Traditional vs Combative Martial Arts

There’s been some recent talk online of ‘Combatives’ vs ‘Traditional Martial Arts;’ for those unfamiliar  with the terms or difference between, here is an over-simplified description: Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) focus more on the perfection of technique and attributes, while Combatives are more concerned with realism and contact.

(Yes, there will be a couple of folks yelling at me for that definition…but hey, I did forewarn that it was over-simplified…)

The issue comes in when people buy the hype of labels; by the above definition, I can take an unrealisitic technique built on un-natural movement, and simply focus on applying it at speed and with power….so now it falls under the ever-so-marketable ‘Combatives’ label.

Conversely, I can take some basic boxing punches and work them in front of a mirror, perfecting the angles and snap…and that’s it. Never hit a bag, or pads, or glove up and spar. Now, my boxing falls under the heading of a ‘Traditional Martial Art.’

So which is better, you ask?

Both, duh.

When I first began teaching, I was a reflection of my old-school roots: We’re gonna take one thing and perfect it, then add to it and perfect that, etc., rinse and repeat….and a few months down the road, we start actually hitting stuff. (Yay!)

Then, after spending some time in MMA-type training, I began teaching contact right out of the gate; let’s wrap the hands and begin hitting stuff and working reactions, we’ll polish and correct the bad habits as we go. And this approach developed some fighting ability more quickly than the first method; but not only was there a lack of technical expertise/quality, but there was also a distinct cap-off to the development of attributes (timing, distance, power, speed, perception, etc.). I took a short-cut, and I got shorted in the journey for it; I tried to build technique after intensity, and the two never merged. I was students muscling their way through blocks and punches, rather than letting technique, angles and structure do the work.

Nowadays, I’ve learned how to reconcile the two: I focus primarily on the development of technique (in the beginning), but I gradually begin breaking it up with contact and realism. So, we can take one technique and work one attribute (or the technical details), get that flowing nicely, then take that same technique to the bag, or the pads, or to the body with an intensity upgrade. With this approach, the student is learning to apply his/her technique against force and intent, while continuing to refine and polish their technical quality and attributes along the way with no glass ceiling.

The term ‘Traditional Martial Arts’ has had a stigma attached to it by the evolution of popular martial arts and marketing trends (some legitimate, some just awful) – but a lot of those I’ve heard slamming TMAs are promoting Brazilian JiuJitsu…which, when taught correctly, is *incredibly* technical and demanding in the perfection of said technique. Hmmm….

Moral of the story? Train smart, train both paths (but perfect your technique!), and pay no attention to the labels or trends.