any thread on this whole forum.

yomchi wrote: »

Mark let's be honest, your opinion is important, to you. Posting your opinions that claim some martial arts to be "pretend" martial arts is an attempt at flaming, even if it is wrapped up in scientific mumbo jumbo.

This is incredibly disingenuous. Firstly, its not flaming to question what people do, every post on this forum is a question of someones elses opinion and I have responded to any points put back to me. Secondly, what scientific mumbo jumbo are talking about?

yomchi wrote: »

If you think what you do is a 'real' martial art well then more power to you, I'm happy for you. As for victimisation, I do sport Taekwon-Do, you train with me you'll learn how to compete in the field of sport Taekwon-Do along with 1000's of people on this very small Ireland. No crazy claims nor magical fixes, we spar within the constraints of our rule set and enjoy it.

Fine, I have no problem with that and would see no problem labelling what you do as an actual martial art (assuming you spar with aliveness and force, which I'm sure you do).

yomchi wrote: »

There are others here however who like to practice sword arts and knife arts where sparring is less obvious, that doesn't mean that they cannot train and enjoy themselves learning what they're learning, even if you think they are not being honest with themselves.

What has enjoyment got to do with what something is? Tell me, I enjoy the odd game of poker, can I call that a martial art? You seem to be fixed on the idea that people cant enjoy these activities without them being labeled as martial arts.

yomchi wrote: »

So tbh I'm not sure where you want this thread to go.

I wanted to see what people thought was fundamental to something being considered a martial art. I expected points on training methodologies, competitiveness and application, not enjoyment, as if enjoyment of something has any bearing on what it actually is.

Dyr

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That "insert martial art here" will work against a resisting opponent.

"resisting" and "work" are subjective value's. I've seen people do chi sao with each other and they appeared to be both resisting and working within the confines of it's own ruleset so I guess that's met the criteria. You can add arm wrestling too.:pac:

In what way?

In the way that no-one pays money to see someone have a bit of a spar? In the way that your sparring partner is'nt going to be too happy if you keep trying to knock him out all the time

Really, I think the courts may have a diffeence of opinion there.

When Steve Collins fought in a ring he was never going to be charged with assault, when he broke a bouncers jaw outside the ring he was. In a martial arts context, fighting requires both parties consent, assault does not.

here are others here however who like to practice sword arts and knife arts where sparring is less obvious, that doesn't mean that they cannot train and enjoy themselves learning what they're learning, even if you think they are not being honest with themselves.

I practice with swords and knives and we spar all the time. I wouldn't make the assumption that what works (or does'nt work) against resisting sparring partners is equally valid in a knife assault.

i'd do better than the person who has spent the last six months lying on their belly waving their arms.

Unless you drowned. Oddly enough I used to train in a place where kids would practice land swimming, they'd get into the pool after but they used to practice on land too. Was very odd

Dave Joyce

Just take the material being thought and have two people trained in it spar with aliveness (each sparrer can do what they want, under the moveset constraints) and force (people strike or throw with impact, apply submissions to disrupt comfort).

Thats YOUR definition of what makes a system a martial art.

They are so far removed from reality, even just in terms of their own restricted movesets (ie be they pure striking or grappling)

Your terms of reference are EXTREMELY limited from the quote above. REALITY would mean a WHOLE LOT more besides "pure" (?) striking or grappling.

that practicioners can never be said to have gained any combat ability from training them. There just is no martial art in them.

Combat ability or Combat SPORTS ability....helluva lot of difference here.

Chris89

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Any activity claiming to be a martial art, but that doesn't use aliveness and force in sparring is makinking a bs claim.

Dont train in said art then, dont give them your money or time and move on with your life.

simple really.

Peetrik

Im going to assume your talking about martial arts like kenpo and tai chi where there is no combat/sparing involved.

There can be no correct answer to this debate, it will always boil down to a personal opinion.
Just so Im not sitting on the fence. Yes, in my opionion they are real martial arts.

Much like seeing a beautiful woman dancing can be sexy without having to actually watch her have sex, or windmilling your arms with your eyes closed can be said to be fighting but I wouldnt call it martial arts

Dyr

Peetrik wrote: »

Im going to assume your talking about martial arts like kenpo and tai chi where there is no combat/sparing involved.

Niall keane rant due any minute now

Craptacular

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just take the material being thought and have two people trained in it spar with aliveness (each sparrer can do what they want, under the moveset constraints) and force (people strike or throw with impact, apply submissions to disrupt comfort). In my eyes, if a martial art doesn not spar in this way, then it is not a real martial art, it is only pretending.

This is far too broad. What if I'm sparring (under whatever definition is appropriate to my art) and I drop my guard. Does getting a fist in the face (which will certainly disrupt my comfort) supply the requisite aliveness to satisfy your definition of a martial art? Or do I need to be bruised, have my lip cut, lose a tooth, receive a flurry of blows or be rendered unconscious for the art to qualify?

At the recent athletics meet in Barcelona an Irish and a Dutch athlete had a minor collision which put the Dutch athlete off the track. They were competing with aliveness and the Dutch athlete's comfort was disrupted. Can we therefore consider running a martial art since it meets your definition?

Remember there is no such thing as a non-compliant sparring partner. By consenting to spar under an agreed rule set the partner is, by definition, compliant.

Barry.Oglesby

When people apply science in all the wrong places, science gets a beating.

In psychology there's a term used to describe one of the common mistakes a child will make when learning to speak- a fundamental attribution error. This is where a child who first learns the word "cup" for example, will apply that word to whatever he sees as similar. He attributes the characteristics of a cup to a variety of objects. Maybe plates, spoons and so on and calls them cups.

So what I see from the original statement and your subsequent responses Mark is an attribution error of another kind. Namely that you are attributing empiricism where none exists. You claim that martial arts training should be given the same treatment as any other scientific claim, but don't seem to understand that if you choose to argue in this form, you must also be prepared to have your own data examined. You don't have any data for one thing, and your own claim that "aliveness" should be used betrays your limits. Aliveness is not a word, and if you want to argue in scientific terms, you had better do better than that.

Your contention that the responses are akin to religious extremism is another example. No one in the responses has fallen back on faith. No one is saying "who are you to question me" because they are being backed into a corner with some compelling argument. They are saying "who are you to question me" because your argument is poorly framed, poorly researched, and relies on your own opinion as opposed to any evidence.

Mark Hamill

Bambi wrote: »

"resisting" and "work" are subjective value's. I've seen people do chi sao with each other and they appeared to be both resisting and working within the confines of it's own ruleset so I guess that's met the criteria. You can add arm wrestling too.:pac:

If there is aliveness in the resistance, then yes, it meets the criteria (by aliveness, I mean the resistance is spontaneous and from whatever direction the oppononet decides on teh spot, not pre drilled).

Bambi wrote: »

In the way that no-one pays money to see someone have a bit of a spar?

Fighting is only fighting if people pay to see it?

Bambi wrote: »

In the way that your sparring partner is'nt going to be too happy if you keep trying to knock him out all the time

I dont think that too many paid fighters are happy that their opponent are trying to constantly knock them out.

Bambi wrote: »

When Steve Collins fought in a ring he was never going to be charged with assault, when he broke a bouncers jaw outside the ring he was. In a martial arts context, fighting requires both parties consent, assault does not.

Is assault just fighting someone without their consent?

Bambi wrote: »

I practice with swords and knives and we spar all the time. I wouldn't make the assumption that what works (or does'nt work) against resisting sparring partners is equally valid in a knife assault.

Who said it needs to work in a knife assault? I am only talking about what people train working in the context of what they train (whatever arbitrary rules they decide to enforce).

Bambi wrote: »

Oddly enough I used to train in a place where kids would practice land swimming, they'd get into the pool after but they used to practice on land too. Was very odd

So? My analogy was based on someone who only practises on land, not someone who starts on land and quickly moves into the pool. This is the same in MAs. At first, you do need to train with little to no resistance, just so you learn how the moves go in an ideal situation, but then you need to test it against resistance and eventually aliveness in order for the move to actually work.

Mark Hamill

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Thats YOUR definition of what makes a system a martial art.

No, thats a fairly objective scientific criteria for testing any claim. This is how you approach any claim-you test it to see if it works.

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Your terms of reference are EXTREMELY limited from the quote above. REALITY would mean a WHOLE LOT more besides "pure" (?) striking or grappling.

I'm not sure what you mean here? My point was that without training with resistance and aliveness, an MA caanot be said to be at all effective, even if it confines itself to a purely grappling or purely striking opponent. I am not at all talking about "real fights" or the like, just that if you are shown, say, a takedown, then the implication is that the takedown should work against a resisting opponent, so at some stage , you need to test it against resisting opponents.

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Combat ability or Combat SPORTS ability....helluva lot of difference here.

Sure, there is a big difference, but I'm allowing for either one - this is not a discussion about real world applications of MAs, I'm allowing for the fact that most MAs restrict themselves to one (or two) ranges.

Mark Hamill

Chris89 wrote: »

Dont train in said art then, dont give them your money or time and move on with your life.

simple really.

Em, ok. I'm not talking about any specific martial art here, only talking in general. I just wanted to see the consensus.

Mark Hamill

Peetrik wrote: »

Im going to assume your talking about martial arts like kenpo and tai chi where there is no combat/sparing involved.

I dont want this to turn into a style war, I am only talking about the training methodologies, not the MAs themselves.

Peetrik wrote: »

There can be no correct answer to this debate, it will always boil down to a personal opinion.

If that were the case, then the term "Martial Art" is almost meaningless, as it can mean anything to anyone. There has to be some kind of objective criteria for determining what is and what isn't a martial art. If you think my criteria is too rigid, then offer different ones.

Peetrik

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If that were the case, then the term "Martial Art" is almost meaningless, as it can mean anything to anyone. There has to be some kind of objective criteria for determining what is and what isn't a martial art. If you think my criteria is too rigid, then offer different ones.

No. There doesnt.

Neither can any one person decide if something is "dancing" or "art". Its personal opioion

Mark Hamill

Craptacular wrote: »

This is far too broad. What if I'm sparring (under whatever definition is appropriate to my art) and I drop my guard. Does getting a fist in the face (which will certainly disrupt my comfort) supply the requisite aliveness to satisfy your definition of a martial art? Or do I need to be bruised, have my lip cut, lose a tooth, receive a flurry of blows or be rendered unconscious for the art to qualify?

No, personal skill is irrelevent.

Craptacular wrote: »

At the recent athletics meet in Barcelona an Irish and a Dutch athlete had a minor collision which put the Dutch athlete off the track. They were competing with aliveness and the Dutch athlete's comfort was disrupted. Can we therefore consider running a martial art since it meets your definition?

No, running is not a system of combat. Was that too obvious?

Craptacular wrote: »

Remember there is no such thing as a non-compliant sparring partner. By consenting to spar under an agreed rule set the partner is, by definition, compliant.

To an extent, yes. But there is a big differnce between the compliant partner in, lets say, a Judo demonstation and the compliant partner in a Judo competition.

Mark Hamill

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

When people apply science in all the wrong places, science gets a beating.

Science applies and belongs everywhere. The idea that the method of taking an idea, testing it, and adapting it accordly to your results is extreme ignorance of what science is and, quite frankly, embaressing.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

So what I see from the original statement and your subsequent responses Mark is an attribution error of another kind. Namely that you are attributing empiricism where none exists. You claim that martial arts training should be given the same treatment as any other scientific claim, but don't seem to understand that if you choose to argue in this form, you must also be prepared to have your own data examined. You don't have any data for one thing, and your own claim that "aliveness" should be used betrays your limits. Aliveness is not a word, and if you want to argue in scientific terms, you had better do better than that.

"Aliveness" is not a word is it? Then what is it? There is a full wikipedia article on "aliveness" in terms of martial arts. Using your own ignorance of a subject is a fundamental attribution error and you have just erred enormously.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Your contention that the responses are akin to religious extremism is another example. No one in the responses has fallen back on faith. No one is saying "who are you to question me" because they are being backed into a corner with some compelling argument. They are saying "who are you to question me" because your argument is poorly framed, poorly researched, and relies on your own opinion as opposed to any evidence.

"Who are you to question me", regardless of the quality of my arguments, is , an ad hominem, a classic logical fallacy. Who I am does nto inform the validity of my arguments, and if my arguyment was poorly framed, researched and non-evidenence based, than only a cursory response would be required to counter it. However, like the religious fundamentalist, you choose instead to detract from the discussion with logically irrelevent nonsense.

Chris89

I dont understand the need for this constant debate.

Fair enough you train with aliveness and resistance. So do I. Some people don't. It doesn't bother me that they don't.

It's 2010, if you're a nice guy, situations in which you need to use martial arts to defend yourself should be few and far between. So it doesn't matter if your cross hook upper elbow block combo won't work on a resisiting oponent.

If you want to fight competitavley. Train with resistance. If you want to learn a martial arts system. Then there is no need.

I don't see why this bothers you however. Back in the day, people learned martial arts to fight wars and stuff. Now people do it to keep the weight off or for a hobby. Do what you enjoy doing and let others do whatever it is they enjoy.

Jackie chan would mess my shi t up. That's all i'll say

Mark Hamill

Peetrik wrote: »

No. There doesnt.

Neither can any one person decide if something is "dancing" or "art". Its personal opioion

If what makes something a martial art is personal opnion, then no-one can tell anyone what a martial art is. You can say wrestling is a martial art, but I can so no it isnt, but juggling is, and by your argument, as its my opinion, its (subjectively) true. Without any objectivity, this makes the term "MA" meaningless, as it can be made to mean anything you want.

cletus

just a quick point, if you want to ba as scientific as possible about this, wikipedia quotes dont pass muster as fact or even informed opinion

sorry, carry on

Mark Hamill

Chris89 wrote: »

I dont understand the need for this constant debate.

Constant debate?

Chris89 wrote: »

Fair enough you train with aliveness and resistance. So do I. Some people don't. It doesn't bother me that they don't.

Its a martial arts forum, and this is a valid discussion, no matter how much people dont want to consider it.

Chris89 wrote: »

It's 2010, if you're a nice guy, situations in which you need to use martial arts to defend yourself should be few and far between. So it doesn't matter if your cross hook upper elbow block combo won't work on a resisiting oponent.

Who is talking about self defense? Why do people keep bringing it up? I'm just talking about something working in terms of the ruleset that its being taught.

Chris89 wrote: »

If you want to fight competitavley. Train with resistance. If you want to learn a martial arts system. Then there is no need.

But how can you be said to actually be learning a martial art system without actually testing it out? It would be like saying I can kill someone with a sniper rifle because I play Call of Duty of my computer.

Chris89 wrote: »

I don't see why this bothers you however. Back in the day, people learned martial arts to fight wars and stuff. Now people do it to keep the weight off or for a hobby. Do what you enjoy doing and let others do whatever it is they enjoy.

Again with this defensiveness. I'm not saying these people cannot enjoy themselves. I'm not saying these people aren't getting good exercise and having fun. Its just that you can get good exercise and have fun by riding a bike, but you dont call bike riding a martial art as it doesn't fulfil the criteria that we all know is there, but which people seem to be afraid to say.

Craptacular

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, personal skill is irrelevent.

So irrelevant that it wasn't even part of my question which was about levels of aliveness and comfort disruption.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, running is not a system of combat. Was that too obvious?

And yet the incident I described matched your definition illustrating my point that your definition is too broad.

Peetrik

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If what makes something a martial art is personal opnion, then no-one can tell anyone what a martial art is. You can say wrestling is a martial art, but I can so no it isnt, but juggling is, and by your argument, as its my opinion, its (subjectively) true. Without any objectivity, this makes the term "MA" meaningless, as it can be made to mean anything you want.

Essentially, yes.

I don't consider westlife to be music altho popular opinion says that it is... I still think Im right

Insect Overlord

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, running is not a system of combat. Was that too obvious?

It might not be a "system of combat", but a good run can often get a person out of trouble as effectively as a Martial Art

Barry.Oglesby

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Science applies and belongs everywhere. The idea that the method of taking an idea, testing it, and adapting it accordly to your results is extreme ignorance of what science is and, quite frankly, embaressing.

Are we talking about me or you here? I'm getting confused.

"Aliveness" is not a word is it? Then what is it? There is a full wikipedia article on "aliveness" in terms of martial arts. Using your own ignorance of a subject is a fundamental attribution error and you have just erred enormously.

Using Wikipedia as a reference says more about your scientific method than I ever could. You will also find the words Jedward, Jeggings, Brangelina and ohmigod in there too.

"Who are you to question me", regardless of the quality of my arguments, is , an ad hominem, a classic logical fallacy. Who I am does nto inform the validity of my arguments, and if my arguyment was poorly framed, researched and non-evidenence based, than only a cursory response would be required to counter it. However, like the religious fundamentalist, you choose instead to detract from the discussion with logically irrelevent nonsense.

Yes, I too have read the books of Dawkins and enjoyed them. However if I might suggest something? Would it not be a better tribute to him to adopt his "free-thinking" policy and generate some original thoughts rather than adopting his terminology and debating style to an argument which has no relevance to that style of debate? We are not talking about religion, we are talking about how best to train for martial arts. You are the one who began with an extremist and ill-informed statement, not anyone else.

Who you are does inform the argument I'm afraid. If someone with 20 years of training, fighting and coaching experience came on here I would listen to their argument no matter how preposterous it sounded as they'd obviously got results.

Mark Hamill

cletus wrote: »

just a quick point, if you want to ba as scientific as possible about this, wikipedia quotes dont pass muster as fact or even informed opinion

sorry, carry on

Fact? The wikipedia quote on "aliveness" shows its a word and the one on ad hominems was for reference so that people could read what I was talking about. I thought the internet got past this wikipedia bashing a few years ago? Treat it like any other source and its fine.

Chris89

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Constant debate?


Its a martial arts forum, and this is a valid discussion, no matter how much people dont want to consider it.


Who is talking about self defense? Why do people keep bringing it up? I'm just talking about something working in terms of the ruleset that its being taught.


But how can you be said to actually be learning a martial art system without actually testing it out? It would be like saying I can kill someone with a sniper rifle because I play Call of Duty of my computer.


Again with this defensiveness. I'm not saying these people cannot enjoy themselves. I'm not saying these people aren't getting good exercise and having fun. Its just that you can get good exercise and have fun by riding a bike, but you dont call bike riding a martial art as it doesn't fulfil the criteria that we all know is there, but which people seem to be afraid to say.

Can't multiquote on my phone sorry.

This topic is discussed in some shape or form about every 20 secods on martial arts forums.

1) you're probably a rubbish sniper on call of duty anyway.
2) you are the only person making comparissons between martial arts and juggling, cycling etc. That is just illogical and a ridiculos way of fuelling your strange argument.
3) your personal vendetta against these people confuses me. Fair enough they can't say they practice a martial art (by your standards), you practice bjj right?? So you can say that. You're better than them and you can stand on that hallowed high ground that every 'martial artist' seems to seek.

I don't know as many big words as you and Barry seem to. So I'll have to leave it at that.

Craptacular

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a full wikipedia article on "aliveness" in terms of martial arts.

The Wikipedia page on martial arts does not mention aliveness at all so according to your own source it's irrelevant to the definition.

Mark Hamill

Craptacular wrote: »

So irrelevant that it wasn't even part of my question which was about levels of aliveness and comfort disruption.

You questioned if injury was relevent to something being considered alive and I said no, as personal skill (which determines how injured you are likely to get) is irrelevent to aliveness.

Craptacular wrote: »

And yet the incident I described matched your definition illustrating my point that your definition is too broad.

I thought that its implied that the point of a martial art was ultimately some kind of combat, was that too obvious?

Mark Hamill

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Are we talking about me or you here? I'm getting confused.

Apologies, left out a bit, should have typed:

The idea that the method of taking an idea, testing it, and adapting it accordly to your results doesn't apply to some area of real life is extreme ignorance of what science is and, quite frankly, embarassing.

And yes, it applies to you.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Using Wikipedia as a reference says more about your scientific method than I ever could.

Wow, you dont actually know the first thing about science do you? Wikipedia is exactly as reliable as any source, if you know how to use it properly.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

You will also find the words Jedward, Jeggings, Brangelina and ohmigod in there too.

So is aliveness a word then? What source would you like in order to accept that aliveness is a word? What about the ten references in the wikipedia article on aliveness, would they convince you that aliveness is a word used by martia artists in terms of training?

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Yes, I too have read the books of Dawkins and enjoyed them. However if I might suggest something? Would it not be a better tribute to him to adopt his "free-thinking" policy and generate some original thoughts rather than adopting his terminology and debating style to an argument which has no relevance to that style of debate?

OK maybe I'm wrong here, I have never actually read anything Dawkins has said, but I'm pretty sure he didn't come up with the term "Ad hominem".

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

We are not talking about religion, we are talking about how best to train for martial arts. You are the one who began with an extremist and ill-informed statement, not anyone else.

You (and others) have used ad hominems, question who I was to to question training methods, as if that had anything to do with the validity of my points.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Who you are does inform the argument I'm afraid. If someone with 20 years of training, fighting and coaching experience came on here I would listen to their argument no matter how preposterous it sounded as they'd obviously got results.

Which is just a form of the argument from authority. Do you get points for logical fallacies here or something? If what I'm saying is so wrong, then try arguing why its so wrong, not why I shouldn't have an opinion on it.

Craptacular

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You questioned if injury was relevent to something being considered alive and I said no, as personal skill (which determines how injured you are likely to get) is irrelevent to aliveness.

So injury is irrelevant. OK, does it follow that level of contact is irrelevant since the aim is not to produce injury but to demonstrate aliveness? If this is the case then semi or no contact martial arts are fine.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I thought that its implied that the point of a martial art was ultimately some kind of combat, was that too obvious?

I thought the point of this thread is you trying to dismiss the idea that some martial arts are martial arts because in your opinion their kind of combat lacks something, the very something which was present on the Barcelona track.

Mark Hamill

Chris89 wrote: »

1) you're probably a rubbish sniper on call of duty anyway.

No doubt.

Chris89 wrote: »

2) you are the only person making comparissons between martial arts and juggling, cycling etc. That is just illogical and a ridiculos way of fuelling your strange argument.

It was in answer to another poster who said what makes a martia art is peoples opinion.

Chris89 wrote: »

3) your personal vendetta against these people confuses me. Fair enough they can't say they practice a martial art (by your standards), you practice bjj right?? So you can say that. You're better than them and you can stand on that hallowed high ground that every 'martial artist' seems to seek.

Victimisation on their behalf is it? Look either what defines a martial art is objective (ie not based on peoples opinion) or is subjective (based on peoples opinion). If its objective, then there are some things, which no matter how fun, interesting or good for you they are, they simply are not martial arts because of how they are trained. If its subjective, then anything and everything can be a martial art if people feel likle it.
This is not an argument about which style is better or which style is real, just about the training methodologies, there is nothing stopping anyone in any martial art training with aliveness and force.

Mark Hamill

Craptacular wrote: »

The Wikipedia page on martial arts does not mention aliveness at all so according to your own source it's irrelevant to the definition.

And I dont agree, hence the other wikipedia article I quoted, on "aliveness in martial arts".

cletus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fact? The wikipedia quote on "aliveness" shows its a word and the one on ad hominems was for reference so that people could read what I was talking about. I thought the internet got past this wikipedia bashing a few years ago? Treat it like any other source and its fine.

No, sorry that doesn't wash. if you want to check a fighters record, and you use wikipedia, fair enough, but you are trying to apply scientific method to martial arts, and to support your theory, you are quoting wikipedia, which is not like any other scource, by its very nature it can be changed by anybody.

At best you should be quoting a peer reviewed academic article, at worst, useing OED to give the definition.

Mark Hamill

Craptacular wrote: »

So injury is irrelevant. OK, does it follow that level of contact is irrelevant since the aim is not to produce injury but to demonstrate aliveness? If this is the case then semi or no contact martial arts are fine.

I already stipulated that I think force should be a part of it, as I think force is a part of aliveness. I think this could be applied to semi contact (all rulesets restrict force in some way), but not to no contact. If there is no contact, then you are quite literally pretending to hit.

Craptacular wrote: »

I thought the point of this thread is you trying to dismiss the idea that some martial arts are martial arts because in your opinion their kind of combat lacks something, the very something which was present on the Barcelona track.

The aim of the activity taught on the barcelone track is not combat, so they are not martial arts. Aliveness is not the only aspect a sport needs in order to be considered a MA, its just a fundamental one (IMO).

Craptacular

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already stipulated that I think force should be a part of it, as I think force is a part of aliveness. I think this could be applied to semi contact (all rulesets restrict force in some way), but not to no contact. If there is no contact, then you are quite literally pretending to hit.

What if, as in the Shotokan Gohan sparring drill, I make contact with my partner's arms when blocking, but never with their head or abdomen when punching? There's contact but I'm pretending to hit.

(For those who don't know the Gohan drill is a very basic introduction to sparring for the lowest grades in Shotokan. As well as tuning technique it trains distance and timing.)

Mark Hamill

cletus wrote: »

No, sorry that doesn't wash. if you want to check a fighters record, and you use wikipedia, fair enough, but you are trying to apply scientific method to martial arts, and to support your theory, you are quoting wikipedia, which is not like any other scource, by its very nature it can be changed by anybody.

Its like any source if you treat it properly. All you need do is look at the references. If the references dont add up, then you can discard the article, but you cant discard it out of hand just because its wikipedia.

cletus wrote: »

At best you should be quoting a peer reviewed academic article, at worst, useing OED to give the definition.

While peer review is an important part of science, you are not restricted in using science in the absence of peer reviewed articles ( i dont think there are peer reviewed articles on the definition of "aliveness in martial arts" and "ad hominem" logical fallacies).
This thread is what should be a criteria for determining what is and isn't a martial art, not what already is, so using the current definition doesn't really support my point (beyond pointing out the absence of my proposed criteria).
The wikipedia link to "aliveness in martial arts" was used in response to someone claiming that aliveness wasn't a word (and the references show that its an accepted term in some martial art circles), and the link to "ad hominem" was an explanation of what it means, which wikipedia does fine (unless you know a different explanation for ad hominem).

This is all one big ad hominem fallacy, by the way. Its perfectly logical to be wary of wikipedia, but the correct action is then to check the data you get from it for inconsistencies (true references etc), not just ignore it out of hand.

Barry.Oglesby

Phew.

Well, this is so awful it's hard to argue against. Wikipedia is not, cannot, will never be a source for anything reputable. If as a first year student I put Wikipedia down as a source on any assignment then I would be failed. It's the equivalent of reading abstracts and claiming understanding of the study. You are using the worst kind of science- bad science- to attempt to prop up your pseudo-scientific muddle of glommed information of blog quotes, half understood scientific method and opinion. All of which would be fine if you weren't attempting to crown yourself the king of reason in this debate.

There's really not much point in continuing this debate as it's no longer a debate. It's you trying to convince us how little we all understand about scientific method, when your own understanding is sketchy at best. To be frank, it's like car crash TV I want to look away but I can't. It'd be like me debating on which make up is best on a woman's forum.

Mark Hamill

Craptacular wrote: »

What if, as in the Shotokan Gohan sparring drill, I make contact with my partner's arms when blocking, but never with their head or abdomen when punching? There's contact but I'm pretending to hit.

(For those who don't know the Gohan drill is a very basic introduction to sparring for the lowest grades in Shotokan. As well as tuning technique it trains distance and timing.)

Without seeing, its a little hard to picture what you are talking about. It seems like this would be a grey area, the force and aliveness is quite limited, but presumably still there. Assuming this applies to all training in a particular Shatokan club (ie very limited force and aliveness), then this would more inform the effectiveness of that martial art, rather than wether or not it is actually a martial art.
(Another thing to question, is what other drills and training are done. Most martial arts have really isolated training drills that only teach general timing or distance or conditioning, looking at one in isolation doesn't really say a lot about the whole martial art).

Niall Keane

Martial Art: an art pertaining to warfare.

Sun Tzu says: “the art of war is the art of deception”

What is art?

A lot of people seem divided on this word, some think its decoration, something pretty, i.e. they have never studied art or have never grasped more than a superficial understanding of the subject.

The poet Elliot lectured about the “objective correlative”, the ability of the author to engender a “specific” emotional response in the reader. So in literature, stylistic devices such as sibilance, alliteration and assonance of “s” sounds conveys sadness, monosyllabic simplicity conveys sincerity and at times aggression, where as polysyllabic complexity does the opposite. Imagery such as similes and various metaphors – metonymy, synecdoche, are used to communicate in a precise and apt way by a good poet.

Music, likewise uses minor notes / tones to create a mood of sadness, and major notes to convey strength and positive outlook. Rhythm is used, and the absence of music an interval to seize our attention.

Architecture, good architecture communicates with the user, holding and releasing, high narrow corridors restrict physical movement, and create a sense of unease, a primitive awareness of ambush potential, so the user will speed up and rush through, creating a visual release to one side will transform a vista from mere wallpaper to an escape, something to be engaged with, likewise opulent spaces can be used to “hold” people, light and transparency can be used to inform the building user of primary and secondary functions, drawing them to their destinations, communicating the functions of the facility available to them, unlike the technically correct but artless sign-post directed buildings.

All arts have this drive for a deep and subtle, but a definite communication, martial art is no different. Here we have two dynamic forms interacting, two opponents. The object is not to convey truth, but to deceive. Form by means of opening and closing guards, shaking fists, rolling shoulders etc. concealing and revealing targets, is used to faint and draw, to entice and threaten, rhythm is used to deceive the opponent into chasing shadows, and stumbling onto your strike. Range is measured, distances crossed with angle and timing, opposites used to confuse and hide attacks yet make them more powerful, calculating, and measuring the opponent’s responses, adjusting your technique, your communication, to the requirements of your audience, your opponent.

This to me anyway, is what differentiates martial artists from martial technicians. It is not just about combos and sparring, that is sketching a house in first year architecture, or drawing a bow across a violin without screeching, the martial artist understands the subtitles of what he does. He is a puppet master in the ring. He has fluency and understands the nuances. His movements and methods are holistic, ironed out to the nth level of detail, unified in mind and intent. He does not change from wrestling to striking to weapons, because mentally there exists no change, there is only unity of expression. He has spent years programming his responses to work tactically according to the core strategies of his art, this is my goal when training to become a martial artist, and I don’t know many who have achieved this.

Who then can state what the fundamental aspect of a training methodology is? Will letting people bang away at each other alone in itself eventually produce mastery or journeymen? Is this the most efficient way to communicate the subtleties of an art? Some people I’m sure launch straight into Chopin to master the piano, others isolate scales etc. to gain fluency and understanding of technique.

But whether you move from the internal training - the programming of responses and tactics, to the external application of all out combat, or from the external to the internal, only one thing is fundamental... practice.

cletus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its like any source if you treat it properly. All you need do is look at the references. If the references dont add up, then you can discard the article, but you cant discard it out of hand just because its wikipedia.


While peer review is an important part of science, you are not restricted in using science in the absence of peer reviewed articles ( i dont think there are peer reviewed articles on the definition of "aliveness in martial arts" and "ad hominem" logical fallacies).
This thread is what should be a criteria for determining what is and isn't a martial art, not what already is, so using the current definition doesn't really support my point (beyond pointing out the absence of my proposed criteria).
The wikipedia link to "aliveness in martial arts" was used in response to someone claiming that aliveness wasn't a word (and the references show that its an accepted term in some martial art circles), and the link to "ad hominem" was an explanation of what it means, which wikipedia does fine (unless you know a different explanation for ad hominem).

This is all one big ad hominem fallacy, by the way. Its perfectly logical to be wary of wikipedia, but the correct action is then to check the data you get from it for inconsistencies (true references etc), not just ignore it out of hand.

Which of these quotes do you think "check out"

1. ^ Badger Jones (2007). "Siling Yabulo Arnis". Filipino Martial Arts Digest, Steven K. Dowd. pp. 32–35. http://www.youngforest.ca/fmadigest.pdf.
2. ^ Scot Combs (2006). "'Aliveness' in martial arts training". Full Circle Martial Arts. http://www.fullcirclemartialarts.org/aliveness.pdf.
3. ^ Rafael Rosendo. "Choosing The Right School". Alliance Jiu-Jitsu Greenville. http://alliancegreenville.com/jiu-jitsu/?page_id=99.
4. ^ Matt Thornton. "Aliveness 101". Straight Blast Gym International. http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html.
5. ^ Michael Zimmer (2004). "On Aliveness In Training - An Analytic Perspective". Vorticity Martial Arts. http://vorticity-martial-arts.com/selfdefence/2004/11/on-aliveness-in-training-a_110016510039722119.html.
6. ^ Adam Williss (2007). "Fluidity in Training". The Dragon Institute Wing Chun. http://www.orangecountymartialarts.info/2007/06/fluidity-in-training.html.
7. ^ "Aliveness: Common Sense or Controversial?". Low Tech Combat 2.0 webzine. (2010). http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/01/aliveness-common-sense-or-controversial.html.
8. ^ Charles Wong (2009). "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Techniques". Kissaki Defensive Tactics Academy. http://www.karate-shotokan-kata.com/Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu-techniques.html.
9. ^ Ben Bratko (2007). "Traditional Martial Arts". American Martial Arts Movement website. http://www.amam-magazine.com/traditional_arts.html.
10. ^ Quoted by Liu Jinsheng (translated by Tim Cartmell) in Chin Na Fa: Traditional Chinese Submission Grappling Techniques. (2007).

Its just a series of ma mags etc talking about aliveness, none of it is scientific

Its a made up term, used by Matt Thornton, to describe a way of training.

I dont really care about your theory, but you cant espouse science on one hand, and back it up with wikipedia on the other.

The fact is that you made aliveness one of your peraniters in a scientific theory, yet there is no scientific back up for that term

Mark Hamill

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

If as a first year student I put Wikipedia down as a source on any assignment then I would be failed.

Because you would expected to go to the references wikipedia gives and get your information from them. Wikipedia is a general information source, as fallible as any source that people put the information in.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

It's the equivalent of reading abstracts and claiming understanding of the study.

Abstracts actually give a fairly good synopsis of what a study is about, its why they are one of the hardest parts of a paper to write.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

You are using the worst kind of science- bad science- to attempt to prop up your pseudo-scientific muddle of glommed information of blog quotes, half understood scientific method and opinion.

In what way is the science bad science? Where have I failed the scientific method? Is it where I take the claims a martial arts make, " this martial art is effective against a resisting opponent", accept their caveats, "the opponent only grapples or strikes or punches" and expect it to be tested? I honestly think you have no idea what the scientific method is about and so you resort to this ranting and raving that I am wrong without once showing how wrong I am (and ad hominems dont count).

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

All of which would be fine if you weren't attempting to crown yourself the king of reason in this debate.

Barely anyone has actually attempted to debate my points with me, most have gone down this bs ad hominem route.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

There's really not much point in continuing this debate as it's no longer a debate. It's you trying to convince us how little we all understand about scientific method, when your own understanding is sketchy at best. To be frank, it's like car crash TV I want to look away but I can't. It'd be like me debating on which make up is best on a woman's forum.

This was never a debate, as you have not actually debated anything. All you have done is ad hominem after ad hominem. Not once have you explained how my points are wrong, how my understanding of science is wrong its entirely been how I am wrong to have an opinion and how my sources are wrong. If I and everything about me in this thread is so wrong try debating my points with your own "superiour" knowledge of science and referencing.