Skepticism & Spirituality in the Martial Arts, with Matt Thornton

SBG Ireland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy4TwtoDs50&feature=youtu.be

Tim_Murphy

Great talk!

maguffin

First thing I noticed was...he's selling his product...BJJ

He seems to ignore the fact that at the beginner level, when teaching students punching/blocking/striking, of course the student will 'lock their arm out'...in my experience over 45 years of MA, more than 80% of people coming to martial arts have no clue as to how to punch...in fact some are actually afraid to punch in the direction of another person (even an instructor).

He put down Karate, Kung Fu, TKD, Taijiquan as being 'fantasy arts'.

He dismissed Buddhism by talking about 'superstitious practices' as well as religion in general.

His talk contains some good points...but many, biased comments in favour of his own art above the rest.

Tim_Murphy

maguffin wrote: »

He seems to ignore the fact that at the beginner level, when teaching students punching/blocking/striking, of course the student will 'lock their arm out'...in my experience over 45 years of MA, more than 80% of people coming to martial arts have no clue as to how to punch...in fact some are actually afraid to punch in the direction of another person (even an instructor).

You seem to have missed the point he was making.

maguffin wrote: »

His talk contains some good points...but many, biased comments in favour of his own art above the rest.

Again, you seem to have missed the point somewhat. BJJ is a great example for what he is talking about but you could use others if you wanted to as well.

Peetrik

maguffin wrote: »

He dismissed Buddhism by talking about 'superstitious practices' as well as religion in general.

Didn't get that impression at all. I'm guessing he was talking more about this kind of thing.

maguffin wrote: »

His talk contains some good points...but many, biased comments in favour of his own art above the rest.

Have to disagree here too (I don't train bjj or mma myself for what it's worth), he stated some reasons he prefers his own style but it wasn't a criticism of other arts.
The guy was simply pointing out what he feels to be a key component in why some styles have an advantage over others.
Its something that would be very easy for styles that don't practice it to incorporate it into their training even if just to try it out for a while.

smacl

Excellent talk, and IMO very honest. I'd pretty much agree with all of it and my main MA is taijiquan, which incidentally included free wrestling from the first class way back when.

What I find difficult at times with 'aliveness' and resistance is finding the balance of doing things slow enough at the the start to get the mechanics right, and then letting things speed up and allow variation and increased resistance without losing the good mechanics and with it the efficiency of technique. As such, I think many basic drills that train appropriate body mechanics are still valid, once the purpose of the drill is kept in mind, in the same way a boxer benefits from a massive amount of bag work.

The last couple of minutes of the talk made a salient point that very many people training martial arts do so as a sport / hobby, really don't want to get hurt, and may not ever compete. All of these are quite reasonable, and probably why many traditional martial arts sell well and why BJJ sells well. I suspect the problems alluded to in many traditional martial arts are as much down to market demand as anything else, and MMA is not immune to this.

antybots

He's absolutely right in the context of self defense.

The traditional martial arts do have their place as a fun sport or hobby though, and I personally would only tell people not to do them if they wanted to join to learn practical self defense.

For all other reasons,they are very enjoyable to take part in.

Dave Joyce

Couldn't stomach more than 5 minutes of his "lecture" with the sweeping generalisations Mr Thornton makes...then again that's not new:rolleyes: Sure a lot of TMA train the way he mentions, totally impractical but certainly NOT all.
Besides if they aren't claiming it to be the most effective street defence art (which a lot of these do) and they're doing it as a hobby then what harm are they doing??

And as for his comment about boxing and Muaythai, what utter shi'te. Both of my kids train Muaythai (and they've done BJJ and FMA too) and have both competed but I can guarantee they won't be getting "brain damage" from training in the art:rolleyes: However such sweeping statements from this man are nothing new such as his comment along the lines about stickwork that he could show anything you needed to know in half an hour:eek::rolleyes:

da-bres

@Niall Keane

smacl

Dave Joyce wrote: »

And as for his comment about boxing and Muaythai, what utter shi'te. Both of my kids train Muaythai (and they've done BJJ and FMA too) and have both competed but I can guarantee they won't be getting "brain damage" from training in the art

I think the comment was age related. There comes a time when going full tilt in a full contact striking art will take its toll, and it makes sense looking for something where you're not picking up the same number of hard knocks. In many ways this is an advantage of many TMAs over sports martial arts in that they are designed to let you keep practising into your old age. I've never trained BJJ, but the comments that it is easier on the body and hence sustainable into old age seem fair enough.

There's a contradiction in the lecture, in that he takes a dig at certain martial arts, but then goes on to say its not the martial art that's the problem but the way its taught. I tend to agree with the latter, having seen very good and very bad classes taught in what is ostensibly the same style of martial art. I don't see MMA or BJJ being immune from this. Once you have a large enough number of people wanting to say 'they do MMA' or 'do BJJ', but they don't want to put the hard graft in, someone will come along and service that market.

Dyr

Dave Joyce wrote: »

However such sweeping statements from this man are nothing new such as his comment along the lines about stickwork that he could show anything you needed to know in half an hour:eek::rolleyes:

Thats completely different from someone teaching people to deal with skilled MMA assailants in a weekend though

cowzerp

smacl wrote: »

There's a contradiction in the lecture, in that he takes a dig at certain martial arts, but then goes on to say its not the martial art that's the problem but the way its taught. I tend to agree with the latter.

Where is the contradiction?

He is basically saying that the arts are fine but training with non resisting opponents and not testing them with "aliveness" makes the learning unrealistic, thats the great thing with sports that are competition based, you have to spar in the system proper or when you compete you will get whopped.

Like he mentions Kung fu as non alive, but then you have Sanshou which is basically alive Kung Fu and is a great martial art.

so it makes sense that how it is trained is the key to how you learn.

smacl

cowzerp wrote: »

Where is the contradiction?

Simply that he initially ascribes the term 'fantasy martial arts' to certain martial arts that he names, such as kung fu, which he discerns from practical martial arts which he also names such as BJJ and MMA. As you say yourself, kung fu well taught is practical, and I'd imagine there are McDojos out there peddling very questionable BJJ and MMA. This is at odds to comparing practical teaching methods to impractical ones, as the implication is that the quality of teaching is somehow linked to the art, whereas in fact it has more to do with the quality of teacher and the amount of work the student is willing to put in.

He is also out there selling something, and fair play to him, he sells it well.

Peetrik

smacl wrote: »

Simply that he initially ascribes the term 'fantasy martial arts' to certain martial arts that he names, such as kung fu, which he discerns from practical martial arts which he also names such as BJJ and MMA.

He explains exactly what he means by fantasy, it's a fantasy that you are going to get a compliant attacker who will stand with a punch extended and allow you to execute a complex TMA attack while they do nothing, IMO he is correct and is only repeating whats been pointed out before plenty of times.
He is not saying that the arts that he names are a fantasy, simply that this fantasy methodology of training that is common in the arts he then names is a fantasy.

Tim_Murphy

This is at odds to comparing practical teaching methods to impractical ones, as the implication is that the quality of teaching is somehow linked to the art, whereas in fact it has more to do with the quality of teacher and the amount of work the student is willing to put in.

The quality of teaching is inherently linked to the art. I've yet to see a single TKD instructor who taught self defence techniques that weren't complete nonsense, trained in a way that wouldn't be any good even if they techniques were any good. Now, I don't doubt that there probably are a few out there who don't do this but they are the exception. The quality of the instructor and the student isn't really the base issue. The base issues are the training methods and, as Matt Thornton put it in the video, people claiming to know things that they do not know.

Besides if they aren't claiming it to be the most effective street defence art (which a lot of these do) and they're doing it as a hobby then what harm are they doing??

I don't know Dave, im my experience the more nonsensical and weird the martial arts the more likely that the people doing it will be making big claims about it. It's rare to hear Muay Thai or judo making these claims, it's the jokers teaching the fantasy stuff.

Niall Keane

da-bres wrote

@Niall Keane

thanked by bjj-fighter

care to elaborate? saying something?

EnjoyChoke

Niall Keane wrote: »

da-bres wrote thanked by bjj-fighter

care to elaborate? saying something?

I'm sure they were just looking forward to your treatise on the subject.

da-bres

Niall Keane wrote: »

da-bres wrote thanked by bjj-fighter

care to elaborate? saying something?

Interested in hearing your opinion on the video, as you seem to know a thing or two about TMA

pablohoney87

I can never really understand how any sport can be trained without 'aliveness'
the term itself I'm not too fond of as 'aliveness' to nearly any other sport is just training.
i do however understand why he uses a different word as the concept is foreign to so many martial arts

peteclarke

Niall Keane wrote: »

da-bres wrote thanked by bjj-fighter

care to elaborate? saying something?

Bjj fighter thanks everything written by a sbg member.

Had he walked through your door and not johns you would have got on very well.

bjj-fighter

peteclarke wrote: »

Niall Keane wrote: »

da-bres wrote thanked by bjj-fighter

care to elaborate? saying something?

Bjj fighter thanks everything written by a sbg member.
He has the same unrealistic obsession with his mentor that you have with your tradition art.
Had he walked through your door and not johns you would have got on very well.
In his defence he choose the most successful school to train in.

Are you actually serious? What do you know about me? I don't care if you note that I thank most of what my teammates write, mainly because I don't post a lot, and I agree what my teammates say. But how dare you assume that I train MMA or with SBG because it is the first place I went to, how have you got the knowledge to make that assumption, I don't know what your personal agenda is but maybe you would care to explain what I have done to you.

And for your information, I did train in a "traditional" martial art before going to MMA, actually I did a lot of things before MMA so your logic is ridiculous.

bjj-fighter

Nice edit too BTW

peteclarke

bjj-fighter wrote: »

Nice edit too BTW

bjj-fighter wrote: »

Are you actually serious? What do you know about me? I don't care if you note that I thank most of what my teammates write, mainly because I don't post a lot, and I agree what my teammates say. But how dare you assume that I train MMA or with SBG because it is the first place I went to, how have you got the knowledge to make that assumption, I don't know what your personal agenda is but maybe you would care to explain what I have done to you.

And for your information, I did train in a "traditional" martial art before going to MMA, actually I did a lot of things before MMA so your logic is ridiculous.

sorry. I was being a dick. Shame you were online and saw before my edit.
I admire your hard work and your team.
However, it really does bug me that you thank everything by John or his team members.
I should not let it bother me of course but it's just so annoying. I probably agree with you guys most of the time.
I suppose it just loses it's meaning if you thank everything.
Sorry for sh** stirring.

Chris89

He is clearly a very good public speaker, but I have to admit I find his views on TMA and religion are a little bit annoying.

I don't believe in god but I certainly dont go around telling everyone, I think talking about what you DO believe in rather than what you dont believe in is much more productive and certainly more interesting to the listener.

If I had a euro for every time I heard an atheist tell me why they dont believe in god..

bjj-fighter

peteclarke wrote: »

sorry. I was being a dick. Shame you were online and saw before my edit.
I admire your hard work and your team.
However, it really does bug me that you thank everything by John or his team members.
I should not let it bother me of course but it's just so annoying. I probably agree with you guys most of the time.
I suppose it just loses it's meaning if you thank everything.
Sorry for sh** stirring.

It's okay thanks for the apology. Maybe my usage of the "Thank" function is more like a Facebook "like" than most people's, but so what really, I have been with them since I was 12 years old so I take pride with the team and do agree with a lot of what is said, I thank positive things written about my teammates because it makes me feel good to see that their hard work is paying off. I don't do it to annoy anyone, and I don't really see what the big deal is. So please don't make assumptions that I am obsessed with my coach, and only because it's the first place I did any Martial Arts, because it's quite uncalled for and untrue.

Niall Keane

Da-bres:

Interested in hearing your opinion on the video, as you seem to know a thing or two about TMA

I had been looking through this thread, and watched about 15-20 minutes of the video. Didn’t find any revelations, or anything new, my style has always trained in an “alive” fashion, hence it was named “Practical Tai Chi Chuan” by Hong Kong journalists after Cheng Tin-Hung and his students many, many, multi-formated, full-contact successes. This “tradition” continues, as smacl points out. In the last 10 years the Irish branch has had many international sanshou and chinese wrestling (jacket and no-jacket)champions, amateur and pro, European and World (87 countries world as opposed to 3 clubs world) champions. Other PTTCI clubs also do well too, Neil Rosiak, another student of Dan Docherty has a place in London, he’s fought sanshou and vale tudo, hie students include World Kaoshu Champions and MMA fighters. (Sami “the Hun” Berik is coached by Neil - Cage Rage etc.) Also in UK you have Kamal Locke who took UFC vet Ian the Machine to a split decision some years ago. These lads above I mention as their MMA achievements are fairly public, there are many more PTTCI international champions, some a lot better fighters but who stuck to Sanda etc.
In Europe you have the likes of Wim Demeere who wrote “the Fighter’s Body” and has coached the Belgian Sanshou team as well as having himself meddled in IWUF World Championships.

I know this jars with people, a TMA that fights? But from my perspective its only the watered down McDojo stuff that doesn’t. And I have often said here, that from my experience, in the most part, people who train MA’s want to be seen to be badass rather than actually have to train hard or worse still enter into a full contact bout. That is a “market”, the main one! For example one of my students also regularly trains in the Vos Gym, in their fighters classes. These classes are bent around the public classes, ie the public classes fund the fighters class, ask any fighter coach about numbers. If you only cater for fighters you go bust.

Tai Chi Chuan - the name comes from a description of “Yang Lu Chan’s” style of fighting, he was undefeated and named “the invincible”, now look at the state of most TCC today, could they be any further from their past? What happened? Well TCC was given to the masses, and the “market” led it to become a popular health programme. Same will happen with all arts eventually.
I don’t know what I could add to this discussion, the quoted sections below echo my own opinion…


Smacl:

What I find difficult at times with 'aliveness' and resistance is finding the balance of doing things slow enough at the the start to get the mechanics right, and then letting things speed up and allow variation and increased resistance without losing the good mechanics and with it the efficiency of technique. As such, I think many basic drills that train appropriate body mechanics are still valid, once the purpose of the drill is kept in mind, in the same way a boxer benefits from a massive amount of bag work.

The last couple of minutes of the talk made a salient point that very many people training martial arts do so as a sport / hobby, really don't want to get hurt, and may not ever compete. All of these are quite reasonable, and probably why many traditional martial arts sell well and why BJJ sells well. I suspect the problems alluded to in many traditional martial arts are as much down to market demand as anything else, and MMA is not immune to this.

Dave Joyce:

And as for his comment about boxing and Muaythai, what utter shi'te. Both of my kids train Muaythai (and they've done BJJ and FMA too) and have both competed but I can guarantee they won't be getting "brain damage" from training in the art

Smacl:

There's a contradiction in the lecture, in that he takes a dig at certain martial arts, but then goes on to say its not the martial art that's the problem but the way its taught. I tend to agree with the latter, having seen very good and very bad classes taught in what is ostensibly the same style of martial art. I don't see MMA or BJJ being immune from this. Once you have a large enough number of people wanting to say 'they do MMA' or 'do BJJ', but they don't want to put the hard graft in, someone will come along and service that market.

Cowzerp:

Like he mentions Kung fu as non alive, but then you have Sanshou which is basically alive Kung Fu and is a great martial art.

Smacl:

Simply that he initially ascribes the term 'fantasy martial arts' to certain martial arts that he names, such as kung fu, which he discerns from practical martial arts which he also names such as BJJ and MMA. As you say yourself, kung fu well taught is practical, and I'd imagine there are McDojos out there peddling very questionable BJJ and MMA. This is at odds to comparing practical teaching methods to impractical ones, as the implication is that the quality of teaching is somehow linked to the art, whereas in fact it has more to do with the quality of teacher and the amount of work the student is willing to put in.

However, I wouldn’t agree with this..
Tim Murphy:

The quality of teaching is inherently linked to the art.

Instead I would say that it often ends up linked to a “market”

Regarding all the “dead” drills, well, take push hand drills in TCC, now I’ve seen some styles aimlessly roll circles around each others arms, with no intent nor any martial virtue. However if you are trained the “zhen chuan” “true transmission” ie, from fighter to fighter down the years, well suddenly such drills refine body mechanics, teach awareness of limits, ingrain tactics, develop guard, break down any mental separation between striking, locking and throwing (which most martial artists have), coordinate footwork, balance, opening and closing with technique and develop real practical skill.

They are foundations and must be pressure tested to ensure one is on solid ground!

Zen65

Chris89 wrote: »

He is clearly a very good public speaker, but I have to admit I find his views on TMA and religion are a little bit annoying.

Gichin Funakoshi is widely regarded as the father of karate, as he was responsible for bringing it to Japan from Okinawa. In his autobiography Funakoshi speaks about the mysticism often associated with the martial arts and karate in particular; the idea that a karateka can bend iron bars, can punch through walls, can break stones with a single chop etc. He describes such mysticism as utter nonsense, and states in no uncertain terms that a karateka can do no more nor less than any athlete that trains seriously in any art or sport.

Indeed when Funakoshi introduced karate to the schools of Japan it was primarily for the health benefits, as he believed his own health had been hugely improved through his training. He unashamedly altered many aspects of the Okinawan art to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the Japanese, and this is why Shotokan is so different to the Okinawan forms of karate. His son Yoshitaka went further, developing the longer stances now familiar to Shotokan practitioners in order to emphasise the muscular development aspects of the training.

The teaching methods used were based on incremental learning, which is not something western practitioners easily take to. In essence the training was based on "do this, then this, then this" form of instruction. Only when a student had reached the level of black belt was there any attempt to explain the reasons for performing the art the way it was taught. Even then, explanations were often simplistic, and it was only the most senior student who almost lived in the dojo with his master who would receive the deeper insights.

Many students went on to open their own dojos having never progressed beyond the "do this like this" form of instruction, and they filled their gaps in knowledge with their own ideas, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly.

In many modern "Traditional Karate" classes (and other arts as well, I'm sure) the instructors have themselves only a rudimentary knowledge of the art they teach. The most expert of the Japanese & international traditional karate instructors teach classes where they progress from the stick-your-arm-out basic teachings to the very ALIVE forms of freestyle sparring, or free application of karate for self defence (Go Shin Do), but such instructors are rare. Each form of instruction has its place in the development of the karateka, but unless the instructor can move from one style of teaching to the next the art becomes a facade, a sham! In some of the best clubs there are a number of senior instructors who specialise in different aspects of the art, because these days few people have the time to dedicate themselves to learning the whole art. But each instructor in such clubs is keenly aware of the different aspects of the art and the need to practice them: kihon (basics), kata (forms) and kumite (fighting).

Traditional MA's break down the fighting into steps from basic, simple movements for beginners, to more complex intermediate forms of fighting including semi-contact, and culminating in free contact sparring. It is only in the latter stages of fighting that you will clearly see the ALIVENESS that Matt Thornton refers to, and this is simply in keeping with the traditional philosophy of safe teaching.

There are other ways to teach of course. I do not see anything inherently wrong in the training methods employed by MMA practitioners; it is an approach that suits some people (especially the young adult trainee) and does not suit others. The slow approach of the TMA may leave the younger adult frustrated at not getting the chance to try heavy contact fighting early in his development. Horses find their preferred courses.

As somebody who has trained in the traditional style, but kept at it long enough to reach the point where I can practise free fighting as well as the traditional "rehearsed" fighting, I am saddened at how quickly people sometimes criticise the traditional arts for their quaint methods of developing students. In some respects it is like a drummer complaining that the classical guitarist takes too long to perform the whole tune (no offence intended to drummers, guitarists nor martial artists by this analogy). I do not claim to be expert in the art; I am not as quick nor as flexible as I was as a younger man and many of the techniques are no longer easy for me to perform, but I know enough to be able to use my limited physique to its near-best potential.

I fully agree that a MA needs ALIVENESS in its teaching and training in order to have the best chance of being applied in a self-defence situation. I do not agree that the traditional teaching styles lack this, only that they introduce it at a later stage, when the student has mastered the basic skills as well as distance and timing skills. Any MA can be taught badly, but an experienced martial artist should be able to see this in the student and in the teacher, without blaming the art that isn't being taught right.

Be at peace,

Z

johnryano

First of all, this was a guest lecture given to undergraduate students taking a Critical Thinking (or something similar) course/module. It wasn't aimed at martial artists, it was aimed philosophy students. Presumably this is why Matt thornton just said 'karate' and didn't exactly specify which type he meant.

Zen65 wrote: »

There are other ways to teach of course. I do not see anything inherently wrong in the training methods employed by MMA practitioners; it is an approach that suits some people (especially the young adult trainee) and does not suit others. The slow approach of the TMA may leave the younger adult frustrated at not getting the chance to try heavy contact fighting early in his development. Horses find their preferred courses.

This type of post annoys me and it is quite popular on the internet. You think you understand the rational behind the pedagogy behind these teaching methods but you really don't.

The 'alive' training method is proven to be the best method of training martial arts when you end goal is skill. The most skilled martial artists are in the alive martial arts.

This approach suits everyone who actually wants to improve their skill level. People that want to practice synchronised dance movements will not enjoy this. You are WRONG in implying that old geezers want to learn synchronised dance movements because it's easier on the knees, lungs and ego. The alive training method can be applied to anyone from 6 year old to 66 years olds and older.

Of course the 'wrong' way of teaching or synchronised teaching can also be applied to everyone but at the end the people practising will only be good at that dance act nothing else.

You also think that MMA training is 'going hard training'. This is what a lot of old timers also get wrong. MMA trainings isn't necessarily "let's punch either other in the head until someone gets concussed or a bloody nose". It's about sparring, trying to hit but not get hit, trying to hit a moving target. It's nothing to do with 'going hard'.

if you went to a bjj school you might see some guys slow rolling - practising at low intensity but still 100% alive.

karate and tkd also got this thing backwards. they took heavy contact to mean - go mad and try and bust the other guy and they look light contact to mean try and hit the guy as often as possible regardless of weight behind punch.

this is bollox. light contact in boxing/mma/my is doing what you always do but not holding the punch back a bit and not following through when you have your training partner on the ropes. heavy contact, that's for the real fight.

johnryano

Chris89 wrote: »

He is clearly a very good public speaker, but I have to admit I find his views on TMA and religion are a little bit annoying.

I don't believe in god but I certainly dont go around telling everyone, I think talking about what you DO believe in rather than what you dont believe in is much more productive and certainly more interesting to the listener.

If I had a euro for every time I heard an atheist tell me why they dont believe in god..

it was a criticla thinking course, where they examine why people have faith. this wasn't him giving a mma seminar to mma heads and him getting his little anti-religion rant in (a la matt hughes on tuf but just athiesm rather than redneck christian).

He did say what he believes in - things that have proof and evidence and rationale. not superstition, not faith, not dogma.

Barry.Oglesby

Interesting talk from Thornton and one I've heard a few times over the years having attended a couple of his BJJ seminars. It certainly inspires debate and get's people talking and thinking about their training which I suppose is at least, oh 40% of the point.

However I think he has taken a notion from one field, Skepticism as it applies to religious belief, and grafted it on to another, martial arts, in a way that ostensibly seems to fit, but doesn't. The idea of "aliveness" is valid and makes a lot of sense, but when he compares religious beliefs to dogma in the martial arts, I think the argument begins to dissolve. I don't think the two are comparable.

Certainly there are lots of people out there, and we can find them all on youtube, that believe in death touches and crazy mind-bending Dim Mak or whatever, but they're in the extreme minority, and using them as an example of belief is a little like using suicide cults as an example of all religious belief. They're on the lunatic fringe; damaging for sure, but out there on the edge. To extend the metaphor, the vast majority of people who subscribe to a religion tend to be moderate, and you wouldn't know their beliefs unless they made a point of telling you. Most people involved in martial arts are that way too. They attend class, they bow (or not), they train, they're interested and try to get better, but if their club closed or they had some life changing event that meant they couldn't train anymore, then they'd probably just get on with things and go play 5 a side football or watch Come Dine With Me. In other words, they don't really care all that much, and are probably there because it's the closest club to them, or their friend trains there, or they just like the instructor. Ask anyone why they joined their local club and very rarely will they say "because I wanted X or Y". It's usually because they saw a sign, a cool website, or a special offer. We think it's because they wanted the world's best training because we suffer from proximity bias.

To most people, martial arts aren't a belief system. Their training doesn't inform their morals or their ethics, and outside of the 3 hours per week the vast majority of people spend in their dojo, dojang, or gym, it really doesn't matter to people whether what they're doing is alive, dead or otherwise. I doubt whether training in BJJ/TMA/MMA/Tai Chi affects the way in which people vote in referendums on abortion, divorce, or in presidential races. I doubt that someone who has trained in Karate for 10 years will raise a child any better or worse for that experience, regardless of what that entailed.

People believe in crazy things, and I'm sure some people who are reading this right now will be wearing a rubber wrist band with "hologram technology" to help them balance better, or eating a cereal that's going to make them thinner. I just think there are more important things for people to worry about than how some people like to dress in fancy clothes twice a week in the local school hall, and we would probably all be better off if we focused our skeptical mind bending powers on things that really mattered.

Zen65

johnryano wrote: »

The 'alive' training method is proven to be the best method of training martial arts when you end goal is skill. The most skilled martial artists are in the alive martial arts.

This approach suits everyone who actually wants to improve their skill level. People that want to practice synchronised dance movements will not enjoy this. You are WRONG in implying that old geezers want to learn synchronised dance movements because it's easier on the knees, lungs and ego. The alive training method can be applied to anyone from 6 year old to 66 years olds and older.

I'm not sure what point you are making here?

I have not criticised the "alive" approach to MA training, but rather I have pointed out that different schools can have different ways of introducing an "alive" form of practice. Some don't practise it at all, and I think we both agreed that this is a major flaw and leaves a gap in the student's MA skill.

There is a lot of presumption in your post:

• No system of training (in anything) suits everybody.... that's true whether the subject is maths, science or MA. Each person finds their own preferred way to learn things, including MA. Of course you can learn maths without studying algebra; your knowledge and skill at maths is severely compromised by this approach but you could still be an expert statistician.
  
• Many people who practise kata/patterns/forms also enjoy free-sparring, including myself. It's true that competitively many TMA practitioners specialise in one aspect of their art, and I do not favour this approach. Your sweeping statement about people who practise these forms is poorly researched.
  
• In any event well-trained dancers are in fact very likely to be highly skilled in many of the ways a good martial artist; dancers have stamina, speed, coordination, and excellent legwork. I have seen ballet dancers kick people in the head with considerable power.... do not under-estimate this form of training. Furthermore when they do so they make the techniques look good!
  
• I have attended a few MMA & BJJ classes, I am familiar with the format of the classes and I know they do not engage in constant heavy contact training. They do regularly practise in pairs with both partners being resistive to the other's attempts to apply a technique..... I very much like this idea and include elements of it when teaching karate.
  
• I did not mention the knees, lungs nor egos of the older student. I have no idea how you came to find such ideas implied by my post. Your tone is immature and ageist ("old geezers") and does nothing to support the other valid points you were making.
  

I have rarely seen a 60-year-old student train in MMA, though I regularly meet 50, 60, 70 & even 80-year old students training in karate at courses around Europe. Perhaps I am not looking in the right clubs?

Lastly, I question what you mean by "The most skilled martial artists are in the alive martial arts". Which skill are you referring to? Punching? Kicking? Balance? Speed? Stamina? Perhaps you mean they are best at "cage fighting"? If it is the latter you refer to, then how do you discriminate between skill and strength, or reach, or weight? I have met many students (of both MMA & TMA) who were excellent fighters because they had the physical strength to subdue an opponent, even though they lacked the skill to perform a basic punch/kick/lock/sweep/grapple technique. I consider Jackie Chan is a highly skilled martial artist, but I would not fancy his chances at beating a very well-built rugby player like Paul O'Connell in a fight to the death! Has Jackie therfore wasted his years of training?

Practitioners of TMA are typically not attempting to train for a cage fight; their training system is not compatible with such a feat. They train to improve coordination, to improve their ability to generate dynamic power and speed in very short bursts, and to be able to apply fighting strategies in real-life situations. This is far removed from training for a 3-minute bout in a ring, or a number of bouts in succession. In a self-defence situation it is quite rare for a fight to last 3 minutes.... most typically it is over within seconds of starting.

Z

cowzerp

Zen65 wrote: »

I consider Jackie Chan is a highly skilled martial artist, but I would not fancy his chances at beating a very well-built rugby player like Paul O'Connell in a fight to the death! Has Jackie therfore wasted his years of training?


Z

I'd kick Paul O connells ass in a fight to the death!
So if self defense is jackies goal I would question his wasted years if he can't defend against some random athletic big lad-but he's made lots of money acting so therefore he did not waste his time even if he can't fight/defend himself

pablohoney87

Jackie Chan is more of a gymnast than a martial artist in all fairness

Chris89

cowzerp wrote: »

I'd kick Paul I connells ass in a fight to the death!lf

Ah now..

cowzerp

Chris89 wrote: »

Ah now..

He's big and can rugby tackle, end of. Doubt that would be successful anyway

There is so many ways you could beat him, best he could do is pin you for a minute or so before escape and him getting pounded or choked asleep.

Considering I've seen little fellas bash trained big martial artists then I see know reason why o' connoll would be any different.

Zen65

cowzerp wrote: »

I'd kick Paul O connells ass in a fight to the death!

Ah but you're a lot bigger (and younger) than Jackie!

Z

(Mental note to self: Don't pick a fight with cowzerp)

cowzerp

Zen65 wrote: »

Ah but you're a lot bigger (and younger) than Jackie!

Z

(Mental note to self: Don't pick a fight with cowzerp)

I'm younger but when fit not bigger, similar I'd say.

I say same about any effective trained person

Tim_Murphy

Zen65 wrote: »

I have rarely seen a 60-year-old student train in MMA, though I regularly meet 50, 60, 70 & even 80-year old students training in karate at courses around Europe. Perhaps I am not looking in the right clubs?

Maybe not MMA but plenty of older guys train BJJ. It's easier on the body than a lot of sports.

johnryano

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are making here?

i apologies for being incoherent

I have not criticised the "alive" approach to MA training, but rather I have pointed out that different schools can have different ways of introducing an "alive" form of practice.

You're trying to promote the idea that they are doing it right but differently. There is only one way to introduce the alive form of practice, that is from the start. anyone that doesn't do that doesn't improve any way as quickly as those that do.

No system of training (in anything) suits everybody.... that's true whether the subject is maths, science or MA. Each person finds their own preferred way to learn things, including MA. Of course you can learn maths without studying algebra; your knowledge and skill at maths is severely compromised by this approach but you could still be an expert statistician.

we're not talking about martial arts we're talking training method. whether you study maths, music or martial arts, the training methodology remains remarkably similar.

I never said you have to do MMA, i said the training method is never an excuse for not doing MMA unless its your ego getting in your way.

Many people who practise kata/patterns/forms also enjoy free-sparring, including myself. It's true that competitively many TMA practitioners specialise in one aspect of their art, and I do not favour this approach. Your sweeping statement about people who practise these forms is poorly researched.

every minute spent pracitcing kata is wasted time from a skill development point of view.

In any event well-trained dancers are in fact very likely to be highly skilled in many of the ways a good martial artist; dancers have stamina, speed, coordination, and excellent legwork. I have seen ballet dancers kick people in the head with considerable power.... do not under-estimate this form of training. Furthermore when they do so they make the techniques look good!

you confuse skill with athleticism. Secondly, if you want to be a good choregraphed dancer, learn chroregraphy. your analogy doesn't apply, when you're trying to learn martial arts you don't want to be good at choregraphy.

I have attended a few MMA & BJJ classes,

thus you're no expert, keep this in mind for one of my subsequent points.

I have rarely seen a 60-year-old student train in MMA,
though I regularly meet 50, 60, 70 & even 80-year old students training in karate at courses around Europe.

you just said you've only been in a mma class a few times but been doing karate all your life. therefore it's compltely obvious why you'd see more rarieties in karate, you've spent all your time there. I've never met a 60 year old doing karate but i have met a 60 year old doing bjj.

secondly, mma and bjj are not as established in europe as karate. karate has been around since the 50s and 60s, mma and bjj only in the last 1 or 2 decades. of course there are going to be older ppl in karate because they started when they are younger.

Perhaps I am not looking in the right clubs?

how many clubs have you looked in?

Lastly, I question what you mean by "The most skilled martial artists are in the alive martial arts". Which skill are you referring to?

fighting.

then how do you discriminate between skill and strength, or reach, or weight?

observation and experience.

I have met many students (of both MMA & TMA) who were excellent fighters because they had the physical strength to subdue an opponent, even though they lacked the skill to perform a basic punch/kick/lock/sweep/grapple technique.

you need to look up technique, skill and athleticism, you seem to be using them interchangably. How can someone have low skill if they can beat someone up? They may have poor technique, but they sound capable with that technical level. Bigger peope can subdue smaller people who are more skiller and more technical if the bigger person uses their strength to apply their limited technique. E.g. a big fat guy who has some grappling will beat up a smaller better boxer and grappler by using his strength to subdue him with his limited wrestling.

I consider Jackie Chan is a highly skilled martial artist, but I would not fancy his chances at beating a very well-built rugby player like Paul O'Connell in a fight to the death! Has Jackie therfore wasted his years of training?

jackie chan has undeterminded skill at martial arts/fighting. he is acrobatic and athletic and very skilled at choregraphy but there is no evidence that he can fight. he probably hasn't sparred in 50 years. POC, despite never doing any martial arts trainin (done some wrestling and boxing training as part of rugby s&c work but other wise not much) would be better at applying his physique due to the alive nature of rugby. I'd put money on POC taking JC down and punching his head in.

Practitioners of TMA are typically not attempting to train for a cage fight; their training system is not compatible with such a feat.

if their training system cannot be applied to 'cage fighting' the most realistic (but not realistic) form of fighting then it's useless for fighting.

They train to improve coordination, to improve their ability to generate dynamic power and speed in very short bursts,

probably better off in the gym or in the yoga or pilates class

and to be able to apply fighting strategies in real-life situations.

bull ****, if you can't apply it to a cage it won't work on a street, regardless of the eye gouges, head butts, groin strikes, knife disarms.

This is far removed from training for a 3-minute bout in a ring, or a number of bouts in succession. In a self-defence situation it is quite rare for a fight to last 3 minutes.... most typically it is over within seconds of starting.

how would training for 3 minute rounds impair you to fight 3 second fights? surely the guy with the fitness, power and endurance to fight for 3 minutes would be fairly effective for 3 seconds (if the psychology is right).

peteclarke

cowzerp wrote: »

I'd kick Paul O connells ass in a fight to the death!
So if self defense is jackies goal I would question his wasted years if he can't defend against some random athletic big lad-but he's made lots of money acting so therefore he did not waste his time even if he can't fight/defend himself

I remember talking to you about this subject over private messages.

I don't think you could take Paul o connell in a real fight. You would kick his ass at bjj because he doesn't know submissions.
If he was allowed punch you he would win. Do you really think you could escape from a guy who has about 100 pounds on you without getting punched. He lands one half decent one and you're not getting up.
Your punches would not hurt him either. He took two huge digs off a 6'9 Canadian player and survived that encounter.

cowzerp

peteclarke wrote: »

I remember talking to you about this subject over private messages.

I don't think you could take Paul o connell in a real fight. You would kick his ass at bjj because he doesn't know submissions.
If he was allowed punch you he would win. Do you really think you could escape from a guy who has about 100 pounds on you without getting punched. He lands one half decent one and you're not getting up.
Your punches would not hurt him either. He took two huge digs off a 6'9 Canadian player and survived that encounter.

I train to evade skilled punches from really fast skilful fighters, sure I regularly spar a 6,8" lad with 2 years training and he can barely hit me so why would o Connell?! If you believe unskilled big people can beat skilled small people I simply think you don't understand fighting-this is not about me-this is simply skill v no skill at fighting, I would not beat him in rugby as I never trained it

peteclarke

It's a very interesting topic and i value your opinion. Worth a thread of it's own. Also don't want to personalise it to you.
I just think he wins when it hits the ground. Just too much weight and power.
Even on the feet. He is so big he could just grab with one hand and punch with the other.
The rules off mma and bjj have deluded alot of people. I don't think you could use your bjj skills on the ground without leaving him a chance to knee you in the head ( illegal in mma), grab your balls or hair ( obviously illegal ).

cowzerp

peteclarke wrote: »

It's a very interesting topic and i value your opinion. Worth a thread of it's own. Also don't want to personalise it to you.
I just think he wins when it hits the ground. Just too much weight and power.
Even on the feet. He is so big he could just grab with one hand and punch with the other.
The rules off mma and bjj have deluded alot of people. I don't think you could use your bjj skills on the ground without leaving him a chance to knee you in the head ( illegal in mma), grab your balls or hair ( obviously illegal ).

Start a thread on it Pete, this is kind of going off topic.

arte suave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxZKZsqWdFw
Draculino addresses the ball grabbers here.
To see technique overcome strength I recommend you watch the Royce Gracie V Akebono fight. The more skillful the fighter the bigger the opponent he can overcome. An average male (let's say they weigh 80kg) training mma for 5 years or more (assuming they are training 3 or 4 times a week and training intelligently) should be able to beat Paul O Connell assuming he knows very little about fighting. As the level of skill of the fighter increases then the size of the fighter could decrease. I would bet a lot of money on Jose Aldo absolutely destroying Paul O Connell and there is a massive size difference there. What did Paul O Connell do to anybody to deserve this beating by the way?
If you watch some of the early Rio Heroes videos where head buts and knees were allowed on the ground you can see that BJJ was used very effectively. Also see Royce Gracie in the early UFCs.

arte suave

Sorry, just saw your post Cowzerp.

smacl

johnryano wrote: »

There is only one way to introduce the alive form of practice, that is from the start. anyone that doesn't do that doesn't improve any way as quickly as those that do.

Absolutely, but as someone just starting to teach a bit myself, i find there can be pitfalls. The way I do it, which is how I was taught myself, it to start by showing the mechanics of a technique, and then break into groups of three or four to practice, with one person being continuously attacked by two or three others, starting off slowly to establish the correct mechanics, and then speeding up once they've got to grips with the technique. If they miss the technique for whatever reason, they do another technique, so that if we're working take downs for example, the attacker should ideally end up on the deck one way or the other. From an aliveness point of view, the piggy in the middle approach works well, as you don't know who is going to attack you next and are kept under pressure by people of different size and ability.

The problem comes that when the pressure is on, it is very easy for the technique to go to ****. I find you sometimes need to stop things and practice the basic mechanics over a few times, before taking it back into a more live environment. Young lads tend to want to go full speed all the time, which isn't always what you want when your learning something new.

every minute spent pracitcing kata is wasted time from a skill development point of view.

If by kata, your talking about repeating the movements that make up one or more techniques solo, I'd say it has significant benefits. As an exercise it helps establish the correct body mechanics for those techniques, that can be practised without the need for a training partner. If aliveness teaches about distance, timing, and working under pressure, getting the mechanics right is the last bit of the jigsaw needed to pull off the technique effectively. Given limited time where training partners are available, solo forms / kata are a great tool to reinforce understanding of basic mechanics. In practical tai chi chuan, we also use forms as a warm down, and for me at least work well to reinforce what's been done in the class.

The problem with kata / forms as I see it, is that they can be taught as some kind of self contained part of training, where learning to get them right and looking good is a goal in itself. This is fine and dandy, but I don't think it has much to do with martial arts. The real question is that in a short class, is teaching forms going to use up time that could better be spent doing other things? The answer is sometimes, yes. For a short class, there's too much to cram in already. We tend to have two hour classes, and even then, with competition coming up for a couple of the lads, we're not practising forms that much. Once the competitions are over, I'll probably add more forms training make into the class.

cowzerp

Lads, sports like boxing, Bjj, Mma all drill techniques without resistance, then they drill them against resisting opponents to see if they can make them work for real-people seem to think they don't drill techniques

I still get experienced lads to drill the simplest moves as that's how you keep technique clean, but of you can't do it against resisting opponent it's pointless

Zen65

johnryano wrote: »

You're trying to promote the idea that they are doing it right but differently. There is only one way to introduce the alive form of practice, that is from the start. anyone that doesn't do that doesn't improve any way as quickly as those that do.

I don't know who "they" are? I was being very careful to distinguish between good and less good ways of teaching a MA and not make sweeping generalisations about TMA versus MMA, but you seem to regard all traditional training methods as useless. My point is that there is not only one effective way to train in anything (whether it's MA, science, maths, language). Having a dogma such as yours ("The only way to do X is ....") seems to me to be severely limiting.

johnryano wrote: »

I never said you have to do MMA, i said the training method is never an excuse for not doing MMA unless its your ego getting in your way.

I read this several times and I cannot make sense of it.... honestly. What are you trying to say, and why do you keep referring to ego? Where did ego become an issue in the discussion?

johnryano wrote: »

every minute spent pracitcing kata is wasted time from a skill development point of view.

That is, with respect, a blinkered point of view. Is a boxer wasting his time working with a skipping rope, or jogging, or with the speed ball? What about the amount of time he spends practising footwork drills? These are all skills, and all contribute to his overall ability as a fighter. When trained correctly, kata teaches the student how to move his centre of gravity efficiently and quickly, which is a key skill in any striking or throwing art. It also allows him the opportunity to practice individual techniques. Of course if all he trains in is kata then he won't learn how to fight.... there's no debating that at all.

johnryano wrote: »

thus you're no expert, keep this in mind for one of my subsequent points.

I do not claim to be an expert in any MA, but I'm open about the level of training I have had. Perhaps you would balance the conversation by giving your background?

johnryano wrote: »

How can someone have low skill if they can beat someone up?

What I said was that they can lack the skill to make a proper punch or kick, but be strong or heavy enough to compensate. Some people are born big and strong genetically, and they can be very tough to fight. This isn't a learned skill, it's a physical attribute like Michael Phelps' arm span. He didn't get that from training!

The funny things is John that I'm not disagreeing with the key points that you made in your post, but I abhor the dogma that there is only one way to learn a martial art. You repeatedly dismiss all of the traditional MA methods of training in favour of just one, and that's as flawed a way of reasoning as any other.

But our conversation here is taking the thread away from the Matt Thornton video. Perhaps we should have a separate thread about it?

Z

Zen65

smacl wrote: »

The problem with kata / forms as I see it, is that they can be taught as some kind of self contained part of training, where learning to get them right and looking good is a goal in itself. This is fine and dandy, but I don't think it has much to do with martial arts.

+1

This is where some mediocre TMA schools get stuck. When teaching young children, the instructor wants to avoid any chance of injury so kata training is ideal for that. I have often experienced parents of kids with learning difficulties or physical "awkwardness" who like to send their kids along to the local karate / kung fu club but don't want their kid to come home bruised. Kata and basic training is the only sure-fire option for the instructor in those circumstances. After all, if the kids get hurt and leave the club closes down.
The training can benefit the student to overcome their disability, but the instructor needs to be careful that he does not allow that student set the pace for the whole class.

But unless the training includes regular sparring the proper value of the training is lost. In traditional MA schools this is approached by having a series of steps for teaching the sparring, starting with "basic" rehearsed partner work (dreadfully artificial to watch, but often the basis of demos), moving on towards more fluid sparring drills, and then moving to free sparring when the practitioners have reached a level of competence where they won't damage each other.

There's a reason why the worst injuries in tournaments involve the lower grade/rank of students.

Z

Zen65

arte suave wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxZKZsqWdFw
What did Paul O Connell do to anybody to deserve this beating by the way?

My bad! I was trying to think of a big guy and a little guy and I came up with Paul vs Jackie. Probably not the best example to pick.

johnryano

smacl wrote: »

If by kata, your talking about repeating the movements that make up one or more techniques solo, I'd say it has significant benefits.

No, this is bull****. People who do kata often try and backwards engineer some justification for doing it. KAta is not the same as drilling the technique to get the feel of the mechanics. Every kata i have seen is fairly elaborate, with many many different segments all choreographed together.

If you're standing in front of a heavy bag doing mawashi geri 50 times you're not going kata. you're drilling a technique. if you practice doing a triangle set up on a guy 50 times you're drilling a technique not doing kata.