# Fighting and Self Defence are two different things.



## Paul_D (Jan 16, 2016)

_“The techniques and tactics used to win a fight are far from an ideal fit when it comes to the physical side of self-protection.” _Iain Abernethy World Combat Association Chief International Coach​
The reason you are unable to understand the difference between fighting and self defence is understandable.  You have never experienced criminal violence.  If you are a young male the form of violence you are most likely to be a victim of is street fighting (consensual violence) and wanting to defend yourself from this leads you into the mistaken assumption that fighting is self defence.  If you are a martial artist and your experience of violence is consensual violence (combat sports) then this is the only violence you know of.  This makes it harder to view violence in any other form.

This then leads you to assume that fighting sills, and fighting arts (MMA in particular) hold the answers to self defence.  However ask yourself this, why do none of the world’s leading authorities on Self Defence recommend MMA as the answer for self defence?  Ask yourself further, why are the only people who think MMA is the answer to criminal voice, people who a) are worried about getting into drunken pub brawls/street fights b)do MMA and c) do not understand the difference between fighting and self defence?

When people who understand the difference attempts to explain, two things happen.  One, someone saying “This is not ideal for self defence” is taken as being “Combat sports are useless”.  Clearly this is not true, and yet this is exactly how it is taken, people come flying out of the woodwork to defend their beloved combat sports.  But saying something does not work in a different field is not an attack or an attempt to demean its inherent value.  I myself after all am a UFC fan, but the knowledge that it is not ideal for self defence does not mean that I think any less of it.  The second thing that happens is that you counter with “I know this works, I did it in the dojo/cage/ring”.  Again this error is understandable.  The problem is what works is dependent on the criteria being used to decide what works.

Kicking someone in the groin and running away works for self defence, but it does not work for combat sports as you will be disqualified for use of illegal strikes and for failing to engage with your opponent.  Conversely, triangle choke someone in the ring and you win, triangle choke someone in the street and his mates stomp your head flat. That fact that something works in the dojo/ring/cage does not mean it works in a live self defence situation.  The reverse is also true.  These techniques have not changed of course, but the criteria used to judge success has.

The success of a skill or techniques cannot be divorced from the criteria used to judge success.  It is not enough to say “this works” you have to say this works in the ring, but not in the street.  This works in the street but not in the ring, or this works in situation a, b or c (as applicable) when x, y or z (as applicable) are being used to judge its effectiveness.

Fighting takes place at fighting distance, in a fighting stance with your hands up in a guard.  Self Defence takes place at sucker distance, you will be attacked without warning, in fact criminal will use the three of the four  D’s (dialogue, distraction ,deception) to lull you into a false sense of security before using the last of the four D’s (Destruction).

_While “fighting skills” have some crossover value, physical self-protection is very different from “fighting”. It is faster, closer, more emotional and way more chaotic. The techniques and tactics used to win a fight are far from an ideal fit when it comes to the physical side of self-protection. - See more at: __http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/problems-street-fighting#sthash.DAlrcbHp.dpuf_

If you were fighting someone and they didn’t respond it would soon become boring.  You want that exchange of techniques, you want the back and forth, you want that test of skill.  When a self defence situation gets to the point where physical invention becomes necessary it is not a “fight” you are looking for.  You don’t want the other person to “get a go”.  There is no bobbing and weaving, no guards, no exchange of techniques, no exploratory jabs look for “holes in his game”, it will not look like a fight, it will not resemble sparring, it will have no similarity between the skilled exchanges of two trained martial artists.

There is also the misconception that “if it works against a skilled fighters” it will work against a criminal.  This shows a lack of understanding of the nature of criminal violence.  Whilst it is true that skilled fighters are better at fighting (consensual violence) than criminals, they are not better at criminal violence.  A criminal has no intention of fighting.  He wants what you have, and he will chose the easiest and safest way for him to get what he wants.  From The Little Black Book of Violence:- _Criminals, bullies and thugs do not want to fight – they want to win.  And they’re downright eager to cheat their way to victory because they don’t want to get hurt in the process._ 

He will not ask for your wallet and when you refuse get into a fighting stance and offer you a “square go” with you, with the winner getting your wallet.  He will ask you if you have a light, or the time, as your brain is temporarily engaged with the question, or whilst you are looking at your watch or getting a light, he will attack.  He will strike without warning and continue to do so until you are incapacitated.  At which point he will alleviate you of your possessions.  Your skills at sparring in the gym, or rolling at BJJ have no bearing here, he is not fighting, he is not engaging in a contest of skill.  He will not make any attempt to play your game on your terms.

In his book Dead or Alive: The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thompson writes “_The attacker may ask his victim a question and then initiate attack while the victim is thinking about the answer. This distraction also switches off any instinctive, spontaneous physical response the victim may have. A man with twenty years of physical training in a fighting art can be stripped of his ability by this simple ploy. I have witnessed many trained fighters, who are monsters in the controlled arena, get beaten by a guy with only an ounce of their physical ability.”
_
If you are sucker punched and taken out of the game before you realised you were even in it, your ability as a fighter counts for nothing.  Several highly skilled boxers and MMA fighters have been stabbed, killed, mugged, beaten and hospitalised by people with no “fighting” training or skill.  Conversely people with no fight training are able to protect themselves.  Being familiar with the rituals of violence (i.e. the process and methods used by those adept at criminal violence:-  muggers/sexual predators/etc) will allow you to spot the warning signs, and attack pre-emptively before fleeing.  Assuming a person’s self defence ability, or self defence techniques themselves, can only be judged by their ability to function when sparring or rolling in an MMA gym/ring/dojo is like judging a table tennis player on his success at Wimbledon.

In his book The Complete Urban Combatives, Lee Morrison writes _“The physical side of the equation is pretty simple:  just develop two or three effective strikes that can be executed hard and that work well.  Drill them until you reach a level of unconscious competence, which comes from practicing strikes for several thousand reps with visualisation and real intent on the impact equipment until they become a part of you.”_ 

Now ask yourself how successful would you be in the ring/cage/dojo if you only had two or three techniques?   Not very, and yet people with the experience all say the same thing, you need to develop a small arsenal of gross motor skills which will work under stress.   None of them suggest we should all sign up to our nearest MMA gym and spends years developing the huge range of techniques and skills necessary for success in MMA.


Distance
Fighting in the ring or street takes place at sparring/fighting distance.  Self defence takes place at a much closer “sucker punch” range.  The skills needed to bob and weave in and out of striking range as your opponent bobs and weaves looking for his own openings have no relevance to two people who are static and at arm’s length.  For self defence you need to develop the ability to explode, without telegraphing, from a normal everyday stance.  This skill has no place in the ring, but the fact that it has no place in the ring, does mean it has no value outside it.

Opponents
Combat sports usually take place between two opponents.  Self defence will often involve multiple attackers.  So whilst tying an opponent up in the cage and kneeing him will work in the cage, try it in the chip shop on a Friday night and his mates will be busy stabbing you.  Again, what “works” cannot be divorced form the criteria being used to judge success.

Training
In a combat sport your opponent will be trained/skilled in the art of fighting.  In self defence the criminal is not highly skilled or trained in martial arts.  He is however highly skilled and experienced at criminal violence.  He will not fight you, he will not play your game.  He will play you at his game in which you are not trained, and unless you are familiar with the rituals of violence you may not even realise you are being in the middle of the criminals “interview” process.

But what if your assailant happens to also be a highly skilled/trained boxer or mma fighter?  In self defence terms, nothing changes.  You need the non physical self defence skills to be aware that a situation has the potential to turn violent, and use your non physical skills to avoid it ending that way.  If a violent ending is unavoidable then your gameplan remains the same, you are not trying to engage in a consensual fight, you will attack pre-emptively continuing to strike until the treat is neutralised and then flee.

Weapons
There are no weapons in the ring or cage.  Criminals will utilise weapons

Objective
The object of a fight is to out score your opponent on the score card, or win by other means dictated to by the rules.  The object of self defence is to create the opportunity to escape.  Therefore training yourself to rush in for the finish once you have knocked your opponent to the floor is the exact opposite of what you should be doing for self defence.  Rushing in to “finish off” a downed criminal crosses the line between self defence and assault.  

In self defence your only objective is to create the opportunity to escape.

Starts
Fighting starts when the bell rings.  In self defence there is no pre agreed starting point for things getting physical, in fact a mugger, sexual predator, etc will do everything he can to disguise the fact he is about to attack.

Legality
Fighting in the street (engaging in consensual violence) is stupid, dangerous and illegal.  It leaves you open to the legal consequences that engaging in it bring.  Criminal convictions, loss of employment, the possibility of begun sued by your victim.  Self Defence is legal, whilst it is a common misconception that people are convicted for self defence, the reality is that they are convicted on the statement they gave the police, as they have no training in how to give a statement and fail to include key phrases into their statement.  You will not lose your job for defending yourself.

In conclusion; Fighting is not self defence.  If you are sparring/fighting in the street you are breaking the law.  The skills of fighting, whilst having some cross over value, are not the ideal solution to self defence.  The measure of self defence is not its ability to function under sparring, or in the ring/cage or dojo.  The skills needed for success in one area are not the skills needed for success in the other, and in fact many skills needed for success in fighting are the exact opposite of the skills need or self defence and vice versa.  

Finally and more importantly, if you want to get good at fighting, train for fighting.  If you want to get good at self defence, train for self defence.

For further information on the differences between fighting, martial arts, and self defence, and why the skills which will bring success in one will not by default bring success on the other I recommend you listen to the free audio book The Martial Map, by Iain Abernethy.

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2016)

He shoots, he scores. Nice one son.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 16, 2016)

Another key difference is that, in a sporting environment,  competitors regularly do something that nobody would suggest is generally wise in true self defense,  and may even change justifiable self defense into criminal assault:  they break, and re-engage.  A fighter gets the better of his opponent,  and knocks him down, he goes to a neutral corner, allows the opponent a chance to recover... then they do it again. In a self defense situation,  that's the time to make your escape.  In law enforcement use of force, it's the time to control and cuff. Re-engage a downed assailant, and you most likely become the assailant.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

So before we even start with the technical issues.



Paul_D said:


> The reason you are unable to understand the difference between fighting and self defence is understandable. You have never experienced criminal violence. If you are a young male the form of violence you are most likely to be a victim of is street fighting (consensual violence) and wanting to defend yourself from this leads you into the mistaken assumption that fighting is self defence. If you are a martial artist and your experience of violence is consensual violence (combat sports) then this is the only violence you know of. This makes it harder to view violence in any other form.



Sorry. There are plenty of martial artists who have experienced violence. If you are going to insult people on your first paragraph then you are going to have issues with the rest.

Street fighting is not always consensual to put a blanket description like that on the concept does not work.

One punch deaths (which are the big deal here at the moment are quit often not consensual and are instead a predatory attack.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

As for the last. Those lucky guys who have not experienced fighting outside a gym. This is a tricky one. Quite often they can be technically proficient but maybe less tactically proficient. And here it becomes this big grey area.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

jks9199 said:


> Another key difference is that, in a sporting environment,  competitors Regus do something that nobody would suggest is generally wise in true self defense,  and may even change justifiable self defense into criminal assault:  they break, and re-engage.  A fighter gets the better of his opponent,  and knocks him down, he goes to a neutral corner, allows the opponent a chance to recover... then they do it again. In a self defense situation,  that's the time to make your escape.  In law enforcement use of force, it's the time to control and cuff. Re-engage a downed assailant, and you most likely become the assailant.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



I don't think that has an effect one way or the other. As nobody will break after 3 minutes and have a minute off.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Distance
> Fighting in the ring or street takes place at sparring/fighting distance. Self defence takes place at a much closer “sucker punch” range. The skills needed to bob and weave in and out of striking range as your opponent bobs and weaves looking for his own openings have no relevance to two people who are static and at arm’s length. For self defence you need to develop the ability to explode, without telegraphing, from a normal everyday stance. This skill has no place in the ring, but the fact that it has no place in the ring, does mean it has no value outside it


Self defence tip. Don't sit in the pocket.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Kicking someone in the groin and running away works for self defence, but it does not work for combat sports as you will be disqualified for use of illegal strikes and for failing to engage with your opponent. Conversely, triangle choke someone in the ring and you win, triangle choke someone in the street and his mates stomp your head flat. That fact that something works in the dojo/ring/cage does not mean it works in a live self defence situation. The reverse is also true. These techniques have not changed of course, but the criteria used to judge success has.



OK. Here is an idea for this one. Kicking someone in the groin won't work if they are on top of you. In which case you may be better off trying for the triangle. 

Now I have mates. I could hold him down so they could stomp his head flat. (Why do S,Ders have no friends anyway)

The other important thing to realise here is you don't always do triangles. It is a tool in a tool box. So I may be concerned that the guy on top is punching my face off and need to address that before his friend come.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In his book The Complete Urban Combatives, Lee Morrison writes _“The physical side of the equation is pretty simple: just develop two or three effective strikes that can be executed hard and that work well. Drill them until you reach a level of unconscious competence, which comes from practicing strikes for several thousand reps with visualisation and real intent on the impact equipment until they become a part of you.”_
> 
> Now ask yourself how successful would you be in the ring/cage/dojo if you only had two or three techniques? Not very, and yet people with the experience all say the same thing, you need to develop a small arsenal of gross motor skills which will work under stress. None of them suggest we should all sign up to our nearest MMA gym and spends years developing the huge range of techniques and skills necessary for success in MMA.



How successful would you be if you drilled and used basics in the ufc?






Do you see a huge range for techniques?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> The reason you are unable to understand the difference between fighting and self defence is understandable.  You have never experienced criminal violence.



Is that so? Your basis for this is?


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

What is The same thing as self defense?  Is working as a cop the same as self defense?  I think many of the same arguments could apply here.  What about being a soldier?  Is that the same as self defense?   Is training in a self defense oriented school the same as self defense?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Is that so? Your basis for this is?



Dogma mostly.

 We just get told stuff about self defence. Whether any of it is actually the case is a different story.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dogma mostly.
> 
> We just get told stuff about self defence. Whether any of it is actually the case is a different story.


yeah kinda like well if I can fight in the safety of a gym im good on the street...


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> yeah kinda like well if I can fight in the safety of a gym im good on the street...



Also dogma. And of course not really true.  If i get attacked by an elephant in the street i am in trouble.

The issue there is you take a nuanced idea translate it into the dogmatic statement you are used to and then dissagree with it.

And if that black and white statement is wrong.  Then obviously the gym does not provide an advantage to people looking to defend themselves.

(and here it gets really epic)

If a gym does not provide an advantage  then anything that is not a gym must.  So therefore a self defence school is the better method for self defence.

One little mistake in the basic premise leads into a huge lie.

What people have missed here is the self defence school has not given any evidence as to why it is the better alternative it it could be more flawed than the sport method. At this point we just don't know.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Also dogma. And of course not really true.  If i get attacked by an elephant in the street i am in trouble.
> 
> The issue there is you take a nuanced idea translate it into the dogmatic statement you are used to and then dissagree with it.
> 
> ...


Cute and all but I never made any of those statements.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

jks9199 said:


> Another key difference is that, in a sporting environment,  competitors Regus do something that nobody would suggest is generally wise in true self defense,  and may even change justifiable self defense into criminal assault:  they break, and re-engage.  A fighter gets the better of his opponent,  and knocks him down, he goes to a neutral corner, allows the opponent a chance to recover... then they do it again. In a self defense situation,  that's the time to make your escape.  In law enforcement use of force, it's the time to control and cuff. Re-engage a downed assailant, and you most likely become the assailant.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



I really don't think anyone is going to knock someone down, and sit in a corner and wait for someone to recover. If they're in a situation where they just can't escape, they'll either choke them out or pop a joint in order to give them more time to escape.

I also find the comments about the Triangle Choke bizarre. We have documented cases of women using the triangle choke to save themselves from a rape attack. I've personally used it to save my hide in a self defense situation. So clearly its a technique with strong self defense applications.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> What is The same thing as self defense?


Nothing and no two instances of self defense ar ethe same. Im working tonight and could fail and die


> Is working as a cop the same as self defense?  I think many of the same arguments could apply here.  What about being a soldier?  Is that the same as self defense?


No a job doesnt = self defense. 


> Is training in a self defense oriented school the same as self defense?


No as I said many times training cant compare to real life. 
You seem focused on the physical aspect of self defense which is is a very small part of the equation.  Im speaking about the mental and moral  aspects that are far more important. 
People always talk about flight or fight but there is a 3 option I see often and it is  freeze in fear. 
No amount of training can prepare you for real violence.  I've seen people spend 4 years of their lives getting a Criminal Justice Degree, spend a year going through the applications, psychological tests, physical fitness test, polygraphs, back ground checks.  Then spend 7 months in the police academy getting all kinds of training. Only to then watch them quit 3 weeks after they graduate when for the first time in their lives someone tried to really hurt them.  Reality hits them and they cant do it.

Ive talked to victims of violent crimes asked why they didn't run or fight and they say they couldn't they froze.

Ive seen highly trained multi-year veteran officers freeze and not respond to "Shots fired officer down" calls

Its not the Job or training that matters its the life experience, for example this past weekend I chaperoned a Christian Youth rally 5000 teens from all over the area attended.  One of the guest speakers Grew up in a gang-infested neighborhood in LA.  He lost 2 brothers, 1 uncle, and 4 cousins to gang violence.  He had to defend himself every day of his life growing up.  He had zero training in any martial art.  I have no doubt on the street today he could survive.  Put him in a ring he would get destroyed by a trained fighter.  Why? because fighting and self defense are different.
Are there people that train MMA that have this mental aspects sure.  Can physical skills taught in an MMA gym work sure there are only so many ways to hit someone an MMA punch is the same as most other punches.
The physical portions of self-defense as I said any training is better than no training. 
The flaw for me happens when people say well if I can fight in a gym I can defend myself in real life....While it may be true on an individual level the gym or MMA have little to do with it

Now reality based self-defense programs do a better job then an MMA gym especially one focused more on winning matches but even Reality-based programs have safety precautions and students have a reasonable expectation they are not going to die if they mess up


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

Ballen, if you think I'm focused on the physical aspects of self defense I invite you to read one of my several posts on the subject, where I go into detail what I think self defense and the related training is.   If you can't find them, let me know and I'll provide a link.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 16, 2016)

Paul your spot on.
for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience.
i will never try to change the minds of people. its a fools errand.  all i can do is profess what i believe to be true, at that moment and teach to those that are willing. 
i like to say MMA is not real fighting. it is however, a real application of skills.  two dudes at a bar who get into a fight is not self defense. its a "monkey dance" of two willing idiots.  
the argument over what works is a matter of perception.  
_"the turtle in the well, will never know the vastness of the ocean"_
every ones life experience is different.  this experience will condition the vision and narrative in ones head on what real violence looks like.  people will never agree on what true violence is and what works under those conditions unless we all share the same vision and narrative.  
it is not MMA VS traditional, not techniques not training that determines success. , It is determined by what your internal narrative is and how that matches up with the circumstance you find yourself in at the moment that the SHTF.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> Ballen, if you think I'm focused on the physical aspects of self defense I invite you to read one of my several posts on the subject, where I go into detail what I think self defense and the related training is.   If you can't find them, let me know and I'll provide a link.


naa I'm good


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> Paul your spot on.
> for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience.
> i will never try to change the minds of people. its a fools errand.  all i can do is profess what i believe to be true, at that moment and teach to those that are willing.
> i like to say MMA is not real fighting. it is however, a real application of skills.  two dudes at a bar who get into a fight is not self defense. its a "monkey dance" of two willing idiots.
> ...


imdont think the issue here is what you think it is.   I think everyone on this forum understands that MMA is not self defense, or that fighting is not self defense.   It's the implication that other things are.  That training in RBSD is self defense.  Or that how yiu train is self defense.   It's not.  I hope you never have to learn how wrong you are to believe otherwise.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Cute and all but I never made any of those statements.



Nobody really makes the statement that if I can fight in the safety of the gym I will be OK in the street either.

That is your statement.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Nobody really makes the statement that if I can fight in the safety of the gym I will be OK in the street either.
> 
> That is your statement.


Sure they do Ive seen it here often.  "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street"  or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> Paul your spot on.
> for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience.
> i will never try to change the minds of people. its a fools errand.  all i can do is profess what i believe to be true, at that moment and teach to those that are willing.
> i like to say MMA is not real fighting. it is however, a real application of skills.  two dudes at a bar who get into a fight is not self defense. its a "monkey dance" of two willing idiots.
> ...



Mabye this will be my theme for the thread.

From a little presumption grows a lie.

"for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience."

Even though there are more news articles of sports fighters fighting muggers and rapists and robbers than anybody else. The presumption is that sports fighters have no direct experience with self defence.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Even though there are more news articles of sports fighters fighting muggers and rapists and robbers than anybody else. The presumption is that sports fighters have no direct experience with self defence.



More articles huh?  Well case closed.  Do you have any idea how many attempted robberies/ rapes etc. dont make the news where a common untrained person fights off an attacker?


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure they do Ive seen it here often.  "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street"  or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"



That's really two different sets of arguments.

The second argument;



> "if your style can't come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"



Is a fair conclusion to reach, because there's really no reason any style can't work in a MMA/NHB context.  If we can't reproduce results in a fair and balanced environment where the safety of both fighters are ensured, then people (rightfully) believe that something funny is going on.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> That's really two different sets of arguments.
> 
> The second argument;
> 
> ...


See I can always count on him


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> If we can't reproduce results in a fair and balanced environment where the safety of both fighters are ensured, then people (rightfully) believe that something funny is going on.


Self defense should never be fair.  If it is you already lost


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure they do Ive seen it here often.  "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street"  or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"



They are not the same statements. They are also not to be taken as dogmatically as you take them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They are also not to be taken as dogmatically as you take them.


LOL So how should they be taken


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Self defense should never be fair.  If it is you already lost



Scientific method should be tested objectively though. Otherwise it is conformation bias. Which is the bane of self defence trainers.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Self defense should never be fair.  If it is you already lost



I'm not talking about self defense. I'm talking about testing out the effectiveness of techniques in a safe manner. If we can't do that then we don't know if they're effective.

See Jigaro Kano and Judo.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Scientific method should be tested objectively though. Otherwise it is conformation bias. Which is the bane of self defence trainers.


You cant test "self defense" scientifically its impossible there are too many variables that can never be accounted for


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I'm not talking about self defense. I'm talking about testing out the effectiveness of techniques in a safe manner. If we can't do that then we don't know if they're effective.
> 
> See Jigaro Kano and Judo.


Sure we do when someone successfully uses the technique in the real world guess what it was effective


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure we do when someone successfully uses the technique in the real world guess what it was effective



How can someone successfully do the technique when they've never actually done it before?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> How can someone successfully do the technique when they've never actually done it before?


How can you do anything for the first time that's silly.   How can I drive a car if I've never driven before, How can I shoot a gun if Ive never done it before,


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2016)

Are you drinking?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> LOL So how should they be taken



There are no absolutes with self defence. If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.

There are methods that will lean towards greater success than others. These methods can be tested in an environment that has saftey features.

The reason for this is because to have a propper idea of what works we have to repeat these tests and come up with a trend. This is how Resisted training works. We call these ideas percentages.

So although this method is flawed it is the least flawed. And the best method to teach skills.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There are no absolutes with self defence.


True


> If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.


Enough with the elephant nonsense


> There are methods that will lean towards greater success than others. These methods can be tested in an environment that has saftey features.
> The reason for this is because to have a propper idea of what works


You have a proper idea what works with in the rules you set up


> we have to repeat these tests and come up with a trend. Resisted training. We call these ideas percentages.


There are other ways to do this that dont involve trying to win pretty trophies 


> So although this method is flawed it is the least flawed. And the best method to teach skills.


in your opinion


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> You cant test "self defense" scientifically its impossible there are too many variables that can never be accounted for



Nothing is proven until it has be tested an infinite amount of times.

Look while true. It is not practical. Otherwise you remove the variables people do that all the time.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> True
> 
> Enough with the elephant nonsense
> 
> ...



And see this is the last massive logic leap that I mentioned in my post about dogma.

By what merits do you support these other methods?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Nothing is proven until it has be tested an infinite amount of times.
> 
> Look while true. It is not practical. Otherwise you remove the variables people do that all the time.


So how do you test "self defense"  What are we defending against?  Since no two events are ever the same


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And see this is the last massive logic leap that I mentioned in my post about dogma.
> 
> By what merits do you support these other methods?


History,


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> So how do you test "self defense"  What are we defending against?  Since no two events are ever the same



Same way you test a car saftey. Flogg it into a wall under controlled conditions.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> History,



Whose history?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Same way you test a car saftey. Flogg it into a wall under controlled conditions.


What are we flogging? Cars are made a standard way all VW Jettas are made to be identical so its easy to test.  People not so much.  What I do effectively my wife cant, my dad cant, you cant, even I cant again every time since ever situation is different


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Enough with the elephant nonsense


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Whose history?


seriously?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> What are we flogging? Cars are made a standard way all VW Jettas are made to be identical so its easy to test.  People not so much.  What I do effectively my wife cant, my dad cant, you cant, even I cant again every time since ever situation is different



Did you miss the bit about trends and percentages?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


>


Yeah do you live in an area elephants roam free?   I sure dont


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> seriously?



Yeah. You could mean anything with that statement.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah do you live in an area elephants roam free?   I sure dont



No rules in a street fight. So therefore elephant could happen.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Did you miss the bit about trends and percentages?


trends of what. You can't have a trend on something that is never the same and will never happen that way again


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. You could mean anything with that statement.


No, History is pretty specific


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> trends of what. You can't have a trend on something that is never the same and will never happen that way again



It will if you repeat an experiment enough times.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It will if you repeat an experiment enough times.


Great but thats not real life


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> No, History is pretty specific



OK. The history of the martial art.(mabye what you are getting at?) Is not specific to the individual so my coach my be able to high percentage a move that I can't. I have to find what works for me. Testing is a more effective method than history.


----------



## O'Malley (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Self defence tip. Don't sit in the pocket.



People don't always have the luxury to control distance in SD situations.



drop bear said:


> (Why do S,Ders have no friends anyway)



Don't know about other countries but where I live you never attack someone without a) outnumbering the victim (who's ideally alone) or b) having a weapon that you can safely use to threaten/maim him/her. You never start on even ground, it's like "bullying 101".

I have done hard sparring (mainly Muay Thai), I have knocked out a man with a left hook, I've withstood hard hits and been knocked out myself, I've popped a guy's kneecap (unlucky inside kick) and I've broken someone's nose septum ("enthusiastic" hammerfist, though not during my time in MT) but none of these were done on purpose, I didn't mean to hurt those guys as we were sparring. Despite having some martial arts experience I'm worried about getting in an actual fight. So far I've been smart and lucky enough to avoid being caught up in trouble but I've witnessed numerous street fights and the reason I don't want to take part in those is that they are nothing like "hard sparring". When people clash in the streets, they want to hurt each other, they headbutt, knee your groin, use the environment or the hood of your jacket to their advantage, they have friends, and when one of the "fighters" is down the other and his pals start kicking and stomping him until their thirst for violence is satiated. I'm not even talking about the weapons and other crazy stuff (drugs...) that can turn the fight into a bloody mess.

Now I'm not saying that MMA is useless for self-defence (I'll take any good MMA coach over a bad SD instructor) but I'm really skeptical when I read some comments that seem to promote sports fighting as the best way to train for SD.

Maybe some of you have seen that video where pro MMA fighter Maiquel Falcao gets beaten up to a pulp (quite deservedly, in this case) by some thugs:






I'm no expert but we can see some differences with the way it would have unfolded in a ring: 

- the fight starts way closer than classic MMA distance (he should have watched drop bear's video), 
- the thugs have weapons (and for example fighters who only train for mano-a-mano fights might be at a disadvantage against strikes such as the one at 0:56)
- there are multiple attackers (that's why he gets nailed with the first hit and why he gets dropped in the end) yet he focuses on just one opponent
- his goal should be to get the f*** out of there unharmed but instead he's going for the KO, otherwise he would have run, with his conditioning he would have either shaken them off or put enough distance between them (especially the dude with the piece of wood) to deal with them one at a time (ever heard of the Horatii?  )
- the opponents' goal was not to "get the submission" or "get the KO" but to punish him for hitting the lady, which is showed by the means they used to "win" the fight and by the fact that they repeatedly soccer-kicked his head when he was down
- he was driven by competition spirit (and his inner jerk which fortunately has nothing to do with his MMA training) instead of survival instinct.

Now we're talking about a _professional _MMA fighter with a respectable fight record (possibly two, as his friend looked like he was trained too), who's supposed to have "tested his skills against full resistance", yet *none of his aggressors were neutralized*. The Pitbull wannabe that gets punched repeatedly seems fine when he exits the store, by contrast look at Falcao's state at the end of the encounter. That's pretty weird for someone who practices what "the best fighters tend to gravitate towards". Where was the almighty BJJ? Also, where were the dangerous hits that are prohibited in MMA but that "any MMA practicioner could do in a SD situation"? No groin kick, no eye gouge, not even a headbutt?

I'll conclude with a word about those prohibited moves (among which I'll lump hits to prohibited targets such as the groin, joints, throat, eyes, etc.). I've read some messages where those confusing sports fighting with self defense in which those people made two big false assumptions.

1) "If we want, we can do the prohibited moves too, the basics are the same, we just have to target the groin/throat/eyes/etc."

They assume that those particular moves require no skill (which is kind of insulting for those who actually train them) or that they require the exact same skills that can be acquired through MMA training. However, those prohibited hits are trained skills just like any other move you can think of and it's not wise to assume that you will be able to hit the targets you purposefully avoid in your training. It isn't logical to think that you need training to land an uppercut to the chin but that "yeah if I need to protect myself I'll just target the groin with my inside leg kick". Besides, to be most effective, some prohibited hits require a move that is so target-specific that it is not trained outside of this specific application (for example a backhand to the groin or a vertical kick with the upper shin to the groin). Those target-specific moves are designed to give you the best angle and timing to do damage to that particular target and they need to be trained. If these didn't matter, anyone reading a book about pressure points would instantly be able to apply everything about them in real life.

2) "Yeah but anyway if he targets my eyes I'll just block it or avoid it and c'mon everyone knows that you need to protect your groin"

This falls into the same category of assumptions as the ones made by strikers that say they don't have to worry about grappling. Although MMA fanboys like to ridicule the "I won't let him grab me" argument, when asked about shots to the groin/eyes/throat they say "I won't let him hit me there". Well, it can work if you have good instincts (and you're better than your opponent) but it's still pretty unsafe to think that you'll be able to defend against something you never encounter in your training. In a competition you can be surprised by a hit coming from an unusual angle, I think that _a fortiori _you can be caught off-guard by an unusual strike to a prohibited target (like someone clawing at your eyes). Moreover, one might say that you can develop bad habits that might leave "holes" for those prohibited moves since they are never used in competition (it's along the same lines as why grappling supposedly isn't suited for armed encounters or multiple opponents), even though I'll leave this point to someone who has better knowledge of MMA.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Great but thats not real life



It actually is real life. It just occurs in a controlled environment. But if I get my arm broken in training. It is really broken.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> OK. The history of the martial art.(mabye what you are getting at?) Is not specific to the individual so my coach my be able to high percentage a move that I can't. I have to find what works for me. Testing is a more effective method than history.


So just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean the technique won't work.  The question was how do we prove a technique works if we dont test it under controlled environment.  My answer was history.  The question wasn't how do we know if you personally can pull the technique off.  That's where class time and repetition come in.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It actually is real life. It just occurs in a controlled environment. But if I get my arm broken in training. It is really broken.


Ok so what is "self-defense" what are we testing?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

O'Malley said:


> This falls into the same category of assumptions as the ones made by strikers that say they don't have to worry about grappling. Although MMA fanboys like to ridicule the "I won't let him grab me" argument, when asked about shots to the groin/eyes/throat they say "I won't let him hit me there". Well, it can work if you have good instincts (and you're better than your opponent) but it's still pretty unsafe to think that you'll be able to defend against something you never encounter in your training. In a competition you can be surprised by a hit coming from an unusual angle, I think that _a fortiori _you can be caught off-guard by an unusual strike to a prohibited target (like someone clawing at your eyes). Moreover, one might say that you can develop bad habits that might leave "holes" for those prohibited moves since they are never used in competition (it's along the same lines as why grappling supposedly isn't suited for armed encounters or multiple opponents), even though I'll leave this point to someone who has better knowledge of MMA.



No. Wrong way of looking at it. If you can strike more effectively than the other guy. You have a better chance of delivering eye strikes and groin shots and resisting theirs than if you can't strike effectively.

So it is not the case of a fighter being immune to those shots. But more the idea that they re doing everything they can to prevent it anyway.

For example say I was deeply concerned about being eye pokes while trying to punch a guy. What exactly would I do differently?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so what is "self-defense" what are we testing?




Mechanics of fighting basically. Resisting violence on me and forcing it on the other guy.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Mechanics of fighting basically. Resisting violence on me and forcing it on the other guy.


Great how about you get a little more specific


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

O'Malley said:


> Now we're talking about a _professional _MMA fighter with a respectable fight record (possibly two, as his friend looked like he was trained too), who's supposed to have "tested his skills against full resistance", yet *none of his aggressors were neutralized*. The Pitbull wannabe that gets punched repeatedly seems fine when he exits the store, by contrast look at Falcao's state at the end of the encounter. That's pretty weird for someone who practices what "the best fighters tend to gravitate towards". Where was the almighty BJJ? Also, where were the dangerous hits that are prohibited in MMA but that "any MMA practicioner could do in a SD situation"? No groin kick, no eye gouge, not even a



So we re back to mma doesn't work against elephants

Some fights you loose. Nobody can fix that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Great how about you get a little more specific



Unlike your "history" comment?

OK. Say I want to know if a throw I have just learnt actually makes a guy fall over. I will find a guy and try to throw him to see how often it works vs how easy it is to defend.

Then I can make a hypothesis on whether it works on gravel or in shoes against knives multiple oponants or elephants. But at least I can start with the idea that I can actually pull that throw off.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> How can you do anything for the first time that's silly.   How can I drive a car if I've never driven before, How can I shoot a gun if Ive never done it before,



I didn't say "do it", I said "successfully doing the technique".

Yeah, I can do a takedown on someone, doesn't mean I'll be successful at pulling it off. That's when it helps to have practiced said takedown on someone resisting you as safely as possible because it reduces my chances of screwing up.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> So just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean the technique won't work.  The question was how do we prove a technique works if we dont test it under controlled environment.  My answer was history.  The question wasn't how do we know if you personally can pull the technique off.  That's where class time and repetition come in.



How far back in history would you go. For me if I haven't seen it work I will consider that it s a move that doesn't work. Remember high percentage low percentage? That move becomes low percentage.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Unlike your "history" comment?
> 
> OK. Say I want to know if a throw I have just learnt actually makes a guy fall over. I will find a guy and try to throw him to see how often it works vs how easy it is to defend.
> 
> Then I can make a hypothesis on whether it works on gravel or in shoes against knives multiple oponants or elephants. But at least I can start with the idea that I can actually pull that throw off.


Testing individual techniques isnt "self defense"


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> How far back in history would you go. For me if I haven't seen it work I will consider that it s a move that doesn't work. Remember high percentage low percentage? That move becomes low percentage.


If it worked it worked I don't care of it was yesterday or 1952.  Low percentages doesn't mean it wont work


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Testing individual techniques isnt "self defense"



Well it is as the parts make a whole.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> If it worked it worked I don't care of it was yesterday or 1952.  Low percentages doesn't mean it wont work



If you focus on more reliable techniques you will be able to resist an attack more effectively.

A move from 1952 may not be suitable. I won't know until I have tested it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say "do it", I said "successfully doing the technique".
> 
> Yeah, I can do a takedown on someone, doesn't mean I'll be successful at pulling it off. That's when it helps to have practiced said takedown on someone resisting you as safely as possible because it reduces my chances of screwing up.


And?  You don't know if you can "Successfully do a technique" in real life until you do it.  Doing it 1000 times in a safe controlled environment means little when the SHTF.  Perhaps you can and hopefully you do but nobody knows how they will react until it happens


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you focus on more reliable techniques you will be able to resist an attack more effectively.
> 
> A move from 1952 may not be suitable. I won't know until I have tested it.


And?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Well it is as the parts make a whole.


Except the technique is the smallest part of Self-defense


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> And?




There is no and.

Why would there be an and?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Except the technique is the smallest part of Self-defense



No. Good self defence is about good technique. Not just fighting. But everything. And you should subject all of it to testing if you can.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> And?  You don't know if you can "Successfully do a technique" in real life until you do it.  Doing it 1000 times in a safe controlled environment means little when the SHTF.  Perhaps you can and hopefully you do but nobody knows how they will react until it happens



But again, who has the higher chance of successfully pulling off the technique? Someone who has done it repeatedly against a variety of resisting opponents, or someone who hasn't?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> But again, who has the higher chance of successfully pulling off the technique? Someone who has done it repeatedly against a variety of resisting opponents, or someone who hasn't?


The one that doesn't freak out and freeze


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No. Good self defence is about good technique.


NO good self-defense is never needing to use a technique at all


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

. Just a little fun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2016)

I had a discussion about this recently. Physical training for SD is helpful (most of us likely agree), but is not everything. And there are advantages and disadvantages to training for competition. If someone is willing to put in the hard time (and inevitable injuries) for hard competition (things like boxing and MMA), they will be tougher and will have some useful tools. However, most of the value in that, IMO, is the toughness, and that can't be had in the amount of time most people are willing to train.

Now, let's move beyond the physical training. Awareness, recognizing anger and danger cues, and other principles are at least as important to SD. I actually had someone say to me recently (in response to me saying I avoid places where fights are likely), "I go where I want to go, and do what I want to do." This, to me, is quite the opposite of self-defense. This same person claimed that fully 99% (his actual number, which he refused to back down on) of attacks on the street come with "absolutely no warning - they are ambushes". In other words, this person - who pays no attention to whether fights are likely - is also completely ignorant of the cues. 

So, for schools and programs that teach "self-defense", we should be teaching all parts of it. Yes, the physical matters. (And I do believe a wide range of tools is useful, because not every attack will lend itself to those few strikes.) But we must go beyond that physical aspect if we claim to teach self-defense. Otherwise, change the marketing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> . Just a little fun.


BJJ Mafia showing up I see


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> The one that doesn't freak out and freeze


If someone hasn't practiced some tools, whether they freeze or not may be irrelevant. Add to that the fact that someone who has trained reactions to reasonably realistic attacks will have at least some habitual action to fall back on, and they get an edge. I can't quantify the edge, but it is there, and I'll take what I can get.

Mind you, this applies in other ways, as well. Someone with no training at being punched (at) may not recognize a punch as quickly. This doesn't, by the way, give any clear advantage to either MMA/boxing competitors nor to SD school students. The former probably actually see more punches (and many disguised), but they come from an undisguised fighting stance. The SD folks probably see fewer punches, but (if they are training this way) will see some that were disguised from many non-threatening stances and postures. Each has its advantages.

By the way, there is some evidence (not conclusive, that I've seen) that visualization can help prevent freezing. We can't simulate the full violence of a real attack - it's just not safe. But in our minds, we can create horrific attacks, and have ourselves respond. Curiously, sports studies have shown fairly conclusively that the subconscious mind reacts to (and learns from) these imagined experiences almost exactly like they were real. This offers the real probability that using visualization can make us less "inexperienced" in reacting to violent attacks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is no and.
> 
> Why would there be an and?


There was and  because you are making a point that has nothing to do with the topic.Nowhere did I say you shouldnt practice and test things


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> BJJ Mafia showing up I see


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> But again, who has the higher chance of successfully pulling off the technique? Someone who has done it repeatedly against a variety of resisting opponents, or someone who hasn't?


By the way, let's be clear what realistic resistance is, too. I have a student who spent a lot of time sparring. I'm having to train away some of his "resistance" in order to get realistic attacks out of him. When he gives a bear hug grab, for instance (which should be to tackle or to grab and slam), he gives it with his legs together to protect his groin. This negates the attack, and is both useless and unrealistic. Similarly, when he grabs someone, he goes stiff, to offer "resistance", but the stiffness is completely static. He's not really attacking, he's grabbing and going into rigor mortis. Real resistance should have an attacker's intent. Attackers don't grab to hold your wrist. They grab to pull you by it, keep it clear while they punch you, or to hold you in place by it. They don't really give a damn about the wrist, so a stiffened arm grabbing a wrist isn't a realistic attack - it's just someone resisting the specific technique they know is coming.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Steve said:


>


Yes you are Im aware


----------



## Buka (Jan 16, 2016)

Five pages of barking in nine hours. And in those nine hours how many here have had to defend themselves? How many here have had to defend themselves in nine months? Hell, how many here have had to defend themselves in the last nine years? And nine years is a long, long time. And do spare us the war stories, please.

As to the OP, honorable intentions aside, discussion agenda might hint at the obvious. All encounters of self defense are different, as are all crimes, as are all monkey dances. Similar, yes, at times, but different nonetheless. As are all competitive matches, as are all sparring sessions, as are are all drunken incidents with relatives or friends, as are all road rage crap, all dirty looks, as are all misunderstandings that go a little to far.

As are all incidents related to occupation. Police work, bouncer, security, soldier, bodyguard, contractor etc. As dangerous and difficult as they may be there is a professional, social and legal difference to what is happening compared to whatever we define as self defense depending on our mood. 

Fighting and self defense are two different things. You know, maybe they are, but, I like my chances. I really do. I'll bet you like yours, too. And I'll bet you're right.

You know why? Because we all train.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2016)

Buka said:


> Five pages of barking in nine hours.


Well thats kinda the point of a forum but I wouldnt consider this thread barking.  Other than 1 troll showing up with his "Joke" its been going along fine


> And in those nine hours how many here have had to defend themselves?


Umm I had to yell an a guy who couldnt understand why I wouldnt allow him to drive between two firetrucks and 1 ambo because he lives that way.  Sorry this bad accident with a pregnant woman is putting a damper on your day.  Does that count?


> How many here have had to defend themselves in nine months? Hell, how many here have had to defend themselves in the last nine years? And nine years is a long, long time. And do spare us the war stories, please.


Yes to both


> As to the OP, honorable intentions aside, discussion agenda might hint at the obvious. All encounters of self defense are different, as are all crimes, as are all monkey dances. Similar, yes, at times, but different nonetheless. As are all competitive matches, as are all sparring sessions, as are are all drunken incidents with relatives or friends, as are all road rage crap, all dirty looks, as are all misunderstandings that go a little to far.


Yeah thats been stated a few times now


> As are all incidents related to occupation. Police work, bouncer, security, soldier, bodyguard, contractor etc. As dangerous and difficult as they may be there is a professional, social and legal difference to what is happening compared to whatever we define as self defense depending on our mood.


True as well


> Fighting and self defense are two different things. You know, maybe they are, but, I like my chances. I really do. I'll bet you like yours, too. And I'll bet you're right.
> 
> You know why? Because we all train.


Sure


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> By the way, let's be clear what realistic resistance is, too. I have a student who spent a lot of time sparring. I'm having to train away some of his "resistance" in order to get realistic attacks out of him. When he gives a bear hug grab, for instance (which should be to tackle or to grab and slam), he gives it with his legs together to protect his groin. This negates the attack, and is both useless and unrealistic. Similarly, when he grabs someone, he goes stiff, to offer "resistance", but the stiffness is completely static. He's not really attacking, he's grabbing and going into rigor mortis. Real resistance should have an attacker's intent. Attackers don't grab to hold your wrist. They grab to pull you by it, keep it clear while they punch you, or to hold you in place by it. They don't really give a damn about the wrist, so a stiffened arm grabbing a wrist isn't a realistic attack - it's just someone resisting the specific technique they know is coming.



Yeah, which is why I said that competition is the closest you're going to get to actually testing the effectiveness of your style outside of engaging in constant street fights that put your life in danger.

It should be noted that there are different levels of competition as well; Competitions with a heavy rule set like point fighting, Bjj or Judo competitions, all the way up to NHB tournaments where two or more guys are slugging it out with no gloves and 1or 2 rules.

It should be noted that regardless of rule set, the same set of styles tend to dominate that format.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> It should be noted that regardless of rule set, the same set of styles tend to dominate that format.


Yeah the ones the rules were designed for


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah the ones the rules were designed for



And how exactly would the rules inhibit certain styles but not others?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> And how exactly would the rules inhibit certain styles but not others?


Ok take a boxer and BJJ.  Put them in a ring with boxing rules and the boxer wins 9 out of 10,  Same two in a BJJ tournament boxer looses.  Judo vs MMA Use Judo rules Judo wins, Use MMA rules MMA wins.
Pretty simple concept really


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok take a boxer and BJJ.  Put them in a ring with boxing rules and the boxer wins 9 out of 10,  Same two in a BJJ tournament boxer looses.  Judo vs MMA Use Judo rules Judo wins, Use MMA rules MMA wins.
> Pretty simple concept really



Obviously boxing rules would favor boxing and Bjj rules would favor Bjj, but MMA rules don't favor any particular style, hence why its called MMA, because its a mix of various martial arts. There isn't a particular "MMA style". There are certain styles that (almost) every fighter trains in. Nothing should prohibit a Praying Mantis practitioner from becoming a MMA fighter.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> How can someone successfully do the technique when they've never actually done it before?


That's what all that training is for.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Nothing is proven until it has be tested an infinite amount of times.


Nothing is proven ever, unless it is a mathematical proof or a legal proof.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Same way you test a car saftey. Flogg it into a wall under controlled conditions.


But once you test that car in that fashion you can never drive it again, you have to drive a new car that is the same make and model and just hope that it does not have some flaw that the one you tested doesn't have.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Nothing is proven ever, unless it is a mathematical proof or a legal proof.



I would say that after the first UFC, grappling was *proven* to be a pretty important range of fighting that shouldn't be neglected.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So we re back to mma doesn't work against elephants


Funny, I didn't see any elephants in that video. Maybe you are seeing pink ones?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I would say that after the first UFC, grappling was *proven* to be a pretty important range of fighting that shouldn't be neglected.


Proof is for lawyers, mathematicians and makers of alcohol.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> And how exactly would the rules inhibit certain styles but not others?


The ones who have rules similar to the rules of MMA do better in MMA because they don't have as much to adapt.  A kickboxer for example will have rules in his own style that prohibit downward elbows to the back of the head, kicking a downed opponent in the head, striking to the throat etc and the same rules will apply to MMA. A martial art style that does not have those restrictions will have to adapt more to the MMA ruleset.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> but MMA rules don't favor any particular style,.


Sure they do thats why a pure boxer or Wrestler wouldnt do well his rules are too different then MMA rules


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> The ones who have rules similar to the rules of MMA do better in MMA because they don't have as much to adapt.  A kickboxer for example will have rules in his own style that prohibit downward elbows to the back of the head, kicking a downed opponent in the head, striking to the throat etc and the same rules will apply to MMA. A martial art style that does not have those restrictions will have to adapt more to the MMA ruleset.



You do know that there are MMA promotions out there that permit all of that right? The exact same styles that dominate more restricted MMA dominate those promotions as well. Downward strikes to the head, throat strikes, groin shots, head stomping, soccer kicks, etc. don't change the outcome.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure they do thats why a pure boxer or Wrestler wouldnt do well his rules are too different then MMA rules



Pure wrestlers and grapplers did just fine in early (read: less rules) MMA. What happened was that people coming from primarily striking styles learned how to grapple themselves, or at least counter grapple and starting beating pure grapplers. 

Btw, using this argument we should be seeing prominent fighters coming out of the more "complete" classical styles that incorporate striking and grappling. However, that's never happened. Instead we have fighters coming from specialized styles who cross train to fill gaps.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Pure wrestlers and grapplers did just fine in early (read: less rules) MMA.


So did pure strikers doesnt mean a whole hill of beans


> What happened was that people coming from primarily striking styles learned how to grapple themselves, or at least counter grapple and starting beating pure grapplers.


Right and pure grapplers learned striking


> Btw, using this argument we should be seeing prominent fighters coming out of the more "complete" classical styles that incorporate striking and grappling. However, that's never happened. Instead we have fighters coming from specialized styles who cross train to fill gaps.


Except complete classical styles don't fit with in the rules.  If I have to leave out 40% of my style to make it fit the rules well its no longer that style anymore.so why bother?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> By the way, let's be clear what realistic resistance is, too. I have a student who spent a lot of time sparring. I'm having to train away some of his "resistance" in order to get realistic attacks out of him. When he gives a bear hug grab, for instance (which should be to tackle or to grab and slam), he gives it with his legs together to protect his groin. This negates the attack, and is both useless and unrealistic. Similarly, when he grabs someone, he goes stiff, to offer "resistance", but the stiffness is completely static. He's not really attacking, he's grabbing and going into rigor mortis. Real resistance should have an attacker's intent. Attackers don't grab to hold your wrist. They grab to pull you by it, keep it clear while they punch you, or to hold you in place by it. They don't really give a damn about the wrist, so a stiffened arm grabbing a wrist isn't a realistic attack - it's just someone resisting the specific technique they know is coming.



Gotta hate when they don't attack you right.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> There was and  because you are making a point that has nothing to do with the topic.Nowhere did I say you shouldnt practice and test things



Your whole stance as been that you can't practice or test things due to the methods not being real life or death situations.

Or mabye the only way to practice or test is to engage in life threatening situations?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure they do thats why a pure boxer or Wrestler wouldnt do well his rules are too different then MMA rules



Rio hero's is probably as loose a ruleset as they come. Do you think you would perform better in that sort of environment?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Your whole stance as been that you can't practice or test things due to the methods not being real life or death situations.
> 
> Or mabye the only way to practice or test is to engage in life threatening situations?


No my whole stance has been just because you test things in a controlled environment doesn't mean it will work in real life t


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Rio hero's is probably as loose a ruleset as they come. Do you think you would perform better in that sort of environment?


Do I think I would perform better?  No I have no desire to perform at all anywhere


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> No my whole stance has been just because you test things in a controlled environment doesn't mean it will work in real life t



Then why practice or test things?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Then why practice or test things?


Because its fun and hopefully it works


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Do I think I would perform better?  No I have no desire to perform at all anywhere



Are you suggesting that the reason some fighting systems are held back from performing well in competition is because they are reliant on techniques that are generally banned?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Because its fun and hopefully it works



And by hopefully. What do you mean?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Are you suggesting that the reason some fighting systems are held back from performing well in competition is because they are reliant on techniques that are generally banned?


Reliant no but if I train in system "XYZ" and if your rules say X is illegal well its not really my style anymore so what the point?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And by hopefully. What do you mean?


Its Pretty clear Im not sure how your confused


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Reliant no but if I train in system "XYZ" and if your rules say X is illegal well its not really my style anymore so what the point?



You style hinges on one technique?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Its Pretty clear Im not sure how your confused



You are talking about percentages.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You are talking about percentages.


No,


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You style hinges on one technique?


Nope


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> No,



Yes you were very clear about this. You are making this point I made earlier.

"There are no absolutes with self defence. If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.

There are methods that will lean towards greater success than others. These methods can be tested in an environment that has saftey features.

The reason for this is because to have a propper idea of what works we have to repeat these tests and come up with a trend. This is how Resisted training works. We call these ideas percentages.

So although this method is flawed it is the least flawed. And the best method to teach skills."


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope




Then you should really be able to make do with some approximation shouldn't you?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

But if you want to talk % nothing works 100% of the time so you do a technique and hope it works


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Then you should really be able to make do with some approximation shouldn't you?


Why?  Its not my style anymore.at that point its a watered down version


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes you were very clear about this. You are making this point I made earlier.
> 
> "There are no absolutes with self defence. If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.
> 
> ...


And at the end of the day no amount of training will guarantee success so your just hoping it works


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Why?  Its not my style anymore.at that point its a watered down version



Train hard fight easy. If you can win with the watered down version. Imagine what you can do at full strength.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Train hard fight easy. If you can win with the watered down version. Imagine what you can do at full strength.


You can train hard without entering competitions


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> So did pure strikers doesnt mean a whole hill of beans



Pure strikers never did well until they learned how to escape the takedown  and neutralize grappling.  It wasn't the rules that held them back, it was the nature of grappling that gave it an advantage. What was that nature? The fact that grapplers can train at a harder pace than strikers with less fear of injury.



> Except complete classical styles don't fit with in the rules.  If I have to leave out 40% of my style to make it fit the rules well its no longer that style anymore.so why bother?



What MMA rules would force you to leave out 40% of your style? Feel free to use the rule set from outfits like Rio Heroes where the only rules are no biting or eye gouging.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, which is why I said that competition is the closest you're going to get to actually testing the effectiveness of your style outside of engaging in constant street fights that put your life in danger.
> 
> It should be noted that there are different levels of competition as well; Competitions with a heavy rule set like point fighting, Bjj or Judo competitions, all the way up to NHB tournaments where two or more guys are slugging it out with no gloves and 1or 2 rules.
> 
> It should be noted that regardless of rule set, the same set of styles tend to dominate that format.



I agree that there is some validity to this. However, the primary issue I have with competition is that it's among people who TRAIN for competition. I'm not talking about the skill set, but about the amount of training. The people I'd face in competition will often be folks who train A LOT for those events, because they want to beat the guy who trains one hour less than them. That's unrelated/uncorrellated to the common attacks on the street. 
Someone mentioned in another thread (currently locked) that everyone has access to martial arts info (Youtube, etc.), but access is not the same as training. The common attack will come from one of two sources: someone who is out of control (drunk and/or angry beyond the point of emotional hijacking) or someone who is there to take you down on a calculated attack with no warning (probably someone who wants something you have, and doesn't like the odds of a fight).

So, if you put me - a fit 45-year-old with bad knees and a gimpy toe - into the ring/octagon with someone who's in prime physical condition, I will probably lose if he has any reasonable training. Part of this is simply that he can take more punishment than I, and has options I don't (pushing hard off the balls of the feet from the ground, deep squatting, etc. are simply impossible for me), and that some of the things I'd do facing that attacker in the street simply aren't going to come out of me in a competition. I won't take knees out to test my skills (some will in competition, I won't), and I obviously won't punch to the throat or poke eyes.

Now, give me someone in similar physical condition, and then we're in business. But then, he's not competing, either. Yes, competition is useful. Maybe even the best test we have available. But competition becomes a young man's (relatively speaking) game in the end. And those competitions fall back on techniques that work against similarly well-conditioned people AND which provide the fewest openings for that same training.

I miss competing, and still spar some to get what I can of it. And I practice with resisting partners. I do what I can to test my techniques and skills, but I won't be entering any MMA competitions. I'm past that ability in my life.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Pure strikers never did well until they learned how to escape the takedown  and neutralize grappling.  It wasn't the rules that held them back, it was the nature of grappling that gave it an advantage. What was that nature? The fact that grapplers can train at a harder pace than strikers with less fear of injury.


lol ok strikers never won anything. If that makes you feel,better about you precious grappling go for it.





> What MMA rules would force you to leave out 40% of your style? Feel free to use the rule set from outfits like Rio Heroes where the only rules are no biting or eye gouging.


nothing man your right anything other then BJJ or MMA is useless since it never won a pretty medal or wwe style belt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Gotta hate when they don't attack you right.


I just hate when they fail to give an attack. The only time I need them to attack "right" is when I need to practice a specific response. Can't practice dealing with a tackle if the guy insists on boxing, and can't practice dealing with an attack if my attacker turns into a mannequin.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree that there is some validity to this. However, the primary issue I have with competition is that it's among people who TRAIN for competition. I'm not talking about the skill set, but about the amount of training. The people I'd face in competition will often be folks who train A LOT for those events, because they want to beat the guy who trains one hour less than them. That's unrelated/uncorrellated to the common attacks on the street.
> Someone mentioned in another thread (currently locked) that everyone has access to martial arts info (Youtube, etc.), but access is not the same as training. The common attack will come from one of two sources: someone who is out of control (drunk and/or angry beyond the point of emotional hijacking) or someone who is there to take you down on a calculated attack with no warning (probably someone who wants something you have, and doesn't like the odds of a fight).



But who's to say that either assailant in those situations wasn't the former state wrestling champ, or Jr. Golden Gloves champ? My point in that earlier post is that you simply can't assume that you're the only one trained. You can go on the internet now and see countless videos of teenagers beating the piss out of each other. Frankly a LOT of those kids have solid basic skills, and many of those skills are coming directly out of MMA, Boxing, and Wrestling.

What does competition do for you? It hones your skill set against resisting opponents, teaches you how to handle an adrenaline dump, and it increases your endurance and durability. All of those are pretty beneficial qualities.



> So, if you put me - a fit 45-year-old with bad knees and a gimpy toe - into the ring/octagon with someone who's in prime physical condition, I will probably lose if he has any reasonable training. Part of this is simply that he can take more punishment than I, and has options I don't (pushing hard off the balls of the feet from the ground, deep squatting, etc. are simply impossible for me), and that some of the things I'd do facing that attacker in the street simply aren't going to come out of me in a competition. I won't take knees out to test my skills (some will in competition, I won't), and I obviously won't punch to the throat or poke eyes.
> 
> Now, give me someone in similar physical condition, and then we're in business. But then, he's not competing, either.



I would say that a 40 something with bad knees and a gimpy toe probably isn't running around ambushing people either.



> Yes, competition is useful. Maybe even the best test we have available. But competition becomes a young man's (relatively speaking) game in the end. And those competitions fall back on techniques that work against similarly well-conditioned people AND which provide the fewest openings for that same training.



Eh, I think an uppercut to the face is actually more effective on a un-conditioned person.



> I miss competing, and still spar some to get what I can of it. And I practice with resisting partners. I do what I can to test my techniques and skills, but I won't be entering any MMA competitions. I'm past that ability in my life.



You don't need to enter a competition, but if you have the opportunity to train with younger guys you should definitely take that opportunity. I actively train with twenty-somethings who actively compete in both MMA and Bjj, and its a totally different ball game because of their raw energy and strength. Sometimes my training and experience simply isn't enough to overcome their raw abilities. That's a reality that every aging martial artist needs to realize.

In the end we're dealing with a generation now that has access to martial arts on an unprecedented level. I agree that access isn't training, but access is still access and I know for a fact that if the entire Bjj and MMA curriculum was available to me for *free* on Youtube back then like it is now, my buddies and I would be in the backyard practicing those techniques for hours.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> lol ok strikers never won anything. If that makes you feel,better about you precious grappling go for it.



Nice straw-man. That isn't what I said. 



> nothing man your right anything other then BJJ or MMA is useless since it never won a pretty medal or www style belt.



So in other words you were blowing smoke out your butt with the "MMA rules removes 40% of my classic MA style" comment?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Nice straw-man. That isn't what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you were blowing smoke out your butt with the "MMA rules removes 40% of my classic MA style" comment?


No, I just don't have the desire to go over this same tired argument with you again.  Its been done at least a dozen times and has nothing to do with this thread.  You have your opinion and I disagree.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> No, I just don't have the desire to go over this same tired argument with you again.  Its been done at least a dozen times and has nothing to do with this thread.  You have your opinion and I disagree.



I never stated my opinion. I asked you to verify your statement that 40% of any hand to hand MA is nullified by MMA rules.


----------



## Steve (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree that there is some validity to this. However, the primary issue I have with competition is that it's among people who TRAIN for competition. I'm not talking about the skill set, but about the amount of training. The people I'd face in competition will often be folks who train A LOT for those events, because they want to beat the guy who trains one hour less than them. That's unrelated/uncorrellated to the common attacks on the street.
> Someone mentioned in another thread (currently locked) that everyone has access to martial arts info (Youtube, etc.), but access is not the same as training. The common attack will come from one of two sources: someone who is out of control (drunk and/or angry beyond the point of emotional hijacking) or someone who is there to take you down on a calculated attack with no warning (probably someone who wants something you have, and doesn't like the odds of a fight).
> 
> So, if you put me - a fit 45-year-old with bad knees and a gimpy toe - into the ring/octagon with someone who's in prime physical condition, I will probably lose if he has any reasonable training. Part of this is simply that he can take more punishment than I, and has options I don't (pushing hard off the balls of the feet from the ground, deep squatting, etc. are simply impossible for me), and that some of the things I'd do facing that attacker in the street simply aren't going to come out of me in a competition. I won't take knees out to test my skills (some will in competition, I won't), and I obviously won't punch to the throat or poke eyes.
> ...


One point to consider is that you don't have to compete to realize some benefit from competition.   Not everyone who trains in MMA or bjj competes, but the training model and standards are calibrated when you train with others who do compete.   

The other thing to consider is that, sure, training for a specific rule set can be limiting and create blind spots.   However, once the blind spot is exposed, it can be easily addressed.   Blinds spots are exposed in several ways.  For example, using a rubber knife while sparring in a bjj class is exposing a blind spot.   Competing under a different rule set exposes blind spots.   online discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> But who's to say that either assailant in those situations wasn't the former state wrestling champ, or Jr. Golden Gloves champ? My point in that earlier post is that you simply can't assume that you're the only one trained. You can go on the internet now and see countless videos of teenagers beating the piss out of each other. Frankly a LOT of those kids have solid basic skills, and many of those skills are coming directly out of MMA, Boxing, and Wrestling.
> 
> What does competition do for you? It hones your skill set against resisting opponents, teaches you how to handle an adrenaline dump, and it increases your endurance and durability. All of those are pretty beneficial qualities.
> 
> ...



I don't think I was clear enough on this. I believe competition is valuable. I just don't believe training ONLY for competition is as valuable as combining competition with training for SD. I often have people challenge me with, "Try that in an MMA gym!" That's not an attack, it's someone who knows I know something, and who is trained to avoid it. Will the stuff I train in still work? Yes. I've practiced with folks who do both. However, some of what I train for potential street use is NOT useful there, just as SOME of the mental approach used in competition training is not useful on the street.

This is not - and never should be - a question of competition vs. SD training. SD training includes technique, mindset, awareness, avoidance, etc. Competitive practice (and training for it) can fall squarely in at least that first group, and likely contributes to parts of the others.

I never said things like uppercuts don't work on untrained folks, so please don't apply that meaning to my post. I only take exception with those who claim that training for competition is the best (and only, per some) way to prepare for self-defense.

You made some other non sequitur comments (attacks by someone like me, training with younger people) that have no bearing on the discussion, so I'll not reply unless you can make a valid point with them, or point out where they proceed from my comments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Oh, I forgot to reply to one of your points - which is well made. Yes, the guy I defend against might be well-trained. I cannot, however, train a new student for that person. They will lose every time until they are well-skilled, and most will quit before then. So, I start by increasing their odds. I give them tools that are useful, then add to them as we get their skill up. After they've trained enough, they have at least even odds with that wrestling champ. I am ready for him (I've actually had wrestlers come to me to improve their skill on the mat), but no actual beginner (in any art, style, system, or gym) is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> One point to consider is that you don't have to compete to realize some benefit from competition.   Not everyone who trains in MMA or bjj competes, but the training model and standards are calibrated when you train with others who do compete.
> 
> The other thing to consider is that, sure, training for a specific rule set can be limiting and create blind spots.   However, once the blind spot is exposed, it can be easily addressed.   Blinds spots are exposed in several ways.  For example, using a rubber knife while sparring in a bjj class is exposing a blind spot.   Competing under a different rule set exposes blind spots.   online discussion.



I do train with folks outside my own style from time to time.
For me, some of my most profound increases in skill came after I trained in something outside my primary art - where I understood someplace I had left a weakness or hadn't understood something in my techniques properly. I consistently update training methods for myself and my students, precisely to illuminate those blind spots and help remove them.

I won't join an MMA gym or a BJJ class long-term both because my lower body won't take the heavy ground work, and because I don't want to train for their competition, and training with those who compete usually does that (at least my experience in Judo and some work with MMA fighters). I'd rather get together with them for some friendly sparring and to share ideas and training methods.

That said, of course, there's nothing wrong with their training. Does it have gaps for SD? Of course - all training must, unless you are going to dedicate your life to SD training. I'd rather be trained in BJJ or at some MMA gym than not be trained. 

I've chosen a style and training methods that have some reasonable evidence (again: cops, bouncers, and a few students/instructors who actually had to defend themselves). Now it's up to me to make it as useful and usable for myself (and my students) as possible.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree that there is some validity to this. However, the primary issue I have with competition is that it's among people who TRAIN for competition. I'm not talking about the skill set, but about the amount of training. The people I'd face in competition will often be folks who train A LOT for those events, because they want to beat the guy who trains one hour less than them. That's unrelated/uncorrellated to the common attacks on the street.
> Someone mentioned in another thread (currently locked) that everyone has access to martial arts info (Youtube, etc.), but access is not the same as training. The common attack will come from one of two sources: someone who is out of control (drunk and/or angry beyond the point of emotional hijacking) or someone who is there to take you down on a calculated attack with no warning (probably someone who wants something you have, and doesn't like the odds of a fight).
> 
> So, if you put me - a fit 45-year-old with bad knees and a gimpy toe - into the ring/octagon with someone who's in prime physical condition, I will probably lose if he has any reasonable training. Part of this is simply that he can take more punishment than I, and has options I don't (pushing hard off the balls of the feet from the ground, deep squatting, etc. are simply impossible for me), and that some of the things I'd do facing that attacker in the street simply aren't going to come out of me in a competition. I won't take knees out to test my skills (some will in competition, I won't), and I obviously won't punch to the throat or poke eyes.
> ...



That is not an issue. But it is like saying you can't train full time because of work. If you cant you can't. Nobody says you have to.

But someone who does train harder will become better than someone who dosent.

The interesting thing here is the rationalisations some people then make to place them on par with the better martial artists.

"I just can't deal with the work rate" is rarely brought up in these debates in favor of "I train such deadly techniques that it really wouldn't be fair"


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> You can train hard without entering competitions



Against who?

You are comparing being the best of 10 guys to being the best of 1000 guys.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2016)

Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.

Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.

The domains of fighting and self-defense do overlap somewhat (although less than some people think). Fighting in self-defense is a thing that happens. That area of overlap is where we hope our martial arts training will help us if we find ourselves there.

Until we invent holodecks, we're never going to be able to scientifically and systematically test all our ideas about self-defense training. There are just too many practical and ethical obstacles to do it properly. However, I don't think that means we have to just throw up our hands and profess complete ignorance (or complete certitude either).

The trick is to realize that although all our forms of learning about self-defense and violence and training and testing our training are inevitably flawed, they are flawed _in different ways_. We can learn something from all of them as long as we also study their flaws and try to find other ways of training to balance out those flaws.

MMA competition (and MMA-style sparring) is not self-defense. It's missing important features of a real self-defense encounter and it can encourage certain tactical behaviors which could be detrimental in self-defense. At the same time, it contains a myriad of useful lessons for a variety of forms of violence, including fighting in self-defense.

Scenario training is a simulation of a self-defense encounter and has many useful lessons, but it has it's own set of flaws. Fortunately, the majority (not all) of those flaws are distinct from the flaws inherent in MMA training.

LEO work experiences are different from civilian self-defense, but they can have useful lessons for someone wanting to understand the realities of self-defense.

Watching fights on YouTube has major limitations in understanding the varieties of self-defense encounters, but it can provide some valuable lessons.

Any other form of martial arts training you can think of has flaws - whether it's kata, bag training, live drills, solo drills, whatever. The question is not "which method is least flawed." It's "do I know exactly what the flaws (and strengths) of this method are."

Honestly, I think the best approach for a martial artist is not to try proving "my way of training is best." I think it's better to explore the flaws and limitations in whatever art we practice, whatever form of training we prefer, and whatever we think we understand about violence.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Against who?


other martial artists


> You are comparing being the best of 10 guys to being the best of 1000 guys.


im not comparing anyhing and have no desire to be better then anyone else


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 17, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.
> 
> Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.
> 
> ...




This is a great post Tony.  I have not come across any system that doesn't have flaws.  As we train in the martial sciences we should explore and experiment and improve.  Never think you know it all or have figured it all out and you will always be learning and improving!


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.
> 
> Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.
> 
> ...



So all of it is self defence?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So all of it is self defence?


Nope. There's lots of fighting which is not self-defense and there is a lot of self-defense which is not fighting. It's a Venn diagram with areas of overlap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> That is not an issue. But it is like saying you can't train full time because of work. If you cant you can't. Nobody says you have to.
> 
> But someone who does train harder will become better than someone who dosent.
> 
> ...


Agreed, 100%. There can be little (rational) argument that more good training doesn't make someone better. Even if we supposed that pure-SD training is somewhat better than training for competition (my position, but by no means an uncontested one), it would be folly to assume that one of my students who trains once a week (all the class time I can offer around my professional life) is EVER going to be as competent (assuming that's their only training time, and their only relevant experience) as someone who trains in some full-contact competition school.

More training is better. Harder training (absent injuries) is better. Training for SD is better (in my opinion). Practicing part of the time against someone who is trying to stop you from doing what you want is better. Then life shows up and limits some or all of those.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, 100%. There can be little (rational) argument that more good training doesn't make someone better. Even if we supposed that pure-SD training is somewhat better than training for competition (my position, but by no means an uncontested one), it would be folly to assume that one of my students who trains once a week (all the class time I can offer around my professional life) is EVER going to be as competent (assuming that's their only training time, and their only relevant experience) as someone who trains in some full-contact competition school.
> 
> More training is better. Harder training (absent injuries) is better. Training for SD is better (in my opinion). Practicing part of the time against someone who is trying to stop you from doing what you want is better. Then life shows up and limits some or all of those.


Additions vs subtractions.

We go into concepts like pure SD training and we hit a wall. For self defence we essentially want additions not subtractions. So we benifit by being a boxer. The boxer benifits by being a wrestler as well. Then he benifits by understanding weapons,deescalation route planning home hardening and so on.

The idea of pure self defence dosent really work like this. It subtracts. You don't need to become a boxer because the rules fight. Instead you become some sort of illegal moves guy. Wrestling becomes anti grapple. You create preconceptions to accomodate a limited skill set rather than admit you have a limited skill set.

Self defence is as much skills as you can pack in. It has to be because the task is so complex. And that is tough because it means you are always under prepared.


----------



## Steve (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Additions vs subtractions.
> 
> We go into concepts like pure SD training and we hit a wall. For self defence we essentially want additions not subtractions. So we benifit by being a boxer. The boxer benifits by being a wrestler as well. Then he benifits by understanding weapons,deescalation route planning home hardening and so on.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, drop bear.   Very well said.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The idea of pure self defence dosent really work like this. It subtracts.


No it doesnt


> You don't need to become a boxer because the rules fight. Instead you become some sort of illegal moves guy. Wrestling becomes anti grapple. You create preconceptions to accomodate a limited skill set rather than admit you have a limited skill set.


Nobody has argued anything even remotely close to this so Im not sure where your getting it


> Self defence is as much skills as you can pack in.


No, skills are a small portion


> It has to be because the task is so complex. And that is tough because it means you are always under prepared.


Then how do people with no training do it every day


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2016)

Holodecks and Venn diagrams be damned, I hate homework!

Except for.......you know, like now, when I learn something.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Train hard fight easy. If you can win with the watered down version. Imagine what you can do at full strength.


Why IMAGINE your art at full strength when you can just not water it down?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 18, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I would say that after the first UFC, grappling was *proven* to be a pretty important range of fighting that shouldn't be neglected.



I would say that after the first UFC grappling was '*proven*' to be a pretty important range of fighting for
competitive
*competitive striking styles* that shouldn't be neglected by* competitive striking styles*

The self defense oriented martial arts already knew this and incorporated grappling techniques in their arts from the beginning.

I don't know about you but I can't name a single fighter in the early UFC that was not a practitioner of a competitive style before they entered the cage.

Also after the first UFC it was proven that striking was an important range of fighting that grappling styles should not neglect. Just ask the two biggest fighters who were stopped by pure striking.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 18, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> I would say that after the first UFC grappling was '*proven*' to be a pretty important range of fighting for
> competitive
> *competitive striking styles* that shouldn't be neglected by* competitive striking styles*
> 
> The self defense oriented martial arts already knew this and incorporated grappling techniques in their arts from the beginning.



Gracie's in action series, and non competitive styles like Wing Chun, Hapkido, and Ninjutsu coming up with "anti-grappling" or actively incorporating ground grappling techniques into their systems say otherwise.



> I don't know about you but I can't name a single fighter in the early UFC that was not a practitioner of a competitive style before they entered the cage.



Off the top of my head, Scott Morris practiced Ninjutsu and he fought in an early UFC. Asbel Cancino practiced Wing Chun and he also fought in a early UFC.



> Also after the first UFC it was proven that striking was an important range of fighting that grappling styles should not neglect. Just ask the two biggest fighters who were stopped by pure striking.



Except no one has ever questioned the importance of striking as a range of fighting. The reason the Gracie win at UFC was such a sea change was because most people at the time believed that you could simply punch and kick a grappler into submission.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 18, 2016)

The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women,  old  folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women,  old  folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.



Hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to that.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women,  old  folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.



Yeah, but that argument works both ways. As someone who's trained a lot of boxing, and trained in an old school boxing gym _as_ a full contact Karate fighter and boxer and kickboxer, _by_ my boxing trainers, boxers are easy if they're only boxers and we're using Martial rules. (The reason we trained there is they had a ring we didn't.)

Boxers really don't like nor understand getting swept, thrown, kicked hard in the legs or getting into a clinch with someone familiar with boxing clinches, Muay Thai plums, double underhooks or getting your head to the same side as your underhook when you have one underhook and one over.

It sure is fun when you show them, though.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 18, 2016)

Buka said:


> Yeah, but that argument works both ways. As someone who's trained a lot of boxing, and trained in an old school boxing gym _as_ a full contact Karate fighter and boxer and kickboxer, _by_ my boxing trainers, boxers are easy if they're only boxers and we're using Martial rules. (The reason we trained there is they had a ring we didn't.)
> .



You misunderstood my comment, which wasn't about Boxers being the final litmus test. It was more about how a trained fighter can just use only their jab and footwork to demonstrate and destroy most Self Defense people, who never spar hard, let alone fought before. It's just, USUALLY, really easy to light up people who only  train against this guy:


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Except complete classical styles don't fit with in the rules.  If I have to leave out 40% of my style to make it fit the rules well its no longer that style anymore.so why bother?




Early UFC's had  no disqualifying rules. You can literally do whatever you wanted in the fight, and  win the $60,000 grand prize at then end of the night. And $60,000 was a hell of a lot of money in 1993, especially for classical Martial Artists whatever, who probably made like $10,000-20,000/year, mostly from peddling instructional VHS tapes at seminars where less than 10 people usually attends. Unfortunately, Royce Gracie mopped the floor with most of them, despite their trying anti-rape moves, such as trying to eye gouge Royce.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> You misunderstood my comment, which wasn't about Boxers being the final litmus test. It was more about how a trained fighter can just use only their jab and footwork to demonstrate and destroy most Self Defense people, who never spar hard, let alone fought before. It's just, USUALLY, really easy to light up people who only  train against this guy:



You're right, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant against Muay Thai guys and the like. My bad. I do that a lot, it seems. 

But that Bob guy above......he does look kind of formidable. 

As for "hocus pocus" describing what anyone does, that's less than open minded and probably disrespectful. Besides, who cares what anyone else does? I don't. People I train with don't. And I don't think Bob does.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Early UFC's had  no disqualifying rules. You can literally do whatever you wanted in the fight, and  win the $60,000 grand prize at then end of the night. And $60,000 was a hell of a lot of money in 1993, especially for classical Martial Artists whatever, who probably made like $10,000-20,000/year, mostly from peddling instructional VHS tapes at seminars where less than 10 people usually attends. Unfortunately, Royce Gracie mopped the floor with most of them, despite their trying anti-rape moves, such as trying to eye gouge Royce.


Wow your so right what was I thinking.  Of course nothing else will work besides the amazing Gracie JJ.  Well guys time to shut down the forums the answer has been here all along nothing more to discuss.  Give up your anti-rape hocus pocus moves and find a Gracie


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Why IMAGINE your art at full strength when you can just not water it down?



Because watering down your art improves your basics. 

So when I wrestle I don't punch this forces me to improve my wrestling. When I do mma I can then use the better wrestling to punch people more effectively.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

Buka said:


> Yeah, but that argument works both ways. As someone who's trained a lot of boxing, and trained in an old school boxing gym _as_ a full contact Karate fighter and boxer and kickboxer, _by_ my boxing trainers, boxers are easy if they're only boxers and we're using Martial rules. (The reason we trained there is they had a ring we didn't.)
> 
> Boxers really don't like nor understand getting swept, thrown, kicked hard in the legs or getting into a clinch with someone familiar with boxing clinches, Muay Thai plums, double underhooks or getting your head to the same side as your underhook when you have one underhook and one over.
> 
> It sure is fun when you show them, though



This move towards subtractions. You don't worry about boxing because you can kick. If you neglect your hand skills then you are limiting your range.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> No it doesnt
> 
> Nobody has argued anything even remotely close to this so Im not sure where your getting it
> 
> ...



Okay.

OP is arguing it.

Skills are a large portion of it. Fighting skill may not be.

Because self defence is generally not all that hard. It is just risky.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women,  old  folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.



The common denominator there is people who either forget don't bother with or don't understand the basics. And so have to constantly come up with a work around. That subtraction.

I know plenty of self defence focused guys who also jump into competition and do well. it can be done. There are just excuses made by those who don't.

That is not just a self defence thing. That is also why the quote "position before submission" gets used.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> OP is arguing it.


no he's not


> Skills are a large portion of it. Fighting skill may not be.


correct fighting skills are very small part which is why the ring has little to do with self defense





> Because self defence is generally not all that hard. It is just risky.


I agree to a point.  It's definitely mentally hard


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> no he's not
> correct fighting skills are very small part which is why the ring has little to do with self defenseI
> 
> agree to a point
> ...



You are arguing subtractions. Ring fighting has little to do with self defence.

Where for me ring fighting is important to self defence. But so are other skills. Additions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You are arguing subtractions. Ring fighting has little to do with self defence.


 and your arguing in catch phrases and bumper sticker slogans


> Where for me ring fighting is important to self defence. But so are other skills. Additions.


 exept fighting as you said yourself isn't that important self defense is easy remember so your far better working on the other skills


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 18, 2016)

If anyone can roll up on you and beat the living crap out of you, how good is your self defense?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 18, 2016)

Gentlefolk,
Lest we have to lock yet another thread over this, and award still more infraction points, let me strongly and clearly caution you to keep the conversation polite and respectful.  You're welcome to hold strong opinions, and to express them.  Don't be asshats about it.  

jks9199
Administrator


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> If anyone can roll up on you and beat the living crap out of you, how good is your self defense?


depends on situation was he going to blow your head off but you got the gun and disabled it so you only took a beat down well that's a win in my book


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> and your arguing in catch phrases and bumper sticker slogans
> exept fighting as you said yourself isn't that important self defense is easy remember so your far better working on the other skills



It is situational. if someone is attacking me then fighting can be very important.

This is the fun thing about self defence is i can give importance to whatever i want.  And validate any method with it.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> depends on situation was he going to blow your head off but you got the gun and disabled it so you only took a beat down well that's a win in my book



I thought you did not like my elephant scenarios.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I thought you did not like my elephant scenarios.


so people have never disarmed soneind during an armed robbery?  Because it happens more often then you think.  I personally know Latin grocery store clerk that got beat down badly by an armed robber and right when the robber put the gun to his head he was able to knock it away it slid under a freezer.  He got kicked in the head a few more times then the robber ran off but he's still alive.  I've never seen an elephant outside of the zoo.... so yeah I don't like your eelephant story


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is situational. if someone is attacking me then fighting can be very important.


sure it can be but it might not be


> This is the fun thing about self defence is i can give importance to whatever i want.  And validate any method with it.


no when validating self defense there is only 1 test.  Did you live


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The common denominator there is people who either forget don't bother with or don't understand the basics. And so have to constantly come up with a work around. That subtraction.
> 
> I know plenty of self defence focused guys who also jump into competition and do well. it can be done. There are just excuses made by those who don't.
> 
> That is not just a self defence thing. That is also why the quote "position before submission" gets used.



Not plenty, there are some, SD people who do fight. But most of them switch to MMA or such because most SD programs are way too soft and they need better fight training, otherwise they get destroyed on fight day. SD programs, in general, are geared mostly for women, softer dudes and the elderly.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 18, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Wow your so right what was I thinking.  Of course nothing else will work besides the amazing Gracie JJ.  Well guys time to shut down the forums the answer has been here all along nothing more to discuss.  Give up your anti-rape hocus pocus moves and find a Gracie



And go easy on the donuts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> And go easy on the donuts.


POWER RINGS.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> If anyone can roll up on you and beat the living crap out of you, how good is your self defense?



"Anyone" ain't gonna happen. But we all seem to gravitate towards those better than us, instructors and sparring partners alike. Heck, we all need a good *** whoopin' from time to time, no?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> SD programs, in general, are geared mostly for women, softer dudes and the elderly.


How many self defense programs have you attended?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> so people have never disarmed soneind during an armed robbery?  Because it happens more often then you think.  I personally know Latin grocery store clerk that got beat down badly by an armed robber and right when the robber put the gun to his head he was able to knock it away it slid under a freezer.  He got kicked in the head a few more times then the robber ran off but he's still alive.  I've never seen an elephant outside of the zoo.... so yeah I don't like your eelephant story



I even showed you a man slapped by an elephant. 

I have never had to fight a gun off someone so your story does not count?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I even showed you a man slapped by an elephant.
> 
> I have never had to fight a gun off someone so your story does not count?


Have you fought an elephant?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> sure it can be but it might not be
> no when validating self defense there is only 1 test.  Did you live



How is each situation not situational?

Living is good.  Learning is about trying to find out why.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Have you fought an elephant?


No which is proof of my self defence skills.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No which is proof of my self defence skills.


If elephants are the only way you car justify your position well OK.  Since neither you ir I live in a place where elephants are a concern Ill just stick to more realistic problems.  Hey but you go practice your elephant takedown just in case


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Not plenty, there are some, SD people who do fight. But most of them switch to MMA or such because most SD programs are way too soft and they need better fight training, otherwise they get destroyed on fight day. SD programs, in general, are geared mostly for women, softer dudes and the elderly.


Yes because addititions. Industry training self defence is geared towards gumbies. (sort of)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Living is good.  Learning is about trying to find out why.



if you don't live your done learning anyway.  I can analyse and learn when its all over and Im safe


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> If elephants are the only way you car justify your position well OK.  Since neither you ir I live in a place where elephants are a concern Ill just stick to more realistic problems.  Hey but you go practice your elephant takedown just in case



More realistic? I will have as much chance of being trunk slapped by an elephant as have a gun pulled on me.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> if you don't live your done learning anyway.  I can analyse and learn when its all over and Im safe



Well yeah obviously.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> More realistic? I will have as much chance of being trunk slapped by an elephant as have a gun pulled on me.


I doubt that Didnt you guys just have a big cafe shooting over there not long ago.  We sent an officer over with a team to teach active shooter response to several of your police departments because of it


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because watering down your art improves your basics.


No, concentrating on your basics and practicing them improves your basics. Watering down your art only reduces its effectiveness.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO?


Your logic is flawed. You would have to prove the first sentence is true to apply the second one.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Royce Gracie mopped the floor with most of them


Royce Gracie didn't fight most of them.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Off the top of my head, Scott Morris practiced Ninjutsu and he fought in an early UFC. Asbel Cancino practiced Wing Chun and he also fought in a early UFC.


Scott Morris had fought in competitions before:

Scott Morris MMA Stats, Pictures, News, Videos, Biography - Sherdog.com

Asbel Cancino

Asbel Cancio Fight News - MMA Fighting


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> You misunderstood my comment, which wasn't about Boxers being the final litmus test. It was more about how a trained fighter can just use only their jab and footwork to demonstrate and destroy most Self Defense people, who never spar hard, let alone fought before.



Where is that BS flag emoticon thingy when you need it?



FriedRice said:


> It's just, USUALLY, really easy to light up people who only  train against this guy:


Which is no one.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I know plenty of self defence focused guys who also jump into competition and do well. it can be done. There are just excuses made by those who don't.


Those who don't do well or those who don't jump into competition?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> No, concentrating on your basics and practicing them improves your basics. Watering down your art only reduces its effectiveness.



Really? So if it is a choice between boxing with maywhether or training full tkd at your school. You think your school will make the student more effective due to their art not being watered down.

Watering down your art gives you the opportunity to train with top tier artists from other styles. This in my opinion increases your effectiveness.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 19, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Those who don't do well or those who don't jump into competition?



Both as a general rule.But  In this instance those who don't compete. And possibly extend that to those that don't Spar. It can be a way of concealing a tragic skill set.

I mean given a choice you would choose a self defence school that also has ring success. Then you get the best of both worlds.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Really? So if it is a choice between boxing with maywhether or training full tkd at your school. You think your school will make the student more effective due to their art not being watered down.


More effective at what?  How will fighting Mayweather make me better at TKD?  Especially if I'm fighting Mayweather using boxing rules?


> Watering down your art gives you the opportunity to train with top tier artists from other styles. This in my opinion increases your effectiveness.


I disagree


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I mean given a choice you would choose a self defence school that also has ring success.


No I wouldnt


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 19, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Scott Morris had fought in competitions before:
> 
> Scott Morris MMA Stats, Pictures, News, Videos, Biography - Sherdog.com
> 
> ...



Yeah, the point is both came from the non-competitive styles of Ninjutsu and Wing Chun.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> More effective at what?  How will fighting Mayweather make me better at TKD?  Especially if I'm fighting Mayweather using boxing rules?
> 
> I disagree



Don't use boxing rules, just fight using both skill sets. Fighting someone of that caliber will reveal the weaknesses in your fighting ability.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Don't use boxing rules, just fight using both skill sets. Fighting someone of that caliber will reveal the weaknesses in your fighting ability.


fighting someone of that caliber won't reveal anything he's the best in the world of course he's going to beat me if he didn't then I'd be making a 100 million a fight and not driving a police car around all night.
And even so it wouldn't make me any better at my chosen style.  If I want to get better at Goju I'll go train with Goju guys that are better then me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Additions vs subtractions.
> 
> We go into concepts like pure SD training and we hit a wall. For self defence we essentially want additions not subtractions. So we benifit by being a boxer. The boxer benifits by being a wrestler as well. Then he benifits by understanding weapons,deescalation route planning home hardening and so on.
> 
> ...



I think we're on the same page on this. When I say "pure SD training", I'm talking about the concept not the techniques. When I practice Judo, I don't bother learning competition rules (so I do become that "illegal moves guy" by default), but focus on the techniques and movements that will be most useful for SD. Same with BJJ, boxing, or anything else that is often/normally trained for competition.

Of course, there are those who say the best test is having highly skilled practitioners trying to take you out to win a title (competition). I disagree, but there are valid points to their argument, and (as I've said before) any good training is better than no good training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Don't use boxing rules, just fight using both skill sets. Fighting someone of that caliber will reveal the weaknesses in your fighting ability.



But would it be a useful revelation? He trains like a fiend and is in prime physical condition. Guys like that are trained to take insane amounts of punishment, which means my most useful weapons are things like taking out knees. His hand speed might make kicks my only useful weapons until I land one. He'd be like fighting someone on PCP who also has superb emotional control. Scary.

I guess I see that sort of thing like testing my movement against a speeding car. Yes, it will show weaknesses, but I know the weaknesses at that level, and simply don't care to spend that much of my life to fix them. Mayweather won't be attacking me on the street, so he's not the test I need (or want).

Our best testing usually comes from someone significantly (but not outrageously) better equipped.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> You misunderstood my comment, which wasn't about Boxers being the final litmus test. It was more about how a trained fighter can just use only their jab and footwork to demonstrate and destroy most Self Defense people, who never spar hard, let alone fought before. It's just, USUALLY, really easy to light up people who only  train against this guy:



Hey, that guy kicked my *** once!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women,  old  folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.



I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit. The style I train in and teach is a SD-oriented TMA, and most of the students are 20-40 year old guys, by a huge margin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Why IMAGINE your art at full strength when you can just not water it down?



Some techniques cannot safely be done full force. This includes some locks (which on the street are direct breaks), throws (when not projections), and some strikes (unless you want to injure your training partner).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Additions vs subtractions.
> 
> ::snip::
> 
> ...



Actually, you're making a hell of an assumption. We discuss limitations of skill set all the time. Yes, we set up preconceived scenarios, because there are things a skilled attacker (fighter) will never do in a controlled scenario (because they create too many openings), but which are dangerous attacks we must work against. An MMA guy isn't going to do an uncontrolled flying tackle from my side, but I want to know how to deal with that, so we create that.

We also play percentages. We KNOW (as I hope everyone else does) that there are limitations. Most of us don't train full-time. Even at my heaviest training (around 2002), I only trained about 15 hours a week, and I don't put that much time in now. I want to focus on what helps me in the most possible and probable situations.

No, we don't just subtract. We start from a few basic skills (grip escapes, blocks, strikes, easy locks), and ADD to those over time. Ever time I attend a seminar, work out with another martial artist, or see something interesting in a video, something is added to my inventory (and sometimes to my training and my classes).

Pure SD training is about preparing for attacks as best we can with the time at hand. The biggest difference between that and preparing for competition is which attacks are highest percentage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> But someone who does train harder will become better than someone who dosent.



One correction: "someone who does train harder will become better AT THAT THING than someone who doesn't"

I have seen some folks who train REALLY hard for competition (and are good at it) who are less prepared to defend themselves than a dedicated casual student. Why? One was training for unrealistic types of competition (and nothing else - a specialist), while the other was preparing for many different scenarios and types of attacks.

This concept is why Gracie stunned the UFC world. He probably wasn't training harder - just preparing for a different fight than they were.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Both as a general rule.But In this instance those who don't compete.



You are confusing excuses for reasons.



drop bear said:


> I mean given a choice you would choose a self defence school that also has ring success.


Given a choice I would pick, and have picked, a self defense school that focuses on self defense.
A choice between two doctors would not come down to which one is better at golf.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Really? So if it is a choice between boxing with maywhether or training full tkd at your school. You think your school will make the student more effective due to their art not being watered down.



Yep.



drop bear said:


> Watering down your art gives you the opportunity to train with top tier artists from other styles. This in my opinion increases your effectiveness.



Maybe a homeopathic martial art will be more effective when it is watered down  but in real life watering down a martial art decreases its effectiveness.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Some techniques cannot safely be done full force. This includes some locks (which on the street are direct breaks), throws (when not projections), and some strikes (unless you want to injure your training partner).


There are ways to do strikes at full force safely. It requires control.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.


You can't fight an elephant but you can push one up the stairs.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 19, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, the point is both came from the non-competitive styles of Ninjutsu and Wing Chun.


No the point is that you have a very weak argument here.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> POWER RINGS.



looks like opportunities:    Pictures & Photos from Fat Cops (TV Series 2013– ) - IMDb


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

Buka said:


> "Anyone" ain't gonna happen. But we all seem to gravitate towards those better than us, instructors and sparring partners alike. Heck, we all need a good *** whoopin' from time to time, no?



This is the main fallacy of most Self Defense only people though, they don't really test out their skills. Most of their training are controlled, choreographed, pretend sparring with touch to very light contact.  Nobody is throwing full powered punches to KO anyone. Yet they try to say that full contact combat sports such as MMA is not realistic?  And they wear like gigantic, suit of armor made out of padding with a giant helmet....hell, it's like a full dog-bite suit, because they're scared of pain. 

A good way to test out your skills against some untrained guy off the street is to just let them swing all they want, like this: 




It's pretty easy vs. untrained people, but not if you don't spar hard for full KO's on a somewhat, regular basis.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> How many self defense programs have you attended?



Many, babe.....I also trained a lot of Krav Maga.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes because addititions. Industry training self defence is geared towards gumbies. (sort of)



It's no, here in the USA, where most of the world's MMA is centered.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Some techniques cannot safely be done full force. This includes some locks (which on the street are direct breaks), throws (when not projections), and some strikes (unless you want to injure your training partner).



How about just put on gloves and allow full powered punches to the face during hard sparring sessions? That's a great way to test out whether or not you can fend off an attacker with your specialized techniques for SD.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Many, babe.....I also trained a lot of Krav Maga.


so 2?3? What's many?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> How about just put on gloves and allow full powered punches to the face during hard sparring sessions? That's a great way to test out whether or not you can fend off an attacker with your specialized techniques for SD.


why gloves? Go real or go home.  Don't even try to stop the blows taken the hits to the face like a man.  You are a man right.  Just take the hits and laugh in his face


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> so 2?3? What's many?



at least 100 classes babe.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> at least 100 classes babe.


So 100 classes makes you qualified to say most SD schools all,over the world are geared towards old woman and men afraid of,pain?  Ok


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> why gloves? Go real or go home.  Don't even try to stop the blows taken the hits to the face like a man.  You are a man right.  Just take the hits and laugh in his face



I was talking to the other guy and his class, babe. They don't spar full with full power punches to the face, yet now you want them to start out full power with bare knuckles?  Man, who trained you to punch anyway? You must punch like the hookers that you arrest right?


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> So 100 classes makes you qualified to say most SD schools all,over the world are geared towards old woman and men afraid of,pain?  Ok



yes.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 19, 2016)

*Admin's note:*

Thread closed, pending staff review.


----------

