# Don't Overlook "Competitive" Martial Arts



## stonewall1350 (Mar 22, 2014)

I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.

After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying...

Don't overlook judo/bjj/jiu jitsu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 22, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake.


I'll even go a big more extreme. There is no such thing as anti-grappling, but there is such thing as anti-striking.

When your opponent punches at you, if you can

- wrap his punching arm,
- take him down,
- finish him on the ground.

What else do you need? The issue is whether you have enough training to be able to "wrap" your opponent's punching arm when he throws his 1st punch at you. If you can do that, you have "anti-striking" skill.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 22, 2014)

As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation.  Additionally, certain techniques from competitive arts are detrimental in a self-defense situation.  You need to be very careful as to which is which, and just as importantly, why they are useful or detrimental.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 23, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation...


 Correct, SOME MMA training does not directly translate to self defense BUT that can be said for all martial arts on the planet...if a new student came to me and asked me to teach him self defense that he could use quickly.

 I would teach him full contact jabs, crosses, hook, elbows, low body kicks, basic choke methodology and basic grappling defense and offense and in that order...All well covered by MMA but overlooked by some traditional arts. Today, many schools "full contact" alone does not translate to real full contact...



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## stonewall1350 (Mar 23, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation.  Additionally, certain techniques from competitive arts are detrimental in a self-defense situation.  You need to be very careful as to which is which, and just as importantly, why they are useful or detrimental.



Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement. 

Tbh one move I have skipped out on is single/double leg takedowns. I use my trips and sweeps so often that I never use it. And now that I am raising my level I have found I need that move a little more. But I wouldn't use it on the street because I carry a gun and all of my moves revolve around creating space and opportunity to draw said gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 23, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.
> 
> Tbh one move I have skipped out on is single/double leg takedowns. I use my trips and sweeps so often that I never use it. And now that I am raising my level I have found I need that move a little more. But I wouldn't use it on the street because I carry a gun and all of my moves revolve around creating space and opportunity to draw said gun.



I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both).  Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible.  To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally).  Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible.  As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:

Great for a sporting competition

View attachment 18676



Not so good in a real world self-defense situation
View attachment 18677

(Courtesy of Iain Abernethy's article) http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/h...iain-abernethy

Too many people learn techniques like rear naked chokes/triangle/kamora/cross-body mounts etc, which are viable and extremely useful in these types of competitions, but then try to apply them to a street fight.  Can it work?  Sure, based on uncontrollable variables which I would prefer not to rely on.  As an example, this type of training is normally conducted on a soft, level, dry mat in a well lit area with safety gear and a single opponent that has agreed to the same rule set we are using.  If those factors can apply to the street fight then you're all set.  But if not, well I don't like the persons chances.  This is why I'm a big advocate of scenario based training.  All the benefits of full contact but with an training environment and stimuli that can be constantly changed.  Going to the ground on a soft mat is dramatically different than going to the ground on asphalt between two parked cars with lots of user-unfriendly objects laying around or the possibility of weapons, improvised weapons or multiple attackers (that may not have originally been seen prior to the altercation).  

I once was in a conversation with a BJJ advocate on another board.  He felt that BJJ was the ultimate street self defense system.  I opined my above thoughts.  He didn't seem convinced.  So I simply had to ask, "Would you compete against a guy that wasn't bound to your rule set, and the match took place in the parking lot, and there is a possibility that he might be armed with a gun or knife and there was a possibility that a couple of his corner men might jump in?"  I don't remember hearing back from him.
:wink2:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2014)

I have always felt Judo is a great art for Self defense. Never mess with a good Judoka


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both).  Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible.  To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally).  Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible.  As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:
> 
> Great for a sporting competition
> 
> ...



So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 23, 2014)

I've told you before, we train on concrete, between cars, on stairs, in the woods, in an elevator, in a doorway, inside a car, on a bed etc.  We don't get stupid with it i.e. pile-driving someone head first into the aspalt, but the only way to know you don't want to be on your back in the road during a fight-ror-your-life is to be on your back during some training.  And being in the actual environment that an attack would take place in allows the student to see what is around to be used for cover/concealment/barrier/improvised weapon etc.  And we use a measure of saftey of course.  You don't need to take someone down full force on concrete to understand the principle of taking someone down.  It will depend upon the environment as to what you can do full force and what needs to be controlled for the safety of the student.  But then what may be done at a half-measure in one environment can be done full force in another so it evens itself out overall.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2014)

James Kovacich said:


> I would teach him full contact jabs, crosses, hook, elbows, low body kicks, basic choke methodology and basic grappling defense and offense and in that order...


James, was that you sitting in on my Krav class the other night?


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?


Is there a problem with that?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Is there a problem with that?



Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete. Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.

Same with things like training with belt kit. I have gone down a few times in situation and had no more than scrapes and pulled muscles. But I could not do it the fifty or sixty times it would take to learn the technique properly.

I can take a punch in the head without a mouth guard. But I am not sure I would train like that.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.
> 
> Tbh one move I have skipped out on is single/double leg takedowns. I use my trips and sweeps so often that I never use it. And now that I am raising my level I have found I need that move a little more. But I wouldn't use it on the street because I carry a gun and all of my moves revolve around creating space and opportunity to draw said gun.
> 
> ...




Tricky. You generally negate striking with grappling by closing distance. That double leg can be a bit of a get out of jail free card if you are getting bashed.

I still work on the principle of.
A. Stop getting bashed.
B. Deal with my other issues.

You can stay standing mostly with a double leg. But if you don't flatten them with the throw they can just pop back up.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've told you before, we train on concrete, between cars, on stairs, in the woods, in an elevator, in a doorway, inside a car, on a bed etc.  We don't get stupid with it i.e. pile-driving someone head first into the aspalt, but the only way to know you don't want to be on your back in the road during a fight-ror-your-life is to be on your back during some training.  And being in the actual environment that an attack would take place in allows the student to see what is around to be used for cover/concealment/barrier/improvised weapon etc.  And we use a measure of saftey of course.  You don't need to take someone down full force on concrete to understand the principle of taking someone down.  It will depend upon the environment as to what you can do full force and what needs to be controlled for the safety of the student.  But then what may be done at a half-measure in one environment can be done full force in another so it evens itself out overall.



I still like the idea of training somewhere safe and just having the adaptability to ajust to different environment as it comes along. Just have a tool box full of high percentage moves than can be taken anywhere.

Alot of the situations that come in sport training come with an unknown quantity. Especially in competition. You may not know the guy what he is going to do or where you will end up.



You cannot train for everything you might do or he might do. So you train concepts and adaptability.

If you can take the guy with striking, fine, if you can't grapple,if it goes to the ground take them there, if you are going to get head kicked, get up. 

If you see an opportunity take it. If you see them creating an opportunity deny them that.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2014)

One thing I knd of like about mma is the mixed ness of it I can take part of my skill set and wander into a boxing gym or wrestling,bjj karate whatever and still be able to have a decent go at it.

The specific rules may still do me over but it is worth it to challenge my adaptability. And I get to play with people who have no idea what I am capable of. And I have no idea of what they are capable of.

The same as I can take part of that skill set and use it for self defence.

No rules also means no script.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have gone down a few times in situation and had no more than scrapes and pulled muscles. But I could not do it the fifty or sixty times it would take to learn the technique properly.



That's why it's okay to have *some* training in a controlled environment.  There is a learning curve.



> I still like the idea of training somewhere safe and just having the  adaptability to ajust to different environment as it comes along.



Problem here is that, under duress, you revert directly to your training habits.  Many people feel they have the ability to _*rise to the occasion*_ but the harsh reality is that you will instead _*sink to the level of your training*_.  Decades of law enforcement training and hundreds of years of martial arts training verify this as factual.  Training somewhere _safe_ all the time, like the two guys in your video dancing around with padded gloves, floor and walls, doesn't prepare you for a car jacking attempt.  It doesn't prepare you for multiple attackers.  Nor does it allow you to adapt to your surroundings (read improvised weapons, barriers, cover and concealment, escape and evasion etc) because it only has one surrounding...mats and pads.  



> Alot of the situations that come in sport training come with an unknown  quantity. Especially in competition. You may not know the guy what he is  going to do or where you will end up.



Untrue, you're going to end up in the same controlled environment you started in.  So is he.



> You cannot train for everything you might do or he might do.



Okay, let's examine this from the way I train to the way you train (based upon what you've written and the videos you've offered) using some examples;


Doing some training in a parking lot.  Gives the student some experience in what to do and just as importantly, what not to do.  As an example, depending on the height of a nearby vehicle a student could drop and roll under a nearby vehicle to temporarily escape attack.  What does this do for them?  Well for one, if they have a firearm (most of my students carried) they have now created some distance between themselves and the attacker(s) to provide an opportunity to access the weapon.  Or a cell phone to call for help.  Perhaps they've narrowed access to themselves i.e. bad guy leans down to grab them and pull them out from under the car and is in a position to get an ancient Chinese secret move called a 'foot to the face'.  By doing this, they broaden/add depth to their OODA loop by haven't had some experience with this environment.
Inside an elevator.  Teaches them to stand to the rear and to the side so that someone can't get behind them nor rush them directly from the outside when the door opens.
Pulling up to a 'shop-n-rob' by parking to the side where you can clearly see inside the store.  That way you're not walking into a robbery in progress.
Inside a car.  What is there for improvised weapons?  How can the close confinement be used to your advantage?  If exiting the car, can you draw a weapon and use it?  How can you use your car (a big, heavy, sharp, hard object) to your advantage?
ATM machine.  Being aware of your surroundings.  Looking for places of concealment or dark areas that may hide a bad guy.  Having a plan for if someone approaches.
Back to the parking lot.  Can you see under your car as you approach?  Do you glance in the back seat before you enter?
Inside the gym you can chit-chat about some of these things but it isn't the same as actually being in that environment and doing it.  Somethings can be recreated in a gym...but are they?  Do the lights get turned down from time to time?  They should be since most attacks are in dim light conditions.  How about tossing some water on the mats.  Setting up some chairs or mats to simulate something.  It isn't a substitute for actually being in a specific environment but it's better than what 99.9% of schools do now.



> If you see an opportunity take it. If you see them creating an opportunity deny them that.



Precisely, so provide the student with the opportunity to see these opportunities in different environments.  It ingrains certain reactions/responses/observations.



> No rules also means no script.



Only if you train in an environment that allows for it.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 24, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both).  Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible.  To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally).  Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible.  As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:
> 
> Great for a sporting competition
> 
> ...



Thank you SO MUCH for this post and these pics. I am so sick of people saying, "All striking arts are flawed. Learn grappling!" Even if the pictures here showed the guy on a smooth surface, that foot coming toward his head is proof that sometimes grappling can fail you.


----------



## MJS (Mar 24, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.
> 
> After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying...
> 
> ...



I've been saying for a very long time, that everything has something to offer.  Personally, I'm not so traditional or stuck in the box with blinders on, that were I to attend a seminar in another art or train 1 on 1 with someone in another art, that I would certainly pick their brain and if there was something that I could 'steal' and add to my own bag of tricks, I'd certainly do it.  That said, I've also said many times, that having a basic understanding of the ground, is also important.  Yes, there are grappling applications in the stand up arts, ie: kata, but if you want to explore deeper, crosstraining is the way to go.  

So, that said, I don't think that intentionally pulling guard and taking the person down, in the middle of a streetfight, is necessarily the smartest idea.  However, there are things that can be done from the grappling arts that a) don't require the person to be on the ground, and b) having enough ground skill, so that you can get back up to your feet, rather than looking for that submission, is also key.  

IMO, it's natural that people will tend to fall back on their strong points.  You'll fight like you train.  We saw in the Fight Quest show, Doug and Jimmy, 2 guys who had MMA backgrounds, fall back, more than once, on that training.  Now, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it was.  IMO, if you can transition the things that you'd do in the ring, to the street, you should be good to go.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete. Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.
> 
> Same with things like training with belt kit. I have gone down a few times in situation and had no more than scrapes and pulled muscles. But I could not do it the fifty or sixty times it would take to learn the technique properly.
> 
> I can take a punch in the head without a mouth guard. But I am not sure I would train like that.


I'm not sure why you think you need to fall fifty or sixty times on concrete to learn a technique properly. You can learn techniques on mats. If you need to fall fifty or sixty times I might suggest you are a slow learner. Once even, to prove you can do it, should be all you need.
:asian:


----------



## stonewall1350 (Mar 24, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Thank you SO MUCH for this post and these pics. I am so sick of people saying, "All striking arts are flawed. Learn grappling!" Even if the pictures here showed the guy on a smooth surface, that foot coming toward his head is proof that sometimes grappling can fail you.



Anyone who thinks striking is flawed has never seen this video:

 [video]http://youtu.be/(null)[/video]

lol.

My point is to demonstrate that grappling isn't a worthless art. Here is one scenario to which I refer:

 [video=youtube_share;dclfBro8ews]http://youtu.be/dclfBro8ews[/video]

In both areas grappling knowledge was important. In the first it is obvious. The 2nd the guy needs to stay on his feet. That is why I love judo. You learn how to stay up.  Not just how to take down. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 24, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> Anyone who thinks striking is flawed has never seen this video:
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/(null)[/video]
> 
> ...



Just about every grappler I meet says striking arts are worthless LOL.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 24, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Just about every grappler I meet says striking arts are worthless LOL.



I'm a BJJ practitioner. Neither I nor anyone in my gym would ever say that striking arts are useless. In fact, a high percentage of us also practice or have practiced striking arts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 24, 2014)

MJS said:


> I've been saying for a very long time, that everything has something to offer.  Personally, I'm not so traditional or stuck in the box with blinders on, that were I to attend a seminar in another art or train 1 on 1 with someone in another art, that I would certainly pick their brain and if there was something that I could 'steal' and add to my own bag of tricks, I'd certainly do it.  That said, I've also said many times, that having a basic understanding of the ground, is also important.  Yes, there are grappling applications in the stand up arts, ie: kata, but if you want to explore deeper, crosstraining is the way to go.
> 
> So, that said, I don't think that intentionally pulling guard and taking the person down, in the middle of a streetfight, is necessarily the smartest idea.  However, there are things that can be done from the grappling arts that a) don't require the person to be on the ground, and b) having enough ground skill, so that you can get back up to your feet, rather than looking for that submission, is also key.
> 
> IMO, it's natural that people will tend to fall back on their strong points.  You'll fight like you train.  We saw in the Fight Quest show, Doug and Jimmy, 2 guys who had MMA backgrounds, fall back, more than once, on that training.  Now, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it was.  IMO, if you can transition the things that you'd do in the ring, to the street, you should be good to go.



For the record, I don't know that I've ever met a BJJ practitioner who would advocate pulling guard in a street fight. That's primarily a sport tactic. (I could come up with a scenario where pulling guard would be the least bad option, but it wouldn't be particularly likely.)


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 24, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Thank you SO MUCH for this post and these pics. I am so sick of people saying, "All striking arts are flawed. Learn grappling!" Even if the pictures here showed the guy on a smooth surface, that foot coming toward his head is proof that sometimes grappling can fail you.



The foot is raised on purpose.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> For the record, I don't know that I've ever met a BJJ practitioner who would advocate pulling guard in a street fight. That's primarily a sport tactic. (I could come up with a scenario where pulling guard would be the least bad option, but it wouldn't be particularly likely.)




They don't butt flop in mma either. The rule of the day is win the scramble.

But you never know you might want to give your friends the opportunity to kick the other guys head in.

I have rolling guillotined someone in the street.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> That's why it's okay to have *some* training in a controlled environment.  There is a learning curve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah but the sport training is training to problem solve on the fly. So resorting to training is fine because you are just auto piloting basic concepts while thinking of creative solutions. Otherwise you have to sort through millions of processes until you find the one that matches your environment.

Falling on a hard surface is no different to falling on a soft one technique wise. There is no mat concrete break fall or roll variation.

It just sucks more to fall on concrete. I think most people know that without having to be led through the process.



Training on real environments like parking lots becomes a trade off. If I train on concrete I either have to dial down the pace and the resistance or restrict the skill set. If I am aiming for reality I have already shot myself in the foot a bit because I have to reduce the reality to train in the environment.

So I am not sure why I would bother that much with it in the first place.

But a gym is the real world. There is often no getting around that. There are other people occupying space things to avoid mats that get slippery and so on.

Now as far as awareness and other specific skill sets. They are completely bolt onable. Mma does this anyway. Anybody who cross trains is doing this. The advantage is I can go to a sports instructor who specialises in his skill set and not have to rely on their ability to teach awareness. I can go to an expert in that and train that. Then go to an rsbder and learn use of dirty tricks. Go to a weapons expert and learn that.

I am not going to expect a martial arts school to teach me to shoot or drive defensibly I would not expect my defensive driving instructor to teach me to box.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure why you think you need to fall fifty or sixty times on concrete to learn a technique properly. You can learn techniques on mats. If you need to fall fifty or sixty times I might suggest you are a slow learner. Once even, to prove you can do it, should be all you need.
> :asian:




Either there is a difference or there isn't. If there is a difference you have to drill it. If there is no difference stay on the mat and save yourself the injuries.

If all it takes to turn mma into rsbd is one break fall on concrete then you are not going to have much of a street sport argument.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 25, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Just about every grappler I meet says striking arts are worthless LOL.



You need to get out more.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You need to get out more.



There is an element of that. But the common movement is against it.

Royce is still anti striking. His reasoning?

Because the street.
http://m.mixedmartialarts.com/mma-news/438995/Rener-Royce-is-right-about-BJJ-only-and-wrong/


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm a BJJ practitioner. Neither I nor anyone in my gym would ever say that striking arts are useless. In fact, a high percentage of us also practice or have practiced striking arts.



Well congrats. You are the first grappler I have met who said otherwise. Then again I read somewhere that one of the Gracies (can't remember which one) is good friends with Sam Kwok and is an admirer of wing chun. I didn't think of that until just now LOL.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 25, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You need to get out more.



Sadly, this isn't far from the truth.


----------



## MJS (Mar 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> For the record, I don't know that I've ever met a BJJ practitioner who would advocate pulling guard in a street fight. That's primarily a sport tactic. (I could come up with a scenario where pulling guard would be the least bad option, but it wouldn't be particularly likely.)



Probably not, but I think you know what I meant.   Perhaps that was a bad choice of words.  Intentionally doing something when there are other options.  As I said in my post, a lot of the time, we fall back on what tends to be our bread and butter, even if it's not the best thing at that moment, ie: fight like you train.


----------



## MJS (Mar 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There is an element of that. But the common movement is against it.
> 
> Royce is still anti striking. His reasoning?
> 
> ...



And that line of thinking made him get his *** handed to him.  IMO, his line of thinking is no different than the same people some MMA guys talk bad about...you know, the extreme traditional guys, who don't want to follow the advice of the MMA guys, who believe in cross training.  Hell, if you look at some of the Gracie guys, like Renzo and Ralph, they do a lot of striking.  They don't seem anti striking.  I wonder what they feel about their relative.

But, to each their own, I suppose.


----------



## stonewall1350 (Mar 25, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Just about every grappler I meet says striking arts are worthless LOL.



Not me  I believe very much in knowing how to hit someone. I am not a big fan of formal striking, even though I trained in both. I am a huge fan of defensive striking, throat punching and groin kicks and all that jazz. If you can do that you can really level someone if you get the chance.

But if someone is a better striker than me, which there is a good chance they will be, I like to try to tie them up and trip them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There is an element of that. But the common movement is against it.
> 
> Royce is still anti striking. His reasoning?
> 
> ...



I don't think that's exactly Royce being against striking.  It's about him advocating for BJJ as a pure art in itself (which does include some striking BTW) rather than blending it with other arts such as wrestling or boxing.  I don't really agree with his purist stance, but it's not really the same as saying "grapplers are better than strikers, so nyaah!"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:
			
		

> I'm a BJJ practitioner. Neither I nor anyone in my gym would ever say that striking arts are useless. In fact, a high percentage of us also practice or have practiced striking arts.





wingchun100 said:


> Well congrats. You are the first grappler I have met who said otherwise. Then again I read somewhere that one of the Gracies (can't remember which one) is good friends with Sam Kwok and is an admirer of wing chun. I didn't think of that until just now LOL.



Out of curiosity, what sort of grapplers have you been hanging around with who are so universally deriding striking?  At my gym, almost all of the senior BJJ students/instructors have at least some striking experience.  Probably a majority have black belt or black belt equivalent rank in some striking system.  The previous gym I attended was the same.  The non-BJJ jujutsu school (a Danzan-Ryu splinter group) I attended before that included striking as an important part of the curriculum.  None of the jujutsu or judo instructors I have ever trained with (that's a fair number) have ever voiced anything like the opinion that striking is useless, at least not in my presence. I'm curious about the background of these grapplers you've met who don't have any respect for the striking arts.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Out of curiosity, what sort of grapplers have you been hanging around with who are so universally deriding striking?  At my gym, almost all of the senior BJJ students/instructors have at least some striking experience.  Probably a majority have black belt or black belt equivalent rank in some striking system.  The previous gym I attended was the same.  The non-BJJ jujutsu school (a Danzan-Ryu splinter group) I attended before that included striking as an important part of the curriculum.  None of the jujutsu or judo instructors I have ever trained with (that's a fair number) have ever voiced anything like the opinion that striking is useless, at least not in my presence. I'm curious about the background of these grapplers you've met who don't have any respect for the striking arts.



Just like there are religious fanatics, there are also martial arts fanatics. One of my friends practices BJJ, and he said he went with it because most fighters who win UFC-type tournaments are grapplers. His exact words: "I knew what system to go with...the proven one!" 

I said, "Proven in a ring where there are rules that keep strikers from doing certain moves? Okay, cool."

Didn't change his mind one bit.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 25, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Just like there are religious fanatics, there are also martial arts fanatics. One of my friends practices BJJ, and he said he went with it because most fighters who win UFC-type tournaments are grapplers. His exact words: "I knew what system to go with...the proven one!"
> 
> I said, "Proven in a ring where there are rules that keep strikers from doing certain moves? Okay, cool."
> 
> Didn't change his mind one bit.



Your friend apparently hasn't kept up with modern MMA.  He must have stopped watching the UFC in the 90's.

These days every UFC fighter is at least proficient in BJJ AND wrestling AND boxing AND Muay Thai AND possibly some other stuff.  Many fights never go to the ground.  Of those that do, many come back to the feet.  Just as many fights are won with striking as with grappling.  Just as many fights are won by fighters who prefer striking as by fighters who prefer grappling.  

Don't argue with your friend.  Just invite him over to watch a UFC pay-per-view.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Your friend apparently hasn't kept up with modern MMA.  He must have stopped watching the UFC in the 90's.
> 
> These days every UFC fighter is at least proficient in BJJ AND wrestling AND boxing AND Muay Thai AND possibly some other stuff.  Many fights never go to the ground.  Of those that do, many come back to the feet.  Just as many fights are won with striking as with grappling.  Just as many fights are won by fighters who prefer striking as by fighters who prefer grappling.
> 
> Don't argue with your friend.  Just invite him over to watch a UFC pay-per-view.



Oh, I don't argue with him. I made that one point and, when I realized nothing would make him see the flip side of the coin, I let him go on his merry way.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 25, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Oh, I don't argue with him. I made that one point and, when I realized nothing would make him see the flip side of the coin, I let him go on his merry way.



I think that watching some top-notch MMA strikers in action might do more to persuade him than the "UFC rules favor grapplers by limiting strikers" argument.  For one thing, he might be aware that the Gracies won plenty of matches in Brazil where those rules weren't in place - no prohibitions against groin strikes, throat strikes, eye pokes, head butts, elbows to the spine, kicking downed opponents, and so on.  For another, he might be aware that modern MMA has just as many rules that favor the striker over the grappler. On the other hand, seeing a superior BJJ practitioner get knocked out by someone who isn't as skilled of a grappler should be a wake-up call for someone locked into a "my style is always the best" mindset.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2014)

MJS said:


> And that line of thinking made him get his *** handed to him.  IMO, his line of thinking is no different than the same people some MMA guys talk bad about...you know, the extreme traditional guys, who don't want to follow the advice of the MMA guys, who believe in cross training.  Hell, if you look at some of the Gracie guys, like Renzo and Ralph, they do a lot of striking.  They don't seem anti striking.  I wonder what they feel about their relative.
> 
> But, to each their own, I suppose.



I trained with a Brazil top team guy for a bit and they had no issue.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Either there is a difference or there isn't. If there is a difference you have to drill it. If there is no difference stay on the mat and save yourself the injuries.
> 
> If all it takes to turn mma into rsbd is one break fall on concrete then you are not going to have much of a street sport argument.


As you said yourself there is no difference, so why were you talking about having to practise break falling on concrete fifty or sixty times?


drop bear said:


> They don't butt flop in mma either. The rule of the day is win the scramble.
> 
> But you never know you might want to give your friends the opportunity to kick the other guys head in.
> 
> I have rolling guillotined someone in the street.


Lucky no one saw you. Most places these days you go to jail for a long time for doing that unless you can prove SD. None of my mates, who do a lot of security work, would dream of a choke hold these days.



> The maximum penalty for the charge of *attempts to choke *(Section 37 of the Crimes Act) is twenty-five years imprisonment.
> http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/attempts-to-choke



You seem, from your posts, to have been in more street fights than anyone I have met.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> As you said yourself there is no difference, so why were you talking about having to practise break falling on concrete fifty or sixty times?
> Lucky no one saw you. Most places these days you go to jail for a long time for doing that unless you can prove SD. None of my mates, who do a lot of security work, would dream of a choke hold these days.
> 
> 
> ...



If there is no difference then it makes more sense just to train on the mats. Which is kind of why you have somewhere to train in the first place.

Yeah the choke hold is a difficult one.it is frowned apon.  But it is also safer for me. This idea that the industry believes I can wrist lock everybody into submission just enrages me to be honest.


I have no time for the ppct system that is sold to the industry.


----------



## MJS (Mar 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I trained with a Brazil top team guy for a bit and they had no issue.



No issue with what? Striking?  IMO, I think there are a lot more BJJ guys that while they recognize a strong ground game, they also realize the importance of a good stand up game as well.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 26, 2014)

MJS said:


> No issue with what? Striking?  IMO, I think there are a lot more BJJ guys that while they recognize a strong ground game, they also realize the importance of a good stand up game as well.



Yeah no issue with striking and btt is about as Brazilian as you can get for jujitsu.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2014)

Hmm, a bit late to this one 



stonewall1350 said:


> I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.



Hmm, I remember when you first started here as well 2009 I was involved in many of your early threads, and I don't remember any such comments being made. In fact, your early threads were asking specifically for systems that would allow you to control, pin etc without striking and you were told specifically to look for Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, Wrestling, Ninjutsu systems, and so on no-one said anything negative about any of them. Just to be sure, I went back and checked (with less than 100 posts, it wasn't difficult to do) and I can't find any examples of the comments you're discussing here. 

Anyway...



stonewall1350 said:


> After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying



The simple fact is that none of that is "needed". You can do one, the other, both, or none of the above, and still have a real, dependable self defence approach (as you've put this in the General Self Defence forum, I'm taking this as only applying to that). If you're good enough at a striking approach, you don't really need grappling and vice versa. Of course, none of that is anything to do with the criticisms of sporting/competitive approaches there are plenty of striking competitive systems as well.



stonewall1350 said:


> Don't overlook judo/bjj/jiu jitsu



Er wasn't aware that anyone was.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll even go a big more extreme. There is no such thing as anti-grappling, but there is such thing as anti-striking.
> 
> When your opponent punches at you, if you can
> 
> ...



Hmm. I don't think I agree with anything in this post. And I'm not sure how it pertains to the OP, where there was no mention of anti-grappling, or anything else dealt with in this reply 



James Kovacich said:


> Correct, SOME MMA training does not directly translate to self defense BUT that can be said for all martial arts on the planet...if a new student came to me and asked me to teach him self defense that he could use quickly.
> 
> I would teach him full contact jabs, crosses, hook, elbows, low body kicks, basic choke methodology and basic grappling defense and offense and in that order...All well covered by MMA but overlooked by some traditional arts. Today, many schools "full contact" alone does not translate to real full contact...



Just to throw a spanner in this, I wouldn't teach any of that at all. If I was teaching them to survive a fight, on the other hand I wouldn't teach anything that complex but it'd be closer to that.



stonewall1350 said:


> Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground.



And most people don't know how to fight standing up, either but I gotta say, "fighting" on the ground has little to do with self defence, and therefore not much to do with the context you've set up in this thread.



stonewall1350 said:


> And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people.



So? This might not be a question you've considered, but so what? Do you actually consider them essential for self defence? If so, why? If not, why is it important that people need to know them?



stonewall1350 said:


> All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.



Why wouldn't strikers be aware of their foot placement? Do you think that striking systems (non competitive ones) only have striking? And, even if they do, why would they not be aware of their foot placement? It'd be an integral part of their structure and power generation, after all. 



stonewall1350 said:


> Tbh one move I have skipped out on is single/double leg takedowns. I use my trips and sweeps so often that I never use it. And now that I am raising my level I have found I need that move a little more. But I wouldn't use it on the street because I carry a gun and all of my moves revolve around creating space and opportunity to draw said gun.



So, if your primary tactic is to create space and gain the opportunity to draw, how does needing to know ground fighting fit into that? Ground escapes, sure but ground fighting? Wouldn't a simpler method be to strike in order to disengage and gain distance/separation?



Xue Sheng said:


> I have always felt Judo is a great art for Self defense. Never mess with a good Judoka



Damn straight.



drop bear said:


> Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete.



Sure, you can. I mean, if you're training on concrete, and your partner is trying to throw you, that's going to meet some pretty real resistance 



drop bear said:


> Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.



Sure but there's risk in everything. I do a lot of weapon work there's a lot of risk in that especially when we deal with real weapons Oh, but it would depend on who you were training with, of course. I could happily train in such a situation with some of my senior guys, as I know their level of control my juniors, on the other hand, wouldn't be allowed to try such a thing, as it would just be too risky (for all involved).



drop bear said:


> Same with things like training with belt kit. I have gone down a few times in situation and had no more than scrapes and pulled muscles. But I could not do it the fifty or sixty times it would take to learn the technique properly.



You do understand the difference between training drills to learn a technique, training drills to apply a technique, and training drills to pressure test a technique, yeah?



drop bear said:


> I can take a punch in the head without a mouth guard. But I am not sure I would train like that.



Pity, that can be quite enlightening depending on how you do it, of course.



drop bear said:


> Tricky. You generally negate striking with grappling by closing distance. That double leg can be a bit of a get out of jail free card if you are getting bashed.
> 
> I still work on the principle of.
> A. Stop getting bashed.
> ...



Yeah you're still looking at techniques as the answer they're not. They're simply not important in that sense.



stonewall1350 said:


> Anyone who thinks striking is flawed has never seen this video:
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/(null)[/video]
> 
> ...



Not sure of anyone who's said that either striking is flawed, or that grappling is worthless it'd be like saying that food has a bad taste, rather than specific food having a bad taste it just doesn't make sense. There's no single skill set called "striking" or "grappling" in that sense. 



stonewall1350 said:


> In both areas grappling knowledge was important. In the first it is obvious. The 2nd the guy needs to stay on his feet. That is why I love judo. You learn how to stay up.  Not just how to take down.



Judo's far from alone there 



drop bear said:


> Yeah but the sport training is training to problem solve on the fly.



Do you think that non-sports training doesn't? Additionally, if you don't, do you understand the influence that the specific contexts of learning have on the way such training is processed?



drop bear said:


> So resorting to training is fine because you are just auto piloting basic concepts while thinking of creative solutions. Otherwise you have to sort through millions of processes until you find the one that matches your environment.



Are you familiar with the OODA loop?



drop bear said:


> Falling on a hard surface is no different to falling on a soft one technique wise. There is no mat concrete break fall or roll variation.



Not sure I'd agree with that entirely 



drop bear said:


> It just sucks more to fall on concrete. I think most people know that without having to be led through the process.



 On the other hand, concrete (and bricks etc) can certainly speed up the development of such skills and yes, I'm saying that from personal experience.



drop bear said:


> Training on real environments like parking lots becomes a trade off. If I train on concrete I either have to dial down the pace and the resistance or restrict the skill set. If I am aiming for reality I have already shot myself in the foot a bit because I have to reduce the reality to train in the environment.



All training methods have trade-offs I believe you've had that pointed out to you a few times already, yeah? If you're aiming for reality, you aim to get as close to reality as you can get but here's the thing. That doesn't mean everything in a single drill or training method. You might have a larger skill set being applied, or a greater pace being employed, in safer environments which are non-realistic due to the surrounds and then slightly alter it when training in a more realistic environment and then have adrenaline training separate again. There is no single method that offers a complete picture of reality but there are some that get closer than others.



drop bear said:


> So I am not sure why I would bother that much with it in the first place.



If you're not understanding it, I'm not surprised you're not seeing the value of it.



drop bear said:


> But a gym is the real world. There is often no getting around that. There are other people occupying space things to avoid mats that get slippery and so on.



And you think that makes it "real world"? Really? 

No.



drop bear said:


> Now as far as awareness and other specific skill sets. They are completely bolt onable. Mma does this anyway. Anybody who cross trains is doing this. The advantage is I can go to a sports instructor who specialises in his skill set and not have to rely on their ability to teach awareness. I can go to an expert in that and train that. Then go to an rsbder and learn use of dirty tricks. Go to a weapons expert and learn that.



Depends on what you're there for. But here's a question what happens when your sports/specialist training dictates a particular response, and your self defence/awareness training dictates the opposite which do you follow? Do you know which one you'll choose? Or why? Or how you'll choose it?

Oh, and do you really think that RBSD is about "dirty tricks"? I've got experience in a range of RBSD methods, and "dirty tricks" is hardly how I'd describe them it can be an aspect, but it's just as likely to be an aspect of any traditional art as well.



drop bear said:


> I am not going to expect a martial arts school to teach me to shoot or drive defensibly I would not expect my defensive driving instructor to teach me to box.



Hmm, my schools must be quite the anomaly to you, then you've just described quite a number of things that I've done in our "martial art school"...



Tony Dismukes said:


> drop bear said:
> 
> 
> > There is an element of that. But the common movement is against it.
> ...



During a question and answer period at a seminar I attended with Royce a few years back, he was asked what he thought of the current MMA cross-training approach his answer was, fairly succinctly, "MMA? You know what that means? To me, it means that you can't do anything properly so you try to do a bit of everything if they were really good at what they did, they wouldn't need MMA."



wingchun100 said:


> Well congrats. You are the first grappler I have met who said otherwise. Then again I read somewhere that one of the Gracies (can't remember which one) is good friends with Sam Kwok and is an admirer of wing chun. I didn't think of that until just now LOL.



Make it two, then.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:
			
		

> During a question and answer period at a seminar I attended with Royce a few years back, he was asked what he thought of the current MMA cross-training approach&#8230; his answer was, fairly succinctly, "MMA? You know what that means? To me, it means that you can't do anything properly&#8230; so you try to do a bit of everything&#8230; if they were really good at what they did, they wouldn't need MMA."



Sounds like I interpreted Royce's viewpoint accurately then.

It's funny, though.  According to Royce's statement, everyone in the world (including him) must really suck at what they do.  After all _no one_ out there (including Royce) can succeed at the top levels of modern MMA without cross-training.  I'm sure that if you pressed him on that he'd say that it's because of time limits - never mind that in his only fight with a high-level representative of modern well-rounded MMA (Matt Hughes), Royce didn't make it to the end of the first round.

None of that is to bag on Royce's accomplishments.  He's a great martial artist and an MMA pioneer.  It's just a bit rich for him to deride modern MMA practitioners when he made his name fighting practitioners of single styles, most of whom wouldn't make it out of the minor leagues of modern MMA competition, let alone qualify for the UFC.  Hopefully he's moderated his rhetoric in the years since he made that statement.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, a bit late to this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Allrighty.

Sports training does not require you to be in every environment you may have to fight. It trains decision making. If another method requires you to train for every circumstance you may face that is the issued with the other method. 


As far as I can tell you would need a gym method then a concrete method then a grass method different methods for day and night and so on for all of that you would need to hold them in your head and then try to sort them out. Which would seem a very complicated.

I certainly don't train like that. And I don't think I would gain advantage from it.

I have never heard of the odaa loop but I am sure it is lovely.

Hard surface falling. Feel free to show the difference. I just break fall and roll. Which works as well as anything else.


I am saying falling on concrete does not speed the learning process from personal experience.

If there is a trade of then it is not reality training. Regardless of what people do. So the argument that it is reality training is wrong. Now if you go out in a dangerous environment. And then can't actually train on it I am not sure why they go out in the first place.

Accepting that none of it is reality training means you can just train where it is easier to get the technique right. Which is more beneficial.

I do not understand why I need to go between 2 parked cars to do a walk though of technique. I can't actually bust heads through windows or slam doors on people to get a feel for it. It is just theory driven. Just train the concepts of moving people around and hurting them efficiently and the parked car realism will work itself out.

Sorry gyms really are real places. They are part of the real world. Over the last two nights. I slipped over, one guy got caught in the nuts, one guy got thrown into a roller door, I threw a guy over the top of two bystanders, someone head butted a wall.

You still have to negotiate real physical obsticals during training.

I train to make choices so if I am in a situation where my sports training and the situation conflicts I will adapt to meet the situation. As in the top part of my post.

 I don't see why the martial arts instructor has to be burdened with the teaching of all things self defence. In mma especially they are not even burdened with being all things in sports fighting. Quite often there is a striking grappling and fitness specialist within the same gym. 

Most instructors are not really capable of providing that training on there own to the standard that specialists would. Awareness is one I would be very hesitant to learn in a martial arts school.

The problem these days is that people who are good at mma are really good at the individual parts. That is because the other guy is good at the individual parts and like an arm race you get forced to keep up.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 27, 2014)

There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.

If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.

Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.


----------



## MJS (Mar 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah no issue with striking and btt is about as Brazilian as you can get for jujitsu.



Cool!  I would imagine that as time went on, both the strikers and grapplers realized that learning from each other, would only improve their respective art.


----------



## MJS (Mar 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> The simple fact is that none of that is "needed". You can do one, the other, both, or none of the above, and still have a real, dependable self defence approach (as you've put this in the General Self Defence forum, I'm taking this as only applying to that). If you're good enough at a striking approach, you don't really need grappling&#8230; and vice versa. Of course, none of that is anything to do with the criticisms of sporting/competitive approaches&#8230; there are plenty of striking competitive systems as well.



No, none of that is needed, however, IMHO, what is needed, is an understanding of how things work.  I've always been a believer in that if you're doing to teach a defense to something, then you better know how that something works.  




> Just to throw a spanner in this, I wouldn't teach any of that at all. If I was teaching them to survive a fight, on the other hand&#8230; I wouldn't teach anything that complex&#8230; but it'd be closer to that.



How is any of that stuff, complex?  





> And most people don't know how to fight standing up, either&#8230; but I gotta say, "fighting" on the ground has little to do with self defence, and therefore not much to do with the context you've set up in this thread.



IMO, I think a lot of the time, when people use certain words, it tends to get misunderstood.  As I've said many times, intentionally prolonging the fight on the ground or even standing, is just foolish.  So yeah, taking someone down to the ground, just because that's your strong point, and rolling around, looking for a sub.  But, IMO, I feel that having enough knowledge in all ranges, is a huge part of self defense.  Enough skill/knowledge to survive the intial assault, and get back to your feet, is important.  




> And you think that makes it "real world"? Really?



I'm with you on this one Chris.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 29, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sounds like I interpreted Royce's viewpoint accurately then.



I'd say so, yeah.



Tony Dismukes said:


> It's funny, though.  According to Royce's statement, everyone in the world (including him) must really suck at what they do.  After all _no one_ out there (including Royce) can succeed at the top levels of modern MMA without cross-training.  I'm sure that if you pressed him on that he'd say that it's because of time limits - never mind that in his only fight with a high-level representative of modern well-rounded MMA (Matt Hughes), Royce didn't make it to the end of the first round.



I think the thing is, Royce isn't interested in what MMA has become&#8230; it's no longer "which is the 'best' system/art", it's more a personal achievement thing. His focus is on the benefits of BJJ, it's dominance over other systems, not someone learning lots of bits of things, but never any one thing in any real depth&#8230; at least, that's how I read him. It's more a case of "well, if you have to do all that just to beat what I do&#8230;" or, more likely, "so you know what I do works, and because you can't do it anywhere near as well, you want to add things and patch it up with other stuff, rather than learn it properly?"



Tony Dismukes said:


> None of that is to bag on Royce's accomplishments.  He's a great martial artist and an MMA pioneer.  It's just a bit rich for him to deride modern MMA practitioners when he made his name fighting practitioners of single styles, most of whom wouldn't make it out of the minor leagues of modern MMA competition, let alone qualify for the UFC.  Hopefully he's moderated his rhetoric in the years since he made that statement.



I'm not sure that he has&#8230; or would even be able to. But that's getting into a whole other area&#8230; Again, MMA itself just doesn't interest him&#8230; I don't think he either envisioned, or intended for the UFC to spawn the modern MMA approach it has&#8230; and I don't think he's particularly pleased with it.



drop bear said:


> Allrighty.



Before we get too far, you do know you can separate out a quote to show exactly what you're responding to, yeah? Similar to the way I've done it here&#8230; there are a couple of ways. One is to hit the "Quote" button in the top of the reply box (the one on the far right)&#8230; but what I do is to simply highlight the first part of the quote link (it looks like this without the spaces - [ QUOTE = {user name};{number of post/quote}]/[ QUOTE = Chris Parker;1628361]), copy it, and paste it in front of the section I want to separate out. At the end, use the "end quote" link (again, without the spaces - [ /QUOTE ]). It'll just make communicating a lot easier.



drop bear said:


> Sports training does not require you to be in every environment you may have to fight. It trains decision making. If another method requires you to train for every circumstance you may face that is the issued with the other method.


 
Sports training certainly does require you to train for each environment you're likely to fight in&#8230; whether an open matted "ring", a ring with ropes, or anything else. Not all of your training is going to be "in the ring" itself, of course, but without training in the ring, you're not really training for the sport itself. As far as sport training "decision making" (as if that's any different to non-sports systems training methods), no, it doesn't. At least, not in any way removed from, better than, or more effectively than other training methods. Sports training is centred on context-specific skill application, not decision making.

Let's take an experiment to look at that, though. In your sports training, how much time is dedicated to understanding tactical approaches and strategies? And how are such things understood (in other words, what is a strategy, and what is a tactic, how do you recognise them, how do you develop them, how do you choose which to apply, and how much depth do you have in your training of such)?

Your final comment there about certain training methods requiring you to train for "every circumstance" being an "issue" with such methods, well, all I can say is that it's not an issue at all&#8230; especially when you understand exactly what it means.



drop bear said:


> As far as I can tell you would need a gym method then a concrete method then a grass method different methods for day and night and so on for all of that you would need to hold them in your head and then try to sort them out. Which would seem a very complicated.



Not really (on both counts&#8230; needing "different methods", and on it being "very complicated")&#8230; in fact, quite the opposite. A big part of training in such different environments is about acclimatisation, rather than looking at different approaches or methods. There might need to be some adjustment, sure, and the training is designed to highlight that, so you know both when it's needed (and when it's not), and what is needed. It also serves to highlight any methods that rely on a specific context or environment for their success&#8230; so you know what to drop from your training, making it less complicated when all's said and done.



drop bear said:


> I certainly don't train like that. And I don't think I would gain advantage from it.



You train sports. You don't need to train like that. If you want to train for reality and real life, though, there are a large number of benefits and advantages, if you could allow yourself to see them.



drop bear said:


> I have never heard of the odaa loop but I am sure it is lovely.



OODA&#8230; Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It's a sequence for decision making (you know, what you think sports training is all about&#8230; the fact that such things aren't really part of sports is a big indication of why you're not correct when you think that).



drop bear said:


> Hard surface falling. Feel free to show the difference. I just break fall and roll. Which works as well as anything else.



Hard surface rolling allows far less margin of error, for one thing&#8230; but the exact methods can vary quite a lot. I mean, are you familiar with how Judo and Aikido differ in their ukemi? Are you aware of the difference between ukemi and nigemi? Do you know where you would use each? How much do you know of more traditional ukemi methods, as opposed to modern methods? Do you know why their different (most traditional methods don't look much like break falling at all&#8230; especially when compared with, say, Judo or Aikido methods)? But if you want some more definite differences, look to the use of the legs, the angle of the body hitting the ground (as well as the height from which you fall), the usage of the legs, and so on.

Oh, and there's really no such thing as "just break fall and roll"&#8230; the sheer number of different approaches means there isn't any single form. Attending Aikido classes, my break falling and rolling is "wrong"&#8230; but bring them into my context and environment, and it all changes.



drop bear said:


> I am saying falling on concrete does not speed the learning process from personal experience.



If it doesn't, it's pretty damn painful&#8230; and, if you don't learn faster with that impetus, I don't what might help you.



drop bear said:


> If there is a trade of then it is not reality training.



Honestly, that closed minded attitude of "well, if you can't make it exactly, perfectly real, it's not reality, therefore any other training that's unrealistic is just as good" is not doing you any favours. You do understand that there are scales and levels of reality in training, yeah? And that "Reality Based Training" isn't claiming to be training reality, but training with the basis of understanding and gearing itself towards reality&#8230; bit of a difference there&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Regardless of what people do. So the argument that it is reality training is wrong.



Only if you insist on an unrealistic set of requirements for it to be reality training (hmm&#8230; kinda ironic, really).



drop bear said:


> Now if you go out in a dangerous environment. And then can't actually train on it I am not sure why they go out in the first place.



What environment can't be trained on? I really don't think you've understood what you've been told.



drop bear said:


> Accepting that none of it is reality training means you can just train where it is easier to get the technique right. Which is more beneficial.



Yeah&#8230; you haven't gotten why the other environments are used&#8230; or when they're used.



drop bear said:


> I do not understand why I need to go between 2 parked cars to do a walk though of technique. I can't actually bust heads through windows or slam doors on people to get a feel for it. It is just theory driven. Just train the concepts of moving people around and hurting them efficiently and the parked car realism will work itself out.



Actually, no, it won't. You're actually arguing against the way your brain works here&#8230; and while you can't really smash your training partners heads through car windows (just what scenario are you thinking of here?!?), should a training drill both allow and require such methods, they can be trained with quite a degree of realism without damage&#8230; if you don't get that, then you don't get realistic training or scenario training&#8230; which I believe has been mentioned before.



drop bear said:


> Sorry gyms really are real places. They are part of the real world. Over the last two nights. I slipped over, one guy got caught in the nuts, one guy got thrown into a roller door, I threw a guy over the top of two bystanders, someone head butted a wall.



You're not really getting the distinction. Gyms/dojo/dojang/kwoon are real (physical) places&#8230; they have a real physical reality to them, they have walls, they have certain physical properties, and so on. And those physical properties can change from location to location (I train in one place with fantastically soft matting, another with solid, unsprung, hardwood floors&#8230; one has open walls without anything on them, another is covered with weapon racks and framed pictures&#8230; one old location had columns through the room, a low ceiling with frames for lights, and all walls were either glass or mirrors&#8230; some had equipment I could use, others didn't&#8230; and so on). That's all "real", sure&#8230; but it's not what we're talking about.

The difference is myriad, and include the fact that it's a "known" place&#8230; there is rarely anything unexpected as an obstacle&#8230; lighting is consistent and there to allow you to see what's going on&#8230; you're in a "safe" place (psychologically, even more than physically)&#8230; you're emotionally and mentally prepared for the experiences of fighting/training/physical discomfort/close physical presence of others etc&#8230; what's happening is "known", and fits within an expected framework&#8230; and more. All of these aspects (including the unwritten ones) remove the environment from being "real" in the sense of self defence training&#8230; it doesn't mean that the gym/dojo/whatever is a bad place, or what you learn/train there isn't "real/effective/whatever", it just means that you need to understand the limitations.



drop bear said:


> You still have to negotiate real physical obsticals during training.



Known ones. And not anywhere near as many as simply walking through your house during the day.



drop bear said:


> I train to make choices so if I am in a situation where my sports training and the situation conflicts I will adapt to meet the situation. As in the top part of my post.



No, you won't. Sorry, but that's simply not the way that either training, nor your brain works. You will respond with what you personally (unconsciously) feel/believe is the most powerful&#8230; which will most likely be what you've experience the most consistent success (or simply the most "important" success&#8230; a bit different, but not to be discounted) previously&#8230; commonly something you've trained a lot. But here's the thing&#8230; the way you've trained it is vitally important. If you train it as "fun", it'll be catalogued (internally) as part of your "fun" responses&#8230; if you train it as "win/sports", it'll be catalogued there&#8230; only if you train it as "self defence/serious" will you actually have anything there to fall back on&#8230; and, unless you've actually trained to handle adapting, you won't. You'll just respond with the same thing.



drop bear said:


> I don't see why the martial arts instructor has to be burdened with the teaching of all things self defence. In mma especially they are not even burdened with being all things in sports fighting. Quite often there is a striking grappling and fitness specialist within the same gym.



A martial arts instructor isn't burdened with teaching "all things self defence"&#8230; but a self defence instructor is. I mean, my Iai instructor doesn't discuss such things as legal repercussions to cutting down a retreating enemy (yeah, we do that&#8230; with his back turned and everything&#8230, as he has no reason to. And while awareness is a huge part of the Iai training, it's quite different to "self defence" awareness. In MMA, while one instructor might not be expected to deal with all aspects of MMA training, the gym is expected to&#8230; and each "specialist" instructor is expected to know their field and all it's relevant aspects. 



drop bear said:


> Most instructors are not really capable of providing that training on there own to the standard that specialists would.



Sure&#8230; but you're failing to see what the self defence instructors specialisation is. It ain't sports.



drop bear said:


> Awareness is one I would be very hesitant to learn in a martial arts school.



Pity&#8230; of course, it would depend greatly on the school, but really&#8230; pity.



drop bear said:


> The problem these days is that people who are good at mma are really good at the individual parts. That is because the other guy is good at the individual parts and like an arm race you get forced to keep up.



Being good at the individual parts is rather useless, though. What's more important is to be able to take those individual parts and put it together in a congruent method&#8230; and the most successful MMA competitors do that in a way that is particular to them.



drop bear said:


> There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.
> 
> If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.
> 
> Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.



Again, why and when such training is embarked on isn't being understood here.



MJS said:


> No, none of that is needed, however, IMHO, what is needed, is an understanding of how things work.  I've always been a believer in that if you're doing to teach a defense to something, then you better know how that something works.



Nah, not even that. It's highly advised, and a very good idea&#8230; but it's honestly not "needed". I do agree that if you're going to teach it, you need to know it, of course&#8230; but that wasn't the context of "need" here.



MJS said:


> How is any of that stuff, complex?



By themselves, they're not. What I was saying was that the entire list (as a whole) was too complex for the stated requirement (which was to have a new student come along and ask to be taught some self defence that they could use quickly). The list supplied was overly complex and too broad to suit such a need&#8230; to get that done in a way that was passable in all areas you'd need about 18 months to 2 years&#8230; not exactly "quickly" in this context. Given a more realistic time frame of, say, 3 months, I'd keep it down to maybe two strikes that could be done multiple ways, two kicks, two gross-motor takedowns or throws, and one or two basic defensive actions. Which I would choose would be determined by the student themselves&#8230; but, for preference, I'd give an open palm strike, and either an elbow or a straight fist (elbow preferred), a straight shin kick and a knee strike, a tackle (single/double leg) and a trip (osoto gake, as a base-form), a cover and a jam. That's it. They'd then be trained in multiple applications (pre-emptive, reactive, defensive, evasive, multiple hits, hits to remove grips, and so on)&#8230; which is a far more effective training methodology than just a list of specific techniques&#8230; it's a more "skill-based" method, rather than a "technique-based" one. Oh, and for the record, "full contact" there isn't really that important either&#8230; other aspects have far greater precedence.



MJS said:


> IMO, I think a lot of the time, when people use certain words, it tends to get misunderstood.  As I've said many times, intentionally prolonging the fight on the ground or even standing, is just foolish.  So yeah, taking someone down to the ground, just because that's your strong point, and rolling around, looking for a sub.  But, IMO, I feel that having enough knowledge in all ranges, is a huge part of self defense.  Enough skill/knowledge to survive the intial assault, and get back to your feet, is important.



That's certainly one approach. The problem with it is that you can't cover everything&#8230; which has you always looking for what gaps you might have.



MJS said:


> I'm with you on this one Chris.



Ha, thought you might be!


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Mar 30, 2014)

stonewall1350 said:


> I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.
> 
> After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying...
> 
> ...



I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.




I am not even sure there is a street training. Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.

If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.

But none of that is street.

None of that is three guys weaponed up stealing your wallet.

Show an example of street training and what you get is a drill.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Mar 30, 2014)

Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.



It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.


And by the way this is a triangle sweep.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=215w4pGxgwI

You can use that submission to effect a stand up.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Mar 31, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.
> 
> 
> And by the way this is a triangle sweep.
> ...



Yea, I was going to mention about going to a sweep but I was in hurry.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> Yea, I was going to mention about going to a sweep but I was in hurry.




It is something that needs to be mentioned people seem to have a very one dimensional view of how this sort of thing works.

I blame combat secearios for that.


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Nah, not even that. It's highly advised, and a very good idea&#8230; but it's honestly not "needed". I do agree that if you're going to teach it, you need to know it, of course&#8230; but that wasn't the context of "need" here.



So, it looks like I'm missing it then.  What was the context here then? 





> By themselves, they're not. What I was saying was that the entire list (as a whole) was too complex for the stated requirement (which was to have a new student come along and ask to be taught some self defence that they could use quickly). The list supplied was overly complex and too broad to suit such a need&#8230; to get that done in a way that was passable in all areas you'd need about 18 months to 2 years&#8230; not exactly "quickly" in this context. Given a more realistic time frame of, say, 3 months, I'd keep it down to maybe two strikes that could be done multiple ways, two kicks, two gross-motor takedowns or throws, and one or two basic defensive actions. Which I would choose would be determined by the student themselves&#8230; but, for preference, I'd give an open palm strike, and either an elbow or a straight fist (elbow preferred), a straight shin kick and a knee strike, a tackle (single/double leg) and a trip (osoto gake, as a base-form), a cover and a jam. That's it. They'd then be trained in multiple applications (pre-emptive, reactive, defensive, evasive, multiple hits, hits to remove grips, and so on)&#8230; which is a far more effective training methodology than just a list of specific techniques&#8230; it's a more "skill-based" method, rather than a "technique-based" one. Oh, and for the record, "full contact" there isn't really that important either&#8230; other aspects have far greater precedence.



Ah, ok...well, yes, when you put it that way, yes, I agree with that! 





> That's certainly one approach. The problem with it is that you can't cover everything&#8230; which has you always looking for what gaps you might have.



True.  IMO, with that said, I'd say work on what would be the most common/most likely attacks that you'd face.  





> Ha, thought you might be!


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 12, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.



It's not the techniques that are the difference.



drop bear said:


> I am not even sure there is a street training.



Hmm&#8230; really? Perhaps you need to broaden your understanding, then.



drop bear said:


> Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.



Er&#8230; what? Training is training, what it's designed for doesn't matter, as it's all just training? Great news! We'll get the police trained in tennis, then, as all training is just training&#8230; 

Seriously, no.



drop bear said:


> If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.



That's not the distinction. If done just for a change of venue, it's just a change of venue.



drop bear said:


> But none of that is street.



Who said it was? If you're training sports outside, you're still training sports.



drop bear said:


> None of that is three guys weaponed up stealing your wallet.



Unless the drill is specifically for that, of course&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Show an example of street training and what you get is a drill.



Sure, in some cases&#8230; but the drills are differently structured to sports drills&#8230; which is what you're not getting.



TKDTony2179 said:


> Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.



Yeah, I saw it&#8230; quite a few issues there, honestly&#8230; mainly that most of what he was saying as the reasons for grappling could also be used for not grappling&#8230; but he was looking for grappling applications, and if you're good at it, then it should be part of your "go-to" toolbox, no issue with that. As for the rest, techniques aren't the answer&#8230; or the problem.



drop bear said:


> It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.



No, if you're in guard the biggest threat is the guy on top pulling a blade on you&#8230; or his girlfriend pulling one (one of the most common situations involving stabbings in Australia is guys being stabbed by the girlfriend of the guy they're fighting&#8230.



drop bear said:


> And by the way this is a triangle sweep.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=215w4pGxgwI
> 
> You can use that submission to effect a stand up.



Uh&#8230; maybe. Pretty convoluted for street application, of course&#8230; I can see it being a good method in sports application, but it's really not a good go-to outside of that.



drop bear said:


> It is something that needs to be mentioned people seem to have a very one dimensional view of how this sort of thing works.



Really? I don't think so&#8230; at least, if it's there, it's to a far lower degree than you seem to have when looking at anything not MMA/BJJ&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> I blame combat secearios for that.



Except you've shown no actual grasp of what combat scenario training actually is, so&#8230; hmm&#8230; 



MJS said:


> So, it looks like I'm missing it then.  What was the context here then?



  The context of "need" was "needed for self defence"&#8230; and it's not. Boxing can be great for self defence, it doesn't "need" ground fighting&#8230; 



MJS said:


> Ah, ok...well, yes, when you put it that way, yes, I agree with that!



Ha, cool.



MJS said:


> True.  IMO, with that said, I'd say work on what would be the most common/most likely attacks that you'd face.



Which is exactly how any decent self defence instructor should be structuring their training methodology.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> It's not the techniques that are the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Still not street because you can't really show a street context.

Drills are basically sport.

By the way just as a side note. Can you show evidence that one of the most common stabbings being the girlfriend stabbing to protect her boyfriend?

That just seems untrue.


----------



## K-man (Apr 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Still not street because you can't really show a street context.
> 
> Drills are basically sport.
> 
> ...


Why do you keep bagging other people's training? If you are happy with your MMA training great, stick with it, but please stop ctriticising other people's training. It is getting tiresome. If our training is substandard by your reckoning then so be it. It is substandard, I agree.
:asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 12, 2014)

Somehow, I'm feeling a need for this:

Context:2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc. ​ 
Application: 
1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose: the application of common sense to a problem.  

2. the special use or purpose to which something is put: a technology having numerous applications never thought of by its inventors.  

3. the quality of being usable for a particular purpose or in a special way; relevance: This has no application to the case.​

Moving back to the original topic...  

Lots of the competitive arts have useful aspects and some relevance for use in self defense.  They have even more application in a Monkey Dance style encounter, where the two participants are more likely to "fight."   But there are dangers in trying to hard to use sporting applications in self defense, too.  Of course, I'm feeling a real strong sense of _deja vu_ as I swear I've said this before.  More than once...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Somehow, I'm feeling a need for this:
> 
> Context:2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc. ​
> Application:1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose: the application of common sense to a problem.
> ...


Yeah that pretty much makes sense for context how I am asking for it.

Show me how your technique works in the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc. 

So if it works in a drill that is the context.

If it works in the street then that is the context.


When I asked for a technique working in context I got what I asked for.

So the counter argument is that many sport systems are provable in the context of an unscripted and resisted attack. And I have said that before. That saying only applicable in sport does not work unless you have street.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2014)

K-man said:


> Why do you keep bagging other people's training? If you are happy with your MMA training great, stick with it, but please stop ctriticising other people's training. It is getting tiresome. If our training is substandard by your reckoning then so be it. It is substandard, I agree.
> :asian:



Is this in response to me asking for evidence?

That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about. That statement needs evidence. People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.

I did not think that is the sort of question that is out of line.

I am not bagging anyone's system. Drills are drills.


----------



## K-man (Apr 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Is this in response to me asking for evidence?
> 
> That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about. That statement needs evidence. People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? What has training against stabbing got to do with a girlfriend?

What you have done your entire time on MT is say that MMA training is real because you spar and all other training is just drills with a compliant partner and not unscripted. You refuse to acknowledge that other training is relevant and expect us to post video of martial artists fighting on the street to prove that our training works.

So I am sorry, to me that is bagging other training styles and I am sick of reading it, not to mention it is against forum rules.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> What are you talking about? What has training against stabbing got to do with a girlfriend?
> 
> What you have done your entire time on MT is say that MMA training is real because you spar and all other training is just drills with a compliant partner and not unscripted. You refuse to acknowledge that other training is relevant and expect us to post video of martial artists fighting on the street to prove that our training works.
> 
> ...




So asking for evidence is bagging a style?

I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.

I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.

I do not keep raising the street. If you raise the street why not have a street reference? And that is not bagging styles either.

And all of this is just so I can work from a point of reference. So that we understand each other.

I am sorry but this is not about you and me. We are better off keeping our level of upset removed from the points we post.


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So asking for evidence is bagging a style?
> 
> I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.
> 
> ...



And I say my training is also unscripted and resisted. When I post an example of what we do you bag it as just a drill because it is not delivered with full force.

As to reference to the street and that you don't keep raising it ...



drop bear said:


> So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?





drop bear said:


> Training on real environments like parking lots becomes a trade off. If I train on concrete I either have to dial down the pace and the resistance or restrict the skill set. If I am aiming for reality I have already shot myself in the foot a bit because I have to reduce the reality to train in the environment.
> 
> So I am not sure why I would bother that much with it in the first place.
> 
> ...





drop bear said:


> I am not even sure there is a street training. Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.
> 
> If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.
> 
> ...





drop bear said:


> Still not street because you can't really show a street context.



and from another thread ...



drop bear said:


> I would expect krav to make sense from a sports perspective and then have modifications that make it street viable. Not things like keeping a fight upright which can be tactically viable. but just really strange ideas at a basic level that there seems to be no need for.





drop bear said:


> Having discussion about street vs sport I think the concept mostly does not apply.





drop bear said:


> people say street but do drills.
> 
> The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.
> 
> ...





drop bear said:


> If people want to hide behind the street sport distinction then they really need to come to the party with a street example and not a drill. Especially not in a dojo with a compliant partner.



So, if you didn't make those comments, who did? The tooth fairy? :angel:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> And I say my training is also unscripted and resisted. When I post an example of what we do you bag it as just a drill because it is not delivered with full force.
> 
> As to reference to the street and that you don't keep raising it ...
> 
> ...



Half of those were about there not really being a street sport debate. Which took me a little while to work out. Considering people saying street sport debate.

That is why I have changed my terminology to resisted unresisted. Unless I actually mean the street.

See when people said street I thought they were actually referencing street. I have made street comments but I actually mentioned the street.

Mostly anyway.

And I have even mentioned street sport here but in response to your post.

Have you shown me unscripted and resisted?

Maybe that one group fighting guy in the middle drill.

And they were not really going all that hard.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Still not street because you can't really show a street context.



Er&#8230; where do you get that idea from?



drop bear said:


> Drills are basically sport.



No, drills are a training method, and are used in all martial arts (and other pursuits).



drop bear said:


> By the way just as a side note. Can you show evidence that one of the most common stabbings being the girlfriend stabbing to protect her boyfriend?
> 
> That just seems untrue.



Sure. Discussions with both LEOs and medical professionals (ER surgeons and so on).



drop bear said:


> Yeah that pretty much makes sense for context how I am asking for it.



No it doesn't. You're asking for (the situation that gives the) application, not the context.



drop bear said:


> Show me how your technique works in the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.



That's application within context, not context itself. You're not understanding it.



drop bear said:


> So if it works in a drill that is the context.



No, a drill is a training method to develop a particular skill. That's not a context.



drop bear said:


> If it works in the street then that is the context.



No, that's the application.



drop bear said:


> When I asked for a technique working in context I got what I asked for.



What did you get?



drop bear said:


> So the counter argument is that many sport systems are provable in the context of an unscripted and resisted attack. And I have said that before. That saying only applicable in sport does not work unless you have street.



No, the only thing you can say is that sporting systems are provable to work in the situation they're designed for. And no-one is saying that that is the only situation that they're applicable for, just that that's what they're designed for, and best suited for.



drop bear said:


> Is this in response to me asking for evidence?



I feel that it's in response to your constant rhetoric of "only works in drills&#8230; MMA trains for unscripted and resisted (with the inference that nothing else does)&#8230;" and so on.



drop bear said:


> That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about.



What? There was nothing about not training a technique, but there was a correction for what you thought the biggest danger was (in a real encounter). The fact that you can't see this is just another indication that you're really completely out of your depth in this conversation. To be clear, I'm not doubting your experience or understanding of MMA&#8230; but you don't seem to have much of an idea of anything beyond that&#8230; and are rather happy to tell others how bad what they're doing is&#8230; despite not understanding the first thing about what they do, or why.



drop bear said:


> That statement needs evidence.



Your misunderstanding of a comment needs evidence? Perhaps you need to understand it first.



drop bear said:


> People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.



Uh, again&#8230; where are you getting that from?



drop bear said:


> I did not think that is the sort of question that is out of line.



Hmm. The manner matters&#8230; and the fact that you're basing your questions on a deep lack of understanding, despite being constantly corrected, is a big part of why you're getting the responses you are.



drop bear said:


> I am not bagging anyone's system. Drills are drills.



Sure&#8230; of course, I'm not sure you understand exactly what the methodology of drills can entail&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> So asking for evidence is bagging a style?



No, the constant inference that nothing other than MMA is training "for real", everything else is fantasy and delusion, and so on is a big part of why you're being seen as bagging a style (or styles, really).



drop bear said:


> I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.



Yeah&#8230; you didn't really follow what you were being shown. And I'm not sure that repeating would do much good.



drop bear said:


> I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.



Do you really, really think that what you do is unique? Do you think that other systems don't do such things as well? 



drop bear said:


> I do not keep raising the street. If you raise the street why not have a street reference? And that is not bagging styles either.



Actually, you do. And each time, you seem to say that it can't be trained for, or that what training there is is the same as sports training&#8230; and each time you're wrong.



drop bear said:


> And all of this is just so I can work from a point of reference. So that we understand each other.



If you don't understand it by now, I'm not sure that you will.



drop bear said:


> I am sorry but this is not about you and me. We are better off keeping our level of upset removed from the points we post.



He's not upset&#8230; believe me.


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.
> 
> If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.
> 
> Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.





drop bear said:


> I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.


One thing that comes up time after time in your posts is that your training is 'unscripted and resisted'. In an MMA sense, and believe me, I have very little knowledge of MMA, I am thinking that you mean in MMA sparring or competition you don't know what your opponent is going to do and when he does do it he is trying to take you down or whatever and you are either resisting that with full strength or trying to reverse the situation so you in turn are using as much power as you can. So to your mind this is the only honest way of training and that type of training doesn't exist anywhere else.

Can I say IMHO that this is only, and I repeat *only *applicable in sport. I don't teach that way at all and I never will. It could get people killed in a life or death situation. Sure I teach unscripted and I teach against total resistance. But I also teach scripted and against minimal resistance. In a reality based scenario it is unlikely a technique will encounter total resistance. If there is total resistance then you are using the wrong technique or the right technique at the wrong time. Either way it is likely to fail.

Once techniques are learned they are always going to be tested in unscripted situations but it is unlikely in that situation they will be tested against total resistance. You see, what you are promoting with the total resistance thing is a physical clash where the guy with the hairiest chest wins. In reality that is not the way it normally works. The person picking a fight rarely picks on a bigger stronger person unless they know that that person can't fight for some reason or other. If you are the smaller person you have to know how to fight to your strengths, and here I'm not talking of physical strength.

In competition there are weight divisions, for a very good reason. It makes for fair competition. You are not going to find a 55 kg woman competing in the ring against a 100 kg man but that could well be the situation on the street. So the training methodology of training against total resistance in this type of situation is totally wrong and I would say that, apart from a sporting context, it is almost always wrong.

When I teach a technique I teach it until it is second nature. Until that time, where it just happens automatically in the right situation, it is unlikely to be really successful in an unscripted scenario. Once the student has learned the technique it will be tested against increasing resistance. (I'm not really including kicks and strikes here.) Depending on numerous factors, at some stage that technique will fail. That might be because of physical strength difference or it might be because of difference in the level of relative experience. An important part of our training is recognising when a technique is failing so that you can move to a follow up technique. Now, in competition you see techniques failing but the competitors keep muscling on. That is normally not the situation in RB training. (The exception may be where you have trapped a weapon but can't wrestle it away. Certainly you need to keep control of the weapon arm but in this situation you need to add a technique.)

I don't have a problem in acknowledging that 'competitive' martial arts can be used for self defence, most of my training was in a competitive MA. But I do have a major problem with the blinkered approach of, "my training is real, if you can't show me video of your training working in a real street fight, then your training is not real". That is bagging all other styles that don't have your type of training.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> One thing that comes up time after time in your posts is that your training is 'unscripted and resisted'. In an MMA sense, and believe me, I have very little knowledge of MMA, I am thinking that you mean in MMA sparring or competition you don't know what your opponent is going to do and when he does do it he is trying to take you down or whatever and you are either resisting that with full strength or trying to reverse the situation so you in turn are using as much power as you can. So to your mind this is the only honest way of training and that type of training doesn't exist anywhere else.
> 
> Can I say IMHO that this is only, and I repeat *only *applicable in sport. I don't teach that way at all and I never will. It could get people killed in a life or death situation. Sure I teach unscripted and I teach against total resistance. But I also teach scripted and against minimal resistance. In a reality based scenario it is unlikely a technique will encounter total resistance. If there is total resistance then you are using the wrong technique or the right technique at the wrong time. Either way it is likely to fail.
> 
> ...




Lol only applicable in sport. And that is not style bashing any more than only applicable in drills?

See you start your sentence with "in a real fight this will happen. And in a mma fight that will happen." And you are putting the kart before the horse.

I just find a guy wack some gloves on and find out for myself.  So does my method work against a heavier person? I go find out with a heavier person.

So as an example of a drill. We may do one like this stand up drill. That is contested.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PDK3To42PdU


----------



## K-man (Apr 14, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Lol only applicable in sport. And that is not style bashing any more than only applicable in drills?


There are many things applicable to sport, many things not applicable to sport and things that apply to all MA training. So if I say that something is only applicable to sport I am not denigrating sport. The example I said applies only to sport was one on one totally resisted application of technique, the one that you keep telling us is the only way to train. In a competition with equally weighted competitors that's fine but with a small vs large opponent, male vs female, old vs young that is not the way it works. In my training if I am applying an arm bar and my partner is at the stage where he/she is starting to resist strongly I will stop at that stage. I have enough strength to make the technique work but I risk hurting my partner. The lesson here is that in reality my technique failed. Now I can do the ego thing and ratchet up the power and finish the technique and show everyone how good I am, or I can demonstrate that techniques can fail and that we need to be able to move from one technique to the next. In my training I want techniques to work with minimal force. I want realistic resistance but it doesn't often need total resistance.

An example of training that isn't applicable to sport would be weapon training, weapon disarms and many of the potentially destructive techniques that we train for emergency situations that aren't allowed in sport anyway. So that is not style bashing. Anyone is free to train the extra things we train. 



drop bear said:


> See you start your sentence with "in a real fight this will happen. And in a mma fight that will happen." And you are putting the kart before the horse.


And I didn't say it in this post. If I was to say it it would be in the context of the statement or discussion.



drop bear said:


> I just find a guy wack some gloves on and find out for myself.  So does my method work against a heavier person? I go find out with a heavier person.


You just don't get it do you? For you martial art training is only for young fit people who want to fight each other. How do you cater for say a 65 year old guy who is interested in a martial art or a woman of similar age? 

And just out of interest, why the gloves?



drop bear said:


> So as an example of a drill. We may do one like this stand up drill. That is contested.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PDK3To42PdU


And that's good training, so what? If you are calling that contested then almost all our training is contested. We do heaps of things like that but from what you have said, my training is no good. Even if I was doing the same drill you would find reason to say it was no good. Go figure. When I did post an example of the training we do you dismissed it as just a drill and because I don't have video of it being used in a street fight it isn't real training.

Let me ask a simple question. What are the main three reasons for you training MMA?
:asian:


----------

