Training without rules

[MikeWilliams]

OK, this is something that has been bugging me for a while. There is currently a big discussion in the Ninpo forum about Ninjutsu vs. MMA. A point that a lot of posters are making is that in Ninpo allows you to train without rules, implying that it is better for self defence.
Now I don’t want to specifically re-hash that thread – and I don’t really have any business posting in the Ninpo forum, but the same arguments seem to crop up again and again from practitioners of all classical arts.

So I would just like to point out one blindingly obvious and yet frequently overlooked fact:

ALL arts have rules

In fact, arts that are trained in purely kata form have way MORE restrictions on what you can and can’t do than so-called "sport" arts which allow sparring against resistance. Weapons arts have more restrictions and rules still.

As usual, Hissho mangaed to sum it up very concisely on this thread:
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...t=37470&page=2

the ... implication is that Judo, mere sport that it is, has rules, and no judoka would ever be able to grab the hair or beard of an attacker in an actual assault. Perhaps not even be able to defend himself because he'd be looking for the ref and waiting to hear "hajime!"

Aikido has just as many rules in its practice as Judo does. They just don't happen to be sportive. One of aikido's rules, and this one is a doozy, happens to be that your attackers fall for your technique. Of course judo has that too. In kata. In randori they don't. And randori is where you'll actually learn to fight - whether its sport competition OR self defense.

Now that refers to aikido, but it could just have easily been directed at ninpo, or karate, or shorinji kempo or any number of so called “reality-based self defence” programmes.

Now there are probably many good arguments for choosing a classical art over a sport art. But the ability to train “without rules” isn’t one of them.

I await your comments.

[Ryanclose]

Everything has rules. We say it all the time at our dojo. The gist is that you want to keep training and you want to continue training w/ your training partner. The only way to train for reality is to continually put yourself in dangerous situations where you HAVE to do things for real as it were. That kind of training won't last long IMHO. When we do self defense, we always feign shots to knees, throat or other weak spots on the body as well as "Show" an arm break or something to that effect. Plus we mix it up. We'll do the move sans resistance for a while and then apply the resistance later to try to understand a more "realistic" application. I believe that's the best you can do under the circumstances because I don't want to hurt my friends/partners.

What I also believe is that these "rules" as you call them are for teaching concepts. I've never actually done a precise kata in kumite but I have done streamlined and effective versions of pieces of kata during sparring. The movements have to be slightly adapted for the attack but the premise (or concept) was the same.

As for the "what's better" argument re: MMA/classical Bu-jitsu.....I've grown tired of that debate. It's been done to death and it's all opinion anyway. Both have merit and therefore I train in both to an extent.

Well, there's my $.02

[MikeWilliams]

As for the "what's better" argument re: MMA/classical Bu-jitsu.....I've grown tired of that debate. It's been done to death and it's all opinion anyway. Both have merit and therefore I train in both to an extent.

I agree. Although my bone of contention is really with the notion of sport vs. "reality", which is a slightly different debate. Again, both "sport" and "classical" methodologies have merit. But I believe many of those on the purely classical side of the fence have a fundamental misunderstanding of what sport entails. More worryingly, in some of these debates they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they themselves are doing.

Just to stir thing up a little:

Freestyle wrestling - valid for self-defense or not? If not, why not?

Rugby - same questions!

[Bod]

Rugby doesn't have rules. It has laws.

Besides, show me someone who understand them and I'll tell you if Rugby has any application to self defence or not.

Judo rules do have a big effect on the way Judoka train, and on the evolution of the style. Same thing with Boxing rules.

So does the equipment you train with.

I think with the kata based arts you have to look at what the originators of the kata were trying to achieve. Often this has little to do with what the current practitioners believe.

For instance a lot of karate guys especially the sport karate types will say that karate kata are all about training an extreme version of the moves, and that this version is modified for real life.

Personally I can't think up a much better way of beating multiple opponents than getting into a lowish karate stance and rushing around banging people full force in the gut or ribs, and smashing away any attempt at a grab. The standard wrestling and boxing strategies that are so good against single opponents of the same ability level just ain't going to work against multiple opponents of a lower ability level.

But I didn't even think like that until I did Boxing and Judo.

[pgsmith]

Although my bone of contention is really with the notion of sport vs. "reality", which is a slightly different debate.

Hey Mike,
Here's my two cent's, unpopular as it may be. Only an extremely small number of martial artists actually have any idea what "reality" is as regards self defense, since they've never been in an actual "self-defense" situation. Even the idea of "reality" can change radically depending upon the situation. A billigerent drunk in a bar is a "real" self-defense situation. Five punk kids demanding your wallet and wife on a dark street is a "real" self-defense situation. Both of these situations would require radically different skills to defuse. The crazed drug addict that attacks you rather than allowing you to search him is another "real" self-defense situation that takes an entirely different set of skills.

It is my contention that the very best self-defense skills are situational awareness, and the ability to think clearly when the adrenaline is flowing. Couple that with the fortitude to do whatever is necessary to extricate yourself from a dangerous situation, and you can overcome 99.99% of all self-defense situations that any ordinary person is likely to encounter.

The notion that one martial art will work better than another martial art is ridiculous where self-defense is concerned. The odds of having to defend yourself against a trained martial artist are infinitesimally small. This means that anyone you are likely to have to defend yourself against will be untrained. Situational awareness and clear thinking will allow a person to avoid most dangerous situations. For the ones that can't be avoided, the fact that you've got martial arts training and your opponent doesn't will give a great advantage you, no matter what your art it is.

[K. Cantwell]

More worryingly, in some of these debates they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they themselves are doing.

Are you sure you just didn't misunderstand them?

Everyone that I have ever met in the classical arts has quite a clear and cogent view of what koryu is and isn't. They've all been quite grounded people with no delusions of becoming samurai or sword-wielding terrors, nor about the anachronistic nature of the skills they may be acquiring. Somebody on here a little while ago made a brilliant distinction between practical skills and realistic skills. The techniques learned in koryu are quite realistic, but they simply aren’t practical combatively anymore. I would think this would be self-evident to everyone training in a classical dojo. As I say, it is quite clear to everybody I’ve met or with whom I’ve trained.

The koryu people are usually the first to say that they aren't training to learn how to defend themselves and assert that the idea that their training is in preparation for battle is delusional. At least, that is how I feel. I don't train in Shinto Muso-ryu or Buko-ryu to learn how to defend my family and home from trouble. I may be able to make some extrapolation from some of the things I’ve learned, and if I happen to have a broom handle near by, I may get a +1 to my attack roll, but that is not why I train.

I think the big misunderstanding is about the nature of kata and what it is and isn't. Some people hear kata and think "stilted dance with little efficacy." Most of these people, I would wager, have never been to a legitimate koryu dojo, and I think if they do visit, they will get a different perspective. There are legion debates about sparring vs. kata that include this view. I'll not rehash them here, except to say that everybody training in a legitimate classical art under a legitimate teacher should know exactly what kata are and what their training is all about.

If you happen to meet someone that says he is just waiting for the clan across the street to attack so he can practice his new kata, run away....quickly.....

Kevin Cantwell

[Rob Watson]

Hi all,
Even in "reality" there are rules that modulate our actions (unless we are deranged) in "combat" situations. On the street when in defense of life and limb one must stop short of lethality when the attacker is otherwise ceased being a threat (e.g. knocked on the ground with a damaged limb cowering then going in for the kill will typically result in a murder conviction for the defender). There are certainly variances in these actual legal limits for different places but they are there nonetheless.

Even in combat operations there are certain limits that define legal combat versus war crimes.

If you want to get as close to reality as possible try combat with non-humans. I recall Gozo Shioda describing his training with dogs and perhaps other animals but even then they were trained pets. Try such things with wild animals.

In situations where there are truly only the laws of nature at play things get grim very quickly. Certainly "fight or flight" is the evolutionary result with the outcome being the quick and the dead-which would you rather be? Train for that.

Thanks

__
Rob Watson

[Rob]

Just to add a point that does sometime get missed or perhaps not clearly understood.

In most countries in the Western world, regardless of whether you're applying rules, or your opponent(s) are - somebody is. Society / The police / The judges.

A deep belief that your Modern / Ancient etc art will allow you to rip peoples heads off is all jolly nice I'm sure.

However there are laws against these thing, and funnily enough they tend to apply them to you even if you don't believe in them.

Just a thought.

[Mark Murray]

Username Rob,
As per E-Budo rules, you should have your full name in every post. Your current post (above) didn't have that.

Thanks,
Mark

[cxt]

Mike

Unless a given school/group is regularly killing people in the course of your daily training, I think its safe to say that their using at least "some" rules and restrictions.

(Some classes however might make you feel like you were dead, or in at least one high summer gasshuku, long for the sweet peace and quiet of the grave. )

I think the problem here is not just the definations themselves but rather how they are are often used.

Where I draw the line is if one is allowing the shifting rules of competatitve events to dictate the manner in which you train--how you train and what you train.

As an example, I'm old enough that when I was just a kid, "open" tournaments allowed kicks and strikes to the groin (at least in my neck of the woods) then that went away--became "illegal" to do it.
If we had said "ok, its no longer legal to kick/hit there so were not going to train that way" then in my opinion that would be wrong.

Maybe MUCH to narrow an approach--but that is how I feel about it.

[MikeWilliams]

If we had said "ok, its no longer legal to kick/hit there so were not going to train that way" then in my opinion that would be wrong.

I take your point, but the alternative is to continue train those "illegal" techiques in a highly limited and rule-bound way (i.e. in solo or paired kata, and reducing the level of force used).

Classic examples are groin shots, eye-gouges, biting and some of the more exotic joint locks and throws favoured by JJ, Aikido and Ninpo practioners. You simply can't train these supposedly "no rules" techniques except by imposing a whole bunch of restrictions for health and safety reasons.

I'm not saying you shouldn't train those techniques (even if as kata) - just don't accuse combat sports of being bound by more rules than your* "pure" martial art. Because it simply isn't true.

*in the wider sense, not you personally

[Shitoryu Dude]

No rules = no discipline

If you have no discipline, then you are untrainable and a hooligan. Nobody reputable would even consider such a person in their dojo.

[Kyro Lantsberger]

Just had some new ideas to add to this.

As some have alluded to, this topic often suffers from lack of clarity due to people not being precise with their terms, and assuming things about the arguements of the other side. This battle over terms seems to obscure the points people are trying to make.

a few things I would like to add from things Ive thought about over time.

1)MMA does not necessarily = the UFC

I dont remember the organizations, but search around youtube and you will find some Japanese and European organizations that fight MMA with the Gi top, with different standup rules and some other things that fundamentally change the technical exchanges. Ex. Takedown and clinch/tie up game are very different when doing MMA with a Gi. Groups that do quicker standups from the ground have people far more aggressively going after submissions, since the consequences for losing position are not as severe.

2)Attributes of successful combatants are not necessarily = to mere technique.

I think this is where the "deadly technique" question needs to be addressed. If you are in position to do an eye poke, you are in position to do other things. The true skill lies in having the athleticism, movement skills, sensitivity to balance and motion, and timing to attain that position. "Deadly techniques" do cause some modifications here, but dont necessarily trump. Ex: Judo Newaza and bjj TECHNIQUES are basically the same thing. The focus that BJJ puts on the same techniques, though, creates students who have greater sensitivity and awareness to the permutations that take place in an encounter. Ex.2 The attributes of successful combat apply across cultures and arts. I have heard very similar ideas from masters of Tai Chi push hands, Judo sensei, and wrestling coaches.....there are certain universal things about how a balance is captured and a body is controlled. Ex 3. a groin kick is potentially more "deadly" than a jab, but I will bet all the worldly possessions of everybody on this forum that if I entered into a fight contract with Chuck Liddell where he could only jab, and I could only groin kick, I am certain he would win. badly Example going the other way: Catch wrestling in the late 1800s/early 1900s was very, very good at neck cranks and face locks. I got ahold of an old wrestling technique book from the WWI era and the set ups for takedowns were centered more on go behinds and low single legs, with today's double leg takedown only taking up a page or 2. It was dangerous to put your head there because folks at the time were very good at taking advantage of it. This is how "deadly" techniques change things -- certain positions arent as favorable and so the exchanges are different.

3) Brutal, hand to hand fighting is just a small part of combat...

I think everything mental is involved here. Third party defense, concern for others in the area, etc.

also......and probably the most important.

Fighting is about weapons. period. If you dont have one, why? If you still dont have one, why arent you trying to get one? MMA is true, right, and real in its exchanges, but it is still basically just a modern duelling sport. If you are really into self defense before fitness or whatever reason, your first stop should be Massad Ayoob, Gunsite, Chuck Cooper, and everybody else in that CCW circle. Self defense Combat is about area awareness, and weapon employment to best success when area awareness fails or dictates implementation. All empty handed skills realistically serve no purpose beyond gaining enough space and tempo to employ a weapon of some sort or else flee. This model applies across the board, even to bouncing -- awareness of patrons, and then employment of the appropriate amount of force, verbal or physical, then de-escalate.

Sorry I have to cut off now. Lunch break is over. Will elaborate later if need be.

[cxt]

Mike

I think your reading stuff into my post that is not really there.

I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything.

I was pretty clear that absent killing people at least "some" rules have to be in place no matter what style you do.

Most techniques are developed as a response to something else, those "rules" arguments that come up often do so in the context of same yahoo whom is hell-bent on establishing how "they" train, is so much better, "street real", "alive," "resistant" etc than pretty much everyone else.
I have VERY seldom/ever see/heard the "rules" argument being used outside of somebody trying to defend themselves vs an unprovoked e-attack.

YOU DIDN'T DO THAT BTW.

You have every right to be hacked off/irked if someone is going around
e-bashing combat sports based upon such reasoning.

[MikeWilliams]

Mike
I think your reading stuff into my post that is not really there.

Nah, I was just using your post to bounce off in the wider sense.

I have VERY seldom/ever see/heard the "rules" argument being used outside of somebody trying to defend themselves vs an unprovoked e-attack.

That's the truth!

Kyro: very good points!