Hi Joy,
No one is going to listen to anyone’s talk unless they can prove it for all to see. Everyone’s master is the greatest and so this is for the most part also meaningless talk. Everyone has theories based on their own experiences which may not match someone else’s experiences.
Those people who fight for a living or who train in the rough and tough ways and constantly test themselves are usually good fighters. Whether they will succeed on the street or in the next ring fight can’t be predicted. But, for sure, they can beat up the untrained most of the time.
The reverse logic that those that don’t train as intensively can’t fight isn’t as clear. I have seen many examples of people who have fought as part of their living e.g. correctional work, police work, bouncing and yet they don’t train very intensively but they train regularly in a way that doesn’t get them injured in the process. They just play.
According to Joe Lewis the tough guys are not the ones on the street but the ones in the ring. Others look down upon people who are good in tournament fighting and say that isn’t real anough. I have seen a successful competitive fighter who didn’t seem to have really any advantage over a non competitive fighter when they sparred. I have seen an experienced Escrima fighter and teacher have a fight to a draw with someone who just trained the Wing Chun Butterfly knife techniques for one year. By logic these things shouldn’t happen but they do.
For those who are young and able, I would recommend people study Wrestling, BJJ, boxing, Thai boxing before some classical martial art. But maybe for children it’s better to do classical martial art, then the reality sports when they hit the teen years and then back to classical martial arts. For real self defense, the whole are of fighting psychology also needs to be addressed (as in some women’s self defense courses). But not everyone has the interest to follow that kind of approach. Furthermore, it can’t be proven that this kind of approach is any better than anyone’s classical approach to training.
I think a pure classical martial arts approach is also just as good and for those interested to test themselves, mixing it up with friends in other arts or at tournaments is a good thing.
In the real world any training will help but no amount of training may be good enough to deal with all the circumstances that can arise. Blackbelts and masters have been beaten by people much less skilled. For the most part these skilled people did the wrong thing at the wrong time. They made the wrong decision, they caught caught by surprise and so they got beat. Normally they would have had no problem to beat those guys inthe ring.
We all have limits to how much force and speed we can handle. Humans have limits. There isn’t that much difference between strikers in any art. Luck plays a big factor too.
In the end it’s a matter of taste and what you enjoy doing. It’s up to everyone to keep their eyes and ears open to the experiences of those who really fight. There are lots of ways to train fighting. Animals learn from light play and from that go into the real thing. One real encounter doesn’t guarantee success for the next real encounter. Each such encounter brings the same fear because each encounter can result in death.
Constant play builds in the tools necessary for the job to be done. It’s the definition of what constitutes useful play that is the problem. I think the training for different age and fitness levels is necessarily also different. If you take an old lady and put on a pair of boxing gloves, head protection, shin protection, chest protection and have her spar against a 220 pound guy in the ring is totally stupid and not the best way to increase her chances in a possible home invasion. However if she wants to make a career out of kickboxing, then that might be a good thing.
[/B]
