Do all martial arts that become popular eventually become impractical?

elwani

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
7,184
Reaction score
5,848
Due to exploitation of particular rules or features like the gi, or simply a purposeful dumbing down for the masses in order to make money?
 
MMA is becoming impractical, pretty soon it’s gonna be the Ultimate Windmilling Championship.


<{titihmm}>


tenor.gif
 
If someone can kick your ass in an octagon, they'll still kick your ass on the street. Probably even worse.

It's not like if a fighter just goes berserk and decides to kill you with his hands, he's going to only follow sanctioned MMA rules in a street fight.
 
Believe it or not, the gi is used in competitive ju-jitsu. It's been done for defensive purposes, without a gi, since its inception, at least.
 
Due to exploitation of particular rules or features like the gi, or simply a purposeful dumbing down for the masses in order to make money?

Weird thread title with odd adjective...

What if they became popular but were never practical?
 
Weird thread title with odd adjective...

What if they became popular but were never practical?

I actually have a theory that even the most impractical of martial arts may, at the time of their invention, been practical.

For example, I've always thought that Taichi was never practical. But then I learned there is a village in China that apparently teaches the original Taichi and watching a video of their sparring, it is basically like a mix of modern Greco-Roman wrestling and Judo. Also were it not for MMA and people like Machida, perhaps Karate in the USA would also enjoy the reputation of a martial art that was never practical.

The fact is, if they were never practical, how would they have gotten established as a martial art in the first place?
 
Well the most popular martial art has always been boxing and that's pretty practical so I'm gonna say no.

But has boxing ever really been popular? (I mean as a martial art the average person tries to learn, not as entertainment)
 
The answer is that the issue isnt the art, it's the practitioner or the application.

The vast majority of TMAs were never intended for sports competition. They were intended to fight off the riff raff, not trained fighters in an octogon.
 
I actually have a theory that even the most impractical of martial arts may, at the time of their invention, been practical.

For example, I've always thought that Taichi was never practical. But then I learned there is a village in China that apparently teaches the original Taichi and watching a video of their sparring, it is basically like a mix of modern Greco-Roman wrestling and Judo. Also were it not for MMA and people like Machida, perhaps Karate in the USA would also enjoy the reputation of a martial art that was never practical.

The fact is, if they were never practical, how would they have gotten established as a martial art in the first place?

In the Karate Kid, Daniel Son a karate practicioner, beat Kobra Kai and won the championship. Karate was practical, and stayed practical, but then became impractical since Kobra Kai was defeated.
In The Way of the Dragon, Bruce Lee was a jeet kune do practitioner. He beat Chuck Norris who was a Karate practitioner.

There are some fighters who still use karate, and there is Alex Caceres who uses jeet kune do.

So I am saying they are all practical, by way of my explanation aforementioned above. Truly MMAath.
 
I mean... your hypothesis is disproven by mere observation. Boxing is practical, wrestling is practical, muay thai is practical, bjj is practical, judo is practical, kickboxing is practical, etc.

Competitions need rules, otherwise they can't exist. Rules are often exploited or have certain loopholes. I don't really understand what connection you're making between that, popularity and the arts/styles as a whole being "impractical".
 
I mean... your hypothesis is disproven by mere observation. Boxing is practical, wrestling is practical, muay thai is practical, bjj is practical, judo is practical, kickboxing is practical, etc.

Competitions need rules, otherwise they can't exist. Rules are often exploited. I don't really understand what connection you're making between these two things.

I'm not arguing that they are completely impractical, I'm questioning whether they become more impractical as they become more popular as a martial art that people try to learn.

For example, I'm not arguing BJJ is impractical, but I am questioning whether modern BJJ is growing more impractical as people exploit the gi and the rules to apply techniques that would never work in real combat. And I'm not arguing Karate was never practical, but clearly before it experienced a renaissance in MMA, the way it was taught in the US was mainly impractical, thus the popularization of the term McDojo.

And I'm not sure boxing and wrestling were ever popular as martial arts the average person tried to learn.
 
Like do you mean it becomes watered down? Yeah totally, a martial art is inherently only something people of a “warrior caste” are proficient in, martial duties and skills aren’t meant for the masses.
 
I'm not arguing that they are completely impractical, I'm questioning whether they become more impractical as they become more popular as a martial art that people try to learn.

For example, I'm not arguing BJJ is impractical, but I am questioning whether modern BJJ is growing more impractical as people exploit the gi and the rules to apply techniques that would never work in real combat.

And I'm not sure boxing and wrestling were ever popular as martial arts the average person pursued.
Ehh... I think we just think that sports BJJ is impractical. with the lack of conditioning that the average person is going to have along with the no takedown defense even the random leg attacks are going to work. most of the world would be unable to stop a purple/brown belt manlet from tearing all of their joints apart
 
I'm not arguing that they are completely impractical, I'm questioning whether they become more impractical as they become more popular as a martial art that people try to learn.

For example, I'm not arguing BJJ is impractical, but I am questioning whether modern BJJ is growing more impractical as people exploit the gi and the rules to apply techniques that would never work in real combat. And I'm not arguing Karate was never practical, but clearly before it experienced a renaissance in MMA, the way it was taught in the US was mainly impractical, thus the popularization of the term McDojo.

And I'm not sure boxing and wrestling were ever popular as martial arts the average person tried to learn.

I do think that boxing has been pretty popular for a long time as something "regular" people train. And wrestling is one of the main sports that kids train in the US all the way through high school and college. BJJ is immensely popular now, and I think it's reasonably effective. If you go to a place run by a respected black belt, I doubt that you'll get some watered down shit.

But I think you're referring more to the "TMA's" like kung fu, karate, aikido, etc. And it's true that a lot of them became invaded by bullshit techniques, or maybe some like Aikido were always bullshit, I'm not sure. Understanding why that happened would require looking into their specific histories, which isn't something I'm familiar with.

It seems to me that a lot of the traditional martial arts at some point became something people did because of the discipline or workout aspect more than anything else, so it's not surprising to me that they stopped being selected for combat effectiveness, since a lot of people didn't really care. The lack of real sparring also helps the bullshit survive, but it might've seemed like a necessary thing to do to make them more appealing. Kickboxing, boxing, wrestling, never had that problem as far as I know. The popularity of MMA has helped sort out a lot of the bullshiters, although some still exist I guess.
 
Last edited:
If someone can kick your ass in an octagon, they'll still kick your ass on the street. Probably even worse.

It's not like if a fighter just goes berserk and decides to kill you with his hands, he's going to only follow sanctioned MMA rules in a street fight.
People actually try to make this argument though funnily enough. As if a fighter that can cripple another trained fighter by kicked their legs couldn't also utterly obliterate some rando's testicles with a kick.
 
People actually try to make this argument though funnily enough. As if a fighter that can cripple another trained fighter by kicked their legs couldn't also utterly obliterate some rando's testicles with a kick.


Yeah, it's weird right? I don't think they've seen many (if any) actual street fights.
 
Ehh... I think we just think that sports BJJ is impractical. with the lack of conditioning that the average person is going to have along with the no takedown defense even the random leg attacks are going to work. most of the world would be unable to stop a purple/brown belt manlet from tearing all of their joints apart
Yeah like I've trained various martial arts and can respect that a BJJ match isn't the same as a real fight, but a lot of people think they can just walk up to a good blue or basic purple belt at an academy and stomp on them because they don't strike in training. The speed at which your legs get locked up if you're not competent at leg lock defense is astounding if you actually experience it.
 
People actually try to make this argument though funnily enough. As if a fighter that can cripple another trained fighter by kicked their legs couldn't also utterly obliterate some rando's testicles with a kick.

this would definitely be the random tough guy who thinks he'd just walk through a leg kick lol
 
Western gyms have to do it because soccer mom and their low testosterone son can’t keep up
 
Back
Top