One of the most common questions that students and potential students have about martial arts training relates to the effectiveness of the martial art. To the new student, the question is typically phrased as: “Does this stuff really work?” To the advanced student, the question changes slightly: “Does this stuff really work against <insert situation here>?”

I understand very well what drives these questions. But I also think they are the wrong questions to ask. Let me explain.

First, let’s focus on the new or potential student. It is very understandable for anyone contemplating an investment of time and effort into a martial art to want to know they’re getting a good return on that investment. But the question, “Does this stuff really work?” is actually very ambiguous. Does it really work–where? On the street? In an MMA ring? On the field of battle? While each of these circumstances may have some overlapping characteristics, they are not the same. A better line of questioning, and one I recommend to anyone regardless of whether they’re thinking about joining the dojo or not, starts with: “Is this martial art based on a proven set of ideas and movements?” The next questions that follow, then, are “What are those ideas?” and “How were they proven?” Another great question is “What assumptions does this art make during training?” Keep in mind, there is no substitute for getting on the mat and training for a month or so to see if a martial art is right for you. But asking these questions can help new students understand the reasons for what they’re learning, and gives them the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about the martial art in question.

Now, let’s look at the advanced student. This student has already invested time and effort into their training. They no longer need convincing that the art is effective in a general sense. But they have also trained long enough to see the shortfalls of their art (and all arts have them). They start to wonder: “Would what I study work against someone who studied <insert another martial art here>?” This is especially true with the increased popularity of MMA. I have lost count of how many people–with years of training in their art–wonder if they could perform well in an MMA competition. This is roughly the equivalent of a sprinter wondering if they win a marathon. Sure, both a sprinter and marathon runner do similar activities, but they have very different goals, and look at their training in very different ways. The same is true when you compare one martial art with another. Those who train in MMA are looking at physical conflict in a way that is different from those who train in aikido. Making these comparisons does little to improve your training.

For the advanced student, a better way of thinking about these things is to look at another art and ask: “Why do they train that way? What assumptions do they make?” The answers from these questions can, in turn, deepen our understanding of our own art. For example, from my experience in Kung Fu and from my interactions with those who study Karate and Tae Kwon Do, I’ve learned that aikido is weak when it comes to training how to punch. (Note: that’s not the same as training how to DEAL with a punch.) The question I next asked was: “Why?” One possible answer is very simple: you can only train in so many things at any given time. In aikido, we prioritize timing and distance over strikes, and that’s worth remembering.

In short, the effectiveness of any martial art can and should be measured by looking at the assumptions, techniques, and training methodologies of that art. Looking at other arts can greatly help with validating those three areas, but I would avoid direct comparisons as they are highly inaccurate.