# The Myth of "Pressure Testing"



## Phil Elmore (Mar 15, 2006)

Much is made, largely on the parts of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) enthusiasts and other practitioners of "martial" sports, of the concept of "pressure testing."  The phrase is invoked _ad nauseam_ by those who believe a technique, a system, or a methodology that has not been used with success (or that has not been used at all) in the Ultimate Fighting Championship simply cannot work in reality.  If it does not appear among their videotaped libraries of No Holds Barred (NHB) tournaments, it is unworkable crap practiced by limp-wristed pansies and fantasy warriors, worthy only of skepticism and outright derision.  Anyone expressing doubt regarding the MMA/NHB approach is dismissed, by members of the sportfighting camp, as someone who doesn't wish to test what he does, who advocates techniques that are impractical or actually harmful to the practitioner.  The sportfighters point to the squared, canvas-floored circle and say, "Well?  How do you _know_ it works?"

Practitioners of Reality Based Self-Defense -- martialists and others who take seriously the need to train in-context and with realistic, asymmetrical goals -- grow very weary of this argument, especially when it comes from those who assume (wrongly) the levels of contact used by RBSD practitioners in their training (which, unlike MMA training, also includes extensive weapons training and scenario drills, coupled with elements of survivalism (preparation before the fact, including the stockpiling of supplies and the carrying of personal weaponry) and "street" evasion tactics.  

Exponents of RBSD are often lumped together with Traditional Martial Art (TMA) practitioners by the sportfighters, who prefer to dismiss all non-MMA stylists as no- and low-contact weaklings who don't "pressure test" what they do.  Many MMA stylists, particularly foreigners in nations with strict weapons control, mischaracterize realistic self-defense proponents as "weapons fetishists."  As the carrying of weapons is not an option to such foreign MMA practitioners, they prefer to believe weapons training is not just a waste of time and effort; they prefer to believe that it is, in fact, indicative of some sort of mental illness, lack of confidence, or some other personal inadequacy.  In return, armed, prepared martialists shake their heads at this incredibly arrogant, incredibly naive notion, as too often it seems sportfighters cannot separate their beliefs about how tough they think they are from the stark realities of training only to avoid or survive a violent confrontation in order to go home to one's family at the end of the day.

Coach Scott Sonnon summed up the argument eloquently when he gave his rendition of what combat systems and sport systems have to say about one another, describing an argument that, he asserts, undermines modern training. 

Sport systems, say the combat systems adherents (according to Sonnon), are single, unarmed, and take place in a protected environment, whereas combat is plural, armed, and takes place in a hazardous environment. Sport systems adherents complain that often the techniques of combat systems are not proven in practical application, nor tested against resistance. 

Both points of view are wrong, Scott says, because the two camps are both _right_. Combat systems offer reality to sports -- and sports offer competition, trial against an uncooperative opponent, to combat systems. The two should be combined and integrated to yield effective training for fighters, Sonnon says.  I agree wholeheartedly.

Such a resulting program, such a combination, is based on realistic resistance and realistic contact conducted in a realistic context.  It is, in short, Reality Based Self-Defense, when trained diligently and honestly with drills and exercises of appropriate scope, unpredictability, and physical difficulty.  It is not, however, the type of training held up by MMA practitioners as "the best" or as "pressure tested."

The driving skills of a racecar driver are indeed "pressure tested" -- in the environment of a race.  Such a driver certainly has a fair amount of skill at what he is trained to do.  He is comfortable driving at speeds far greater than those experienced by the average commuter.  The racecar driver, however, prepares in advance for his race.  His track is entirely predictable; his environment is predefined.  He races in ways he would never drive in real life on roads full of other cars, governed by traffic laws, where accidents and mechanical problems are not immediately attended by teams of medical and automotive repair specialists whose job it is to monitor the driver's status at every moment.  

While the skills developed on the racetrack may translate to certain areas of the driver's life when he commutes on city streets and interstate highways, many of them do not.  It would be a very foolish racecar driver indeed who, after winning at Daytona, drove home using the same skill set in the same ways.

By the same token, the one-on-one prepared, voluntary duels of sporting competition, which take place on forgiving terrain, within a guaranteed set of rules (even in the most violent NHB competition, the opponents know that they face one and only one competitor who bears no weapons), do not truly _prove_ anything about realistic self-defense.  A technique or methodology "pressure tested" in MMA competition has not been "proven to work" any more than has an RBSD technique that is drilled over and over again against uncooperative training partners using padded assailant/adrenal stress methodologies or blunted aluminum or rubber knives.  Both applications tell us something about the techniques and training methodologies used, of course, and they most certainly tell us what "works" and what does not in that context.  What they do not tell us is how those things translate into realistic, pragmatic self-defense in unconstrained (unforgiving) physical environments where singular opponents are not guaranteed, where weapons are commonly present, and where the winner of the "fight" is the guy who goes home without having it at all.

An MMA practitioner applying real-world self-defense principles to his next match wouldn't show up for the match at all -- for in reality, we do not volunteer for conflicts that can be avoided through simple refusal.  That same practitioner would not shoot for a mugger's legs when he could draw a licensed, concealed pistol and _shoot the mugger_.  He also would not see training hours spent shooting (on the mat) and grappling as superior to training hours spent practicing to draw and deploy a knife, or shooting firearms in high-pressure close-quarters exercises, or driving a flashlight or pocket stick repeatedly into a Body Opponent Bag as he contemplates a time when he might have to do the same to an aggressive street person.

Sport methodology is inherently unrealistic because it transforms the asymmetrical goal of pragmatic self-defense into the symmetrical goal of winning the match between two people.  While the attributes developed during MMA competition -- as well as the conditioning necessary to develop those attributes in the first place -- certainly can be of use to the RBSD practitioner, one's self-defense training time is better spent training properly in context.  This means developing those same attributes through resisting combat drills with realistic levels of contact.  Instead of sparring someone, instead of grappling with someone in NHB tournaments (both activities being fun and useful to perform for their own reasons), the RBSD practitioner is better off developing techniques by working with one or multiple opponents, drilling unpredictable attacks and unplanned responses to them, working with resistance and training weapons, performing those same exercises within mental scenarios intended to simulate street confrontations as realistically as possible.

The only thing sports methodologies do have going for them is, as Coach Sonnon stated, the element of resistance.  This is good; learning to attempt to perform a technique (regardless of that technique) on someone who isn't simply complying with you (someone who isn't trained to let you do the technique) is a very positive contribution to your training curriculum.  This is not the sole purview and exclusive domain of MMA/NHB training, however, no matter how much sportfighting advocates would like to believe it is.  Traditional and non-traditional schools across the nation and around the world engage in drills and exercises that incorporate every bit as much resistance and noncompliance as does a sporting match between competitors.  The difference is that RBSD schools (and even the better TMA kwoons and dojos) train this resistance in a context, in an environment, more closely evocative of true real-world self-defense conditions.  

Now, there are plenty of schools that don't do this well. They range from BDU-clad would-be combat experts who are simply TMA veterans marketing "reality," to strip-mall McDojos that train exclusively in no- and low-contact point sparring techniques and kata that have no true relevance to any aspect of self-defense.  We must make the distinction between good schools and bad schools if we are to train _anywhere_.

You'll know good training when you see it, for the most part.  I once watched an RBSD Women's Self-Defense course in which the "final exam" -- after weeks spent in combat drills teaching the women to deliver techniques like stomps, knees, and palm heels at full power against targets and protected, simulated "assailants" -- was a scenario drill.  A volunteer instructor, wearing street clothes, verbally accosted and then attempted to physically assault the student.  During one drill, the student reacted -- clearly out of fear as the realism of the scenario was ratcheted to its highest possible point -- and dropped the instructor with a full-contact palm heel to the face.  There was a moment's silence... and then everyone cheered, including the instructor on the floor who was clearly still recovering from the force of the blow.  The student took the instructor completely by surprise (she surprised herself, too) and did precisely what was necessary in a realistic context with realistic resistance and force.  THAT is "pressure testing" self-defense training, insofar as it is possible.

You see, the dirty little secret, the one no one seems to want to acknowledge, is that all self-defense training involves an element of _theory_.  Unless and until you engage in real self-defense incidents, unless and until you must stop someone who is intent on injuring, raping, robbing, or killing you, unless and until you face, involuntarily, someone who wishes to prey on you, your training is and always will be a _simulation_ of violence. Your self-defense training cannot and never will be "proof" of anything.  If conducted realistically, in context, with resisting and uncooperative training partners, you can -- applying logic, reason, and simple common sense to the data such training provides you -- make reasonable conclusions about what will and will not work (or what is and is not likely to work) in actual self-defense.  You will not, however, conclusively _prove_ anything to yourself or to anyone else.

It is my sincere hope that you will spend your life training for self-defense never truly knowing how you would perform in an actual conflict.  I would prefer you die of old age surrounded by adoring family and checking out with a blissful smile creasing your features.  I would prefer that _all_ self-defense training ultimately be a waste of time -- because this would mean that you got through life never being assaulted, attacked, or otherwise accosted.  This is not a realistic attitude in a dangerous world, but it is what I would hope for you and everyone else.

Realistically, it is my hope that you form conclusions about your training by conducting that training realistically.  If you wish to augment your RBSD or TMA training with sport training, that's fine.  Please do not, however, substitute sportfighting for realistic training in context.  Please do not buy into the myth of "pressure testing," in which whatever works in sporting competitions is presumed to be the best proof of what can work in real life.  Until sportfighting tournaments involve the random possibility of knives and firearms, with audience members jumping into the ring at random, and until that ring is made of asphalt and travels from town to town snaring unsuspecting competitors at random for fights not of their choosing, sportfighting will remain another methodology only -- and an _inferior_ methodology at that, given the vital context and goals it dismisses or alters in redefining martial training as consensual, controlled sportive dueling.

"Pressure testing" is a myth and a potentially dangerous one.  It is potentially dangerous because it tempts sportfighters to develop false confidence in what they do as somehow "proven."  The reality is that such sportive methodologies are every bit as much _simulated_ as RBSD and TMA methodologies.  They can be more physically strenuous; they can involve more or harder contact; they can be more demanding in any of several ways.  They cannot, however, be _better_ simulations for realistic self-defense training.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 15, 2006)

1) Much is made, largely on the parts of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) enthusiasts and other practitioners of "martial" sports, of the concept of "pressure testing." The phrase is invoked _ad nauseam_ by those who believe a technique, a system, or a methodology that has not been used with success (or that has not been used at all) in the Ultimate Fighting Championship simply cannot work in reality. 

Yes. Those people´s opinions should be dismissed outright, there are idiots in every human activity.

2) Many MMA stylists, particularly foreigners in nations with strict weapons control, mischaracterize realistic self-defense proponents as "weapons fetishists." As the carrying of weapons is not an option to such foreign MMA practitioners, they prefer to believe weapons training is not just a waste of time and effort; they prefer to believe that it is, in fact, indicative of some sort of mental illness, lack of confidence, or some other personal inadequacy. In return, armed, prepared martialists shake their heads at this incredibly arrogant, incredibly naive notion, as too often it seems sportfighters cannot separate their beliefs about how tough they think they are from the stark realities of training only to avoid or survive a violent confrontation in order to go home to one's family at the end of the day.

That´s just a poorly disguised attack at Kickcatcher, who, by no fault of his own, was born in England. 

In fact, you are putting words in his mouth and fabricating facts. Kickcatcher is a RBSD guy, not a MMA guy; also, I never heard him stating ALL weapons owners are fetishists or mentally retarded. Some are, of course, but the same could be said of some members of the MMA/RBSD/TMA crowd as well. 

3) Combat systems offer reality to sports -- and sports offer competition, trial against an uncooperative opponent, to combat systems. The two should be combined and integrated to yield effective training for fighters, Sonnon says. I agree wholeheartedly.

Very well then.

4) Such a resulting program, such a combination, is based on realistic resistance and realistic contact conducted in a realistic context. It is, in short, Reality Based Self-Defense, when trained diligently and honestly with drills and exercises of appropriate scope, unpredictability, and physical difficulty. It is not, however, the type of training held up by MMA practitioners as "the best" or as "pressure tested."

But they do frequently overlap, at least when it comes to unarmed fighting skills. I suppose that is the main point of MMA proponents, one, it seems, we both agree on.

5) By the same token, the one-on-one prepared, voluntary duels of sporting competition, which take place on forgiving terrain, within a guaranteed set of rules (even in the most violent NHB competition, the opponents know that they face one and only one competitor who bears no weapons), do not truly _prove_ anything about realistic self-defense. A technique or methodology "pressure tested" in MMA competition has not been "proven to work" any more than has an RBSD technique that is drilled over and over again against uncooperative training partners using padded assailant/adrenal stress methodologies or blunted aluminum or rubber knives. Both applications tell us something about the techniques and training methodologies used, of course, and they most certainly tell us what "works" and what does not in that context. What they do not tell us is how those things translate into realistic, pragmatic self-defense in unconstrained (unforgiving) physical environments where singular opponents are not guaranteed, where weapons are commonly present, and where the winner of the "fight" is the guy who goes home without having it at all.

All combat training, specifically unarmed/martial arts training, involves a compromise between reality and safety, that is a fact. But the less rules you have during a specific training exercise, the more it will approach the rather undefined notion of a real encounter. In that sense, trying to dismiss the usefulness of a certain technique only because it worked "only" against a trained individual without weapons and without friends is not productive - in fact, it is outright hiding your head in the sand.

Common sense should always be applied. Not even the most rabid BJJ practitioner would argue it is a good idea to go to the ground against multiple opponents: but the fact that lots of trained fighters who did not want to go to the ground were taken there against their will, even though they were not seriously contrained by any artificial rules of engagement, should tell us something about how easy it is to be taken to the ground against our will.

Which, in turn, should make us think about the need to train sprawling, stand up grappling and groundfighting, even though we may loathe groundfighting. In that sense the MMA arena works as a very nice laboratory for the self defense oriented practitioner. 

6) Sport methodology is inherently unrealistic because it transforms the asymmetrical goal of pragmatic self-defense into the symmetrical goal of winning the match between two people.

That depends on what you call "sport methodology". Sport-like training is used frequently by military and police to develop attributes needed for survival. There is a REASON the Tokyo police chose judo as its main unarmed fighting program (even disconsidering the fact that the judo kodokan WON the challenge match promoted by the Tokyo police for such a purpose) - the fact that judo allows for competitions and frequent sparring was considered a good point, not a bad one.

Sportive methodology may be a good or a bad thing. You need to work on your definitions first before making such a generalized statement.

7) The difference is that RBSD schools (and even the better TMA kwoons and dojos) train this resistance in a context, in an environment, more closely evocative of true real-world self-defense conditions. 

Many sportive martial arts, such as BJJ, do have self defense programs. Resistance may not be the sole province of the MMA crowd, but self defense is not the sole province of the RBSD crowd either. In fact, both overlap more than what you want to acknowledge.

8) Your self-defense training cannot and never will be "proof" of anything. If conducted realistically, in context, with resisting and uncooperative training partners, you can -- applying logic, reason, and simple common sense to the data such training provides you -- make reasonable conclusions about what will and will not work (or what is and is not likely to work) in actual self-defense. You will not, however, conclusively _prove_ anything to yourself or to anyone else.

All training involves a compromise between safety and reality. We can agree on that.

9) Until sportfighting tournaments involve the random possibility of knives and firearms, with audience members jumping into the ring at random, and until that ring is made of asphalt and travels from town to town snaring unsuspecting competitors at random for fights not of their choosing, sportfighting will remain another methodology only -- and an _inferior_ methodology at that, given the vital context and goals it dismisses or alters in redefining martial training as consensual, controlled sportive dueling.

Aha, now you said it with all the words.

Sportfighting is supposed to be inherently inferior to WHAT, Phil? Both fields overlap. You are just creating an eminently artificial distinction between "sportfighting" and "RBSD", as if both fields did not have a lot in common, as if both fields did not use many of the same training methods!

Nope, sorry. You are just playing with definitions here.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil,
            I actually agree with many of your points.  We cannot all just practice full contact when we have real lives to lead.  But, to call pressure testing a myth is just a way to make excuses for the shortcomings in what you do.  I think a more balanced approach is the key.  You have to practice on the bag, as you say, and on non-compliant individuals so that you will understand what it really takes.  Sport fighting is just another tool in the martial artist arsenal.   Sport, IMHO, hardens you much more than theory.   You are right that theory is needed.  But who am I to listen too, the person who actually has some fighting experience or the person who knows some theory about it.  How about the person who has fighting experience and tells me theories they have come up with based on that?  We need traditional training, sport training and reality training.  If you intend to be a leader, then lead from the front, not behind excuses.  
            As for the weapons thing, sounds like the rhetoric of Benard Getz.  One of the best things I have ever read from you was in your post  -- for in reality, we do not volunteer for conflicts that can be avoided through simple refusal.  Brilliant, but why carry weapons?  Weapons promote violent action.  If you did not carry a weapon and someone bothered you, you might take your own advice and refuse to engage.  Since you have the weapon you are now, theoretically, stronger so you can engage the victim, I mean perp.  Wonder why some weapons advocates get labeled as insecure, thats why.  Target shooting is just kata.  Live fire training is sport.  War is reality.  Given that, Ill take the kata.  Only those who have not been there wish for the reality.
            Training is a lifestyle.  It is not just words on paper, or mat time.  It is a true attempt by the individual to gain as much skill and knowledge as they can.  It is not a 5, 10 or 20 year thing; it is a lifetime pursuit.  Shortcuts do not work.

ron


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 15, 2006)

MSUTKD said:
			
		

> Phil,
> I actually agree with many of your points. We cannot all just practice full contact when we have real lives to lead. But, to call pressure testing a myth is just a way to make excuses for the shortcomings in what you do.
> 
> ...
> ...


 
Truer words were never said.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 15, 2006)

> Nope, sorry. You are just playing with definitions here.


 
Nope, sorry.  You are just attempting to justify that which I've already refuted.  As to whomever you're referencing by name, my post does not address anyone specifically.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 15, 2006)

MSUTKD said:
			
		

> Phil,
> I actually agree with many of your points.




Good.




> But, to call pressure testing a myth is just a way to make excuses for the shortcomings in what you do.


 
No; that is projecting one's own inadequacies onto what I have written.  I have clearly defined why I believe it to be a myth and I've stated so objectively and at great length. It has nothing to do with how tough you believe yourself to be, or not.  It has nothing to do without tough one's training is believed to be, or not.  

It has everything to do with _context_.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Much is made, largely on the parts of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) enthusiasts and other practitioners of "martial" sports, of the concept of "pressure testing." The phrase is invoked _ad nauseam_ by those who believe a technique, a system, or a methodology that has not been used with success (or that has not been used at all) in the Ultimate Fighting Championship simply cannot work in reality.



And right there is where it falls apart.

Pressure testing has nothing to do with what other people can make work, it has to do with what *I* can make work.  It is not confined to the rules of a sport, it is confined to how hard you are willing to train.

Now you are saying this is a poor argument used often by MMA people, well I would like to counter and say that a poor one used by RBSD ones is that sparring MUST follow the rules of the UFC and cannot take into account  anything not allowed under those.  This is not the case, we can (and do) train weapons, multiple attackers, illegal techniques and anything else you can come up with.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Now you are saying this is a poor argument used often by MMA people, well I would like to counter and say that a poor one used by RBSD ones is that sparring MUST follow the rules of the UFC and cannot take into account anything not allowed under those. This is not the case, we can (and do) train weapons, multiple attackers, illegal techniques and anything else you can come up with.


 
Quite so. In fact, I would say what Phil made was an artificial distinction - RBSD people train with "sportive" methods such as sparring and shadowboxing, MMA people frequently train weapons disarms and self defense scenarios.

Both things are directly related. A good practitioner of Krav Magah who trained Krav Magah seriously should be able to do well at a NHB competition, a NHB competitor has a good chance of surviving a real encounter.

"Sportive" does not equals "not good for tha str33t", Phil did not offer us a good definition of the term to work with. As I said, judo, a well known sportive martial art, has been used by the japanese police for decades with success; the fact that it is a sport did not detract from its efficiency in the slightest.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 15, 2006)

So Phil, in your opinion, did Geoff Thompson get it all wrong when he devised "Animal Day: Pressure testing the martial arts"? 

It is unfortunate that you take it upon yourself to speak for the RBSD community when your anti-pressure testing stance is directly opposed to that of many well known RBSDers such as Geoff Thompson, Dave Turton and others - people of far higher reputation within the RBSD community, and far more real world experience than you.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And right there is where it falls apart.
> 
> Pressure testing has nothing to do with what other people can make work, it has to do with what *I* can make work. It is not confined to the rules of a sport, it is confined to how hard you are willing to train.
> 
> Now you are saying this is a poor argument used often by MMA people, well I would like to counter and say that a poor one used by RBSD ones is that sparring MUST follow the rules of the UFC and cannot take into account anything not allowed under those. This is not the case, we can (and do) train weapons, multiple attackers, illegal techniques and anything else you can come up with.


 
Nope; not the point.

The ineffectual criticism, to this point, simply adheres to the very notions I have outlined in the original piece.  If nothing else, at least it demonstrates the attitudes I was decrying.  This is not a rant against the notion of pressure testing;  this is an explanation of why those who believe they are "proving" anything through "pressure testing" in MMA are simply fooling themselves.  Realistic training in realistic context with realistic levels of contact and resistance constitute _testing_ insofar as testing is possible.  This is not the same as saying, "Don't test."


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Nope; not the point.
> 
> The ineffectual criticism, to this point, simply adheres to the very notions I have outlined in the original piece. If nothing else, at least it demonstrates the attitudes I was decrying.


 
The innefective one liners, to this point, demonstrate an unwillingness to further debate one´s points, a lack of consideration for other people´s arguments, and a condescending attitude comparable to soap box preaching.

In short, you are only making ad hominem attacks instead of debating the very good points presented here against your OPINIONS (which you were good enough to present as facts). 

Argue as an adult or give uip Phil.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 15, 2006)

To quote Geoff Thompson, RBSD "expert":


> The last thing you want as a martial art practitioner is to find out that your technique or character crumbles in a confrontational situation. It could get you killed or certainly badly injured. the controlled environment is the place to find the leaks, not the live scenario."


From *Animal Day; Pressure Testing the Martial Arts*, ISBN 1 84024 111 X


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 15, 2006)

Ok, what methods of testing do you make use of?


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil,
It sounds as though you're arguing against MMA guys that argue that MMA is the end all, be all of SD. Anybody involved in MMA with half a brain knows this is not the case. Nobody is arguing that point here at all.

MMA is just the best format today to experiment with what are the best empty hand *TECHNIQUES* to defeat a single attacker. On the other hand MMA strategy is pretty worthless outside of the cage. 

Fact: In an SD encounter that involves a single unarmed attacker, your best chance for survival are MMA techniques. The *EMPIRICAL* evidence is crystal clear.

Even more important than that fact is the sport training method from MMA. Whether one is talking guns, knives, sticks, and mutiple opponents. Or any combination of them. YOU GOTTA GEAR UP AND BANG.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 15, 2006)

> Fact: In an SD encounter that involves a single unarmed attacker, your best chance for survival are MMA techniques. The EMPIRICAL evidence is crystal clear.



No, it is not, for the reasons I have already (and preemptively) explained.

You will continue to believe what you wish to believe; this, too, was the point of my article, which also covers what I believe to be the appropriate method of testing insofar as testing can be done.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil, I realise that you don't have much of a track record for answering straight questions, but can you at least try to comment on the difference between your view presented here as that of the RBSD community and the 180 degree oposing view put forward by Geoff Thompson, a well known RBSD personality?


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 15, 2006)

There is a major difference between what it feels like when your life is on the line versus your title.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> 1) No, it is not, for the reasons I have already (and preemptively) explained.
> 
> 2) You will continue to believe what you wish to believe; this, too, was the point of my article, which also covers what I believe to be the appropriate method of testing insofar as testing can be done.


 
1) You presented opinions, not facts, though you did try to disguise them as such. But my biggest problem with your article is that you did not offer an alternative to the kind of testing offered by MMA practices, sort of getting into a real encounter. This is not a constructive criticism, this is just you saying "your way is bad, bad, baaad" without offering a better alternative.

2) Translation: "I know my article was faulty and in sore need of actual arguments, I know my opinion does not stand as fact, and I know you guys know you actually got me now, but I sure as hell am not going to admit it and I´lll keep pretending my article is both self explanatory and beyond criticism".


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

Phil, So thousands upon thousands of fights and sparring sessions by different people all over the world have gotten it wrong?


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

> "There is a major difference between what it feels like when your life is on the line versus your title."


 
-Yes of course. But what training method will get you as close to "your life on the line" as possible without serious risk of injury?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 15, 2006)

I think that the biggest flaw in the author&#8217;s reasoning is that he presents &#8220;pressure testing&#8221; as synonymous with MMA when in fact it is just a training method shared by many martial artists, not least prominent members of the RBSD community. This blurs the lines between the sport and the training method, allowing him to misattribute the perceived weaknesses of the former* to invalidate the latter. 

The argument then extends the negative label &#8220;sportsfighting&#8221; to things like sparring and even fitness training. 

It's a devisive tactic and lacks common sense and objectivity. 


_*which I feel are often taken out of perspective anyway. _


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2006)

_*Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our conduct in posting policy located at the RULES link on the blue menu bar. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

 -G Ketchmark / shesulsa
 -MT Senior Moderator-*_


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

Well said kickcatcher.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Fact: In an SD encounter that involves a single unarmed attacker, your best chance for survival are MMA techniques. The *EMPIRICAL* evidence is crystal clear.


 
Would you please define what you mean by "MMA techniques"?  How does an MMA sidekick or MMA frontkick or MMA punch or MMA hip throw differ from a traditional frontkick, sidekick, punch or hip throw?  Does MMA have an exclusive claim to certain techniques that are not found in other arts?

By its very name, MMA implies techniques taken from several arts.  Is it fair to assume that these parent arts were probably traditional arts?

These are honest questions.  I am not trying to poke at anyone, but I would appreciate some clarification as I have no involvement with the MMA community.  Just trying to understand where you are all coming from.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

Flying Crane,
I simply mean techniques that have proven effective in MMA competition, whatever their origins may be.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Flying Crane,
> I simply mean techniques that have proven effective in MMA competition, whatever their origins may be.


 
ok, so the technique itself, in its simplest form is probably the same, the difference being the user's comfort with it due to experience in use against an opponent who is doing his best to not let you use it on him.  Would that sum it up accurately?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 15, 2006)

MMA Competition is not the street. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.
You can train patty cake, or your can train full tilt in any art. Regardless, one of those are anywhere near the reality of a life or death confrontation. 
Until you feel your sphincter pucker and the wetness run down your leg knowing that if you are wrong you die, you don't know if it will really work.
Fancy dance steps aren't the same. Rolling in the cage isn't the same thing.

Looking for a fight to see if your **** works is also not smart. Only the fool seeks out battle. It is the king of fools who brags about seeking battle to prove their mettle.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

> ok, so the technique itself, in its simplest form is probably the same, the difference being the user's comfort with it due to experience in use against an opponent who is doing his best to not let you use it on him. Would that sum it up accurately?


-Yes, I would say so.



> MMA Competition is not the street.


-Nobody here has said any such thing.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Phil, So thousands upon thousands of fights and sparring sessions by different people all over the world have gotten it wrong?


This would imply that they are somehow "pressure tested" under real world situations, and therefore suitable for street use, when in fact, all it proves is that they will work under controled and regulated situations. Professional wrestling moves can be argued equally effective under the same logic, but I wouldn't want to trust my life to a "VanDaminator".

Out of curiousity though gents, is this a real discussion, or simply more bullshido vs martialist sewage?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2006)

Question

I know this is a big discussion and I know I was very involved in it on another post before, but I have begun to wonder if any of these people ever thought of any of this or if they would even have cared.

Ueshiba Morihei 
Dong Haichuan
Sun Lutang 
Chojun Miyagi
Chotoku Kyan
Yip Mann
Jigoro Kano
Yang Bin Hao
Chen Fake
Chen Zhaopi
Miyamoto Musashi

All were very acomplished fighters/martial artists and most if not all were undefeated, these are very tough guys. And to say the fights and challenges they were involved in were not as tough as anything today would be a serious understatement. Some were fighting in life and death situations others were fighting a challenger that wanted nothing more than to maim or kill them to prove themselves better. And they are all basically traditional martial artists and or founders of a traditional martial art and or sports versions. It would seem to me they would know what pressure was when it comes to fighting.

I guess I am saying what is the big deal. If you do TMA, MMA, SMA, RBSD, boxing,  Judo,  Wing Chun, JKD, Mauy Tai, Shan Shou, Kung Fu, Karate, Krav Magna, Savate, or Capoeira. 

Big deal Tough is tough, skilled is skilled and there is always someone bigger, or tougher, or luckier, for aster. 

It all comes down to why we train and what training we feel is best for us. I truly believe there are no bad martial arts, just the occasional bad martial artist. And to be honest whether pressure testing is good or bad, true or false does not change the fact that I train internal CMA and I have great respect for many of the martial artists of all styles that came before me and those that train today.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

Those techniques have been tested under the most realistic test conditions possible for a single unarmed attacker. Sometimes a SD situation will be similar. Othertimes it won't. 



> Out of curiousity though gents, is this a real discussion, or simply more bullshido vs martialist sewage?


-I've wanted to engage Phil in this discussion for some time. He has refused to do so until now. I don't care where on the net it is.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Those techniques have been tested under the most realistic test conditions possible for a single unarmed attacker. Sometimes a SD situation will be similar. Othertimes it won't.
> 
> 
> -I've wanted to engage Phil in this discussion for some time. He has refused to do so until now. I don't care where on the net it is.


Most realistic test conditions? 
Can you cite them, their criteria, and the restrictions imposed on thise tests?

Now, this isn't a threat, challenge, etc, but a purely speculative question here. If you and I were to get into a fight, what techniques would you use against me? How far would it "go"?  I can guarentee you that if need be, I would bite you, rip at your eyes, claw, scrape and otherwise use any and all means at my disposal to defeat you. If there is a stick, a rock, a bottle, a chair, or a tire iron within my ability to obtain, I would use it, with the intent to put you into a non-threatening position. You can not do that within a "sparring" or a "competition" environment due to legal and physical concerns.  

The UFC may be great to watch, but in a real life situation, with 3 guys bearing down on you, the "Human Submission Machine" is going home in a bag.  So is the traditionalist who only trained to pull his shot and play the good partner.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

> Most realistic test conditions?


-Yes, for a single unarmed opponent.


> Can you cite them, their criteria, and the restrictions imposed on thise tests?


-That would simply be the rules a particular event is using.



> Now, this isn't a threat, challenge, etc, but a purely speculative question here. If you and I were to get into a fight, what techniques would you use against me?


-My basic SD gameplan is "sprawl and brawl". If I'm being out classed in stand up it becomes "ground and pound".



> How far would it "go"? I can guarentee you that if need be, I would bite you, rip at your eyes, claw, scrape and otherwise use any and all means at my disposal to defeat you. If there is a stick, a rock, a bottle, a chair, or a tire iron within my ability to obtain, I would use it, with the intent to put you into a non-threatening position.


-Ditto



> You can not do that within a "sparring" or a "competition" environment due to legal and physical concerns.


-Agreed.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2006)

_*Moderator note:

Thread locked pending Admin Review.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator*_


----------

