Point of Clarification (that I should have put in the video): Virtually every art is going to have SOME process elements and SOME results to look at. The difference in categories is in whether process or results is more important. I.E. Is throwing out the process to get better results a good or bad thing? Should you go off script in a sales call, in order to close the sale? Yes! Therefore, (most) sales is results-oriented. Should you use non-approved parts in order to repair an aircraft in a more timely manner? NO!!! Therefore, aircraft maintenance is process-oriented. Combat sports have processes, but those processes only exist to get better results. If something else can get you better results, you are free to throw the process out the window, and you get congratulated for innovating (or at least you should). In other martial arts, they make you do the move in a specific way irrespective of whether it seems to be working. I promise you that those classes exist. I've taken them. If you can discard the process in favor of results, it's results-oriented. If you can never, EVER discard the process, then it's process-oriented. Every martial art will have elements of each, but it will almost always definitively fall into one category or the other.
That's an important nuance that makes the message of the video much better. Sometimes process oriented instruction is a good way to learn principles that can be experimented with later to improve results. Or sometimes it's a way of controlling for variables. I do agree that the process isn't really a great acid test, but in its proper place it's a worthwhile tool even for martial arts.
I think some arts are pretty evenly split though so I still don't think that this is a useful way to divide martial arts. I think it's useful for gym culture though as you said. Take judo for example. In order to get my black belt, I need to do some competitions so that I get points. But I also have to be able to do kata and demonstrate all the techniques properly. So it's a mix of process and results oriented. Same with karate. I had to spar in competitions and at my dojo while also doing kata to get my black belt. I've also competed in kata and sparring in both judo and karate.
@@gam3rfr3ak13 Yeah, my experience is that it's a spectrum rather than two distinct categories, as well. To use my own experience as an example, let's take three arts I've trained: karate, kickboxing and Filipino Martial Arts. In karate, the focus was definitely on the process, it was very much process-oriented. In kickboxing, outside of the basics of learning how to punch safely, etc, it was results-oriented. FMA (at least in the style I train), on the other hand, lands somewhere in-between. I wouldn't say it's results-oriented, grading, etc. isn't about winning fights, but it also to some extent encourages innovation and modification - if something doesn't work for you, you're encouraged to modify it and do a variation that *does* work, and if you're doing something "wrong", but it works for you, then you're not really doing it wrong. (I suppose you could say that it is process-oriented, but that the "process" is the understanding and application of principles rather than correct form. Though to show that you've understood and are able to apply the principles, you have to be able to actually show that you're able to use the principles against someone putting up some level of resistance, which is showing to results)
Wow this young man gives me hope for the future. He’s absolutely right; as a coach what I’ve seen even in combat sports a fighter’s style never looks like what you’ve shown them ten minutes ago. What he is describing is the difference between coaching and teaching. I teach children and new students and I coach the guys with no neck that moves as fast as Olympic sprinters because you can’t teach Beast Mode 😂 great video brother
A note on the crossover between process and results based learning. My jiu jitsu coach teaches largely with positional sparring. For example, you'll be put in half guard, and be given a goal. "Pass" for the competitor on top, and "Sweep or submit" to the competitor on bottom. Once you've shown someone a few options to pass guard, they'll try them all, and learn all the permutations of what works in what scenario. This is called "environmental learning." You learn from information provided by your environment, rather than trying to repeat what a coach shows you. Trying to copy a 9 step triangle choke is hard. It also falls apart the moment your opponent resists, because they interrupt you at step 2. Alternatively, you can drill trying to sweep or submit someone from your guard while they try to pass, for 5, 2 minute rounds. You learn what works for you much faster this way. Getting every step of the triangle before they try to use it is not an effective way to learn it. Isolating the aspects of the technique entirely from all the wild, unpredictable, exhausting, intimidating variables is what Aikido does, and that is why it's so renowned for being ineffective.
There's a similar approach in Kick Boxing where you'll initially learn what a "good jab" is and drill it to develop balance and speed and make sure you're not neglecting your defence. However, as soon as you have it down and it looks OK, they'll have you throw in feints, use it while moving and from different angles, tell you about the "up jab" or that you can use a power jab and "annoying" jab alternatively, or just leave it out there to block the vision or bring it only halfway back and double up on it. You'll have a few set partner drills (holding pads for each other) to make sense of all the different possibilities and get the distance down, but then as soon as you're not falling all over the place and kind of get it, they make you spar a couple of rounds using only the jab and head movement/catching with the right. It's in those little sparring drills that you pick up the most useful stuff and minute little details you'd never considered before (also learning how different people react and how your body type / style stacks up against different ones), and the coach is only there to give you pointers on strategy - circle out, work the body and the head, feint more, etc. All the while, you're also learning how to use it to set up other combinations, and a good coach will have you focus on the combos/tactics that fit your body type/athleticism/strong suits. And this is all within a couple of months of a newbie walking through the door of the gym, whereas a traditional martial arts place would still be having the new guy throw the same punch to make it "perfect" and do a couple of set partner drills for "optimal application".
I was training at a judo dojo in Los Angeles - a fairly old school one, taught in a relatively traditional Japanese method compared with the more “modern” approach used by the dojo in my home state. A lot of strict collar-sleeve grip action, a lot of complaining about “weird” grips and techniques used in competition, etc. And I noticed that, unlike the judo school I train at in my home state, the head instructor would try to impose his style on us a lot more. Like, if I was doing something slightly unorthodox, I would hear him shout “USE THE STANDARD GRIP!!!” From all the way across the giant gym and somehow know he was talking to me. But I noticed that he never made those comments if someone’s unique strategy actually worked. Like, if I abandoned my traditional collar sleeve grip to get an unusual grip and got a throw, he wouldn’t complain. Only if I grabbed onto my opponent with a non-standard grip and just held onto it for fifteen seconds without getting a throw at all. My interpretation was that he was a teacher who highly valued the basics and structured curriculum of traditional judo and maybe was a bit stuck in his ways, but that on some level he recognizes that results matter more than sticking to a mold. That focusing on winning ultimately trumps being a slave to the process
To be fair, as a beginner, you absolutely need a process based approach. If you are the strongest/baddest/heaviest/fastest guy in your gym, you can squash everybody based on your already existing attributes.
@@Sashagatti96 I think he meant that, if there was someone in the gym who had super reflexes, peak form, and great fighting instincts… then they wouldn’t be easy to teach since their base strength is already so high. But that’s only in terms of teaching I think.
Also, if you're teaching a large group of people (like in a typical commercial martial arts school), you need a process based approach simply because offering tailor made programs for each student would just take too much time and effort to be feasible.
Av, just gotta say the teaching style of your videos is literally the BEST I've seen. As someone with ADD this really helps. I offically award you a black belt in teaching ADD people like me
Good explanation! 100% proper form and technique often goes out the window when you're in fight-or-flight mode, and someone is repeatedly punching you in the head or threatening to stab you. Many martial arts teach you a false sense of security, because you've never actually tested these techniques under pressure, stress or resistance. Choose a results-based approach if you're learning martial arts for self-defense and competition, and a process-based approach for recreation and fitness.
I wonder if this idea of focusing on process could have it's roots in preparing for warfare. We think of martial arts as being individualistic in either fighting for self-defense or competition, but there is a context under which you need to operate as part of a larger organization
Exactly. If you're part of a shield wall or a phalanx or pike square you don't go off and do something stupid for glory. That's your commander's job, and you do it as a unit.
I've had two BJJ coaches, one was very traditional and the other isn't. The first one corrected his son for demoing a technique differently than how Royce showed how to do it. The other shows three different variations of a triangle and says pick one or combine then shows you how he does it and explains why, then tells you to go play with it. I do triangles differently than him. He doesn't care. The first coach did care if we did something differently than the specific drill. He didn't like talking or for students to discuss the technique. You were to learn from him or approved people, and that depended on the day. The other couch (which is my current one is) has no problem with students discussing things, and helping each other. He encourages it. I've gotten in trouble at 2 different schools (which led to me getting kicked out) for going off script. Students would ask me questions and I'd answer and it wasn't always the "approved" answer. I started at his school and again, lower ranked students started asking me questions. Being gun shy, I went to talk to him about it. He said, you've been doing martial arts for almost 10 years and BJJ for almost 4 if you can't answer a white belts question than I've failed as an instructor and if you say something wrong I will correct it. If you're tapping people, he's happy.
This will forever be my choice in nomenclature when describing the goals of varying martial arts. I believe in being results oriented and I have no problem with varying processes, so long as they contribute to the efficient obtainment of the results. Thanks for this, it really is a great way to clarify the traditional vs mma debate.
I was so lucky with my taekwondo gym, the instructor there is training kickboxing as much as tkd and he teaches us proper tkd techniques but in sparring he loves when we land uppercuts and knee strikes when the distance gets tight, praising innovation. And constantly slapping our ears for lowering the guard in mid distance. I train both, boxing teaches me how to fight effectively with my hands while tkd makes sure my legs also get a proper workout + improved my footwork in boxing immensely. Plus boxing alone becomes a bit boring over time, to the point where 2 months of kyokushin karate and their weird ways to punch were an amazing innovation, despite being highy ineffective in sparring
This video was super useful in explaining so many things that I've been mulling over with HEMA for a while. Like there's even a move in HEMA make it more process orientated when traditionally it's been more goal orientated (the goals being sword well and work out what the manuals are saying). Also it helps explain why things like krav maga seem more like traditional martial arts than anything else.
I have studied HEMA a little, and what I greatly appreciate what I call the "Stab them in the head test," which states "If there is a time where I can stabbing my opponent in the head then I should be stabbing my opponent in the head." My HEMA School liked the roundel dagger, but I think it is a valuable test to apply to any combat system.
Right on the money again! You cleared the misunderstanding between martial arts & combat sports/self-defence with a straightforward analogy! Since the 80's there has been this mistaken belief that martial arts are a way of self-defence until MMA became more & more mainstream when became clear that martial arts are exactly that, an art, another way of expression! Self-defense has to be simple & effective.
A student from a process orientation got into a street fight and lost he was disappointed I informed him what he was being taught was not for self defense. You are absolutely correct in saying a performance base vs result
Love this. A major part of my day job is business process & systems analysis. You just fired up some serious synapses LOL I will probably see combat/martial arts training through this lense from now on. ~Moonlight Martial Artist😉
Great video, as someone who trains mma and japanese ju jistu, I've said before that if you have a goal of simply winning fights, go to combat sports, but If you're interested in history of techniques from a specific art and culture then have fun exploring the tradition, just be honest with your goals
This reminds me of “scrubs” in the gaming community. A “scrub” is a player who judges skill according to their own artificial criteria rather than simply winning. A good example is the Tekken player who spends hours on practice mode learning complex moves and combos, but then gets beaten by a guy who just does flying kicks over and over. The scrub player bitches and whines about this, how that’s “not what the game is about” and how he has “real” skill.
Nice work!! If our goal is to be a future leader, or if we are already a coach, instructor, or gym owner, then this method of critical analysis will help anyone in their decision-making abilities. Each day, workout, session, or whatever we need to ask ourselves, "How are we doing? Do we need to spar more? Train more? Cardio? Footwork? What am I missing? Where are we strongest? How do we improve?..." The answers will take us in either a process, or results-oriented direction. How do we know which direction to go? We don't, and so we start one way and see the result and then make adjustments, and then check the results, and after a hundred intuitive steps or so each day, creating a results-oriented process, as we log our progress and come back the next day and start all over again. Wash, result, repeat...
This is a very good video @armchairviolence and I hope you don't mind that i give my 2cents on that as a reaction🙌. Although I agree with almost everything you said (as a traditional m.a.) I think there are also a couple other perspectives I'd like to share. Much respect for that one❤️
This is a really good way of differentiating the two approaches and it highlights something that often gets forgotten when the "TMA vs combat sports" discussion begins. There are no clear distinctions! Most martial arts involve both aspects. Muay Thai is result oriented, but has a very clear syllabus of techniques and even scores points for proper execution. So it is almost equally process and result oriented. Same goes for Judo, Boxing, BJJ, freestyle wrestling, etc. Process and result are clearly intertwined here. That's why the term "TMA" is stupid! Pretty much all martial arts are traditional to some degree.
kung fu uses boxing moves and grappling moves. So there is some overlap between combat sports and traditional arts. Your expected to fight in Combat sports (Boxing, Muay Thai, Kick boxing, BJJ, wrestling) while in TMA (Karate, kung-Fu, TKD, etc) your not expected to fight.
@@rcarfang2 interestingly all three examples you named have a lot of different competitions. Kung Fu has Sanda, Karate has point fighting, Kyokushin tournaments and different kinds of kickboxing and TKD has the Olympics. They all are/can be result oriented. TKD might be the best example that "result oriented" =/= effective.
Fair point, buuut: If a new guy joins a result oriented gym, you still need to show him how to punch (a process). And if the new guy is a really good athlete, he'll pick up the 'process oriented moves' really fast, faster than you, which is gonna sting cause you remember how much it took you to do the same. There's a process to fighting, and yes, innovation is important, but if a student innovates by fighting with his hands behind his back and using just one leg because he's really really good with that right leg, then you do need to teach him the process of throwing a punch. There's room for both mindsets in martial arts. The difference you seem to be making is spar/competition based martial arts vs no spar/competitions martial arts.
I comment on your videos because I think you're doing really helpful work and I hear tell commenting helps your videos get seen more. Thanks man, already looking forward to the next one.
I have been looking for a way to describe the difference between traditional and modern martial arts for a while and this video just gave me the response for this question. This chanel is amazing, thank you for this.
Holy shit, YES. This is such a great exploration of this topic Every time I see one of your little think pieces I’m blown away by how well you’re able to express these concepts. Seriously, just keep up the good work man 👏
I enjoy video essays like this, and your thoughts in many ways mirror my own. One thing that I would like to add is that cooperation and predictability are very important in Stage Combat.
What about martial arts like Judo that follows a process to learn how to rotate and move the other person (and as a matter of safety for the guy being thrown so they can fall properly) to get to a result-based system. Belt promotions in Judo can be earned through competition. If you want to innovate, show your results. Show your wins by being promoted. Because there needs to be a baseline level of skill at each belt to get the wins necessary to get promoted. Unlike BJJ where some schools might use competition to see progress, where others use a "did he show up enough" approach. Depends on the art, depends on the school/academy.
YES. holy shit, every time I see one of your little think pieces I’m blown away by how well you’re able to express these concepts. Seriously, just keep up the good work man 👏
It all comes down to ones personal goals. I just want to learn something new, while keeping fit and have a good time, without getting hurt. So i've decided to go the traditional route.
I feel like BJJ and tradtional Muay Thai are somewhat processe oriented. You can lose a fight in thailand if you don't look muay thai enough. In bjj they partially care more about proper form then results.
Muay Thai has the best of both worlds. Is a combat sport/modern martial art with a lot of sparring and pressure test the practitioner in every class, also they have the gym culture of fighting/ competing. another modern martial art thing that Muay Thai has is that the competition is realistic and full contact so they try to be as efficient and effective as possible, using what work without losing time in useless things like kata of unrealistic techniques. But Muay Thai compared to boxing or MMA, teaches you respect and discipline like TMA , Boxing is a circus full of trash talk and zero respect. But Muay Thai fighters are more respectful you can see them hugging each other after the fight and they never trash talk.
Reading the comments, I think many still didn't get the point. Imo the point is LIMITED in sparring/ competition. If you must fight using specific move, it's process oriented. If not, it's result oriented. Example: Aikido(no sparring) is process oriented. Aikido(with sparring) is result oriented. MMA is result oriented. Although Aikido with sparring is controversial subject since, some might review the sparring as . . useless/fake. Am I right?
9:27 : Someone can be a better athlete and better at sparring and still not be a better coach/teacher. There’s also plenty of room for arts that teach using both methods. Process oriented for learning each technique and results oriented when it’s time to spar. Great stuff per usual; even when I don’t agree with you your take is always well thought out well reasoned.
Consider this though -- There are times when you need to give yourself over to process even in a results-driven activity because you, as an individual, do not understand how best to achieve the desired result. Your characterization of results-driven training as a room full of individuals just experimenting until they figure out how they fight best is not realistic for two reasons. First, human beings generally don't learn anything by teaching themselves from scratch -- how could society progress that way? Even the most creative innovators start from a base of institutional knowledge gleaned by observation or instruction and then adapt or expand on it. The reason you've joined a gym at all, the reason you've chosen an art to study is because you desire to acquire the knowledge of that institution, so you will (at least for a time) submit to their process. Even the most hard core MMA workout is going to include a modicum of process-based drilling because that's what sets the building blocks for the individual's personal style. Secondly, there are some things in martial arts that are universal because they're rooted in human biomechanics. All the experimentation in the world cannot get me to see out of my ear or bend my knee in a different direction. Process-based learning often delivers results faster. My point is that your argument only really works for students who have reached enough maturity in their art to make a decision (conscious or unconscious) about what direction they want to go after the fundamentals. In total, I'd argue that the distinguishing criteria is not process vs results-orientation, but application vs cultivation -- am I doing what I'm doing to make myself fighter, happier, whatever or am I doing it to apply it in a fight (whether sport or self-defense). You can have process vs experimentation in your mode of study with either goal.
Thank you this is something I’ve been trying to communicate to my students for years now. Something that’s really bothered me as of late is Karate Combat. The way that they try to blend “traditional” with “combat sports” just doesn’t work. When you’ve trained in traditional karate all your life and then try to bring it into a combat sports environment it leads to a lot of lead hook knockouts as they don’t keep their hands up. Fans of the promotion will always say that people just don’t understand karate and you’re supposed to do it with your hands down but that just goes directly against the evolution of a combat sport. Adaptation is essential when pressure tested
In self-defense, I think the advantage that process oriented martial arts have over results oriented arts is that process oriented arts give attention to ethics. In other words, what is socially or legally permissible. This is something I’ve been focusing on. Hence, my comments on @ramseydewey video on traditional martial arts and your video on scenario training.
I consider myself an "armchair" martial artist. I'm someone who'd much rather discuss techniques, counters to said techniques and body bio mechanics over a coffee than to actually compete. In fact I am someone who dislikes competition in general. In this sense I kind of enjoy the more "process oriented" martial arts, but I am under no illusion that in a real fight I'd end up dead pretty quickly.
This is a great video cause yeah no one would consider wrestling a traditional martial art yet, I think it's literally older than any of the traditional martial arts still practiced and Karate is younger than both boxing and kickboxing.
I have always considered 'traditional martial arts' as... exactly that. An art. An art that keeps the history of a culture alive. While some dojo's advertise it for self defense, those are moreso outliers. As the vast majority of dojos are established for cultural reasons. Ninjutsu for example. Keeping the art of the ninja alive.
I could not agree. I train in Kung Fu and Tai Chi from a very traditional school, and it was never about it being "practical" or "effecient". It is a place where I can express myself in an art that encourages me to be who I am, and be part of a culture and community that I deeply admire.
This reminded me of this Bruce Lee quote: "Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make." So true art can never be results oriented, since then those results you want to achieve are going to necessarily interfere with your true self expression. If you want to obtain a particular result, then that's a technique, a technology, but not art. Art is ment to be useless by definition, at least in a practical sense.
Really cool video and what a great skill for analysis! Now i see why big martial arts schools put people in uniforms... because it is not about individual success at all, but robotic following of rules. This video will be used to skip leg day because leg day is not an outcome, its a weakling process focus.
This is a great video and it definitely is an accurate representation of the way most observe “traditional” arts, but: Truth be told: The processes inherent within “Traditional” arts is supposed to be beginner level drills solely for providing one who is new and doesn’t know, a template of how. Once one now understands and can achieve the result on a more consistent basis he is encouraged to lay all “form” by the wayside and focus on the outcome. In other words: •Beginner level = Form > Function AND •Intermediate and Advanced levels = Function > Form Which falls in line with the results based arts such as “MMA.” The problem lies in the fact that many who claim to be “MASTERS” don’t understand the true purpose of those “Process” oriented arts, so they are presented in the way that they have been presented for decades which lends to the belief that they are “ineffective.”
Not just combat sports. Even in tennis the process say to hit a forehand you have to step across with you left foot (for righties). Meanwhile not a single pro player does this and instead remains open for forehands. Backhands are different. Don't start me on "correct" grip for different shots. This is why Brad Gilbert called his style "winning ugly".
i do understand the distintion between procees and result oriented aproach and i agree that some traditional martial arts do have that kata for example... but there are also places and arts that use both, example, start with the blocks or punch, then practice it with a partner, or in the pads, then practice it on the form so its more natural then practice it in sparring and in between you can inovate and maeby suceed on it or fail on it. so... i think mix is pby the best, yet i dont think traditional or combat sport is a full division in those two terms
Yes and no. The major problem of competitive martial arts is the rules. When I started doing Judo, the problem was I was told (i) points are deducted if you're not aggressive (2) you're not allowed go strike or even fake a strike. Thus, in the dojo I was always losing. When I did actual 'stress testing' the black belts couldn't throw me and when they tired I could get them on the ground. So combat also has some 'process' oriented factors.
one key difference between martial artists and a fighter was exemplified when that fighter was challenging china's traditional martial arts masters to bouts and kicking their ass. when he challenges a wing chun guy, he trains against wing chun fighters to defend and counter wing chun attacks... when he challenges a tai chi guy, he trains against tai chi... but when the wing chun master was challenged, he only trained in wing chun with other wing chun fighters, same for the tai chi master.
I have done both Traditional Martial arts and Combat Sports. My taijiquan teacher taught me boxing moves. taijiquan is process oriented such as doing the best structured and coordinated front kick. Kravmaga is results oriented in throwing out a punch or kick with speed and power. The difference is that Taijiquan is focused on form and balance while Kravmaga is focused on beating people up. In Kravmaga , we do core exercises to increase strength and speed. Both my Taijiquan and my kravmaga teachers told me never get into a fight.
Both are good for different things I really appreciate Sumo for saying no to modernization and remain the same for I think a thousand years. Also some people don't want the results that badly do things like traditional martial arts are great for that. I do tai chi cause it's calming and BJJ and Muay Thai for results and I'll probably practice Tai chi long after I can't practice Muay Thai and BJJ because of the results oriented nature of them.
Yes and if you want to do a martial art primarily for your health or simply to have something fun or relaxing to do then you really can't go too terribly wrong with either category however if the martial art is a results orientated one then your training is probably going to be alot more psychically intense.But like I said neither are really that bad if your main priority doesn't really have to do fighting and perhaps has more to do with physical fitness or health.
Tai chi is definitely good because for all it's worth its good for your health and you can do it by your self especially if your not planning on actually trying to do alot of that stuff while fighting somebody or defending yourself.
If we follow this analogy, TMA is like going to school and having to explain your answer, and combat sports are real life where you just use a calculator, which is not very far off from reality anyway
Is this why some people look really confused when I compliment them after they kick my ass, and why other people just immediately start teaching me how they beat me instead? lol
Well, I guess there are exceptions, and sometimes result-oriented guys can be a bit dogmatic and obsesss about the process, like the guy who insisted that you train with a GI despite you only doing it in an MMA context, or the garbage old-school self-defence moves BJJ guys will show, despite the fact that they've already taught you 7 better ways to deal with shit, only they didn't put it into that specific context. You have a great video on palm strikes as well that shows the same dogmatic thinking in mostly result-oriented striking arts that flip straight into process-oriented when it comes to "self-defense". I think that it's simply a matter of ignorance/lack of experience with fighting and violence in general that gets people locked into the process-oriented mode in martial arts. Not one martial art was originally created to be a "glorious process of self-improvement in and of itself with no aspirations towards violence", it's just that people later figured out that you can use that type of training regime to get other results - strong and healthy body, self-confidence, spiritual improvement, etc. Hell, even dancing got watered down into Zumba classes when people turned to it for "self-improvement" rather than to become a good dancer. My issue with all this is that the process of learning how to become a competent fighter/dancer is a much more honest and fulfilling one that dissolve the strongest egoistic tendencies real quick and leads to profound physical, mental, and spiritual improvement a whole lot faster. You need to orient yourself to an end goal to have a point of reference and gauge progress, and THEN you can enjoy the process without obsessing over every minor detail. Othervise, it's like looking at a master wood carver, admiring him for his strong forearms, incredible concentration, and the ability to relax for several hours consumed by his project, and then deciding to start whittling sticks down into nothing every day. Sure, after a few years, you'll have big forearms and sausage fingers, and you'll be able to shut your mind off and chill, but you would have gotten so much more if you actually practiced whittling figures and making something tangible. Not only because you'd have great art to show for it, but you'd be more creative, more confident, and feel accomplished, with further perfecting of skills to look forward to in the future.
Process-oriented is more of a learn the basics and get familiar with it. Result-oriented is more of now you know the basics and is familiar with it, be creative and add your own style to it.
Hapkido turned out to be a bit hard for me personally, but when it comes trad arts I admire it’s balance between the art and the fighting. The higher up the black belts were, the more anything-goes their techniques got. The principles of the “art” were still there and didn’t get in the way of the fight And the dojang I was at was really innovative; they canceled kicks that involved turning your back to the opponent, took influence from BJJ etc
What is needed is a synthesise. Refine the process throu results. And use results as a guideline for the prossess. In a way we need systems big systems that cover the whole of what is taught and small systems for drilling cues. To responed with Habitats of motion that are faster then thinking on your feet.
I love this distinction. Though the reason why traditional martial arts are labeled traditional comes down to the goal which is to preserve tradition. With that in mind, that tradition can be very selective and arbitrary.
As a software dev, I wish our field was as results-oriented as you think we are... Also, I don't disagree with the point you're making about process-oriented vs. results-oriented being a valuable distinction, but I think the old terminology does have value. It's all in the name: martial *arts* vs combat *sports*. Arts are means of self-expression; sports are competitions. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create art with the movement of your body; it's just about what the practitioner wants to get out of their time spent. (This is the same difference that exists between freerunning and parkour: the former is focused on expression, the latter on efficiency.)
I've been trying to become more process-oriented with my guitar practice, as I have a nasty habit of doing one exercise for a few days and then dropping it for months or years; however, I've been using the on-off approach for 14 years now, and have still become more than good enough at my instrument to perform, so it makes me wonder whether I really need to take up the more regimented approach? I've tried many times before, and it doesn't seem to work for me.
Any competition is bound by rules, so I think it's important to acquire the basic process. If your only goal is to beat the enemy, the most effective way is to quit the gym right now and use the money to buy a gun.
Without processatising results you can't pass on that knowledge easily. The problem with traditional martial arts aren't that they focus on process but that the process becomes unadapting. This is why sparring is necessary as it is the part where to turn what you learn from the process in to the results. Martial arts with out sparring is like an untested hypothesis. The process in which technique is taught is essentially the the factors to be tested, the rules of sparring is the method of controlling for variables. There are great athletes that can make bad technique work but most people aren't great athletes and what works for that athlete may not be useful at a large scale for average people, athletic or not. The exception is not the rule, the process is meant to be the rule and not the exception. Again though, the problem is when the process doesn't evolve with the testing or is never tested at all. I created my own martial art specifically because of the failure to evolve with the traditional styles I've learned. I have a set of forms where they from time to time are changed because the testing process shows that there is room to improve to ensure more reliable results.
Awesome stuff as always. Wouldn't you say being process oriented sometimes is the first part of teaching someone to be results oriented, meaning you make sure someone gets every step of the triangle right before they try to implement it in rolling?
Being results oriented doesn't mean you don't practice the technique. Making sure to learn how to do every steps of the triangle right before sparring because you want to submit your opponent is still results oriented.
At least 2 of the main MMA styles are older than 'traditional' martial arts: boxing and wrestling are the oldest styles in existence and are Olympic games. Muay Thai is pretty old although Muay Boran is older. And you can use judo, karate and taekwondo in MMA but you need to mix them (hence the name MIXED martial arts).
I'd (very weakly) argue that process is a part of results. Form should be informed by function, you should do a thing because it's a good way to do things. The fact that this often isn't how form is practiced does not change that Skill is consistency. It might be possible that crazed, winging punches win, but all else being equal, do they win more, statistically, than someone who is fighting with good form? Without thinking too hard, there are plenty of 'good' fighters who have bad form, but when we think of 'the best' fighters, do we not often describe them as putting on a 'masterclass' of technical abilities? They always have that skill on top of the athleticism, the fight IQ, and all the other stuff. Taken from another perspective, if we take a person who is purely results focused like a street fighter - all they do is fight people to win, with no training other than this experience. We have oodles of video evidence showing that when these kinds of people go up against those who also include form in their training, they get picked apart. There are plenty of BJJ dojo challenges and boxing gym challenges showing this. There's also the problem that training with process in mind is still in a way results-driven. This video makes it sound like 'to win' is the ultimate result to aim for, but when we think about things like BJJ, although 'to win' training does make up a significant part, there is also an equally significant part that is made up of 'to escape mount', 'to gain a dominant position.' These ultimately aim toward 'to win' as a result, but here's another example to throw a spanner in the works... A karate dojo who don't spar or do any full contact competition might spend a lot of time aiming for the result of 'incredibly powerful punches.' The goal of a really powerful punch is 'to win.' So they're aiming for the same result as any combat sport practitioner, but will clearly perform worse in actual combat. The argument then may be that, well, the combat sport athlete will train in a more alive manner in order to aim for the result of 'to win', but training in an alive manner is also a process that allows for escalation from static practicing, to pressure tested drills, to limited sparring, to full free sparring, to competition. So all in all I think it's a nice general way to talk about the topic, but it's hard to justify it overall because there's just too much overlap.
It's not actually that weak an argument if we look at arts like Judo. Judo follows a process so that each practitioner can at least learn through the throw that they're learning how to rotate a person and move the other person. With an additional point towards safety, so the guy being thrown has something predictable so they can fall properly. Then the way they earn belts is through wins, they need to win enough to get promoted at each belt rank. The process leads to the result in arts like Judo.
While I agree on this very useful distinction I still see the value of process oriented martial arts for innovation. Yes, you are more encouraged to innovate in result oriented training, you are also constricted by the results you are trying to achieve. If the context changes and the result becomes something else, like changing combat sport, you might need something you had not changed and thus you don't have as much adaptability. The process arts give you a different perspective where things can be taken from and honed into new ways of reaching your goals, if you do the pipeline.
It's more of a spectrum than a binary. A "process approach" is best when you're working with systems and machines. The results will be best when you do it the same way every time. But even in the best, strictest processes, there will be problems you have to solve, where a "results approach" comes in to solve it. I learned this at a dishwashing job. A "results approach" is best when working with people or anything else that is unpredictable, but there will always be certain things that remain the same. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find two fighters who hold their guard in the same way. Some prefer a high and tight guard, some keep it loser, some hold one arm out in front of the other, and there's the classic right arm tuck that the old-time bare knuckle boxers liked, but you'll never find someone who goes into a fight with no guard, arms hanging at his sides.
traditional martial arts such as Shotokan Karate and Taijiquan are focused on form, coordination, with structured technique. Traditional arts are also concerned with kata's, balance and straight posture. Combat sports like Kickboxing is focused on hitting the opponent while meaningfully defending yourselves from relation. For example, always have one hand up to guard your face when you punch or kick. My kravmaga class is kicking and punching as fast as possible. And in sparing, the focus is on defending your face and attacking the opponent with punches and kicks.
In the first place, many traditional dojos do not aim to produce world champions. their mission is to correctly pass on the techniques and concepts passed down by our predecessors to the next generation, learn to respect others through practice in the process, gain respectable friends, and grow a community that people can empathize with.I think the important thing is not to become a world champion in your weight class, but to have the courage to face an opponent, even if it's bigger than you, in that once-in-a-lifetime moment.
I'm totes late here, but, it seems to me that either approach has merits, and arts can be said to practice poorly when they process where they want results, look for results when they really need process, and french fry when they want to pizza. E.g. I can watch Sylvie von Douglas-Ittu both fight for titles and train around those fights (a results orientation) and do shadowboxing with a mirror to better form, or work with a great through elements of their particular style and acquire a feel for them (a process orientation). To watch her talk about it, it's like she carries a training culture which uses either approach clearly, when it is clearly appropriate.
I think there's a caviat here that you haven't mentioned. Results oriented martial arts, aka competitive martial arts, have rules that are, by definition, process oriented, since they determine the correct and accepted way of achieving the wanted result. So even in a results oriented martial art, you have to adhere to a certain process, otherwise the result is deemed ilegitimate. For example, if I start using kicks in a boxing match, then I would get disqualified even if that strategy might be the best strategy, from a practical stand point, for achieving the result I want. So every results oriented martial art is also process oriented, specialy competitive martial arts. The only "martial art" that would be completely results oriented would be a street fight with literally no rules at all.
Point of Clarification (that I should have put in the video):
Virtually every art is going to have SOME process elements and SOME results to look at. The difference in categories is in whether process or results is more important. I.E. Is throwing out the process to get better results a good or bad thing?
Should you go off script in a sales call, in order to close the sale? Yes! Therefore, (most) sales is results-oriented.
Should you use non-approved parts in order to repair an aircraft in a more timely manner? NO!!! Therefore, aircraft maintenance is process-oriented.
Combat sports have processes, but those processes only exist to get better results. If something else can get you better results, you are free to throw the process out the window, and you get congratulated for innovating (or at least you should).
In other martial arts, they make you do the move in a specific way irrespective of whether it seems to be working. I promise you that those classes exist. I've taken them.
If you can discard the process in favor of results, it's results-oriented. If you can never, EVER discard the process, then it's process-oriented. Every martial art will have elements of each, but it will almost always definitively fall into one category or the other.
Interesting, in that framework where would you put judo?
That's an important nuance that makes the message of the video much better.
Sometimes process oriented instruction is a good way to learn principles that can be experimented with later to improve results. Or sometimes it's a way of controlling for variables. I do agree that the process isn't really a great acid test, but in its proper place it's a worthwhile tool even for martial arts.
I think some arts are pretty evenly split though so I still don't think that this is a useful way to divide martial arts. I think it's useful for gym culture though as you said. Take judo for example. In order to get my black belt, I need to do some competitions so that I get points. But I also have to be able to do kata and demonstrate all the techniques properly. So it's a mix of process and results oriented. Same with karate. I had to spar in competitions and at my dojo while also doing kata to get my black belt. I've also competed in kata and sparring in both judo and karate.
Thanks. Really clarifies the whole thing.
@@gam3rfr3ak13 Yeah, my experience is that it's a spectrum rather than two distinct categories, as well. To use my own experience as an example, let's take three arts I've trained: karate, kickboxing and Filipino Martial Arts. In karate, the focus was definitely on the process, it was very much process-oriented. In kickboxing, outside of the basics of learning how to punch safely, etc, it was results-oriented. FMA (at least in the style I train), on the other hand, lands somewhere in-between. I wouldn't say it's results-oriented, grading, etc. isn't about winning fights, but it also to some extent encourages innovation and modification - if something doesn't work for you, you're encouraged to modify it and do a variation that *does* work, and if you're doing something "wrong", but it works for you, then you're not really doing it wrong.
(I suppose you could say that it is process-oriented, but that the "process" is the understanding and application of principles rather than correct form. Though to show that you've understood and are able to apply the principles, you have to be able to actually show that you're able to use the principles against someone putting up some level of resistance, which is showing to results)
Wow this young man gives me hope for the future. He’s absolutely right; as a coach what I’ve seen even in combat sports a fighter’s style never looks like what you’ve shown them ten minutes ago. What he is describing is the difference between coaching and teaching. I teach children and new students and I coach the guys with no neck that moves as fast as Olympic sprinters because you can’t teach Beast Mode 😂 great video brother
A note on the crossover between process and results based learning.
My jiu jitsu coach teaches largely with positional sparring. For example, you'll be put in half guard, and be given a goal. "Pass" for the competitor on top, and "Sweep or submit" to the competitor on bottom. Once you've shown someone a few options to pass guard, they'll try them all, and learn all the permutations of what works in what scenario. This is called "environmental learning." You learn from information provided by your environment, rather than trying to repeat what a coach shows you.
Trying to copy a 9 step triangle choke is hard. It also falls apart the moment your opponent resists, because they interrupt you at step 2. Alternatively, you can drill trying to sweep or submit someone from your guard while they try to pass, for 5, 2 minute rounds. You learn what works for you much faster this way.
Getting every step of the triangle before they try to use it is not an effective way to learn it. Isolating the aspects of the technique entirely from all the wild, unpredictable, exhausting, intimidating variables is what Aikido does, and that is why it's so renowned for being ineffective.
There's a similar approach in Kick Boxing where you'll initially learn what a "good jab" is and drill it to develop balance and speed and make sure you're not neglecting your defence.
However, as soon as you have it down and it looks OK, they'll have you throw in feints, use it while moving and from different angles, tell you about the "up jab" or that you can use a power jab and "annoying" jab alternatively, or just leave it out there to block the vision or bring it only halfway back and double up on it.
You'll have a few set partner drills (holding pads for each other) to make sense of all the different possibilities and get the distance down, but then as soon as you're not falling all over the place and kind of get it, they make you spar a couple of rounds using only the jab and head movement/catching with the right.
It's in those little sparring drills that you pick up the most useful stuff and minute little details you'd never considered before (also learning how different people react and how your body type / style stacks up against different ones), and the coach is only there to give you pointers on strategy - circle out, work the body and the head, feint more, etc. All the while, you're also learning how to use it to set up other combinations, and a good coach will have you focus on the combos/tactics that fit your body type/athleticism/strong suits.
And this is all within a couple of months of a newbie walking through the door of the gym, whereas a traditional martial arts place would still be having the new guy throw the same punch to make it "perfect" and do a couple of set partner drills for "optimal application".
I was training at a judo dojo in Los Angeles - a fairly old school one, taught in a relatively traditional Japanese method compared with the more “modern” approach used by the dojo in my home state. A lot of strict collar-sleeve grip action, a lot of complaining about “weird” grips and techniques used in competition, etc. And I noticed that, unlike the judo school I train at in my home state, the head instructor would try to impose his style on us a lot more. Like, if I was doing something slightly unorthodox, I would hear him shout “USE THE STANDARD GRIP!!!” From all the way across the giant gym and somehow know he was talking to me. But I noticed that he never made those comments if someone’s unique strategy actually worked. Like, if I abandoned my traditional collar sleeve grip to get an unusual grip and got a throw, he wouldn’t complain. Only if I grabbed onto my opponent with a non-standard grip and just held onto it for fifteen seconds without getting a throw at all. My interpretation was that he was a teacher who highly valued the basics and structured curriculum of traditional judo and maybe was a bit stuck in his ways, but that on some level he recognizes that results matter more than sticking to a mold. That focusing on winning ultimately trumps being a slave to the process
At least you don't see to have hold anything against him. Good.
To be fair, as a beginner, you absolutely need a process based approach. If you are the strongest/baddest/heaviest/fastest guy in your gym, you can squash everybody based on your already existing attributes.
I think you do what work best for you. No need for generalisation. You may need a mix or both individually in different time of you training
@@Sashagatti96 I think he meant that, if there was someone in the gym who had super reflexes, peak form, and great fighting instincts… then they wouldn’t be easy to teach since their base strength is already so high.
But that’s only in terms of teaching I think.
Also, if you're teaching a large group of people (like in a typical commercial martial arts school), you need a process based approach simply because offering tailor made programs for each student would just take too much time and effort to be feasible.
this comment and all the replies to it are dead wrong. process oriented approach is simply a waste of students time.
@@raweriio3306 Good for you, André.
Av, just gotta say the teaching style of your videos is literally the BEST I've seen. As someone with ADD this really helps.
I offically award you a black belt in teaching ADD people like me
That explains why I find them so appealing despite disagreeing with his logic at times
I'm a 40 professor of communication in groups and organizations. I may assign this video to my students.
Good explanation! 100% proper form and technique often goes out the window when you're in fight-or-flight mode, and someone is repeatedly punching you in the head or threatening to stab you. Many martial arts teach you a false sense of security, because you've never actually tested these techniques under pressure, stress or resistance. Choose a results-based approach if you're learning martial arts for self-defense and competition, and a process-based approach for recreation and fitness.
I wonder if this idea of focusing on process could have it's roots in preparing for warfare. We think of martial arts as being individualistic in either fighting for self-defense or competition, but there is a context under which you need to operate as part of a larger organization
Exactly. If you're part of a shield wall or a phalanx or pike square you don't go off and do something stupid for glory.
That's your commander's job, and you do it as a unit.
I've had two BJJ coaches, one was very traditional and the other isn't. The first one corrected his son for demoing a technique differently than how Royce showed how to do it. The other shows three different variations of a triangle and says pick one or combine then shows you how he does it and explains why, then tells you to go play with it. I do triangles differently than him. He doesn't care. The first coach did care if we did something differently than the specific drill. He didn't like talking or for students to discuss the technique. You were to learn from him or approved people, and that depended on the day. The other couch (which is my current one is) has no problem with students discussing things, and helping each other. He encourages it. I've gotten in trouble at 2 different schools (which led to me getting kicked out) for going off script. Students would ask me questions and I'd answer and it wasn't always the "approved" answer. I started at his school and again, lower ranked students started asking me questions. Being gun shy, I went to talk to him about it. He said, you've been doing martial arts for almost 10 years and BJJ for almost 4 if you can't answer a white belts question than I've failed as an instructor and if you say something wrong I will correct it. If you're tapping people, he's happy.
This will forever be my choice in nomenclature when describing the goals of varying martial arts. I believe in being results oriented and I have no problem with varying processes, so long as they contribute to the efficient obtainment of the results. Thanks for this, it really is a great way to clarify the traditional vs mma debate.
I was so lucky with my taekwondo gym, the instructor there is training kickboxing as much as tkd and he teaches us proper tkd techniques but in sparring he loves when we land uppercuts and knee strikes when the distance gets tight, praising innovation. And constantly slapping our ears for lowering the guard in mid distance.
I train both, boxing teaches me how to fight effectively with my hands while tkd makes sure my legs also get a proper workout + improved my footwork in boxing immensely. Plus boxing alone becomes a bit boring over time, to the point where 2 months of kyokushin karate and their weird ways to punch were an amazing innovation, despite being highy ineffective in sparring
This video was super useful in explaining so many things that I've been mulling over with HEMA for a while. Like there's even a move in HEMA make it more process orientated when traditionally it's been more goal orientated (the goals being sword well and work out what the manuals are saying).
Also it helps explain why things like krav maga seem more like traditional martial arts than anything else.
I have studied HEMA a little, and what I greatly appreciate what I call the "Stab them in the head test," which states "If there is a time where I can stabbing my opponent in the head then I should be stabbing my opponent in the head." My HEMA School liked the roundel dagger, but I think it is a valuable test to apply to any combat system.
Right on the money again! You cleared the misunderstanding between martial arts & combat sports/self-defence with a straightforward analogy!
Since the 80's there has been this mistaken belief that martial arts are a way of self-defence until MMA became more & more mainstream when became clear that martial arts are exactly that, an art, another way of expression!
Self-defense has to be simple & effective.
Holy shit, dude, you never miss lmao. This explains a lot of my mindset changing from Karate to BJJ
A student from a process orientation got into a street fight and lost he was disappointed I informed him what he was being taught was not for self defense. You are absolutely correct in saying a performance base vs result
Love this. A major part of my day job is business process & systems analysis. You just fired up some serious synapses LOL I will probably see combat/martial arts training through this lense from now on.
~Moonlight Martial Artist😉
Great video, as someone who trains mma and japanese ju jistu, I've said before that if you have a goal of simply winning fights, go to combat sports, but If you're interested in history of techniques from a specific art and culture then have fun exploring the tradition, just be honest with your goals
Now all I can think about is whether or not a process focused art would be the right tool for teaching groups how to fight in a coordinated way.
Much of the military is very process focused, and this is one of the many reasons why.
This reminds me of “scrubs” in the gaming community.
A “scrub” is a player who judges skill according to their own artificial criteria rather than simply winning.
A good example is the Tekken player who spends hours on practice mode learning complex moves and combos, but then gets beaten by a guy who just does flying kicks over and over. The scrub player bitches and whines about this, how that’s “not what the game is about” and how he has “real” skill.
Exactly. Dudes have insane skill but lose a simple fight because they haven’t trained to fight
Nice work!! If our goal is to be a future leader, or if we are already a coach, instructor, or gym owner, then this method of critical analysis will help anyone in their decision-making abilities. Each day, workout, session, or whatever we need to ask ourselves, "How are we doing? Do we need to spar more? Train more? Cardio? Footwork? What am I missing? Where are we strongest? How do we improve?..." The answers will take us in either a process, or results-oriented direction. How do we know which direction to go? We don't, and so we start one way and see the result and then make adjustments, and then check the results, and after a hundred intuitive steps or so each day, creating a results-oriented process, as we log our progress and come back the next day and start all over again. Wash, result, repeat...
This is a very good video @armchairviolence and I hope you don't mind that i give my 2cents on that as a reaction🙌. Although I agree with almost everything you said (as a traditional m.a.) I think there are also a couple other perspectives I'd like to share.
Much respect for that one❤️
This is the simple and best answer I've seen to this question.
This is a really good way of differentiating the two approaches and it highlights something that often gets forgotten when the "TMA vs combat sports" discussion begins. There are no clear distinctions! Most martial arts involve both aspects. Muay Thai is result oriented, but has a very clear syllabus of techniques and even scores points for proper execution. So it is almost equally process and result oriented. Same goes for Judo, Boxing, BJJ, freestyle wrestling, etc. Process and result are clearly intertwined here. That's why the term "TMA" is stupid! Pretty much all martial arts are traditional to some degree.
kung fu uses boxing moves and grappling moves. So there is some overlap between combat sports and traditional arts. Your expected to fight in Combat sports (Boxing, Muay Thai, Kick boxing, BJJ, wrestling) while in TMA (Karate, kung-Fu, TKD, etc) your not expected to fight.
@@rcarfang2 interestingly all three examples you named have a lot of different competitions. Kung Fu has Sanda, Karate has point fighting, Kyokushin tournaments and different kinds of kickboxing and TKD has the Olympics. They all are/can be result oriented. TKD might be the best example that "result oriented" =/= effective.
Fair point, buuut: If a new guy joins a result oriented gym, you still need to show him how to punch (a process). And if the new guy is a really good athlete, he'll pick up the 'process oriented moves' really fast, faster than you, which is gonna sting cause you remember how much it took you to do the same.
There's a process to fighting, and yes, innovation is important, but if a student innovates by fighting with his hands behind his back and using just one leg because he's really really good with that right leg, then you do need to teach him the process of throwing a punch.
There's room for both mindsets in martial arts. The difference you seem to be making is spar/competition based martial arts vs no spar/competitions martial arts.
Every time I watch one of your videos I end up bringing a bunch of them...
I comment on your videos because I think you're doing really helpful work and I hear tell commenting helps your videos get seen more. Thanks man, already looking forward to the next one.
I wonder what your tier list of combat sports (unarmed), would look like. I really enjoy your content. More videos please. Thank you
I have been looking for a way to describe the difference between traditional and modern martial arts for a while and this video just gave me the response for this question.
This chanel is amazing, thank you for this.
Now I have to think of a reason to play this video during a work training event
This video is exactly why semantics matter.
Holy shit, YES. This is such a great exploration of this topic
Every time I see one of your little think pieces I’m blown away by how well you’re able to express these concepts. Seriously, just keep up the good work man 👏
Hey thank you for all the effort put into delivering such amazing videos
Wow, what a beautiful way to explain this age-old conundrum.
Glad you're posting videos again. I've missed you, bro. Hope you're doing well.
Thanks! Sorry, I'm struggling to hire people for my work, so I'm busier than I would like to be. :/
One of your best videos yet. Less of a rant and more of a well thought out and reasoned lecture. Thank you!
Boxing can be very "process oriented"! Depends on the coach
i thought i had seen every nerdy martial arts video on youtube but you really take it to a new level- you are a genius
I enjoy video essays like this, and your thoughts in many ways mirror my own. One thing that I would like to add is that cooperation and predictability are very important in Stage Combat.
Very interesting and insightful video, distinguishing better between the two main categories of martial arts.
What about martial arts like Judo that follows a process to learn how to rotate and move the other person (and as a matter of safety for the guy being thrown so they can fall properly) to get to a result-based system.
Belt promotions in Judo can be earned through competition.
If you want to innovate, show your results. Show your wins by being promoted.
Because there needs to be a baseline level of skill at each belt to get the wins necessary to get promoted.
Unlike BJJ where some schools might use competition to see progress, where others use a "did he show up enough" approach.
Depends on the art, depends on the school/academy.
Holly shit i just learned something.
Thank you very much.
This channel will help me alot
100% agree with what you said, very educational, very informational video
Empirical knowledge beats a priori knowledge. Great video.
YES. holy shit, every time I see one of your little think pieces I’m blown away by how well you’re able to express these concepts. Seriously, just keep up the good work man 👏
Brilliantly insightful and well articulated, as always. Thanks for another great video!
It all comes down to ones personal goals. I just want to learn something new, while keeping fit and have a good time, without getting hurt. So i've decided to go the traditional route.
thank you for clearly articulating why TMA don't know how to fight
I feel like BJJ and tradtional Muay Thai are somewhat processe oriented. You can lose a fight in thailand if you don't look muay thai enough. In bjj they partially care more about proper form then results.
Muay Thai has the best of both worlds. Is a combat sport/modern martial art with a lot of sparring and pressure test the practitioner in every class, also they have the gym culture of fighting/ competing. another modern martial art thing that Muay Thai has is that the competition is realistic and full contact so they try to be as efficient and effective as possible, using what work without losing time in useless things like kata of unrealistic techniques.
But Muay Thai compared to boxing or MMA, teaches you respect and discipline like TMA , Boxing is a circus full of trash talk and zero respect. But Muay Thai fighters are more respectful you can see them hugging each other after the fight and they never trash talk.
sometimes there really is only one way to do things. Also good technique in BJJ is really a must
Reading the comments,
I think many still didn't get the point.
Imo the point is LIMITED in sparring/ competition.
If you must fight using specific move, it's process oriented.
If not, it's result oriented.
Example:
Aikido(no sparring) is process oriented.
Aikido(with sparring) is result oriented.
MMA is result oriented.
Although Aikido with sparring is controversial subject since, some might review the sparring as . . useless/fake.
Am I right?
If something is stupid but works, it isn't stupid :)
9:27 : Someone can be a better athlete and better at sparring and still not be a better coach/teacher. There’s also plenty of room for arts that teach using both methods. Process oriented for learning each technique and results oriented when it’s time to spar.
Great stuff per usual; even when I don’t agree with you your take is always well thought out well reasoned.
This is why having sound epistemology is so needed in all areas of life
Consider this though --
There are times when you need to give yourself over to process even in a results-driven activity because you, as an individual, do not understand how best to achieve the desired result.
Your characterization of results-driven training as a room full of individuals just experimenting until they figure out how they fight best is not realistic for two reasons. First, human beings generally don't learn anything by teaching themselves from scratch -- how could society progress that way? Even the most creative innovators start from a base of institutional knowledge gleaned by observation or instruction and then adapt or expand on it. The reason you've joined a gym at all, the reason you've chosen an art to study is because you desire to acquire the knowledge of that institution, so you will (at least for a time) submit to their process. Even the most hard core MMA workout is going to include a modicum of process-based drilling because that's what sets the building blocks for the individual's personal style.
Secondly, there are some things in martial arts that are universal because they're rooted in human biomechanics. All the experimentation in the world cannot get me to see out of my ear or bend my knee in a different direction. Process-based learning often delivers results faster.
My point is that your argument only really works for students who have reached enough maturity in their art to make a decision (conscious or unconscious) about what direction they want to go after the fundamentals.
In total, I'd argue that the distinguishing criteria is not process vs results-orientation, but application vs cultivation -- am I doing what I'm doing to make myself fighter, happier, whatever or am I doing it to apply it in a fight (whether sport or self-defense).
You can have process vs experimentation in your mode of study with either goal.
Thank you this is something I’ve been trying to communicate to my students for years now. Something that’s really bothered me as of late is Karate Combat. The way that they try to blend “traditional” with “combat sports” just doesn’t work. When you’ve trained in traditional karate all your life and then try to bring it into a combat sports environment it leads to a lot of lead hook knockouts as they don’t keep their hands up. Fans of the promotion will always say that people just don’t understand karate and you’re supposed to do it with your hands down but that just goes directly against the evolution of a combat sport. Adaptation is essential when pressure tested
In self-defense, I think the advantage that process oriented martial arts have over results oriented arts is that process oriented arts give attention to ethics. In other words, what is socially or legally permissible. This is something I’ve been focusing on. Hence, my comments on @ramseydewey video on traditional martial arts and your video on scenario training.
Honestly, this is true for many different activities / pursuits in life. Great topic of discussion.
I consider myself an "armchair" martial artist. I'm someone who'd much rather discuss techniques, counters to said techniques and body bio mechanics over a coffee than to actually compete. In fact I am someone who dislikes competition in general. In this sense I kind of enjoy the more "process oriented" martial arts, but I am under no illusion that in a real fight I'd end up dead pretty quickly.
This is a great video cause yeah no one would consider wrestling a traditional martial art yet, I think it's literally older than any of the traditional martial arts still practiced and Karate is younger than both boxing and kickboxing.
Wrestling and Boxing are two of the oldest fighting arts.
Love your videos. Finally someone who talks like a scientist of the sport.
I have always considered 'traditional martial arts' as... exactly that. An art. An art that keeps the history of a culture alive. While some dojo's advertise it for self defense, those are moreso outliers. As the vast majority of dojos are established for cultural reasons. Ninjutsu for example. Keeping the art of the ninja alive.
I could not agree. I train in Kung Fu and Tai Chi from a very traditional school, and it was never about it being "practical" or "effecient". It is a place where I can express myself in an art that encourages me to be who I am, and be part of a culture and community that I deeply admire.
This reminded me of this Bruce Lee quote: "Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."
So true art can never be results oriented, since then those results you want to achieve are going to necessarily interfere with your true self expression. If you want to obtain a particular result, then that's a technique, a technology, but not art. Art is ment to be useless by definition, at least in a practical sense.
Depends. Some are more “alive” than others in terms of growing as an art and growing as self defense at the same time
@@rangodeldiablo which begs the difference how did ancient people really fight?
But neglecting the "Martial" part is bad. At the end of the day, combat effectiveness is important.
Really cool video and what a great skill for analysis! Now i see why big martial arts schools put people in uniforms... because it is not about individual success at all, but robotic following of rules. This video will be used to skip leg day because leg day is not an outcome, its a weakling process focus.
Wonderful explanation, thank you!
This is a great video and it definitely is an accurate representation of the way most observe “traditional” arts, but:
Truth be told: The processes inherent within “Traditional” arts is supposed to be beginner level drills solely for providing one who is new and doesn’t know, a template of how. Once one now understands and can achieve the result on a more consistent basis he is encouraged to lay all “form” by the wayside and focus on the outcome.
In other words:
•Beginner level = Form > Function
AND
•Intermediate and Advanced levels = Function > Form
Which falls in line with the results based arts such as “MMA.”
The problem lies in the fact that many who claim to be “MASTERS” don’t understand the true purpose of those “Process” oriented arts, so they are presented in the way that they have been presented for decades which lends to the belief that they are “ineffective.”
Not just combat sports. Even in tennis the process say to hit a forehand you have to step across with you left foot (for righties). Meanwhile not a single pro player does this and instead remains open for forehands. Backhands are different. Don't start me on "correct" grip for different shots. This is why Brad Gilbert called his style "winning ugly".
Your channel is pure gold. Thanks!
i do understand the distintion between procees and result oriented aproach and i agree that some traditional martial arts do have that kata for example... but there are also places and arts that use both, example, start with the blocks or punch, then practice it with a partner, or in the pads, then practice it on the form so its more natural then practice it in sparring and in between you can inovate and maeby suceed on it or fail on it.
so... i think mix is pby the best, yet i dont think traditional or combat sport is a full division in those two terms
Great video bud, well thought out and clearly communicated points, easy subscribe. keep up the good work👍🤝.
Man you have got this so right.
Yes and no. The major problem of competitive martial arts is the rules. When I started doing Judo, the problem was I was told (i) points are deducted if you're not aggressive (2) you're not allowed go strike or even fake a strike. Thus, in the dojo I was always losing. When I did actual 'stress testing' the black belts couldn't throw me and when they tired I could get them on the ground. So combat also has some 'process' oriented factors.
one key difference between martial artists and a fighter was exemplified when that fighter was challenging china's traditional martial arts masters to bouts and kicking their ass. when he challenges a wing chun guy, he trains against wing chun fighters to defend and counter wing chun attacks... when he challenges a tai chi guy, he trains against tai chi... but when the wing chun master was challenged, he only trained in wing chun with other wing chun fighters, same for the tai chi master.
I have done both Traditional Martial arts and Combat Sports. My taijiquan teacher taught me boxing moves. taijiquan is process oriented such as doing the best structured and coordinated front kick. Kravmaga is results oriented in throwing out a punch or kick with speed and power. The difference is that Taijiquan is focused on form and balance while Kravmaga is focused on beating people up. In Kravmaga , we do core exercises to increase strength and speed. Both my Taijiquan and my kravmaga teachers told me never get into a fight.
Both are good for different things I really appreciate Sumo for saying no to modernization and remain the same for I think a thousand years. Also some people don't want the results that badly do things like traditional martial arts are great for that. I do tai chi cause it's calming and BJJ and Muay Thai for results and I'll probably practice Tai chi long after I can't practice Muay Thai and BJJ because of the results oriented nature of them.
Yes and if you want to do a martial art primarily for your health or simply to have something fun or relaxing to do then you really can't go too terribly wrong with either category however if the martial art is a results orientated one then your training is probably going to be alot more psychically intense.But like I said neither are really that bad if your main priority doesn't really have to do fighting and perhaps has more to do with physical fitness or health.
Tai chi is definitely good because for all it's worth its good for your health and you can do it by your self especially if your not planning on actually trying to do alot of that stuff while fighting somebody or defending yourself.
This is gold
If we follow this analogy, TMA is like going to school and having to explain your answer, and combat sports are real life where you just use a calculator, which is not very far off from reality anyway
Fantastic content!
Is this why some people look really confused when I compliment them after they kick my ass, and why other people just immediately start teaching me how they beat me instead? lol
Well, I guess there are exceptions, and sometimes result-oriented guys can be a bit dogmatic and obsesss about the process, like the guy who insisted that you train with a GI despite you only doing it in an MMA context, or the garbage old-school self-defence moves BJJ guys will show, despite the fact that they've already taught you 7 better ways to deal with shit, only they didn't put it into that specific context.
You have a great video on palm strikes as well that shows the same dogmatic thinking in mostly result-oriented striking arts that flip straight into process-oriented when it comes to "self-defense". I think that it's simply a matter of ignorance/lack of experience with fighting and violence in general that gets people locked into the process-oriented mode in martial arts.
Not one martial art was originally created to be a "glorious process of self-improvement in and of itself with no aspirations towards violence", it's just that people later figured out that you can use that type of training regime to get other results - strong and healthy body, self-confidence, spiritual improvement, etc. Hell, even dancing got watered down into Zumba classes when people turned to it for "self-improvement" rather than to become a good dancer.
My issue with all this is that the process of learning how to become a competent fighter/dancer is a much more honest and fulfilling one that dissolve the strongest egoistic tendencies real quick and leads to profound physical, mental, and spiritual improvement a whole lot faster. You need to orient yourself to an end goal to have a point of reference and gauge progress, and THEN you can enjoy the process without obsessing over every minor detail.
Othervise, it's like looking at a master wood carver, admiring him for his strong forearms, incredible concentration, and the ability to relax for several hours consumed by his project, and then deciding to start whittling sticks down into nothing every day. Sure, after a few years, you'll have big forearms and sausage fingers, and you'll be able to shut your mind off and chill, but you would have gotten so much more if you actually practiced whittling figures and making something tangible. Not only because you'd have great art to show for it, but you'd be more creative, more confident, and feel accomplished, with further perfecting of skills to look forward to in the future.
well said sir
Getting an ethics lecture for free
Process-oriented is more of a learn the basics and get familiar with it.
Result-oriented is more of now you know the basics and is familiar with it, be creative and add your own style to it.
Hapkido turned out to be a bit hard for me personally, but when it comes trad arts I admire it’s balance between the art and the fighting. The higher up the black belts were, the more anything-goes their techniques got. The principles of the “art” were still there and didn’t get in the way of the fight
And the dojang I was at was really innovative; they canceled kicks that involved turning your back to the opponent, took influence from BJJ etc
What is needed is a synthesise. Refine the process throu results. And use results as a guideline for the prossess. In a way we need systems big systems that cover the whole of what is taught and small systems for drilling cues. To responed with Habitats of motion that are faster then thinking on your feet.
I love this distinction. Though the reason why traditional martial arts are labeled traditional comes down to the goal which is to preserve tradition. With that in mind, that tradition can be very selective and arbitrary.
As a software dev, I wish our field was as results-oriented as you think we are...
Also, I don't disagree with the point you're making about process-oriented vs. results-oriented being a valuable distinction, but I think the old terminology does have value. It's all in the name: martial *arts* vs combat *sports*. Arts are means of self-expression; sports are competitions. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create art with the movement of your body; it's just about what the practitioner wants to get out of their time spent. (This is the same difference that exists between freerunning and parkour: the former is focused on expression, the latter on efficiency.)
You have just described the gentrification of Jiu Jitsu.
I've been trying to become more process-oriented with my guitar practice, as I have a nasty habit of doing one exercise for a few days and then dropping it for months or years; however, I've been using the on-off approach for 14 years now, and have still become more than good enough at my instrument to perform, so it makes me wonder whether I really need to take up the more regimented approach? I've tried many times before, and it doesn't seem to work for me.
Any competition is bound by rules, so I think it's important to acquire the basic process. If your only goal is to beat the enemy, the most effective way is to quit the gym right now and use the money to buy a gun.
Without processatising results you can't pass on that knowledge easily. The problem with traditional martial arts aren't that they focus on process but that the process becomes unadapting. This is why sparring is necessary as it is the part where to turn what you learn from the process in to the results. Martial arts with out sparring is like an untested hypothesis. The process in which technique is taught is essentially the the factors to be tested, the rules of sparring is the method of controlling for variables. There are great athletes that can make bad technique work but most people aren't great athletes and what works for that athlete may not be useful at a large scale for average people, athletic or not. The exception is not the rule, the process is meant to be the rule and not the exception. Again though, the problem is when the process doesn't evolve with the testing or is never tested at all. I created my own martial art specifically because of the failure to evolve with the traditional styles I've learned. I have a set of forms where they from time to time are changed because the testing process shows that there is room to improve to ensure more reliable results.
All I know is when making IpMan Donny Yuen said he was shit scared of Mike Tyson as he knew one punch would kill him.
Awesome stuff as always. Wouldn't you say being process oriented sometimes is the first part of teaching someone to be results oriented, meaning you make sure someone gets every step of the triangle right before they try to implement it in rolling?
Because improvisation and experimentation is kinda reserved for people that know something
@@nickarnold1622 no you would be wrong
Being results oriented doesn't mean you don't practice the technique. Making sure to learn how to do every steps of the triangle right before sparring because you want to submit your opponent is still results oriented.
At least 2 of the main MMA styles are older than 'traditional' martial arts: boxing and wrestling are the oldest styles in existence and are Olympic games. Muay Thai is pretty old although Muay Boran is older. And you can use judo, karate and taekwondo in MMA but you need to mix them (hence the name MIXED martial arts).
We need more shattered egos - everywhere.
I'd (very weakly) argue that process is a part of results. Form should be informed by function, you should do a thing because it's a good way to do things. The fact that this often isn't how form is practiced does not change that
Skill is consistency. It might be possible that crazed, winging punches win, but all else being equal, do they win more, statistically, than someone who is fighting with good form?
Without thinking too hard, there are plenty of 'good' fighters who have bad form, but when we think of 'the best' fighters, do we not often describe them as putting on a 'masterclass' of technical abilities? They always have that skill on top of the athleticism, the fight IQ, and all the other stuff.
Taken from another perspective, if we take a person who is purely results focused like a street fighter - all they do is fight people to win, with no training other than this experience. We have oodles of video evidence showing that when these kinds of people go up against those who also include form in their training, they get picked apart. There are plenty of BJJ dojo challenges and boxing gym challenges showing this.
There's also the problem that training with process in mind is still in a way results-driven. This video makes it sound like 'to win' is the ultimate result to aim for, but when we think about things like BJJ, although 'to win' training does make up a significant part, there is also an equally significant part that is made up of 'to escape mount', 'to gain a dominant position.' These ultimately aim toward 'to win' as a result, but here's another example to throw a spanner in the works...
A karate dojo who don't spar or do any full contact competition might spend a lot of time aiming for the result of 'incredibly powerful punches.' The goal of a really powerful punch is 'to win.' So they're aiming for the same result as any combat sport practitioner, but will clearly perform worse in actual combat.
The argument then may be that, well, the combat sport athlete will train in a more alive manner in order to aim for the result of 'to win', but training in an alive manner is also a process that allows for escalation from static practicing, to pressure tested drills, to limited sparring, to full free sparring, to competition. So all in all I think it's a nice general way to talk about the topic, but it's hard to justify it overall because there's just too much overlap.
It's not actually that weak an argument if we look at arts like Judo.
Judo follows a process so that each practitioner can at least learn through the throw that they're learning how to rotate a person and move the other person.
With an additional point towards safety, so the guy being thrown has something predictable so they can fall properly.
Then the way they earn belts is through wins, they need to win enough to get promoted at each belt rank.
The process leads to the result in arts like Judo.
While I agree on this very useful distinction I still see the value of process oriented martial arts for innovation. Yes, you are more encouraged to innovate in result oriented training, you are also constricted by the results you are trying to achieve. If the context changes and the result becomes something else, like changing combat sport, you might need something you had not changed and thus you don't have as much adaptability. The process arts give you a different perspective where things can be taken from and honed into new ways of reaching your goals, if you do the pipeline.
It's more of a spectrum than a binary. A "process approach" is best when you're working with systems and machines. The results will be best when you do it the same way every time. But even in the best, strictest processes, there will be problems you have to solve, where a "results approach" comes in to solve it. I learned this at a dishwashing job. A "results approach" is best when working with people or anything else that is unpredictable, but there will always be certain things that remain the same. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find two fighters who hold their guard in the same way. Some prefer a high and tight guard, some keep it loser, some hold one arm out in front of the other, and there's the classic right arm tuck that the old-time bare knuckle boxers liked, but you'll never find someone who goes into a fight with no guard, arms hanging at his sides.
traditional martial arts such as Shotokan Karate and Taijiquan are focused on form, coordination, with structured technique. Traditional arts are also concerned with kata's, balance and straight posture. Combat sports like Kickboxing is focused on hitting the opponent while meaningfully defending yourselves from relation. For example, always have one hand up to guard your face when you punch or kick. My kravmaga class is kicking and punching as fast as possible. And in sparing, the focus is on defending your face and attacking the opponent with punches and kicks.
In the first place, many traditional dojos do not aim to produce world champions. their mission is to correctly pass on the techniques and concepts passed down by our predecessors to the next generation, learn to respect others through practice in the process, gain respectable friends, and grow a community that people can empathize with.I think the important thing is not to become a world champion in your weight class, but to have the courage to face an opponent, even if it's bigger than you, in that once-in-a-lifetime moment.
I'm totes late here, but, it seems to me that either approach has merits, and arts can be said to practice poorly when they process where they want results, look for results when they really need process, and french fry when they want to pizza.
E.g. I can watch Sylvie von Douglas-Ittu both fight for titles and train around those fights (a results orientation) and do shadowboxing with a mirror to better form, or work with a great through elements of their particular style and acquire a feel for them (a process orientation). To watch her talk about it, it's like she carries a training culture which uses either approach clearly, when it is clearly appropriate.
I think there's a caviat here that you haven't mentioned. Results oriented martial arts, aka competitive martial arts, have rules that are, by definition, process oriented, since they determine the correct and accepted way of achieving the wanted result. So even in a results oriented martial art, you have to adhere to a certain process, otherwise the result is deemed ilegitimate. For example, if I start using kicks in a boxing match, then I would get disqualified even if that strategy might be the best strategy, from a practical stand point, for achieving the result I want. So every results oriented martial art is also process oriented, specialy competitive martial arts. The only "martial art" that would be completely results oriented would be a street fight with literally no rules at all.