Regarding Criticism of Traditional Martial Arts, and "Soft Styles" In Particular.

I am constantly seeing people claiming that traditional martial arts do not train you for practical self defense, that none of them deal with the threat of multiple attackers, or that MMA/UFC type styles somehow better prepare you because of their heavier emphasis on ground fighting...

First of all, people need to try and remember that MOST martial arts "styles" were in fact born of things like warfare and revolution. Just because the way they are presented in most schools today is a watered-down, whitewashed, diminished representation of what it was doesn't warrant bashing the "styles" for being "unrealistic" because it is the teachers that make it so.

There are lots of styles out there with lots of aspects that are either under-publicized, or under-appreciated. More importantly, it isn't the style so much as how you train it. Most styles can be adapted to real world environments and reality based defensive situations just by approaching them in that way and practicing more reality-based scenarios.

As to the styles themselves; There is a little known kung fu style called Gǒuquán or "dog fist" based (as many kung fu styles are) on the observation of animal behaviors, in this case, dogs. Now, if you go you-tubing all you are going to find is Chinese acrobat performances, like you do for so many other animal styles. These are NOT performances of the actual fighting techniques. It is a problem of cultural context. In Chinese "kung fu" just means "advanced skill from born from diligent, devoted practice" so it is not always a fighting art. "Dog style kung fu" is not necessarily Gǒuquán, just like having "knife kung fu" could mean you are really good at slicing vegetables OR you are a good knife fighter. I bring this up because Gǒuquán is known for heavy emphasis on ground fighting, takedowns, and joint locks... much like BJJ... only this style was developed by a nun who was tired of being harassed, so the takedowns and "locks" are really designed and intended to destroy the opponent's limbs rather than bring them to submission as one would do in "the octagon". So, here we have a traditional martial art with focus both on ground fighting and practical self defense.

A traditional part of aikido is the "randori" which is an exercise involving multiple attackers coming in from all angles, with completely random attacks, while one person defends for as long as they can. Someone said to me, when I brought up randori, that the "attackers" only use one or two types of attacks, and are obliged to immediately throw themselves upon contact... all I can say, is that is NOT how it was taught to me, nor would I even remotely consider practicing/teaching in that way. Proper randori serves many functions- it teaches you to deal with the chaotic energy of combat. It teaches you to keep in the "flow" of combat. It teaches you awareness of space, and how to move your body in space, even without always being able to see or look at what's going on. I am not saying it is the absolute best in the business of preparing for real combat against multiple attackers, but that is the basic idea and function. So, yeah, traditional martial arts DO teach you to deal with multiple threats, at least some times.

Again, it isn't really even about the styles, but the approach to training. That said, I still managed to come up with two examples, off the top of my head, dealing with the common criticisms of "traditional martial arts" so, it is quite likely there are others which relate directly to the style itself, as these do.

Ultimately, it comes down to a lot of denigration and doubt regarding the things that are commonly called "soft style" martial arts, which happens to be primarily what I have trained in and what I teach. They are not "soft" because they are weak, or cause less harm, but rather the manner in which the energy flows and is transmitted. "Hard" styles meet force with force, "soft" styles redirect it. Boxing, muy thai, and tae kwon do would be common examples of what are typically classified as "hard" styles. Aikido, jujutsu, and taijiquan are classic examples of "soft" styles.

In truth, all styles use both principles to varying degrees. Fundamentally, "softness" is meant to deal with "hardness" and vice-verse. 

*Examples*

A subtle part of being able to take a punch is the ability to absorb the blow. Now, you can toughen your abs all you want, but a hard enough punch will still cause significant damage. However, you can learn to cave the body a bit and lift the heels so that the force goes through you rather than just taking it. That is the principle of softness at work, and even boxers can use this, and I know SPETZNAS used to train for this, so that says something for combat effectiveness.

As I have addressed before, people tend to assume "tai chi" has something to do with a mysterious (or imaginary) energy called "chi" (which actually means "breath/vitality") when, in fact, it is "taiji," a principle exemplified by the common "yin-yang" symbol which refers to balancing forces and extreme polarities. Taijiquan is probably considered the "softest" style ever conceived, yet, even this, uses hardness, quite often in fact. In the beautifully titled movement "parting the wild horse's mane" is an obvious element of hardness directly following softness, because this is really the fundamental nature of taijiquan- the exchange of energies between polar extremes. There are many variations of martial application of this movement, but, to give one example; let's say someone throws a right cross, this is a power punch from the away-side that throws the entire body into the strike by pivoting the rear foot and turning the torso with the punch. The first part of "parting the wild horse's mane" will receive this punch and pull the opponent off balance, utilizing all that momentum and force they are generating from the pivot. The second part of the movement will utilize that split second in which the opponent is off balance and their full force and body weight are being propelled forward to throw a fist, forearm, or elbow into the opponent while propelling them in the opposite direction. This back-to-forward and soft-to-hard type of application is quite typical of the combat applications of taijiquan. In case you didn't catch it, the grabbing and pulling off balance part is the "soft" half, while throwing the elbow into the ribs (or whatever you do) while reversing direction, that's "hardness."

Now, because so much of what goes on in "soft styles" is more felt than seen, SOME teachers will have more advanced students train with less advanced ones so that they can "comply" or go with the technique as it is MEANT to be performed so that the lower level student can get a feel for what should be happening.

Perhaps too many students decided they could be teachers before they learned any better, or perhaps the standards were lowered to make classes more "fun" and inclusive. I simply can't speak for the motives of others, but, for my part, I was trained with progressive resistance and randomness so as to develop more intuitive skill.

As I teach now, I have come to insist on more resistance early on, and we hardly ever practice "planned fights." When it comes time to teach techniques, I simply ask someone to "come at me" or "advance" and I deal with whatever they throw at me, then break it down and commence practice. I allow for innovation and modification too, but we always test and re-test the efficacy thereof.

Even in drills, like tui shou, it begins with simple, planned movements to get the student used to sensing the opponent. It won't do to practice even this basic step without properly directed intent, ie moving toward the student as you would if going for a choke or a punch, etc. What many do not realize, though, is that the real practice is completely random and progresses into application of locks and throws. It becomes less predictable and more combative, or at least it should.

If I learned in this way, and then progressed to teach it in an even LESS compliant fashion than my own teacher, I can't believe I am the only one who has gone this path.

In the end, I would think that making generalizations about what styles are and are not effective would be avoided by real martial artists, who would know that each teacher will teach in a different way and each student will use it in a different way, even if they learned from the same teacher. This happens because what is more effective for one may be less effective for another. Furthermore, teachers and students may have different goal for study and practice. Ultimately, it falls to the practitioner to seek the knowledge and skills they need, and to strive for efficacy in the aspects they value and which coincide with their training goals.

Basically what I am saying is this; work to progress your own art in whatever manners suits you, and stop judging other styles with which you have little or no experience. Martial arts are physical in nature, so if you want to be able to talk about it, you have to experience it first. If you go into something expecting it to be worthless nonsense, that is all you are going to get. Your mission isn't to learn, it is just to find enough "evidence" to support your preconceptions and prejudice. Those are easy to find regarding anything. If you approach dramatically different martial arts in earnest, however, you might just slip up and learn something that will make you a better, more well-rounded fighter, maybe even a more mature individual...