Myth - "It is not the art, it is the fighter"

Another Myth: "It's not the fighter, it's the art"

Then there's the other side of that argument.

Some practitioners feel a strong sense of security and superiority because they have chosen "the ultimate" style/system/what-have-you. What they fail to realize is, even if your system has been...

A) proven over centuries of combat, and used by a handful of monks to fight off thousands of Imperial soldiers

B) chosen as the official system of the super-secret special forces of Country X, or even...

C) tested and proven effective in THE OCTAGON

...this does not guarantee YOU, personally, victory. Regardless of your chosen system, if you don't train hard, often, and realistically, don't expect your system to come to your rescue just because the huge goon you picked a fight with chose a "lesser style" or (gasp) has never had any formal training.

Cliff's Notes:

You are not your teacher. You are not your style. Train hard.

Edit: Note this isn't meant to contradict the original post. Rather, they are two sides of the same coin. That is all.

I would agree that not all MAs are created equal. There are a ton out there that stress daily practice of silly techniques (see a crane beak hand strike or a jump spinning crescent kick for reference). It is no coincidence that these techniques are never practiced against a resisting opponent. If you want to know the crane beak reverse dragon chi strike, go for it if it floats your boat, but don't create the illusion that it will do you any favors in any kind of confrontation.

Alluding to what Ozendorph said, also don't let success in the ring go to your head. If you sink a great ankle lock on someone it won't matter when the boot party starts. Or if you've been a knifefight, that doesn't mean that in warfare you can't be shot. Etc. Etc. Certain techniques are definitely superior to others, but they don't make us unbreakable.

As for Lieberman vs. Schwarzenegger, there is a style that would allow him to beat Aah-nold. Its called a sap to the back of the noggin while Arnie is being distracted by Lieberman's buddy.

There are also a lot of breakdowns between martial arts/fighting styles and weapon access - most don't integrate firearms, edged weapon, or blunt weapon in-fight access. If you don't find a way/get some training on ways to integrate your unarmed fighting skills and armed fighting skills, then they will be very likely to break down in a fight, most likely when you're trying to access your tools in a fight, which is the worst possible time for that to happen. If you're going to carry a gun, knife, blunt tool, or anything else, find a way to make sure that you can integrate access and use of those tools into your other fighting skills, or things could go south for you in a bad way.

If you're going to carry a gun, knife, blunt tool, or anything else, find a way to make sure that you can integrate access and use of those tools into your other fighting skills, or things could go south for you in a bad way.

Click to expand...

You could just get into FMA and have most of your job done for you... (don't use guns though).

I have to disagree with you simply because you cannot separate the fighter from the art. I have seen guys training in MMA that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I have seen MMA fighters that were pretty tough too.

I personally fought an MMA exponent in a friendly sparring match and beat him hands down with my knowledge of Aikido. I didn't win because Aikido is the ultimate martial art. I won because my opponent was a spoiled rich kid that had never been in a real fight in his life while I grew up in a rough neighborhood where we fought for FUN when I was growing up.

Sure your art may give you all the skills you need to win a fight, but if you are incapable of employing those skills because you don't know what you are doing in a real fight you may as well be doing ballet or yoga.

Edited to add: Please don't take this the wrong way. I just got off a 12 hour day at work and 2 days of hurricane preparations.

A point that I'd like to make is that self-defense or even fighting in general isn't the main focus of all arts. Most people that I know that practice MA's aren't all that interested about their art's effectiveness. At least those that have several years under their belt.

Didn't we cover this topic before....?

All arts aren't created equal, but the ability and resolve of the fighter is far more important than the art he studies. To say that the art is more important than the fighter is not at all right.

Many people have fallen for the myth that all arts are equal and that it is the individual that is important. This is a myth.

Click to expand...

In this corner, Chuck Norris, tae kwon do stylist and undefeated light-middleweight kickboxing champion. In this corner, his opponent: Joe Schmo, having taken two years of muay tai and Brazilian jui-jitsu because it's the cool thing to take these days.

"All right, gentlemen, test the myth...FIGHT!"

Hmm. I think I've got an idea of which way that one is going to go.

Your example of pinky-do vs. muay thai isn't extreme enough. For fairness, let us compare the one discipline of pinky-do with one discipline from muay thai, like so:

You have two choices: teach your son pinky-do or teach your son only the plum position from muay thai. You love your son, which is it going to be?

LawDog

The purpose of the art is to discipline the fighter, who then controls and directs the art.

Differences in the art mean differences in the fighter, either by cause or effect or both.

Dave, not that this isn't an important question, but didn't you post exactly the same thing awhile back? Maybe my memory's fuzzy.

Daniel Flory said:

As for Lieberman vs. Schwarzenegger, there is a style that would allow him to beat Aah-nold

Click to expand...

I thought you were going to say Gun-Fu!!

I think that the points made here have been very valid. Both the fighter and the technique used are important, and a weak point in either one is not very good.

A balance between the two would probably be best.

All arts are not equal in their combat effectiveness.Some arts are JUTSU and some are DO,there is a difference between these arts.All fighters are not equal either.You need more than technique to be a good fighter.However you can be real tough, but without technique you will not prevail.It is the two together working in harmony,kind of like that yin/yang thing.

[bad humor]
There's a new and highly tactical art out there, it's called comman-do... We even made an article out of it. Sorry it's in Finnish, ask me nicely and I might translate it.
Page 1. Page 2
[/bad humor]

Though my experience, I'd have to say that it IS the fighter not the art.

As a fighter you need to know what works when and how to react, regardless of style. If you have an interest in learning how to fight, then you will know when someone is teaching you garbage or quality.

Most people don't care anymore and are learning martial arts for the "exercise" or for adding a trophy to the display case. I'd say only about 1/3 of the people active in martial arts take it seriously as a means of learning self defense.

A good muy thai fighter knows that what works on the street may not work in the ring and vice versa. Style is only a means to an end.

As far as the pinky-do example is concerned, if you can't tell that person teaching that has some serious issues, then I feel sorry for you.

If you really think it is more about the art than the fighter... then IMO you haven't met a really good fighter in a "lesser" art. I'd say 90% fighter/ 10% art. Otherwise you'd see more middle-belt achievers in top-schools besting top-belt achivers in lesser-schools. Just doesn't happen. Not for points and not in real life.

Agree..to some degree

Dave,
I have been in the martial arts for 46 years. For the first 7 years, I was coming up in the Japanese and Chinese Kempo karate styles with 2 years in jiujitsu. Many folks thought that I was very fast and good at sparring (one point). I had grown up in a lot of "bad neighborhoods" and I had some street fighting experience.
Most of my fights were pretty successful for me. I was the last one standing.
Given styles? There are definitely some that are better than others.
For example....In the mid 60's Bruce Lee made a challenge to all martial artists at the Long Beach tournament sponsored by Ed Parker. He was knocking down challengers right and left. Guys were pouring down on the floor to try Bruce out. They had to stop the challenges because it was turning out to be a melee.
We then heard later that Bruce had an open invitation to first degree black belts or better. We went one night to challenge him.
Long story short? He knocked out 6 out of the 7 black belts in the first or second move. All of these guys were good tournament fighters, some had street fighting experience.
Later visits to his school? Same effect on other challengers.
I felt that the definite difference was not only the art, but the artist.
I went to him and asked to train under him. He told me not to move from San Francisco and that I had learned enough "techniques." He suggested that I filter out the techniques to only a few that worked effectively all of the time and throw out the garbage.
I did so over the next 37 years. I have taught about 700 students in self-defense over those 37 years. I have broken down the self-defense stuff to about 6 + months of training and have had a bunch of them use what they learned in 6 months to defend themselves in the streets and some have beaten masters and grandmasters in their own environment. I am only stating this to show that these folks have proven to me that it works....and it didn't take them 10 or more years to "learn the art."
The other ingredient? What Bruce taught many people...."to learn how to swim you have to get in the water." You can't learn swimming on dry land.
So the art of fighting? In my opinion? It is experience, the right combination of techniques, and learning to apply them in realistic settings....if you want to learn the art of fighting against real bodies. If you want to learn the classical martial arts....well, that's a whole different subject. Both have a lot of plusses for both methods....all depends on what you want to learn.

It's a combination of both. Sorry, but I just don't see a trained Kung-fooey guy winning a fight against a trained grappler with the same physical ability 100% of the time. I believe the fighting style is most important, then the physical abilities come into play after that.

It's definitely the Art first and the Fighter second.

J

For those interested... There are some good videos of striker vs grappler on www.bullshido.net.

J

Don Gwinn:

Very few Moderators here have fuzzy memories. Presumably you rememberd this one :

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=50093

i think it depends on the enviroment. grapplers have the greatest advantage in my eye's though. most of what you learn in martial arts goes right out the window anyway in an actual fight, it's only the fundamentals that stick. a few simple to learn take downs or joint locks is a lot more practical than all the high flying kicks and punches put together. that's why the folks with good ground work win. they master those few simple to learn and remember moves. one punch might not take someone out but a well timed take down or joint lock will end a fight 90% of the time. another advantage to let's say judo or akido is you can end a fight quickly with or with out the option of seriously hurting your attacker. If memory serves me correct most law enforcement officers are taking soft arts now days anyways for that same reason.

If I were asked this question by a kid I would say its the fighter because I want to stress its up to the fighter to know what fights to pick and what form of self-defense you wish to learn that is best for you. It all starts and ends with how much the fighter puts into his/her training.

6'4" 300lb guy that does striking art vs 5'6" 135lb guy that does grapple. Whos gonna win?? I really think its the fighter not the art.