Thoughts on styles unsuited to MMA tournaments, aka Martial Art vs. Martial Sport?

This may go long, but here we go.

First off, there is a huge mystique associated with Martial Arts in general, and there are some that embrace that as part of the commercialism. I want to touch a few statements of yours and my thoughts.

"I think something that people need to understand is that martial arts are different from martial sports"

Honestly I don't see a huge difference, this is normally traditional arts approach as an answer towards sparring/tournaments/sport. "Well what we train you can't practice". And in some ways I think there should be a huge difference made from arts that compete/spar and ones that don't.

Mainly because one is effective and the other is not.

"Yes they are great fighters, but someone who is trained to break bones whenever they can can't play in that world"

How do they know that they are great fighters if they have never fought? How can you train to break bones without never having broken a bone? Someone could swing a golf club 10 thousand times, but if they never hit a ball then they aren't good golfers.

Not only that but training in half measures develops muscle memory, that will be incomplete. You fight how you practice, and if you never connect or hold a joint the point of breaking, then you won't in a real fight.

There is a story of police officer in Montreal, who taught hand to hand tactics. His specialty was disarms, he practiced pistol disarms every day, and taught it a hundred times a day. The would be assailant would point the weapon at him, he would disarm the weapon, point it back at the assailant, then hand his partner the gun to do it again. He did this for years.

One day in the line of fire, he is actually faced with an assailant pointing a weapon at him. Sure enough with a lightning quick surprising move he disarms the assailant. However, he is shot shortly thereafter when he handed the assailant the weapon back.

"Does that make them less a martial artist than someone who has been in Aikdo 20 years? No, just different. Is either better than the other"

Aikido is not a sport based Martial Art. Do I think that one art is better than the other? No, I think that personal taste and what each person gains from it is what makes an art enjoyable or good.

Effectiveness in real combat, that is something entirely different. Yes, certain arts are much more effective combat wise than others.

"Each style does what it is designed to do and they will most likely never meet because UFC and the others do not have a reality based rules set. They actually have rules where real life does not."

Funny you mention this, many of these styles that are taught haven't changed over the years. Many of these styles were designed and created for sole purposes that are vastly outdated. Tae Kwon Do was meant to kick people off horses, Japanese Jujitsu was meant to be done in armor, and many arts were meant simply as a means of honing the body and the mind.

While I think someone taking an art for that purpose (self discipline, fitness, enjoyment, control of their body) is just as much a Martial Artist as a K1 kickboxer, or MMA champion, I just don't think they would be as effective in a real fight.

"They actually have rules where real life does not."

Another traditional argument against sport martial arts. Look real life confrontations are dangerous and unpredictable period. However what is the best way to be prepared?

Practicing in the air, doing kata and forms, and then working a move on a partner who allows you to do it? Half heartedly dropping a strike to a joint saying "This will shatter the joint" without never knowing what it is like to get hit in the face, or what someone actually does when you grab their arm.

Sport based MAs, particularly those with the least amount of rules or some rules based at least gets a chance to try their techniques against someone who is trying their hardest to not lose.

Until you put into practice what you have learned over and over again, against different people, different body styles, and all of them trying to beat you as well. Well then your method of combat is just theory.

UFC type rules sets come as close to reality as you can get safely. Reality isn't always a one on one, or unnarmed. Those are factors out of your control. But the truth is no art holds the title of being able to realistically defeat multiple opponents, that is just too many unpredictable things and you can't practice that in an adrenaline based situation.

While some arts focus on disarming, and actually have some realistic training towards it, they still aren't that effective. There have been systema and Krav Maga practioners killed because of attempting to disarm someone. Real life is different, and no Martial art by itself can teach you how to handle every single situation that could arise.

Some prepare you better than others though.

And anything in which you go hard against an unresisting opponent is going to give you an advantage over someone who never does.

Someone who drives a car, races at a set speed limit, at a track, is going to be a far better driver in a street race than someone who only practices driving in the air, bases their driving theory off a theory that was taught to drive horse and buggies, and has never stepped foot in a car, thinking that "the real world has no rules".

Really that is the equivalent.

"Real street racing has no rules, and what I practice is too deadly to use on the race track". Yet never even driving a car under a rule set to begin with. Practicing swerves and turns in the air. Yet thinking that you are more effective than someone who races under a rule set.

The thought of it, if you take all the mystic hooey fooey out of Martial Arts is just that. There are no Chi balls, no such thing as a no touch knock out. No amount of meditation and oneness that will allow you to perform some supernatural feat.

If you take Martial Arts for every aspect of it, then great. I would never knock any other practioner for what he gets from his art.

However, if you take a Martial Art to be a better fighter, and you think that someone who has never fought would stand a chance against someone who does all the time. Well I think that would be a misconception.

Could the Dalai Lama beat Mike Tyson? His spiritual oneness should be unquestionable...

Would a Shaolin Monk take out Chuck Liddell? Sadly there are many people who are so entranced and caught up in the bs of the Martial Art mystique, that they honestly believe that a monk would win. A Monk whose sole devotion is for spiritual growth, who has never even done violence to any living thing, but has honed his body to be able to do great physical feats. However he has never actually fought, and has no idea how to apply any of his techniques in combat because has never had to.

I hate to tell you Asianophile "Artists" but a monk would get owned by Chuck Liddell.

Reality is the closer you get to reality and can practice under adrenaline over and over again, the better shot you have at actual reality.

The old saying "The more you bleed in practice means the less you bleed in battle" comes to mind.

Faking at raking eyes, and chopping throats, and breaking bones, isn't the same as actually holding a bone to the nearly the point of breaking. You can't have any realistic idea as to how effective a technique is if you can never do it to it's completetion.

I promise you, the average MMA fighter has broken WAY more bones than any Aikido master, or other "bone breaking" style, and he has done it under adrenaline with another person trying to take his head off. That is far more realistic.

Pretty much anyone who has trained in submission moves and competed for any length of time has dislocated at least one joint of their opponent when he didn't tap.

The whole reason for sport based Martial Arts, were Martial Arts that wanted to test their skill, evolve their art and improve. Honestly back in the day that was happening constantly. Kung Fu schools constantly fought each other to see who was the best. Most of this type of stuff has been forgotten, but fighting against each other and other styles was a large part of Martial Arts, and still is to this day. However certain styles or more appropriately certain dojos felt they were above having to prove themselves, or try to claim the higher ground (mainly in fear of being proven ineffective). Yet claim some sort of effectiveness without never testing it.

Honestly, that is like a hamburger joint saying that they have the absolute best hamburgers in the world, but never producing one for you to eat. They just practice making them over and over.

So I don't think one art is better than any other as far as what an individual can glean in bettering themselves. Confidence, self worth, discipline, espirit de corps, fitness, conditioning, enjoyment etc.

But I do think that Martial Arts that actually test themselves over and over against themselves or other Martial Arts are going to be more effective in combat than an art that never tests itself.

That should be common sense, but when it comes to Martial Arts some people look to the supernatural or some other mystical aspect. When in reality, a good fighter is someone who spends a whole lot of time actually fighting. He knows what it is like to do his technique, what the average person's reaction when he attempts his technique, and what it feels like to get punched, kicked, and have pain and adrenaline taking place while executing his technique.

That is reality, you can't expect to be able to win any fight without actually getting in some. Rules or not.

Unfortunately all the martial arts are being 'sportified' rendering them useless in a street fight.

Even back in the 1960s with all the Karate Tournaments, certain techniques were disallowed, such as eye gouges or spear hands, which left nothing but punching and kicking. This had the effect of turning all the different styles of Karate into just kickboxing.

Now the same thing appears to be happening with MMA as certain techniques are not allowed, such as wristlocks or pressure points and certain striking techniques. MMA, like Karate before it, has become 'sportified'.

I began my martial art training in 1968 where the instruction was tough and sometimes brutal, the martial arts were not remotely associated with 'sport', which is how I practice MA today. But the rest of the world, with their stupid blue gi's and hype, are twisting the martial arts into a paying spectator sport, which is really a shame.

All Martial Arts are beneficial.

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighting is a great way for diversely trained Martial Artists to compete. In effect, anyone can compete in MMA. It is also an exciting spectator sport.

There is no need to write a book to explain it. I personally witness it all the time. That's just the way it is.

The guy that wrote that book in this question just raped you.

All the bullshido arts are full of **** and are considered a joke among the kickboxing/mma community. Just watch UFC 1-5 and watch all the "Karate masters" get choked out and armbarred to hell, or just beaten into oblivion by a wrestler.

Even bruce lee said that take any athelete, and train him for one year in boxing and wrestling and they could beat any Kung Fu expert.