> Trias shared one story that karate had been born in a monastery in China, where a wandering Indian master named Bodhidharma noticed that sedentary monks were growing sickly and devised the martial art to cultivate their strength.
Interesting to see there is no mention of "kalaripayattu". Kalari as its famously shorten [1] have about 2000 years of history and is used with both weapons and no-weapons. Bodhidharma was said to have left from then Tamil states to China.
I think there is an interesting YouTube series up by Jesse enkamp who kind of builds the theory that karate was more of a grappling martial arts but kind of got turned into a boxing sport when the Japanese adapted it from Okinawa. They already had Jiu-Jitsu and were kind of looking for another martial art akin to boxing.
Basically Jesse visits China, finds people showing him Kung fu katas that resemble goju ryu katas. And their explanations about what the katas describe supports the “grappling” theory.
For me who trained goju ryu a s a kid it was eye opening and I think makes a lot of sense
My thought as well. I studied Uechi-ryu (sister style to Goju-ryu), and we did lots of grappling. It seems to be less emphasized in other karate styles I'm familiar with (I'm happy to be proven wrong here).
Sad to see no mention of Ryu Ryuko and Higaonna Sensei[0] in the section describing karate in the early 1900s. Higaonna Sensei was the person whose likeness became “Sensei Miyagi” in the Karate Kid movie. Ironically, Kanryo’s student Chojun Miyagi[1] was the one who established another well-known style of karate, Okinawan Goju-Ryu[2]
[2]: The practice of Goju-Ryu is focused on both mastery of physical control and mental focus (summarizing my experience in this). With the death of Sensei Miyagi, however, the lineage split between his sons who each claimed to be the heads of their own branches of the system.
Edit: Another peeve. In the very beginning of the article they try to group the practice with unconventional weapons — farming tools, bo staffs, etc — into naha-te when the reality is this branch of practice is kobudo. I wish that the author did more research on this section because there are plenty of sources documenting this portion of the art’s history.
A general observation that explains a lot about most martial arts is that over time they all become "watered down" to mere exercise or a strange stylised dancing.
That's because you can't have people permanently maiming each other during "friendly practice". If the village parents send their kids to the local monastery (or school, or wherever) for "training" and they come back with broken bones or just one of two eyes, they'll be rightfully very angry with the teachers of that martial art.
Hence, over time, every martial art accumulates restrictions, formalities, and the standard moves become just the safe ones. Grapples, deflections, etc...
A true "martial" art, the type optimised for maximising your chance at winning a fight to the death, cannot be taught safely in classes. Eventually people will get hurt. That's... the point!
People bringing up MMA are missing this: Even MMA has rules, and lots of them. If it was truly unlimited, very few people would escape without permanent, ruinous injuries.
What girls are told in self-defence classes is this: Go for the eyes, throat, and nose. Kick your opponent in the shins as hard as you possibly can. Knee men in the balls with full force.
If you did any of that even once in any formal training or competition, you'd likely be kicked out.
Indeed. One theory of Taichi is that Taichi was invented as a military martial arts back in the early Ming dynasty. Eventually it degenerated to a physical exercise.
I think the biggest consideration for young (up to middle aged or so..) males is self-defense against bullies. Where there will be unwritten rules to a degree.
Obviously it depends on the dojo, but the ones I've interacted with were genuinely concerned with real-world self-defense too, even if it wasn't their primary focus. So they included days and discussions that focused on it.
If girls can train in self defence without watering it down, then surely martial artists also can using the same system and equipment and maintain the deadly and brutal nature of the art.
Its widely recognised that an Indian bought martial arts into China and into the world later. This mostly originated from kalaripayattu, all these arts were considered passed down from Hindu gods (devi, female goddess) the way she danced to beat demons was copied by warriors.
After hearing from multiple sources in martial arts world (although none first hand) that the performances by Masutatsu Oyama, the founder of Kyokushin (knocking out bulls, breaking ice) were mostly staged (bull was sedated and the strikes were timed to that, ice salted, bricks structurally compromised etc) I have a hard time taking Karate seriously. Also wasn’t there a famous, widely publicized duel between Muay-Thai and karate practitioners where Thai guys dominated the karatekas so much it wasn’t even funny?
Growing up, I learned karate. It wasn’t until I met a Kung Fu practitioner that I realized I know nothing Jon Snow. I switched to Kung Fu and never looked back. I still think karate is good because of its structure and competitions but if you are battling yourself, as an art, as a discipline - Kung Fu is king. Great read though. Can’t wait to see it in the games.
No, probably eventually someone will adapt kung fu or wing chun for the octagon. I have criticisms of wing chun (not that I am an expert) but they do intend to be practical.
There were no karate MMA champions for years, and people dismissed taekwondo techniques. Lyoto Machida has had great success coming from a karate background, and so have taekwondo kicks. You can already see people working in wing-chun-style hand traps.
Joe Rogan has some nice commentary on this history.
Qi La La has shown that Wing Chun (Wong Shun Leung lineage) does work in the ring. There is a huge difference between Wing Chun schools, but bringing this up is worse than a Vim vs Emacs flamewar so I'll stop right here.
A guy I grew up with has been churning world class kid fighters for years now. He personally made it only on a national level, at great cost to his body. Karate is no joke.
As a side note, having watched all 3 seasons of Kobra Kai, I find it amazing that in all 3 seasons they only managed to pronounce the word "karate" less than 5 times. Making a movie/TV show about something you cannot even say right
"In a Western-style sport, the aim is gaining victory at all costs,”
This statement most resonated with me. I had to give up playing hockey because - at the lowest grade - people paid no respect to you. If they could kick the ball and the ref didn't see it, they would continue play. If they could hit the ball hard at you from point blank, that is fine.
You see similar in elite sport, players in "football" of whatever code. Everyone knows it. A professional player who breaks the rules is expected to play on as if nothing happened until the ref calls it.
At this point it is not a game, it is a grudge match.
The win at all costs mentality costs one themselves.
You mean Cobra Kai were supposed to be the real heroes?
I think the west may put a lot less emphasis on competing honorably or whatever. But playing fair is still morally better than not. E.g. people get viewed negatively for real cheating in pro sports (steroids, the "Cheatriots"). In some sports, however, the ref and what they catch is just part of the game.
The tolerance of cheating/bending-rules as a general cultural issue is very interesting though. Generally ethical behavior is sort of a luxury, which is harder to maintain as it goes against one's economic benefit. Japan seems like something of an outlier in that regard.
/me not a soccer fan, but I watched a few matches from Euro2020.
I was rather alarmed at the number of fouls I saw, including fouls occasioning injury. Thing is, footie players practice luring their opponent into perpetrating a foul, thus gaining a free kick. Getting fouled a lot is a way of contributing to your team's success, and for some players it is their signature skill.
If you have the ball, and are being pursued, you leave what appears to be an opening for a tackle, but you bait-and-switch, so that the pursuer's boot connects with your shin, not the ball.
Similar in hockey, a trick is to simply tap the ball into your opponents feet for a foul. And similarly allowed by the rules.
This I have no issue with. The rules make the game and at elite levels you would expect every little optimisation to be made.
But soccer also has a history of players flopping too. People who are trying to get the foul you mention, but without the cause. This is a despicable act. It is blatant disrespect for the players and the game.
I don't know if it happened in the latest championship but I didn't watch it, due to such crap in the past.
Usain Bolt doesn’t exactly have much opportunity to engage in funny business aside from peps, at least not funny business which would fall short of criminal charges if discovered.
I'm going to get on my high horse to tell an anecdote about why I'm mildly suspicious every time someone suggest that karate is not violent enough to be useful.
I practiced karate for years, and I still would if I hadn't moved far away. My teacher was a fan of exchanges with other schools, which is how we ended up visiting a Jujitsu school to learn some grappling moves. The instructor was a police officer that worked at the local prison.
During our first break, the instructor excitedly told my teacher that he recently found a second-hand book with techniques that his Jujitsu line had banned years ago for being too brutal. He was starting to bring them back. Later on that day he showed us such a technique that could, in theory, paralyze a man for life. He seemed very proud of that one, and was looking forward to try some of his new knowledge in his next prison riot (his words, not mine).
I shudder to think of the type of BS macho mentality that one would get from training under this guy for years - I've met plenty of karate instructors from all over the world, and they were all great teachers and great human beings. Given that I personally know of three people who had to use their karate skills for self defense (two robberies and one home invasion at night), that seems to me good enough: you learn how to defend yourself in a realistic situation, but also respect, self-improvement, and a healthy general distaste for violence.
Every time someone suggests that karate doesn't work because it wouldn't be as effective in a modern war zone, I remember that guy.
That guy and technique notwithstanding, the appeal of "banned techniques" isn't just about bringing back the injuries that got them banned, but the fact that they were often very effective. In Judo they made some pretty controversial decisions to ban a bunch of popular moves from competition a few years ago. However they're still part of Judo. A dojo that is concerned about teaching self-defense (as opposed to just competition) might be better if they taught them.
> “There are Western fantasies about every martial art,” explains Sánchez-García. “Karate is laden with mysticism and stories about secret cults, which are part of the stereotypical vision of ‘the Oriental.’ Films, in particular, spin fantasies of superhuman heroes, an 80-year-old man who can defeat ten assailants with his bare hands.”
This "expert" seems to think that Westerners invented wuxia.
"exaggerated to the point of caricature" maybe the de rigeur for wuxia, but it is still just "one aspect of Chinese culture" and just one aspect of Chinese martial arts culture.
I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years.
The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation.
Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought.
I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yourself. Most of the training rituals id say are more akin to tai chi or dancing…. doing katas is pretty much pointless.
We left the karate club.
Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight.
If your goal is for your child to learn to fight, then do boxing or kickboxing or Brazilian jiu jitsu.
Most of the karate schools in US are just after school daycare for kids.
There are good clubs, but you have to research them. Most Kyokushin clubs will teach you quite a bit
Foundation of modern karate was in the era when every boy in Japan did Judo in school. Every accomplished karate teacher at the time also was a decent judoka. For example Oyama who founded Kyokushin was a great grappler, many Natinal level judoka also trained karate.
You have to train grappling or you might as well not bother training at all.
Personally, I think that MMA has demonstrated the importance of sparring and grappling. However, I think that the value of MMA itself is less clear.
MMA has been hurt a lot by the dominance of UFC. A lot of the details of UFC's rules distort its similarity to actual combat. For example: wearing gloves, fighting on highly padded floors, lenient rules on fighters circling each other, forbidding kicks and knees on the ground, fighting shirtless, etc.
MMA also overlooks a lot of aspects of combat:
- Situational awareness and deescalation
- Responses that are appropriate for less forceful situation (e.g. control techniques)
- Use of weapons
- Defense against weapons
- Strategies against multiple attackers
Finally, I think that there is some survivor bias. Even if MMA is the ideal martial art for young fit males with an aptitude for athletics, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is ideal for people who are less physically or athletically gifted.
The early UFC, when it was owned and run by the Gracies, was probably as close as we're ever going to get to a "real" fight in a sport-based situation.
And by that, I mean it was mostly two guys rolling on the ground, one of whom might have known what he was doing. I think that's fairly comparable to most bar fights a person is likely to encounter.
Your point about weapons, situational awareness, and so on are well taken. Krav Maga claims to focus on those areas, and they generally admit that it won't make you as good at one-on-one fighting as BJJ, but will make you more likely to survive a fight where someone might stab you in the neck while you're trying to sink in your gogoplata.
I don't know it that's accurate, but it makes sense. I also appreciate that, from the videos I've seen, Krav Maga stresses that the best self defence technique is enough cardio to run away.
I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. We want them to be strong and healthy. To learn to have fun exercising, to learn control and the ability to listen to others, learn from others, and work with others.
Martials arts is great for all that. So are other sports and activities. I've studied martial arts for 20 years of my life - never did I have a goal during that time of learning to fight, but I loved practicing, and loved the community of people I spent time with in those years.
2.) If you need to explain yourself to strangers who demand to be explained why your kid does this or that sport, you will say something simple and socially acceptable. Neurotypical people wont start explaining in nuance.
3.) No one ever asked me why my kids do dancing or swimming. It is simply not question anyone asks normally.
> But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’.
No, I never had that question asked about dancing nor swimming or any other sport. I think it can possibly come out if someone finds the sport to be odd, but at this point Karate is not an odd sport. It is extremely common sport.
My children did karate - as well as being exercise, I liked it terms of giving them the experience of how they could get better at something with practice and discipline, especially as they aren't typically sporty. 'Being able to fight' was never a motivation.
bioniac says >"Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight...If your goal is for your child to learn to fight..."<
But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? Doing so would require teaching things (s)he does not fully understand and are emotionally unprepared for, e.g., maiming or killing someone. [OTOH if you want to teach that to a child, then teach him how to be a doctor b/c doctors know how the human body works better than almost anyone else and how best to turn it off.]
Instead set other goals: self-confidence, pride, athletic skill and endurance. I would first explain the role MA plays and constantly emphasize avoidance of hostile situations. IMO teaching anyone (including children) good evasion/escape is more useful than MA and more fun.
In most cases parents are happy with “self defence theatre” in which the parent feels they’ve done the right thing, in which the child feels confidence because they falsely believe they can defend themselves.
Most parents I think would be reluctant to have their children really learn to fight/defend themselves.
When parents tell me their kids are doing karate, and if they are interested in my thoughts, then I ask them, “exactly why are they doing karate? Do you know? What’s your true goal?”
And if their real, true goal is self defence then I gently explain there’s better options than karate.
> But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever?
I teach my girls to fight.
My intention is 1. to keep them out of fights 2. to make sure they can escape or win any fight someone else forces upon them.
Play dumb, hide your worries, try to talk yourself out, if it doesn't work hit, grab and twist or kick with the intent to cause severe pain. Then shout and run.
An armed society is a polite society and I do my part.
If an assailant get hurt I can live with that. The bloke I gave a beating some 25 years or so ago actually became a better person as far as I could se.
The value of "martial" art training is that it gets over the surprise factor.
Dealing with a stranger being in your personal space, grappling with you, pushing you over, and/or hitting you: you don't want an actual attack to be the first time your child experiences any of those.
If the child is somewhat used to those things, she has a chance of thinking clearly enough to make herself a chance to run away. Otherwise the third "F" reflex, freeze, will take over.
The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing and ground game. Strikers will have just a brief window of opportunity before grapplers take them down. On the other hand, even super effective grappling art like BJJ becomes pretty useless if you face two assailants.
Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.
Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.
From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.
All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.
The odds go up dramatically if you practice sparring against multiple opponents and know how to leverage a bit of social psychology. Still, not something I would like to go through on the street. If I do manage to get out relatively unscathed I still don't want to cripple someone for not thinking with their head one night out of their life. The best solution to a fight is always to try to avoid it.
I am not the biggest karate fan, I did it growing up. But it is just one way to think, to move, act and react.
All martial arts give you a different flavour, they teach you different things. There is not one style that rules them all.
Tai Chi as you mentioned, in Lee style and others is way to move and flow. To think and be. Unsurprisingly it is a foundation for Kung Fu (grappling, striking etc.) and the foundation for weapon styles.
So a kata/form is a way to train yourself to move a particualar way. I appreciate that a 'stylised dance' may not be to everyones taste. But it is training your body and your mind to move a particular way. To react a particular way. To encode a way of holding yourself, of moving through space.
Similar to Tai Chi being a foundation to a sytsem of fighting. So too is karate. You can augment it with Aikido, Judo, JuJitsu. You can add weapons too.
The point is they all have value, (Samba and Systema look class) when you are younger you chase that outer excitement of testing yourself against others, I guess as you get older you start to think more about how to move and flow and think and be.
Sometimes there is a need to be violent, but I am not sure if that is what a child should be taught. Self defence is not just what a martial art is for, it is so much more than learning to hurt someone else.
You don’t teach kids karate so they can learn how to fight. You teach kids karate to learn self control, self confidence, discipline and the value of not fighting.
You teach them karate for self defense. The best defense is not being in a fight. As soon as a fight starts you’ve rolled the dice. No matter how good you are at karate or any martial art you can still get your ass kicked. That is the most useful thing karate teaches you. It’s a sport and a practice. Real life isn’t like the movies.
To train to win a fight you need sparing. Full contact sparing in boxing, kickboxing, or even karate has dangers. A practitioner has to work up to full contact sparing in a controlled way. And even then there is risk of brain damage. I'm not up to date with the latest science, but I wouldn't risk my child's brain on something as unimportant as winning a fight.
On the other hand, with grappling sports like wrestling, judo, BJJ, you can start sparing the first class. And the risk of brain injury (I assume) is less than every other contact sport. So your child will get more time sparing. Which would translate to better real life fighting skill.
In the end, by being in some sort of combat sport your child will probably lose interest in winning fights on the street or playground. Every time they show up to class they are defeating others and being defeated. It loses its emotional charge and they don't need to prove themselves to random people.
Full-contact always implies dangers, hence the need to differentiate it from light sparring or whatever. I once read somewhere that high school wrestling has the highest career-ending injuries of any major sport, at 40 percent. Football was closer to 30.
But I agree head injuries are a far bigger concern than elbow/knee etc. And making striking arts safe tends to make them unrealistic. So grappling sports like Judo are a much better combination of self-defense and safety.
I cracked a rib within the first two weeks of BJJ. Dude rolled his elbow into my ribs and all his weight went to that spot. Hurt for months. I didn’t sue and they didn’t charge me anything. That was my BJJ experience at 32
> The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation.
MMA is not an actual combat situation. A lot of what makes fighting style effective in real combat is simply not allowed in MMA (for good reasons). Things like:
- attacking your penis and trying to cause injury there,
- attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there,
- sticking fingers into eyes,
- trying to break knee by kicking where it breaks.
Obviously it is not taught in any of those sports. Because they are sports.
These arguments have all been beaten to death I'm afraid. General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus.
Or just try to imagine a situation where someone who doesn't constantly train sparring can kick a knee of a kickboxer who does spar a lot and gets kicked a lot.
>"General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus."<
Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study?
If you train, you will probably fight as you train. The techniques that you learn and repeat are the patterns that your brain will follow under stress of combat.
BTW how does the typical MA fighter respond to someone who picks up a metal pipe (2x4, rock, knife, gun) and proceeds to attack the MA fighter? I would hope that (s)he would do the reasonable thing: get the hell out of the area!
Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts".
> Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study?
Oh god no, there are no studies as far as I know. But what I refer to consensus is the general feeling one gets by browsing martial arts forums. There used to be a great forum on this very subject - bullshido. For years and years folks have discussed these exact questions of effectiveness of deadly martial art techniques.
> Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts".
Goes without saying!
Every one of your hypotheticals are going to be hard for your average Joe to hit on a trained fighter. They all involve you closing the distance enough to actually strike those vulnerable body parts - and a trained fighter will either be able to keep distance, or take advantage of you stepping into their range.
Katas are a way to practice movements so that they become instinctive. They are performed quite slowly and deliberately, which means that at every stage of the movement you have to maintain balance and poise. It also means that practising katas strengthens your musculature.
I tried tai chi for about 6 months. For us beginners, it was mostly katas, and I routinely came away with aching muscles. Advanced students used tai chi for sparring, and the instructor occasionally came in with swords, and did a rather alarming performance.
As a kid I learned judo. That was mostly wrestling; but to advance, you had to do some kata work. I didn't find judo katas nearly as stretching as I later found tai chi katas; but I was 10 when I learned judo. I was 50 when I tried tai chi, and not very fit; so that might explain my different experiences.
Karate was something that rough boys bragged about; it was clear to me that it was a technique for hurting people, so I stayed clear.
Yes as a former judoka I think that it's nearly useless in the real world, what if your opponent wears a no sleave tee-shirt?
You've never trained for such situation!
In one to one, wrestling can be useful but against two opponents it's useless too..
Vale Tudo came before MMA and had the most effective value for actual combat situations.
- No rounds
- No hand wraps and gloves
- No resets to standing for “non-action”
- Attacks to prone opponents
The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.”
Sport BJJ is just as bad as karate for self-defense because there’s lot of new movements that just don’t make sense when you’re attacked at a frat house or walking home late.
Old school BJJ grappling (Carlson Gracie) with a focus on self defense is literally the best thing for smaller people, women & children because there’s a focus on:
- minimizing damage to yourself
- escaping and reversing compromising positions
- having MULTIPLE options to either kill, break a bone or put your attacker to sleep
> The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.”
The "sport" aspect is the most important part for becoming an effective fighter. And being an effective fighter is paramount for self-defense situations.
The "sport vs self-defense" argument is a false dichotomy anyways. If my "sport" consists of me wrestling resisting humans to the ground, controlling all of their limbs, and potentially putting them to sleep, then my "sport" is an extremely effective form of self-defense.
I was always under the impression that Karate wasn't particularly useful for combat / self-defense. Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense.
There isn't a single art that I'd call "karate." There are many styles, and they have many schools and lineages.
The style I studied was taught for free in the sensei's basement, and it was, to put it bluntly, a rather brutal art. Not many parents would be into it (all of the students were adults in my dojo).
Not to take anything away from Krav Maga and similar styles. There's just a lot of variation in what is called karate.
The only push-back I have on BJJ (as I practice both KM and BJJ) is that there is a huge sport-orientation whereas KM, assuming trained competently, is a combative system such that you'll often get a "practice this slowly and carefully because you can and will cause damage to your partner."
Personally, I have a little harder of a time training BJJ for the reason that everyone thinks it is the best for real-world defense but the reality is many moves open you up to serious maiming in a combative environment. Take for example the typical "get past the guard" move, I most always have the option in a true fight of grabbing your knees and splaying them outward leaving you with an unfortunate convalescent leave, perhaps permanent injury.
More generally, if you're going for true-blue self-defense any sporting-oriented art is good but not great - you'll do well against an untrained assailant, which is likely a good chunk of the threat model.
perhaps im misunderstanding but just pushing someones knees apart when you are in their closed guard just wouldn't work. and given the presence of the electric chair and the twister i'm not sure that any approach to passing guard would necessarily be disallowed unless you are striking.
It is the confidence in being able to defend oneself that leads one to avoid having fights intitiated with them by virtue of how they comport themselves in a relaxed unthreatened manner.
To top it off, training in something like muay thai will get the kid a great headstart on leading a fit lifestyle. Never done an aerobic activity more tiring or sweat inducing.
>Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense
i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've seen this argument in various places often enough that i've also seen the appropriate response: if that were true then all of the most successful mma fighters would be krav maga experts. in actuality not a single one practices krav maga. the proof is in the pudding.
I'm similarly not into MMA, but I wouldn't think it's a good system to determine real-world performance of a martial art. Most people aren't going to be pitted against high-level fighters in a ring; they'll be out on the street. It comes down to why you're learning the martial art, and to some degree, what your threat model is.
Krav Maga minus the parts that are illegal or irrelevant to UFC basically _is_ MMA, which is unsurprising since the whole concept of the method since its inception in the 1940s is to collect effective and intuitive techniques from any martial art you can find. (Sort of a _mix_ of different martial arts, one might say...)
There's at least one successful mixed martial artist with a Krav Maga background (Karolina Kowalkiewicz, UKM Expert level 2), but she's definitely an outlier rather than the rule. Krav Maga tries to be a no-rules self-defense method that can be trained in as little time as possible. If your aim is to be a high-level competitor in a specific sport, and you have the required time and athletic ability to train appropriately, then your best bet is to skip the middleman and train in that sport directly.
Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.
This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while.
Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't land a punch on the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to land an extremely precise strike to a vulnerable area now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have more power and accuracy and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence?
It's the same with grappling. It's true that a joint lock can be devastating and that's why we usually disallow most of them in combat sports, but to be applied reliably you need some control over the area around the joint. Put a good grappler in a fight with someone who isn't a good grappler. The good grappler is going to control the position better. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't get a good position to control the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to apply an effective joint lock now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have a better position to work from and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence?
MMA is a sport and an MMA match isn't like a "real" fight for all kinds of reasons but simple, efficient, effective techniques such as you see in MMA matches are a good foundation for "real" fighting too, even if you might choose to add other types of training as well for use outside the controlled environment.
A traditional martial artist who has seriously trained in sparring would also be able to deal with an unskilled fighter fairly easily.
The difficulty arises when the rules of a sport cause a fighter to ignore situations that can arise in an actual fight. For example, I train in Dog Brothers Martial Arts. Grappling is common and encouraged, but at the same time most fighters conceal training knives on their person and headbutts are common. That requires an adapted form of BJJ from that used in MMA. Overhooks become more valuable because they allow you to control a limb that is holding a weapon. When you are in the bottom of guard you need to keep your opponent away from you so that they can't headbutt you.
Yes, this is the sort of distinction I had in mind when I commented before that MMA is still a sport and for "real" fighting you might choose to add other types of training as well. The possible presence of weapons is one huge difference. The open environment where you don't have an octagon wall to limit your opponent's movement and a conveniently flat floor is another.
I'm having trouble following your reasoning. It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case?
That aside, the main thrust of your argument seems to be, "If you can't land a non-lethal blow, then there's little or no chance of your landing a lethal blow." I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I think the disconnect is that once again your argument comes down to, "Krav automatically makes you less skilled than _______ (insert style here) and thus unable/unlikely to land any attacks."
But, once again, I don't think that follows unless there's a provable weakness/deficiency with Krav itself and/or you really do have a BJJ black belt vs. a level 1 Krav student, in which case I don't think anyone is going to disagree about the outcome.
Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).
It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case?
So where are all the successful Krav-trained strikers and grapplers in the MMA world? If the striking and grappling are as effective as other styles that have stood the test of time, it's remarkable that there are still few if any high-level MMA fighters with a Krav background.
Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).
Leaving aside your questionable claim that groin shots and eye attacks are very harmful, all of this would only be true if the time the Krav fighter invested in training those other techniques was not at the expense of the basic striking and grappling skills.
However the big practical problem with techniques like joint locks and targeting soft spots isn't that they can't work, it's that training them to the level where they can work effectively often requires much more time to build up much more skill than just punching the other guy in the face as hard as you can or executing a basic takedown and hold on the ground. If you'd just spent that much time practising the simple, reliable striking and grappling techniques, you might get a lot more bang for your buck.
So where are all the successful Krav-trained strikers and grapplers in the MMA world? If the striking and grappling are as effective as other styles that have stood the test of time, it's remarkable that there are still few if any high-level MMA fighters with a Krav background.
Professional fighters aren't going to study a system where 50%+ of what they learn is disallowed in competitions. However, Krav _is_ used by/taught to various special forces and law enforcement groups. To me, this more than makes up for a lack of "professional fighters" using the discipline.
Leaving aside your questionable claim that groin shots and eye attacks are very harmful
Try going to any martial arts lesson while not wearing a cup and LMK what your thoughts are afterwards :)
all of this would only be true if the time the Krav fighter invested in training those other techniques was not at the expense of the basic striking and grappling skills.
However the big practical problem with techniques like joint locks and targeting soft spots isn't that they can't work, it's that training them to the level where they can work effectively often requires much more time to build up much more skill than just punching the other guy in the face as hard as you can or executing a basic takedown and hold on the ground. If you'd just spent that much time practising the simple, reliable striking and grappling techniques, you might get a lot more bang for your buck.
Your comment makes me wonder if either you've not actually seen proper Krav Maga or you've seen it as practiced by a McDojo type of place. I attend classes led by a Krav Maga Worldwide certified instructor. Each lesson begins with 10-15 minutes of combatives (basic kicks, palm strikes, hammer fists, etc.). It's the whole "practice 1 kick 1000x" thing. The lesson then focuses on basic skills like escape choke from the front, escape choke from the side, escape bear hug, etc. It's all very practical and focused on primal attacks/counterattacks ("punching the other guy in the face as hard as you can" like you said).
Joint locks and targeting soft spots are just tools that _can_ be used, but the mantra is "closest weapon, closest target." Hit where you can as hard as you can and don't stop until they stop. With only a couple of exceptions, no weapon disarms happen until your opponent has stopped fighting.
Bottom line is that Krav in its true form is reliable striking and grappling techniques combined with "OK let's practice how to respond in this specific scenario." It doesn't get fancy and tries not to employ techniques that require any fine motor skills.
Well if your Krav classes include live sparring (not point or light sparring) then it's going to be more effective than the classes I have observed. And that's kind of the issue with Krav, maybe you'll learn some useful techniques and maybe your classes involve sparring, but there's no guarantee. And if you do have sparring it just ends up looking like poor boxing and BJJ. Why not just learn the real thing?
At the end of the day, of course techniques matter, but it's far more important that your martial art incorporates LOTS of live sparring. It needs to become second nature to apply your techniques against live/resisting/struggling humans that are trying to apply their techniques on you. That is why wrestling/judo/BJJ/boxing/MT are so dominant in MMA, NOT because of the "rule-following" techniques they use.
If a guy who has spent his training learning "street" techniques that you can't actually spar with (eye/groin/throat attacks) had to actually fight someone who has spent his training applying "non-street" attacks live for hundreds of hours, it wouldn't even be a fair fight.
Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." To me, this speaks volumes more about its practicality and real world efficacy than its use by tournament/competition fighters.
Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. According to my Krav instructor, this is because the minute you add this aspect to a style, you then need rules around what is and isn't allowed. This goes against the core philosophy of Krav, which is "win the fight and get back home alive by any means necessary." It's about survival, and when fighting for survival you can't impose rules around what is and isn't allowed.
Much of what Krav focuses on (i.e., elbows, knees, groin/face attacks, etc.) isn't allowed in competitive fighting, so why would a professional fighter spend their time learning a style that they can only use say 50% of? Much better to learn something that was created with tournaments/competition in mind, where you can use 100% of what you learn, which is what I think most (all?) of them do.
So I don't think the "very few/no professional fighters learn Krav so it's no good" argument holds up, because 1) professional fighters would be wasting a lot of time learning Krav if professional fighting is their goal and 2) its widely used by many organizations outside professional/tournament fighting who arguably have an even greater need than professional fighters do for an effective self-defense methodology.
Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world."
Law enforcement have very little need for street fighting. If things are getting physical, the job is usually to detain a suspect as safely as possible. It's unlikely that the rules of engagement will allow causing the suspect severe harm or death, and if a LEO really is in that kind of situation, their priority is probably going to be disengaging and either transitioning to a weapon or deploying some sort of protective and restraint gear as quickly as possible.
Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts.
The trouble with all martial arts that don't have any focus on competitive training is that you can never be sure they actually work unless you're in the rare position of having to use them for real and finding out the hard way. If you have ever been in that position then you have my greatest sympathy because the result is usually horrible whether or not you "win".
My Krav instructor was a sheriff's deputy for 20+ years and teaches Krav to law enforcement. From what he's said, the curriculum for them is slanted toward weapon disarms, choke hold escapes, take downs, etc., so Krav can be and most definitely is taught to law enforcement.
I like other disciplines/styles and plan to study BJJ and Muay Thai later on. I just don't think it's valid to say no tournaments = untested. After all:
- US Military using Krav >= competitions/tournaments
- IDF using Krav >= competitions/tournaments
- Law Enforcement using Krav >= competitions/tournaments
Interesting to see there is no mention of "kalaripayattu". Kalari as its famously shorten [1] have about 2000 years of history and is used with both weapons and no-weapons. Bodhidharma was said to have left from then Tamil states to China.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaripayattu#Etymology