#99 - Silly Questions About Fighting
Like "Which martial art is the best?"
Hello, my friends,
This newsletter will be released on the morning of July 4th so here’s the obligatory “Go America! USA!! W00t!!!” *firework explodes*. We’ll be having our usual celebration by watching a parade at a nearby town and then spending the afternoon picnicking with family at a local park. It’s a relaxing way to spend the holiday, and then I’m back to work on Saturday.
In other news, I feel that I’m obligated to report that a couple of days ago Sophie called the number eight “two bellies”. They’re going to look at me weird when I order the two bellies on wheat at Subway.
I was listening to an interview with a marketing and communications person on Guy Kawasaki’s Remarkable People podcast earlier this week and was put off by how she kept saying that her networking activities and how she “created value” for people was not transactional, that she did it simply to help. But then at various points in the conversation she mentioned not doing it (which is to say, working for free or at a reduced rate) for everyone and when she did do it, it was to “learn an industry” or “make connections”, and that it was a long-term strategy. I don’t know about you, but exchanging labor in order to learn skills or process or get a foot in the door at a company, or for the possibility that someone might hook you up with a job or client connection at some point sounds exactly transactional to me. It may not be an immediate and direct trade, but it’s disingenuous to act like it’s not an investment that is expected to pay off at some point. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with transactional relationships in the business world, actually, that seems normal for that context. It’s just not as inviting to admit outright that “I’m helping you out now because I suspect you might be able to help me out later.” It would have been nice if this highly accomplished person was would have been more clear about that.
Silly Questions About Fighting
I like to tell people that I like fighting but I’m not very good at it. This is partially true; I haven’t been in a street fight since my teenage years and I’ve never been in a bar fight. That type of unsanctioned fighting is unwise for adults with responsibilities because the chance of serious injuries is too high (“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” fits here). Instead, I’ve been a fan and occasional practitioner of the sanctioned sport of fighting for a long while. During that time I’ve observed some questions that come up around this that seem to me to be nonsensical and/or unanswerable and yet they’re so alluring that they recur constantly (especially among influencers and other social media mavens). Apropos of nothing that’s happening in my life, I want to tackle some of them in this newsletter:
Which martial art is the best?
There are a few ways to look at this issue and some are even mildly satisfying. But to assuage your curiosity, the real answer is that it’s ludicrous to definitively choose the “best” martial art. Regardless, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) began over three decades ago with just this premise: Pit representatives of different martial arts against each other in a cage for low-rules matches — no weight divisions, just competition. There were kickboxers, grapplers, even a sumo wrestler, it was a spectacle not unlike the movie Bloodsport but with slightly less menacing villains. For a few years, Royce Gracie, a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) master was the tournament winner and people hailed BJJ, a style of fighting that focuses on taking opponents to the ground and forcing them to give up from painful arm/leg locks or chokes, as the best martial art. Later, other grapplers and then strikers (practitioners of martial arts that focus on kicks and punches, typically while standing) were champs the answer was no longer clear. Now, the sport is called mixed martial arts (MMA) and athletes wisely train in multiple martial arts to solidify their performance wherever the fight ends up and our answer remains null.
So the best martial art to become an MMA champion? Choose a grappling art (BJJ, wrestling, Sambo, etc.) and a striking art (kickboxing, Muay Thai, Karate), and reach a high level at both. Then be gifted, hard-working athlete who eats healthily, thrives in one-on-one competition, has a high level of intensity, and a giant dollop of luck. For regular people who just want to practice martial arts for fun? The best martial art is the one that’s most enjoyable to train:
If you like repetitive tactical precision, prefer standing, and don’t mind being punched in the face, choose a striking art like the ones above or Taekwondo, boxing, or some forms of Kung Fu.
If you prefer lots of close contact, prefer the ground, and are comfortable with physical pressure, choose a grappling art like the ones above or Judo.
If you need something that is less competitive, has a strong philosophical component, and rarely involves full-contact sparring, choose Aikido, tai chi, or Capoeira.
Another way to look at this is to consider which is the best martial art for self-defense, presumably when being attacked on the street or something. "Track & field!” the flippant part of me answers, because the best way to defend yourself is to avoid the situation entirely. But if you need to fight, then what? Pepper spray, probably. Okay, seriously:
Which martial art is the best for self-defense?
Look, becoming a high-level practitioner of any martial art where “pressure-testing”, or actually sparring with others at full-tilt, is helpful for self-defense. If I had to choose just one or two I’d say something like Krav Maga, which is purpose-built for defending yourself is probably a good bet. If not that, than kickboxing or Muay Thai (sometimes called Thai Boxing or the “art of eight limbs”) would be my next choices. Why not the grappling arts? Because, in my opinion, understanding how to maintain distance while delivering a quick series of punches or kicks to knock-out or disable an attacker is more valuable to keeping you safe and ending a confrontation than taking that person down and putting them in an arm-lock. But again, being very good at any full-contact martial art wouldn’t hurt (you).
But don’t most fights end up on the ground?
This is what proponents of grappling arts like BJJ say in order to bolster the perceived efficacy of that martial art in the real world. And while I happily practice BJJ and feel like it can be effective for self-defense (see above), I think this specific claim is dubious. Yes, I suspect that there’s a decent chance that most sanctioned MMA fights will go to the ground at some point, sports fighting is different from self-defense. In the real world, I guess an attacker could try to drag you down onto the street but it seems unlikely — concrete is hard for both fighters and there’s little space at bars or night clubs to go to the ground. Furthermore, even if you have the advantage, why would you want to take the fight to the ground? That just extends the fight. Disable your opponent as quickly as possible and get out of there!
BJJ is supposed to allow smaller fighters to best bigger opponents. Do size and strength really matter in fighting?
Do size and strength matter in fighting? Are you kidding? Of course they do! Why do you think fighting sports have gender and weight divisions? When everything else is equal (ie height/weight, level of health and fitness, environment), experience and proficiency in fighting technique plus luck usually determine the winner. But if two high-level fighters of very different sizes clash, the bigger one is obviously more likely to win. Likewise, strength and endurance (or level of fitness) play a large role in sports fighting. In self-defense, too, size makes a difference though the the range of outcomes might be more distributed outside of extreme differences. For instance, if you’re 5’1” 107 lbs being a champion Judoka may not help you against a 6’5’’ 265lb giant. If you’re small, you’d be best off bolstering your chances by carrying pepper spray (as jokingly mentioned above), a knife, etc. and knowing how to use them.
So what’s in the BJJ claim? Well, if you’re on the ground in a sports competition, a smaller high-level BJJ player could likely win against a much bigger slightly lower ranked opponent. Skill level being equal, however, size and strength would often, but not always, be a deciding factor depending on how large the difference between the opponents is. Again, that’s why there are gender/age/weight divisions in sports BJJ. But yeah, a small BJJ black belt could pretty easily beat an unskilled bodybuilder on YouTube even if it’s a result of the bodybuilder gassing out.
Finally, isn’t fighting uncivilized?
Yes? And yet I feel like sanctioned fighting is a way to bring a little of that primal animal experience into our otherwise staid Homo Sapien Sapien lives in a non-deadly way. Play fighting is standard among the animal kingdom and it has a purpose. Training in martial arts, to me, is very much a matter of play. But the game is more interesting and entertaining than Monopoly because there is a bit of risk and something at stake. There are other considerations when it comes to analyzing the full ethical details of sanctioned fighting and perhaps I’ll devote some time to them in another issue. In the meantime, if we do fight, let’s show good sportsmanship at all times. Both figuratively and practically, in and out of the ring.
'Two bellies' is very cute!