Karate blackbelts in MMA

Mike comes off as know it all smart ass but he also typically hedges his statements acknowledging things work different for different people.
I think they all do. Mike just rubs me the wrong way sometimes (especially with his "parodies") but I watch him once is a while.
 
I think they all do. Mike just rubs me the wrong way sometimes (especially with his "parodies") but I watch him once is a while.
I think it’s just part of his video persona.
I don’t believe Seth would be able to get along with mike if he were actually like that.
 
I think it’s just part of his video persona.
I don’t believe Seth would be able to get along with mike if he were actually like that.
Speaking of Seth, does it strike you that he's fat and has no cardio? :D Looks like a total McDojo guy, even calls himself "sensei" which is sooo American and would be a faux pas in Japan. :p
 
Speaking of Seth, does it strike you that he's fat and has no cardio? :D Looks like a total McDojo guy, even calls himself "sensei" which is sooo American and would be a faux pas in Japan. :p
He doesn’t seem to promote himself as providing something he doesn’t.
He seems quite up front that his karate that he teaches is simply for fun and to do cool shit.

but he has been training Muay Thai for the last 3 years or so now…
 
NEW FIGHTER ADDED !!!

NAME: Diana Belbiţă
COUNTRY: Romania
STYLE: Kempo
RANK: Black belt (1st dan?)
RECORD: 14-7
WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Belbiţă

24293894_2061825294097584_5938584413357762282_n.jpg
 
The proper (IMO) approach to Karate and styles, as presented by Iain Abernethy:


he has a lot of stuff i like, his theory and philosophy is great for the most part, but i have never seen any videos of him or his students actually pressure testing any bunkai he teaches, and i really hate his philosophy of fighters and martial artists being different, and differentiating between fighting, self defense, and martial arts training.
 
he has a lot of stuff i like, his theory and philosophy is great for the most part, but i have never seen any videos of him or his students actually pressure testing any bunkai he teaches, and i really hate his philosophy of fighters and martial artists being different, and differentiating between fighting, self defense, and martial arts training.
Why?
I think there is most definitely a difference between fighting, self defense, and martial arts training. They do overlap but they're not the same.
 
Why?
I think there is most definitely a difference between fighting, self defense, and martial arts training. They do overlap but they're not the same.
because if you are defending yourself you are in a fight by definition.
if you are in a combat sports match you are in a fight by definition.
if you are training a martial art you are by definition training to fight.

if your goal or intent for training a martial art is something other than fighting that doesn't change the core of what the training is.
if you're not training something that is for fighting then you're not training a martial art...now the effectiveness of the training in a fight of any sort doesn't negate the core purpose behind the creation of said art.

also as someone who has had to go hands on with people an average of roughly once per shift at work for a year, and a few times a month for another 6 months, i can tell you that 90% of the little combat sport based training i had helped me more in the fights i had at work than 90% of the 'self defense' training had did.
 
because if you are defending yourself you are in a fight by definition.
if you are in a combat sports match you are in a fight by definition.
if you are training a martial art you are by definition training to fight.

if your goal or intent for training a martial art is something other than fighting that doesn't change the core of what the training is.
if you're not training something that is for fighting then you're not training a martial art...now the effectiveness of the training in a fight of any sort doesn't negate the core purpose behind the creation of said art.

also as someone who has had to go hands on with people an average of roughly once per shift at work for a year, and a few times a month for another 6 months, i can tell you that 90% of the little combat sport based training i had helped me more in the fights i had at work than 90% of the 'self defense' training had did.
I have to disagree. The 3 overlap sometimes but they're not the same. Examples:

1. If I'm wining a Kata competition, I am practicing a martial art but not fighting or self-defence.

2. If I'm pepper-spraying a mugger, I am practicing self-defense but not fighting or a martial art.

3. If two bums are fighting on the street, they are fighting but not practicing martial arts or self-defense.

There is a clear distinction in the above scenarios.
 
I have to disagree. The 3 overlap sometimes but they're not the same. Examples:

1. If I'm wining a Kata competition, I am practicing a martial art but not fighting or self-defence.

2. If I'm pepper-spraying a mugger, I am practicing self-defense but not fighting or a martial art.

3. If two bums are fighting on the street, they are fighting but not practicing martial arts or self-defense.

There is a clear distinction in the above scenarios.
kata competition isn't martial arts imho, just like XMA and tricking aren't martial arts. even by simple dictionary or wikipedia definitions they are not martial arts. however the entire point of kata is as a training method to help teach people to fight, so i could see some argument for why kata competition is a martial art competition...but to me if your end goal is winning kata competitions, you are not a martial artist or training a martial art. if the point of the kata competitions is to further push and refine fighting techniques, whether you ever use those techniques in a fight of any sort is irrelevant, then kata competition is a practice of martial arts.

i didn't say that all fighting was always martial arts. so you're right, two bums fighting over a can of spam isn't martial arts. no one said it was.
however, if you trained use pepper spray against an attacker that is training a martial art. that martial art may not have a formal name like karate of muay thai, if you regularly practice and train with it, even once a month that meets the definition of training to fight.

and to clarify a few things. if bill wallace only trains kata these days for health, he is still a martial artist, because he spend years fighting, and training to fight.
if a dude spent 20+ years training for self defense and never fought in any form outside of maybe sparring, but now trains just for health i'd still call him a martial artist.
i also don't think effectiveness of a martial art, or martial artist or perceived effectiveness makes a difference. so if you train aikido or JKD for self defense, you're practicing a martial art and are a martial artist.

so heres how i see it, martial arts=fighting self defense=fighting martial=/=self defense fighting=/=martial arts, and fighting=/=self defense

does that help clear things up and make sense? i tried to cover the nuances of my opinions and thought process on the subject fairly succinctly, but i'm sure theres a 100 'what if' scenarios i didn't cover, but you should be able to extrapolate my answer to them from what i've given.
 
Last edited:
kata competition isn't martial arts imho, just like XMA and tricking aren't martial arts. even by simple dictionary or wikipedia definitions they are not martial arts. however the entire point of kata is as a training method to help teach people to fight, so i could see some argument for why kata competition is a martial art competition...but to me if your end goal is winning kata competitions, you are not a martial artist or training a martial art. if the point of the kata competitions is to further push and refine fighting techniques, whether you ever use those techniques in a fight of any sort is irrelevant, then kata competition is a practice of martial arts.

i didn't say that all fighting was always martial arts. so you're right, two bums fighting over a can of spam isn't martial arts. no one said it was.
however, if you trained use pepper spray against an attacker that is training a martial art. that martial art may not have a formal name like karate of muay thai, if you regularly practice and train with it, even once a month that meets the definition of training to fight.

and to clarify a few things. if bill wallace only trains kata these days for health, he is still a martial artist, because he spend years fighting, and training to fight.
if a dude spent 20+ years training for self defense and never fought in any form outside of maybe sparring, but now trains just for health i'd still call him a martial artist.
i also don't think effectiveness of a martial art, or martial artist or perceived effectiveness makes a difference. so if you train aikido or JKD for self defense, you're practicing a martial art and are a martial artist.

so heres how i see it, martial arts=fighting self defense=fighting martial=/=self defense fighting=/=martial arts, and fighting=/=self defense

does that help clear things up and make sense? i tried to cover the nuances of my opinions and thought process on the subject fairly succinctly, but i'm sure theres a 100 'what if' scenarios i didn't cover, but you should be able to extrapolate my answer to them from what i've given.
Fair enough, you're just taking the martial arts in the original flavor of "jitsu" and not the modern "do", ie as a set of techniques for fighting and not a path of self-improvement. Which is completely fine and arguably the "correct" approach to martial arts from a functional standpoint, but the facts on the ground are such that the majority of "martial artists" today practice the "do" and not the "jitsu". That's why I refer to martial arts with that version in mind - and so does Iain.
 
Fair enough, you're just taking the martial arts in the original flavor of "jitsu" and not the modern "do", ie as a set of techniques for fighting and not a path of self-improvement. Which is completely fine and arguably the "correct" approach to martial arts from a functional standpoint, but the facts on the ground are such that the majority of "martial artists" today practice the "do" and not the "jitsu". That's why I refer to martial arts with that version in mind - and so does Iain.
the path of improvement is improving your ability to fight. the whole do thing was only added post WWII when bans on martial arts were put into place for a few years.
 
the path of improvement is improving your ability to fight. the whole do thing was only added post WWII when bans on martial arts were put into place for a few years.
I respectfully disagree. The Do element was always there, but as a secondary thing, since real fighting skill was the key goal. Look at how the Zen Buddhist philosophy (clearly aimed at self-perfection) permeates kenjutsu - The Book of Five Rings being a well-known example.

After the Meiji Restoration (1866-69) it became clear to everyone that kenjutsu and other martial arts were useless in the battlefield against modern firearms so the Do aspect of self-perfection slowly took over as the key goal. Judo, a prime example of Gendai Budo, was created in 1882.
 
I respectfully disagree. The Do element was always there, but as a secondary thing, since real fighting skill was the key goal. Look at how the Zen Buddhist philosophy (clearly aimed at self-perfection) permeates kenjutsu - The Book of Five Rings being a well-known example.

After the Meiji Restoration (1866-69) it became clear to everyone that kenjutsu and other martial arts were useless in the battlefield against modern firearms so the Do aspect of self-perfection slowly took over as the key goal. Judo, a prime example of Gendai Budo, was created in 1882.

The funny thing is, WW1 actually changed that.

Due to the horror of modern automatic and chemical weapons, trench warfare became the norm. Due to the sound of a gunshot setting off sentries at night, trench raids with bayonets, grappling, and melee weapons actually started to re emerge in modern warfare. With modern infantry weapons it's back to being mostly useless again, but we still train troops in a modified art that essentially focuses on your rifle the way older budo would focus on an armored sword / pike man grappling to get back to their weapon.
 
I respectfully disagree. The Do element was always there, but as a secondary thing, since real fighting skill was the key goal. Look at how the Zen Buddhist philosophy (clearly aimed at self-perfection) permeates kenjutsu - The Book of Five Rings being a well-known example.

After the Meiji Restoration (1866-69) it became clear to everyone that kenjutsu and other martial arts were useless in the battlefield against modern firearms so the Do aspect of self-perfection slowly took over as the key goal. Judo, a prime example of Gendai Budo, was created in 1882.
zen bhuddist philosophy was personal philosophy of individual practioners and instructors. that's not inherent in their martial arts.
 
zen bhuddist philosophy was personal philosophy of individual practioners and instructors. that's not inherent in their martial arts.
That may or may not be true but does not disprove my point that Do arts became prevalent after the Meiji Restoration.
 
Why?
I think there is most definitely a difference between fighting, self defense, and martial arts training. They do overlap but they're not the same.
true... my instructor often explains it like this.. there's dojo fighting, tournament fighting and then the streets. They do overlap but yet each one has it's own dynamics
 
Back
Top