# Ring vs battlefield versions of MAs



## Uncle (Dec 23, 2012)

What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?

Examples 
Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 24, 2012)

Your questions are limited in their function.

What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?
The name.

Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment?
No.

Do you think the training of one is more effective?
No. Training is what it is. Its either good, or its bad. It doesnt matter what style it is, or for what purpose its being learnt.

Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment?
Yes. But only as far as training goes. Because in any real confrontation, youre not in a sporting environment. If youre training for that, so long as youre getting fit, training for contact, and training for intensity, it doesnt make a scrap of difference. I dont need to practice non contact repeated strikes to the back of the neck to be able to actually do it.

Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?
No. Gloves are to protect the hands. In systems with grappling, you wear gloves that make it easier to grapple as well. For ones based on striking, you dont. Go figure. Also, more people get into fights than there are people who break their hands. As for breakfalling, have you ever been slammed down on a mat? The only difference is, if you cant breakfall on a mat, it hurts. If you cant breakfall on concrete, its worse. Why the hell would you train with that danger on concrete on a regular basis. You may as well just slam each others heads into it and call it conditioning.

Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu: Judo is based more on throws, BJJ on submissions, and JJ sometimes doesnt even have much grappling. Sometimes it has tons.
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran: *shrugs* - Personally i think Muay Thai is more focused.
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing: People dont fight the same way they did over a century ago. If we stopped wearing gloves, wed probably still fight the same way in a boxing match. Take an old bareknuckle guy and stick him in a modern arena, and if he wins its because hes a better fighter, rather than a better boxer. Same thing goes if you stick a modern boxer in a bareknuckle ring. Training isnt everything.
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling: Freestyle. Not american. Freestyle. Also, you can still learn catch wrestling. In any case, its all wrestling. If dumping people on their heads in a fight doesnt work, then i guess Greco is just toned down and weak.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 24, 2012)

Uncle said:


> What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?



The methodology and foundational principles are completely different and are not interchangeable.  


> Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment?



Sport is the least effective for the venues of the battlefield and/or self-defense in the 'street'.  As mentioned, the methodology is completely different.  Sport requires a specific rule set, in a specific environment with an opponent willing to abide by the same.  There is no cross-over.  To quote a post I did a while back;



> 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.
> 
> ...





> An interesting tidbit  on Judo training; During WWII, Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill was the highest  ranked non-Japanese Judoka in the world. He was also a member of the  Shanghai Municipal Police Department with William Fairbairn. At the  time, it was described as the most dangerous city/job in the world.  O'Neill was eventually chosen to teach the First Special Services Forces  (also known as the Devil's Brigade) which was a combination of U.S. and  Canadian special forces (the movie of the same name was not an accurate  portrayal). When designing what is now known as WWII Combatives,  O'Neill (and Fairbairn who was a 2nd Dan under Jigoro Sensei) put no  Judo into the system. When asked why, O'Neill replied that Judo was  useless unless the enemy was wearing a Gi.
> 
> Now that was a bit of tounge-in-cheek humor on the part of O'Neill, but  the point he was making was that Judo has a lot of sport techniques that  require the opponent to be wearing heavy clothing for grip. If they  aren't, or the quarters or conditions aren't what is needed then the  number of Judo techniques that are possible become limited. Also, while  many Judo techniques and principles are excellent for balance  displacement, they aren't necessarily lethal which was often necessary  on the battlefield or in special ops where stealth and quiet were  essential.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 24, 2012)

Uncle said:


> What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?



In 

- "sport", you jump in and beat up your opponent.
- "combat", you open a can of red pepper, throw at your opponent's face, and still jump in and beat up your opponent.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 24, 2012)

Uncle said:


> What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?
> 
> Examples
> Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu
> ...



Are you serious with this? 
On a battlefield the objective is to KILL or at least maim the other to the point they are no longer a kill threat as quickly as prudent.
Sport version is play time in comparison!! That alone makes the mental aspect far different and as to techniques used in battle vs ring; good god man!
Equipment does make a difference as do the rules of engagement.
Having been in both arenas I attest to major differences.


----------



## SacredCoconut (Dec 24, 2012)

Well i would not say those arts are that good in modern combat, there are modern army arts for that. Every martial arts is mostly as good as what it is made for.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 24, 2012)

Uncle said:


> What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?



In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only had H2H training through his military system. In the streets, an experienced sports fighter who knocks you out can chose to either walk away or kill you by head stomping your skull in as you lay there unconscious, if he wanted to. 

All military systems of the world has some form of H2H training, but they don't waste too much time on H2H training today because an assault rifle beats them all. Run out of ammo, then there's the pistol, field knife, bayonet....and then your H2H. But you're more than likely dead already. This is why the average soldier, special forces, cop, etc... even with experience but no other training other than from their respective dept., will usually tap out like any other White belts when they join an MMA gym.  The cops are the ones who are better though as they have to do more H2H compared to the soldiers, who usually only shoots the enemy.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 24, 2012)

Danny T said:


> Are you serious with this?
> On a battlefield the objective is to KILL or at least maim the other to the point they are no longer a kill threat as quickly as prudent.
> Sport version is play time in comparison!! That alone makes the mental aspect far different and as to techniques used in battle vs ring; good god man!
> Equipment does make a difference as do the rules of engagement.
> Having been in both arenas I attest to major differences.




When 2 fighters, ie. MMA, fights.....they are throwing strikes with the same intensity and might of killing and maiming their opponent. A full blown elbow to the face, followed by 10 more is no different than trying to kill someone with these same elbows on the battlefield. A simple choke hold that's locked, is a kill technique. The only reason that no one dies in the ring is because the Ref stops it. But everything leading to that Ref stoppage, KO, TKO, etc...has been done with maximum force and full intentions. 

UFC 1-4 allowed all forms of head stomps, soccer kicks to the head, throat strikes, spinal column attacks, eye strikes, nutsack squeezing, etc.  Even biting and eye gouging didn't cause a DQ, just $1,000 fine per incident. The purse was $60,000 so that's well worth getting fined to win it. The main difference in the battlefield is that you keep going until the other guy dies, usually....still not necessarily.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 24, 2012)

Mz1,
Bring your ringsport striking and grappling aspect with the referee and the possibility to 'tap' on to a combat battlefield. The strategies are different, the tactics are different, the techniques are different. Have not seen an MMA, Kickboxing, Boxing, Submission Wrestling competition (as yet) fought with the same tactics I trained, saw, or engaged with on a combat battlefield. I have boxed and wrestled in competition, and train people who do compete in Muay Thai and MMA. I understand the sport game. It Is Not The Same! I concede that a punch is a punch and hitting someone as hard as possible to stop them is the same on the battlefield as in a ring/cage but the tactics to get there and the follow up is not. We in H2H I screwed up and either way I will hurt badly or kill and move on. If there is any leftover the next person will finish it. No Such thing in the ring.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 24, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only had H2H training through his military system.



With respect, I cannot agree with your assessment.  MMA, in the context that I'm assuming you're putting forth, is a sport.  Now, nothing wrong with sport but the skill sets/rule sets differ dramatically from the battlefield/street.  In the battlefield/street one will use weapons, improvised weapons as well as H2H that do not subscribe to a rule set.  WWII combatives is a prime example.  Possibly the most brutal system ever developed, it was simple, based on gross motor skills and more importantly, retained in long term memory.  The teaching methodology is simply different.  This doesn't mean that the MMA guy is a wimp and my comments should not be taken as such.  In the ring, the battlefield/street guy will be at a disadvantage if forced to abide by an artificial rule set.  Conversely, the MMA guy will be at a disadvantage in a battlefield/street situation due to his having trained within a rule set and being place in a situation where the opponent is not constrained to the same rule set.  

Again, the methodology is simply diametrically opposed.  Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does mean one isn't going to satisfactorily cover both venues.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 24, 2012)

Danny T said:


> Mz1,
> Bring your ringsport striking and grappling aspect with the referee and the possibility to 'tap' on to a combat battlefield. The strategies are different, the tactics are different, the techniques are different. Have not seen an MMA, Kickboxing, Boxing, Submission Wrestling competition (as yet) fought with the same tactics I trained, saw, or engaged with on a combat battlefield. I have boxed and wrestled in competition, and train people who do compete in Muay Thai and MMA. I understand the sport game. It Is Not The Same! I concede that a punch is a punch and hitting someone as hard as possible to stop them is the same on the battlefield as in a ring/cage but the tactics to get there and the follow up is not. We in H2H I screwed up and either way I will hurt badly or kill and move on. If there is any leftover the next person will finish it. No Such thing in the ring.



I've already covered all of what you're arguing in my post already. Don't feel like repeating it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2012)

and heres a thread almost specifically made to bring some arguments back into the forum..Uncle, read any of the threads from the last two months that are over 5 pages, and youll find everyones answer to this question


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 24, 2012)

I suspect too much of these discussions are being geared around you doing what youre trained in. As in, a boxer will box no matter where he is, rather than, the person who has taken boxing classes will fight.

Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.
First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
In a combative situation, you might be done before you even knew there was an engagement taking place, let alone whether or not the other person was armed, or how many other people there were, let alone where they were.
Its a different situation. With different dynamics.

As for an MMA fighter beating a soldier whos only learned to fight in the military, thats showing a reliance on technique.
 Technique that often works due to the other persons technique. In that scenario, my money would be on whichever one looked rougher.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 24, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect, I cannot agree with your assessment.  MMA, in the context that I'm assuming you're putting forth, is a sport.  Now, nothing wrong with sport but the skill sets/rule sets differ dramatically from the battlefield/street.



It takes more skills to fight under the constraint of different rule sets for different types of tournaments, sparring situations, etc.   When there are no rules on the battlefield, it would be so much easier. And an experienced fighter will clobber the average, other soldier, if all he's got is some basic H2H training.

But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?

Then there are the MANY, MANY, MANY soldiers, special forces, cops, etc. in the MMA gyms.  Many are champion title holders in MMA, etc. yet have been in combat training and in actual combat. Do you think they can't differentiate the two?



> In the battlefield/street one will use weapons, improvised weapons as well as H2H that do not subscribe to a rule set.



Obviously a weapon is going to give someone the advantage over their opponent w/o one. What's the point in arguing this?



> WWII combatives is a prime example.  Possibly the most brutal system ever developed, it was simple, based on gross motor skills and more importantly, retained in long term memory.  The teaching methodology is simply different.  This doesn't mean that the MMA guy is a wimp and my comments should not be taken as such.  In the ring, the battlefield/street guy will be at a disadvantage if forced to abide by an artificial rule set.  Conversely, the MMA guy will be at a disadvantage in a battlefield/street situation due to his having trained within a rule set and being place in a situation where the opponent is not constrained to the same rule set.



I bet the average French soldier in silk tights during the Napoleonic ages is way tougher than the a WWII soldier up until today in H2H combat and all around ruggedness. Those guys with their single-shot muskets, actually did fight most of their battles with bayonets and such. And a Roman Centurian will beat both of their butts, H2H. Modern soldiers today hardly even engages H2H.....they have rifles, then pistols then bayonets. But usually they'll  die way before any H2H happens. If it does, they just go into  bloodlust, survival mode and stab away. But H2H ONLY, then an experience  MMA fighter will KO them, and then kill them...because when these trained soldiers come into our MMA gym, they really suck (unless they had MMA training elsewhere)....like they would do the average noob stuff such as turning away when they get hit with too many combos. This is not a sign of someone who can fight well.



> Again, the methodology is simply diametrically opposed.  Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does mean one isn't going to satisfactorily cover both venues.



A fight is a fight is a fight, to me. It takes more skills to fight under the constraints of different sets of rules. Which makes it so much easier when there are no rules. And also an experienced fighter is way more capable than someone who rarely fights nor spars for KO's often. Most soldiers never even fought H2H on the battlefield to the death, especially the modern soldier with all of their sophisticated weaponry.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 24, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.



My goal as a fighter is to knock you out with ONE strike, ASAP. If not, then to hurt you as much as possible. What you're saying here is merely  looking for an opening to strike. Against some untrained slob on the street, it may take 1-2 strikes to KO him or at least get him to STFU and go home. Against an equally trained fighter in the ring, of course it's going to be much more difficult and may take hundreds of strikes and eating many....using many strategies & techniques.....and maybe not even KO'ing anyone....nor win.



> First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
> In a combative situation, you might be done before you even knew there was an engagement taking place, let alone whether or not the other person was armed, or how many other people there were, let alone where they were.
> Its a different situation. With different dynamics.



This is just common sense. Just like how I never leave the house w/o my 9mm, knife and EDC. I have a pistol in every bathroom of my house as well as garage, etc. I'm just as paranoid as the average cop. 



> As for an MMA fighter beating a soldier whos only learned to fight in the military, thats showing a reliance on technique.
> Technique that often works due to the other persons technique. In that scenario, my money would be on whichever one looked rougher.



It's both techniques and experience. The average soldier's time is not wasted on training H2H combat, because their primary weapon is their RIFLE with 20-50 round mags + 5-10 spare mags....which makes more sense to train their marksmanship.  While most modern soldiers don't even have any H2H fight experience at all, as it's quite rare in any battlefield nowadays....let alone H2H to the death.  OTOH, an experienced MMA fighter does fight and spars for KO's often, which is pretty much full blow fights sometimes.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 25, 2012)

If we are talking "todays battlefield" then martial arts in general, "today" don't  represent anymore practicality than MMA does. They both have there limitations. What MMA fighters might have over traditionalists is intensity which is attributed to their age. While some not all traditionalist may have many years of solid experience.

No matter how you look at it, our military's CQD "is" because martial arts wasn't relevant enough.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> I suspect too much of these discussions are being geared around you doing what youre trained in. As in, a boxer will box no matter where he is, rather than, the person who has taken boxing classes will fight.
> 
> Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.
> First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
> ...



Soldiers I know are pretty good in a scrap on 'the street', half my working life is spent separating them from whoever they are fighting at the time. One of the reasons we were given a place to train MMA by the military was that the Scots Guards CO thought that if his guys spent more time training in MMA they could hopefully ( and it was a hope lol) they'd get the aggression out by fighting legitimately or failing that ( which is the case) at least they'd fight better 'on the street' and so spend less time either injured or in jail. He's nothing if realistic, squaddies do like a good scrap.


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> My goal as a fighter is to knock you out with ONE strike, ASAP. If not, then to hurt you as much as possible. What you're saying here is merely  looking for an opening to strike. Against some untrained slob on the street, it may take 1-2 strikes to KO him or at least get him to STFU and go home. Against an equally trained fighter in the ring, of course it's going to be much more difficult and may take hundreds of strikes and eating many....using many strategies & techniques.....and maybe not even KO'ing anyone....nor win.



Im pretty sure that whether youre learning for sport, or for combatives, thats the same.
I will, however, disagree with taking hundreds of strikes - But, i suspect you were exaggerating, and that it just didnt translate too well into text. All you need to do is bounce the other guys head off the ground.



> This is just common sense. Just like how I never leave the house w/o my 9mm, knife and EDC. I have a pistol in every bathroom of my house as well as garage, etc. I'm just as paranoid as the average cop.



Why not just KO them with one punch, like a ring fighting champ? Combatives tend to involve the use of weapons. Im glad we can agree on why.



> It's both techniques and experience. The average soldier's time is not wasted on training H2H combat, because their primary weapon is their RIFLE with 20-50 round mags + 5-10 spare mags....which makes more sense to train their marksmanship.  While most modern soldiers don't even have any H2H fight experience at all, as it's quite rare in any battlefield nowadays....let alone H2H to the death.  OTOH, an experienced MMA fighter does fight and spars for KO's often, which is pretty much full blow fights sometimes.



And here, we agree, sort of. Its almost like your reasoning is great, but your conclusions are a bit peculiar.
Im of the view that technique means much less than method. By that i mean, technique = push off the ground with the back foot, pull with the front foot, drop your weight, extend your rear knee, pivot on your feet, pivot on your hip, rotate your torso and your shoulder, engage your arm into the punch. Method = Punch the other guy in the face.
And im inclined to think that those abilities can come more from experience in hitting other people with your fists, i.e. sparring. I also think that that only teaches you that particular skill in a limited manner.

The average engagement takes place for much further away than you could possibly need unarmed work, certainly. But that doesnt mean the fighter isnt strong, fit, and mentally willing to go for you. He may not be as experienced, but even the experienced can be taken down by someone whos never even been in a fight. And it happens.

MMA makes you better at striking, ill certainly agree. Im not disputing that. But like combatives, theyre often limited in what they teach. In MMA, if you get someone in an armbar, can you stomp on the side of their head? No. Can the person DOING MMA do that? Certainly. And so could anyone else who suddenly thought, in a real fight of any sort, "Hey, i could stomp on his head from here."
Technique < Quality of Training, is pretty much what im getting at. For my opinion on sports vs combatives, read my original reply.


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Soldiers I know are pretty good in a scrap on 'the street', half my working life is spent separating them from whoever they are fighting at the time. One of the reasons we were given a place to train MMA by the military was that the Scots Guards CO thought that if his guys spent more time training in MMA they could hopefully ( and it was a hope lol) they'd get the aggression out by fighting legitimately or failing that ( which is the case) at least they'd fight better 'on the street' and so spend less time either injured or in jail. He's nothing if realistic, squaddies do like a good scrap.


So basically, they got better at fighting by getting fit and fighting?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> So basically, they got better at fighting by getting fit and fighting?




Well they are pretty fit to start with, and being a Scottish regiment they really do like to fight! The Army calls it fighting spirit rofl. It's really a case of recruiting those who like to fight, training them up to take and give orders (the officers are the same btw) and pointing them in the right direction ie the battlefield. The other fights are sort of overlooked as long as no one gets caught or seriously injured.  
Irn-Bru is a secret weapon employed by the Scots, sort of like Popeye's spinach. It's made with girders.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/scots-guards-on-afghan-frontline-reveal-1458428






"Scottish Soldiers In Firefight With Taliban-Just like a street fight with guns.."


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Im pretty sure that whether youre learning for sport, or for combatives, thats the same.
> I will, however, disagree with taking hundreds of strikes - But, i suspect you were exaggerating, and that it just didnt translate too well into text.



My mistake, I meant both sides throwing hundreds of strikes in a competition fight. Not necessarily landing hundreds of clean strikes, nor landing that many at all. 



> All you need to do is bounce the other guys head off the ground.



If only it were that easy   I've had a guy go into street mode during hard sparring/prepping for a fight....and in the clinch, he grabbed my head and slammed the back of it into the bare concrete wall (our gym is a converted industrial warehouse). He was a fighter from an affiliate gym and this was the first time I was sparring him. I was beating him really bad right before this, and for many rounds so I guess he got frustrated and went into survival mode. Luckily, I had headgear on. It rung my bell, but didn't stop the fight. Needless to say, I was out for blood right after that and he started running. The bell rang and saved him. After that he avoided me the whole night. 



> Why not just KO them with one punch, like a ring fighting champ?



Why should I when I have a GUN with 10 rounds of hollowpoints, 1-2 spare mags + 2 knives?  Just because I enjoy trying to KO people in the ring....you can't seem to accept the fact that I'm also proficient in the streets, bouncing at clubs, etc.



> Combatives tend to involve the use of weapons. Im glad we can agree on why.



OK, but I can use weapons too. I'm almost always going to have a gun on me in States that allows conceal carry and reciprocates my permit. And I will certainly have a knife. Sparring with a rubber knife, I've already proven to myself that I can slash the hell out of these traditional Jujutsu sensei's who's main gig is such SD training with weapons. One is a 2nd dan and the other is a brown belt and both are active cops. And yes, they can fight. Just that when sparring with a rubber knife, they get slashed at least 8-10 times before they can grab me. Sometimes they even clinch me in a hug but misses my knife hand....and I'm there fake stabbing them profusely as we both laugh. And all of my knife fighting skills is mostly just using my skills as an MMA fighter....boxing with a knife + footwork + agility, speed, etc.  



> And here, we agree, sort of. Its almost like your reasoning is great, but your conclusions are a bit peculiar.
> Im of the view that technique means much less than method. By that i mean, technique = push off the ground with the back foot, pull with the front foot, drop your weight, extend your rear knee, pivot on your feet, pivot on your hip, rotate your torso and your shoulder, engage your arm into the punch. Method = Punch the other guy in the face.
> And im inclined to think that those abilities can come more from experience in hitting other people with your fists, i.e. sparring. I also think that that only teaches you that particular skill in a limited manner.



Put a knife in an experienced Boxer's hand. Who do you think is going to be faster in a knife fight? A trained Boxer who throws thousands of punches a week, training footwork, agility, endurance, reflex, etc... or someone who doesn't?

And if there's anything that can be learned from fighting knife-on-knife....it's just don't do it. The winner is the guy who's going to die latter in the hospital. 



> The average engagement takes place for much further away than you could possibly need unarmed work, certainly. But that doesnt mean the fighter isnt strong, fit, and mentally willing to go for you. He may not be as experienced, but even the experienced can be taken down by someone whos never even been in a fight. And it happens.



I don't doubt this at all. I was just trying to KO this big Brazilian gorilla just last week in 4 rounds of sparring. He was much bigger than me. I hit him with at least 4 solid shots to the face with looping overhand rights, and it didn't put him down. It rattled his confidence though. We both had headgear on, so that took off some damage. He was experienced too. On the ground, he would have been deadmeat as I've got over 2 years over him in BJJ. But size certainly does matter, as well as someone's desire to live. But I go through this much more often compared to someone who hardly spars for KO's...as most of my hard sparring is vs. guys my level. Then there are those who can whoop me, which tests all of my reactions, endurance and thresholds in moments of panic, fear, pain, confusion, etc.



> MMA makes you better at striking, ill certainly agree. Im not disputing that. But like combatives, theyre often limited in what they teach. In MMA, if you get someone in an armbar, can you stomp on the side of their head? No. Can the person DOING MMA do that? Certainly. And so could anyone else who suddenly thought, in a real fight of any sort, "Hey, i could stomp on his head from here."
> Technique < Quality of Training, is pretty much what im getting at. For my opinion on sports vs combatives, read my original reply.



A lot of people seems to think that MMA fighters are somehow forced to abide by MMA rules when they're fighting in the streets or on the battlefield of a war....like there's some kind of chip, implanted in an MMA fighter's head or something.

I don't really need someone to teach me how to head stomp nor soccer kick some guy unconscious on the ground that I just KO'ed on the battlefield, should I want to crush his skull in with my boots and kill him. It will just come automatically. Just think about it.....a full time fighter's goal in life is to knock people the F out or to hurt their opponent so bad that they quit. Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good. It's a great feeling. Who's going to more likely do better in a H2H battlefield or street situation?


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Who's going to more likely do better in a H2H battlefield or street situation?


The best answer is the best prepared and to be the best prepared one must include at a minimum some aspects of battlefield combat. Adapting to the "live" situation at hand. That excludes most martial arts including MMA. 

The Filipino martial arts have a lot of practical applications for combative situations IMO more so than most arts. Excluding the use of guns guns of course. Transitioning to blades and empty hand, FMA's  are very high on the list if not on top. 


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Dec 25, 2012)

I am continually perplexed why anyone would equate "battlefield" fighting with anything other than weapons fighting. When, in the history of mankind have men gone into battle unarmed?

There are those who might argue that there are times when empty hand techniques are useful when one "drops" a weapon. Why not just pick it up.

The whole discussion is predicated on an irrelevant scenario. In combat, onthe the battlefield, men have always fought with weapons. Period.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> I don't doubt this at all. I was just trying to KO this big Brazilian gorilla just last week in 4 rounds of sparring. He was much bigger than me. I hit him with at least 4 solid shots to the face with looping overhand rights, and it didn't put him down. It rattled his confidence though. We both had headgear on, so that took off some damage.



wait so you intentionally try to knock out your training partners when you spar?






> A lot of people seems to think that MMA fighters are somehow forced to abide by MMA rules when they're fighting in the streets or on the battlefield of a war....like there's some kind of chip, implanted in an MMA fighter's head or something.
> 
> I don't really need someone to teach me how to head stomp nor soccer kick some guy unconscious on the ground that I just KO'ed on the battlefield,



so you been to many battlefields where you just run around knocking people out?




> Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good. It's a great feeling.


yeah ok 



> Who's going to more likely do better in a H2H battlefield or street situation?


the one who doesnt think he can run around knock out people at will


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> My mistake, I meant both sides throwing hundreds of strikes in a competition fight. Not necessarily landing hundreds of clean strikes, nor landing that many at all.



Ah. That makes more sense 



> If only it were that easy   I've had a guy go into street mode during hard sparring/prepping for a fight....and in the clinch, he grabbed my head and slammed the back of it into the bare concrete wall (our gym is a converted industrial warehouse). He was a fighter from an affiliate gym and this was the first time I was sparring him. I was beating him really bad right before this, and for many rounds so I guess he got frustrated and went into survival mode. Luckily, I had headgear on. It rung my bell, but didn't stop the fight. Needless to say, I was out for blood right after that and he started running. The bell rang and saved him. After that he avoided me the whole night.



I didnt mean to imply once would be enough - Did he maintain his grip and try to rinse and repeat, or did he just do it once?



> Why should I when I have a GUN with 10 rounds of hollowpoints, 1-2 spare mags + 2 knives?  Just because I enjoy trying to KO people in the ring....you can't seem to accept the fact that I'm also proficient in the streets, bouncing at clubs, etc.



*Shrugs* - I never said you werent proficient in anything. This isnt about you, mate. This is about MMA and combatives.
What im saying is, if what youre saying is that simple (landing clean hits, technique, and so forth), why do you need knives and guns when you have the almighty modern sport fighting thatll beat untrained or army dudes head to head?



> OK, but I can use weapons too. I'm almost always going to have a gun on me in States that allows conceal carry and reciprocates my permit. And I will certainly have a knife. Sparring with a rubber knife, I've already proven to myself that I can slash the hell out of these traditional Jujutsu sensei's who's main gig is such SD training with weapons. One is a 2nd dan and the other is a brown belt and both are active cops. And yes, they can fight. Just that when sparring with a rubber knife, they get slashed at least 8-10 times before they can grab me. Sometimes they even clinch me in a hug but misses my knife hand....and I'm there fake stabbing them profusely as we both laugh. And all of my knife fighting skills is mostly just using my skills as an MMA fighter....boxing with a knife + footwork + agility, speed, etc.



Of course you can - So can an untrained meathead. And if he gets a good blow or stab in, no gun or knife in the world will save you.
Give a midget a weapon and he can massacre the best fighter in the world.



> Put a knife in an experienced Boxer's hand. Who do you think is going to be faster in a knife fight? A trained Boxer who throws thousands of punches a week, training footwork, agility, endurance, reflex, etc... or someone who doesn't?



Sure - But im not sure that matters when youre getting stabbed out of nowhere.



> And if there's anything that can be learned from fighting knife-on-knife....it's just don't do it. The winner is the guy who's going to die latter in the hospital.



Yep.



> I don't doubt this at all. I was just trying to KO this big Brazilian gorilla just last week in 4 rounds of sparring. He was much bigger than me. I hit him with at least 4 solid shots to the face with looping overhand rights, and it didn't put him down. It rattled his confidence though. We both had headgear on, so that took off some damage. He was experienced too. On the ground, he would have been deadmeat as I've got over 2 years over him in BJJ. But size certainly does matter, as well as someone's desire to live. But I go through this much more often compared to someone who hardly spars for KO's...as most of my hard sparring is vs. guys my level. Then there are those who can whoop me, which tests all of my reactions, endurance and thresholds in moments of panic, fear, pain, confusion, etc.



So basically youre trying to say that because you have 2 years in BJJ, hed die horribly on the ground in a real fight? 
Training boosts your chances - Its not a guarantee.



> A lot of people seems to think that MMA fighters are somehow forced to abide by MMA rules when they're fighting in the streets or on the battlefield of a war....like there's some kind of chip, implanted in an MMA fighter's head or something.



Actually, this is exactly where we agree. This has been my whole point. So, a soldier is fit, correct? An MMA fighter is fit, correct? Both of them have the mentality to get in there do it. Its person vs person. Not MMA vs Combatives. And much in the same way, 'untrained' people dont need to be taught any of the below either. Untrained doesnt mean retarded.



> I don't really need someone to teach me how to head stomp nor soccer kick some guy unconscious on the ground that I just KO'ed on the battlefield, should I want to crush his skull in with my boots and kill him. It will just come automatically. Just think about it.....a full time fighter's goal in life is to knock people the F out or to hurt their opponent so bad that they quit. Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good. It's a great feeling. Who's going to more likely do better in a H2H battlefield or street situation?



Whoever wins.

Its not just MMA fighters who have it come to them automatically, want to knock the other guy the F out, hurt their opponent so bad they want to quit, beat someone down so they cower in fear, and feel good doing it. Thats a huge percentage of the population.

Again, this is my whole point. Were in agreement on the reasoning, but somehow your conclusion ends up being that sparring is the decisive factor, by the sounds of it.


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I am continually perplexed why anyone would equate "battlefield" fighting with anything other than weapons fighting. When, in the history of mankind have men gone into battle unarmed?



*VIKINGS*

http://www.vikingfighting.com/

Heh, im actually 1/4 serious.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> The best answer is the best prepared and to be the best prepared one must include at a minimum some aspects of battlefield combat. Adapting to the "live" situation at hand. That excludes most martial arts including MMA.
> 
> The Filipino martial arts have a lot of practical applications for combative situations IMO more so than most arts. Excluding the use of guns guns of course. Transitioning to blades and empty hand, FMA's  are very high on the list if not on top.
> 
> ...




I agree with this. Which is why I visit different TMA gyms to spar and pick up different ideas, test my MMA arts vs. theirs, etc....and if I get whooped, I try to figure out how to beat them. And I also try to use what I learned from them to use against my own MMA camp. But I would only spar and try to work out a deal to buy some classes w/o having to go through the whole hoopla of learning their beginner's forms, etc...as I've already have my set fighting stance/base and don't need to mess with that by learning another or 3 others. I just want the best out of what they have and skip all the fluff.

True that MMA lacks weapons training. I bet though, that with my fighting skills + a knife, I can use my boxing skills and footwork quite well in a knife on knife fight vs. a good FMA.  But this would probably never happen b/c I would do my best to run away should a knife comes out, even if I have my own drawn.  Now with swords, spears, etc. then I'd be deadmeat vs. someone who trains. Because that's where such training would prevail. Heck, an overweight D&D Larper would probably kill me in a sword fight. But chances of a sword fight to the death is pretty slim to none.  So I guess, dabbling in other arts is good, but I won't spend too much time on it to derail from MMA which I find to be the most proficient all around.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I am continually perplexed why anyone would equate "battlefield" fighting with anything other than weapons fighting. When, in the history of mankind have men gone into battle unarmed?
> 
> There are those who might argue that there are times when empty hand techniques are useful when one "drops" a weapon. Why not just pick it up.
> 
> The whole discussion is predicated on an irrelevant scenario. In combat, onthe the battlefield, men have always fought with weapons. Period.



Its only the cravens who need cowardly tools like knives or guns or weapons to fight! We menly men  fight all our battles with our fists, feeling the cold steel of our foes get demolished by our hands, as they fall to the ground out of fear, yielding. But never shall we be known to take pity on those craven fools. We will beat them to death with their own legs, and everyone will konw we are the manliest men in all of mankind!


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I am continually perplexed why anyone would equate "battlefield" fighting with anything other than weapons fighting. When, in the history of mankind have men gone into battle unarmed?
> 
> There are those who might argue that there are times when empty hand techniques are useful when one "drops" a weapon. Why not just pick it up.
> 
> The whole discussion is predicated on an irrelevant scenario. In combat, onthe the battlefield, men have always fought with weapons. Period.




Then why are you even wasting your time with Karate or ninja weapons? Because my AK-47's and 30-50 round mags beats them all w/o breaking a sweat. Then there's my sidearm with 15-30 round mags.  Then my backup pistol with 10 round mags. 

This is why they don't spend too much time teaching soldiers how to fight H2H.  All military systems of the world have some form of "deadly" H2H system. This is no big deal. It's only a big deal when people make it so by marketing it to civilians as some kind of badass SD system and charge a lot for it. I'm pretty sure that the Isralis don't use Krav Maga vs. their enemies...what for when they have freaking assault weapons?


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> wait so you intentionally try to knock out your training partners when you spar?



Absolutely, it's fun.



> so you been to many battlefields where you just run around knocking people out?



It would be nice if you try to understand, in CONTEXT, what I was arguing.



> yeah ok
> 
> the one who doesnt think he can run around knock out people at will



Sorry getting KO'ed during training scares you. But try to read what I wrote in context. Thanks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Absolutely, it's fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand your CONTEXT.  And believe me I'm not frightened of being knocked out I've just never spared out of control like that I can land a shot in training without trying to knock out my friends that I train with.

Where do you train? I spent a lot of time in the PG county and DC area when I was an undercover Narcotics detective in that area assigned to a task force.  I'd love to come train with the DC officer you mentioned in some of your other posts.  He sounds like a good guy.  Heck I know a ton of officers in that area I may even know him since I'm not far from the Wheaton area. you can PM me if youd like id be interested in checking it out.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Absolutely, it's fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't say he was scared of getting KO'ed, just implying that he doesn't understand why you would. And he took your context, and just stated that you have no experience in what you claimed, unless you go around knocking people out on battlefields, which I honestly doubt. You stated that you don't need to be taught certain skills, he asked if you used those skills in the way you described, whats out of context there? Also do you really think anyone respects someone who enjoys people 'cowering in fear' towards them because of their mad pro skills at KOing everyone they see? In the gyms I've visited/trained in, that's not called being respectable, its called being a d-bag.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> I didnt mean to imply once would be enough - Did he maintain his grip and try to rinse and repeat, or did he just do it once?



This was a while ago when this head slamming into the concrete wall happened. I really can't remember exactly how many times he did it, even right after it happened as it really rocked my head and made things very cloudy right afterward. It may have been 2 consecutive times, but it was definitely him yanking my head towards him and then flinging it back into the concrete....while we were both swimming for the MT plum. It also probably contributed to my very serious concussion later, that kept me from training for over a month + 3 months more of not sparring. 



> *Shrugs* - I never said you werent proficient in anything. This isnt about you, mate. This is about MMA and combatives.
> What im saying is, if what youre saying is that simple (landing clean hits, technique, and so forth), why do you need knives and guns when you have the almighty modern sport fighting thatll beat untrained or army dudes head to head?



So you want me to fight against someone who may have a knife with only my MMA H2H yet having my own knife on my side and a concealed 9mm under my shirt?  This is crazy.



> Of course you can - So can an untrained meathead. And if he gets a good blow or stab in, no gun or knife in the world will save you.
> Give a midget a weapon and he can massacre the best fighter in the world.



Ok, but you're the guy who implied that I needed some of your fancy SD training otherwise an experienced MMA fighter won't have a chance in the street nor battlefield. I'm just arguing what you said.



> Sure - But im not sure that matters when youre getting stabbed out of nowhere.



What's the point of this comment when it applies to any type of training?



> So basically youre trying to say that because you have 2 years in BJJ, hed die horribly on the ground in a real fight?
> Training boosts your chances - Its not a guarantee.



Well this Brazilian gorilla in question that I was sparring in Boxing class last week, I've also sparred with in BJJ class before. So more than likely, yes, because I can submit him on the ground about once every 30 seconds if I really wanted to embarrass him. I don't though, because I'm not a penis... and do give him a chance as he's only a White belt in BJJ.  While standing up, for four rounds,....I couldn't KO him. I was busting him up & hurting him and certainly won on points, but he was no beginner in Boxing. If it were a fight to the death, I would definitely take it to the ground and not chance standing with him. 



> Actually, this is exactly where we agree. This has been my whole point. So, a soldier is fit, correct? An MMA fighter is fit, correct? Both of them have the mentality to get in there do it. Its person vs person. Not MMA vs Combatives. And much in the same way, 'untrained' people dont need to be taught any of the below either. Untrained doesnt mean retarded.



Being fit is good, but SOME of these active military guys who just joined our MMA gyms are also panting and wheezing during the warmup exercises just like most other noobs too sometimes. But even with being in excellent shape, it doesn't mean that they can fight. They get beat just like any other noobs. It's funny because a lot of these ACTIVE military guys, especially those in the Marines, special forces, Rangers, etc...usually tries to hide  their military affiliations until at least a year or so later of training. Why? Because there's so much public misconceptions about how badass they're supposed to be, that they feel somehow that they must live up to such expectations....but deep down inside, they know that they can't fight much better than the average bar brawler.  Or that if they do make known that they're a Marine, it would put targets on their backs and attract people who wants a chance to beat on Marines.

Now the Marines who are trained and/or experience MMA fighters, they have nothing to hide.



> Its not just MMA fighters who have it come to them automatically, want to knock the other guy the F out, hurt their opponent so bad they want to quit, beat someone down so they cower in fear, and feel good doing it. Thats a huge percentage of the population.
> 
> Again, this is my whole point. Were in agreement on the reasoning, but somehow your conclusion ends up being that sparring is the decisive factor, by the sounds of it.



Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm always arguing against you. A lot of times, I do agree with you and just adding on to it.

The reason that I think sparring hard for KO's is a decisive factor is because it routinely tests what you're made of. The fear, nervousness, exhaustion, pain, KO's, etc.... all contribute to becoming more proficient at fighting/SD.  We don't do it all the time, but quite frequently. Without a doubt, it was terrifying the very first time and many times after that for many months. After many years of this, I can certainly say that it does indeed build, REAL confidence. I'm a lot more relaxed now going into such sparring matches and ring/cage fights. There's still nerves and fear, especially going against Pro's whom I know will whoop me. I don't even fight in the ring that much, just lots of sparring and a good amount of full sparring for KO's. I really am, someone who's more geared towards preparing for the streets....which is why I have guns & knives in my EDC bag.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand your CONTEXT.  And believe me I'm not frightened of being knocked out I've just never spared out of control like that I can land a shot in training without trying to knock out my friends that I train with.



Look at your initial post directed towards me. It certainly was asking for flames (well, mild/controlled flames). C'mon man, what else did you think was going to happen 



> Where do you train? I spent a lot of time in the PG county and DC area when I was an undercover Narcotics detective in that area assigned to a task force.  I'd love to come train with the DC officer you mentioned in some of your other posts.  He sounds like a good guy.  Heck I know a ton of officers in that area I may even know him since I'm not far from the Wheaton area. you can PM me if youd like id be interested in checking it out.



I currently train in Rockville, MD.  Those cops that I mentioned, about sparring vs. them with a rubber knife, I no longer am with their gym...that was at a Traditional Jujutsu dojo, a very long time ago. They were big with "ending the confrontation in under 10 seconds"....I know lots about that schtick. 

My current gym is MMA and there's a few cops there. You're welcome to come by and train. Let me know and I'll get you in for free for a few classes if you like. Tuesdays & Thursdays I start boxing, 6-7pm and then Muay Thai 7-8:30pm.  Gear requirements are 16oz Boxing gloves, mouthguard, headgear and cup. Shinguards if you want to kick. I'll PM you the gym info.

There's sparring in both classes, especially the Boxing one. We can go from light to hard.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 25, 2012)

kempodisciple said:


> He didn't say he was scared of getting KO'ed, just implying that he doesn't understand why you would. And he took your context, and just stated that you have no experience in what you claimed, unless you go around knocking people out on battlefields, which I honestly doubt.  You stated that you don't need to be taught certain skills, he asked if  you used those skills in the way you described, whats out of context  there?



You also don't understand in context. *Cyriacus *does (for the most part) and I've been discussing this with him in length. Just read that as i don't feel like repeating.



> Also do you really think anyone respects someone who enjoys people 'cowering in fear' towards them because of their mad pro skills at KOing everyone they see? In the gyms I've visited/trained in, that's not called being respectable, its called being a d-bag.


 
I don't go around trying to KO everyone I spar with.  This is absurd. No gym would tolerate this crap. 

And yes, beating someone down in DESIGNATED, hard sparring sessions and especially in the ring/cage, certainly does indeed earn their respect.  It certainly does earns mine when I get beat down.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 25, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> You also don't understand in context. *Cyriacus *does (for the most part) and I've been discussing this with him in length. Just read that as i don't feel like repeating.


I have. Still the same response.





> I don't go around trying to KO everyone I spar with.  This is absurd. No gym would tolerate this crap.
> 
> And yes, beating someone down in DESIGNATED, hard sparring sessions and especially in the ring/cage, certainly does indeed earn their respect.  It certainly does earns mine when I get beat down.


I know its absurd, but thats how you made it sound. Its a bit better knowing that you dont do it every fight. Still tho, make them cower in fear? Isn't that a bit harsh? If you're so much better than them you make them cower from you, that obviously messes up their game, so why not try to go just a bit above their level (like you said you do with the bjj white belt), and go full out on the people at your level. The other way, they wont get anything out of it, outside of the idea 'i cant mess with you'.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> True that MMA lacks weapons training. I bet though, that with my fighting skills + a knife, I can use my boxing skills and footwork quite well in a knife on knife fight vs. a good FMA.


I could tell you've never stepped into a FMA gym. There's only one way to say this. Dream on. Seriously. If that scenario was for real, then you are getting cut, period.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> I could tell you've never stepped into a FMA gym. There's only one way to say this. Dream on. Seriously. If that scenario was for real, then you are getting cut, period.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


 
I could tell you don't know how fast I am and that there was an FMA instructor in my MMA gym. He's got a student who's also part of our MT fight team who I always beat in MT sparring, especially with my hands. He's got maybe 2 years of FMA but his handspeed and footwork is nowhere close to mine. 

And no kidding that I would get cut in a knife on knife fight to the death vs. an FMA guy, but he's getting cut too. There's nothing amazing about cutting someone, especially with even just a decent $50 knife....b/c all you have to do is slightly make contact to potentially cause massive damage.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

kempodisciple said:


> I have. Still the same response.
> 
> I know its absurd, but thats how you made it sound. Its a bit better knowing that you dont do it every fight.



It only sounded that way b/c you took it out of context.



> Still tho, make them cower in fear? Isn't that a bit harsh? If you're so much better than them you make them cower from you, that obviously messes up their game, so why not try to go just a bit above their level (like you said you do with the bjj white belt), and go full out on the people at your level. The other way, they wont get anything out of it, outside of the idea 'i cant mess with you'.



You misread what I wrote again.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> It only sounded that way b/c you took it out of context.



You misread what I wrote again.[/QUOTE]
How exactly am i misreading or taking out of context " Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good."
There was nothing in the sentences before or after it that relate to that sentence, so it was by itself to begin with..no context to be taken out of. And how have I misread it? If you're good enough to beat them down and make them cower in fear (and respect), then maybe they're the person you should go a bit easier on, not make them scared of the ring, or at least the ring with you in it. (If they're being an a-hole before hand and you want to teach them a lesson, thats one thing and ill accept that, but not as a general way of going about sparring people worse than you when sparring hard).


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> This was a while ago when this head slamming into the concrete wall happened. I really can't remember exactly how many times he did it, even right after it happened as it really rocked my head and made things very cloudy right afterward. It may have been 2 consecutive times, but it was definitely him yanking my head towards him and then flinging it back into the concrete....while we were both swimming for the MT plum. It also probably contributed to my very serious concussion later, that kept me from training for over a month + 3 months more of not sparring.



So, he put your head into it about two times. You got a serious concussion and couldnt train for 3 months further. So you would agree with my original statement that bouncing someones head off a solid surface is effective?
And would you also consider that you dont need to be trained in the arm of grabbing someones head and ramming it into something?



> So you want me to fight against someone who may have a knife with only my MMA H2H yet having my own knife on my side and a concealed 9mm under my shirt?  This is crazy.



I want you to be aware that you may not have a choice in the matter. But thats the difference between a fight and an assault.



> Ok, but you're the guy who implied that I needed some of your fancy SD training otherwise an experienced MMA fighter won't have a chance in the street nor battlefield. I'm just arguing what you said.



I did no such thing. Ive been trying to say that technical training isnt good for much. I can quote myself saying it if need be.
No matter how much training you have, it may not do you any good. And if thats implying you need fancy SD moves, then that isnt the implication i intended. I intended that the aggressor has the advantage, no matter how good you are.



> What's the point of this comment when it applies to any type of training?


 
Everything.



> Well this Brazilian gorilla in question that I was sparring in Boxing class last week, I've also sparred with in BJJ class before. So more than likely, yes, because I can submit him on the ground about once every 30 seconds if I really wanted to embarrass him. I don't though, because I'm not a penis... and do give him a chance as he's only a White belt in BJJ.  While standing up, for four rounds,....I couldn't KO him. I was busting him up & hurting him and certainly won on points, but he was no beginner in Boxing. If it were a fight to the death, I would definitely take it to the ground and not chance standing with him.



And in a real fight, are you going to ensure hes unarmed, before you take him to the ground? If so, how?
I did say real fight, after all.
Furthermore, in a real fight, how would you have known he was a boxer?



> Being fit is good, but SOME of these active military guys who just joined our MMA gyms are also panting and wheezing during the warmup exercises just like most other noobs too sometimes. But even with being in excellent shape, it doesn't mean that they can fight. They get beat just like any other noobs. It's funny because a lot of these ACTIVE military guys, especially those in the Marines, special forces, Rangers, etc...usually tries to hide  their military affiliations until at least a year or so later of training. Why? Because there's so much public misconceptions about how badass they're supposed to be, that they feel somehow that they must live up to such expectations....but deep down inside, they know that they can't fight much better than the average bar brawler.  Or that if they do make known that they're a Marine, it would put targets on their backs and attract people who wants a chance to beat on Marines.
> Now the Marines who are trained and/or experience MMA fighters, they have nothing to hide.



And we also agree on that.



> Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm always arguing against you. A lot of times, I do agree with you and just adding on to it.



I get that impression. I know that it can be difficult to have this kind of discussion without cutting back and forth.



> The reason that I think sparring hard for KO's is a decisive factor is because it routinely tests what you're made of. The fear, nervousness, exhaustion, pain, KO's, etc.... all contribute to becoming more proficient at fighting/SD.  We don't do it all the time, but quite frequently. Without a doubt, it was terrifying the very first time and many times after that for many months. After many years of this, I can certainly say that it does indeed build, REAL confidence. I'm a lot more relaxed now going into such sparring matches and ring/cage fights. There's still nerves and fear, especially going against Pro's whom I know will whoop me. I don't even fight in the ring that much, just lots of sparring and a good amount of full sparring for KO's. I really am, someone who's more geared towards preparing for the streets....which is why I have guns & knives in my EDC bag.



Weapons are indeed an advantage, but you dont need to be trained to stab someone.
And the 'context' of my entire point, is that the other guy does not need to be trained in order to successfully stab you. And your technique and skill and experience may prove useless if youre busy bleeding out and in pain because you may not have even seen the weapon until it was stuck in you, let alone known you were under attack.

Which comes back to my original point: Quality of Training > Technique, and Sports and Combatives are only as good as the people using them. And even excellent users shouldnt think that they cant be beaten by someone whos never been to a gym in their lives.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?



Don't you think there is a difference between someone training for months or years in a sport-focused martial art and then having to adapt quickly during a high stress situation to defend themselves and a person who has a background in the military joining a MMA (or other martial arts school and receiving training in that style? In the first case, the person needs to adapt on the fly for something that they may not have trained specifically to deal with while dealing with the physical and mental stress of the situation. In the second case you have a person taking the time specifically to study a style, its competition rules, techniques, etc. so they begin to transition from whatever they learned in the military to the sport style martial art. 

In other words, of course veterans are going to adapt to MMA training because that's what they're focused on doing. It's the reason for their training. On the other hand, it is _possible_ that a MMA practitioner will be able to adapt to a self defense* situation, and indeed all sport focused martial arts can instill skills that can come in handy during a fight, but the focus of the training in your example is different both in intent and time period.

*I dislike the term "self defense" here because the title of this thread specifies "battlefield" versions of a martial art. That, to me, implies something specifically geared to military combat. There are few modern martial arts that are specifically designed to be used by members of the military while in combat. And if they don't have the use of firearms (including things like heavy artillery) I'd personally be  hesitent to use the term "battlefield" in reference to them. But that's just me. YMMV

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

kempodisciple said:


> You misread what I wrote again.


How exactly am i misreading or taking out of context " Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good."
There was nothing in the sentences before or after it that relate to that sentence, so it was by itself to begin with..no context to be taken out of. And how have I misread it? If you're good enough to beat them down and make them cower in fear (and respect), then maybe they're the person you should go a bit easier on, not make them scared of the ring, or at least the ring with you in it. (If they're being an a-hole before hand and you want to teach them a lesson, thats one thing and ill accept that, but not as a general way of going about sparring people worse than you when sparring hard).[/QUOTE]

You didn't read it in context and need to read my post in its entirety to understand the context.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> So, he put your head into it about two times. You got a serious concussion and couldnt train for 3 months further.



It probably contributed to my getting that bad concussion, but I'm still not certain. We were all training for a coming tournament so hard sparring for KO's was 2-3 days per week during that period. I also trained w/o my headgear a few days too, which was not a mistake.



> So you would agree with my original statement that bouncing someones head off a solid surface is effective?



I never disagreed with this. I was the one who said that in a life or death situation, ie. on the battlefield, I would certainly stomp on someone's head and/or soccer kick it until their head caves in and brains oozes out all over the place. There's nothing to stop me, as an MMA fighter, from doing any of this in a war, was the point.



> And would you also consider that you dont need to be trained in the arm of grabbing someones head and ramming it into something?



Of course not. I never implied that such brute, animal instinctive methods doesn't work. But the main reason that this guy was able to surprise me like this with the head slamming during hard sparring was because he was also a trained fighter. We were both in the clinch and fighting for the plum control. If this was some untrained slob on the street or even many other types of TMA'ist, I would have already secured the dominant position of the MT plum and simultaneously throw knees to their body and face, drive, more knees, repeat.  The Muay Thai clinch in itself is a standalone science almost.



> I want you to be aware that you may not have a choice in the matter. But thats the difference between a fight and an assault.



Well obviously, instinct and muscle memory would kick in. An experienced sports fighter would have way better chances than someone who only trains by pretend-fighting.



> I did no such thing. Ive been trying to say that technical training isnt good for much. I can quote myself saying it if need be.
> No matter how much training you have, it may not do you any good. And if thats implying you need fancy SD moves, then that isnt the implication i intended. I intended that the aggressor has the advantage, no matter how good you are.



Which still goes back to the crux of my argument, which is an experienced sports fighter will still be better equipped due to having been pressure tested regularly under real conditions of duress (as possible) through sparring for full KO's. 



> Everything.



Nothing.



> And in a real fight, are you going to ensure hes unarmed, before you take him to the ground? If so, how?
> I did say real fight, after all.
> Furthermore, in a real fight, how would you have known he was a boxer?



Now you're just going into fantasy LARPING mode. There are many strategies as a fighter. There's no exact mapping out and crap. You questioned my strategy vs. this SPECIFIC Brazilian guy that I train with. I answered you, but now you're changing the scenario by implying that you meant all along that it was a fight between me and a complete stranger, to the death and crap. C'mon, haha....give it a rest.

But to answer your role playing, online martial art scenario LARPING question, my general fight strategy is to do what I'm best at first...which is to try to knock him out standing up....and if that's not working out  and especially if I'm getting my *** kicked....I would take it to the ground and try to choke him or at least break a limb. Then we go from there.  

And on the street, I'm definitely not going to start out by grappling anyone, that's just crazy.



> Weapons are indeed an advantage, but you dont need to be trained to stab someone.
> And the 'context' of my entire point, is that the other guy does not need to be trained in order to successfully stab you. And your technique and skill and experience may prove useless if youre busy bleeding out and in pain because you may not have even seen the weapon until it was stuck in you, let alone known you were under attack.



Yea, a sniper can also blow my head off from 3 football fields away, rendering all chopsocky, ninja training useless....what's your point again?



> Which comes back to my original point: Quality of Training > Technique, and Sports and Combatives are only as good as the people using them. And even excellent users shouldnt think that they cant be beaten by someone whos never been to a gym in their lives.



I never argued against any of these points. Especially against the last one, which is an all or nothing, definitive one.  My point has always been that training and fighting in MMA will better equip a person for H2H combat situations over most other styles, especially the TMA ones. But always carry at least a knife and a gun, whenever possible/legal. 

I'm all for cross training. That's why I shadowbox with my knives. I go to the range to get better at shooting. I'll even train the SD wrist grabbing and finger locking TMA stuff once in a while. I have about a year's worth of such dedicated training in a traditional Jujutsu joint that was mostly all about SD. They just got ridiculous when they keep boasting about how "real life" they were compared to MMA yet won't allow me to punch my sparring partner in the face hard (repeatedly) while he's trying to grab my wrist to pull a ninja-move during sparring. And I'd rather not waste my time doing lots of fluffy TMA kata and tap sparring when it's a lot more effective (and fun) to actually try to KO someone out for real.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Don't you think there is a difference between someone training for months or years in a sport-focused martial art and then having to adapt quickly during a high stress situation to defend themselves and a person who has a background in the military joining a MMA (or other martial arts school and receiving training in that style? In the first case, the person needs to adapt on the fly for something that they may not have trained specifically to deal with while dealing with the physical and mental stress of the situation. In the second case you have a person taking the time specifically to study a style, its competition rules, techniques, etc. so they begin to transition from whatever they learned in the military to the sport style martial art.



How do you think soldiers are trained before they go to war? They stab dummies or pretend stab with rubber knives. They pretend eye gouge, pretend nut-strike, etc. Then when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, do they even use any of these deadly chopsocky skills? Hell no, they just blast the enemies with their M4's and call in for air support. We are not living in single-shot musket times anymore, when it was highly likely that a battle will turn into an all out bloodlust, bayonet stabfest where both sides charges each other like in Braveheart. Soldiers nowadays just pulls the trigger, which explains why they suck at H2H fighting when come to our gym. 



> In other words, of course veterans are going to adapt to MMA training because that's what they're focused on doing. It's the reason for their training. On the other hand, it is _possible_ that a MMA practitioner will be able to adapt to a self defense* situation, and indeed all sport focused martial arts can instill skills that can come in handy during a fight, but the focus of the training in your example is different both in intent and time period.



I guess you've never served nor trained with many vets. Many joined the military because the brightest thing in their future was a career in fast foods. The military pays their way, sends them off to an adventure.....women and young boys tingles when they see them in uniform and people who never fought before, thinks that being a Marine automatically makes them a badass fighter. A lot of them are just a bunch of 18-25 year old numbnuts .....like any other garden variety, 18-25 year numbnuts (before and after their service). The reason that they adapt so well into whatever MMA gym they're getting their butts whooped at is because most of them never actually fought H2H on the battlefield before, EVER. They've only pretend fight. And they don't even train H2H that much...because why? They have M4's, 200+ rounds of ammo each, grenades and a radio to call in air strike.  My cousin is a Marine LT. who signed up for 3 tours in Iraq, because he loved shooting people. And he did a lot of house to house, urban combat too. But on the MMA mat, he's just another noob. The US military is even starting to bring in MMA....because punching and  kicking your opponent in the face has always worked, anywhere.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...net-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13619825

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-90168/SAS-heroes-win-VCs.html

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/20...y-in-hand-to-hand-combat-receives-navy-cross/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/640573/posts

Of course 'nobody fights hand to hand these days', roflmao. Of course they do. Always nice to see such respect for the Armed Forces though, yeah that was sarcastic.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> How do you think soldiers are trained before they go to war? They stab dummies or pretend stab with rubber knives. They pretend eye gouge, pretend nut-strike, etc. Then when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, do they even use any of these deadly chopsocky skills? Hell no, they just blast the enemies with their M4's and call in for air support. We are not living in single-shot musket times anymore, when it was highly likely that a battle will turn into an all out bloodlust, bayonet stabfest where both sides charges each other like in Braveheart. Soldiers nowadays just pulls the trigger, which explains why they suck at H2H fighting when come to our gym.



 I think you kind of missed my point. 



> I guess you've never served nor trained with many vets.



 Actually, I have trained with a number of servicemen, some vets and some who are currently in the military.



> Many joined the military because the brightest thing in their future was a career in fast foods. The military pays their way, sends them off to an adventure.....women and young boys tingles when they see them in uniform and people who never fought before, thinks that being a Marine automatically makes them a badass fighter. A lot of them are just a bunch of 18-25 year old numbnuts .....like any other garden variety, 18-25 year numbnuts (before and after their service). The reason that they adapt so well into whatever MMA gym they're getting their butts whooped at is because most of them never actually fought H2H on the battlefield before, EVER. They've only pretend fight. And they don't even train H2H that much...because why? They have M4's, 200+ rounds of ammo each, grenades and a radio to call in air strike. My cousin is a Marine LT. who signed up for 3 tours in Iraq, because he loved shooting people. And he did a lot of house to house, urban combat too. *But on the MMA mat, he's just another noob.* The US military is even starting to bring in MMA....because punching and kicking your opponent in the face has always worked, anywhere.



Again, I think you didn't really pay attention to what I posted because the part of your post I highlighted basically agrees with me. As I said before, the difference between a member of the military joining a MMA school and a MMA practitioner defending themselves on the "battlefield" is that the military man joining the MMA school is going to have a lot of time to adjust to the situation. They will start out a novice and gradually progress in experience and develop skills for what they will likely encounter during a MMA match. A MMA fighter, on the other hand, will not go through the same kind of training to deal with a self-defense situation and have to adjust on the fly. That doesn't mean they will be unable to defned themselves (as I already pointed out), just that there will be a difference between the two situations.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> I think you kind of missed my point.
> 
> Again, I think you didn't really pay attention to what I posted because the part of your post I highlighted basically agrees with me.



Your post was pretty confusing. But thanks for clearing it up, I understand it better now.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Your post was pretty confusing. But thanks for clearing it up, I understand it better now.



Well, I basically repeated two points twice in different ways so I apologize if that was hard for you to follow.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## rainesr (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy  an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only  had H2H training through his military system.



This quote sums up my opinion. If you take away all the deadly tools available to the battlefield trained soldier and play my sport I will win. Not exactly surprising. Now take a fully armed military unit and have a similar sized group of experienced MMA fighters go at it in an actual battlefield and see who lives.
Bye bye experienced MMA fighters. I think this would stand for most any era or culture unless soldiers were still at the rock throwing stage.

I don't think there are many, if any, arts being taught in a way that would qualify them as battlefield (for any era) arts outside the military.

I have kickboxed, been attacked, and have been shot at in the field. Not one of those situations are the same. MMA does not prepare you for the latter two, MMA is designed to prepare you to participate in a consensual match, certainly not war. Nearly zero TMA schools deal with them either, if they do the instructor probably has acquired some knowledge from somewhere other than a TMA school.

I have found that the fitter and more experienced person will generally win a fight. In a premeditated attack the better prepared for that encounter generally wins, this is almost always the attacker. It has much less to do with what MA you take.

~Rob


----------



## Cyriacus (Dec 26, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> It probably contributed to my getting that bad concussion, but I'm still not certain. We were all training for a coming tournament so hard sparring for KO's was 2-3 days per week during that period. I also trained w/o my headgear a few days too, which was not a mistake.



*nods*



> I never disagreed with this. I was the one who said that in a life or death situation, ie. on the battlefield, I would certainly stomp on someone's head and/or soccer kick it until their head caves in and brains oozes out all over the place. There's nothing to stop me, as an MMA fighter, from doing any of this in a war, was the point.



And theres nothing stopping someone whos never trained a day in their life from doing it, because its very simple and requires no skill is mine.



> Of course not. I never implied that such brute, animal instinctive methods doesn't work. But the main reason that this guy was able to surprise me like this with the head slamming during hard sparring was because he was also a trained fighter. We were both in the clinch and fighting for the plum control. If this was some untrained slob on the street or even many other types of TMA'ist, I would have already secured the dominant position of the MT plum and simultaneously throw knees to their body and face, drive, more knees, repeat.  The Muay Thai clinch in itself is a standalone science almost.



Its a standalone science if studied. But where we seem to be disagreeing seems to come down to technique. Youre under the impression that because youre trained, you can dominate in the situations youre trained for. Im under the impression that training isnt as helpful as you do.
We may have to agree to disagree if thats the case.



> Well obviously, instinct and muscle memory would kick in. An experienced sports fighter would have way better chances than someone who only trains by pretend-fighting.



So, instinct would kick after he hits you from behind?



> Which still goes back to the crux of my argument, which is an experienced sports fighter will still be better equipped due to having been pressure tested regularly under real conditions of duress (as possible) through sparring for full KO's.



I didnt disagree with that.



> Nothing.



I dont think youre getting the context of my message.



> Now you're just going into fantasy LARPING mode. There are many strategies as a fighter. There's no exact mapping out and crap. You questioned my strategy vs. this SPECIFIC Brazilian guy that I train with. I answered you, but now you're changing the scenario by implying that you meant all along that it was a fight between me and a complete stranger, to the death and crap. C'mon, haha....give it a rest.
> 
> But to answer your role playing, online martial art scenario LARPING question, my general fight strategy is to do what I'm best at first...which is to try to knock him out standing up....and if that's not working out  and especially if I'm getting my *** kicked....I would take it to the ground and try to choke him or at least break a limb. Then we go from there.
> 
> And on the street, I'm definitely not going to start out by grappling anyone, that's just crazy.



I genuinely cant tell if that was meant to be insulting or not.
My point is, youre trained in grappling. That doesnt mean you automatically win a grappling match with someone less experienced.



> Yea, a sniper can also blow my head off from 3 football fields away, rendering all chopsocky, ninja training useless....what's your point again?



My point is, as ive said, that youre placing too high a value on technique.
You also seem to place a good value on experience, which is fine.



> I never argued against any of these points. Especially against the last one, which is an all or nothing, definitive one.  My point has always been that training and fighting in MMA will better equip a person for H2H combat situations over most other styles, especially the TMA ones. But always carry at least a knife and a gun, whenever possible/legal.
> 
> I'm all for cross training. That's why I shadowbox with my knives. I go to the range to get better at shooting. I'll even train the SD wrist grabbing and finger locking TMA stuff once in a while. I have about a year's worth of such dedicated training in a traditional Jujutsu joint that was mostly all about SD. They just got ridiculous when they keep boasting about how "real life" they were compared to MMA yet won't allow me to punch my sparring partner in the face hard (repeatedly) while he's trying to grab my wrist to pull a ninja-move during sparring. And I'd rather not waste my time doing lots of fluffy TMA kata and tap sparring when it's a lot more effective (and fun) to actually try to KO someone out for real.



And as seems to be weirdly regular, we disagree on almost everything except the conclusion.
If you think what i said above was martial arts larping, why on earth does it completely support everything you just said?


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 26, 2012)

rainesr said:


> This quote sums up my opinion. If you take away all the deadly tools available to the battlefield trained soldier and play my sport I will win.



This is absurd, or did you know of any venue where they will legally allow 2 people fight to the death with weapons to prove who's better. Well do you?



> Not exactly surprising. Now take a fully armed military unit and have a similar sized group of experienced MMA fighters go at it in an actual battlefield and see who lives.
> Bye bye experienced MMA fighters. I think this would stand for most any era or culture unless soldiers were still at the rock throwing stage.



Uh no kidding, no one is disputing that a trained soldier is more capable in a firefight. 



> I don't think there are many, if any, arts being taught in a way that would qualify them as battlefield (for any era) arts outside the military.



Then why does the military contracts out to martial artists and now, MMA schools to come in and teach their soldiers? 



> I have kickboxed, been attacked, and have been shot at in the field. Not one of those situations are the same. MMA does not prepare you for the latter two, MMA is designed to prepare you to participate in a consensual match, certainly not war. Nearly zero TMA schools deal with them either, if they do the instructor probably has acquired some knowledge from somewhere other than a TMA school.



You have a rifle, that's what the military focus most of your training on, not H2H. This explains why you guys aren't very good H2H fighters unless you have other training.



> I have found that the fitter and more experienced person will generally win a fight. In a premeditated attack the better prepared for that encounter generally wins, this is almost always the attacker. It has much less to do with what MA you take.
> 
> ~Rob



There are way too many variables for you to make such blanket assumptions.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2012)

How on earth did we get to the point in this thread of compararing MMA fighters to soldiers on a flipping battlefield? I shouldn't think any type of martial artist will survive on a 'battlefield'. Btw are we talking medieval, Napoleonic or First/Second World war or is the OP being overly melodramatic and actually means an assault or mugging on a modern street?
MMA is a sport, it's what it says on the tin ...a mixture of martial arts styles. It's been going longer than people think and now in our modern time has rules for competition. MMA people are competitors, some are amateur, some pursue it as a career/job. It's still a competition, get higher up in the organisations that promote fights and it's something that give you a good living, for the rest it's a hobby, a sport, a way of enjoying their martial arts. Many amateurs ie those not being paid loads of money just a purse and expenses fight pro rules, they however maintain a professinal and sportsmanlike attitude both in the cage and out. Saying that you like to see people cowering in fear after you knock them down is either empty boasts or  bad sportsmanship, most fighters know it could just as easily have been the other way round unless of course you are deliberately fighting people who are well below you in weight and experience which of course is bullying. 
MMA is one part of MA, this thread got to the point it has by someone thinking MMA fighers can survive on a 'battlefield', they can't, no more than any other unarmed 'combatant' can. In fact the proposition that any martial artist can survive on one is more than silly.
Now to the military, here bayonet practice is a mandatory part of the infantry soldiers training for a number of reasons, it's an aggression drill, you can here them start off quietly running and stabbing the dummy as they get in to it they are screaming and stabbing the dummy repeatedly. There's similiar drills in MA to get people to summon up aggression quickly. the ability to fight with a bayonet is a useful one as events in Afghanistan have shown. Hand to hand fighting is taught in infantry training, it's basic ofc ourse but iis taught to show recruits they may have to fight this way. 'Milling' is done in the Para Regt training here, where recruits box each other, the way they box doesn't matter, it's the not backing down and the bravery shown that lets them pass the infamous P company. 
soldiers if they have to fight hand to hand will do what is in all of us when our lives or those of our loved ones are in danger, they will fight literally tooth and nail, it's inside us to do this, it's not stifled by rules of competition or martial arts stylistic requirements. Those with martial arts skills will have techniques in their muscle memory but they will enhanced by the 'will to live' part that in us. A Judo player who's used to throwing will throw but carry through with strikes his style doesn't have, he will do this because he want's to be the one to survive. As surely we all do. No one is these situation is cool headed and calm the way fighters are in the films. Something primeval takes over, the instinct for survival.
In the UK MMA and all other martial arts are sports, no one is employed by the military to teach martial arts.Boxing has always been very populart here with regimental teams competeting against each other regularly. We started our martial arts club on the Garrison nearly 13 years ago, the army have giving us accomodation which saves a lot of money and we've had grants for equpment but we aren't paid to teach MMA to soldiers, it's a sport and we have martial arts studetns just like anywhere else. It's not a military club in that we take civilians as well including some pro fighters. The military value sports for what it teaches and engenders...teamwork,leadership values, fitness and in martial arts _controlled_ aggression along with good sportsmanship. Its an outlet when boredom could set in as in Afghan and the Falklands. Genghis Khan who's soldiers fought on horseback had his troops wrestle as part of their training for all the reasons the modern military use martial arts, rugby, football etc now.
I love MMA but really all this boasting about it being the only effective style is nonsense, think what it's made up from, full contact fighers can be found in other styles, there's still full contact karate comps around. You cannot or should not at any rate take one person's boastful writing as being the sum of MMA, we are trying to get away from the portrayal of MMA as the thug in the Tapout vest, those who truly love MMA want it to be seen on the level with bozing, not replace it btw, for it to be seen as a respectable sport that people both want to watch and train in. It's not ineffective for self defence purposes, it's not a tippy tappy style but it is great fun and great training for whatever you want...which frankly a lot of styles are, it's finding the right style for you and forgetting these ridiculous arguments for what is best on the 'battlefield' something that the sheer horror of is a situation I hope none of us ever have to face.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2012)

When the OP used the word 'battlefield' did you imagine this?












Can anyone actually imagine a martial art using his art here, really?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> How on earth did we get to the point in this thread of compararing MMA fighters to soldiers on a flipping battlefield? I shouldn't think any type of martial artist will survive on a 'battlefield'. Btw are we talking medieval, Napoleonic or First/Second World war or is the OP being overly melodramatic and actually means an assault or mugging on a modern street?
> MMA is a sport, it's what it says on the tin ...a mixture of martial arts styles. It's been going longer than people think and now in our modern time has rules for competition. MMA people are competitors, some are amateur, some pursue it as a career/job. It's still a competition, get higher up in the organisations that promote fights and it's something that give you a good living, for the rest it's a hobby, a sport, a way of enjoying their martial arts. Many amateurs ie those not being paid loads of money just a purse and expenses fight pro rules, they however maintain a professinal and sportsmanlike attitude both in the cage and out. Saying that you like to see people cowering in fear after you knock them down is either empty boasts or  bad sportsmanship, most fighters know it could just as easily have been the other way round unless of course you are deliberately fighting people who are well below you in weight and experience which of course is bullying.
> MMA is one part of MA, this thread got to the point it has by someone thinking MMA fighers can survive on a 'battlefield', they can't, no more than any other unarmed 'combatant' can. In fact the proposition that any martial artist can survive on one is more than silly.
> Now to the military, here bayonet practice is a mandatory part of the infantry soldiers training for a number of reasons, it's an aggression drill, you can here them start off quietly running and stabbing the dummy as they get in to it they are screaming and stabbing the dummy repeatedly. There's similiar drills in MA to get people to summon up aggression quickly. the ability to fight with a bayonet is a useful one as events in Afghanistan have shown. Hand to hand fighting is taught in infantry training, it's basic ofc ourse but iis taught to show recruits they may have to fight this way. 'Milling' is done in the Para Regt training here, where recruits box each other, the way they box doesn't matter, it's the not backing down and the bravery shown that lets them pass the infamous P company.
> ...


Thank you Tez.

How did we get to the comparing? From the original questions?


> What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?



Tez, yours was an excellent post.
As I stated I have been in both environments (battlefield and ring) It can not be compared. One can only question themselves as to how they would act.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2012)

Thank you Danny.

The OP mentioned 'certain martial arts' which have a battlefield version which I take to mean arts which involve specific weapons such as swords and the various staffs not the 'empty hand' martial arts which weren't designed for the battlefield but rather civil self defence. Any style that now uses gloves, mats etc would have had no place then in any training for war.
 There is no style of martial art that doesn't involve weapons that would have actually been used specifically on the 'battlefield'. Any martial arts training would have been incidental not specific for going to war. 
MMA wasn't designed for military fighting nor were it's component parts. The conversation here then should have been confined to arts which do actually have a history of being used in a battle. Few places these days used such weapons in war, though I was disturbed a bit when my Gurkha shift partner informed me that in the very isolated parts of Nepal some villages still attack and fight each other using swords and kukris. As we've seen hand to hand fighting while thankfully rare still can happen in places like Afghanistan, officers do have swords in the British military but they aren't carried to war, well apart from Jack Churchill in World War Two but he was exceptional in many ways

So how would those who do arts that have had a battlefield use be compared to the 'old days'?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 27, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> And an experienced fighter will clobber the average, other soldier, if all he's got is some basic H2H training.



Okay, and an experienced soldier will clobber the average fighter.  It's apples and oranges because the evironmental factors are vastly different.  The original question is whether sport training is good for the battlefield.  It isn't.  It can be detrimental.  



> But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?



You're being argumentative and silly.  Under stress, people will react to the level of their training.  That is a fact that is well know in both sport and non-sport venues.  As the saying goes, people don't rise to the occassion, they sink to the level of their training.  That can be a positve or a negative.  And again, that is verified with quite a bit of research, particularly in the military and law enforcement community.  A simple search on the internet will provide a plethora of examples of training succeeding and failing in the real world.  Just one example, Royce Gracie use to teach at our regional training center (SEPSI).  The high liability coordinator was enamored with UF.  Royce began traing BJJ just as he would to any competitor.  Officers began complaining because hardly any of the material was usable.  He then switched material.  It was more usable, but again, not much.  He was simply out of his depth.  He didn't know the requirements of the job.  I haven't seen him in years now.  That HL coordinator is gone and now we have had over a decade of people like Tony Blauer, Ken Good, Peter Boatman (RIP), Tony Lambria, Hunan Yadin etc teaching combatives that work.  

Doesn't mean Royce's material sucks or he's a bad instructor.  Far from it.  But it simply was the wrong venue for this material.  Conversely, material like SPEAR, PCR etc is the wrong material for competition.  You'd be DQ'd in a heart beat because it doesn't conform to a rule set.  



> Then there are the MANY, MANY, MANY soldiers, special forces, cops, etc. in the MMA gyms. Many are champion title holders in MMA, etc. yet have been in combat training and in actual combat. Do you think they can't differentiate the two?



Absolutely yes!  No sane officer goes to the ground with the intention of going for the arm bar or cross-body mount.  No sane officer tries to spin kick a guy in the head.  No sane officer keeps his hands down during an altercation.  No sane officer relys on time outs, tap outs, water breaks etc during an altercation.  Two different venues with two very different requirements in training.  



> Obviously a weapon is going to give someone the advantage over their opponent w/o one. What's the point in arguing this?



Because it demonstrates the difference in the venues as well as the requirements needed.



> A fight is a fight is a fight, to me



And this is the point to understand, it isn't.  Different venues, different requirements, different objectives.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Okay, and an experienced soldier will clobber the average fighter.  It's apples and oranges because the evironmental factors are vastly different.



The average, experienced solider....say a vet from Iraq or Afghanistan, never even fought hand to hand on the battlefield, nor did they even swung their rifles nor stab someone with their bayonets. They shoot their rifles, not go around chopsockying. This is why they are just like any other White belts when they join our MMA gym.



> The original question is whether sport training is good for the battlefield.  It isn't.  It can be detrimental.



Sports training in MMA is more rigorous than what the military teaches for H2H. The military doesn't even spend that much time focusing on H2H because the rifle is the primary weapon. Soldiers just go through some basic H2H training and stabbing at dummies. How is this even close to MMA training?



> You're being argumentative and silly.  Under stress, people will react to the level of their training.  That is a fact that is well know in both sport and non-sport venues.



You're the one who's silly because you've obviously never fought to know what it's like when someone is beating the crap out of you and you can't run anywhere. The average soldier doesn't go through any of this on the battlefield. They shoot it out. 

There are plenty of soldiers in our gym can't fight worth a squat and some are scared to death of getting hit hard in the face. Many don't even dare come into Boxing class because it's usually sparring for KO's in there.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> I never even implied such. Training helps, it's better than nothing. Like pretend-fighting in SD class, certainly is better than nothing.  Training and being experienced in fighting is much better.  Trying to really KO someone on a regular basis as part of training, is such experience. But it's not guaranteed to prevail in every situation....just gives you a much better chance of winning.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 27, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Sports training in MMA is more rigorous than what the military teaches for H2H. The military doesn't even spend that much time focusing on H2H because the rifle is the primary weapon. Soldiers just go through some basic H2H training and stabbing at dummies. How is this even close to MMA training?



Again, you're comparing apples and oranges.  We're talking about one training methodology being used for a different venue.  Has nothing to do with how rigorous the training is or isn't.  You're proving my point every time you mention the weapons that are used and the environments they are used in and during.  MMA sport training doesn't cover this because that isn't part of the MMA venue or training methodology.  I don't know any other way to explain it.  MMA training isn't sufficient for a soldier, officer or private citizen if and when the goal is killing the enemy or self-defense.



> You're the one who's silly because you've obviously never fought to know what it's like when someone is beating the crap out of you and you can't run anywhere.



You're making this comment to someone you've never met, nor know their qualifications or level of experience.  If you did you'd know how 'silly' your statement is.  :uhohh:


----------



## Danny T (Dec 27, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> ...nor did they even swung their rifles nor stab someone with their bayonets. They shoot their rifles, not go around chopsockying.


You are correct many didn't, however you are incorrect in that many did. I was involved in helping training groups going into Iraq who were training for house to house urban warfare. We trained these in the use of the bolo. The first person on an entry carried a bolo. Haven't seen any bolos at the more than 300 MMA bouts I've witness. Not as yet. Oh that's right bladed weapons aren't used in MMA. 




> Sports training in MMA is more rigorous than what the military teaches for H2H. The military doesn't even spend that much time focusing on H2H because the rifle is the primary weapon. Soldiers just go through some basic H2H training and stabbing at dummies. How is this even close to MMA training?


Correct again that is why the training is different and specific.



> They shoot it out.


That is also correct and again the training is designed for that type of fighting. It is fighting non the less. 



> There are plenty of soldiers in our gym can't fight worth a squat and some are scared to death of getting hit hard in the face.


Oh they can fight; it's just that they are trained to fight in a different manner and on a modern day battlefield. As to getting hit in the face. I don't know anyone and I mean I don't know anyone who likes it or really enjoys getting hit in the face. It something we simply have learned to take as a part of the training.



> Many don't even dare come into Boxing class because it's usually sparring for KO's in there.


 I wouldn't either! Sparring is not about KOs. If your sparring is causing KO's that part of the training is foolish. Sparring should be hard yet controlled, there are injuries in training but causing KO's causes the fighter to not be able to train due to concussions. Anyway, this is for another discussion.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 28, 2012)

The difference between battlefield arts and sporting arts are that the strategies and tactics are deveoped for different reasons. Techniques can be pretty much the same, but martial arts are not about techniques. Sport fighting is in a controlled environment and the strategies for winning in competitions are limited because of it. In the battlefield and in self defense there are less limitations on how you can engage the enemy or what your objectives are because they will not be predefined. 
In sports you and your opponent play the same game with things being as fair as possible. Similar weight, agreed upon rules, similar experiences and so on. On the battlefield the goal is to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible and make the fight as one sided as possible. There are huge differences between the two.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 29, 2012)

Danny T said:


> You are correct many didn't, however you are incorrect in that many did. I was involved in helping training groups going into Iraq who were training for house to house urban warfare. We trained these in the use of the bolo. The first person on an entry carried a bolo. Haven't seen any bolos at the more than 300 MMA bouts I've witness. Not as yet. Oh that's right bladed weapons aren't used in MMA.



Most didn't even use it because they shot them instead. It's absurd to bring in weapon if it's discussing about H2H. No one is disputing that a weapon gives someone a huge advantage. 



> Correct again that is why the training is different and specific.



That's why they suck H2H when coming into our MMA gym.



> That is also correct and again the training is designed for that type of fighting. It is fighting non the less.



No one is disputing this. It's just ridiculous to bring in weapons in a H2H argument. Some pushing buttons to launch missiles or even nukes don't even need to train anything physical yet still beat any soldiers on the field easily.



> Oh they can fight; it's just that they are trained to fight in a different manner and on a modern day battlefield. As to getting hit in the face. I don't know anyone and I mean I don't know anyone who likes it or really enjoys getting hit in the face. It something we simply have learned to take as a part of the training.



Well you just admitted that you don't spar hard for KO's then, because it really is enjoyable and part of the fun to get hit hard in the face.



> I wouldn't either! Sparring is not about KOs. If your sparring is causing KO's that part of the training is foolish. Sparring should be hard yet controlled, there are injuries in training but causing KO's causes the fighter to not be able to train due to concussions. Anyway, this is for another discussion.



Ok, so you're afraid to spar hard for KO's, that's fine. I'm not surprised based on your responses. We wear headgear. Yes, concussions do happen. This is part of being a fighter. You're more of a health & fitness and maybe some Asian fetish-type martial artist. I respect that. Just don't try to tell me how we shouldn't be sparring for KO's when you're not a fighter. Obviously you've never been in an MMA fighting gym. Heck, boxers have been sparring for KO's REGULARLY.....forever now and way before the UFC or MMA hit the scene.  This is nothing unusual. Yet people who never fought before usually freak out when I purposefully use this phrase, "sparring for KO's". 

This is average sparring in Boxing right here.....and this is LA Boxing, where it's mostly overweight women who comes in to hit the bag (sloppily)  set to music, not even a hardcore Boxing gym.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 29, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, you're comparing apples and oranges.  We're talking about one training methodology being used for a different venue.  Has nothing to do with how rigorous the training is or isn't.  You're proving my point every time you mention the weapons that are used and the environments they are used in and during.  MMA sport training doesn't cover this because that isn't part of the MMA venue or training methodology.  I don't know any other way to explain it.  MMA training isn't sufficient for a soldier, officer or private citizen if and when the goal is killing the enemy or self-defense.



No, it's waste of time to train a soldier in MMA when they've got assault weapons. Although the military is actually bringing in some MMA. 

Fighting is fighting. The average soldier also sucks with their stabbing and clubbing weapon (which is usually just their field knife or rifle + bayonet) compared to a trained Martial Artist also.

This is my point, the military doesn't waste a lot of time training soldiers H2H because they've got their freakin' assault rifle with 200+ rounds of ammo.....which is why they suck at it compared to an experienced MMA fighters.  With bayonets, they'll lose to a skilled fat guy who's experienced with piercing weapons too.










 


> You're making this comment to someone you've never met, nor know their qualifications or level of experience.  If you did you'd know how 'silly' your statement is.  :uhohh:



I go by what you post and what you post exposes many truths.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 29, 2012)

I see we are going with the old scriptwriters adage here 'when you're on shaky ground get loud'. of course Mz is the only one who knows anything about anything, we should I suppose all salute him for his sagacity and wisdom. 
Attacking the poster as being the one who knows nothing isn't new, isn't even clever and doesn't even raise a smile, more a shake of the head and a sigh.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> That's why they suck H2H when coming into our MMA gym.
> 
> The average soldier also sucks with their stabbing and clubbing weapon...
> 
> ...which is why they suck at it compared to an experienced MMA fighters.



Your limited experience in no way qualifies you to stereotype soldiers.  And yet once again, you've missed the point entirely.  Rather than a snotty reply, you need to open your mind to the experiences of others on this board even if they are not in agreement with you.  You like MMA, we get that.  Nothing wrong with that.  But your testosterone induced rage isn't backed up my any practical experience and/or understanding of the topic in this thread.  


> It's absurd to bring in weapon if it's discussing about H2H.



This discussion isn't about H2H.  It is about a sport martial art being sufficient for a soldier in the battlefield (and by extension an officer and a private citizen for self-defense).  As such, weapons HAVE to be brought into the discussion because that is a necessary tool for the battlefield that MMA doesn't cover.  This doesn't diminish MMA.  It just isn't the training it provides.  

You go on and on about how tough you are.  Hey, that's great.  But being tough in a controlled, weapon-free environment with an opponent that has to abide by the same rules as you, and you get a nice break every so often, and a pep talk and advice, and can tap out if it gets a little too tough for you is quite a bit different from the battlefield or the street.  If you can't understand that at this point then you're not here to learn, you're here to argue a flawed opinion.



> No, it's waste of time to train a soldier in MMA when they've got assault weapons.



Yep.  But since tools (i.e. weapons) can fail AND since CQC is part of the occupation (which has been explained to you in this thread) then H2H is necessary for the soldier.  It doesn't need to be complicated, just effective.  And statistically speaking, it is very effective.  WWII combatives, as explained to you before, is possibly 'the' most effective H2H system ever devised.  Simple, quick, gross motor skilled, retained in long term memory and bloody brutal.  Would it work in MMA?  Nope, doesn't abide by artificial rule sets.



> This is my point, the military doesn't waste a lot of time training  soldiers H2H because they've got their freakin' assault rifle with 200+  rounds of ammo.....



They don't have to waste their time.  What they train in doesn't take a lot of time to learn.  Ask a Marine that's gone through the belt program.


> I go by what you post and what you post exposes many truths.



Thanks, I think.  I post my experience.  And since what I teach works in the real world, for military, police, corrections, E.P. Agents and private citizens I'd say that gives me some perspective you should listen to.  And there are quite a few members in this thread that have a plethora of experience on all sides that have tried to provide food for thought to you.  Whether you actually consider their experience or not is up to you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 29, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> That's why they suck H2H when coming into our MMA gym.


they suck at MMA rules fighting. there is a difference between fighting by the rules and fighting for your life. Now you may spar as close to reality as you can but as you already said you cant fight to the death at the dojo. I think thats where thedisconnect I have with what your saying is. Even in super agressive sparring there ae others around to make sure nobody dies. you dont do things like bite or claw at someones eyes or genitals they are against the rules but are expected in h2h fights to the death whiich is what combat is about. 





> Ok, so you're afraid to spar hard for KO's, that's fine. I'm not surprised based on your responses. We wear headgear. Yes, concussions do happen. This is part of being a fighter. You're more of a health & fitness and maybe some Asian fetish-type martial artist. I respect that.


here again is where i think your being a little extream. just because people dont spar for the KO does not mean they are afraid. I dont spar like that because I dont need too I know I can KO someone, I dont need to prove it to anyone in training. Plus I dont want to be knocked out it hurts I have a real job I go to the next day. Do accidents happen sure have I gotten hurt training yep it happens but no need to try to do it. If your knockin people out your causing perm. brain trauma. repeated brain trauma leads to bad thiings when your older. Thats why the NFL is cracking down on big hits not because platers are affraid but because they see the damage done to the brains of older players.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 29, 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen, if you find during your discourses here that there  is a point of view that you simply cannot reconcile yourselves to, then  the simplest of approaches is not to take part in threads that contain  that view.

Likewise, if there is a particular poster that you cannot respond to  civilly or that you feel has breached the regulations of the forum in  some fashion, then there are two tools available to you to cope with  this:

If you cannot get along with someone else, then place them on your  Ignore List.

If a breach of the regulations has occurred then use the RTM function so  that the Staff can deal with the problem.

The temptation to "have it out" in a public forum should be resisted at  all costs.

Mark Cochran
MT Moderator


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 29, 2012)

thanks, nothing wrong with cheerleading/ring-girl.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 29, 2012)

Where does MMA fit in? Maybe 1 grain of sand on the beach. 

http://topontech.com/military-tech/commandos-seals/duane-dieter-cqd-training/


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 29, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Your limited experience in no way qualifies you to stereotype soldiers.



Not limited, vast. So many soldiers in our gym.



> And yet once again, you've missed the point entirely.  Rather than a snotty reply, you need to open your mind to the experiences of others on this board even if they are not in agreement with you.



Oh but you can do the same yet not snotty right? Quite hypocritical of you.



> You like MMA, we get that. Nothing wrong with that.  But your testosterone induced rage isn't backed up my any practical experience and/or understanding of the topic in this thread.



Says you. And weird how you interpret what I type as rage. If I'm raging then you're raging too.



> This discussion isn't about H2H.  It is about a sport martial art being sufficient for a soldier in the battlefield (and by extension an officer and a private citizen for self-defense).  As such, weapons HAVE to be brought into the discussion because that is a necessary tool for the battlefield that MMA doesn't cover.  This doesn't diminish MMA.  It just isn't the training it provides.



The point is, the military does not waste time focusing on H2H when they have assault rifles. Which explains why their H2h is nowhere close to an MMA fighter nor are their bayonet fighting anywhere close to trained swordsman.



> You go on and on about how tough you are.  Hey, that's great.  But being tough in a controlled, weapon-free environment with an opponent that has to abide by the same rules as you, and you get a nice break every so often, and a pep talk and advice, and can tap out if it gets a little too tough for you is quite a bit different from the battlefield or the street.  If you can't understand that at this point then you're not here to learn, you're here to argue a flawed opinion.



That's your perception, so thanks if what I post is considered tough to you. It's just average training to me. And I've been in many street fights, they were pretty easy due to the general untrained slobs that are on the streets. Most of the time it's just me punching someone in the nose first and they shut up. And firefights, I just start shooting when shot at. It stops when you run out of ammo and need to reload or when someone gets shot. Doesn't even feel like you're in danger until bullets starts flying by close or you get hit



> Yep.  But since tools (i.e. weapons) can fail AND since CQC is part of the occupation (which has been explained to you in this thread) then H2H is necessary for the soldier.  It doesn't need to be complicated, just effective.  And statistically speaking, it is very effective.  WWII combatives, as explained to you before, is possibly 'the' most effective H2H system ever devised.  Simple, quick, gross motor skilled, retained in long term memory and bloody brutal.  Would it work in MMA?  Nope, doesn't abide by artificial rule sets.



Anyone can do what you're talking about here. Just give an MMA fighter the same rifle with bayonet.   Soldiers trains just a little bit of this stabbing dummies, etc. and then go to war, never even trying it out for real because most of what they do is shoot with their M4's. A fatguy, Medieval fan trains with a sword often would be much more skilled.



> They don't have to waste their time.  What they train in doesn't take a lot of time to learn.  Ask a Marine that's gone through the belt program.



Then an MMA fighter can spend a few weekends learning this play-fighting with rifle + bayonet too. You even admit that it's simple. How would a trained & conditioned MMA fighter not be able to learn the same and outperform such Marines?



> Thanks, I think.  I post my experience.  And since what I teach works in the real world, for military, police, corrections, E.P. Agents and private citizens I'd say that gives me some perspective you should listen to.  And there are quite a few members in this thread that have a plethora of experience on all sides that have tried to provide food for thought to you.  Whether you actually consider their experience or not is up to you.



We have experts like you in our MMA gym too. These govt' branches just have extra funding that they need to blow (to not lose it in the next year), so they contract ninjas to come and do training seminars. My sensei loves this as it's an easy payday for him too.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> they suck at MMA rules fighting. there is a difference between fighting by the rules and fighting for your life.



You seem to not understand that the modern soldiers usually only shoot their rifles and almost NEVER go H2H or even with their bayonets. The military don't even spend a lot of time training them in such. A fat Medieval Times guy who trains a lot with swords and spears can take them. Do you think the US military gets them good enough to take on martial artists?





 


> Now you may spar as close to reality as you can but as you already said you cant fight to the death at the dojo.



What do you think a choke hold is? It's to kill you. Or a knockout. Everything leading up to this KO was done with the same ferocity as a fight to the death. 



> I think thats where thedisconnect I have with what your saying is. Even in super agressive sparring there ae others around to make sure nobody dies. you dont do things like bite or claw at someones eyes or genitals they are against the rules but are expected in h2h fights to the death whiich is what combat is about.



Well if you want to fight using anti-rape tactics then that's you, but I'd rather knock someone out and then stomp & soccer kick on their head until their skull caves in....in a fight to the death. 



> here again is where i think your being a little extream. just because people dont spar for the KO does not mean they are afraid.



Yea it does.



> I dont spar like that because I dont need too I know I can KO someone, I dont need to prove it to anyone in training.



Thus, you're not a fighter in a fighting gym. Because this is what it's all about in a gym that fights. And if you say that you don't need to prove anything to anyone in training, then you're not being truthful. Even to get a shiny new colored belt, you'd have to prove something or another. 



> Plus I dont want to be knocked out it hurts I have a real job I go to the next day.



See? You're scared of getting punched hard. And I own insurance agencies, so what.



> Do accidents happen sure have I gotten hurt training yep it happens but no need to try to do it. If your knockin people out your causing perm. brain trauma. repeated brain trauma leads to bad thiings when your older.



Yea no kidding, it's a risk all fighters take. If you're not a fighter, that's fine...just  don't try to tell me how I should train. 



> Thats why the NFL is cracking down on big hits not because platers are affraid but because they see the damage done to the brains of older players.



Ok, and? No one is disputing that getting hit in the head often is not a good thing.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 29, 2012)

These quote-reply-quote-reply posts are tedious for the rest of us to wade through. Can someone bring the matter back to a specific point?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 29, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> You seem to not understand that the modern soldiers usually only shoot their rifles and almost NEVER go H2H or even with their bayonets. The military don't even spend a lot of time training them in such. A fat Medieval Times guy who trains a lot with swords and spears can take them. Do you think the US military gets them good enough to take on martial artists?


I do understand thats the point I was in the Marine Corps I did the Line training its effect for defending yourself in life or death.  Its NOT effective for sparring with classmates in a controlled gym.  The fat midievl times guys are actors and not fighters.
I have no doubt a trained MMA fighter that trains several days a week can beat a Marine thats new to the class using the MMA rules.  If it were not the case Id be worried about the training at that gym.  Your rules your house you better win.  Just like a trained MMA guy goes to a Hapkido place or Judo place or TKD place or Shotokan place and on his first day needs to spar by the rules they will win and the MMA guy will lose (not you of course but other MMA guys)



> What do you think a choke hold is? It's to kill you. Or a knockout. Everything leading up to this KO was done with the same ferocity as a fight to the death.


True its similar but its not the same.  You both know as soon as someone taps the person will let go and you get to start again.  That wont happen in real life.  Training can not and will not EVER be the same as a real fight.  



> Well if you want to fight using anti-rape tactics then that's you, but I'd rather knock someone out and then stomp & soccer kick on their head until their skull caves in....in a fight to the death.


It has nothing to do with rape tacticts it stuff the militay are taught because on the battle field your not wearing a pair of board shorts and a rash guard you have flack jackets, helmets, knee pads, ect so your taught to go for exposed or unprotected areas of the body like eyes and the groin.  See different rules.  
By the way how many fights to the death have you been in? 




> Yea it does.


Ok if you say so



> Thus, you're not a fighter in a fighting gym. Because this is what it's all about in a gym that fights.
> And if you say that you don't need to prove anything to anyone in training, then you're not being truthful. Even to get a shiny new colored belt, you'd have to prove something or another.


I said I dont need to prove to anyone I can knock them out.  Showing what I was taught and proving Im a bad *** are totally different.  



> See? You're scared of getting punched hard. And I own insurance agencies, so what.


Nope Ive been puched enough in the face in real life by real bag guys that were really trying to kill me to know its not fun.  



> Yea no kidding, it's a risk all fighters take. If you're not a fighter, that's fine...just  don't try to tell me how I should train.


Im not telling you how to train.  



> Ok, and? No one is disputing that getting hit in the head often is not a good thing.


yet your ok with trying to injure your partners permenantly


----------



## arnisador (Dec 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> stuff the militay are taught because on the battle field your not wearing a pair of board shorts and a rash guard you have flack jackets, helmets, knee pads, ect so your taught to go for exposed or unprotected areas



People don't appreciate how different it is when your opponent might have a helmet, chest plate, etc., and you might have a large ruck on your back screwing with your balance and mobility. Developing aggression and drive is part of the reason for the military martial arts training but to the extent it's meant to be usable you really have to rethink what you're teaching.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2012)

arnisador said:


> People don't appreciate how different it is when your opponent might have a helmet, chest plate, etc., and you might have a large ruck on your back screwing with your balance and mobility. Developing aggression and drive is part of the reason for the military martial arts training but to the extent it's meant to be usable you really have to rethink what you're teaching.



Great point.  This is another reason for not using training from one venue to cover another with completely different requirements.  MMA has minimal clothing and depending on the type of MMA, safety equipment is used as well as a referee, rules, flat and level surface etc.  Soldiers have quite a bit of equipment as you've listed.  In addition, officers have vest and duty belt.  My duty belt has a Glock 21 .45ACP, 2 mags of .45ACP ammo, Taser, spare Taser cartridge, O.C. spray, cuffs, MTM mask/kit, flashlight (Stinger Streamlight), 911 tool and radio.  That weighs quite a bit, particularly towards the end of a 12 hour shift.  MMA is great, but they enter training/competition warmed up and stretched out in loose fitting clothing.  I wear TDU's and boots and though I like to stay limber while working, warmed up and stretched out isn't feasible.  Point being that it is a quite different environment with different requirements.  

MMA, as I've stated is great.  But it simply wasn't designed to cover venues outside its own.  That doesn't diminish MMA in any way, shape or form.  Appropriate training for the appropriate venue and goal(s).


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 29, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Not limited, vast.


Would you please fill out your profile so we can see for ourselves that you are the real deal that you claim and not a 12 yearold? 


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2012)

When soldiers come into an MMA gym never having done MMA of course they 'suck', well, actually they don't, _they are beginners_, just the same as beginners in every other martial art. No one is born proficient in martial arts, everyone has to learn. I coach soldiers in MMA, they regard it as a sport, a hobby, it's relaxing even, they don't do it to extend their military training. They fight competitively because they enjoy it. A lot of people enjoy it, some make money at it but* it's still a* *sport*. it's individual components may well be useful on a battlefield, who knows, it depends on the army and it depends where and who they are fighting but MMA is still a sport. I love MMA as well as the traditional styles, but I wouldn't say that MMA is the one and only style that you can use anywhere to beat everyone, that's a very fanboy attitude tbh. it's the guy in the Tapout Tshirt shouting 'kill him' at the fighter in the cage who says that MMA is so wonderful not a true MMA enthusiast.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2012)

Of course things do get rough in MMA gyms this is Joanne Calderwood showing the Dinky Ninja fight Team how it should be done. She's 9th ranked straw weight in the world according Unified rankings. The Dinky Ninjas are, well the Dinky Ninjas, great guys, serious about MMA,train hard, don't go knocking each other out in training, don't boast and put down anyone, as I said great lads...and lasses.
with


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2012)

Perhaps after that we can return to the OP 'ring v battlefield versions of MAs' because there's other styles that have a competition version in the ring, in fact, if you broaden it slightly to include mats we have even more styles. Broaden would seem to a good word as we should broaden the conversation somewhat away from just one style. MMA as such only has the one side...the competitive one, there is no battlefield equivalent of it as it stands. 
Anyone with knowledge of San Shou for example, did that have a 'battlefield' version, does any of the Chinese styles, or the Korean or of course the Philipino (do they have a competitive side?)


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps after that we can return to the OP 'ring v battlefield versions of MAs' because there's other styles that have a competition version in the ring, in fact, if you broaden it slightly to include mats we have even more styles. Broaden would seem to a good word as we should broaden the conversation somewhat away from just one style. MMA as such only has the one side...the competitive one, there is no battlefield equivalent of it as it stands.
> Anyone with knowledge of San Shou for example, did that have a 'battlefield' version, does any of the Chinese styles, or the Korean or of course the Philipino (do they have a competitive side?)



TKD was taught to the ROK.  This was a non-sport version of TKD, often referred to as 'old school' TKD.  This doesn't diminish sport-TKD and many people enjoy it.  But ROK soldiers weren't doing spinning back kicks and such as it wasn't germane to achieving their goals in combat.  Also, Fairbairn and O'Neill had training in Judo as well as CMA.  O'Neill was, in that era, the highest ranked non-Japanese Judo player in the world.  However, Judo was not included in what was to become known as WWII Combatives.  Rather some CMA did make the cut.  Movements such as the chin jab, cow-catcher, shin rake, O'Neill cover etc can be found in CMA which predates the same movements later brought into OMA, JMA, KMA etc.  Books such as 'Get Tough' and 'Kill or Be Killed' show a very simple yet very effective selection of movements that can be done in full gear, on the move, in a widely varying types of environments.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps after that we can return to the OP 'ring v battlefield versions of MAs' because there's other styles that have a competition version in the ring,...


Like Muay Thai that derived from Krabri Krabong (battlefield with sword [Krabri] and staff [Krabong] and Muay Baron (the ancient empty hands fighting used if a combatant lost his weapons on the battlefield. The Ram Muay (prefight dance) is a direct throwback to Krabri Krabong. Many of the traditions of Muay Thai are maintained to keep the sport aspect linked to the battlefield where weapons were used.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 30, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I do understand thats the point I was in the Marine Corps I did the Line training its effect for defending yourself in life or death.  Its NOT effective for sparring with classmates in a controlled gym.



About how many hours did you train H2H in the Marines.



> The fat midievl times guys are actors and not fighters.



Many are skilled swordsmen who likes dressing up in tights like Robin Hood and crap. Still legit swordsman. They spent way more training with spears, etc. than the Marines ever spent training you H2H. Who's going to be better at it? You've never fought anyone to the death H2H nor with  your bayonet and neither have most other Marines.



> I have no doubt a trained MMA fighter that trains several days a week can beat a Marine thats new to the class using the MMA rules.  If it were not the case Id be worried about the training at that gym.  Your rules your house you better win.  Just like a trained MMA guy goes to a Hapkido place or Judo place or TKD place or Shotokan place and on his first day needs to spar by the rules they will win and the MMA guy will lose (not you of course but other MMA guys)



What rules, if it's hard sparring, I'm going to do try to knock them out. Fighting is fighting. Your only experience in H2H is pretend-fighting, in the dojo and in the Marines. You've never stab anyone on the battlefield before.



> True its similar but its not the same.  You both know as soon as someone taps the person will let go and you get to start again.  That wont happen in real life.  Training can not and will not EVER be the same as a real fight.



Try to understand what I just said. In real life on the battlefield, you can tap all you want after I got you in the choke.....I'm not letting go until you die. What part about me stating that I would stomp on your head repeatedly until your skull caves in if it were a fight to the death, do you not understand?



> It has nothing to do with rape tacticts it stuff the militay are taught because on the battle field your not wearing a pair of board shorts and a rash guard you have flack jackets, helmets, knee pads, ect so your taught to go for exposed or unprotected areas of the body like eyes and the groin.  See different rules.



Anti-rape tactics for women. You're not the only one who can figure out how to do this.



> By the way how many fights to the death have you been in?



I'm not answering this on a public forum.



> I said I dont need to prove to anyone I can knock them out.  Showing what I was taught and proving Im a bad *** are totally different.



You're not a fighter, I already get this.



> yet your ok with trying to injure your partners permenantly



Nothing gets pass you.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 30, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> Would you please fill out your profile so we can see for ourselves that you are the real deal that you claim and not a 12 yearold?
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2




Why? I can put anything I want on the internet, what's the point? But I'm up for a friendly meetup with any other martial artists to train while I'm in the Washington DC area if anyone wants.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> In addition, officers have vest and duty belt.  My duty belt has a Glock 21 .45ACP, 2 mags of .45ACP ammo, Taser, spare Taser cartridge, O.C. spray, cuffs, MTM mask/kit, flashlight (Stinger Streamlight), 911 tool and radio.  That weighs quite a bit, particularly towards the end of a 12 hour shift.



Think Mike Tyson's fists will become useless and he wouldn't know what to do if someone attacks him .... should he one day decides to wear all of this gear on and becomes a mall ninja?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 30, 2012)

Danny T said:


> Like Muay Thai that derived from Krabri Krabong (battlefield with sword [Krabri] and staff [Krabong] and Muay Baron (the ancient empty hands fighting used if a combatant lost his weapons on the battlefield. The Ram Muay (prefight dance) is a direct throwback to Krabri Krabong. Many of the traditions of Muay Thai are maintained to keep the sport aspect linked to the battlefield where weapons were used.



This is pretty interesting.  I'm wondering what kind of similarities would exist from this system and something like the Jujutsu the Samurai trained.  For the life of me I can't remember the clan that invaded Okinawa around the 13th Century?  Seemed like those Jutsu arts mixed well with the indigenous Te arts in Okinawa.  Would be interesting to see the similarities and the differences and how/why they developed that way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2012)

Nevermind I'll save the mods the trouble.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 30, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Why? I can put anything I want on the internet, what's the point? But I'm up for a friendly meetup with any other martial artists to train while I'm in the Washington DC area if anyone wants.



If you were "someone" like you think you are we could "google" you. Get it? There's nothing for us to google, that's why your afraid be "straight up" and use your real name. As long as you hide behind your hollow profile your just another mma wannabe. That's the fight game, you make a name, you made it. Or you at least get fights and start working your way up. Just training in an mma gym (at least thats what you say you do) dosent make you anything. You haven't really fought anyone yet, your a wannabe. If you had you'd named names long ago. There's nobody to name, correct?

Or you can prove yourself and your wealth of knowledge. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 31, 2012)

Mz1 said:


> Think Mike Tyson's fists will become useless and he wouldn't know what to do if someone attacks him .... should he one day decides to wear all of this gear on and becomes a mall ninja?



You are again comparing apples and oranges and then coming up with advocados. To begin with, Mike Tyson was a boxer.  I've boxed before and my grandfather was Golden Gloves.  I don't remember that training going into cover and concealment.  I don't recall it covering escape and evasion or door entry, room clearing or the fatal funnel.  As I remember, boxing covered the jab, cross, uppercut, bobbing and weaving and various other applicable subjet matter that dealt with the rules of boxing.  And, in a boxing match the opponent is doing the same thing.  Not much chance he's going to pull a knife on you or a gun or improvised weapon.  Not much chance his buddies are going to jump in either.  A boxing ring is a flat, padded, level surface that is dry and well lit.  It also comes with a referee and corner men.  And of course you have a minute break every three minutes.  The battlefield (or the street) comes in all sorts of user-unfriendly environments from sloping landscape, slippery, muddy, wet, hot, cold, snow, rain, dim or no lights and enemies that don't follow rules and want to kill you or cause you as much damage as humanly possible in as short of time as possible.  So once again, boxing, or MMA, or sport TKD or fencing etc are great for the venue in which they were designed but have very little to no carry-over into the battlefield (or street).  

Certain elements can be used but again they are limited.  For example, using your boxing example;  boxing is great in the ring, when your hand is wrapped and you're wearing gloves to protect them.  But punching someone in the face with a bare hand in the battlefield (or street) isn't the best option for a variety of reasons.  First, the chance of self injury is high, particularly when punching the head/face.  Injuring your own hand limits your options i.e. using a cell phone to call for help, handling car/house keys to escape the situation, address possible injuries, further defend yourself, access improvised weapons, manipulate a firearm (loading, reloading, clearing malfunction) etc.  Secondly, the head/face bleed pretty freely.  If you've injured your own hand and bleed your attacker you now have to be concerned with blood-borne pathagens.  This is a bigger hazard than people realize!  An attacker is by definition a bad guy.  Bad guys spend time in correctional facilities.  Correctional facilities have a higher incident of stuff you'd rather not have.  These are very real considerations.  Thus utilizing boxing skills outside of a controlled environment isn't the best or most suitable option.  As the old adage goes, 'if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail'.  

Also, boxers tend to wear very loose fitting shorts and are warmed up and stretched out prior to engaging in their sport (at a pre-appointed time and place).  Soldiers on the battlefield (or officers or citizens in the street) don't have that luxury.  We tend to go from 0-100 in the blink of an eye and have to deal with possible adrenaline induced physiological responses i.e. tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, flinch response, OODA loop etc.  Sport training doesn't fully (if at all) address these aspects of critical response training.  So while Mike Tyson is/was a great boxer and puncher in that environment, put him in full battle gear or what I wear on-duty every day and then have something kick off eleven hours into a 12-hours shift and have him ONLY use his boxing training and he'll be at a disadvantage.  There are better options and better training.

I dunno.  Maybe your young?  Maybe you feel picked on here?  Maybe you feel you're backed into a corner?  Maybe a combination?  My advice to you is to simply chill out a bit.  Consider the possibility that you're wrong.  You have people here that have done MMA telling you that you're incorrect on many/all of your offerings.  You have people here that have done things in real life that most have only seen in video games and on T.V. telling you that many/all of your offerings are incorrect.  Maybe...just maybe we're right and your not.  Perhaps, instead of sarcastic remarks in return, you should carefully consider what has been said to you and learn from it.  Enthusiasm for ones art or MMA is commendable.  But being open to what it is, what it is not and the experience of others is more commedable.  Being friendly and showing a willingness to learn from others is wisdom.  Tossing back sarcasm is simply a quick way to getting booted from the board.  No one here is your enemy...so don't make them your enemy.  Be open and learn.  Your choice.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 31, 2012)

To put a positive note into the conversation that is positive towards MMA training...conditioning.  This is a great carry-over to the battlefield/street.  Conditioning helps us win a confrontation as well as deal with physological response to critical stress situations.  I also helps deal with any injuries that may have been sustained.  

So +1 for what a MMA or sport art has to offer that is applicable.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 31, 2012)

Didn't Mike Tyson bust up his hand when he hit a parking lot attendant in the head?


----------



## chinto (Dec 31, 2012)

one person said that in UFC 1 to 4 there were no safety rules about kicks to the head when down, and things. Wrong!! all the UFC were sanctioned bouts! fighter safety is by law required!! besides UFC was meant to showcase BJJ..  Battlefield/SD arts such as Okinawan Karate, or Kungfu are much more effective then ring/sport styles. this is because there is not any consideration for the other guys safety when taught properly.   Sports are sports, for entertainment and making money.  War, and self defense arts are about disable or kill the attackers, ( note multiple attackers involved, they never come in singles in that situation) and TKO and such is not really a consideration. if you can disable enough to get away good enough.  completely different mind set and goal for war and self defense then for sport. one is survival, the other for fun.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 31, 2012)

When comparing battlefield to sport versions of art it might help to have a specific example. So let's compare kendo and kenjutsu. If a classically trained swordsman tried competing in kendo without prior kendo experience he'd likely lose because his technique and tactics don't reflect the environment.
In real swordsmanship you must swing utilizing your whole body to get a powerful cut to slice through clothing, armor, flesh and bone. Moving this way is how you move powerfully but it is slower than how kendoka move because kendoka have to simply make clean contact and power is not as important as speed. So in kendo you get smaller actions that can be used faster to win matches. If they wielded real swords these movements would not always result in dating anyone seriously.

So because the rules in kendo say that you can only strike certain targets, technique and tactics are reflected by this and it no longer resembles the swordsmanship schools kendo is based on. Neither is better than the other; they were both developed for the environments they were meant to be developed for. Strategy on the battlefield relies on your ability to do something that the enemy does not expect and can't prepare for. In sports your strategy is limited to what can be confined within the rules.

Then you have to look at the difference between what is a "Battlefield art" and what is a "personal combat art". If you look at something like certain koryu, much of their strategic approach is meant to be applied as a leader in warfare such as how do you guide troop movements or how to properly position your archers your pikemen or your Calvary. Something like traditional karate however would be more along the lines of personal combat or self-defense. Karate is traditionally designs to make the practitioner as powerful as possible so that they can defend themselves and others around them from violent attack. It is not a battlefield art primarily because the weapons used in carate are not designed for Battlefield use. Sai, tonfa, and nunchaku are not effective battlefield weapons because they are too short. They are effective weapons for personal combat, for  defense of self and others. Then you can look at something like kukishin ryu which has elements of both personal combat and Battlefield arts. If you look at the way they train with the spear for example you can see how one specific kata would have strategies useful both for one-on-one combat or an army against an army.

if you cannot take the strategies taught in an arts and apply it to large groups of people then it is not a battlefield art, it's likely personal combat. Sport martial arts have no connection whatsoever to Battlefield arts as they were practiced when they were developed. Both sport and Battlefield arts share a commonality with personal combat arts with the concept of a duel being where they come together. Duels may or may not use weapons and may or may not have agreed upon rules. The more rules you have the more limited your strategic approach can be, and your opponent is less likely to be caught offguard by something they're not expecting.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 31, 2012)

chinto said:


> one person said that in UFC 1 to 4 there were no safety rules about kicks to the head when down, and things. Wrong!! all the UFC were sanctioned bouts! fighter safety is by law required!! besides UFC was meant to showcase BJJ..  Battlefield/SD arts such as Okinawan Karate, or Kungfu are much more effective then ring/sport styles. this is because there is not any consideration for the other guys safety when taught properly.   Sports are sports, for entertainment and making money.  War, and self defense arts are about disable or kill the attackers, ( note multiple attackers involved, they never come in singles in that situation) and TKO and such is not really a consideration. if you can disable enough to get away good enough.  completely different mind set and goal for war and self defense then for sport. one is survival, the other for fun.


Actually nobody would sanction any of the early UFC's. UFC 1's rules were no biting and no eye gouging. On the eve of UFC 12, 36 states enacted a ban on no holds barred fighting. Football kicks to the head, groin shots and hairpulling all existed in the early UFC's. From UFC 12 on the rules became more and more present including making gloves mandatory not optional, no more kicks to the head of a downed opponent and the banning of strikes to the back of the neck and head, headbutting, small-joint manipulations, and groin strikes. The IFC was the 1st to secure sanctioning in 2000. And Zuffa secured UFC's sanctioning in 2001, 8 years after UFC 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima...p#Controversy_and_reform_.E2.80.93_late_1990s


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 31, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> If you were "someone" like you think you are we could "google" you. Get it?



Show me where claimed such.  I even said that I was merely an amateur fighter/hobbyist. 



> There's nothing for us to google, that's why your afraid be "straight up" and use your real name. As long as you hide behind your hollow profile your just another mma wannabe. That's the fight game, you make a name, you made it. Or you at least get fights and start working your way up. Just training in an mma gym (at least thats what you say you do) dosent make you anything. You haven't really fought anyone yet, your a wannabe. If you had you'd named names long ago. There's nobody to name, correct?



You seem to be reading way too much into what I post. Can you show me where I implied any of what you just made up about me? Otherwise you're just making up lies.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 31, 2012)

Folks,
Let's try to remember that discussion here is supposed to be friendly, OK?  Avoid attacking the poster, and focus on the subject matter of the post.


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 31, 2012)

chinto said:


> one person said that in UFC 1 to 4 there were no safety rules about kicks to the head when down, and things. Wrong!! all the UFC were sanctioned bouts! fighter safety is by law required!!



You are way off and should do your research first. I have all of these early UFCS in AVI. Early UFC's were never sanctioned. This was why they only held it in Colorado, Alabama, etc. Then there was outcries of brutality, probably started by Nevada's sanctioning bodies due to them not getting a piece of the action. Congressmen such as John McCain started pushing for the banning of the UFC and similar MMA organizations such as EFC, WCC, etc.  Which even caused the UFC to go over to Japan and Brazil in order to conduct their tournaments.

UFC 1-4 allowed all head stomping, soccer kicking of heads of downed opponents, etc.  Elbows to the back of the head was allowed. Headbutting, groin shots, etc.  Throat strikes and eye jabs were fine....pretty much anything goes. Only eye gouging, fish hooking and biting caused a fine of $1,000 per infraction but did not stop the fight nor disqualified the fighter. The purse was $60,000 so that was more than enough to pay for these $1k infractions but still made it worthwhile should the fighters had to risk using such anti-rape tactics in order to win or get out of submissions.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/album.php?albumid=254&attachmentid=17505








> besides UFC was meant to showcase BJJ..



Can you prove this? It's not BJJ's fault that it whooped up on all of those oblivious to ground fighting, including Judokas, wreslters, shoot-fighters, etc. who Gracie dominated. 



> Battlefield/SD arts such as Okinawan Karate, or Kungfu are much more effective then ring/sport styles. t



How does an MMA fighter knocking you out and then stomping on your unconscious head until your skull caves in  while on the battlefield not effective?


----------



## Mz1 (Dec 31, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Didn't Mike Tyson bust up his hand when he hit a parking lot attendant in the head?



yea, after he broke the other PRO Boxer's face. the average guy (who's not even close to what an amateur fighter can endure) probably wouldn't require more  than 40% of Tyson's power to send them running home crying or KO'ed so that shouldn't be a problem for Tyson to worry about  in terms of breaking his hand.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 31, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Didn't Mike Tyson bust up his hand when he hit a parking lot attendant in the head?



Yes sir.  This is a good example of what can happen, even to a seasoned fighter who at one time had reached the height of his sport.  Translate this over to the battlefield where soldiers wear helmets, flak jackets etc and we can see where closed-hand boxing-style strikes would be ill advised.  Always looking back at WWII combatives as a solid guideline (and not the only armed services guideline) we can see things like the chin jab were advocated against enemy soldiers when in a H2H situation.  Safer on the hand and the results were just as devastating, perhaps even more so.  

Translated into a street situation, we have the possibility of having to defend ourselves from a 'trusty of modern chemistry'.  Right now bath salts and K2 are whacking people out big time.  I fought a 20-something 'kid' just recently high on K2 that nearly stabbed his own mother to death.  Pain wasn't something that made much of an impression on him.  And often times, strikes that would ordinarily be a knock-out don't faze them.  I've seen repeated groin strikes laughed off as the BG was tossing Deputies around.  A 'self-injury due to an ill advised strike is NOT in our best interest.  It may take repeated strikes to defend ourselves or set the attacker up for something more devastating such as taking their air/sight/mobility.  While a perp high on whatever may laugh off O.C. spray, a 'knock-out' punch or a kick to the jewels they aren't going to laugh off something that destroys a joint (limits mobility)/throat strike (air)/eyes (sight).  This of course is situational and only when necessary but it is an increasingly frequent happening unfortunately.  This is a time for effective, high percentage techniques that don't put us at further risk of injury/self-injury or tie us up in one position (such as sport ground fighting or fighting as though we're sparring).  Statistically speaking, on average an altercation lasts seven seconds with injury occurring in the first three seconds.  This does not take into account firearms/battlefield conditions.

Again, just food for thought


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 1, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Didn't Mike Tyson bust up his hand when he hit a parking lot attendant in the head?



was that the metacarpals on the pinkie side?  if so, it's the classic "boxer's fracture".


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 1, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Show me where claimed such.  I even said that I was merely an amateur fighter/hobbyist.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be reading way too much into what I post. Can you show me where I implied any of what you just made up about me? Otherwise you're just making up lies.



Not lies, assuming. You make a lot of claims none of which is backed up with history or experience. I think it is a reasonable assumption that by your "strong belief" that mma trumps everything else (no matter what the experienced board members tell you) that you are either very experienced in mma and have reason to believe in your art or you are not that experienced in mma and as far as this discussion goes, probably seeing your training with a bit of "tunnel vision" when comparing it to other styles. Its great you deeply believe in your training. But then so do a lot of kids with blackbelts who still have a lot to learn. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 1, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> was that the metacarpals on the pinkie side?  if so, it's the classic "boxer's fracture".



Hairline fracture of the third metacarpal on the right hand.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 1, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> besides UFC was meant to showcase BJJ..
> 
> Can you prove this? It's not BJJ's fault that it whooped up on all of those oblivious to ground fighting, including Judokas, wreslters, shoot-fighters, etc. who Gracie dominated.


Let's see if this makes sense to you. Art Davies, who was the promoter, was a student of the Gracies. His partners in the original promotions included Rorion Gracie. If you believe that a group that trains and promotes BJJ (or GJJ) develop a tournament format featuring their fighting style did not do it to showcase BJJ, when they set the rules, chose the competitors, etc. that is your choice. It is quite obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 1, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Let's see if this makes sense to you. Art Davies, who was the promoter, was a student of the Gracies. His partners in the original promotions included Rorion Gracie. If you believe that a group that trains and promotes BJJ (or GJJ) develop a tournament format featuring their fighting style did not do it to showcase BJJ, when they set the rules, chose the competitors, etc. that is your choice. It is quite obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.



Bill Wallace made commentary on this back at that time.  His view was that it was designed from the ground up so-to-speak, specifically for the ground game of BJJ/GJJ.  It is interesting to note how the pendulum has swung back towards striking and kicking strategies.  Having a solid base in standing as well as ground tactics is necessary these days.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 1, 2013)

It was a wakeup call for martialist that ignored the ground. It came full circle when standup fighters became competent on the ground forcing the groundfighters to also become more competent on their feet leading to what would become MMA the sport. 

The Gracies were great promoters and they did a good job but they were not the 1st in America to train that way. The late Tarow Hayashi was my brother-in-laws instructor and he was teaching his version of it the '70's. 
http://www.hayashismartialarts.com/Classes_Bujutsu.html 
He called it Free Form Combat and when I was taught, my brother-in-law called it Kumiuchi. They were professional full contact fighters. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 2, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> It was a wakeup call for martialist that ignored the ground. It came full circle when standup fighters became competent on the ground forcing the groundfighters to also become more competent on their feet leading to what would become MMA the sport.
> 
> The Gracies were great promoters and they did a good job but they were not the 1st in America to train that way. The late Tarow Hayashi was my brother-in-laws instructor and he was teaching his version of it the '70's.
> http://www.hayashismartialarts.com/Classes_Bujutsu.html
> ...



There was also Karl Gotch with his catch-as-catch-can submission wrestling.  As far as I know, he still holds the record for Hindu squats at 9001 in 4 1/2 hours.  That's triple tough!


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 2, 2013)

I've always like catch wrestling. When you look closely they have good submissions that are largely overlooked because the ground grappling community "in general" trains techniques usable for competition.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 2, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Not lies, assuming. You make a lot of claims none of which is backed up with history or experience. I think it is a reasonable assumption that by your "strong belief" that mma trumps everything else (no matter what the experienced board members tell you) that you are either very experienced in mma and have reason to believe in your art or you are not that experienced in mma and as far as this discussion goes, probably seeing your training with a bit of "tunnel vision" when comparing it to other styles. Its great you deeply believe in your training. But then so do a lot of kids with blackbelts who still have a lot to learn.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Yes, you're making up lies. And experience in many years of pretend-fighting and scared to spar regularly for knockouts means nothing to me. Which is the crux of my argument in regards to why MMA is better. So the same tunnel vision argument can be applied to your side also. And ditto to you having a lot to learn and should start with by sparring for KO's....for the first time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 2, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Hairline fracture of the third metacarpal on the right hand.



Third Metacarpal, is that the one behind the ring finger?


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 2, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Let's see if this makes sense to you. Art Davies, who was the promoter, was a student of the Gracies. His partners in the original promotions included Rorion Gracie. If you believe that a group that trains and promotes BJJ (or GJJ) develop a tournament format featuring their fighting style did not do it to showcase BJJ, when they set the rules, chose the competitors, etc. that is your choice. It is quite obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.



You've made no argument at all. All MA tournaments are usually conducted by MA'ist anyway, how the heck is this unusual?  And obviously, these organizing MA'ists usually belongs to certain camp(s), how is this unusual?  The UFC was opened to any type of MA. Most TMA's don't even allow other types of arts to  compete in their tourneys. How is the UFC allowing ALL types of fighter, biased as you falsely claimed?

And tell me WHAT RULES favored the grapplers/BJJ as compared to all the rules in existence for all types of COMBAT SPORTS in the USA during that time, 1993?  Tell me, what other tournament in the USA had less rules than the UFC 1-4?  There were ONLY THREE RULES....no biting, no eye gouging and no fish-hooking....but they didn't DQ the fighter, just $1k fine/incident. They could still win the tourney + $60,000 prize if they bit, eye gouged and/or fish-hooked.  But everything else was fine, including nut strikes, eye poking, throat strikes, strikes to the spine, kidneys,  etc. 

You tell me what other tournament in existent at that time (1993) that allowed these strikes in the USA. Sure as heck none of your TMA's allowed any of this nor even came close to the level of brutality/realism of UFC 1-4.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 2, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Bill Wallace made commentary on this back at that time.  His view was that it was designed from the ground up so-to-speak, specifically for the ground game of BJJ/GJJ.



Can you prove how this even makes any sense? Which UFC 1-4 rule favored the grappler?

They actually started making rules to favor the standup strikers because it got too boring for most ignorant viewers (rednecks, standup TMA's, etc.) who couldn't appreciate the level of techniques being displayed on the ground....by standing them up and then later, time limits and finally, timed rounds. 

And the reason it's more standup now is due to Dana White making it known to the fighters that he wants to see action packed fights,  by eluding to wanting to see more standup KO's. I don't blame White for this, as he succeeded in rescuing the UFC from near bankruptcy in its early days. But if you want close as possible to a real fight, the Gracies and Davies had it the closest that it could ever be during the early UFC's, especially UFC 1-4. 

Name ONE.....just one, TMA tournament in the USA from 1993-present time, that is more realistic than UFC 1-4 or even the current UFC's.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 2, 2013)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite & respectful.

jks9199
ASst. Admin
*


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 2, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> Third Metacarpal, is that the one behind the ring finger?



Yes sir, I believe that is correct.  I think that also qualifies as a 'boxers' fracture.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 2, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> Third Metacarpal, is that the one behind the ring finger?



No. The ring finger is #4.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 2, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. The ring finger is #4.



Ah, I guess I forgot about the thumb :uhyeah:


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 2, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Yes, you're making up lies. And experience in many years of pretend-fighting and scared to spar regularly for knockouts means nothing to me. Which is the crux of my argument in regards to why MMA is better. So the same tunnel vision argument can be applied to your side also. And ditto to you having a lot to learn and should start with by sparring for KO's....for the first time.



So you suggest going out full tilt and knocking people out or being knocked out?

I thought Chris Benoit was dead.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 2, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Ah, I guess I forgot about the thumb :uhyeah:



ah yes, me too.  So the fracture was the third, being behind the naughty finger.  Not quite what I think they refer to as the "boxer's fracture", but quite possibly still a result of not being so familiar with punching without handwraps and gloves.  

I'm speculating, of course.  I don't know how the encounter went down.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 2, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Yes, you're making up lies. And experience in many years of pretend-fighting and scared to spar regularly for knockouts means nothing to me. Which is the crux of my argument in regards to why MMA is better. So the same tunnel vision argument can be applied to your side also. And ditto to you having a lot to learn and should start with by sparring for KO's....for the first time.



Your confusing me with someone else. I've never described how I train in this thread or any conversation with you on this forum. Maybe you should re-read what you think I said. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 2, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> ah yes, me too. So the fracture was the third, being behind the naughty finger. Not quite what I think they refer to as the "boxer's fracture", but quite possibly still a result of not being so familiar with punching without handwraps and gloves.
> 
> I'm speculating, of course. I don't know how the encounter went down.



The classic "boxers fracture" is of the 4th or 5th metacarpal, (which are caused by just plain punching incorrectly) but the term can also include the 2nd and 3rd, especially if the fracture was caused by punching something.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 2, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> You've made no argument at all. All MA tournaments are usually conducted by MA'ist anyway, how the heck is this unusual?  And obviously, these organizing MA'ists usually belongs to certain camp(s), how is this unusual?  The UFC was opened to any type of MA. Most TMA's don't even allow other types of arts to  compete in their tourneys. How is the UFC allowing ALL types of fighter, biased as you falsely claimed?



Hmm, interesting. If you don't agree with what I say, I am lying. Seeing as the majority of your posts consist of telling everyone that they are wasting their time by doing anything other than MMA, arguing about what people think you said, or calling folks liars, I don't need to hear any more from you. Thankfully there is the ignore feature.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 3, 2013)

Ladies and Gentlemen...

Once a warning has been issued by a forum staff member, we expect people to heed it.  

Please keep this conversation civil.  If you don't like what someone is saying, then use the ignore feature.  

*-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator.  *


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 3, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Name ONE.....just one, TMA tournament in the USA from 1993-present time, that is more realistic than UFC 1-4 or even the current UFC's.


Russian Storm Fighting.


----------



## DocThailand (Jan 3, 2013)

Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran 

I have been in Martial Arts for 10 years and now Muay Thai for 20 years.

I just had a young man stay with me in Thailand for 3 months and he learned 3 amazing lessons in Muay Thai that he would have never learned in Muay Boran the Martial Arts form from Thailand. 

1. You first Opponent in a Fight is YOUR Self. 
2. 
3. 

Here is the Magazine Article on this = 
Muay Thai Article  page 50  wow !! 
http://issuu.com/krabimagazine/docs/km_dec_2012

What do you think is the difference between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? 
Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? 
Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? 
Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?

Examples 
Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 3, 2013)

Chinto wrote:



> *Battlefield/SD arts such as Okinawan Karate*, or Kungfu are much more effective then ring/sport styles. this is because there is not any consideration for the other guys safety when taught properly. Sports are sports, for entertainment and making money. *War, and self defense arts are about disable or kill the attackers *[emphasis added]



I am indeed intrigued when I read posters discuss the "battlefield" heritage of Okinawan karate. However the conventional wisdom is that karate was designed for empty-hand self-defense, one defender against a single unarmed attacker. Battlefield combat has always and will always rely on weapons, and teams of fighters. Battlefield fighting is not one against one. It is many against many. Any unarmed person on the battlefield that is misfortunate enough to face multiple armed enemies would have a very, very short life expectancy.  

Battlefield combat has the goal of victory through the death of as many of the enemy as need be to ensure victory, along with the survival of as many as need be to ensure victory. Mankind has been smart enough for as long as we've been on the earth to utilize weapons when fighting for life on the battlefield.

I would be grateful if you could please elaborate on what you have written here. First, are there any historical sources you can cite to support this claim of battlefield origins of karate. I am interested if you know of any mention from the chroniclers of early karate (Funakoshi, Miyagi, Motobu, Nagamine, and others) that claim that what has been handed down as karate (hoju undo training, ti techniques including vital point striking and locking, and extensive practice of kata likely of Chinese origin) had battlefield origins.

Second, do you know of any examples of movements in karate that appear to be designed for battlefield combat.  

Thank you.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 3, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> The classic "boxers fracture" is of the 4th or 5th metacarpal, (which are caused by just plain punching incorrectly) but the term can also include the 2nd and 3rd, especially if the fracture was caused by punching something.



yeah the 4th or 5th is a result of a hooking motion that lands on the pinkie side, on a hard target like the skull.  But underneath it all I believe it comes from lots and lots of training with heavily wrapped and gloved hands, that allows the boxer to land punches incorrectly without injury.  If he never trains his punches without all that protection, then he's at risk of a break if he ever needs to throw an unprotected punch.  He has simply never developed the ability nor the knowledge of how to throw an effective unprotected punch without injury.  The mechanics and proper striking surface and whatnot.  Training with wraps and gloves interferes with that development.

Personally, I don't compete and I never train with wraps or gloves.  When I hit the heavy bag, it's bare-knuckles, always.  I want the feedback from the bag to tell me if I did something wrong, and to develop comfort and familiarity with what it feels like to hit something for real.  If I ever need to defend myself, there's no time to wrap up and don the gloves.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 3, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Russian Storm Fighting.



Not even close to MMA's brutality now in the UFC, let alone compared to UFC 1-4. 

Look at all the padding that they're wearing. In the UFC, there's only mouthguard, thin gloves and a cup.






And it's ridiculously sloppy and not even in the USA.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 3, 2013)

The Last Legionary said:


> So you suggest going out full tilt and knocking people out or being knocked out?
> 
> I thought Chris Benoit was dead.



  average sparring. Hard to explain to people who aren't from fighting gyms.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 3, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Your confusing me with someone else. I've never described how I train in this thread or any conversation with you on this forum. Maybe you should re-read what you think I said.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



you too and stop Assuming.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> average sparring. Hard to explain to people who aren't from fighting gyms.



You are having credibility problems with those who do come from 'fighting' gyms. Of course what you mean is 'your' gym because it's the only one that is 'true'. Still when shown to pro fighters I know, your comments have proved a source of amusement simply because coming across as a fanboy is always amusing.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 3, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Hmm, interesting. If you don't agree with what I say, I am lying. Seeing as the majority of your posts consist of telling everyone that they are wasting their time by doing anything other than MMA, arguing about what people think you said, or calling folks liars, I don't need to hear any more from you. Thankfully there is the ignore feature.



Uh what? Now you're just trying to change the subject because you can't follow through with your false allegations. 

You were making accusations that Art Davies and Rorion Gracie were BIASED and stacked the tables against all others styles of MA competitors in order to give their BJJ the advantage in the early UFC's.

You merely made such accusations with providing any TECHNICAL proof to support any of this, ZERO. Not only did I call you on this, but I actually provided such technical arguments as to why you're wrong and how the rules were even changed (in the early UFC's) to make it more exciting yet hurting the BJJ/Grappler's strategies and favoring standup fighters.....even before being sanctioned by Nevada, which it is today and far more favors the standup fighters than ever.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 3, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> You are having credibility problems with those who do come from 'fighting' gyms. Of course what you mean is 'your' gym because it's the only one that is 'true'. Still when shown to pro fighters I know, your comments have proved a source of amusement simply because coming across as a fanboy is always amusing.



Nice try in trying to take what I wrote out of context. But I find you amusing too, like Joe Pesci in Good Fellas. And pro fighters, really? There are UFC champions and UFC contenders at some of the gyms I train at too. But what's the big deal. Anybody can train in the same gym, just sign the 1-year contract and pay the high dues. Or if they can't fight, just sign up to be a ring girl or cheerleader and embark on a journey of pretentiousness and name droppings, right?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Nice try in trying to take what I wrote out of context. But I find you amusing too, like Joe Pesci in Good Fellas. And pro fighters, really? There are UFC champions and UFC contenders at some of the gyms I train at too. But what's the big deal. Anybody can train in the same gym, just sign the 1-year contract and pay the high dues. Or if they can't fight, just sign up to be a ring girl or cheerleader and embark on a journey of pretentiousness and name droppings, right?
> 
> I once alerted a PRO BOXER that one of his shoelaces were untied. Dang, I potentially saved him from serious injuries....wow, this must mean that I've "coached pro fighters" right? Now I can add coaching pro fighters, along with ring-girl and cheerleader to my resume now.




I love that you think I've been a 'ring girl' you really are being silly. As for cheer leading, my daughter is a cheer coach and I can say for certain you have absolutley no idea what they do. 
We don't do contracts here for MMA gyms, nor are the fees high. You seem to be the perpetual Mr. Angry, so cocksure that you are the only one that is right, there's been warning for people to be polite on here yet you persist in calling people liars. What's with the rage? 
As for taking what you said out of context, there was no context, you are intent on alienating everyone on here, you are intent on being the only person who 'know's MMA and you are intent on being someone who it is difficult to have a conversation with. The OP is about battlefield martial arts versus their sports counterparts. MMA has never been a battlefield art so it doesn't have a sporting equivilant, it is the sport. You continue to drag this back to MMA and how much you know about it, fine, keep thinking you know it all, you will come down to earth with a bump. I know what I do and I know what I know lol, I don't care what you think about me, because what you write reflects on you not me.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 3, 2013)

> Originally Posted by *Mz1*
> 
> 
> Name ONE.....just one, TMA tournament in the  USA from 1993-present time, that is more realistic than UFC 1-4 or even  the current UFC's.



I think this is the crux of the issue, and the problem you seem to be having with accepting the wisdom, experience and knowledge base of the members here that have been participating in this thread.  While MMA is/can be wonderful training for those interested in this sport venue (and that is fine)...you seem to think of it as _realistic_.  I'm not sure if you're really, thoughtfully considering what people have been saying to you in this thread.  MMA, though a fine sport venue isn't realistic in terms of real world battlefield conditions/requirements or that of serious self-defense in general.

If the training requires a referee, it isn't realistic.
If the training has safety equipment, it isn't realistic.
If the training requires a limited skill set that is used against an opponent that has also agreed to the same limited skill set, it isn't realistic.
If the training is designed for a contest, where the opponents have agreed to meet at a specific, prearranged and agreed upon time, it isn't realistic.
If the training/competition takes place on a soft, level, dry surface that is free of obstructions and is well lit, it isn't realistic.
If the training allows time outs, tap outs, pep talks, advice from outsiders, it isn't realistic.
If the training doesn't allow the use of weapons, improvised weapons or the possibility that the opponent won't/can't use the same, it isn't realistic.
If the training is against a single opponent with no possibility of multiple opponents joining in, it isn't realistic.  

This doesn't mean MMA sucks or isn't a viable pursuit of one's time.  It means that MMA was designed for a purpose and that purpose is sport.  Nothing wrong with that if that is your goal.  But don't stretch it to cover something it was never designed to address.  When you have people in this thread that have been in the martial arts for decades, have been/are soldiers or law enforcement or serious private citizens that gear their training towards SD, telling you that you are incorrect in what you're saying....you need to listen and not have a chip on your shoulder.  Otherwise you're simply going to alienate yourself from those with more experience which is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.  Be open and learn.  That is what this board is all about and why it has been around as long as it has.  Take advantage of this.


----------



## chinto (Jan 3, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> You are way off and should do your research first. I have all of these early UFCS in AVI. Early UFC's were never sanctioned. This was why they only held it in Colorado, Alabama, etc. Then there was outcries of brutality, probably started by Nevada's sanctioning bodies due to them not getting a piece of the action. Congressmen such as John McCain started pushing for the banning of the UFC and similar MMA organizations such as EFC, WCC, etc.  Which even caused the UFC to go over to Japan and Brazil in order to conduct their tournaments.
> 
> UFC 1-4 allowed all head stomping, soccer kicking of heads of downed opponents, etc.  Elbows to the back of the head was allowed. Headbutting, groin shots, etc.  Throat strikes and eye jabs were fine....pretty much anything goes. Only eye gouging, fish hooking and biting caused a fine of $1,000 per infraction but did not stop the fight nor disqualified the fighter. The purse was $60,000 so that was more than enough to pay for these $1k infractions but still made it worthwhile should the fighters had to risk using such anti-rape tactics in order to win or get out of submissions.
> 
> ...




if as you say the rules were such, and I do not believe it, then the fighters agreed among themselves not to strike things like throats and not to cripple or kill.  REAL FIGHTS LAST SECONDS!  The military did a study from the time two men saw each other till a fight to the death was over in a hand to hand encounter was an averidge of less then 15 seconds!  sport fights are just that. if you do not believe that look at fights in prisons and places. Even when an edged weapon is not involved its short and nasty. look at all the manslaughter cases out of drunken bar fights by untrained people that go to conviction every year in every state! people are a lot less unbreakable then you think.  

So if as you say there were not any rules really, then the fighters themselves were effectively making them.  I garentee you that most martial arts teach you techniques that kill very readily. Jujitsu, yes,  Karate, yes, Kung fu, yes and the list goes on!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 3, 2013)

chinto said:


> REAL FIGHTS LAST SECONDS!  The military did a study from the time two men saw each other till a fight to the death was over in a hand to hand encounter was an averidge of less then 15 seconds!



Absolutely yes!  As I've mentioned before, a L.E. statistic is that an average fight (and I'm talking a real world fight with an attacker and someone the attacker believes is a victim) last 7 seconds with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds.  This is very close to the above military study.  



> I garentee you that most martial arts teach you techniques that kill  very readily. Jujitsu, yes,  Karate, yes, Kung fu, yes and the list goes  on!



Again, absolutely yes!  One point along this line is joint manipulation.  Before 'manipulation' was joint 'destruction'.  The arts mentioned above and a plethora of others are designed to end the fight as quickly as possible by whatever method is appropriate to the situation.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 3, 2013)

chinto said:


> The military did a study from the time two men saw each other till a fight to the death was over in a hand to hand encounter was an averidge of less then 15 seconds! sport fights are just that.



I would need to see the study and how they collected the data.  A fight to the death done hand-to-hand, as you describe it, is certainly not something that can be set up as an experiment.  So it must be encounters reported by survivors and witnesses in military encounters.  Such reports can be notoriously unreliable due to things like adrenaline and chaotic confusion and whatnot, particularly when accounting for the passage of time under heavy stress.  It's not like there's a statistician and time-keeper accompanying every military unit to record such things.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 3, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Not even close to MMA's brutality now in the UFC, let alone compared to UFC 1-4.
> 
> Look at all the padding that they're wearing. In the UFC, there's only mouthguard, thin gloves and a cup.
> 
> And it's ridiculously sloppy and not even in the USA.


Hehe.

Theyre wearing gear, therefore it isnt brutal. Right.

Ridiculously sloppy is where im amused. I thought experience in HARD SPARRING FOR KOS was more important than technique, according to you?

And it isnt in the USA, im aware of that. But it is something ongoing to the present day, unlike the old UFC. And im comparing the old UFC to it.



Mz1 said:


> I never even implied such. Training helps, it's better than nothing. Like pretend-fighting in SD class, certainly is better than nothing. Training and being experienced in fighting is much better. Trying to really KO someone on a regular basis as part of training, is such experience. But it's not guaranteed to prevail in every situation....just gives you a much better chance of winning.





Mz1 said:


> Well obviously, instinct and muscle memory would kick in. An experienced sports fighter would have way better chances than someone who only trains by pretend-fighting.
> 
> Which still goes back to the crux of my argument, which is an experienced sports fighter will still be better equipped due to having been pressure tested regularly under real conditions of duress (as possible) through sparring for full KO's.
> 
> ...





Mz1 said:


> Ok, so you're afraid to spar hard for KO's, that's fine. I'm not surprised based on your responses. We wear headgear. Yes, concussions do happen. This is part of being a fighter. You're more of a health & fitness and maybe some Asian fetish-type martial artist. I respect that. Just don't try to tell me how we shouldn't be sparring for KO's when you're not a fighter. Obviously you've never been in an MMA fighting gym. Heck, boxers have been sparring for KO's REGULARLY.....forever now and way before the UFC or MMA hit the scene. This is nothing unusual. Yet people who never fought before usually freak out when I purposefully use this phrase, "sparring for KO's".
> 
> This is average sparring in Boxing right here.....and this is LA Boxing, where it's mostly overweight women who comes in to hit the bag (sloppily) set to music, not even a hardcore Boxing gym.



Also, they dont always wear that much gear, and theyre allowed to hit each other in the back of the head, and the back.

Video 1 is less gear, video 2 is a higher level competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqvtcLjI23c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvPDXxXPEs4&list=FLT1x1p77Z4dyVVMwU-dj07Q

They also do sticks, knives, and a bunch of other stuff. Like bayonets.



















Mz1 said:


> How does an MMA fighter knocking you out and then stomping on your unconscious head until your skull caves in while on the battlefield not effective?



Im pretty sure you see them doing that a few times. In these Russian Storm Fighting videos.

Last one, but also the most important one:




It has the most kicks to the head when someones down, hits to the spine and back of the head, etc.
And i believe 1 or 2 neck cranks.
Also knees to the head, chokes with elbows, and so on and so forth.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 4, 2013)

Chinto wrote:



> REAL FIGHTS LAST SECONDS! The military did a study from the time two men saw each other till a fight to the death was over in a hand to hand encounter was an averidge of less then 15 seconds! sport fights are just that. if you do not believe that look at fights in prisons and places. Even when an edged weapon is not involved its short and nasty. look at all the manslaughter cases out of drunken bar fights by untrained people that go to conviction every year in every state! people are a lot less unbreakable then you think.



I'd like to see that military study. I'm not buying it that weapons were not involved. In the military H2H is not empty hand, it is still with weapons. The is virtually zero likelihood that two soldiers on the battlefield, one from each side, BOTH not having any weapon. Military combat is armed combat. Soldiers use weapons, period. 

I would also like see what statistics you are citing regarding manslaughter. I just did a quick google of "bar fights manslaugher".

Four of the first six articles described the death being the result of the head hitting the concrete. One was where the guy had been knocked down and he was kicked in the head repeatedly. One died a week later in a hospital. 

There is no surprise here. When men fight, it often goes until one knocks out another, or it is broken up by the bouncer. And with the thousands of bar fights that occur every year between drunk and angry men, it should surprise nobody that sooner or later, some are going to smash their head on the floor, or some other object on the way down.

Fights in bathrooms are not uncommon, since it is easy to trap someone there by blocking the exit. Numerous deaths occur each year from heads that hit urinals on the way down. That's just what happens when you knock someone out. The weight of the body falling, provides enough kinetic energy to smash skulls when they strike hard objects. Human fists typically can't generate that amount of kinetic energy.  

I would be real curious at the number of deaths that were directly attributeable to a strike delivered when the two people were standing. I would bet it is tiny. 

By the way, I don't agree with much of anything Mz1 has written. He seems to imply again and again, that there is some relationship between MMA and armed combat. There is none. In armed combat, soldiers have weapons. And weapons are designed to be deadly. A small man can instantly kill a large one with a bladed weapon. Battlefield fighting equals armed combat. Period. End of story. There is no relationship between skill in armed combat, and skill in MMA. In MMA one needs to be able to take a punch. One needs to be able to resist a lock. If these were lethal, there would be no MMA. But in armed combat, no person's anatomy can resist a blade. All strikes are potentially lethal. 

In MMA there are only one's body parts to fight with. And while sooner or later there will be a death from an incredibly good strike, by and large, men cannot quickly kill other trained men, of the same size or larger, with their hands. You need to knock the opponent out and then kill him, or take him down, and work towards a choke to kill him. Neither is quick, and neither is military, where a knife, a bullet, or a missile does the job with little effort.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I love that you think I've been a 'ring girl' you really are being silly.



It's all about you right? I never said anything about you, because how could I when you've been trying to tell me how you're this hotshot MMA  coach who coaches and corrects Pro MMA fighters all the time. 



> As for cheer leading, my daughter is a cheer coach and I can say for certain you have absolutley no idea what they do.



You're funny, like Joe Pesci.



> We don't do contracts here for MMA gyms, nor are the fees high.



Maybe that explains why we have UFC title holders and top contenders. Do you have any?



> You seem to be the perpetual Mr. Angry, so cocksure that you are the only one that is right, there's been warning for people to be polite on here yet you persist in calling people liars. What's with the rage?



Wait, I'm Mr. Angry? And are we allowed to use this term, "cocksure"?



> As for taking what you said out of context, there was no context, you are intent on alienating everyone on here, you are intent on being the only person who 'know's MMA and you are intent on being someone who it is difficult to have a conversation with.



You're just making this up now. Show me where I said that I was the only one who knows MMA. If you have a problem with people who don't agree with most of the things you say, maybe it'll be better for your blood pressure to not read public forums. Or just put me on ignore. You're the one who sought out my posts to respond directly to them. I usually don't even bother reading what you post unless it quotes my posts. 



> The OP is about battlefield martial arts versus their sports counterparts. MMA has never been a battlefield art so it doesn't have a sporting equivilant, it is the sport. You continue to drag this back to MMA



You even typed out "martial arts versus their sports counterparts" yet you're complaining about how I "continue to drag this back to MMA"???



> and how much you know about it, fine, keep thinking you know it all, you will come down to earth with a bump. I know what I do and I know what I know lol, I don't care what you think about me, because what you write reflects on you not me.


 
Ok, then stop engaging in dialogue with me.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think this is the crux of the issue, and the problem you seem to be having with accepting the wisdom, experience and knowledge base of the members here that have been participating in this thread.  While MMA is/can be wonderful training for those interested in this sport venue (and that is fine)...you seem to think of it as _realistic_.  I'm not sure if you're really, thoughtfully considering what people have been saying to you in this thread.  MMA, though a fine sport venue isn't realistic in terms of real world battlefield conditions/requirements or that of serious self-defense in general.
> 
> If the training requires a referee, it isn't realistic.
> If the training has safety equipment, it isn't realistic.
> ...




The MMA fighting that lead to the KO or to the ref stoppage is no different than trying to kill someone on the battlefield with your bare hands. Choking someone out is, trying to kill them. If it were on the battlefield, the same choke would kill them just as well as the multiple soccer kicks to their head once KO'ed or something. Fighting is fighting. 

If you want to talk about realism then, pretend fighting and not sparring for full knockouts on a regular basis is a lot more deficient in testing out whether you're worth anything when that time comes. It's almost like Larping. Most combat vets in the past 20 years never even fought hand to hand to the death on the battlefield. Most never even swung their rifles nor stabbed anyone with their bayonets. Which is why the military doesn't even waste too much time focusing on H2H. Why would it when they've got M4's and 200+ rounds of ammo, grenades, air support, etc.

And being old doesn't necessarily make anyone more knowledgeable.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> If you want to talk about realism then, pretend fighting and not sparring for full knockouts on a regular basis is a lot more deficient in testing out whether you're worth anything when that time comes.



Are you assuming that what I teach is pretend fighting?  Or is this a general statement?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> Most combat vets in the past 20 years never even fought hand to hand to the death on the battlefield. Most never even swung their rifles nor stabbed anyone with their bayonets. Which is why the military doesn't even waste too much time focusing on H2H. Why would it when they've got M4's and 200+ rounds of ammo, grenades, air support, etc.



Can you supply the data for this conclusion please?  Thank you.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 wrote:



> The MMA fighting that lead to the KO or to the ref stoppage is no different than trying to kill someone on the battlefield with your bare hands. Choking someone out is, trying to kill them. If it were on the battlefield, the same choke would kill them just as well as the multiple soccer kicks to their head once KO'ed or something. Fighting is fighting.



Please give an example, any example, of soldiers on the battlefield trying to kill with their "bare hands". 

Fighting is not fighting. You can say it again, and again, but it doesn't make it true. There are all sorts of fighting from gentle pushes to nuclear strikes, and everything in between.

Soldiers are trained to fight with weapons. They are not trained to fight with their bare hands. If they are so misfortunate to lose their weapon, or run out of ammunition, their goal will be survival, and any empty hand fighting would not be to kill the enemy or inflict damage on the enemy, but to escape until they can re-arm.

Soldiers are trained in H2H combat, WITH WEAPONS. Special forces learn knife fighting because sometimes stealth is critical to the success of a mission, and nothing gives you away like an M16 firing a few rounds. And even with a rifle, you can run out of ammunition, so you still have a weapon, a hand held weapon, or one to be fixed to the end of a rifle.

But when a soldier runs out of ammunition, a soldier fights with a knife.

You can repeat your ideas again and again, that fighting is fighting, that fighting with fists is related to fighting with deadly weapons. It's not true. It's never been true, and your repetition of it will not make it true.

Men have been fighting men "on the battlefield" for scores of thousands of years. Those that used weapons prevailed. Those that fought bare-handed against those with weapons were killed. 

In battlefield combat, there are teams of soldiers fighting teams of soldiers. If, in the most unlikeliest of cases, I run out of ammo, and you run out of ammo, we can both go charge each other and duke it out, but be certain, the guys on my side, and the guys on your side have a big say in how long our fight lasts. One of us, maybe both of us is about to be shot.

There is no bare-knuckles brawling in warfare. Warfare utilizes deadly weapons. Period.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> It's all about you right? I never said anything about you, because how could I when you've been trying to tell me how you're this hotshot MMA coach who coaches and corrects Pro MMA fighters all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dear boy, you amuse me no end and yes 'cocksure' is a legitimate English word. I'm a 'hotshot MMA coach'? nice of you to say so but you are wrong of course, I coach, promote, ref, corner and judge so not much then. I think it must make you fret somehow that a woman can do this lol, I've been do it for over 12 years now. As for the UFc thing, well since you mention it yes we do have a couple or four or maybe five UFC fighters here, yes I do know them though don't coach them, have however had them on our fight nights, we even though whether it's worth a boast or not had Bispings first pro fight on our shows. He wasn't up to much though his attitude was suitable for the UFC rofl.

MMA is the sport it doesn't have a battlefield equivalant, surely you realise that? People here are giving you the benefit of the doubt, trying to engage with you and all they get back is anger and insults. You can insult me all day, doesn't affect my blood pressure, might make fall off my chair laughing but really, the good people here deserve much better than your bile.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Dear boy, you amuse me no end and yes 'cocksure' is a legitimate English word. I'm a 'hotshot MMA coach'? nice of you to say so but you are wrong of course, I coach, promote, ref, corner and judge so not much then. I think it must make you fret somehow that a woman can do this lol, I've been do it for over 12 years now. As for the UFc thing, well since you mention it yes we do have a couple or four or maybe five UFC fighters here, yes I do know them though don't coach them, have however had them on our fight nights, we even though whether it's worth a boast or not had Bispings first pro fight on our shows. He wasn't up to much though his attitude was suitable for the UFC rofl.
> 
> MMA is the sport it doesn't have a battlefield equivalant, surely you realise that? People here are giving you the benefit of the doubt, trying to engage with you and all they get back is anger and insults. You can insult me all day, doesn't affect my blood pressure, might make fall off my chair laughing but really, the good people here deserve much better than your bile.



You're welcome.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> The MMA fighting that lead to the KO or to the ref stoppage is no different than trying to kill someone on the battlefield with your bare hands.



Hmm, advocating punching someone to the head to 'KO' them...when they're likely to be wearing a helmet.  I don't like your chances.



> Choking someone out is, trying to kill them. If it were on the battlefield, the same choke would kill them...



Hmmm,  advocating trying to choke out someone on the battlefield...while wearing combat gear...while they're wearing combat gear...which requires both arms...which means you've put down your primary weapon...which means your unarmed and a stationary target...I don't like your chances.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Absolutely yes!  As I've mentioned before, a L.E. statistic is that an average fight (and I'm talking a real world fight with an attacker and someone the attacker believes is a victim) last 7 seconds with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds.  This is very close to the above military study.



C'mon, that's probably counting most of the reported cases of thugs suckerpunching someone for their wallet, which takes 1 second. Two fatties fighting, will also run out of breath in 10 secs. Then there are times when weapons are involved. What's being argued here are TWO trained and experienced fighters that are equally matched, fighting. If you have fought in the ring/cage before, you'd know that it's not that easy to even drop someone, let alone KO them with your ninja-strikes so easily. 



> Again, absolutely yes!  One point along this line is joint manipulation.  Before 'manipulation' was joint 'destruction'.  The arts mentioned above and a plethora of others are designed to end the fight as quickly as possible by whatever method is appropriate to the situation.



The tough part is, getting a hold of a trained fighter's joint while he's trying to knock you out.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Hmm, advocating punching someone to the head to 'KO' them...when they're likely to be wearing a helmet.  I don't like your chances.
> 
> Hmmm,  advocating trying to choke out someone on the battlefield...while wearing combat gear...while they're wearing combat gear...which requires both arms...which means you've put down your primary weapon...which means your unarmed and a stationary target...I don't like your chances.




You must be against what the US Marines teaches then:
















Btw, these guys are pretty sloppy. I'm really starting to think that some of you guys lied about your service in the military as you don't seem to know much about what's being taught there.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> What's being argued here are TWO trained and experienced fighters that are equally matched, fighting.



No, what's being discussed here is the feasibility of sport MMA on the battlefield, and by extension, the street. The concensus is that it isn't feasible.



> The tough part is, getting a hold of a trained fighter's joint while he's trying to knock you out.



Actually, at this juncture we weren't discussing MMA. However, it doesn't seem to be that difficult as joint locks happen all the time, particularly in MMA competitions. 

I've asked you a couple of questions in posts (posts #141 and #142) on this page. Perhaps you've overlooked them? I'd appreciate your answers to those two questions. Thank you.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

chinto said:


> if as you say the rules were such, and I do not believe it, then the fighters agreed among themselves not to strike things like throats and not to cripple or kill.



I just showed you a video of of a Karateka (Keith Hackney) punching Jo Son about 6x in his nuts, repeatedly (UFC-4). Then I posted a screen capture another Karateka kicking a Sumo in the face while he's down (UFC-2). What more do you want? UFC rules are all documented in words and videos. You're being absurd.



> REAL FIGHTS LAST SECONDS!  The military did a study from the time two men saw each other till a fight to the death was over in a hand to hand encounter was an averidge of less then 15 seconds!  sport fights are just that. if you do not believe that look at fights in prisons and places. Even when an edged weapon is not involved its short and nasty. look at all the manslaughter cases out of drunken bar fights by untrained people that go to conviction every year in every state! people are a lot less unbreakable then you think.



Try to follow the context of my argument. I'm arguing H2H fights between 2 trained and experienced fighters, not 2 sloppy drunks who knocks each other out on the street or 2 fatties that can't last more than 10 seconds. Then there are suckerpunches, weapons and crap. 



> So if as you say there were not any rules really, then the fighters themselves were effectively making them.  I garentee you that most martial arts teach you techniques that kill very readily. Jujitsu, yes,  Karate, yes, Kung fu, yes and the list goes on!



Your problem is, you've never fought in the ring/cage nor have sparred for full knockouts before. You don't know what it's like when someone who's equally skilled is trying to hurt you during hard sparring. Maybe you tap spar, but that's obviously not the same. You just train your   ninja-strikes and then try it out on your training partners lightly, like a punch to the throat.....and you're like, damn this hurts even at light power...so it will kill someone. Do you think I care about hitting my opponent in the throat? I just aim for the general area of the face/chin with my straight punches, and whatever I hit is good to me, including his throat. Even during hard sparring. Sorry about that, shouldn't keep your chin so high up. Never dropped anybody nor been dropped by a strike to the throat, including spinning back fists that lands to the throat. Didn't even stop the fight. Just a slight sore throat the next day that went away on its own.


----------



## SacredCoconut (Jan 4, 2013)

Every soldier should carry knife, so there is little chance it will be hand to hand.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Hehe.
> 
> Theyre wearing gear, therefore it isnt brutal. Right.



I asked the other guy to name any other fighting venue that is more brutal than UFC 1-4 since 1993 until now and in the USA.....and you showed me some sloppy Russian tournament with a lot more gear on than the UFC 1-4 that looked like some average, local fighting event.  How is this more brutal than the UFC's especially UFC 1-4?



> Ridiculously sloppy is where im amused. I thought experience in HARD SPARRING FOR KOS was more important than technique, according to you?



This is why I keep telling you that you're not a fighter. You automatically assume that hard sparring for KO's means crazy brawling and out of control. Do you think this is brawling and out of control? This is called AVERAGE sparring in Boxing.








> And it isnt in the USA, im aware of that. But it is something ongoing to the present day, unlike the old UFC. And im comparing the old UFC to it.



Well compared to the UFC today, what you posted looked like amateur hour. Early UFC's were amateur hour too compared to the UFC's now, mainly due to so many TMA's trying their luck out in those early UFC's and getting clobbered.

But based on the argument of how no other tournaments in the USA at that time, ever allowed all sorts of ninja-strikes, anti-rape moves and other garden variety SD sales points.....as compared to UFC 1-4 which allowed such....including eye, nuts, and throat strikes, etc. Finger breaking, pressure points, head butting, spinal cord attacks, clawing, whatever.  Even biting, eye gouging and fishhooking didn't DQ a fighter.  And your rebuttal was some Russian Storm Fighting where they wore a bunch of safety gear.



> Also, they dont always wear that much gear, and theyre allowed to hit each other in the back of the head, and the back.



So did the early UFC's. THey only made it illegal due to McCain's bill that would outlaw such UFC tourneys. It was a compromise to keep the UFC  going.



> Video 1 is less gear, video 2 is a higher level competition.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqvtcLjI23c
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvPDXxXPEs4&list=FLT1x1p77Z4dyVVMwU-dj07Q



I don't even know how you can even try to say that these are anywhere close to any UFC's in terms of brutality. They look like intermediates of average Muay Thai gyms.



> They also do sticks, knives, and a bunch of other stuff. Like bayonets.



This is nothing new to the Dog Brothers Gatherings, except that the skill level at DBG's are much higher.



> Last one, but also the most important one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So did early UFC's. And what a surprise, the fights in your video didn't result in any deaths. Not even KO's. And they all certainly lasted longer than 7 seconds. Plenty of crazy brawling though.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, what's being discussed here is the feasibility of sport MMA on the battlefield, and by extension, the street. The concensus is that it isn't feasible.





















US Marines. Why are they training like MMA then?  Dodging this won't make it go away.


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Mz1 wrote:
> 
> Please give an example, any example, of soldiers on the battlefield trying to kill with their "bare hands".
> 
> ...




You should tell the US Marines this then, as it looks like they're doing MMA....sloppily:


----------



## Mz1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Are you assuming that what I teach is pretend fighting?  Or is this a general statement?



I don't think that you put your chin and techniques to the test by not wearing a full motorcycle looking helmet/headgear and allowing your students to try to knock you out while sparring them.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 4, 2013)

> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that what I teach is pretend fighting? Or is this a general statement?






Mz1 said:


> I don't think that you put your chin and techniques to the test by not wearing a full motorcycle looking helmet/headgear and allowing your students to try to knock you out while sparring them.



Would you mind clarifying what you're saying, you're using a double negative.  We don't wear motorcycle looking helmets.  

And you haven't answered my second question to you from.  Would  you do so please, thank you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

I wonder if these guys are real fighters or more of that fake asian pretend fighting?


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 4, 2013)

Mz1 said:


> I don't think that you put your chin and techniques to the test by not wearing a full motorcycle looking helmet/headgear and allowing your students to try to knock you out while sparring them.



All real deal mma schools have a website. Please post the link to your school so we can check it out. We understand you don't fill out your profile because as you said your an mma hobbyist. But we still would like to see where you train. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

He PMed me a gym as I'm local to him claiming it was his gym.  I don't know his name so i couldnt ask if he went there but I did call the gym and asked about this KO sparring and this street fight rules crap he posted.  I was told "we are Professional gym and would not condone or allow that behavior here".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2013)

*Admin Note:

Please note that Mz1 is no longer a member here.*


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 5, 2013)

First, i know the member is no longer present, but i still have one point to make.
So in closing:



Mz1 said:


> This is why I keep telling you that you're not a fighter. You automatically assume that hard sparring for KO's means crazy brawling and out of control. Do you think this is brawling and out of control? This is called AVERAGE sparring in Boxing.



Actually, i am a boxer, as well as a TKD practitioner. I may or may not enjoy leaving that out 
I made a thread when i started training ages ago.
I do not remember, at any point, calling that brawling and out of control. Its aggressive. Offensive. Simple. Nontechnical.
Theres no angling, no time spend feinting or looking for positions. Youre working with a very short space of time to get in there and beat the other guy. As for technical skill, they have it. Read into it more and youll find that those unskilled looking hooks are quite skillfully executed strikes out of their system.

So if im not a fighter, then i guess boxers arent fighters.

And thats about enough time spent on the subject.


----------

