Sport and Self Defence.

[Alcatraz]

I would like to include, whereas it may be thought, because MMA goes hard in competition, their skill sets are better. However, these are still limited to rules. Thus the training is limited...

However, I would argue that an MMA athlete who trains for say 15-20 hours a week is more likely to be able to transfer there skill set over to a live self-protection scenario than someone who studies for the same amount of time in an art or system where there is less emphasis on 'live' training.

My adult classes are based on full contact training adopted from methods as diverse as Milling, Ne-waza, Lei-Tai, and Knockdown Karate.

Now Lei-Tai and Knockdown Karate are sporting methods, but I believe that due to the contact nature of these methods my students are better prepared for a live altercation than someone who trains for Points Karate, or, a theory based art, and I mean no disrespect here, but I would include Hapkido and Aikido in that statement as theory based arts.

[Gi]

None of us really are stupid enough to think that training in just one element i.e Forms or bag work etc. is going to be enough to stand us in good sted for any real life situation. I train TMA 2 styles one a mostly striking Art the other locks and throws. I do forms which I feel are of great value, I also jump in the ring and spar with gloves on and do bag work amounst other things, I'm sure most of us here are like minded.

[Rickster]

I would like to include, whereas it may be thought, because MMA goes hard in competition, their skill sets are better. However, these are still limited to rules. Thus the training is limited. I had recently observed a MMA/BJJ practitioner get hammered by a local brawler.

As for any art (Hapkido-etc.) which could not do a method full throttle, this would be like building a muscle car, dyno testing it, street riding it, but not actually racing it. You know it can run when unleashed.

It is always better to learn martial arts for many applications, with anything that could help in defense.

I have to state, that sports is conditional whereas defense is situational.

[Bluecrab]

Judo. Great for teaching you how to throw someone to the ground if you get in a shoving match, which is absolutely valid for self defense. However, no striking, no defense against striking, and no real "finishing" your opponent after they've gone down, and no defending against a downed opponent are all extremely counter productive. Of course, someone lands head-first on asphalt, that's all she wrote.

Good points, Brandon... but think for a moment where judo came from. It came from a couple of styles of classical jujutsu. The original versions of the judo throws that you've referenced were definitely intended to do permanent harm to an attacker. First, most included a joint break/dislocation before the actual throw. Then, the throw was intended to cripple or kill your attacker. In Daito-ryu, for example, many of the throws begin with a wrist, elbow, or shoulder break/dislocation, then follow on into slamming the attacker's head into the ground.

John, this is a great idea for some good discussion. I'll throw a bit of fuel on the fire... as much as many of us TMA people may despair of the popularity of MMA, and the disagreeable personalities of many MMA artists, I have to concede that I think the average MMA person would make mincemeat out of the average two- to three-hours a week TMA practitioner. Those guys actually get struck for real, and really hard... how many of us TMA people can say the same? Sport training is great for reasons mentioned above (stamina, distancing, getting hit for real, etc.). One of my greatest frustrations in hapkido was always that we could never do the techniques full bore, because that would result in injury. So we would fall back on static wrist grabs, etc... it's just a dilemma.

[Brandon]

Judo. Great for teaching you how to throw someone to the ground if you get in a shoving match, which is absolutely valid for self defense. However, no striking, no defense against striking, and no real "finishing" your opponent after they've gone down, and no defending against a downed opponent are all extremely counter productive. Of course, someone lands head-first on asphalt, that's all she wrote.

[Chihua-ku]

Life might imitate arts but not sports. I love sport karate and I have done several karate and kung fu tournaments, and even won a few sparring competitions. But I also find it limiting. In a real self defense situtation there is no referee to stop the fight if someone goes outside bounds (there are no specific bounds to begin with), there are no gloves, cup and other protective gear, there are no time limit rounds. For us kung fu guys, a lot of hand techniques (eagle claw, chin na, dragon claw, phoenix eye punch, monkey hook, etc) cannot be use for the simple fact you are wearing boxing gloves! And don't get me started on that stupid rule you cannot kick someone while standing in one leg. Yeah, let me try that in a real fight. And some tournaments do not allow sweeps. Also, in a real self defense situation, no one stops the fight after "scoring a point".   

Having say all that, I can see Alcatraz's point. Some elements of fighting can be enhanced by sport sparring. For example, distance, speed, timing, eye-hand coordination, supression of fear, knowing how to take a hit, control, stamina (most fights come down in tournaments to who have more stamina left after three rounds), etc. Any more opinions?

[Gi]

Good points. It's the old dilemma, being able to play sports in a safe way and how much of the MA is lost in control it. While I think "sport MAs" are good and benificial to self defence, I myself feel that the true martial arts and much of the arts from which they originate is lost. In my humble opinion even MMA and the other full contact sports have rules which limit the Arts and favour techniques which may not be as effective against some martial art experts. I've fought many very very good competition fighters and they are very good at what they do, I've had the oportunity to train with some very good technicains. They are good at what they do but sometimes there is something missing.

[Alcatraz]

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"

Perhaps the closest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defence, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, notwithstanding rule sets, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.

This got me to thinking however.

As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?

For example, some  Sport Karate formats teach students to pull techniques, and as for WTF Taekwondo..I can see no practical transfer from mat to street.

I know it's not what you train, but rather how you train, but are certain methods of sport martial arts more detrimental to self-defence than others?