# MMA would never work in a real fight.



## Stealthy

Title says it all...have fun


----------



## Cyriacus

Are you being Deliberately Provocative to some Gentlemen, Good Sir?


----------



## Chris Parker

Tell you what, I'm going to try to turn this into a real discussion.

Absolutely correct, it wouldn't. Mainly because it isn't designed to. But the same can be said of every single martial art that I can think of, honestly, as each are designed with a particular environment, situation, and aim in mind, with that environment, situation, and aim being particular to the system itself. MMA, for example, trains for the environment of the competitive engagement, the situation of individual competition, and the aim of winning by submission or knockout against a single opponent. None of which is the same as a real fight.

However, and it's a big "however", the training methodology and technical material that go into making up MMA can be adapted, utilised, or executed in a 'real fight' with great success. Fighting exactly as you would in a ring would be ill-advised, for a range of reasons, but the training can be highly effective when used for the aims of defending yourself. Just don't think that a ref will stop anyone else getting involved with the fight.


----------



## Stealthy

This is actually a good topic for discussion but if I am to contribute it is not in the For but rather the Against.

I do not believe MMA is no good for real fighting, there may be some bad habits that come from training with sports motivation and training techniques which can be exploited but all in all I would say MMA fighters are some of the most dangerous fighters you could face in a real world situation where weapons are not involved.


----------



## Buka

I think all training in Martial Arts has great benefits. MMA with it's scope of grappling, striking and endurance training would certainly be high on the list of arts likely to benefit self defense skills. As would any art whose training included an attention to discipline and Bushido.


----------



## Cyriacus

Buka said:


> I think all training in Martial Arts has great benefits. MMA with it's scope of grappling, striking and endurance training would certainly be high on the list of arts likely to benefit self defense skills. As would any art whose training included an attention to discipline and Bushido.


Yes - To Imply that any Style wouldnt work in a Real Fight is perhaps a Fallacy. Some will perhaps be more Applicable than Others, but even the Conditioning would go a long way. Any Stylist who Practitions Contact Sparring will be more used to being Struck than just about anyone else can be, due to the Frequency of it.


----------



## Steve

What makes a fight "real?"


----------



## Stealthy

stevebjj said:


> What makes a fight "real?"



You tell me.


----------



## MJS

I think Chris hit the nail on the head with his 2nd paragraph.  Now, and I know some will disagree, which is fine, but I believe that, in addition to what he said, ie: that certain things can be adapted, that if the training is not geared towards a certain goal, the result you're seeking, probably wont happen.  

No, IMO, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to kick someone in the groin, or hit someone in the eyes.  I'm sure if I spent some time with my wife, a non martial artist, I'm sure I could get her to throw a kick to the groin or finger jab the eyes.  But I do feel that training something in a repetitive fashion will allow the person to recall and apply those things more readily than someone who doesnt.  

IMO, some of the biggest and most important things that someone trained in MMA will bring to the table is the contact, the aliveness, the resistance, and especially the cardio.  

Please dont misunderstand....I'm not implying that someone who trains under Frank Shamrock, will crumble in a fight, but like every art, there are strengths and weaknesses in everything.  

As far as whether or not any other art would work...well, IMO, many of the arts were designed for SD/war/fighting purposes, so that said, one would assume that they'd work, though IMO, things should be adapted to todays world.  Yeah, I know, everyone still has 2 arms/legs, just like they did hundreds of years ago, however, things have changed, such as application of fighting, body size, athletic ability, etc.


----------



## Steve

Stealthy said:


> You tell me.


i asked first.


----------



## Stealthy

stevebjj said:


> i asked first.



Okay then, how about any fight against an opponent intent on causing physical harm and not within the confines of an MMA competition or sparring session.


----------



## MA-Caver

stevebjj said:


> What makes a fight "real?"


How about when the other guy doesn't give a damn about hurting you.


----------



## Omar B

Nope, only slapping someone with a Salmon works in a real fight.


----------



## MA-Caver

Omar B said:


> Nope, only slapping someone with a Salmon works in a real fight.


 and a rotted salmon to boot!


----------



## JohnEdward

Prior to MMA/BJJ, fights could to the ground.  Usually that meant you got kick and stomped on, or someone sat on you and hit you; remember Christmas story? On the ground meant the a great disadvantage to the person on the ground.  Well BJJ comes along and says you don't have to lose if you're on the ground. Then MMA evolves and history is made as it defeats BJJ. Reinstating you now have less of a chance on the ground of winning the fight.  The other think MMA isn't exclusive. Anyone one can learn MMA. Keep in my that doesn't guarantee you as a winning street or ring fighter.  No art does.  What really has changed due to MMA it gives you more of a fighting change, and like any fight the winner is based on ability to perform well in the fight. To answer the question, the clothes make the man.


----------



## Cyriacus

stevebjj said:


> What makes a fight "real?"


Ive wanted to say this for a while.

Apparently a Real Fight is when a Street Warrior Assaults You, and then you have a Battle, in which there are No Rules, and somehow MUST involve Wrestling at some point


----------



## Steve

If you're not in danger of contracting SARS or the bird/man/pig flu from dirty hypodermics littering the shores of rivers flowing with magma, while fighting gangs of ninja, it's not a real fight.

Anything less, though, and I have to believe that MMA training wouldn't hurt.


----------



## Omar B

Cyriacus said:


> Ive wanted to say this for a while.
> 
> Apparently a Real Fight is when a Street Warrior Assaults You, and then you have a Battle, in which there are No Rules, and somehow MUST involve Wrestling at some point



No, a real fight involves West Nile Virus.


----------



## elder999

double post, sorry....


----------



## elder999

A real fight:

[yt]k0YDuSLXcX8[/yt]
:lfao:


----------



## Stealthy

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.


----------



## elder999

Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.



Oh, okay.

[yt]ooFSFR2s7Ig[/yt]

Better yet:

[yt]Ym9msqE6oYM[/yt]


----------



## Cyriacus

stevebjj said:


> If you're not in danger of contracting SARS or  the bird/man/pig flu from dirty hypodermics littering the shores of  rivers flowing with magma, while fighting gangs of ninja, it's not a  real fight.
> 
> Anything less, though, and I have to believe that MMA training wouldn't hurt.







Omar B said:


> No, a real fight involves West Nile Virus.







elder999 said:


> A real fight:
> 
> [yt]k0YDuSLXcX8[/yt]
> :lfao:



Their Skulls, are so well Condi... Oh, wait, you cannot Condition your Skull 



Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.



Not quite what the Question was. The Lethality of a Fight is irrelevant to how the Fight Functions.
Im mainly addressing the Notion of all Street Fighters being Super Warrior Ninjas.



elder999 said:


> Oh, okay.
> 
> [yt]ooFSFR2s7Ig[/yt]
> 
> Better yet:
> 
> [yt]Ym9msqE6oYM[/yt]







Color me Amused, Gentlemen. Color me Amused.


----------



## frank raud

Stealthy said:


> Okay then, how about any fight against an opponent intent on causing physical harm and not within the confines of an MMA competition or sparring session.



So, would a judo match qualify?


----------



## frank raud

Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.


My personal preference in fights to the death is heavy weaponry and a shield, often my mother in law. Odd, she doesn't want to go out drinking with me anymore. If I can't have heavy weaponry, I find all my advanced training in no rules, no discipline, no structured fighting that I have never taken to the absolute pinnacle of my training(ie the death or either myself or my opponent(s)) is much more effective than the training that folks get by fighting not to the death against non-compliant partners> The big difference being I can take my training to the next level , because I train with no rules, whereas they train strictly under rules which limit them in their effectiveness. That's right I'm the deadly!


----------



## Cyriacus

frank raud said:


> My personal preference in fights to the death is heavy weaponry and a shield, often my mother in law. Odd, she doesn't want to go out drinking with me anymore. If I can't have heavy weaponry, I find all my advanced training in no rules, no discipline, no structured fighting that I have never taken to the absolute pinnacle of my training(ie the death or either myself or my opponent(s)) is much more effective than the training that folks get by fighting not to the death against non-compliant partners> The big difference being I can take my training to the next level , because I train with no rules, whereas they train strictly under rules which limit them in their effectiveness. That's right I'm the deadly!


...Until you die, to a Training Partner.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.



While IMO a "real" fight would include elements of danger that could lead to serious injury or death this does not mean it has to be to the death. Look at Musashi. He didn't kill everyone he fought.

And while I am not the biggest fan of MMA, of course it could work in a real fight. Adapting training methodologies could quickly make the skills aquired in MMA suitable for personal defense, but there does have to be changes made just like with traditional systems.


----------



## JohnEdward

A real fight...hmmmm been in a few in my day. Knives where always an issue for those I fought.  No such things as rules, MMA vs. Traditional. The criminals I fought often had experience, developing their own methodologies. That is what made it really dangerous, the unpredictable methodologies.  That is what defines a real fight,  is the unpredictabilities and the ability to cope with that.  What defines the out come of a real fight isn't talk.  A fighter works on several levels, not just one.  These levels are attitude and intelligence, skill, experience and talent. The one who often loses is due to not having the right attitude and intelligence, talent, enough proper experience and then adequate skills in that order.  It doesn't matter what you train in, MMA or not,  there are some things that can't be taught to a person, i.e. natural talent, experience, a fire. It is true a well trained person in MMA is more likely to defeat a traditional martial artist who does it recreationally.  That is sport vs. hobby. Sports wins. But that can also go the other way.  Not everyone in MMA is a good fighter, MMA isn't a magic bullet.  In a real fight does MMA work? Just as good as anything else in the right hands.  Real fights are unpredictable, and it depends on who your are fighting. MMA is no different in this regard than any other art.  I often refer to mass murders, and convicts too too dangerous to be with the rest of the prison population, and hard core experienced gang members, wise guys, etc. How much time do you think the most dangerous people in society spend training in MMA?   The think people forget is MMA is a sport, a &#8220;mix of martial arts&#8221; practiced for sport. It doesn&#8217;t make you superman.  MMA is effective, and a great tool. And any poor bastard can learn it.  But, it is the person wheedling the art, the opponent being faced, and the situation at hand that makes it effective in a real fight. Just as other fighting methodologies.


----------



## JohnEdward

Oh and by the way, in here I posted recently a video showing an old MMA fight. Kimura Masahiko MMA before the 199Os and in Japan? Where Kimura fights a guy and wins. Read the thread and it's comments. It was indicated by one poster that Kimura changed the fight from a pro to a real fight and that wasn't considered an MMA fight, by another poster.  I beg to differ as it illustrates the points in my last post of a real fight is unpredictable as well as the others.


----------



## Cyriacus

JohnEdward said:


> A real fight...hmmmm been in a few in my day. Knives where always an issue for those I fought.  No such things as rules, MMA vs. Traditional. The criminals I fought often had experience, developing their own methodologies. That is what made it really dangerous, the unpredictable methodologies.  That is what defines a real fight,  is the unpredictabilities and the ability to cope with that.  What defines the out come of a real fight isn't talk.  A fighter works on several levels, not just one.  These levels are attitude and intelligence, skill, experience and talent. The one who often loses is due to not having the right attitude and intelligence, talent, enough proper experience and then adequate skills in that order.  It doesn't matter what you train in, MMA or not,  there are some things that can't be taught to a person, i.e. natural talent, experience, a fire. It is true a well trained person in MMA is more likely to defeat a traditional martial artist who does it recreationally.  That is sport vs. hobby. Sports wins. But that can also go the other way.  Not everyone in MMA is a good fighter, MMA isn't a magic bullet.  In a real fight does MMA work? Just as good as anything else in the right hands.  Real fights are unpredictable, and it depends on who your are fighting. MMA is no different in this regard than any other art.  I often refer to mass murders, and convicts too too dangerous to be with the rest of the prison population, and hard core experienced gang members, wise guys, etc. How much time do you think the most dangerous people in society spend training in MMA?   The think people forget is MMA is a sport, a &#8220;mix of martial arts&#8221; practiced for sport. It doesn&#8217;t make you superman.  MMA is effective, and a great tool. And any poor bastard can learn it.  But, it is the person wheedling the art, the opponent being faced, and the situation at hand that makes it effective in a real fight. Just as other fighting methodologies.



That, is very well phrased, I do say.
Very well Phrased Indeed.


----------



## frank raud

JohnEdward said:


> Oh and by the way, in here I posted recently a video showing an old MMA fight. Kimura Masahiko MMA before the 199Os and in Japan? Where Kimura fights a guy and wins. Read the thread and it's comments. It was indicated by one poster that Kimura changed the fight from a pro to a real fight and that wasn't considered an MMA fight, by another poster. I beg to differ as it illustrates the points in my last post of a real fight is unpredictable as well as the others.



Kimura didn't changed the fight from a PRO WRESTLING match to a real fight, it was his opponent RIKIDOZAN.  A MMA fight implies that it is fought under MMA rules, not that you ignore the script and do whatever you want.


----------



## Sanke

Himura Kenshin said:


> Look at Musashi. He didn't kill everyone he fought.



Haha, I like that. He didn't kill ALL of them... Just most  
Then again, the ones he didn't kill were mostly in duels that were not to the death in the first place.
One of them where it was to the death, Musashi struck him on the head, which might have killed him, but he lived. His opponent soon after renounced his status, shaved his head and became a monk, living in isolation (at least, that's how it went from memory), so even when he didn't kill, he sure left an impression


----------



## Sanke

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic. It can happen when someone mentions Musashi 
But to the topic at hand...



Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.


 
I disagree completely. While there is certainly the chance of death or injury, I doubt your average drunkard who just happens to pick a fight with you cuz you looked at him funny is really going to attack you with the mindset of 'I'm going to kill this person'. He more likely just doesn't care how much he hurts you. 

I also disagree with the idea of a fight being to the death from the perspective of the defender. If you have that mentality that every encounter is to the death, then you may resort to using more force than is nessisary, like, say, grabbing a nearby sharp object, bottle, etc, as you're fearing for your life. 
Doesn't look to good on a police report if your reponce to someone throwing a punch is botling them in the face.
Of course, having not really had much experience in combat, this is all just so much opinion, but I do beleave that the mindset you have while training is what's gonna come out in a 'real' situation, and if you train with the idea that every attacker is aiming to kill you, you may end up becoming the attacker yourself.


----------



## JohnEdward

frank raud said:


> Kimura didn't changed the fight from a PRO WRESTLING match to a real fight, it was his opponent RIKIDOZAN.



Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: *A rose by any other name would smell as sweet *_-Shakespeare _


----------



## Mz1

I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I've posted the following here, my own board and on our association website.  It has been well received and is intended to be informative and not verbally combative towards sports oriented practitioners.  It assumes for the sake of discussion that 'MMA' is the type designed for competition rather than a cross-training venue in two or more SD related martial arts.



> *Self Defense Training Methodology*​There has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.
> 
> For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.
> 
> For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.
> 
> For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.
> 
> For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.
> 
> To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).
> 
> 
> Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
> The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
> The opponent is unarmed.
> The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
> Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
> The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
> You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
> If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
> There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.
> 
> As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;
> 
> Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
> Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
> Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
> You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
> There are no rules.
> There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
> The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
> The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
> The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
> There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
> The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
> To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
> The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.
> 
> When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;
> 
> Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
> Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
> Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
> Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
> Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
> Is the student required to observe certain rules?
> Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
> Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
> Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
> Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
> Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someones head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.
> 
> This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.
> 
> Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.
> 
> Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;
> 
> Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
> A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
> A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
> Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
> The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
> Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.
> 
> Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.
> 
> That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.


----------



## MJS

JohnEdward said:


> Prior to MMA/BJJ, fights could to the ground.  Usually that meant you got kick and stomped on, or someone sat on you and hit you; remember Christmas story? On the ground meant the a great disadvantage to the person on the ground.  Well BJJ comes along and says you don't have to lose if you're on the ground. Then MMA evolves and history is made as it defeats BJJ. Reinstating you now have less of a chance on the ground of winning the fight.  The other think MMA isn't exclusive. Anyone one can learn MMA. Keep in my that doesn't guarantee you as a winning street or ring fighter.  No art does.  What really has changed due to MMA it gives you more of a fighting change, and like any fight the winner is based on ability to perform well in the fight. To answer the question, the clothes make the man.



Underlined part mine.  Couldn't agree more with that!


----------



## MJS

Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.



I'll disagree with that.


----------



## frank raud

JohnEdward said:


> Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: *A rose by any other name would smell as sweet *_-Shakespeare _


Twice I asked on the other thread,  What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? So I will ask again here, as you raise the previous thread as an example, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? What are the elements that make this MMA as opposed to two Judoka? When Ken Shamrock left the UFC and went to pbecome a pro wrestler, was he still doing MMa in your opinion, or was he doing pro wrestling?


----------



## Cyriacus

frank raud said:


> Twice I asked on the other thread,  What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? So I will ask again here, as you raise the previous thread as an example, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? What are the elements that make this MMA as opposed to two Judoka? When Ken Shamrock left the UFC and went to pbecome a pro wrestler, was he still doing MMa in your opinion, or was he doing pro wrestling?



Pro Wrestlers use MA Techniques.
The Comparison can be made, besides the fact that Wrestling is meant to be orchestrated.


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets.



Not exactly.
Thats similar to the Logic that Kata wouldnt work, due to a Lack of Full Contact during Practicing them, despite perhaps Partaking in Seperate Contact Sparring, which ought be the same thing.
Or that Side Kicks dont work in Kickboxing, without realising how sheerly many Variations of the Side Kick there are, and that any Heel Kick Variation can be quite Ruthless.

MMA is highly Subjective.
Like anything, its the Person Training it.
Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking.
The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it.

MMA, as someone else said, is not a Magical Win Button.
Its a Sport Style, which Mixs Martial Arts to suit its Purpose.

Ultimately, its Whos Learning it.

Now, I can understand your wanting to Defend MMA - And to clarify, I think it would Work in Fighting.
But Defend with the Right Reasoning in mind.
Not just an, "If he doesnt think MMA would work, it must be because hes Scared of it."

Thats my Contribution.


----------



## frank raud

Cyriacus said:


> Pro Wrestlers use MA Techniques.
> The Comparison can be made, besides the fact that Wrestling is meant to be orchestrated.



Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are  automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?


----------



## JohnEdward

frank raud said:


> Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are  automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?



Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there.


----------



## Chris Parker

JohnEdward said:


> Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: *A rose by any other name would smell as sweet *_-Shakespeare _



You seem to have missed the point of the Shakespeare quote you're using there, John. It's from Romeo and Juliet, when Juliet has realised that the dashing young lad she met at the party that night (he was actually looking for someone else, dog that he is...) is a member of a family that is the sworn enemy of her own. So she laments that fate has dealt such a cruel blow, and rails against the idea that his name is an obstacle. The quote in question is her whining, frankly, and she realises that it is unrealistic of her to hope for such things. It is not a statement, it is a fanciful wish from her.

MMA and BJJ are definitions referring to specific things, same as Montague was a specific name referring to members of a certain family, and no amount of "a rose by any other name" changes that.



JohnEdward said:


> Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there.



Except that in the other thread you ducked Frank's question twice, and then said:



JohnEdward said:


> I think there is no need to continue.



So how about you answer the question, either here or there? What, in the clip you posted over there, do you identify as BJJ or MMA? If you answer here, then we can get an idea of what you think of when you refer to MMA (for the record, I don't think you get what it is), and if you answer there, then we can get an idea of what you think BJJ is (for the record, I don't think you get what that is, either), as well as correcting your history.


----------



## Cyriacus

frank raud said:


> Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are  automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?


Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.


----------



## JohnEdward

Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here.  And again, there is a thread for that discussion.


----------



## frank raud

Cyriacus said:


> Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
> If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.
> 
> Its all a matter of the Venue.



For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts  MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.


----------



## Chris Parker

Cyriacus said:


> Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
> If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.
> 
> Its all a matter of the Venue.



No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).



JohnEdward said:


> Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here.  And again, there is a thread for that discussion.



Except that you refused to discuss it there, and it is on topic as the topic is MMA and it's applicability to a "real" fight. If you cannot define what it is that makes you think the clip you posted is MMA, how can we take any comment you make about MMA as informed, especially when it goes against what most others would call MMA.


----------



## JohnEdward

frank raud said:


> For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts  MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.



Based on the above Frank, you see that a real fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight  and a real fight are not the same. But what if  both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't be a real fight.  But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?"   Now that I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters, training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.


----------



## Cyriacus

frank raud said:


> For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts  MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.



I should mention that I am not Referring to the Sport of MMA, but rather to MMA as a Whole.
Of Course MMA didnt "Exist" in the Past, in the Sense that it does now.
But the Point was never if it was or was not something which wasnt Technically Coined until later.
Enough about that, anyway. This isnt the Thread for it.

The Venue Decides Which MA they are Mixing.
And what I meant before, is that Wrestlers dont just Wrestle. It isnt just Wrestling, in the sense of Catch-As-Catch-Can, Collar-And-Elbow, or any other such thing. Its largely Organised Visualistic Performances, which can Incorporate Numerous Martial Arts or Styles.

Though at the same time, the Formal Naming of Combinations is seperable to Forms being Mixed.
I can see how you came to the conclusion you did - Such is merely a Flaw in the way Text may be Interprited.
I said that they were Mixing Martial Arts. Not that it was MMA.
I was being a bit more Literal than it may Perhaps seem. And to elaborate on that, the First Two Lines of this Reply ought do Swell.



Chris Parker said:


> No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a  system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different  rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are  they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).



I shall Reiterate that I was Likening Wrestling for Blending Styles, to Mixing Martial Arts, similar to how MMA does.
Not saying that Wrestling = MMA, or Using Multiple Styles = MMA.

This is perhaps more Obvious with Context, however.



JohnEdward said:


> Based on the above Frank, you see that a real  fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would  agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight  and a real fight are not the same.  But what if  both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts  constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't  be a real fight.  But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and  hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight  because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?"   Now that  I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an  entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your  train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real  fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters,  training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes  MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree  MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not  work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in  relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line  of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this  thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.



Now Swinging Away from what I *Think* is a Misunderstanding caused by Phrasology;

I am Inclined to Agree.


----------



## OwlMatt

This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.

For the purposes of this conversation:

A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.
Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

OwlMatt said:


> This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.
> 
> For the purposes of this conversation:
> 
> A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
> A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
> A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
> A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
> A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
> A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
> A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.
> Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?



I have to once again restate my quote from page three to go along with what you've stated above;



> *Self Defense Training Methodology*There  has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense  training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't  necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either  as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is  to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one  is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a  different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that  this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you  suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of  itself and how it differs from the sport model.
> 
> For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or  goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value.  And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only  instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.
> 
> For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at  some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread  may hold some value for you.
> 
> For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.
> 
> For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the  strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or  loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily  harm and/or death.
> 
> To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around  some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a  more general MMA).
> 
> 
> Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
> The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
> The opponent is unarmed.
> The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
> Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
> The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
> You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
> If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
> There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.
> 
> As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;
> 
> Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
> Factors  such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken  into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
> Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
> You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
> There are no rules.
> There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
> The  assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car,  your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light  conditions in any type of weather.
> The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
> The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
> There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
> The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
> To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
> The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.
> 
> When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;
> 
> Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
> Do  they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential  conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
> Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
> Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
> Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
> Is the student required to observe certain rules?
> Do  your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities  provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small  room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
> Do  your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it  would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a  T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out  and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it  in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of  groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
> Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
> Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
> Do  we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing  gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD  situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand  on someone&#8217;s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike.  That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll  say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is  fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the  injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone  here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell  phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion  in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that  manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made  it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on  someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not  he'll actually be knocked out.
> 
> This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the  bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of  cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or  nose.
> 
> Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of  force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily  harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in  the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does  your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an  attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it  and touching on some of the topics during class time.
> 
> Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop?  Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel  vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities?  Considerations can include;
> 
> Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
> A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
> A  proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an  EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly  applied.
> Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
> The  attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the  attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick,  distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
> Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.
> 
> Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least  encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a  SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.
> 
> That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.


----------



## Indie12

Stealthy said:


> This is actually a good topic for discussion but if I am to contribute it is not in the For but rather the Against.
> 
> I do not believe MMA is no good for real fighting, there may be some bad habits that come from training with sports motivation and training techniques which can be exploited but all in all I would say MMA fighters are some of the most dangerous fighters you could face in a real world situation where weapons are not involved.



Then the question should also be, 'Is Mixed Martial Arts, Martial Arts?'

And yes, I do agree with this opinion! There's a difference between sport fighting and street/combat fighting! How you train effects how you'll respond!


----------



## Indie12

MJS said:


> Underlined part mine. Couldn't agree more with that!



Are we talking from a sport view or self defense/combat view? There is a difference!


----------



## Tez3

MMA is a sport, we don't go around saying that if you can do MMA this is all the self defence you need. It's those, most often outside MMA, who insist on this discussion about whether MMA is good for ' a real fight'. In a real fight whatever that maybe ( as opposed to a 'play fight' perhaps with friendly drunks just trying to bruise you rather than bashing your head in?) we do the same as everyone else...whatever is necessary to get out of that fight in one piece.


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> Not exactly.
> Thats similar to the Logic that Kata wouldnt work, due to a Lack of Full Contact during Practicing them, despite perhaps Partaking in Seperate Contact Sparring, which ought be the same thing.



Hi, I never said kata wouldn't work. Where did you get that from? Kata is like shadowboxing. Kata w/o actual sparring hard can work and is better than nothing. But if that's all you have, then it's probably going to work badly in a fight vs. someone with actual sparring & fight experience. If all he's got is kata too, then you're good to go.

And sparring can range from touch sparring all the way to sparring for full knockouts. What's good about MMA gyms is that there's a lot more sparring and hard sparring sessions for full KO's than at your TMA schools. Especially when preparing for upcoming fights.



> Or that Side Kicks dont work in Kickboxing, without realising how sheerly many Variations of the Side Kick there are, and that any Heel Kick Variation can be quite Ruthless.



Whoever said this? Sidekicks certainly do work in Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc.



> MMA is highly Subjective.
> Like anything, its the Person Training it.



Well of course, but the main difference being, MMA is geared towards fighting for real, with actual fights. Many TMA schools also fight in MMA tournaments, KB, WKA, etc. But in general they don't participate in tourneys that are as brutal as MMA. MMA gyms just produces more fighters.



> Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking.
> The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it.



No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated.



> MMA, as someone else said, is not a Magical Win Button.
> Its a Sport Style, which Mixs Martial Arts to suit its Purpose.



Of course not. No one said it was. There are plenty of non-fighters in MMA gyms that don't want to get hit hard in the face during sparring, so they don't stay for the sparring or w/e.  Just that you're more likely to become a fighter should you train in an MMA or Boxing gym compared to TMA.



> Ultimately, its Whos Learning it.
> 
> Now, I can understand your wanting to Defend MMA - And to clarify, I think it would Work in Fighting.
> But Defend with the Right Reasoning in mind.
> Not just an, "If he doesnt think MMA would work, it must be because hes Scared of it."



You made up a bunch of stuff that I didn't even say, let alone argued about.


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> Hi, I never said kata wouldn't work. Where did you get that from? Kata is like shadowboxing. Kata w/o actual sparring hard can work and is better than nothing. But if that's all you have, then it's probably going to work badly in a fight vs. someone with actual sparring & fight experience. If all he's got is kata too, then you're good to go.



You said, "I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets."
To begin with, I was quite a bit less experienced over a year ago. Other than that, I was addressing that full force sparring isnt the only way to learn. I used Kata as a comparison of reasoning.
"Thats similar to the Logic that Kata" =/= "YOU SAID KATA DOESNT WORK".



> And sparring can range from touch sparring all the way to sparring for full knockouts. What's good about MMA gyms is that there's a lot more sparring and hard sparring sessions for full KO's than at your TMA schools. Especially when preparing for upcoming fights.



Im pretty sure any good gym will train You up rigorously for an upcoming fight. 



> Whoever said this? Sidekicks certainly do work in Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc.



And exactly how often do You see them used in those formats of competition?



> Well of course, but the main difference being, MMA is geared towards fighting for real, with actual fights. Many TMA schools also fight in MMA tournaments, KB, WKA, etc. But in general they don't participate in tourneys that are as brutal as MMA. MMA gyms just produces more fighters.



Id liken that more to the fact that people who are serious about fighting tend to migrate toward MMA, Boxing, Kickboxing, or Thai Boxing. Its quite natural, indeed.



> No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated.



Aha. How does that relate to MMA not being BJJ + Striking even though some people treat it like it is?



> Of course not. No one said it was. There are plenty of non-fighters in MMA gyms that don't want to get hit hard in the face during sparring, so they don't stay for the sparring or w/e.  Just that you're more likely to become a fighter should you train in an MMA or Boxing gym compared to TMA.



I agree. Boxing in particular is very simple. It runs off of a small arsenal, and allows You to optimise it to Your preference. And You get good at using that small arsenal. Thats 90% of why I box.



> You made up a bunch of stuff that I didn't even say, let alone argued about.



Actually, i sort of trailed off and on about something that could have been answered with a short sentence, because the Me of one year ago jumped to conclusions and put too many cards on the table too early on.
I can stand by the last bit, though. If someone doesnt think MMA works, it doesnt have to be because Theyre afraid of hard sparring. They might just not like the format of competition. Or They might really dislike grappling. So on, so forth. For that matter, that last statement was probably the only one that was actually relevant.


----------



## Josh Oakley

As far as whether MMA works in a real fight... yeah it freaking does. 

"But there are no rules in a street fight!!!"
Depends on the situation. In loss prevention, the fights are definitely real and while the assailant doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular rules,  the LP agents most certainly do. Same with cops, military police, soldiers.

Then there are of course city, state, and federal laws that should be adhered to.
"Well I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6"
Uh huh. And if you kill a man in a way that is way past self defense, you can be judged by 12 and THEN carried by 6.

"But it is unrealistic! "
More unrealistic than anything else practiced by anyone? Who here trains gun defenses against a loaded pistol? Or knife defenses against someone wielding a re knife with the intent to kill? Who here purposely breaks someone's arm to make sure they understand just what amount of pressure is required?

Or practices their knife skills by cutting up a guy?

It isn't more or less realistic than what most of us train.. and a little more so than a lot of us, because the other guy is frying to knock your block off.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3

It's rarely the 'style' that works in a 'street fight' ( oh how I hate that expression) it's the person.


----------



## punisher73

Tez3 said:


> MMA is a sport, we don't go around saying that if you can do MMA this is all the self defence you need. It's those, most often outside MMA, who insist on this discussion about whether MMA is good for ' a real fight'. In a real fight whatever that maybe ( as opposed to a 'play fight' perhaps with friendly drunks just trying to bruise you rather than bashing your head in?) we do the same as everyone else...whatever is necessary to get out of that fight in one piece.



I agree with you, I always hate this argument.  Let's break it down into it's simplest terms.

Martial arts work on the street.  If we agree with this statement then we have to also agree that mixed Martial arts as pulled from various traditions would also work on the street.

Martial arts don't work on the street.  Then by logic mixing martial arts and attempting to use them on the street wouldn't work either because they are still martial arts.

MMA is a ruleset for a sport; just like boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and other sport grappling.  Just because one understands that they are training to compete in a sport with a ruleset doesn't mean that they also don't understand that the "foul tactics" of their sport can't be applied in a violent encounter.

I know (in the US) at least that there are LEO's that adapt MMA training for use in the "real world" for law enforcement.  I know that the Marines now use MCMAP which is heavily MMA based to train in.  Why? because it gives them an environment to test their skills as close as they can without unnecessary injury.

I have seen the same argument with military combatives vs. traditional martial arts.  Where did the combatives come from?  From TMA's.  

It's is ignorant to look at an aspect of the whole and deny the wholeness of the other.


----------



## Egon

First to define, MMA for me stand for mixed martial arts; not for sport rules defined by organizations like ufc, pride, and so on.

Do I think fighters that fight in minimal rules fight are effective on the street? I think they are closer to it then most of traditional martial artists. They do live trainings and full contact sparrings using moves that are proven to work.

They know hot to kick, punch, grapple, trap, block, evade. And how to do it with truly resisting opponent.

If they turned their training and mental focus on the street fight I am pretty sure they would be bloody effective.

Just to say, speaking about term mma, every effective fighter and martial artist I ever knewed, was mixing arts.


----------



## Tez3

Egon said:


> First to define, MMA for me stand for mixed martial arts; not for sport rules defined by organizations like ufc, pride, and so on.
> 
> Do I think fighters that fight in minimal rules fight are effective on the street? I think they are closer to it then most of traditional martial artists. They do live trainings and full contact sparrings using moves that are proven to work.
> 
> They know hot to kick, punch, grapple, trap, block, evade. And how to do it with truly resisting opponent.
> 
> If they turned their training and mental focus on the street fight I am pretty sure they would be bloody effective.
> 
> Just to say, speaking about term mma, every effective fighter and martial artist I ever knewed, was mixing arts.




MMa does indeed stand for Mixed Martial Arts which _is_ the rules type of competition, training in different styles is cross training. However MMA fighters don't usually spar in the gym full contact, it's a common misconception that training is done full contact, it isn't. The competition is full contact like boxing and training is hard.
People who survive 'on the street' (still hate that) do so because of their mindeset and their ability to react and respond appropriately. You don't actually need martial arts training to do this, it helps but isn't the prime ingredient to surviving an attack. Part of the ability to react is being able to think under pressure, not to freeze and to not be too fazed at the time about being struck. It's about the person not the style.


----------



## Egon

Tez3 said:


> MMa does indeed stand for Mixed Martial Arts which _is_ the rules type of competition, training in different styles is cross training. However MMA fighters don't usually spar in the gym full contact, it's a common misconception that training is done full contact, it isn't. The competition is full contact like boxing and training is hard.
> People who survive 'on the street' (still hate that) do so because of their mindeset and their ability to react and respond appropriately. You don't actually need martial arts training to do this, it helps but isn't the prime ingredient to surviving an attack. Part of the ability to react is being able to think under pressure, not to freeze and to not be too fazed at the time about being struck. It's about the person not the style.



Thanks for correcting me. I always thought mma stands for literally mixing martial arts, and cross training for training two or more arts without actually mixing them.

I didn't mean that they spar full contact on training (but many clubs I know goes almost full). 

I couldn't agree more with the rest of what you said; it's definitely about the person! I

Thread question was how would mma work in the street, I think mma practicioners are pretty close to required mindset, because they are used to adrenaline and hard attacks. 

Of course it stands for any martial artist who goes beyond his comfort zone using resisting opponent using minimal rules..


----------



## Tez3

On Facebook this morning and saw this posted by Iain Abernethy, I thought how apt for this thread!

_"One whose spirit and mental strength have been strengthened by sparring with a never-say-die attitude should find no challenge too great to handle. One who has undergone long years of physical pain and mental agony to learn one punch, one kick, should be able to face any task, no matter how difficult, and carry it through to the end. A person like this can truly be said to have learned karate."&#8211; Gichin Funakoshi_


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> You said, "I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets."
> To begin with, I was quite a bit less experienced over a year ago. Other than that, I was addressing that full force sparring isnt the only way to learn. I used Kata as a comparison of reasoning.
> "Thats similar to the Logic that Kata" =/= "YOU SAID KATA DOESNT WORK".



I never said that full force sparring is the only way to learn. 

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense.



> Im pretty sure any good gym will train You up rigorously for an upcoming fight.



Usually, they're only good if they include sparring for full knockouts as part of their training. Especially when prepping for fights.




> And exactly how often do You see them used in those formats of competition?



Are you serious? Sidekicks works well against pure Muay Thai and very annoying. And going from orthodox stance to southpaw to throw a sidekick with the power leg and then follow up with hard jabs with the power hand works often. Then there's the fake rear leg kick that turns into a sidekick, which also works.



> Aha. How does that relate to MMA not being BJJ + Striking even though some people treat it like it is?



I just told you. MMA in the early UFC was mostly BJJ but now it's more Muay Thai & Boxing....with BJJ being a necessity to defend against takedowns. 



> Actually, i sort of trailed off and on about something that could have been answered with a short sentence, because the Me of one year ago jumped to conclusions and put too many cards on the table too early on.
> I can stand by the last bit, though. If someone doesnt think MMA works, it doesnt have to be because Theyre afraid of hard sparring. They might just not like the format of competition. Or They might really dislike grappling. So on, so forth. For that matter, that last statement was probably the only one that was actually relevant.



They're ignorant then and probably never sparred for KO's vs. someone trained in an MMA gym, let alone fight in the ring or cage. Getting punched in the face at full force, is getting punched in the face at full force. How would this not work in the streets like it does in the ring & cage?


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> MMa does indeed stand for Mixed Martial Arts which _is_ the rules type of competition, training in different styles is cross training.



MMA rules is not going to save you against an experienced MMA fighter who knocks you out with, say....a single elbow to the face and then goes into bloodlust and starts soccer kicking your head or stomping it repeatedly while you lay unconscious on the cement. Your head caves in, your brain oozes out, you die and he goes to jail for life. I think MMA does work in the streets. There's no special chip that MMA gyms implants into our head that forces us to always fight by MMA rules in the streets, prison, whatever.



> However MMA fighters don't usually spar in the gym full contact, it's a common misconception that training is done full contact, it isn't.



Sparring with boxing gloves is certainly at 10-100% power and often. Average sparring is at 60-70% power, which hurts like hell and easily spikes to all out 100%  when someone gets mad. There's light and touch sparring too. Prepping for an upcoming fight, then there's going to be lots of hard sparring for KO's.

With the 7oz MMA, open finger gloves, then we are very careful and go much lighter because we don't want to cut each other or even eye poke by accident. Plus, we don't want to break our hands due to less protection.

The grappling is certainly done at 80-100% most times during training.



> The competition is full contact like boxing and training is hard.
> People who survive 'on the street' (still hate that) do so because of their mindeset and their ability to react and respond appropriately. You don't actually need martial arts training to do this, it helps but isn't the prime ingredient to surviving an attack.
> 
> Part of the ability to react is being able to think under pressure,  not to freeze and to not be too fazed at the time about being struck.



An experienced MMA fighter who  spars hard often and fights often in competition will be much more equipped than the average slob/toughguy in the streets. When fists, feet, knees, etc. are being thrown at you often and every week on a regular basis as routine training....and trying to KO your partner while he's trying to do the same to you is considered fun by both parties....then how does this not toughen anyone up physically and mentally? Streetfighters don't even fight every week, MMA fighters do when sparring hard. Boxing class is usually at least 2-4 rounds of all out, 100% power shots.



> It's about the person not the style.



Nope. It's about the person, the style(s) and the gym/coach(es). All affects the outcome of the fight.


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> I never said that full force sparring is the only way to learn.
> Your last sentence doesn't make any sense.



My last sentence made perfect sense. Ill spell it out to you.
I said, "_"__Thats similar to the Logic that Kata"
_I did not say, _"YOU SAID KATA DOESNT WORK".
_=/= means 'equals different to'.



> Usually, they're only good if they include sparring for full knockouts as part of their training. Especially when prepping for fights.


You realise I was agreeing with You there, right?



> Are you serious? Sidekicks works well against pure Muay Thai and very annoying. And going from orthodox stance to southpaw to throw a sidekick with the power leg and then follow up with hard jabs with the power hand works often. Then there's the fake rear leg kick that turns into a sidekick, which also works.


I know it does. Now show Me a side kick being used in a Muay Thai bout by more than one or two fighters who are probably known for it, and who are more than likely trained in a different style. I never said They dont work, I said You dont see Them in those formats of competition.



> I just told you. MMA in the early UFC was mostly BJJ but now it's more Muay Thai & Boxing....with BJJ being a necessity to defend against takedowns.


Mate, I said
"_Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking._
_The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it."
_You replied with
"No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated."
So are You saying, You started Your original reply with, "No, --" because I was right? That MMA is not, at this time, "_ not BJJ with Striking."?
_Where was I wrong exactly? I brought up the issue that some places train like thats exactly the case.

Lemme reword it. MMA has less of a ground game nowadays. Thats what I said, and was saying. Yet Youre talking like that needs to be explained to Me.



> They're ignorant then and probably never sparred for KO's vs. someone trained in an MMA gym, let alone fight in the ring or cage. Getting punched in the face at full force, is getting punched in the face at full force. How would this not work in the streets like it does in the ring & cage?


I never said it didnt.


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> My last sentence made perfect sense. Ill spell it out to you.
> I said, "_"__Thats similar to the Logic that Kata"
> _I did not say, _"YOU SAID KATA DOESNT WORK".
> _=/= means 'equals different to'.



Still doesn't make sense.



> I know it does. Now show Me a side kick being used in a Muay Thai bout by more than one or two fighters who are probably known for it, and who are more than likely trained in a different style. I never said They dont work, I said You dont see Them in those formats of competition.



I see sidekicks in MMA, just not often. I used sidekicks in my MT fights. They are annoying, just not much damage. They leave your nuts exposed, which is not a good thing.



> Lemme reword it. MMA has less of a ground game nowadays. Thats what I said, and was saying. Yet Youre talking like that needs to be explained to Me.



What you said wasn't very clear.


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> Still doesn't make sense.



Ill reword it again then.
I said "I never accused you of saying that Kata are ineffective".



> I see sidekicks in MMA, just not often.



Of course theyre in MMA, albeit not often at all. Though i was talking about Muay Thai.



> I used sidekicks in my MT fights. They are annoying, just not much damage.


Congratulations - Youre a rare exception.
Now, where (In what Martial Art) did you learn side kicks, and how regularly did you practice them? Did you hit with the heel, or the foot sword? Did you use it at long range, hitting at the end of the extension, or at a closer range to facilitate a push as well as a kick? Did You target the abdomen, or the ribs?
Also, how is Your using side kicks as an annoyance relevant to the fact that theyre sorely neglected due to people thinking They dont tend to work very well or very powerfully?




Side Kicks being used as a defensive push.




Sliding Side Kick, which can be used to close distance.
My original statement was the lack of awareness of the many variations of side kicks, and how theyre taken for granted.



> They leave your nuts exposed, which is not a good thing.


So do high roundhouse kicks, but you see them in MMA and MT fairly often.
In fact, just about all high kicks do that.



> What you said wasn't very clear.


Is it clear now?


----------



## Kaygee

I am not going to sit here and lie and say that I read every single post in this thread. I did read a lot of them though. After studying a traditional martial art for a couple of years and now that I am getting a taste of MMA, I am wondering (and please don't take this the wrong way) how many of you have really been in a street fight? I have been in dozens.....lost most of them (All of them pre-training). But being in that many fights, I can tell you that the things that I see in MMA can be applied to a street fight very, very easily!

Hell, I see fights every time I am out somewhere....when I was younger, the neighborhood was rough and I was fighting everyday. When I went to high-school, a high-school for "bad kids", I was fighting for my frikkin life everyday. If I knew how to hold my hands, if I knew how to throw a couple of jabs to get someone in a position to throw a big right, and if I knew HOW to throw that big right, and if I had the cardio to keep up on my toes the whole time and the knowledge of what to do when someone got me on the ground, then I would not have the severe social phobia that I now experience! 

Now, the kicks that I learned while studying Tang Soo Do will work, but only (in my opinion) if you have the handwork and footwork to go with it. Otherwise, I felt like a T-Rex when I was practicing Tang Soo Do. 

I think it would all work, but most of all, MMA! The boxing and the grappling, is fantastic! And honestly, if you were about to get jumped by some idiot in a bar, just run from them and let them chase you.....after you run a block and he is out of breath, run back to him and ask him if he still has a problem. Chances are, he won't.

I think the fact that MMA is used in the ring is causing the training to be underestimated in some sort of way. Sure, you don't want to have some guy on the ground in a lock while three of his friends are there....but would you rather not know MMA, or any sort of training? Or would you rather know some sort of training? It may just save your life if you have to run your *** out of there!


----------



## James Kovacich

Saying or thinking MMA won't work in a real fight is as stupid as saying boxing won't work in a real fight. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> Ill reword it again then.
> I said "I never accused you of saying that Kata are ineffective".
> 
> Thanks. Now it makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations - Youre a rare exception.
> Now, where (In what Martial Art) did you learn side kicks, and how regularly did you practice them? Did you hit with the heel, or the foot sword? Did you use it at long range, hitting at the end of the extension, or at a closer range to facilitate a push as well as a kick? Did You target the abdomen, or the ribs?
> Also, how is Your using side kicks as an annoyance relevant to the fact that theyre sorely neglected due to people thinking They dont tend to work very well or very powerfully?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Side Kicks being used as a defensive push.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sliding Side Kick, which can be used to close distance.
> My original statement was the lack of awareness of the many variations of side kicks, and how theyre taken for granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use side kicks usually for annoyances only and hit with my heel. I can spam a ton of them from my TKD days and they act like jabs. But once they figure it out, they start parrying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do high roundhouse kicks, but you see them in MMA and MT fairly often.
> In fact, just about all high kicks do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because in Muay Thai, when 2 orthodox stances faces each other, the one going for the high roundhouse is usually countered by a step, lead leg kick to the leg. Step lead legs kicks are seldom to the mid section. They're a probing technique in MT. Unless they do a switchstep, lead leg....which is too late against the other guy's rear leg roundhouse to the head.
> 
> While a sidekick is often done with a switch stance to put the power leg up front, which now turned orthodox-orthodox into orthodox-southpaw open guard. The sidekick also usually moves forward even with just a little slide, which bring your groin in the line of fire of the orthodox rear leg kick.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mz1

Kaygee said:


> I think the fact that MMA is used in the ring is causing the training to be underestimated in some sort of way. Sure, you don't want to have some guy on the ground in a lock while three of his friends are there....but would you rather not know MMA, or any sort of training? Or would you rather know some sort of training? It may just save your life if you have to run your *** out of there!



Excellent post. Most people who thinks that MMA is just a sport and not as effective on the streets as the pretend fighting that most Self Defense classes teaches are just ignorant and have not really fought before....against someone who can fight. Just because they pretend to kick someone in the balls or pretend to poke someone in the eye, doesn't mean that they can really do that in a real fight. Fighting in MMA, we worry about getting kicked in the balls or poked in the eye all the time. When that fist, foot or knee  is thrown towards me, I don't really care if its intent is to target a legal or illegal body part of mine. I'm just going to address it like I normally do....get out of the way, block, block & return, counter, or whatever. Who's going to be better at this? Someone who play fights or someone who spars hard and fights often in the ring and cage?

Most people don't realize this, but a fight in the ring or cage, DOES INDEED, begin as a fight to the DEATH. Both competitors are really trying to kill each other with their firsts, legs, knees, elbows, etc.  They are throwing all of their power and might in trying to kill the other guy. If you get KO'ed, your life now belongs to your opponent. He can chose to kill you as you lay there unconscious, should he chose to. Same with a simple BJJ choke hold, it's a death move. The only reason no one dies in the ring/cage is obviously because there's a ref who stops it or the corner that throws in the towel or the fighter taps out. How would someone who's trained & experienced at punching people in the face not be effective on the streets? That's like saying that Mike Tyson is worthless as a streetfighter? Think some self defense hotshot can walk up to Tyson and poke him in the eye. That's just like one of millions of jabs that were thrown at his face by those much better than some random TMA guy. Guess what? He's going to freaking destroy you.


----------



## Mz1

Stealthy said:


> Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.
> 
> A "real" fight is to the Death.



Sorry, but there are tons of videos on YouTube and especially on Rated R & X sites that have very brutal streetfights, jumps, attacks, muggings, etc. where it's extremely rare that anyone ever dies.....maybe like 1 or 2 in at least a thousand that I've seen.

Usually other people breaks up the fight, especially after a KO or even when the loser has had enough. The winner usually also stops inflicting punishment even, after he sees that he won. Just like in a ring/cage fight with referees. 

This notion that a fight is only "REAL" if it's to the death is baloney. And the more trained & experienced that I am, I don't have to worry about killing someone. I can take more chances and play with them (showing that I wasn't looking for a fight) and worry less about going to jail afterward for maiming someone or even for the cause their death.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Excellent post. Most people who thinks that MMA is just a sport and not as effective on the streets as the pretend fighting that most Self Defense classes teaches are just ignorant and have not really fought before....against someone who can fight. Just because they pretend to kick someone in the balls or pretend to poke someone in the eye, doesn't mean that they can really do that in a real fight. Fighting in MMA, we worry about getting kicked in the balls or poked in the eye all the time. When that fist, foot or knee  is thrown towards me, I don't really care if its intent is to target a legal or illegal body part of mine. I'm just going to address it like I normally do....get out of the way, block, block & return, counter, or whatever. Who's going to be better at this? Someone who play fights or someone who spars hard and fights often in the ring and cage?
> 
> Most people don't realize this, but a fight in the ring or cage, DOES INDEED, begin as a fight to the DEATH. Both competitors are really trying to kill each other with their firsts, legs, knees, elbows, etc.  They are throwing all of their power and might in trying to kill the other guy. If you get KO'ed, your life now belongs to your opponent. He can chose to kill you as you lay there unconscious, should he chose to. Same with a simple BJJ choke hold, it's a death move. The only reason no one dies in the ring/cage is obviously because there's a ref who stops it or the corner that throws in the towel or the fighter taps out. How would someone who's trained & experienced at punching people in the face not be effective on the streets? That's like saying that Mike Tyson is worthless as a streetfighter? Think some self defense hotshot can walk up to Tyson and poke him in the eye. That's just like one of millions of jabs that were thrown at his face by those much better than some random TMA guy. Guess what? He's going to freaking destroy you.




Fight to the death? What bollocks! I think you are getting a little macho here, how long have you been invovled in MMA, properly as a fighter, judges, ref, coach, corner etc? They aren't trying to kill each other they are trying to defeat each other, I don't know about the so called fighters you seem to know but the ones I know aren't out to kill anyone! MMA is a game ( note the word game) of physical chess! I think you are getting a little carried away here.


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> Fight to the death? What bollocks! I think you are getting a little macho here, how long have you been invovled in MMA, properly as a fighter, judges, ref, coach, corner etc? They aren't trying to kill each other they are trying to defeat each other, I don't know about the so called fighters you seem to know but the ones I know aren't out to kill anyone! MMA is a game ( note the word game) of physical chess! I think you are getting a little carried away here.



Homey, try to read what I wrote in context and understand it first.

What do you think a choke hold is? It's a death move.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Homey, try to read what I wrote in context and understand it first.
> 
> What do you think a choke hold is? It's a death move.



Homey? homey? Are you kidding me? would you call your mother that? I've forgetten more about MMA than you know son, so please don't give me attitude. 'Death move' my ****, it's a technique so call it that.


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> Homey? homey? Are you kidding me? would you call your mother that? I've forgetten more about MMA than you know son, so please don't give me attitude. 'Death move' my ****, it's a technique so call it that.



Haha, homey is a friendly term sheeesh. Too much coffee I see, chill out. And yes, a choke hold is a death move. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Haha, homey is a friendly term sheeesh. Too much coffee I see, chill out. And yes, a choke hold is a death move. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.



It's not friendly to a middle class tea drinking English woman. And I do my chokes perfectly effectively thank you, both in martial arts and 'on the street' which may surprise you but in my job I have need to 'neck' people occasionally. I also teach correct techniques to pro fighters as well as coach, ref and corner them. I have extensive experience in professional MMA where, here at least, we don't go for the postruing macho talk of 'death moves', it's a technique that has various uses not just to 'kill'.


----------



## Mz1

then you should know that a choke hold is a death move. and i thought that all english people drink tea, regardless of class


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> then you should know that a choke hold is a death move. and i thought that all english people drink tea, regardless of class



It's a technique just like any other in martial arts, if MMA is to be taken seriously as a sport as boxing is, phrases like 'death move' aren't going to help it's case. It's sounds like something out of a fake wrestling show. It's not professional and it sounds like macho posturing 'I'm gonna put a death move on you', nice.
 I've spent years along with others here to portray MMA as a serious competitive style and it's fighters as professionals even if they don't get paid! We are trying to gain respect from the wider martial arts community as well as the public and 'death move' isn't the way to go. Besides one should have enough control over what you do that it doesn't have to be a 'death move' but a controlling one useful for door staff and police officers. MMA fighters should be calm and collected as well as calculating when competing, it's mental skill as well as physical skill, it's more of a game than a death match, no sane fighter gets into the cage aiming to kill or maim his opponent.

We drink tea, coffee and beer all made properly none of your weird chemical stuff.


----------



## Kframe

Tez3 Boddingtons FTW.(for the win) The first english beer i ever drank, amazing stuff makes American stuff look like toilet water. Honestly i cant understand why we Americans tolerate our beer companies  peddling thin watery crap with little taste. Bud/bush/miller/coors, all thin and watery with a insignificant taste. Give me a nice english ale, or lager. Having said that, i love Sam Adams. 

I agree with you that mma needs to ditch the macho hyped up attitude it has, as well as the UFC needs to ditch Dana White. He treats it like a real contact WWF.  I have done MMA for over 8months now and mma is what you make of it. I went from sport oriented school to a Self defense oriented school combatives school.(still mma in that we are taking stuff from kenpo/boxing/kickboxing/Japanese ju jitsu)   I can tell you this now that everything i learned from the sport school was applicable to a real fight.  

The biggest self defense thing i have learned in my first  year of martial arts is, not what your doing, but JUST DO SOMETHING!!!. Dont just stand there like a deer in the headlights, ACT,MOVE Do something, anything.......   Here is someone, using boxing.


----------



## Tez3

Kframe said:


> Tez3 Boddingtons FTW.(for the win) The first english beer i ever drank, amazing stuff makes American stuff look like toilet water. Honestly i cant understand why we Americans tolerate our beer companies peddling thin watery crap with little taste. Bud/bush/miller/coors, all thin and watery with a insignificant taste. Give me a nice english ale, or lager. Having said that, i love Sam Adams.
> 
> I agree with you that mma needs to ditch the macho hyped up attitude it has, as well as the UFC needs to ditch Dana White. He treats it like a real contact WWF. I have done MMA for over 8months now and mma is what you make of it. I went from sport oriented school to a Self defense oriented school combatives school.(still mma in that we are taking stuff from kenpo/boxing/kickboxing/Japanese ju jitsu) I can tell you this now that everything i learned from the sport school was applicable to a real fight.
> 
> The biggest self defense thing i have learned in my first year of martial arts is, not what your doing, but JUST DO SOMETHING!!!. Dont just stand there like a deer in the headlights, ACT,MOVE Do something, anything....... Here is someone, using boxing.



The people on MT will tell you how much I dislike the UFC and it's methods of marketing!

I've been doing martial for 20 years the last 12 being MMA as well as traditional styles. MMA is slightly different here, for one thing we don't have the history of wrestling Americans have, our style is very heavily a mixture of traditional styles. 

I believe you are correct when you say 'do something' but don't forget running away is as good an option as any! Seriously, fighting out when you don't have to is poiontless.


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> Cyriacus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because in Muay Thai, when 2 orthodox stances faces each other, the one going for the high roundhouse is usually countered by a step, lead leg kick to the leg. Step lead legs kicks are seldom to the mid section. They're a probing technique in MT. Unless they do a switchstep, lead leg....which is too late against the other guy's rear leg roundhouse to the head.
> 
> 
> 
> *Snipped out a bit of misreading*
> If you meant that there arent many kick kicks, then why do they ever happen? Because they do irrefutably happen.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cyriacus

Kframe said:


> the UFC needs to ditch Dana White. He treats it like a real contact WWF



Does this mean We're going to start seeing the Mandible Claw used more often in competition? Submission death holds like that make anklelocks and kimuras look pathetic. lmao


----------



## ETinCYQX

Mz1 said:


> Homey, try to read what I wrote in context and understand it first.
> 
> What do you think a choke hold is? It's a death move.



How many TapOut shirts do you own?


----------



## ETinCYQX

Mz1 said:


> Haha, homey is a friendly term sheeesh. Too much coffee I see, chill out. And yes, a choke hold is a death move. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.



It's a blood restriction technique, if you do it right. Would take 4 minutes AFTER someone went unconcious to kill someone with a rear naked choke, for example.


----------



## Aiki Lee

ETinCYQX said:


> It's a blood restriction technique, if you do it right. Would take 4 minutes AFTER someone went unconcious to kill someone with a rear naked choke, for example.



So, technically it is a death move, but only if the ref is blind.


----------



## Tez3

Himura Kenshin said:


> So, technically it is a death move, but only if the ref is blind.



Exactly! I wouldn't rely on it in a street fight either for several reasons, taking it that you are attacked by only one person and you have put a choke on him rendering him unconcious, to then take the time to kill him would be taken as murder in many courts as it's not reasonable force. If you are attacked by more than one you simply won't be able to take the time to kill them. It's useful for controlling people, use it to the point of unconciousness to chuck them out of premises or to chuck them in the back of a police van. It does only take seconds to make someone 'sleep' that's enough for most certainly enough in competition, fighters don't despite what some thing want to kill each other, they aren't enemies and the best fighters fight 'cold' not in a rage or with intent to hurt but with skill and tactics they use to try and win the bout.


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> It's a technique just like any other in martial arts, if MMA is to be taken seriously as a sport as boxing is, phrases like 'death move' aren't going to help it's case. It's sounds like something out of a fake wrestling show. It's not professional and it sounds like macho posturing 'I'm gonna put a death move on you', nice.



Try understand what I posted in context first rather than isolating what I said to take it out of context, thanks.

A simple choke taught in BJJ is still a death move, whether you like it or not. The premise of this thread is whether or not MMA works in a real fight. My argument is that, when has punching someone in the face repeatedly or choking them ever not work, even if you wanted to kill them. The "kill factor" is significant in such arguments as most Self Defense people claims certain hocus pocus that are only available in their SD training that's somehow more superior for the streets than what an MMA fighter goes through.



> I've spent years along with others here to portray MMA as a serious competitive style and it's fighters as professionals even if they don't get paid! We are trying to gain respect from the wider martial arts community as well as the public and 'death move' isn't the way to go. Besides one should have enough control over what you do that it doesn't have to be a 'death move' but a controlling one useful for door staff and police officers. MMA fighters should be calm and collected as well as calculating when competing, it's mental skill as well as physical skill, it's more of a game than a death match, no sane fighter gets into the cage aiming to kill or maim his opponent.



In an MMA competition, both fighters are throwing full strikes, with all of their might at one another's head & body, trying to inflict the absolute maximum damage that they possibly can until their opponent is KO'ed or until the referee stops it. A choke hold is cranked with the same intentions of killing someone unless they tap or again, if the referee stops it. There's control in sparring, even hard sparring. But there's really no control of force in the cage. Many times, someone gets dropped and KO'ed while standing and the other fighter jumps on him to pound his near unconscious head as the ref throws his body in to stop the fight. A choke hold causing death can merely be an extra 10-15 seconds of not knowing that your opponent has already passed out. And permanent brain damage at that point is almost certain already.



> We drink tea, coffee and beer all made properly none of your weird chemical stuff.



That's amazing, as an Asian, I've never heard of such properly made tea before.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Try understand what I posted in context first rather than isolating what I said to take it out of context, thanks.
> 
> A simple choke taught in BJJ is still a death move, whether you like it or not. The premise of this thread is whether or not MMA works in a real fight. My argument is that, when has punching someone in the face repeatedly or choking them ever not work, even if you wanted to kill them. The "kill factor" is significant in such arguments as most Self Defense people claims certain hocus pocus that are only available in their SD training that's somehow more superior for the streets than what an MMA fighter goes through.
> 
> 
> 
> In an MMA competition, both fighters are throwing full strikes, with all of their might at one another's head & body, trying to inflict the absolute maximum damage that they possibly can until their opponent is KO'ed or until the referee stops it. A choke hold is cranked with the same intentions of killing someone unless they tap or again, if the referee stops it. There's control in sparring, even hard sparring. But there's really no control of force in the cage. Many times, someone gets dropped and KO'ed while standing and the other fighter jumps on him to pound his near unconscious head as the ref throws his body in to stop the fight. A choke hold causing death can merely be an extra 10-15 seconds of not knowing that your opponent has already passed out. And permanent brain damage at that point is almost certain already.
> 
> 
> 
> That's amazing, as an Asian, I've never heard of such properly made tea before.



Dear boy, I can only think you have a vivid imagination as you actually seem to know only a little about MMA fights and fighters. Your style of writing makes you sound over excitable. There is an amazing amount of control in the cage because without control you will lose the fight. What's the point of training carefully, building fitness, planning tactics if all you are going to do when you get into the cage is act like an ignorant berserker? I have seen hundreds of fights, reffed many, cornered many and judged many and I've never seen anyone jump onto an unconcious fighter and start hitting him/her. Refs including myself will jump in if someone has had enough or has been KO'd while on the floor, sometimes fighters will go down together with one having been KO'd but a fighter doesn't jump on one who is out on the floor. They don't watch him go down and think oo look he's out I'll carry on hitting him, nonsense. If you are so unaware of what is happening in your fight you shouldn't be in the cage. If you are so carried away with your own sense of importance you shouldn't be fighting. I think too you need to learn what chokes are and what they do.
Permanent brain damage isn't certain death by the way.


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> Mz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Snipped out a bit of misreading*
> If you meant that there arent many kick kicks, then why do they ever happen? Because they do irrefutably happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say this at all. I just said that based on MT and the MT used in MMA, there's less chances of getting kicked in the groin from RH kicks on RH kicks ....while sidekicks risks your groins the most. And the step lead leg kick to the inner thigh may be a close second.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mz1

ETinCYQX said:


> How many TapOut shirts do you own?


 
Work on your reading comprehension first, before getting all excited. Thanks.


----------



## Mz1

ETinCYQX said:


> It's a blood restriction technique, if you do it right. Would take 4 minutes AFTER someone went unconcious to kill someone with a rear naked choke, for example.



It depends.  But needing "4 minutes" of constantly holding onto the blood choke after someone already went unconscious is not correct. It's much less than that.

This guy passes out in under 5 seconds.  




While here:

http://www.wdsu.com/Sheriff-Man-Die...Him/-/9854144/10973378/-/ejethtz/-/index.html

this 110 lbs, 14 year old kid accidentally kills a 220 lbs, 24 year old adult with a rear naked choke that was held for only 30-40 seconds (according to eye witnesses).


----------



## rickster

Real Fight Equation;

aPA + aPB = 1L/1W
aggitated Person A vs aggitated Person B = 1Loser/1Winner

The certain thing about a real fight is two people in physical opposition, one becoming the victor, the other, the loser


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> Exactly! I wouldn't rely on it in a street fight either for several reasons, taking it that you are attacked by only one person and you have put a choke on him rendering him unconcious,



Well if someone's only trained in BJJ, then that's what he's probably going to do. And why does he always have to be alone? Why can't he be the one with more friends there?



> to then take the time to kill him would be taken as murder in many courts as it's not reasonable force. If you are attacked by more than one you simply won't be able to take the time to kill them. It's useful for controlling people, use it to the point of unconciousness to chuck them out of premises or to chuck them in the back of a police van.



Well there's obviously risks for everything. Punching someone in the face and they crash down, head first onto a cement curb, can also kill them.



> It does only take seconds to make someone 'sleep' that's enough for most certainly enough in competition, fighters don't despite what some thing want to kill each other, they aren't enemies and the best fighters fight 'cold' not in a rage or with intent to hurt but with skill and tactics they use to try and win the bout.



You still don't understand in context, what I wrote. No kidding they're not enemies. But in a cage fight, you still crank the choke at full power (just as you would if you were trying to kill someone) and keep going until he taps or until the ref stops it. The choker usually doesn't even know that his opponent went unconscious.


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> Dear boy, I can only think you have a vivid imagination as you actually seem to know only a little about MMA fights and fighters. Your style of writing makes you sound over excitable.



Same back at you grammy.



> There is an amazing amount of control in the cage because without control you will lose the fight.



No kidding, but a locked choked is still being cranked to the fullest capabilities of the choker. You still don't understand what I wrote in context.



> What's the point of training carefully, building fitness, planning tactics if all you are going to do when you get into the cage is act like an ignorant berserker?



Show me where I condone such. 



> I have seen hundreds of fights, reffed many, cornered many and judged many and I've never seen anyone jump onto an unconcious fighter and start hitting him/her. Refs including myself will jump in if someone has had enough or has been KO'd while on the floor, sometimes fighters will go down together with one having been KO'd but a fighter doesn't jump on one who is out on the floor. They don't watch him go down and think oo look he's out I'll carry on hitting him, nonsense. If you are so unaware of what is happening in your fight you shouldn't be in the cage. If you are so carried away with your own sense of importance you shouldn't be fighting. I think too you need to learn what chokes are and what they do.
> Permanent brain damage isn't certain death by the way.



Still doesn't mean that your reading comprehension skills are adequate, as proven by your not understanding what I wrote.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Same back at you grammy.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, but a locked choked is still being cranked to the fullest capabilities of the choker. You still don't understand what I wrote in context.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I condone such.
> 
> 
> 
> *Still doesn't mean that your reading comprehension skills are adequate, as proven by your not understanding what I wrote*.



ROFLMFAO....of course it wouldn't be your writing skills would it now.......
:lfao:

what's a locked choked btw? for that matter what's a 'grammy'?

I htink you need to understand that taking the time to kill an unconcious person is looked at differently in law to hitting someone and them being killed by hitting their head on the ground. It's about intent and reasonable force.

You do realise the 'you don't understand what I wrote in context' doesn't actually mean anything? You mean that I have taken something you wrote out of context, which I haven't actually, you just read it wrong as proved by my comment above.
Did I say you condoned fighting like a berserker or did I ask what the point of fighting like that was?

The 'full capacities of the choker'? Really? A fighter puts a choke (what sort by the way?) on as much as he needs to, a RNC for example doesn't exactly need much effort to put on does it?


----------



## James Kovacich

Stealthy said:


> Title says it all...have fun



Enough said.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...6.2-1j5j0j1.7.0.les;..0.0...1ac.1.2-vucuMpzSI 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyriacus

Mz1 said:


> Cyriacus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say this at all. I just said that based on MT and the MT used in MMA, there's less chances of getting kicked in the groin from RH kicks on RH kicks ....while sidekicks risks your groins the most. And the step lead leg kick to the inner thigh may be a close second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I originally thought You were referring to kicks to the balls, then edited it out because I thought I misread it. Ill go back to that.
> 
> Take your clothes off one morning, stand in front of a mirror, and throw a high roundhouse. Then try and tell me your groin isnt a prime target.
> Just to be clear, im not joking. Thats a serious suggestion.
> Also, in MT and MMA, groin kicks are _illegal._
Click to expand...


----------



## Dirty Dog

cyriacus said:


> take your clothes off one morning, stand in front of a mirror, and throw a high roundhouse. Then try and tell me your groin isnt a prime target.
> Just to be clear, im not joking. Thats a serious suggestion.



eye bleach!!!!!!


----------



## seasoned

Now you went and did it. There goes the rest of the day with images of.....................................


----------



## Cyriacus

Dirty Dog said:


> eye bleach!!!!!!


Where can I get some?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Cyriacus said:


> Mz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your clothes off one morning, stand in front of a mirror, and throw a high roundhouse. Then try and tell me your groin isnt a prime target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this part of everyone's morning routine?
Click to expand...


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> ROFLMFAO....of course it wouldn't be your writing skills would it now.......
> :lfao:



Nah it's your reading comprehension skills.



> what's a locked choked btw? for that matter what's a 'grammy'?



Locked in, too late to get out. 



> I htink you need to understand that taking the time to kill an unconcious person is looked at differently in law to hitting someone and them being killed by hitting their head on the ground. It's about intent and reasonable force.



Well when choking someone, especially a RNC, you can't always tell when they've gone limp. It can merely be a matter of seconds that they die after passing out.



> You do realise the 'you don't understand what I wrote in context' doesn't actually mean anything? You mean that I have taken something you wrote out of context, which I haven't actually, you just read it wrong as proved by my comment above.
> Did I say you condoned fighting like a berserker or did I ask what the point of fighting like that was?



Sure it does. It means that you didn't understand what I wrote in context.



> The 'full capacities of the choker'? Really? A fighter puts a choke (what sort by the way?) on as much as he needs to, a RNC for example doesn't exactly need much effort to put on does it?



Then you've obviously never been in an MMA fight before. You're not choking a stuffed dummy, but a resisting opponent who's also throwing punches at you. Adrenaline alone will make you go full power in trying to choke them. But your training should also instinctively cause you to use full power in order to get the choke hold on, sink it in and crank with all of your might until he taps or passes out, causing the Ref to stop the fight. Ah look...I just explained to you again why this is no different then trying to kill someone in a street fight using full power.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Nah it's your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> 
> 
> Locked in, too late to get out.
> 
> 
> 
> Well when choking someone, especially a RNC, you can't always tell when they've gone limp. It can merely be a matter of seconds that they die after passing out.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It means that you didn't understand what I wrote in context.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've obviously never been in an MMA fight before. You're not choking a stuffed dummy, but a resisting opponent who's also throwing punches at you. Adrenaline alone will make you go full power in trying to choke them. But your training should also instinctively cause you to use full power in order to get the choke hold on, sink it in and crank with all of your might until he taps or passes out, causing the Ref to stop the fight. Ah look...I just explained to you again why this is no different then trying to kill someone in a street fight using full power.



Trust me, I always know when a man goes limp.....

If you have someone in a RNC it is quite difficult for them to throw punches at you.

Nice try on the comprehension thing and the rest of your 'observations', doesn't wash though as you miss the point .


----------



## Mz1

Cyriacus said:


> Mz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally thought You were referring to kicks to the balls, then edited it out because I thought I misread it. Ill go back to that.
> 
> Take your clothes off one morning, stand in front of a mirror, and throw a high roundhouse. Then try and tell me your groin isnt a prime target.
> Just to be clear, im not joking. Thats a serious suggestion.
> 
> I didn't say that a high roundhouse doesn't expose your groin whatsoever, just that the side Sidekick leaves it more vulnerable (in MT/MMA) based on how your opponent will address this high RH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in MT and MMA, groin kicks are _illegal._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh yea?
Click to expand...


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Cyriacus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh yea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought they should be allowed but think you wouldn't get any men to buy tickets for fight nights if they were.......
Click to expand...


----------



## Dirty Dog

Mz1 said:


> Well when choking someone, especially a RNC, you can't always tell when they've gone limp. It can merely be a matter of seconds that they die after passing out.



Not true. Personally, I've never had the least bit of trouble knowing when someone has gone limp. It's grossly obvious.
And as the resident medical geek, I'm going to say that it absolutely will NOT be 'a matter of seconds' between loss of conciousness and death, especially in the case of someone capable of fighting competitively.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> Trust me, I always know when a man goes limp.....



:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Aiki Lee

How long does it take for brain damage or death to occur after blood flow has been cut off from the brain?


----------



## Mz1

Dirty Dog said:


> Not true. Personally, I've never had the least bit of trouble knowing when someone has gone limp. It's grossly obvious.
> And as the resident medical geek, I'm going to say that it absolutely will NOT be 'a matter of seconds' between loss of conciousness and death, especially in the case of someone capable of fighting competitively.



I'm not questioning your personal spidey-sense. But here's a BLACK belt in BJJ that didn't even know that his stuntman passed out in a matter of 5-6 seconds. 



 
And here: http://www.wdsu.com/Sheriff-Man-Die...Him/-/9854144/10973378/-/ejethtz/-/index.html

The grown adult is said to have died in a matter of 30-40 seconds. 

Fighting competitively can mean anything almost. We have brand new White belts that competes in BJJ after only 1 month of training. When a choke is in, it's in. Not sure there's much you can do to prevent the restriction of blood.

I'm a Blue belt in BJJ, nothing spectacular...I've competed locally (used to be pretty often in BJJ) and won 2 silver medals. And I can tell you from competing and watching others compete....we crank the crap out of the choke w/o giving a crap about the guy passing out, because it's been a war ever since the Ref said "go". And this is w/o any striking....so with striking, it's even more intense. While this war is going on and with both sides fighting hard.... should someone gets a choke in, they're not going to worry about the guy dying...(although he doesn't want him to) that's why there's a Ref and corner with a towel there....he's always going to use the opportunity to choke the sucker out for the win.  Even in training, there's competition, especially when 2 equally matched fighters are paired up. There's more care towards not hurting someone during sparring, but still, it can get intense. I've almost passed out during sparring because I didn't want to tap. My friend wouldn't have stopped choking if I didn't tap, especially after I just jacked him up 5x straight in under 5 minutes.


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> Trust me, I always know when a man goes limp.....
> 
> If you have someone in a RNC it is quite difficult for them to throw punches at you.
> 
> Nice try on the comprehension thing and the rest of your 'observations', doesn't wash though as you miss the point .



It's ok, your reading comprehension skills aren't as good as you thought. Maybe age is also a big factor.

Proving my point as I was obviously talking about the fighting that went on beforehand, before the RNC was sunken in (thus, punches thrown). Obviously if you've been in an MMA fight or any serious fight, you'd know that both sides are throwing everything they possibly can with all the power that they possess.....just the same as they would if they were trying to kill someone.....oops, that offends you right?


----------



## Mz1

Himura Kenshin said:


> How long does it take for brain damage or death to occur after blood flow has been cut off from the brain?



Hard to say. It would depend on the person being choked and the person doing the choking. Someone experienced and strong would be choking someone much more effectively. Then there are factors such as arm lengths, neck circumference, etc. 

The problem with being choked is that at first it's very uncomfortable and hurting, so you fight with all of your might....but as the blood flow lessens, you actually become more relaxed and it actually starts feeling good....like you're going into a dreamy state of consciousness. Luckily, I know that I may get brain damage or even die, so I muster up the will to tap before passing out. Once let go, it feels like you just woke up from a nice dream and everything is fine.

Some guy on this thread said that it would take "4 minutes" after losing consciousness to die or even sustain permanent brain damage. This is absolutely wrong. Most schools adopt the "10 seconds" rule. Once you get the choke in, you let go if your partner doesn't tap in 10 seconds.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Himura Kenshin said:


> How long does it take for brain damage or death to occur after blood flow has been cut off from the brain?



2-3 minutes, generally.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Mz1 said:


> It's ok, your reading comprehension skills aren't as good as you thought. Maybe age is also a big factor.
> 
> Proving my point as I was obviously talking about the fighting that went on beforehand, before the RNC was sunken in (thus, punches thrown). Obviously if you've been in an MMA fight or any serious fight, you'd know that both sides are throwing everything they possibly can with all the power that they possess.....just the same as they would if they were trying to kill someone.....oops, that offends you right?



Might want to read this:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/71377-MartialTalk-com-Forum-Rules-and-Procedures-Revised-March-29-2011


----------



## Mz1

The Last Legionary said:


> Might want to read this:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/71377-MartialTalk-com-Forum-Rules-and-Procedures-Revised-March-29-2011



Ok but have  you seen what Tez3 have been posting towards me? Or do these rules not apply to her?


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Ok but have you seen what Tez3 have been posting towards me? Or do these rules not apply to her?



That's right blame an old woman! :uhyeah:

C'mon a little sarcasm isn't going to hurt. I haven't insulted you in the least just said you are somewhat gungho., I'm not the only one who thought you were coming on a bit too macho.Anyway, I'm not arguing with you just explaining why I'm right :lol: I've even sent you thanks on a post I thought you wrote well.


----------



## jks9199

Since there seems to be a touch of confusion...

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Assistant Administrator
*


----------



## Mz1

Tez3 said:


> That's right blame an old woman! :uhyeah:
> 
> C'mon a little sarcasm isn't going to hurt. I haven't insulted you in the least just said you are somewhat gungho., I'm not the only one who thought you were coming on a bit too macho.Anyway, I'm not arguing with you just explaining why I'm right :lol: I've even sent you thanks on a post I thought you wrote well.



Hey, I have no problem with your sarcasm as I was returning them just the same. My post was directed to the *Legionary* guy who took it upon himself in trying to moderate, with extreme bias.


----------



## Tez3

Mz1 said:


> Hey, I have no problem with your sarcasm as I was returning them just the same. My post was directed to the *Legionary* guy who took it upon himself in trying to moderate, with extreme bias.



But the Legionary is legendary! 

I'm actually honoured he posted because he doesn't that often, when he does though it's very pithy and down to earth ( that's not sarcasm, it's understatement!) It's like being noticed by wrestling royalty.......:ultracool


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

rickster said:


> Real Fight Equation;
> 
> aPA + aPB = 1L/1W
> aggitated Person A vs aggitated Person B = 1Loser/1Winner
> 
> The certain thing about a real fight is two people in physical opposition, one becoming the victor, the other, the loser


For the most part I've enjoyed just reading all these posts, but reread it today and felt like I had to address this statement, even though by now it's a bit offtopic. A fight does NOT always have a clear winner or loser. yes, a lot of the time it does. But if I break your nose, and you dont care, due to adrenaline and continue, knocking me out or breaking my arm at some point, neither of us is really a 'winner'. if i beat the s*** out of you, then get arrested, neither of us is a winner. If the fight is broken up by naPC (non-agitated Person C), who is fully capable of kicking both our asses, or has some sort of weapon, or is involved in law enforcement, then since neither of us had time to hurt each other, there is no winner or loser. (admittedly, that last way isn't likely, especially if we're vaPA and vaPB (very agitated Person A and B)


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Mz1 said:


> Hey, I have no problem with your sarcasm as I was returning them just the same. My post was directed to the *Legionary* guy who took it upon himself in trying to moderate, with extreme bias.



Why don't we all take a deep breath here?


----------



## The Last Legionary

Mz1 said:


> Ok but have  you seen what Tez3 have been posting towards me? Or do these rules not apply to her?





Mz1 said:


> Hey, I have no problem with your sarcasm as I was returning them just the same. My post was directed to the *Legionary* guy who took it upon himself in trying to moderate, with extreme bias.



You're new here kid and there's already a few mod notes in play, so I'll be nice.
1: I was just pointing out the rules that you already read. You did read them right? Because it asks if you did when you signed up and I'd hate to know you lied.
2: I have no bias. I just have a low tolerance for stupid. Stupid and chickens. Hate them 
3: I wasn't moderating, though I'm much more knowledgable than you about how that works, having done that and been one of the guys who wrote said rules. You did read them right? The one outlawing chicken hats was one of mine you know.
4: If you had read the rules, you would know that if you were having a problem with another member the correct procedure would be to report them and let the staff sort it out, not be an *** about things. If you'd read the rules that is.
5: Bit of advice: Read The Rules.

Have a nice day. Oh look, I'm all out of bubblegum again.  Ask me why I'm not wearing any underpants. Go on. Ask. Oh never mind, I'll tell you anyway. It's because they haven't invented the pants that can take the job on. Did I mention you should read the rules? There's a theme here.  I can do this all night, but Nurse McCreedy is here with my meds and restraints so until we chat again kid, read the rules.  Buybuy!

We now return to the discussion about if cuddling will work in a fight.


----------



## Cyriacus

The Last Legionary said:


> We now return to the discussion about if cuddling will work in a fight.



A cuddle is a good setup for double over or under hooks, followed by a suplex.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> Hi, I never said kata wouldn't work. Where did you get that from? Kata is like shadowboxing. Kata w/o actual sparring hard can work and is better than nothing. But if that's all you have, then it's probably going to work badly in a fight vs. someone with actual sparring & fight experience. If all he's got is kata too, then you're good to go.



I'd agree with that, on the assumption that the student A) understands the moves in the kata, B) and actually works them on a body.  I say this, because many times, the students never learn the meaning behind the moves in kata, so they just go thru the moves, without really understanding what they're doing.  



> And sparring can range from touch sparring all the way to sparring for full knockouts. What's good about MMA gyms is that there's a lot more sparring and hard sparring sessions for full KO's than at your TMA schools. Especially when preparing for upcoming fights.



Sad but true.  However, there are some TMA schools out there, that do have some hard, full contact sparring sessions. 





> Whoever said this? Sidekicks certainly do work in Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc.



I agree with this, however, IMO, some things may tend to work better for some than others.  





> Well of course, but the main difference being, MMA is geared towards fighting for real, with actual fights. Many TMA schools also fight in MMA tournaments, KB, WKA, etc. But in general they don't participate in tourneys that are as brutal as MMA. MMA gyms just produces more fighters.



However, there are also many things that the average MMA school does not cover, so while I'd say the majority of MMA fighters would stand a much better chance in a street fight, than someone from the average TMA dojo, as I said, there are things that aren't worked on.  





> No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated.



True.  And it didn't take long for people to catch onto what the BJJ guys were doing.  Now, you tend to see more stand up and less grappling.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> .
> 
> What do you think a choke hold is? It's a death move.



Really?  So everyone that gets choked dies?  Everyone that chokes someone is doing so, with the intent to kill?


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> Work on your reading comprehension first, before getting all excited. Thanks.



Of course, please keep in mind, that we're reading, not physically hearing whats being said here, therefore, its very possible for misunderstandings to happen.  Lets try to keep the thread civil without taking shots at each other.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> It depends.  But needing "4 minutes" of constantly holding onto the blood choke after someone already went unconscious is not correct. It's much less than that.
> 
> This guy passes out in under 5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While here:
> 
> http://www.wdsu.com/Sheriff-Man-Die...Him/-/9854144/10973378/-/ejethtz/-/index.html
> 
> this 110 lbs, 14 year old kid accidentally kills a 220 lbs, 24 year old adult with a rear naked choke that was held for only 30-40 seconds (according to eye witnesses).



Well, that article says it all..lol.  The 14yr old was watching pro wrestling, then tried out a move.  Translated:  The kid sounds like he had zero or minumal training, had no clue what he was doing, and applied the choke incorrectly.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> Ok but have  you seen what Tez3 have been posting towards me? Or do these rules not apply to her?



The rules apply to everyone here.  As I said, why dont we return to the topic, instead of taking shots at each other.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Mz1 said:


> The problem with being choked is that at first it's very uncomfortable and hurting, so you fight with all of your might....but as the blood flow lessens, you actually become more relaxed and it actually starts feeling good....like you're going into a dreamy state of consciousness. Luckily, I know that I may get brain damage or even die, so I muster up the will to tap before passing out. Once let go, it feels like you just woke up from a nice dream and everything is fine.
> 
> Some guy on this thread said that it would take "4 minutes" after losing consciousness to die or even sustain permanent brain damage. This is absolutely wrong. Most schools adopt the "10 seconds" rule. Once you get the choke in, you let go if your partner doesn't tap in 10 seconds.



I've been choked out before by one of my sensei and I wouldn't describe it as "feeling good", more like a goddamn nightmare. I will agree that it feels kind of dream-like but that was more after he released it. Good experience though.


----------



## Steve

Are we talkingabout a carotid choke or an air choke?   

A carotid choke isnt uncomfortable,  but I wouldn't call it relaxing either.  Its not uncommon for people to dream when out from a blood choke. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Aiki Lee

I'm pretty sure we are discussing the carotid choke.


----------



## Tez3

It's a good rule for training that chokes should only be on for 10 secs or so, it doesn't need to be on for long for people to learn what the technique is about however that doesn't mean it only takes just over 10 secs for it to kill or cause brain damage, it means instructors are being sensible and giving it a good safety margin, it doesn't make Dirty Dog wrong either on the time it takes to kill.
On a little side note, I don't get 'agitated' by posts, _only one_ when being accused of killing premature babies ever got me upset as I'd lost a baby of my own, other than that it's the internet, words happen


----------



## Mz1

The Last Legionary said:


> You're new here kid and there's already a few mod notes in play, so I'll be nice.
> 1: I was just pointing out the rules that you already read. You did read them right? Because it asks if you did when you signed up and I'd hate to know you lied.
> 2: I have no bias. I just have a low tolerance for stupid. Stupid and chickens. Hate them
> 3: I wasn't moderating, though I'm much more knowledgable than you about how that works, having done that and been one of the guys who wrote said rules. You did read them right? The one outlawing chicken hats was one of mine you know.
> 4: If you had read the rules, you would know that if you were having a problem with another member the correct procedure would be to report them and let the staff sort it out, not be an *** about things. If you'd read the rules that is.
> 5: Bit of advice: Read The Rules.
> 
> Have a nice day. Oh look, I'm all out of bubblegum again.  Ask me why I'm not wearing any underpants. Go on. Ask. Oh never mind, I'll tell you anyway. It's because they haven't invented the pants that can take the job on. Did I mention you should read the rules? There's a theme here.  I can do this all night, but Nurse McCreedy is here with my meds and restraints so until we chat again kid, read the rules.  Buybuy!
> 
> We now return to the discussion about if cuddling will work in a fight.



I wasn't having any problems with Tez3. We were just going back and forth with some disagreements. This is pretty common on forums. 



> "2: I have no bias. I just have a low tolerance for stupid. Stupid and chickens. Hate them "




Seems like you have ways of getting around the rules, or so you think, that are clever. Nice one old-timer.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Really?  So everyone that gets choked dies?  Everyone that chokes someone is doing so, with the intent to kill?



My point is that, during a competition match....both equally match competitors are going all out, 100% in everything to win. There's no difference in the amount of force being used in trying to knock someone the F out with punches, kicks, elbows, knees, etc. in the cage compared to a street fight....prison fight....husband catching his wife in bed with another man and now is trying to kill him, etc.

Just that in the cage, there's a Referee, corner throwing in the towel, tapout, etc... to stop the fight once someone is KO'ed, about to get choked into the state of unconsciousness, arm broken, etc... while on the streets, in prison or the above bedroom....it can go on until someone dies. But the level of brutality that led up to this point of being KO'ed or serious injuries or near death....is no different than in the cage.

So a choke in the cage that's locked in, is still cranked with all the power that the choker possesses to cause maximum damage until he's stopped.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Well, that article says it all..lol.  The 14yr old was watching pro wrestling, then tried out a move.  Translated:  The kid sounds like he had zero or minumal training, had no clue what he was doing, and applied the choke incorrectly.



I disagree....this kid killed a full grown adult in 30-40 seconds with a blood choke....which means that he was pretty good at it. He probably didn't know what to look for in terms of the guy passing out or about to die. Another guy on this thread tried to say that it takes "4 minutes" after someone went unconscious to kill them...which can't be right.

I personally, don't know how long it takes, but wouldn't want to find out. Many variables comes into play (ie. size, strength, endurance, etc.). I know that I can make someone pass out in about 10-15 seconds, but during sparring, I usually let go or ease up at around the 10 second mark after knowing that my choke was locked in tight...as there's no Ref there supervising. This gives them a chance to tapout, even though sometimes they continue to fight by taking my goodwill as a free pass out of a choke. 

It's just not that easy, in the heat of battle, to know if someone is passing out from an RNC.


----------



## Mz1

Himura Kenshin said:


> I've been choked out before by one of my sensei and I wouldn't describe it as "feeling good", more like a goddamn nightmare. I will agree that it feels kind of dream-like but that was more after he released it. Good experience though.



Yes it's painful and uncomfortable in the beginning, but as you're about to pass out, the brain is shutting down. You will gradually stop feeling this pain and discomfort as blood flow is being cut off to your brain.

But are you talking about a blood choke or an air choke? 

If you've only been choked once or twice, as you said "by one of (your) sensei", then maybe you're not used to it and tapped out early during the pain & discomfort stage. I've trained in MMA for about 6 years and in BJJ, we spar every class for 30-45 minutes at 80-100% power. I've been choked out a lot. Nearing unconsciousness, it's always very serene and peaceful.


----------



## Aiki Lee

I volunteered by choked out by one of the senior instructors. I did so because we needed people to understand what happens to the human body when blood flow is cut off. He RNC'd me properly and I went out. It was extremely uncomfortable and then ...nothing. Not a good feeling, just kind of nothing as I went out. He then revived me.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> My point is that, during a competition match....both equally match competitors are going all out, 100% in everything to win. There's no difference in the amount of force being used in trying to knock someone the F out with punches, kicks, elbows, knees, etc. in the cage compared to a street fight....prison fight....husband catching his wife in bed with another man and now is trying to kill him, etc.
> 
> Just that in the cage, there's a Referee, corner throwing in the towel, tapout, etc... to stop the fight once someone is KO'ed, about to get choked into the state of unconsciousness, arm broken, etc... while on the streets, in prison or the above bedroom....it can go on until someone dies. But the level of brutality that led up to this point of being KO'ed or serious injuries or near death....is no different than in the cage.
> 
> So a choke in the cage that's locked in, is still cranked with all the power that the choker possesses to cause maximum damage until he's stopped.



Sure, I agree that the adrenaline gets pumping, however, I have to wonder how many of the UFC fighters, both past and present, actually went into the ring, with the intent to seriously hurt, maim, etc, their opponent.  IMO, I think the number is not as high as one may think, due to the fact that after the fight, we often see a mutual showing of respect/concern for the fighters, etc.


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> I disagree....this kid killed a full grown adult in 30-40 seconds with a blood choke....which means that he was pretty good at it. He probably didn't know what to look for in terms of the guy passing out or about to die. Another guy on this thread tried to say that it takes "4 minutes" after someone went unconscious to kill them...which can't be right.



Sorry, but I'm still going to disagree with you here.  The fact that he killed the guy does not mean that he knew what he was doing.  In fact, it means the opposite..that he had no clue what he was doing.  



> I personally, don't know how long it takes, but wouldn't want to find out. Many variables comes into play (ie. size, strength, endurance, etc.). I know that I can make someone pass out in about 10-15 seconds, but during sparring, I usually let go or ease up at around the 10 second mark after knowing that my choke was locked in tight...as there's no Ref there supervising. This gives them a chance to tapout, even though sometimes they continue to fight by taking my goodwill as a free pass out of a choke.
> 
> It's just not that easy, in the heat of battle, to know if someone is passing out from an RNC.



A good friend of mine, and training partner is a BJJ Black Belt under Roy Harris.  He's done a RNC on me, and I was tapping, before he fully applied it.  Why?  Mechanics.  If you're applying it correctly, it shouldn't take long for the person to feel the effects.  And as far as not knowing if someone is passing out...you're telling me there's no way to tell?  I disagree.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Sure, I agree that the adrenaline gets pumping, however, I have to wonder how many of the UFC fighters, both past and present, actually went into the ring, with the intent to seriously hurt, maim, etc, their opponent.  IMO, I think the number is not as high as one may think, due to the fact that after the fight, we often see a mutual showing of respect/concern for the fighters, etc.



When both are throwing punches and kicks at the other's head and body, with all of their might...trying to cause a massive concussion to KO them, are they not trying to hurt the other? No different than how a street fight starts and usually ends if someone is KO'ed.

But think about it....how many times has a fighter continues to hammer fist and elbow his opponent in the same place, ie. the eye socket that's bleeding? Is this not maiming to try to WIN by ending the fight through excessive bleeding into the eyes... while inadvertently trying to BREAK HIS EYE SOCKET?

What happens after you realize that you've broken your opponent's nose and jaw yet they keep fighting and wouldn't quit?  You continue to smash his nose and jaw in some more until he does quit or the Ref stops it? Is this not maiming someone?

How about a simple armbar? Once they get it, any fighter would crank it with all of their might in hopes that their opponent taps. If he doesn't, SNAP. Sure they shake hands afterward because it's part of the job that they both love and have mutual respect. They didn't want to maim their opponent, but it happens.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Sorry, but I'm still going to disagree with you here.  The fact that he killed the guy does not mean that he knew what he was doing.  In fact, it means the opposite..that he had no clue what he was doing.



He didn't know the danger of an RNC, but he was successful in applying it in order to cause death. 



> A good friend of mine, and training partner is a BJJ Black Belt under Roy Harris.  He's done a RNC on me, and I was tapping, before he fully applied it.  Why?  Mechanics.  If you're applying it correctly, it shouldn't take long for the person to feel the effects.  And as far as not knowing if someone is passing out...you're telling me there's no way to tell?  I disagree.



Well I just posted a video where that guy was getting ready to tapout by raising his hand into position, but was too late and he passed out. The Black belt who choked him didn't even know he passed out. There are more videos like this on YouTube and I've seen it happen a few times too, and the guy was a 3rd deg Black belt conducting a seminar. Sometimes, when the instructor is busy explaining the technique while demonstrating it live, he can make mistakes such as holding the choke in too tight and too fast. Crap happens. Your friend demonstrating on you is not of the same intensity compared to sparring, competition or a fight.


----------



## MJS

Sorry, been away for a bit.  




Mz1 said:


> When both are throwing punches and kicks at the other's head and body, with all of their might...trying to cause a massive concussion to KO them, are they not trying to hurt the other? No different than how a street fight starts and usually ends if someone is KO'ed.
> 
> But think about it....how many times has a fighter continues to hammer fist and elbow his opponent in the same place, ie. the eye socket that's bleeding? Is this not maiming to try to WIN by ending the fight through excessive bleeding into the eyes... while inadvertently trying to BREAK HIS EYE SOCKET?
> 
> What happens after you realize that you've broken your opponent's nose and jaw yet they keep fighting and wouldn't quit?  You continue to smash his nose and jaw in some more until he does quit or the Ref stops it? Is this not maiming someone?
> 
> How about a simple armbar? Once they get it, any fighter would crank it with all of their might in hopes that their opponent taps. If he doesn't, SNAP. Sure they shake hands afterward because it's part of the job that they both love and have mutual respect. They didn't want to maim their opponent, but it happens.



Sure, I'll give you that, esp. in the early UFCs.  Todays fights....how many have we seen in which it looks like the guy is barely hurt, and the fight is stopped?  Seems like fighter safety today, is a much higher priority than it was in the early days.  



Mz1 said:


> He didn't know the danger of an RNC, but he was successful in applying it in order to cause death.



Still doesnt mean he had a clue as to what he was doing.





> Well I just posted a video where that guy was getting ready to tapout by raising his hand into position, but was too late and he passed out. The Black belt who choked him didn't even know he passed out. There are more videos like this on YouTube and I've seen it happen a few times too, and the guy was a 3rd deg Black belt conducting a seminar. Sometimes, when the instructor is busy explaining the technique while demonstrating it live, he can make mistakes such as holding the choke in too tight and too fast. Crap happens. Your friend demonstrating on you is not of the same intensity compared to sparring, competition or a fight.



Hmm...so I guess tapping goes out the window then?  Sorry, but anyone who puts themselves into a position to risk serious injury, just to prove they're a tough guy, doesnt have a brain in their head, and any inst who intentionally keeps a hold on, if someone is tapping, just to prove a point, is an ***.  

Just my opinion.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Sure, I'll give you that, esp. in the early UFCs.  Todays fights....how many have we seen in which it looks like the guy is barely hurt, and the fight is stopped?  Seems like fighter safety today, is a much higher priority than it was in the early days.



Up until the Ref stops the fight for safety reasons, the guy pummeling his opponent is doing so with full intentions of hurting them...no different than he would if this was a fight to the death in prison, or whatever. Full power and full intensity, non-stop.



> Still doesnt mean he had a clue as to what he was doing.



An RNC is no big deal, we teach this to White belts on their first day training BJJ sometimes...and they get it in a few minutes. Some kid watching the UFC a few times can certainly figure it out and choke someone to death. How could this kid not have a clue when he was successful in killing someone with it? He probably didn't know how to do it well and certainly didn't know when to let go or ease off in order to not cause injury or death.



> Hmm...so I guess tapping goes out the window then?  Sorry, but anyone who puts themselves into a position to risk serious injury, just to prove they're a tough guy, doesnt have a brain in their head, and any inst who intentionally keeps a hold on, if someone is tapping, just to prove a point, is an ***.



You obviously didn't watch the video nor understood what I posted then. That was a Black belt demonstrating a technique. He just did it so well that the guy passed out in less than 5 seconds. He was about to tap, but passed out. There was no tap. Why would the instructor intentionally try hurt him?


----------



## MJS

Mz1 said:


> Up until the Ref stops the fight for safety reasons, the guy pummeling his opponent is doing so with full intentions of hurting them...no different than he would if this was a fight to the death in prison, or whatever. Full power and full intensity, non-stop.



Ok....if you say so.





> An RNC is no big deal, we teach this to White belts on their first day training BJJ sometimes...and they get it in a few minutes. Some kid watching the UFC a few times can certainly figure it out and choke someone to death. How could this kid not have a clue when he was successful in killing someone with it? He probably didn't know how to do it well and certainly didn't know when to let go or ease off in order to not cause injury or death.



Sure, you're correct...anyone can watch something and try to figure it out.  However, that doesn't mean that because the person thinks they have it, that they really do.  Thats the problem with some kids today...instead of going and getting the real training, they mimic and play, which usually results in injury or in this case, death.  





> You obviously didn't watch the video nor understood what I posted then. That was a Black belt demonstrating a technique. He just did it so well that the guy passed out in less than 5 seconds. He was about to tap, but passed out. There was no tap. Why would the instructor intentionally try hurt him?



Yup, just watched it.  Interestingly enough, I've rolled many times, and have had locks and chokes slapped on me.  I've also never been choked fully out.  Know why?  Because I had nothing to prove and wasn't ashamed to tap.  If I feel the lock/choke really being put on good, I'll tap.  I don't wait to the point of no return.  Why would the inst intentionally try to hurt him?  Oh, I dont know, but reading some of your other posts in this thread, I get the impression that people regularly try to intentionally hurt someone.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Yup, just watched it.  Interestingly enough, I've rolled many times, and have had locks and chokes slapped on me.  I've also never been choked fully out.  Know why?  Because I had nothing to prove and wasn't ashamed to tap.  If I feel the lock/choke really being put on good, I'll tap.



Depends who I'm rolling with. Against someone much better than me, I usually tap sooner because it would usually just be a waste of energy to try and resist when it's locked in. But against those my levels or close, and especially against those under me, I would risk coming close to unconsciousness. Sparring is still certainly a competition, whether people want to admit it or not. Everyone keeps tabs of who they've beaten and who's beaten them. There are grudges too. We don't pretend.



> I don't wait to the point of no return.  Why would the inst intentionally try to hurt him?  Oh, I dont know, but reading some of your other posts in this thread, I get the impression that people regularly try to intentionally hurt someone.



Now you're being absurd. This BJJ choke video I posted is just a random one on YouTube of someone passing out. Has nothing to do with me nor my gym. 

But certainly when my gym spars hard for KO's (standup striking), we certainly are trying to hurt each other. Leg kicks to the thigh, body, head, etc. certainly do hurt. And so do punches. We just make sure we don't strike at knees nor full knees, breaking ribs and such.


----------



## Mz1

MJS said:


> Ok....if you say so.



I'm glad you agree.



> Sure, you're correct...anyone can watch something and try to figure it out.  However, that doesn't mean that because the person thinks they have it, that they really do.  Thats the problem with some kids today...instead of going and getting the real training, they mimic and play, which usually results in injury or in this case, death.



How does this kid not have it when he successfully killed someone in under 40 seconds?

Just like throwing a straight cross. You can learn it by watching it on TV and practicing it a few times....yet still can be able to pull it off in the street and KO someone.

Would be better if they trained at a real fighting gym where they will learn it properly w/more practice, sparring, etc. But it still can be effective learning from TV, just usually, not as effective. An RNC is not rocket science.


----------



## TFP

The simple answer is of course it does, I mean once you get past all the what ifs of "location" and "intent", blah, blah, blah MMA is a real life legit martial art that addresses many forms of fighting rolled up neatly into a nice little package that you as an artist can take and mold.   Similar to JKD.

shirt answer is yes it works and more so than most every other SD martial art out there.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I'm thinking that Bas Rutten would do just fine in a real fight...as would many other retired and current MMA fighters


----------



## J W

TFP said:


> ...MMA is a real life legit martial art that addresses many forms of fighting rolled up neatly into a nice little package that you as an artist can take and mold. Similar to JKD.



If I understand MMA correctly, it's actually just a competition format, not a martial art. It's a form of competition with a rule set that allows for various - or "mixed" - martial arts to be used effectively. 

So the original statement "MMA would never work in a real fight" doesn't really make much sense. If MMA is just a particular style of competition, then once you move to the context of a "real" fight, it's no longer MMA. Now it's just that particular fighter using whatever fighting skills he has to achieve whatever his goal is for the altercation (get away from a mugger, stop someone from harming him, knockout a loudmouth drunk, etc). Although his MMA training will probably help him in that situation, it's pretty likely that his approach to a real fight will differ considerably to his approach in the ring. He's certainly not going to be worried about MMA rules, and his goal is probably not to try and score a knockout/tapout.


----------



## Rumy73

Chris Parker said:


> Tell you what, I'm going to try to turn this into a real discussion.
> 
> Absolutely correct, it wouldn't. Mainly because it isn't designed to. But the same can be said of every single martial art that I can think of, honestly, as each are designed with a particular environment, situation, and aim in mind, with that environment, situation, and aim being particular to the system itself. MMA, for example, trains for the environment of the competitive engagement, the situation of individual competition, and the aim of winning by submission or knockout against a single opponent. None of which is the same as a real fight.
> 
> However, and it's a big "however", the training methodology and technical material that go into making up MMA can be adapted, utilised, or executed in a 'real fight' with great success. Fighting exactly as you would in a ring would be ill-advised, for a range of reasons, but the training can be highly effective when used for the aims of defending yourself. Just don't think that a ref will stop anyone else getting involved with the fight.



I agree. It also depends on the fight. Guy trained in mma vs loud, drunk fool... You get the picture. It is best to avoid fights. There are too many unknowns. People pull knives, friends jump in, they bite, et cetera. Too many guys waste their time fantasizing about fights. You want something to fantasize about, try Selma Hayack or Halle Berry.


----------



## Hyoho

It would work to a certain extent only because like other sport like things it has rules. Including nether regions, eyes, ears etc as a target area changes the outcome of a real fight.

Also it's not about the system as much as who is actually doing it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Mz1 said:


> When both are throwing punches and kicks at the other's head and body, with all of their might...trying to cause a massive concussion to KO them, are they not trying to hurt the other? No different than how a street fight starts and usually ends if someone is KO'ed.



What makes you think an assault is going to end when someone is KO'ed?


----------



## TFP

J W said:


> If I understand MMA correctly, it's actually just a competition format, not a martial art. It's a form of competition with a rule set that allows for various - or "mixed" - martial arts to be used effectively.
> 
> So the original statement "MMA would never work in a real fight" doesn't really make much sense. If MMA is just a particular style of competition, then once you move to the context of a "real" fight, it's no longer MMA. Now it's just that particular fighter using whatever fighting skills he has to achieve whatever his goal is for the altercation (get away from a mugger, stop someone from harming him, knockout a loudmouth drunk, etc). Although his MMA training will probably help him in that situation, it's pretty likely that his approach to a real fight will differ considerably to his approach in the ring. He's certainly not going to be worried about MMA rules, and his goal is probably not to try and score a knockout/tapout.



Well the way I see it is the Gracie's started the Gracie  challenge which led the the UFC's "style vs style" fights which led to martial artists needing to be well rounded which led to MMA as a sport which led to MMA as a martial art.

so no you arnt going to follow "MMA" rules in a street fight, but the fight itself will be very similar to what you see in the cage.


----------



## Chris Parker

This one's back again? Really? Okay...



TFP said:


> The simple answer is of course it does, I mean once you get past all the what ifs of "location" and "intent", blah, blah, blah MMA is a real life legit martial art that addresses many forms of fighting rolled up neatly into a nice little package that you as an artist can take and mold.   Similar to JKD.



Well, that's rather incorrect. MMA is not a "real life legit martial art that addresses many forms of fighting rolled up neatly into a nice little package", it's a competitive and training format which encourages a broader fighting range than, say, boxing, or Judo. It addresses exactly one form of fighting, which is MMA competitive fighting. And it really isn't that similar to JKD, anymore than krav maga is similar to BJJ.



TFP said:


> shirt answer is yes it works and more so than most every other SD martial art out there.



Ha, I get that that was a typo, but it just opens up to such a perfect response, I really can't resist....

Your "shirt" answer is complete pants. What do you know of "SD martial arts"? And why would you think that a competition format, designed for a context removed from and alien to self defence would therefore give you something that works better or more than arts/systems designed specifically for such a context? 



Xue Sheng said:


> I'm thinking that Bas Rutten would do just fine in a real fight...as would many other retired and current MMA fighters



Sure... Bas is a natural fighter. He was in his karate, and continued to be when he moved to MMA, and continues to be as he presents his "street fighting" approach. I don't think MMA is the crucial aspect, nor the defining one for him, or many of the others that could have such a comment directed towards them.



J W said:


> If I understand MMA correctly, it's actually just a competition format, not a martial art. It's a form of competition with a rule set that allows for various - or "mixed" - martial arts to be used effectively.



MMA is a competition format, but it's also a training methodology (geared towards success in that competitive format, of course). To that end, it's not really something that allows, or even encourages genuine mixtures of martial arts (remember, the term was coined, not for single athletes who combined a variety of arts in their approach, but for the format which had different arts competing against each other... a mixture of martial arts in the competition), it encourages multiple ranges to be trained. Really, MMA should be called "Multi-Ranged Unarmed Combat Sports", but the initialism just doesn't flow as well... (hmm... MRUCS... nah...).



J W said:


> So the original statement "MMA would never work in a real fight" doesn't really make much sense. If MMA is just a particular style of competition, then once you move to the context of a "real" fight, it's no longer MMA. Now it's just that particular fighter using whatever fighting skills he has to achieve whatever his goal is for the altercation (get away from a mugger, stop someone from harming him, knockout a loudmouth drunk, etc). Although his MMA training will probably help him in that situation, it's pretty likely that his approach to a real fight will differ considerably to his approach in the ring. He's certainly not going to be worried about MMA rules, and his goal is probably not to try and score a knockout/tapout.



Yep. Of course, you've hit upon one of the big differences there... you list "get away from a mugger". Where, in MMA training, does it teach you to escape and run? This is part of the limitations of sporting approaches, and what removes such things from being "reality"... training in MMA (or other sporting methods) will encourage, in fact, insist upon engaging the opponent. You don't run away in the cage, you have to stay and fight. And, if you want to win, you have to aggressively engage... even if it doesn't go to a knockout or submission, the judges will score your performance... and, if you aren't aggressive, you don't get points. You may even have them taken. You simply can't win without having the focus being move in and engage. That can mean that, if you rely on MMA training for handling all "real world" encounters, you go in and engage when it's just not a smart, or preferred option. On the same token, MMA training doesn't really deal with "stop someone from harming you" either... for much the same reasons. Defences are there to prevent you losing, not to stop the other guy hurting you, in the end.



Rumy73 said:


> I agree. It also depends on the fight. Guy trained in mma vs loud, drunk fool... You get the picture. It is best to avoid fights. There are too many unknowns. People pull knives, friends jump in, they bite, et cetera. Too many guys waste their time fantasizing about fights. You want something to fantasize about, try Selma Hayack or Halle Berry.



Ha, sure... but, when done the right way, the use of the imagination is not only powerful, I'd say essential to proper training. Imagining yourself taking on impossible odds and getting the girl, though, is not the right way... 



RTKDCMB said:


> What makes you think an assault is going to end when someone is KO'ed?



Er.... the poster was banned quite a while back (this thread is from over two and a half years ago, with the last comments over a year back...), so not sure that you'll get an answer to that...



TFP said:


> Well the way I see it is the Gracie's started the Gracie  challenge which led the the UFC's "style vs style" fights which led to martial artists needing to be well rounded which led to MMA as a sport which led to MMA as a martial art.



Needing to be well rounded for what, though? That's been the main question... needing to be well rounded to handle themselves in a competitive format which engages in multiple ranges against a similarly skilled opponent in an agreed and specified context and contest is one thing, but it really doesn't mean that it proves anything for anything else. Essentially, it showed that, in order to be successful in MMA competition, you needed to be well trained in MMA-style methodology. That was it.



TFP said:


> so no you arnt going to follow "MMA" rules in a street fight, but the fight itself will be very similar to what you see in the cage.



I should hope not! The stuff I see in the cage, in actual usage, can be desperately ill-advised... real fights aren't what you've been looking at on you-tube, you know...


----------



## Kyokai79

The opinions being spewed on this matter seem full of pure ignorance and bias and I have not the time energy nor gumption to indulge any further than simply to state 2 things:

MMA is not a "competition format". "UFC" is a competition format for which MMA are displayed. Strikeforce, Pride, WEC; _those _are what competition formatting is. They are the competitive format for which MMA are pitted against one another. MMA itself isn't simply a "competition format" just because when used during/in a sanctioned-competition setting (pride, ufc, wec) there are rules within those competitions. Outside of those competitions, such as in unsanctioned matches or street fights, self defense scenarios, there are no rules and MMA works just fine..

Which brings me to my next point..
anyone saying that "MMA wouldn't work in a real fight"..has most likey, A. never been in a real fight and/or B. know very, very little about reality and fighting. 
I will leave you with this, go start a "real fight", which I assume means "no rules", with an MMA practicioner and when it's over, as yourself whether its useful or not. If you can still speak.


----------



## K-man

Kyokai79 said:


> The opinions being spewed on this matter seem full of pure ignorance and bias and I have not the time energy nor gumption to indulge any further than simply to state 2 things:
> 
> I think that might be a bit harsh. Bias perhaps but not so much ignorance. Like you, I have been watching the comments flow without commenting.
> 
> MMA is not a "competition format". "UFC" is a competition format for which MMA are displayed. Strikeforce, Pride, WEC; _those _are what competition formatting is. They are the competitive format for which MMA are pitted against one another. MMA itself isn't simply a "competition format" just because when used during/in a sanctioned-competition setting (pride, ufc, wec) there are rules within those competitions. Outside of those competitions, such as in unsanctioned matches or street fights, self defense scenarios, there are no rules and MMA works just fine..
> 
> As 'MMA' is now being promoted as competition I think that it could well be considered 'competition format' but not in a way that detracts from the training. It has developed in a very similar way to your Kyokushin karate. Mas Oyama started with Shotokan, wanted it to be harder and more 'real' so trained Goju Kai then started his own style with competition included. No one is going to say that Kyokushin karate wouldn't work in a real fight and be taken seriously. It is exactly the same with MMA training. Certainly the training is designed to give people the skills to compete but what it is actually teaching is a rounded set of fighting skills seen in other martial arts but designed to cover all aspects of ring or cage fighting. It is very similar to the 'freestyle' karate that developed in the 70s and 80s.
> 
> Which brings me to my next point..
> anyone saying that "MMA wouldn't work in a real fight"..has most likey, A. never been in a real fight and/or B. know very, very little about reality and fighting.
> 
> Perhaps the OP is correct, in a literal sense. MMA itself is not doing the fighting. It is the person in the fight. How that fight turns out will depend on many factors but principally how much training and experience a person has. I would back someone like Bas Ruten in any bar fight and even against a number of opponents. He is MMA (with Kyokushin background). But what about little Willie Smith? Willie is 17, 5'7" and 125 pounds wringing wet. His mum enrolled him in an MMA school six months ago because she was sick and tired of Willie coming home every day with a blood nose. Now Willie is training MMA but I doubt very much it will help him against a thug on the street. Nothing is black and white. People get precious about their style of training but it is up to the person whether a style of training will be sufficient to help them on the street, not the style itself.
> 
> I will leave you with this, go start a "real fight", which I assume means "no rules", with an MMA practicioner and when it's over, as yourself whether its useful or not. If you can still speak.
> 
> What you really mean is, go pick a fight with a highly trained MMA competitor and see how you fare. Me and Bas? No contest. Me and Willie, well that's another story.
> 
> And what most people seem to be ignoring is that most fights are between people with little or no training. Many are drunk at the time. Psychologically someone picking a fight with you has, in his own mind, already decided he can defeat you. Only a fool would start a real fight expecting to be beaten. Will your MMA skills be enough in that scenario? Quite possible, but never guaranteed.


Welcome to MT.


----------



## Chris Parker

Kyokai79 said:


> The opinions being spewed on this matter seem full of pure ignorance and bias and I have not the time energy nor gumption to indulge any further than simply to state 2 things:



Hmm, did someone challenge your take on reality?



Kyokai79 said:


> MMA is not a "competition format".



Yes it is. It is also a training methodology, geared around success in that competitive format.



Kyokai79 said:


> "UFC" is a competition format for which MMA are displayed. Strikeforce, Pride, WEC; _those _are what competition formatting is.



No, those are promotions/companies that utilize the format of MMA competition.



Kyokai79 said:


> They are the competitive format for which MMA are pitted against one another.



I'm assuming you mean "in which mixed martial artists are pitted against one another", because the usage of the initialism "MMA" ("Mixed Martial Arts") doesn't actually make sense there... of course, if that is what you're saying, then you missed the reality of definitions here. They are promotions in which MMA competitors/athletes compete against one another in an MMA-format competition. You're not doing well.



Kyokai79 said:


> MMA itself isn't simply a "competition format" just because when used during/in a sanctioned-competition setting (pride, ufc, wec) there are rules within those competitions. Outside of those competitions, such as in unsanctioned matches or street fights, self defense scenarios, there are no rules and MMA works just fine..



No, it's a competition format because, well, it's a format, an approach to training, that is geared to, and centered around, a particular format of competition. Unsanctioned matches fought in an MMA format don't really prove anything about the applicability/usage of MMA outside of an MMA format, you realise... and self defence scenarios have nothing to do with MMA...



Kyokai79 said:


> Which brings me to my next point..
> anyone saying that "MMA wouldn't work in a real fight"..has most likey, A. never been in a real fight and/or B. know very, very little about reality and fighting.



Er, been in real fights, know quite a bit about the realities of violence on a large number of levels, have trained MMA, have trained BJJ, done some boxing, and far, far more. You were saying?



Kyokai79 said:


> I will leave you with this, go start a "real fight", which I assume means "no rules", with an MMA practicioner and when it's over, as yourself whether its useful or not. If you can still speak.



Ha, love it... You do realize that, were someone like myself to go out to actively and deliberately find an MMA guy to "start a real fight" with, it's not going to be anything like what you're thinking of, yeah? If I'm going out with that an an aim, I'm going to give myself quite an edge... and it's hardly going to be a fair contest... and I'm not backing the MMA guy (or anyone, really).

Seriously, you decided to sign up to the site, wait the few days it takes to get activated, just to do a drive-by non-post, and that's it? It could at least have been informed, rather than simply displaying the exact same ignorance and bias you're accusing others of....


----------



## CNida

K-man said:


> Welcome to MT.



MMA is a competitive sport, yes. It may have, back in the day, been idealized as a "which style is superior" type of tournament but it is long since removed from it.

That said? I don't think MMA works as a highly reliable method of self defense in and of itself. But like K-Man wisely pointed out... It is not the style but the person using it. I truly believe there are applications which can be derived from MMA to use in any altercation.

Does it teach you to run away? No. Teach you to avoid a conflict? Nah. But I think it would be silly to say that in a pinch, you couldn't use some of those techniques effectively to defend yourself.

It's just my layman opinion but it feels like all MMA training does is give someone a better "puncher's chance" so to speak. Not the best sort of training to have in that situation, but better than absolutely no training at all.

And now I feel utterly silly saying anything on this ancient thread. 


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> This one's back again? Really? Okay...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's rather incorrect. MMA is not a "real life legit martial art that addresses many forms of fighting rolled up neatly into a nice little package", it's a competitive and training format which encourages a broader fighting range than, say, boxing, or Judo. It addresses exactly one form of fighting, which is MMA competitive fighting. And it really isn't that similar to JKD, anymore than krav maga is similar to BJJ.
> 
> *no, it most certainly is.  Just because they test it in the UFC doesn't make it not for SD anymore than say a Judo competition ruins Judo as a SD martial art.
> as far as you denying it's similarity to JKD, you again couldn't be any more wrong.  Both arts borrow what works from others (Gung fu, western boxing, fencing, wrestling, Judo, etc) discards what doesn't and both arts then let the individual shape the art to themselves.   Insanely similar TBH.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I get that that was a typo, but it just opens up to such a perfect response, I really can't resist....
> 
> 
> Your "shirt" answer is complete pants. What do you know of "SD martial arts"? And why would you think that a competition format, designed for a context removed from and alien to self defence would therefore give you something that works better or more than arts/systems designed specifically for such a context?
> 
> 
> *I know plenty about it.  I've train in SD martial arts, trained under multiple instructors who teach law enforcement and military.  As much as you hope upon hope to distance MMA from your beloved SD martial arts, the simple truth is that the core of MMA comes from SD martial arts.
> infact in the last street altercation I got into I used many facets of my MMA training to defend myself from multiple "bad guys".   From using a Greco clinch against a car eventually using a modified Judo/Head and Arm toss which landed him on the hood of the car, as he slide off the car I switched to a Muay Thai clinch landing 2 knees to the chin, spun him around and applied a standing Rear Naked Choke and sat on the hood of the car so no one could get behind me , I had to use it to hide my face in between his shoulder blades as his friends attempted to punch me and his girlfriend tried to claw me with her keys and nails.
> I was able to use these different techniques, not because I studied and mastered each art, but because I had learned and modified my Mixed Martial Art training to what actually works and what I can actually apply in real life.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA is a competition format, but it's also a training methodology (geared towards success in that competitive format, of course). To that end, it's not really something that allows, or even encourages genuine mixtures of martial arts (remember, the term was coined, not for single athletes who combined a variety of arts in their approach, but for the format which had different arts competing against each other... a mixture of martial arts in the competition), it encourages multiple ranges to be trained. Really, MMA should be called "Multi-Ranged Unarmed Combat Sports", but the initialism just doesn't flow as well... (hmm... MRUCS... nah.
> 
> *your wrong style vs style is what you're talking about.  MMA is what came after.   Do you think Judo is a SD Martial art?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Needing to be well rounded for what, though? That's been the main question... needing to be well rounded to handle themselves in a competitive format which engages in multiple ranges against a similarly skilled opponent in an agreed and specified context and contest is one thing, but it really doesn't mean that it proves anything for anything else. Essentially, it showed that, in order to be successful in MMA competition, you needed to be well trained in MMA-style methodology. That was it
> 
> 
> *well rounded to be able to be as advantageous in your attack or defense in an MMA cage or the street.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should hope not! The stuff I see in the cage, in actual usage, can be desperately ill-advised... real fights aren't what you've been looking at on you-tube, you know...
> 
> 
> *nice attempt at a put down, but I actually train, have fought and have put on many of my own MMA promotions as well as work with some of the largest promotions in the world.*




MMA is 100% legitimate for the street and SD, to think otherwise is close minded, IMO


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> MMA is 100% legitimate for the street and SD, to think otherwise is close minded, IMO


Even if I were to agree with you to a certain degree, your assertion that anyone disagreeing with you is closed minded? Yeah, right!
:lfao:


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Even if I were to agree with you to a certain degree, your assertion that anyone disagreeing with you is closed minded? Yeah, right!
> :lfao:



Im not saying disagreeing with me is close minded I'm saying not giving MMA a chance as a SD martial art is close minded.  I have no problem with different opinions for sure.


----------



## TFP

> Yep. Of course, you've hit upon one of the big differences there... you list "get away from a mugger". Where, in MMA training, does it teach you to escape and run? This is part of the limitations of sporting approaches, and what removes such things from being "reality"... training in MMA (or other sporting methods) will encourage, in fact, insist upon engaging the opponent. You don't run away in the cage, you have to stay and fight. And, if you want to win, you have to aggressively engage... even if it doesn't go to a knockout or submission, the judges will score your performance... and, if you aren't aggressive, you don't get points. You may even have them taken. You simply can't win without having the focus being move in and engage. That can mean that, if you rely on MMA training for handling all "real world" encounters, you go in and engage when it's just not a smart, or preferred option. On the same token, MMA training doesn't really deal with "stop someone from harming you" either... for much the same reasons. Defences are there to prevent you losing, not to stop the other guy hurting you, in the end.



i honestly can't tell if you're being serious here!!  I'm guessing so!!  There is plenty of disengaging in MMA, plenty of staying away and only engaging when you want.   One of the best MMA fighters of our time is known for this elusive tactics in the cage, confusing his opponents with elusive movements.   

Lol, you act like someone needs to be taught how to "run away"........  Are you serious here?  In MMA like any other martial art, if you don't want to engage and you want to flee, you simply do that .   Thing is with MMA training it will be just as easy if not more easy to flee if that is what you want to do.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> MMA is 100% legitimate for the street and SD, to think otherwise is close minded, IMO



Legitimate, effective and well suited are 3 entirely different things.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Legitimate, effective and well suited are 3 entirely different things.


Of course they arn't, especially if you want to deflect away from the fact that MMA is a great art to learn for SD.:boing1:


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, one more time.



TFP said:


> *no, it most certainly is. Just because they test it in the UFC doesn't make it not for SD anymore than say a Judo competition ruins Judo as a SD martial art.*


Read again. I was saying that your description, specifically the comment that MMA "addresses many forms of fighting" was incorrect. It addresses one. That's it. Just one. MMA. Just the one.

And there is nothing about any comment of "testing"... but sure, Judo's context isn't self defence either. That, though, doesn't mean it can't be used in a self defence context... which, if you paid attention, is exactly what I say about MMA.



TFP said:


> *as far as you denying it's similarity to JKD, you again couldn't be any more wrong. Both arts borrow what works from others (Gung fu, western boxing, fencing, wrestling, Judo, etc) discards what doesn't and both arts then let the individual shape the art to themselves. Insanely similar TBH.*


No. 

For one thing, you're looking at a superficial similarity, the actual specifics and context, as well as the reasoning behind the approaches, are wildly different. Additionally, the application of JKD's "absorb what is useful, discard what is not" doesn't actually fit MMA's methodology... there, it's "do what gets you a win"... wildly different, mate.



TFP said:


> *I know plenty about it. I've train in SD martial arts, trained under multiple instructors who teach law enforcement and military. As much as you hope upon hope to distance MMA from your beloved SD martial arts, the simple truth is that the core of MMA comes from SD martial arts. *


First off, I don't feel there are any such things as "self defence martial arts"... nothing I've ever seen fits the description, when looked at objectively. Secondly, I don't hope to distance MMA from anything other than things that aren't MMA. But I do have to say, if you've trained in SD-centric systems, either they didn't know what they were teaching, or you didn't pay attention.



TFP said:


> *infact in the last street altercation I got into I used many facets of my MMA training to defend myself from multiple "bad guys". From using a Greco clinch against a car eventually using a modified Judo/Head and Arm toss which landed him on the hood of the car, as he slide off the car I switched to a Muay Thai clinch landing 2 knees to the chin, spun him around and applied a standing Rear Naked Choke and sat on the hood of the car so no one could get behind me , I had to use it to hide my face in between his shoulder blades as his friends attempted to punch me and his girlfriend tried to claw me with her keys and nails.*


Okay... where's the self defence training from MMA coming out? Honestly, what I read here is a lack of awareness, a lack of de-escalation, a lack of escape strategies, a lack of focus on the reality of the situation, and a lack of ability to tactically deal with a group. I also note that it's essentially a one-on-one encounter where you went overboard, and brought his friend and girlfriend into it. You took too long, didn't manage the group, didn't have any self defence aspects, and only are concerned with fighting. To me, that entire story is a fail, from a SD perspective... but it's also what I'd expect from an MMA practitioner (tactically).



TFP said:


> *I was able to use these different techniques, not because I studied and mastered each art, but because I had learned and modified my Mixed Martial Art training to what actually works and what I can actually apply in real life.*


Which is different to any other fighting system how?



TFP said:


> *your wrong style vs style is what you're talking about. MMA is what came after. Do you think Judo is a SD Martial art?*


No, son, I was talking about modern MMA. I mentioned the origin of the term to demonstrate where it was not necessarily the best description of what is currently seen. Read properly, yeah?

Oh, and no. Judo is not a self defence martial art. It's a competitive martial art. It can, of course, be used in a self defence context.... but I have no idea what that has to do with anything I wrote....



TFP said:


> *well rounded to be able to be as advantageous in your attack or defense in an MMA cage or the street.*


Which are two very different things. Cross over? Sure. But that's not the same.



TFP said:


> *nice attempt at a put down, but I actually train, have fought and have put on many of my own MMA promotions as well as work with some of the largest promotions in the world.*



That wasn't a put down, son. It was me saying "sure, I'll wait for you to come back". 



TFP said:


> MMA is 100% legitimate for the street and SD, to think otherwise is close minded, IMO



Oh boy... again, try reading what was actually written, instead of deciding you know what I'm saying before taking in the words.



TFP said:


> Im not saying disagreeing with me is close minded I'm saying not giving MMA a chance as a SD martial art is close minded.  I have no problem with different opinions for sure.



How about reality? Any problem with that? Go back to the start of the thread. I have said, repeatedly, that MMA is not designed for self defence. It is designed for a very different context (competition in a cage)... but it can certainly provide physical skills that can be very applicable and usable in self defence. Thinking that's me saying that I don't give MMA a chance is just plain ignoring the reality of what I'm saying.

Additionally, MMA is not trained as a self defence art. Why? Because that would take time away from match preparation, which is the real reason behind MMA. Can it be used for SD? Yes. But saying that that makes it designed for it is to ignore reality.



TFP said:


> i honestly can't tell if you're being serious here!!  I'm guessing so!!  There is plenty of disengaging in MMA, plenty of staying away and only engaging when you want.   One of the best MMA fighters of our time is known for this elusive tactics in the cage, confusing his opponents with elusive movements.



There is a huge difference between disengaging due to a stalemate or because the opponent is gaining the upper hand in order to then re-engage, and looking for an opportunity to escape (tactically). If you aren't aware of that, then you have no idea about contextual tactical methodology, and are way out of your depth in this conversation.



TFP said:


> Lol, you act like someone needs to be taught how to "run away"........  Are you serious here?  In MMA like any other martial art, if you don't want to engage and you want to flee, you simply do that .   Thing is with MMA training it will be just as easy if not more easy to flee if that is what you want to do.



Actually, yes, you do need to be taught how to "run away". It's called a tactical retreat, and there are a large number of rules and principles that need to be followed. Armies practice them for a reason.

Thing is with MMA training, you don't train to escape... so you don't. You don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training... I mean, you were up against three people, and still didn't think to escape? Case in point.



RTKDCMB said:


> Legitimate, effective and well suited are 3 entirely different things.



Yes, they are.


TFP said:


> Of course they arn't, especially if you want to deflect away from the fact that MMA is a great art to learn for SD.:boing1:



No, RTKDCMB was correct... they are very different things, and change meaning depending on the context. MMA is an okay approach for combative skills that have some application in self defence... it's not a great art to learn for SD. How can I say that? It's simply not designed for it. At all. It's designed for something rather different. And, unless you can recognise what the difference is, you're not in a position to argue.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker do you realize the majority of people who train "MMA" do not ever plan on being an MMA Fighter?


----------



## Chris Parker

Firstly, you're not actually correct there... secondly, it's not actually relevant. I'll explain.

First, to why you're not correct. By training in MMA, you can only become an MMA fighter (someone who fights using MMA), so to train MMA and not want to, or plan to, be an MMA fighter is rather bizarre. It'd be like saying you are learning French, but don't want to speak it.... or learn karate without becoming a karateka. Not really possible. Now, of course, you didn't mean that... you meant that not everyone who trains in MMA wants to, or plans on eventually, fighting in the ring competitively (either amateur or professional)... in which case, sure. But to say that that's not part of the reason they started MMA in the first place is to not acknowledge the actual drives, values, and perceptions that went into making the decision to walk into that gym. It's there in every single MMA trainee... if it wasn't, they wouldn't know about MMA in the first place... nor would they have a frame of reference for "success" to work towards (and no, I'm not talking about their personal success in competition if they don't want to compete, I'm talking about what makes them think it leads to success in application... in other words, exactly where your personal framework has come from). You're missing huge amounts of detail on the actual reasons here, from a psychological standpoint.

Now, why isn't it relevant? Because I'm not discussing what the art is offering a potential student, what benefits or requirements a student has, or anything similar. I'm looking (very objectively) at what the reality is. That's it. It really doesn't matter what the trainee wants to get out of MMA, as that doesn't alter what MMA is... wanting to get a healthy meal but being in Pizza Hut or McDonalds doesn't mean that whatever you order will automatically become healthy.


----------



## SENC-33

You train with a mindset......or at least you should. MMA instills the mindset of a sport fighter not self defense. I haven't read the entire thread but I thought I saw Bas mentioned in a post and he is a great example of a guy who has delved into both worlds. With that being said I can guarantee you that were he put in a dangerous situation he wouldn't be carrying the mindset of an MMA fighter into a confrontation.

Obviously MMA training can teach you to fight but in my opinion it instills a less than stellar approach to defending yourself.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, one more time.
> 
> 
> Read again. I was saying that your description, specifically the comment that MMA "addresses many forms of fighting" was incorrect. It addresses one. That's it. Just one. MMA. Just the one.
> 
> *You are simple wrong.  Many MMA schools offer different arts on different nights and then fuse them on other nights.  I believe you just have little to no experience with the MMA community and thus are making assumptions.*
> 
> 
> And there is nothing about any comment of "testing"... but sure, Judo's context isn't self defence either. That, though, doesn't mean it can't be used in a self defence context... which, if you paid attention, is exactly what I say about MMA
> 
> *so Judo isn't a self defense martial art?  Hmmm.......   Lol, didn't the founder of Judo as we know it today, seek it out for SD reasons?  Any art that is designed to help you defend yourself and family from harm is a SD martial art.*
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> For one thing, you're looking at a superficial similarity, the actual specifics and context, as well as the reasoning behind the approaches, are wildly different. Additionally, the application of JKD's "absorb what is useful, discard what is not" doesn't actually fit MMA's methodology... there, it's "do what gets you a win"... wildly different, mate.
> 
> *you honestly don't have any idea about actual MMA training do you?  You can't get past the UFC and the contests involved there and the rules.*
> 
> 
> First off, I don't feel there are any such things as "self defence martial arts"... nothing I've ever seen fits the description, when looked at objectively. Secondly, I don't hope to distance MMA from anything other than things that aren't MMA. But I do have to say, if you've trained in SD-centric systems, either they didn't know what they were teaching, or you didn't pay attention.
> 
> *so know there are no martial arts that serve the practitioner for SD?  Your last sentence there, did you come to that conclusion from the story I described?*
> 
> 
> Okay... where's the self defence training from MMA coming out? Honestly, what I read here is a lack of awareness, a lack of de-escalation, a lack of escape strategies, a lack of focus on the reality of the situation, and a lack of ability to tactically deal with a group. I also note that it's essentially a one-on-one encounter where you went overboard, and brought his friend and girlfriend into it. You took too long, didn't manage the group, didn't have any self defence aspects, and only are concerned with fighting. To me, that entire story is a fail, from a SD perspective... but it's also what I'd expect from an MMA practitioner (tactically).
> 
> *all fair complaints, but the context of what I was explaining was to show how mixed martial arts helped me defend myself.  As in what different arts blended to save me during that encounter.  I didn't go into detail about the whole situation from start to finish, how it was 3 on about 5 (later more from each side). How we attempted to  de-escalate the situation, how we avoided and fled 2 different times etc. *
> 
> 
> Which is different to any other fighting system how?
> 
> *well a lot of arts show you one way and not a lot of arts teach you different blended techniques from numerous arts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and no. Judo is not a self defence martial art. It's a competitive martial art. It can, of course, be used in a self defence context.... but I have no idea what that has to do with anything I wrote......
> 
> *I think ALOT of people will disagree with you here.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a put down, son. It was me saying "sure, I'll wait for you to come back".
> 
> *hmm sure seemed to me you were suggesting my knowledge comes from watching YouTube and not actual experience*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said, repeatedly, that MMA can certainly provide physical skills that can be very applicable and usable in self defence.
> 
> *well good!  Welcome aboard!*
> 
> 
> Additionally, MMA is not trained as a self defence art. Why? Because that would take time away from match preparation, which is the real reason behind MMA. Can it be used for SD? Yes. But saying that that makes it designed for it is to ignore reality.
> 
> 
> * lol, again most who train MMA are not preparing for a match and many schools train self defense specific training.  But you wouldn't know that because you don't have much MMA experience.  *
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between disengaging due to a stalemate or because the opponent is gaining the upper hand in order to then re-engage, and looking for an opportunity to escape (tactically). If you aren't aware of that, then you have no idea about contextual tactical methodology, and are way out of your depth in this conversation.
> 
> 
> * not re-engaging because of fear or danger has to be taught how to be done.  There is some magical way not fight and to run/escape if you want to.  Of course you can learn to be more aware, etc.  but don't act like fleeing is something an MMA practitioner won't be able to do.  You were suggesting an MMA practitioner wouldn't know how to get away because all they are taught to do is attack.   That's absurd and shows your extremely limited knowledge in the art.*
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, you do need to be taught how to "run away". It's called a tactical retreat, and there are a large number of rules and principles that need to be followed. Armies practice them for a reason.
> 
> * armies!?  Are you being serious!???  You think MMA practitioners only know how to attack, re-engage and under a certain set of rules.... toy are absolutely wrong....*
> 
> 
> Thing is with MMA training, you don't train to escape... so you don't. You don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training... I mean, you were up against three people, and still didn't think to escape? Case in point.
> 
> 
> * you're wrong and you also don't know the whole story.  Making a conclusion off of what I wrote about a small context of the night, I know not your fault because I didn't give the whole story, was just showing a mix blend of fighting worked for me in defending myself.*
> 
> 
> .



Its interesting to see you talk about MMA as if you know the art.  What experience do you have with it?


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, you're not actually correct there... secondly, it's not actually relevant. I'll explain.
> 
> First, to why you're not correct. By training in MMA, you can only become an MMA fighter (someone who fights using MMA), so to train MMA and not want to, or plan to, be an MMA fighter is rather bizarre. It'd be like saying you are learning French, but don't want to speak it.... or learn karate without becoming a karateka. Not really possible. Now, of course, you didn't mean that... you meant that not everyone who trains in MMA wants to, or plans on eventually, fighting in the ring competitively (either amateur or professional)... in which case, sure. But to say that that's not part of the reason they started MMA in the first place is to not acknowledge the actual drives, values, and perceptions that went into making the decision to walk into that gym. It's there in every single MMA trainee... if it wasn't, they wouldn't know about MMA in the first place... nor would they have a frame of reference for "success" to work towards (and no, I'm not talking about their personal success in competition if they don't want to compete, I'm talking about what makes them think it leads to success in application... in other words, exactly where your personal framework has come from). You're missing huge amounts of detail on the actual reasons here, from a psychological standpoint.
> 
> Now, why isn't it relevant? Because I'm not discussing what the art is offering a potential student, what benefits or requirements a student has, or anything similar. I'm looking (very objectively) at what the reality is. That's it. It really doesn't matter what the trainee wants to get out of MMA, as that doesn't alter what MMA is... wanting to get a healthy meal but being in Pizza Hut or McDonalds doesn't mean that whatever you order will automatically become healthy.



You just continue to show you don't know what you're talking about!  Plenty (most) people who train MMA do not have a goal or desire to fight an MMA match.   It's just the facts buddy!  Just like a lot of people in Judo/Karate/BJJ/etc are not looking to compete.   You like to circle talk, it's funny.


----------



## TFP

SENC-33 said:


> You train with a mindset......or at least you should. MMA instills the mindset of a sport fighter not self defense. I haven't read the entire thread but I thought I saw Bas mentioned in a post and he is a great example of a guy who has delved into both worlds. With that being said I can guarantee you that were he put in a dangerous situation he wouldn't be carrying the mindset of an MMA fighter into a confrontation.
> 
> Obviously MMA training can teach you to fight but in my opinion it instills a less than stellar approach to defending yourself.



Less than stellar in what sense?  being on the ground?  Not training to poke an eye out?  Not training in awareness?  Not training with weapons?

what art would you suggest for SD?


----------



## SENC-33

TFP said:


> Less than stellar in what sense?  being on the ground?  Not training to poke an eye out?  Not training in awareness?  Not training with weapons?
> 
> what art would you suggest for SD?



I have worked out in many "MMA" establishments. They don't teach SELF DEFENSE period. Can you train in an MMA establishment and defend yourself? Sure you can.....but you had best throw reality into the equation at some point in your training.

I don't think there is a best SD art which is why I don't practice one. I pull from every source and only techniques that have been proven and pressure tested through combat, law enforcement, security situations, etc. make it into my training regiment. Some people mistake what I do with MMA because it is indeed a "mix" of many things but there is a huge difference in MMA and RBSD. In RBSD I don't spend very much time training to "trade punches and kicks". My time is spent training to strike first, strike hard and finish the job. I'm not going to hug my attacker or hold his hand or congratulate him after an altercation so I don't train with that mindset


----------



## TFP

SENC-33 said:


> I have worked out in many "MMA" establishments. They don't teach SELF DEFENSE period. Can you train in an MMA establishment and defend yourself? Sure you can.....but you had best throw reality into the equation at some point in your training.
> 
> I don't think there is a best SD art which is why I don't practice one. I pull from every source and only techniques that have been proven and pressure tested through combat, law enforcement, security situations, etc. make it into my training regiment. Some people mistake what I do with MMA because it is indeed a "mix" of many things but there is a huge difference in MMA and RBSD. In RBSD I don't spend very much time training to "trade punches and kicks". My time is spent training to strike first, strike hard and finish the job. I'm not going to hug my attacker or hold his hand or congratulate him after an altercation so I don't train with that mindset



Thanks for the response what is RBSD?  I would like to look into it.


oh and just because you use CAPS and say "period" no give backs doesn't make it so.  I would assume that each MMA gym is different in its take on SD and how much they put into it if anything.   I know most the gyms I have trained at have addressed SD but of course that doesn't mean all do.


----------



## SENC-33

TFP said:


> Thanks for the response what is RBSD?  I would like to look into it.
> 
> 
> oh and just because you use CAPS and say "period" no give backs doesn't make it so.  I would assume that each MMA gym is different in its take on SD and how much they put into it if anything.   I know most the gyms I have trained at have addressed SD but of course that doesn't mean all do.



Reality Based Self Defense (RBSD)......CAPS and Periods aside I am telling you what I have observed in regards to establishments who market MMA


----------



## Steve

Are "real fight" and "self defense" synonyms?  Would a "self defense" art work in a real fight?


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Are "real fight" and "self defense" synonyms?
> 
> No.
> 
> Would a "self defense" art work in a real fight?
> 
> Maybe. As usual, it all depends.


:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> _Are "real fight" and "self defense" synonyms? _
> 
> _No._
> 
> _Would a "self defense" art work in a real fight?_
> _
> Maybe. As usual, it all depends._:asian:


So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"

And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?


----------



## KydeX

Steve said:


> So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"
> 
> And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?



Probably


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"
> 
> And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?



Sometimes.

Unless the person has mastered Dim Mak. Or Sinanju.


----------



## TFP

Apparently sometimes MMA is a life saver.....
http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...-from-home-invasion-may-face-criminal-charges


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"
> 
> And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?


That's been my arguement all along. My only comment is that the arts that I train are specifically targeted at finishing a fight quickly by any means and getting away. I would argue that some other arts are primarily aimed at competition and any SD component is a bonus. That said, I still think some MAs are more effective than others, but that may be from the perspective that I don't fully understand those arts, so I am not really in a position to judge. I know this possibly won't sit well with Chris but my feeling is that most martial arts should give you the ability to defend yourself on the street against an untrained opponent.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Dirty Dog said:


> Sometimes.
> 
> Unless the person has mastered Dim Mak. Or Sinanju.


That's a bit unfair. Sinanju is a fictitious MA.  Dim Mak (Chinese) or Kyusho (Japanese) is not a martial art but a vital component of martial art training. Many of the Dim Mak points are utilised by all other Martial Arts including the sport oriented arts. As for the fabled 'death touch'. That is easily explained by undiagnosed and probably untreatable injuries like a ruptured kidney or spleen, subdural haematoma, etc. 

In Goju it is hard to find people who actually teach Kyusho as even today it is often regarded as something that is not taught to Gejin. I had a very interesting discussion with Hokama Sensei in Okinawa a few years back. At one stage he held my little toe in his so called 'snake grip' and I was totally incapacitated, much to the undisguised amusement of my so called friends who witnessed the event. Fortunately that video footage never made it to YouTube.  However his video has a section on Kyusho. Unfortunately for me it is in Japanese overdubbed but enough to get the picture that the techniques demonstrated in kata are targeting those points.  Also you have the points detailed in the Bubishi, the so called Bible of karate.

I believe if you are serious about reality based martial art you should have a reasonable understanding of Kyusho. Without that understanding you have absolutely no chance of explaining kata and bunkai to your students.

Here is a small example of Hokama Sensei teaching Kyusho. 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-WEk8QQEg&desktop_uri=/watch?v=NT-WEk8QQEg
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich

TFP said:


> Apparently sometimes MMA is a life saver.....
> http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...-from-home-invasion-may-face-criminal-charges


I was about to report that from my local news.


The topic is flawed. It's not about the art and all about the fighter. How many people, martial artists included would have **** their pants in that situation...something to think about!


----------



## Dirty Dog

K-man said:


> That's a bit unfair. Sinanju is a fictitious MA.  Dim Mak (Chinese) or Kyusho (Japanese) is not a martial art but a vital component of martial art training. Many of the Dim Mak points are utilised by all other Martial Arts including the sport oriented arts. As for the fabled 'death touch'. That is easily explained by undiagnosed and probably untreatable injuries like a ruptured kidney or spleen, subdural haematoma, etc.
> 
> In Goju it is hard to find people who actually teach Kyusho as even today it is often regarded as something that is not taught to Gejin. I had a very interesting discussion with Hokama Sensei in Okinawa a few years back. At one stage he held my little toe in his so called 'snake grip' and I was totally incapacitated, much to the undisguised amusement of my so called friends who witnessed the event. Fortunately that video footage never made it to YouTube.  However his video has a section on Kyusho. Unfortunately for me it is in Japanese overdubbed but enough to get the picture that the techniques demonstrated in kata are targeting those points.  Also you have the points detailed in the Bubishi, the so called Bible of karate.
> 
> I believe if you are serious about reality based martial art you should have a reasonable understanding of Kyusho. Without that understanding you have absolutely no chance of explaining kata and bunkai to your students.
> 
> Here is a small example of Hokama Sensei teaching Kyusho.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-WEk8QQEg&desktop_uri=/watch?v=NT-WEk8QQEg
> :asian:



Dude, if my tongue had been any further in my cheek, I'd be suturing the hole right now. Relax a bit.


----------



## Chris Parker

TFP said:


> *You are simple wrong. Many MMA schools offer different arts on different nights and then fuse them on other nights. I believe you just have little to no experience with the MMA community and thus are making assumptions.*


You're missing what you're being told. MMA trains to deal with one form of fighting... MMA competition. Those that train in different arts on different nights aren't training MMA itself (despite the name used), although an MMA gym will commonly have different nights dedicated to different aspects (which can be labelled as the different arts it's drawn from). In other words, you're wrong, and I'll deal with the experience thing in a bit. But you're out of your depth here.



TFP said:


> *so Judo isn't a self defense martial art? Hmmm....... Lol, didn't the founder of Judo as we know it today, seek it out for SD reasons? Any art that is designed to help you defend yourself and family from harm is a SD martial art.*


What are you talking about? The founder of Judo (Kano Jigoro) sought out Judo for SD reasons? Huh? He didn't "seek out" Judo, he created it. He sought out Jujutsu (classical), not for self defence specifically, but for a way to prevail over larger persons (you're going to be confused by that, and think it's the same thing... it's not). He was actually discouraged from looking at the older systems, as his father considered them and their methods "out of date" even then for self defence methods.

You might want to look a bit further into the history of Japanese arts if you're going to try arguing them with me, mate.



TFP said:


> *you honestly don't have any idea about actual MMA training do you? You can't get past the UFC and the contests involved there and the rules.*


Er... there was no mention of the UFC or rules there. There was, however, knowledge of what JKD and MMA are, independent of each other. Your take on JKD was, frankly, wrong. And that was what I pointed out. Oh, and for the record, so's Dana's take on Bruce and JKD, before you bring his comments up.



TFP said:


> *so know there are no martial arts that serve the practitioner for SD? Your last sentence there, did you come to that conclusion from the story I described?*


No martial arts that can serve the practitioner for self defence? No, that's kinda the opposite of what I've said explicitly a number of times... what I've said is that there aren't any that are designed for modern self defence needs and situations. Bit of a difference there. Oh, and the last sentence comes from everything you've posted, not the story. That showed something else.



TFP said:


> *all fair complaints, but the context of what I was explaining was to show how mixed martial arts helped me defend myself. As in what different arts blended to save me during that encounter. I didn't go into detail about the whole situation from start to finish, how it was 3 on about 5 (later more from each side). How we attempted to de-escalate the situation, how we avoided and fled 2 different times etc.*


Then you missed in your aim. There are single arts that have exactly the same methods, nothing to do with MMA at all, nor any evidence that MMA is better, or even suited in it's design. All it showed was that you used a couple of techniques you can identify from MMA in a fight. But tell me, where in MMA training do you train de-escalation? What do you know about it? Do you use aggressive or passive de-escalation? Verbal, physical? 



TFP said:


> *well a lot of arts show you one way and not a lot of arts teach you different blended techniques from numerous arts.*


Oh dear lord... there's a reason, you know.... 



TFP said:


> *I think ALOT of people will disagree with you here.*


Really? How so? You think that people (Judoka, I'm not that interested in the opinions of people who don't know the art) will disagree that it's a competitive system that can be used in self defence? Seriously? 

Again, you might want to get some more education before you keep arguing with me.



TFP said:


> *hmm sure seemed to me you were suggesting my knowledge comes from watching YouTube and not actual experience*


That was you reading into it, then.



TFP said:


> *well good! Welcome aboard!*



Seriously? That's been my opinion and comment from the damn beginning, son. Go back and read it.



TFP said:


> *lol, again most who train MMA are not preparing for a match and many schools train self defense specific training. But you wouldn't know that because you don't have much MMA experience. *


Again, I'll deal with the "experience" question in a bit... but mate, no. MMA is a training methodology specifically for match competition. That's it. There is nothing else to it. I've seen attempts at MMA Self Defence, and frankly, they're all deeply lacking (some knife defence that pretty much ensured the "defender" would be stabbed repeatedly)... it's not a self defence system, and shouldn't pretend to be.



TFP said:


> *not re-engaging because of fear or danger has to be taught how to be done. There is some magical way not fight and to run/escape if you want to. Of course you can learn to be more aware, etc. but don't act like fleeing is something an MMA practitioner won't be able to do. You were suggesting an MMA practitioner wouldn't know how to get away because all they are taught to do is attack. That's absurd and shows your extremely limited knowledge in the art. *


Oh deal lord... Son, you're simply out of your depth here. You are showing no understanding of the effects of training specific tactical responses, the creation of neural pathways, the power of such training, and more. Additionally, escape methods absolutely do need to be trained as a tactical response... there are good ways to do it, and very bad ways to do it. And, if you don't train it (specifically), you're simply not likely to even know the good methods, let alone use them.



TFP said:


> *armies!? Are you being serious!??? You think MMA practitioners only know how to attack, re-engage and under a certain set of rules.... toy are absolutely wrong....*


No, mate, I'm saying they only learn application in a particular context and environment, which is designed to encourage attack and re-engangement, and punish/discourage escape or fleeing. 

And, one more time, yes, I'm serious about armies... your lack of grasp on tactical application and the reasons for training.



TFP said:


> *you're wrong and you also don't know the whole story. Making a conclusion off of what I wrote about a small context of the night, I know not your fault because I didn't give the whole story, was just showing a mix blend of fighting worked for me in defending myself.*



Your story failed.



TFP said:


> Its interesting to see you talk about MMA as if you know the art.  What experience do you have with it?



Okay, the experience question.... I have been following the development of MMA since the first UFC. I have attended some dozen or so MMA gyms. At one of my old teaching locations there was an MMA class directly before mine... which I would often watch and observe. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are, or have been, training in MMA. And I've trained in MMA gyms (for short times), as well as training in BJJ specifically, and dabbling in Kickboxing and boxing. I have had long conversations with others (training in MMA) for a number of years. All told, I've been involved in the MMA world, directly and indirectly, for some 20 years now.

In other words, my MMA experience and exposure is significantly higher and more indepth than your exposure to Traditional Martial Arts and actual self defence training.



TFP said:


> You just continue to show you don't know what you're talking about!  Plenty (most) people who train MMA do not have a goal or desire to fight an MMA match.   It's just the facts buddy!  Just like a lot of people in Judo/Karate/BJJ/etc are not looking to compete.   You like to circle talk, it's funny.



"Circle talk"? I answered your questions pretty succinctly. It seems you didn't follow what I was saying, though. I didn't say they had a desire to fight an MMA match (but seriously, you need to choose your examples a little better... for the record...), I said that there was a part of all of them that saw themselves in that role. It's necessary, honestly. Without it, there would be no way of relating to what they would be looking for, and no drive to attend the gym in the first place. 

I'm talking about psychological drives, both conscious and unconscious. Sorry if that leaves you behind a bit.



TFP said:


> Less than stellar in what sense?  being on the ground?  Not training to poke an eye out?  Not training in awareness?  Not training with weapons?



Less than stellar in regards to tactical approach, strategic principle, environment, aims, technical preferences, and so on.



TFP said:


> what art would you suggest for SD?



I wouldn't suggest an art. I'd suggest RBSD approaches, which can be coupled with many arts. Hell, if I wanted to, I could take MMA and make it self defence... but it won't be MMA anymore, for the record.



TFP said:


> Thanks for the response what is RBSD?  I would like to look into it.



That says a lot.... 

Look to Geoff Thompson, Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, Michael Janich (for weapons approaches), Lee Morrison, Jim Wagner, Tony Blauer, and more.... but your first stop really should be Geoff.



TFP said:


> oh and just because you use CAPS and say "period" no give backs doesn't make it so.  I would assume that each MMA gym is different in its take on SD and how much they put into it if anything.   I know most the gyms I have trained at have addressed SD but of course that doesn't mean all do.



MMA gyms don't tend to deal in SD, as, as I said, it takes away from the MMA.



Steve said:


> Are "real fight" and "self defense" synonyms?



Nope.



Steve said:


> Would a "self defense" art work in a real fight?



Maybe. But more importantly, it could avoid it in the first place... and not necessarily in the way many will think of....



Steve said:


> So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"
> 
> And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?



Not completely any style, no...  but to the initial question ("Would MMA work in a real fight?"), frankly, the answer can be almost assuredly yes, if all you're asking is "do the techniques work against people in a fight?"... and, by that reasoning, many martial systems would also fall under the same answer to varying degrees... but, if you're asking if it'd work based on it's tactical approach, the answer becomes "it depends"... and we get into the initial question of what the tactical approach is, and it starts to become apparent that aspects of an MMA tactical approach can be inflammatory to a situation, or downright dangerous. As a result, it's not an optimal choice, despite technical methods "working".



TFP said:


> Apparently sometimes MMA is a life saver.....
> http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...-from-home-invasion-may-face-criminal-charges



Yeah, read that... honestly, it raises a lot more questions rather than providing any form of evidence... how did one guy die? What kind of injuries to the second guy? A "sharp wooden shank"? And what the hell happened in this guys life to have four gang members turn up to attack him and his family?

... A lot more questions... 

Oh, and I'd hardly say that it shows MMA as a "life saver"... it shows one example of one person who fought against a group who happened to be an MMA competitor. The problem with stories like this is there's no control group... you can't then try it again with someone trained in karate, someone trained in Wing Chun, and someone with no training....



K-man said:


> That's been my arguement all along. My only comment is that the arts that I train are specifically targeted at finishing a fight quickly by any means and getting away. I would argue that some other arts are primarily aimed at competition and any SD component is a bonus. That said, I still think some MAs are more effective than others, but that may be from the perspective that I don't fully understand those arts, so I am not really in a position to judge. I know this possibly won't sit well with Chris but my feeling is that most martial arts should give you the ability to defend yourself on the street against an untrained opponent.
> :asian:



Depends on the art, my friend.... depends on the art.... most actual traditional ones, not so much....


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> Depends on the art, my friend.... depends on the art.... most actual traditional ones, not so much....


How did I know that was coming?


----------



## TFP

So to summarize, although not a traditional SD martial art, MMA does have moves that will help you in a self defense fight.  It may lack in deescalation and escape techniques but makes up in viable, proven fighting methods.:hammer:


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> So to summarize, although not a traditional SD martial art, MMA does have moves that will help you in a self defense fight.



If you replace the word "will" with "can" then there is no dispute with that statement.



TFP said:


> It may lack in deescalation and escape techniques but makes up in viable, proven fighting methods.:hammer:



Proven depends upon to whose satisfaction it is proven to. it is a lot more 'proven' to work in the cage in competition than it is in real life self defence.


----------



## Chris Parker

K-man said:


> How did I know that was coming?



Lucky guess...?



TFP said:


> So to summarize, although not a traditional SD martial art, MMA does have moves that will help you in a self defense fight.


 
Well, kinda, but the point was more that that was completely besides the point, and that the physical techniques found in MMA aren't really any different to those found in myriad other places (in fact, those found in MMA are somewhat "nicer", in ways, than those seen in other locales...). I'll say this again: the "moves" (techniques etc) are not the important thing, nor are they what "work". Oh, and a fight isn't self defence. So it's really a case of "yes, but that's hardly unique, nor really important, and certainly doesn't set MMA apart from anything else", or "no, because you're looking at the wrong thing in the wrong context". Your choice.


TFP said:


> It may lack in deescalation and escape techniques but makes up in viable, proven fighting methods.:hammer:



In other words, it lacks any actual consideration of self defence, and is only concerned with fighting. Which is what we've been saying.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> In other words, it lacks any actual consideration of self defence, and is only concerned with fighting. Which is what we've been saying.


So, then, the answer to the OP is yes, MMA does work in an actual fight.  Whew, I'm sure glad we hammered that one out in only 192 posts!


----------



## MJS

James Kovacich said:


> I was about to report that from my local news.View attachment 18510
> 
> The topic is flawed. It's not about the art and all about the fighter. How many people, martial artists included would have **** their pants in that situation...something to think about!



I would say that many probably would **** their pants!  As for the article...I think its crazy that the guy would face charges.  I'm sorry, but someone breaks into your home, uninvited, has weapons, well, screw that...they get what they deserve!  My life and the life of my wife, is #1 over the life of some **** bag, whos mommy and daddy are going to claim was such a fine, upstanding citizen!  **** that!  If he was so upstanding, he'd have been in bed, resting so he can go to work in the AM, not breaking into my home!


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> So then, if the question is, "Would MMA work in a real fight?" is the answer, 'Sometimes?"
> 
> And wouldn't that be the same answer for any style of martial art?



IMHO, anything has the potential to work.  I'd say it's more how the person trains, rather than the art itself.  Personally, I might be more inclined to have a MMA fighter have my back in a fight, rather than some of the people from various other arts that I've trained.  But like everything, it's really situation depending.  It's like a gun....it's a great weapon, but IMO, there are some situations it shouldn't be used for.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> That's been my arguement all along. My only comment is that the arts that I train are specifically targeted at finishing a fight quickly by any means and getting away. I would argue that some other arts are primarily aimed at competition and any SD component is a bonus. That said, I still think some MAs are more effective than others, but that may be from the perspective that I don't fully understand those arts, so I am not really in a position to judge.



Yes. That's my goal as well.  In fact, in that near 100 page thread, I made that very comment, in response to grappling.  Why intentionally go down, when the first thing you should do, is try to get the hell away.  




> I know this possibly won't sit well with Chris but my feeling is that most martial arts should give you the ability to defend yourself on the street against an untrained opponent.
> :asian:



My feelings as well.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> IMHO, anything has the potential to work.  I'd say it's more how the person trains, rather than the art itself.  Personally, I might be more inclined to have a MMA fighter have my back in a fight, rather than some of the people from various other arts that I've trained.  But like everything, it's really situation depending.  It's like a gun....it's a great weapon, but IMO, there are some situations it shouldn't be used for.


An MMA fighter in a fight is great.  But an MMA fighter who is a giant D-bag would dramatically increase your likelihood of getting into a fight.  For fighting, I'll take the competent MMA'ists.  

For self defense, I've said before that the ideal combination for me is some kind of reasonable training (whether it's MMA or something else), common sense, courtesy, physical fitness, situational awareness, and sobriety.  And of those, the martial arts training is the least important.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Lucky guess...?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, kinda, but the point was more that that was completely besides the point, and that the physical techniques found in MMA aren't really any different to those found in myriad other places (in fact, those found in MMA are somewhat "nicer", in ways, than those seen in other locales...). I'll say this again: the "moves" (techniques etc) are not the important thing, nor are they what "work". Oh, and a fight isn't self defence. So it's really a case of "yes, but that's hardly unique, nor really important, and certainly doesn't set MMA apart from anything else", or "no, because you're looking at the wrong thing in the wrong context". Your choice.
> *see I just don't agree with at all that the moves are not important nor are they what "work"..... Infact I don't even know what that means.   I do think having real fight experience is important for sure, I've stated a couple times that I think an average BJJ Blue Belt would have issues with an athletic, tough street fighter.*
> 
> In other words, it lacks any actual consideration of self defence, and is only concerned with fighting. Which is what we've been saying.
> *well when I speak of Self Defense I'm talking about being able to defend yourself against an attacker.  **moves that will help you defend yourself.  You are maybe talking about escape and deescalation, etc.  while it have been talking about actual contact, when the attack or fight is going to happen.
> 
> You yourself have stated there are no SD martial arts for today's world, so why not take the best fighting art out there?  MMA!  And work from there.*



:wink2:


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> IMHO, anything has the potential to work.  I'd say it's more how the person trains, rather than the art itself.  Personally, I might be more inclined to have a MMA fighter have my back in a fight, rather than some of the people from various other arts that I've trained.  But like everything, it's really situation depending.  It's like a gun....it's a great weapon, but IMO, there are some situations it shouldn't be used for.



Why would you lean toward the MMA fighter as having your back.   And I agree somewhat that it depends on how the person trains, but overwhelmingly MMA'ist train hard and go live or as close to it as they can within reason and this is what's important.

now if your training "hard" in an art that is outdated, that's moves simple do not relate to real world self defense (FIGHTING, CONTACT, ETC) the. It doesn't matter how hard you train because it just doesn't work as well as other things do.


----------



## TFP

James Kovacich said:


> I was about to report that from my local news.View attachment 18510
> 
> The topic is flawed. It's not about the art and all about the fighter. How many people, martial artists included would have **** their pants in that situation...something to think about!



Could be, but MMA is trained at much more intense pace than many other martial arts and there is a lot more hard sparring, cardio, toughness. Etc.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Why would you lean toward the MMA fighter as having your back.   And I agree somewhat that it depends on how the person trains, but overwhelmingly MMA'ist train hard and go live or as close to it as they can within reason and this is what's important.



Umm...you realize you just answered your own question, right?  Your post implies that you misunderstood or didn't read correctly, as you seem to be assuming that I said something to the contrary.  



> now if your training "hard" in an art that is outdated, that's moves simple do not relate to real world self defense (FIGHTING, CONTACT, ETC) the. It doesn't matter how hard you train because it just doesn't work as well as other things do.



And this is why I've said many times on this forum, that *I* personally, like to keep up with the times.  I'm not against training a bo staff, for tradition sake, but I also like to make sure that what I'm doing is current.


----------



## James Kovacich

TFP said:


> Could be, but MMA is trained at much more intense pace than many other martial arts and there is a lot more hard sparring, cardio, toughness. Etc.



I agree that MMA fighters train with extreme intensity while others think they do also but my point I was making is that all arts, styles, methodsetc have both good and bad practitioners and can win or lose.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Now if your training "hard" in an art that is outdated, that's moves simple do not relate to real world self defense (FIGHTING, CONTACT, ETC) the. It doesn't matter how hard you train because it just doesn't work as well as other things do.


That is absolutely wrong. You are taking Chris' point that MA is not for Self Defence to mean TMAs don't work. Chris is coming from a different point of view and he trains in very different arts. Krav is every bit as effective as MMA. Like MMA it combines a lot of techniques from other MAs. Absolutely no difference except Krav like every other TMA doesn't have this obsession of going to the ground which is the product of MMA's purpose which is a sport. MMA has taken a lot of those outdated techniques to use in a sporting environment. We train hard in a non sporting environment using the same techniques and more with the aim of controlling or destroying someone who threatens or attacks us.

An individual TMA such as Goju karate contains everything within Krav with the exception of the BJJ ground component. Even then Goju has many techniques for taking your opponent to the ground, just not to engage in grappling on the ground. You want to fight on the ground, great. Many of us don't want to be tied up rolling around on the ground. The ground is not the place we want to be.

Your comment is disrespectful of all of us who train anything but MMA.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Umm...you realize you just answered your own question, right?  Your post implies that you misunderstood or didn't read correctly, as you seem to be assuming that I said something to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why I've said many times on this forum, that *I* personally, like to keep up with the times.  I'm not against training a bo staff, for tradition sake, but I also like to make sure that what I'm doing is current.



It was a legit question. I was interested in your take on it, then as I thought about it i typed out what I thought....... Which could be different from what you think.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> That is absolutely wrong. You are taking Chris' point that MA is not for Self Defence to mean TMAs don't work. Chris is coming from a different point of view and he trains in very different arts. Krav is every bit as effective as MMA. Like MMA it combines a lot of techniques from other MAs. Absolutely no difference except Krav like every other TMA doesn't have this obsession of going to the ground which is the product of MMA's purpose which is a sport. MMA has taken a lot of those outdated techniques to use in a sporting environment. We train hard in a non sporting environment using the same techniques and more with the aim of controlling or destroying someone who threatens or attacks us.
> 
> An individual TMA such as Goju karate contains everything within Krav with the exception of the BJJ ground component. Even then Goju has many techniques for taking your opponent to the ground, just not to engage in grappling on the ground. You want to fight on the ground, great. Many of us don't want to be tied up rolling around on the ground. The ground is not the place we want to be.
> 
> Your comment is disrespectful of all of us who train anything but MMA.



Im not sure why you would be offended by someone saying for a street fight it doesn't matter how hard you train if the art you train isn't realistic for SD or fighting.   I didn't mention "all TMA's or even Krav".   I wasn't putting down TMA's in 




Sent from my iPhonegeneral.   The context I was addressing was the technique isn't important if you're training hard in regards to fight.

 Thee are many great reasons to train all martial arts I'm sure, but in this context if the techniques of the art don't work well in an actual fight, it doesn't matter how hard you train them. 

I have delt delt with plenty of "MMA" fighters and gyms that trained there asses off to fight on my MMA shows and they get there asses handed to them because they are not training what works or training under a guy who doesn't know his stuff, doesn't mean I'm "disrespecting" MMA.   Just means hard work isn't going to trump training techniques and arts that actually work.

Its funny, just because I'm an advocate for MMA & BJJ doesn't mean I don't like and respect all arts .


----------



## TFP

James Kovacich said:


> I agree that MMA fighters train with extreme intensity while others think they do also but my point I was making is that all arts, styles, methodsetc have both good and bad practitioners and can win or lose.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Gotcha, I agree!


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> The context I was addressing was the *technique isn't important* if you're training hard in regards to fight.



So technique is not important?



TFP said:


> Thee are many great reasons to train all martial arts I'm sure, but in this context *if *the *techniques *of the art *don't work well* in an actual fight, *it doesn't matter how hard you train* them.



So technique is important?



TFP said:


> Its funny, just because I'm an advocate for MMA & BJJ doesn't mean I don't like and respect all arts .



Based on some of your previous posts it is understandable that some people will jump to that conclusion.


Technique is always important, if you have horrible technique then the technique you use  will be ineffective and won't very well work no matter how hard you train.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> So technique is not important?
> *
> it can't be this hard to communicate with you guys!!  Some else said that, that's the thing I was arguing against.*
> So technique is important?
> *really?*
> 
> 
> 
> Based on some of your previous posts it is understandable that some people will jump to that conclusion.
> 
> *yeah I can understand this.*
> 
> Technique is always important, if you have horrible technique then the technique you use  will be ineffective and won't very well work no matter how hard you train.
> *
> true- *



:lfao:


----------



## K-man

Good grief! 207 posts and we have finally agreed that technique is important. :idunno:


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> So, then, the answer to the OP is yes, MMA does work in an actual fight.  Whew, I'm sure glad we hammered that one out in only 192 posts!



No, actually. The answer is "it might"... but there are also enough gaps to mean there can't be a straight yes/no answer. It provides a particular fighting skill, geared towards a particular form of fighting, but that's about as clear as you can be, frankly.



TFP said:


> *see I just don't agree with at all that the moves are not important nor are they what "work"..... Infact I don't even know what that means.*


Yeah, I get that you don't follow what I'm saying... I'll see if I can describe it better for you. Firstly, the idea of techniques not being important... provided they're relatively solid/mechanically sound (you're not trying to block a sword with your forearm, for example... and yes, that's a real example....), then there really isn't much of importance to them. Whether you apply a full RNC, or a kata hagai jime, or a half choke, or whatever, really doesn't matter. If you hit the temple, or the point of the chin, or the solar plexus, and the other guy goes down, the technique really doesn't matter. It's not important at all. It's just a single possible interaction that can occur. If the technique was the important thing, everyone would be doing the same. 

From there we get to the idea of the techniques not being what "works"... well, the first thing you have to look at is what it means for something to "work" in the first place. Of course, the standard response to that is "it's effective"... okay, effective at what? Let's keep it where you think things are, and just look at a violent encounter... you're looking at a choke, or a punch, or an armbar being what is "effective"... but how do you get that armbar on in the first place? How does the punch have an opportunity to land? How do you get to a place where you can choke? And, if you're in a place where you can choke, can you do other things? Could you hit from that position? Or move into some other hold? Obviously, the answer is yes.

So what's important isn't the technique itself... what you do is kinda by-the-by, really. What's important is the tactical application of it... and the ability to put things together in a way that allow the techniques to work. If you don't have the ability to actually enable the techniques, the techniques won't mean a thing. The idea of getting caught up in "this technique, this armbar, this choke" is honestly a very basic, to my mind, beginner mentality. When you first learn a language, you want to know the words... but that doesn't let you speak it. The grammar, the sentence structure does. This is no different.



TFP said:


> *I do think having real fight experience is important for sure, I've stated a couple times that I think an average BJJ Blue Belt would have issues with an athletic, tough street fighter.*


That of course begs the question of whether a contrived sporting encounter is really "real fight experience". It is, but it's only experience at one type of fight. And not necessarily the most valid for all contexts.

But I gotta ask.... "an athletic, tough street fighter"? What do you actually think they'd be like?



TFP said:


> *well when I speak of Self Defense I'm talking about being able to defend yourself against an attacker. moves that will help you defend yourself. You are maybe talking about escape and deescalation, etc. while it have been talking about actual contact, when the attack or fight is going to happen.*


Honestly, I don't think you understand just what these attacks are like... and that's the issue. I've asked before, but I'll ask again (can't remember if I asked you or Kofo, really)... what do you know of social violence and asocial violence? Because, while a fair bit of what I am talking about as needing to be covered for actual self defence training includes things like escape and de-escalation, it's also about understanding and recognising the realities of different forms of violence, rather than sticking to a single form (and, before you misunderstand that, I'm really not meaning "striking vs grappling" or anything of the kind when I talk about different forms of violence).



TFP said:


> *You yourself have stated there are no SD martial arts for today's world, so why not take the best fighting art out there? MMA! And work from there.*



Because that's not the same. It's like saying there's no teacher in my area for guitar, so why not learn the flute and figure guitar out from that? They're both musical instruments, and both play notes... but that's where it ends. Additionally, you're making one hell of a leap there... frankly, MMA is only the best fighting art for MMA competition. That's it. There is nothing that makes it "the best" in any other context. So the assumption of that being your best place to start is already somewhat off base (there are much better arts for self defence, really...) to begin with.



TFP said:


> Could be, but MMA is trained at much more intense pace than many other martial arts and there is a lot more hard sparring, cardio, toughness. Etc.



Er... you think so, do you? Hmm.... 

Really, all MMA is in terms of it's training methodology, is geared towards MMA's aims of success in MMA competition. Cardio just isn't that important in self defence... sparring can be detrimental, when it all comes down to it... and as for "toughness", all I can say is "HA!"



TFP said:


> Im not sure why you would be offended by someone saying for a street fight it doesn't matter how hard you train if the art you train isn't realistic for SD or fighting.   I didn't mention "all TMA's or even Krav".   I wasn't putting down TMA's in.


 
I think the implication that MMA is it and a bit, when that's simply not the case, is at the heart of it.... 



TFP said:


> The context I was addressing was the technique isn't important if you're training hard in regards to fight.



Yeah... but you didn't get what was meant, of course...



TFP said:


> Thee are many great reasons to train all martial arts I'm sure, but in this context if the techniques of the art don't work well in an actual fight, it doesn't matter how hard you train them.


 
The problems are that that is not the only context, and that "work well in an actual fight" is hardly a single answer issue. What kind of fight? What do you mean "works"? And, of course, what is the actual aim of the hard training? 



TFP said:


> I have delt delt with plenty of "MMA" fighters and gyms that trained there asses off to fight on my MMA shows and they get there asses handed to them because they are not training what works or training under a guy who doesn't know his stuff, doesn't mean I'm "disrespecting" MMA.   Just means hard work isn't going to trump training techniques and arts that actually work.



Yeah... there's that "what works" thing again... Look, the thing is that this is so vague as to be completely meaningless.



TFP said:


> Its funny, just because I'm an advocate for MMA & BJJ doesn't mean I don't like and respect all arts .



You hide it well.



RTKDCMB said:


> So technique is not important?



 Ultimately? Nope.



RTKDCMB said:


> So technique is important?


 
On a basic level (in that the techniques need to be mechanically sound), yeah.



RTKDCMB said:


> Technique is always important, if you have horrible technique then the technique you use  will be ineffective and won't very well work no matter how hard you train.



No, not really. Techniques are simply the way that the actual important parts are applied.



K-man said:


> Good grief! 207 posts and we have finally agreed that technique is important. :idunno:



Ha, nah, I don't agree with that...


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> On a basic level (in that the techniques need to be mechanically sound),
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by K-man
> Good grief! 207 posts and we have finally agreed that technique is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, nah, I don't agree with that...
Click to expand...

OK. I agree with you, on the basic level technique is important, at the next level it is still recognisable but at the top level you don't see it at all. You reckon we can win that one?  
I just thought I was keeping the peace.
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm.... honestly, no... the only way technique is important is to make sure you don't use a face-block or similar... or think that waving your hands makes people fall down. It's not, however, a matter of the techniques "disappearing", it's a matter of them having no chance to do anything without the more important aspects being present first... and, once the other aspects are there, whatever technique you do doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's a right cross or a rear naked choke. The technique, when all's said and done, doesn't matter. It's not important.

And hey, I train combative systems that engender a mindset of "kill them all!" (well, in places...)... "peacemaker" doesn't sit well with me... you and your Aikido, though, perfect.... ha!


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> Good grief! 207 posts and we have finally agreed that technique is important. :idunno:



I guess if you bash your head against a wall often enough eventually it will come down and give you a headache.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> An MMA fighter in a fight is great.  But an MMA fighter who is a giant D-bag would dramatically increase your likelihood of getting into a fight.  For fighting, I'll take the competent MMA'ists.



LOL! That's very true!   



> For self defense, I've said before that the ideal combination for me is some kind of reasonable training (whether it's MMA or something else), common sense, courtesy, physical fitness, situational awareness, and sobriety.  And of those, the martial arts training is the least important.



Sounds good to me! Can't disagree with that!


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> That is absolutely wrong. You are taking Chris' point that MA is not for Self Defence to mean TMAs don't work. Chris is coming from a different point of view and he trains in very different arts. Krav is every bit as effective as MMA. Like MMA it combines a lot of techniques from other MAs. Absolutely no difference except Krav like every other TMA doesn't have this obsession of going to the ground which is the product of MMA's purpose which is a sport. MMA has taken a lot of those outdated techniques to use in a sporting environment. We train hard in a non sporting environment using the same techniques and more with the aim of controlling or destroying someone who threatens or attacks us.



Agreed.



> An individual TMA such as Goju karate contains everything within Krav with the exception of the BJJ ground component. Even then Goju has many techniques for taking your opponent to the ground, just not to engage in grappling on the ground. You want to fight on the ground, great. Many of us don't want to be tied up rolling around on the ground. The ground is not the place we want to be.
> 
> Your comment is disrespectful of all of us who train anything but MMA.



Agreed again! In the Arnis that I do, there are a number of techniques for taking the other guy down, however, as you said, the difference is, we're not going down with the guy.  Many of these takedowns, consist of some sort of control or break after the takedown.  Some of the senior guys in the org. have done some BJJ training as well.  I recall one camp, in which we did do a bit more non traditional Arnis groundwork.  But as I said, for the most part, it's just as you describe with Goju.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Chris Parker said:


> On a basic level (in that the techniques need to be mechanically sound), yeah.



They  need to be a bit more than just mechanically sound, they need to be  fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable. I've had many  cars that were mechanically sound that I wouldn't exactly call good, fast or powerful.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm.... honestly, no... the only way technique is important is to make sure you don't use a face-block or similar... or think that waving your hands makes people fall down.



You mean apart from the technique being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable?



Chris Parker said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a right cross or a rear naked choke. The technique, when all's said and done, doesn't matter. It's not important.



The right cross or rear naked choke still have to be performed properly to work properly so when it's all said and done, yes it does matter and, yes it is important. You could throw out a right cross with no power and your thumb on the inside of your fist and it will be virtually useless so yeah it matters. TMA practitioners would not spend lots of time on basics, line work, step sparring and patterns etc, if technique wasn't important.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Why would you lean toward the MMA fighter as having your back.   And I agree somewhat that it depends on how the person trains, but overwhelmingly MMA'ist train hard and go live or as close to it as they can within reason and this is what's important.
> 
> now if your training "hard" in an art that is outdated, that's moves simple do not relate to real world self defense (FIGHTING, CONTACT, ETC) the. It doesn't matter how hard you train because it just doesn't work as well as other things do.





TFP said:


> It was a legit question. I was interested in your take on it, then as I thought about it i typed out what I thought....... Which could be different from what you think.



I picked the MMA guy for the reasons that have already been mentioned.  Of course, this isn't to say that someone who doesn't train MMA, is worthless or that I wouldn't pick them to have my back.  I know many people that do not train MMA, but are more than capable of fighting and defending themselves.  It's not always the art, but the way the person trains.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> Good grief! 207 posts and we have finally agreed that technique is important. :idunno:



I'm hoping that this thread goes longer than the other one did!


----------



## K-man

MJS said:


> I'm hoping that this thread goes longer than the other one did!


Someone needs to post something controversial! 
....  Mmm, i'll think of something.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Someone needs to post something controversial!
> ....  Mmm, i'll think of something.


The thing that makes MMA more effective than other "arts" is sparring and aliveness.

I actually found an ACTUAL training video from a local TMA school:






A local, Seattle area MMA'ist actually went into a karate school and recorded the action:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> The thing that makes MMA more effective than other "arts" is sparring and aliveness.
> 
> I actually found an ACTUAL training video from a local TMA school:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A local, Seattle area MMA'ist actually went into a karate school and recorded the action:


Not good enough. 

The first video, they cut the good bit. The next part was where she slapped his face and dropped him with a nice kick to the nuts. 

The second video, total disappointment. It came up with a label saying "this video is unavailable in your country". Damn! It could have been just the catalyst we needed.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm.... honestly, no... the only way technique is important is to make sure you don't use a face-block or similar...!



Well my friend you have completely jumped the shark with this one!  I was going to go thru and reply to each reply you gave and whatnot,   But between your latest revelation that technique has no importance what so ever, coupled with your "nothing is nothing because it can't be proven and all that it proves is in one moment in time, something was something, but it doesn't prove anything" line of thought has me second guessing that idea.


Is that your specialty or nitch?  That moment of getting to the right spot?


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> I picked the MMA guy for the reasons that have already been mentioned.  Of course, this isn't to say that someone who doesn't train MMA, is worthless or that I wouldn't pick them to have my back.  I know many people that do not train MMA, but are more than capable of fighting and defending themselves.  It's not always the art, but the way the person trains.




Thanks for the answer, I agree for sure.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I actually found an ACTUAL training video from a local TMA school:



I've seen worse.


----------



## Chris Parker

RTKDCMB said:


> They  need to be a bit more than just mechanically sound, they need to be  fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable. I've had many  cars that were mechanically sound that I wouldn't exactly call good, fast or powerful.



Actually, no they don't. It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.

I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.

The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.



RTKDCMB said:


> You mean apart from the technique being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable?



No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.



RTKDCMB said:


> The right cross or rear naked choke still have to be performed properly to work properly so when it's all said and done, yes it does matter and, yes it is important. You could throw out a right cross with no power and your thumb on the inside of your fist and it will be virtually useless so yeah it matters. TMA practitioners would not spend lots of time on basics, line work, step sparring and patterns etc, if technique wasn't important.



Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.



TFP said:


> Well my friend you have completely jumped the shark with this one!  I was going to go thru and reply to each reply you gave and whatnot,   But between your latest revelation that technique has no importance what so ever, coupled with your "nothing is nothing because it can't be proven and all that it proves is in one moment in time, something was something, but it doesn't prove anything" line of thought has me second guessing that idea.



Read again. You've missed what was actually said.



TFP said:


> Is that your specialty or nitch?  That moment of getting to the right spot?



More than you realize....


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> They  need to be a bit more than just mechanically sound, they need to be  fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable. I've had many  cars that were mechanically sound that I wouldn't exactly call good, fast or powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean apart from the technique being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable?
> 
> 
> 
> The right cross or rear naked choke still have to be performed properly to work properly so when it's all said and done, yes it does matter and, yes it is important. You could throw out a right cross with no power and your thumb on the inside of your fist and it will be virtually useless so yeah it matters. TMA practitioners would not spend lots of time on basics, line work, step sparring and patterns etc, if technique wasn't important.





Chris Parker said:


> Actually, no they don't. It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.
> 
> I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.
> 
> The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Read again. You've missed what was actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> More than you realize....



Hmm...maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but Chris, even if a technique doesn't need speed, or power, the technique itself still needs to be mechanically sound, no?  Sloppy techs were also mentioned. Now, even when I'd drill techs, and I wouldn't know what was coming, no, was my tech a perfect looking, textbook move?  Of course not.  But OTOH, I wasn't just swinging and blocking half hearted either.


----------



## Chris Parker

Sloppy doesn't mean half-hearted... in fact, it's more likely to be over-commited than half-hearted. And I was saying that a technique needs to be mechanically sound in the first place (in order for it to be worth training and practicing)... but a complete focus on it being the defining factor, or even being the difference between "effective, or working" or not, simply isn't necessary. This is, of course, from a self defence perspective, not a martial arts perspective... the two really shouldn't be confused....


----------



## RTKDCMB

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, no they don't.



Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.



Chris Parker said:


> It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.



Its a good idea but somehow not important?



Chris Parker said:


> I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.



Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it. Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.



Chris Parker said:


> The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.



Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.




Chris Parker said:


> No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.



Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.



I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good. 

Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006


----------



## TFP

Couple "technical" street fights.

first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler.  (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU

this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard.  The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career.  (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......). 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY

Would like people's thoughts on these tho.

in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here.  Mind set and awareness.  My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar.  He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006




Nice, I will hop over there and put my 2 cents in.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Sloppy doesn't mean half-hearted... in fact, it's more likely to be over-commited than half-hearted. And I was saying that a technique needs to be mechanically sound in the first place (in order for it to be worth training and practicing)... but a complete focus on it being the defining factor, or even being the difference between "effective, or working" or not, simply isn't necessary. This is, of course, from a self defence perspective, not a martial arts perspective... the two really shouldn't be confused....



I would still say that the more you focus on not being sloppy, the better off everything will be.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a good idea but somehow not important?
> 
> 
> 
> Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it. Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good.



Agreed with the above!!!



> Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.



LOL! I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I watched that.   What would help them?  Starting over at white belt?


----------



## KydeX

Omg....

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Couple "technical" street fights.
> 
> first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler.  (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU
> 
> this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard.  The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career.  (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......).
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY
> 
> Would like people's thoughts on these tho.
> 
> in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here.  Mind set and awareness.  My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar.  He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.



In the first clip, we clearly see who the better fighter is.  While I don't think that's the goal of a security officer, all that aside, he was a more technical fighter.  

The 2nd clip...it reminded me of watching Tank Abbott fight.  No formal MA training, other than wrestling, I believe, yet the guy was a hell of a fighter.  IMO, it was easy to see who was the more technical fighter, yet in the end, look what happened.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> In the first clip, we clearly see who the better fighter is.  While I don't think that's the goal of a security officer, all that aside, he was a more technical fighter.
> 
> The 2nd clip...it reminded me of watching Tank Abbott fight.  No formal MA training, other than wrestling, I believe, yet the guy was a hell of a fighter.  IMO, it was easy to see who was the more technical fighter, yet in the end, look what happened.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/jennycraig/Slide4.jpg


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/jennycraig/Slide4.jpg



Well, that's interesting.  Out of curiosity, what is his MA background?  AFAIK, he never claimed any formal MA training, just listing wrestling and boxing.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Couple "technical" street fights.
> 
> first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler.  (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU


And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.

This is good technique ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
:asian:


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Well, that's interesting.  Out of curiosity, what is his MA background?  AFAIK, he never claimed any formal MA training, just listing wrestling and boxing.


Lol, I'm not even sure.  Just a funny pic.  I would guess Karate as a kid!?


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.
> 
> This is good technique ...
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
> :asian:


This would be you thinking the only good technique is offensive technique.  No mention of all the defense displayed as he stood toe-to-toe with an aggressive attacker and came away safe.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> This would be you thinking the only good technique is offensive technique.  No mention of all the defense displayed as he stood toe-to-toe with an aggressive attacker and came away safe.


Your words, not mine!
:asian:


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Your words, not mine!
> :asian:


True.


but of course those words and perspective were not mentioned by you.   It was the lack of you mentioning it that I was getting at.  You looked at that clip and chose to talk about the offense and mention nothing of the fight, technical defense. Just an observation I made.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> True.
> 
> but of course those words and perspective were not mentioned by you.   It was the lack of you mentioning it that I was getting at.  You looked at that clip and chose to talk about the offense and mention nothing of the fight, technical defense. Just an observation I made.


Then your observation was wrong!  I didn't mention offence! Again, your words, not mine.

You failed to mention in your clip that the guys in the MMA brawl had been drinking. So what? Omission of itself means nothing unless it is relevant. All I did was post a clip and suggest that the guy demonstrated 'good' technique. Was it technically correct? That's difficult to tell from the clip. Was it 'sloppy'? Perhaps, but again difficult to tell from that angle. Relaxed? Certainly.

The video you posted clearly demonstrated the guy using technically correct punches and knee strikes, but not one was effective. Was he using 'good' technique?

Technique can mean several things. It can be singular as in the strike that caused the knockdown, or a combination of individual components that allow a specific task to be completed, in this case removing the guys ability to cause further trouble. Either way, the karate guy demonstrated good technique. Everything he did from his attitude, his stance, his execution and his positioning after his strike, demonstrated 'good' technique.
:asian:


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Then your observation was wrong!  I didn't mention offence! Again, your words, not mine.
> 
> You failed to mention in your clip that the guys in the MMA brawl had been drinking. So what? Omission of itself means nothing unless it is relevant. All I did was post a clip and suggest that the guy demonstrated 'good' technique. Was it technically correct? That's difficult to tell from the clip. Was it 'sloppy'? Perhaps, but again difficult to tell from that angle. Relaxed? Certainly.
> 
> The video you posted clearly demonstrated the guy using technically correct punches and knee strikes, but not one was effective. Was he using 'good' technique?
> 
> Technique can mean several things. It can be singular as in the strike that caused the knockdown, or a combination of individual components that allow a specific task to be completed, in this case removing the guys ability to cause further trouble. Either way, the karate guy demonstrated good technique. Everything he did from his attitude, his stance, his execution and his positioning after his strike, demonstrated 'good' technique.
> :asian:



You did mention offense, you said after 20 technical punches and knees his attacker was still there.   

Didn't catch your video the first time around. It have see  it many times, yes that was great technique!


----------



## K-man

K-man said:


> And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.
> 
> This is good technique ...
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
> :asian:





TFP said:


> You did mention offense, you said after 20 technical punches and knees his attacker was still there.
> 
> Didn't catch your video the first time around. It have see  it many times, yes that was great technique!


Sorry! I know this sounds pedantic but I did not mention offence and I did not say his attacker was still there. What I did say was that the guy who was using what _looked like_ good technique was actually using ineffective technique.

As to who was the attacker was unclear as they are both squared up at the start. The thug threw the first punch so I can go with him being the attacker. So the security guy hit him about 20 times in that clip. At the end of the clip the attacker was still there and still potentially dangerous. However you define 'technique' as either an individual strike or a combination to end the altercation, the security guy's was not effective.

This discussion is in the context of whether a technique has to be technically correct to be effective. All I am saying is that something that can _appear_ to be technically correct is not what it appears. Here is an example of a wild swing that was 100% effective.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w&desktop_uri=/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w

Now, in fairness, Barry Hall, the guy in red and white, is a reasonable boxer but the strike itself could be considered 'sloppy' technique. Technically the strike had the right angle, direction and accuracy to achieve the desired outcome although not altogether optimal for Hall, who was reported by the umpire and suspended for seven matches by the tribunal.
:asian:


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Sorry! I know this sounds pedantic but I did not mention offence and I did not say his attacker was still there. What I did say was that the guy who was using what _looked like_ good technique was actually using ineffective technique.
> 
> As to who was the attacker was unclear as they are both squared up at the start. The thug threw the first punch so I can go with him being the attacker. So the security guy hit him about 20 times in that clip. At the end of the clip the attacker was still there and still potentially dangerous. However you define 'technique' as either an individual strike or a combination to end the altercation, the security guy's was not effective.
> 
> This discussion is in the context of whether a technique has to be technically correct to be effective. All I am saying is that something that can _appear_ to be technically correct is not what it appears. Here is an example of a wild swing that was 100% effective.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w&desktop_uri=/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w
> 
> Now, in fairness, Barry Hall, the guy in red and white, is a reasonable boxer but the strike itself could be considered 'sloppy' technique. Technically the strike had the right angle, direction and accuracy to achieve the desired outcome although not altogether optimal for Hall, who was reported by the umpire and suspended for seven matches by the tribunal.
> :asian:


Pedantic?  Lol, why yes it does.......  Because although you may not of typed the word "offensive" technique, that is 100% what you were talking about when you mentioned his 20+ punches and knees.     

See this is a problem, if you arnt even going to be honest with yourself or me then what is the point of debate and discussion?  It's absurd!!!!:rpo:

I disagree it was ineffective, no it did not secure him a finish or a knockout, but it did stop him from harming the girl or the security officer.  The offensive strikes were landing and his defense was pretty great TBH.

as for the footballers strike being "wild" I again do not agree with you.   He spins around getting his head around first, spots the target and throws a perfectly straight punch landing nicely on the chin.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Lol, I'm not even sure.  Just a funny pic.  I would guess Karate as a kid!?



I agree, it was pretty funny.  LOL.  I'm still going with no official formal training.  I say that, due to numerous comments about traditional arts, Karate, etc, that he's made in the past.  Personally, I liked Tank.  His pre/post fight interviews were hilarious, and despite his losses, he still put an *** whooping on pretty much everyone he fought.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Pedantic?  Lol, why yes it does.......  Because although you may not of typed the word "offensive" technique, that is 100% what you were talking about when you mentioned his 20+ punches and knees.
> 
> So I didn't mention 'offensive', I didn't mean 'offensive' and because you think I should have said 'offensive' that's what I meant. Yeah right!
> 
> See this is a problem, if you arnt even going to be honest with yourself or me then what is the point of debate and discussion?  It's absurd!!!!:rpo:
> 
> I am being honest with you. What more can I say? The fact you can't comprehend what I am saying is your problem, not mine.
> 
> I disagree it was ineffective, no it did not secure him a finish or a knockout, but it did stop him from harming the girl or the security officer.  The offensive strikes were landing and his defense was pretty great TBH.
> 
> Yeah! Great outcome! Imagine how much better it would have been if he actually used good technique!
> 
> as for the footballers strike being "wild" I again do not agree with you.   He spins around getting his head around first, spots the target and throws a perfectly straight punch landing nicely on the chin.
> 
> You'd better watch it again. It caught the point of the jaw, not the chin. It was downward at about 45 degrees, the optimal strike. Pure fluke! He was turning to strike before he looked.


Mmm!


----------



## Hanzou

Good to see that not much has changed around these parts.

Anyway, MMA guys should be pretty solid in self defense and fighting if they went to a decent school.


----------



## wimwag

MMA worked for Trayvon Martin....


----------



## Steve

wimwag said:


> MMA worked for Trayvon Martin....



I think Zimmerman is the guy who trained at an mma gym.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## wimwag

Steve said:


> I think Zimmerman is the guy who trained at an mma gym.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Nope. Zimmerman tried boxing.

Sent using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## Steve

wimwag said:


> Nope. Zimmerman tried boxing.
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk 2.



http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/6/2...ning-mma-weeks-before-trayvon-martin-shooting


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kframe

Well Trayvons ThugFU GNP worked till Zimmerman pulled out a gun. Hence why you don't go to the ground on the street.


----------



## Chris Parker

RTKDCMB said:


> Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.



Honestly, I don't think what I'm saying is being understood. That's not really a problem, but it is leading to people trying to argue against something that isn't actually being said. I'll try to put it together as succinctly as I can.

The original argument is whether or not MMA would "work" for a "real fight"... and the contention is that MMA's limitations aren't anything to do with techniques working or not, it's to do with the context and tactics found within MMA training (constantly seeking to engage an opponent, focusing on one person only, lack of weapon defence, rule sets, having fights start from a distance, and so on). An example brought up later to demonstrate MMA's applicability focused on the techniques... to which I replied that the techniques aren't the important thing. Because, well, they're not.

Now, that doesn't mean that the techniques aren't important at all... as I said, they need to be mechanically sound.... however, the techniques themselves aren't what actually "works". They're simply the medium used to apply what actually matters (which is the tactical expression and methodology)... without that aspect, no matter how good a technique is, it's pointless. And with it, there's no real need to look at specific techniques as an "answer".... which makes the technique itself, in the end, not important. It doesn't matter if it's an armbar, a rear naked choke, a throw from Judo, a kick from muay Thai, or anything else. The technique itself is nothing... the application is what's important.



RTKDCMB said:


> Its a good idea but somehow not important?



Now, what I said was that the elements you mentioned aren't needed, not that they aren't important. 



RTKDCMB said:


> Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it.



Yeah, that's kinda been what I've been saying. The specific technique, though, isn't the important thing. I mean, the strikes in my system are different to the strikes in yours... same with the blocks, kicks, throws etc. And they're all equally valid (depending on the tactic), which means that the technique itself isn't the important part.



RTKDCMB said:


> Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.



Tactics, not strategies, to be correct. But again, yes, it can certainly help, but that's not the same as the techniques being the important aspect.



RTKDCMB said:


> Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.



Sure, lucky shots are lucky shots, and yes, sucker punches require a sucker... not sure who you think was throwing them (it's not the trained martial artist with the good technique was my point... they're more likely to get caught out by it due to a very different sense of distance, timing, and more). Oh, and tactics can absolutely be trained solo as well... in fact, they need to be. What do you think kata really are?



RTKDCMB said:


> Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.



That's the thing.... there isn't just one form. And that's a big part of what I was talking about. But, to clarify, I'm not talking about highly trained martial artists or professional fighters, as they're simply not realistic opponents outside of their specific environments (sports competition etc)... and the topic of the thread is a "real fight". See what you can make from that.



RTKDCMB said:


> I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good.



Yeah, it really is arbitrary, after a point. You get in a position to throw, does it really matter that much which throw? You're at a distance to kick, does it matter that much which kick?

I'll put it this way. In Judo, you get a large number of people who get known as specific waza specialists... they might be an Osoto Gari specialist... or a Tai Otoshi specialist.... or Seio Nage.... or anything, really. And what makes them so good at each isn't what throw they've chosen, it's how they approach it... they learn how to apply it from any position, counter it no matter how it's applied against them, use it to counter everything they come up against. Is Osoto Nage the superior technique, or is Tai Otoshi? Or are neither "better"? And, if neither are better, is it important which is chosen? Honestly, the answer is no. It's not important. How it's trained is, but the technique itself is arbitrary, provided the approach is suited.



RTKDCMB said:


> Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.



Realistic training. And a more honest appraisal of their current methods.



RTKDCMB said:


> Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006



I'll visit over there as well.



TFP said:


> Couple "technical" street fights.
> 
> first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler.  (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU



First off, you can drop the passive-aggressive tone... you're not that good at it. Secondly, while the guard had a more technical form, he was swinging wildly, and missed the vast majority of his shots. Question, though... what was this supposed to prove?



TFP said:


> this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard.  The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career.  (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......).
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY
> 
> Would like people's thoughts on these tho.



Again, watch the passive-aggressive. All you're showing me is that you don't understand what I've been saying... which, frankly, isn't a real surprise. But I'm still not sure what you're thinking these clips show, or prove... there's really nothing one way or the other here (but, for the record, this isn't a "street fight", it's a match fight... your lack of ability to grasp what the distinction is tells me you really don't have the requisite knowledge to discuss real violence and self defence with me here).



TFP said:


> in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here.  Mind set and awareness.  My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar.  He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.



Which just speaks to training methodologies and limitations of one form or another... which is what's been said since, well, the second post of this thread (from myself).



MJS said:


> I would still say that the more you focus on not being sloppy, the better off everything will be.



Sure. And I haven't argued against that... I have just argued as to what has the greatest importance.



K-man said:


> And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.
> 
> This is good technique ...
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
> :asian:



Ha, see now, to me, that's pretty damn poor technique, honestly... he's not centered, his weight rises up, there not a lot of follow-through.... but it worked (in that instance).



Hanzou said:


> Good to see that not much has changed around these parts.
> 
> Anyway, MMA guys should be pretty solid in self defense and fighting if they went to a decent school.



And.... that's different from other arts how?


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, see now, to me, that's pretty damn poor technique, honestly... he's not centered, his weight rises up, there not a lot of follow-through.... but it worked (in that instance).


It depends what you mean by centred. My stance would have been slightly more centred to my way of thinking but that depends on how you train. 

I would say he is balanced and at the point of impact his weight is slightly in front of his front foot allowing use of his body mass to reduce the physical effort. The targeting is precise, he is utilising awareness before and after the strike and the strike was effective. I didn't see his weight rising. He is targeting a taller opponent. In actual fact he drops his centre just before the strike. It may not have been good ninjutsu but it sure was good karate. 

I stand by my original statement.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> For one thing, you're looking at a superficial similarity, the actual specifics and context, as well as the reasoning behind the approaches, are wildly different. Additionally, the application of JKD's "absorb what is useful, discard what is not" doesn't actually fit MMA's methodology... there, it's "do what gets you a win"... wildly different, mate.



Can you expand on this theory of yours?


----------



## Chris Parker

K-man said:


> It depends what you mean by centred. My stance would have been slightly more centred to my way of thinking but that depends on how you train.



Well, I mean that the weight is centred in the tanden/hara, rather than in the chest as seen in the clip. For the record, though, having your centre rise under adrenaline is common... the upper chest and throat are "emotional" centres... which is why you train to counter such tendencies.



K-man said:


> I would say he is balanced and at the point of impact his weight is slightly in front of his front foot allowing use of his body mass to reduce the physical effort.



I'd say he's off balance at the moment of impact... I currently have the clip paused on that moment (42 seconds), and he's raised up onto his toes on his rear foot, arched his back, and leant a fair bit away with his head (an indication of being worried about being hit in the head, again, a common thing). His weight isn't in front of his lead foot, as it's pretty well pulled back (his hips aren't moving forward at all... his back and head are pulled back from them).



K-man said:


> The targeting is precise, he is utilising awareness before and after the strike and the strike was effective.



The only part of that I agree with is that the strike was effective (in that it had a successful result). The targeting I'd class as lucky (he seemed surprised himself, really, and with him pulling his body and head back while striking, he's lucky to have hit at all), he's not that aware to begin with (he is keeping the guy in his sight, but he's ignoring what's going on around him... in the middle of a road...), nor is he that aware afterwards (turning away from the guy once he's down, ignoring the pimps associates, and aping for the camera before turning back to see the result), and he didn't pay attention to the way the guy was behaving in the first place (to me, he looked either drunk, or completely taken over with emotion... and my money would be on drunk... in which case, he didn't necessarily need the response he used... he could more easily move the guy to a safer place to control, if he was actually thinking about what he was doing). 



K-man said:


> I didn't see his weight rising. He is targeting a taller opponent. In actual fact he drops his centre just before the strike.



Dropping before the strike is rather pointless if he then rises up onto his toes... which he does. The taller opponent really doesn't make that much difference, and even if it did, the height difference there isn't that substantial. My guys are always surprised by just how low I get... I'm typically a foot or so shorter in "fight mode" than I am just walking around... and that's even against 7 foot guys (that was a fun student... nice way to test what I could do!).



K-man said:


> It may not have been good ninjutsu but it sure was good karate.



Ha, as ninjutsu is was desperately bad... unless, of course, it was a disguised technique.... hmm... 



K-man said:


> I stand by my original statement.



Cool. I like the pre-emptive strike as a tactic, and I'm glad it worked for him there, but it doesn't (to me) come across as a result of much more than luck, an already half out of it opponent, surprise (which shouldn't be underestimated), and little else. 



TFP said:


> Can you expand on this theory of yours?



Not sure what else there is to expand on, really... what don't you follow?


----------



## drop bear

TFP said:


> Can you expand on this theory of yours?



I think the idea is ring craft. Which is specific sports fighting tactics to enable a person to better perform in a mma match or out perform a specific person.

So in its simplest form. You could if your bjj was awesome and their wrestling was poor. Take the fight to the ground with you underneath them to try and effect a submission. Sometimes you will see this happen in the dying minutes of a round where the time limit reduces your risk of being punched into butter.

Although there are a couple of counters.

As mma fighters are becoming more well rounded thistactic is becoming lower percentage and is being used less.

And this tactic is applied on top (hopefully) of the better basics that does reflect the absorb what is useful mentality.

The flying triangle. Which my coach woud not allow me to do due to the risk.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YGhLBPYEHSY


----------

