# Street vs. sport... with a twist.



## cfr (Apr 17, 2006)

We've all seen the typical "Street vs. Sport" debate over and over. Im an MA newbie and the concepts from the Straight Blast Gym 
(http://www.straightblastgym.com/street.htm)
make sense to me than anything else Ive ever seen regarding the matter. They talk a lot about "delivery systems" and "aliveness". Below is an article from their website. It doesnt say "dont bother to train foul tactics like biting, groin kicks, etc". It instead says that if you acquire some certain attributes first, then learn those tactics, you will be much more likely to defend yourselve in the street. This makes sense. Id like to learn some foul tactics, but only after I am able to somewhat keep up with the big boys while they are playing by the sporting rules. Why? Because trying to apply them on the street against a resisting opponenet may prove to be much different than trying it in class. I was curious as to other people thought on the matter. NOT ON STREET VS SPORT!!!! But on learning street tactics AFTER learnin a proper delivery system, not before. Do the street guys here think their training could be imporoved by learning these concepts first? Do they totally disagree with the following concepts? Read below:


I see some of you still don't understand the distinction. The street vs sport, BJJ has rules, grappling should include biting, hair pulling, etc, is a straw man. It's a tired and meaningless debate. Its also the excuse that every master of DEAD martial arts from the traditional schools uses to explain his arts non effectiveness in a full contact environment. So anyone seeking to use this argument should be wary.


Let me be as clear as possible. I will borrow some of Dan Inosanto's terminology here, and yes Mr Inosanto is a Black Belt with the Machados, whom I consider some of the best GRAPPLING coaches in the world. (Try biting Rigan sometime, I worked it with him once and it sucks!). 
You need to make a distinction between a "delivery system" and a sporting application of an art. As an example we will use a man I admire very much, Renzo Gracie. Renzo could see a bite, a foul tactic, a version of an armlock, from Silat, or White Crane, or Yellow Monkey Fever, etc etc, and probably be able to INTEGRATE and apply that move very quickly. Why? Because he already has such a strong base on the ground. He understands the positions, and he has a great delivery system. Compare that with say an Aikido stylist. He may see the same application for a bite, or a choke, etc, but never be able to effectively use it. Especially against a wrestler or another groundfighter. Why? Because he doesn't have that delivery system. 


Mo Smith could see a punch or a kick or an elbow, from just about any striking art and probably apply it very quickly to his game. Why? Because he has a STRONG BASE in the delivery system of western boxing. Boxing has the body mechanics, footwork, timing, etc, that allow Mo to INTEGRATE those moves. 


Randy Couture could see a sweep from say. . Judo, and probably use it right away. Why? Because he has a strong base in wrestling, and Greco. My main job at the SBG is to see that everyone that walks through the door develops that strong base in the delivery systems of stand up, clinch, and ground. Because they have a strong base in BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, etc, DOES NOT therefore mean that they are "Sport Fighters". That's faulty logic and poor assumptions.In fact some SBG Instructors, including myself, spend a large percentage of time teaching law enforcement, and civilian self defense. Many drill daily using "foul tactics". It would be a HUGE mistake to assume that because they are very good at the delivery systems that they are not self defense orientated. 
Without a strong base on the ground, on your feet, and in the clinch, you can attend every "streetfighting" seminar in the world. Study every grappling art in existence, and still never be much of a fighter. That's the problem with the JKD Concepts paradigm. Does that mean all JKD Concepts people are like that? Of course not. Some have taken the time, and the pain That's involved in earning that strong base. 


I have people walk through my Gym door every week from out of town. They are here to take privates, and many aspire to be SBG Instructors. The first thing they do is roll on the mat, and most cannot hang with the white belts at my Gym, let alone the Blue or Purple belts. Then they box, and often they turn their back, reach out, fold under the pressure of being hit. It's just an environment they are not used to. They go away with a list of things to work on, a true knowledge of where their real skill level is, and hopefully a positive and productive experience. But, they do not go away with Instructors certificates.


In a few cases I have looked online and seen that a Month or so later these same people have traveled to other JKD Instructors and become "certified" Instructors. I think That's fine. But That's not what the SBG is about. Even if someone says that the only goal they have is to teach beginners 'self-defense', they still must OWN a good BASE in stand up, Clinch, and Ground. That doesn't mean we are a SPORT Gym. It just means we have high standards. 


Once that BASE is acquired, then an athlete can go on to integrate other moves, or ideas very easily. They will be able to put those moves into CONTEXT because they have a strong base of skill. Without that base people become lost in a classical mess very easily. Led astray very easily, because they just don't understand. A purple belt in BJJ who knows how to bite and gouge eyes is a COMPLETELY different beast from a "streetfighter" who bites and gouges eyes but doesn't have the base in that 'delivery system'. If you want to be a good fighter, and reach your own personal full potential, you MUST have that base. 

Also, I do not dismiss the danger of blades. In fact I know just how dangerous they can be, and so does every other SBG Instructor. They part of the curriculum, and they are addressed. But, I am very wary of people who talk about cutting arteries, and stabbing people in the guard, etc. Many times (not always) these people tend to be the kids that got picked on in school, lack a certain sense of self esteem, etc. I believe that people like this can be greatly helped through SPORTS. Whether it's boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, NHB, etc. This type of athletic event can help someone like this gain real self esteem. But too often, instead of going down that route they I see them being drawn into the "streetfighting/ tactical" stuff. And I think this usually just increases there paranoia and fear, and eventually leads to anger. 


This is why I think the sports paradigm is much healthier. The weaker members of our society are the ones that can use sports to improve their life the most. True self defense skills like awareness, maturity, lack of substance abuse, firearms, pepper spray,etc, can always be added. And should always be added. But the scared kids that get picked on are best helped through sports, and they are the ones I enjoy teaching the most because I have seen such a productive and great change that sports can bring to them. -Matt (Mono Loco) Thornton


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 17, 2006)

I almost agree with you 100%.  The only thing in your post that I have an issue with is that you say a TMA can't offer a good base.  It depends on the training that one received.  To use Aikido as an example, I would say most aikidoka don't have a good base.  But some schools do train hard and realistically.  Same goes for other arts.  

I think the biggest problems that most TMA's have is that they don't train against modern attacks.  But there seems to be a trend to change that.  There are wonderful techniques in TMA, and many are used in more sportive styles.  They just need to realize that practicing against a lung punch does not prepare you against boxing like punches.  Luckily, the TMA I study does train for attacks such as that.

Jeff


----------



## cfr (Apr 17, 2006)

Good point... for the remainder of the post, lets disregard that statement entiely. I can see the whole thing going way off in left field just beacuse of that statement, and Id hate to miss a great discussion just because of that.


----------



## Rook (Apr 17, 2006)

Excellent posts. The one thing I really disagree with, though, is the comment "DEAD arts."  Very few arts can be called truely dead, and most of them either are dead as in extinct or on the koryu list.  Even that list doesn't guarantee that the art is dead.  Stylists will evolve even if the art doesn't... and even rigid traditionalists respond to the times to some extent.  

The thing that TMAists have to defend themselves against in reality is the unrealistic training methods that have moved from being A PART of training to being the whole of training.  All the "great masters" (with the exception of Funakoshi, if you really want to call him a master, which I don't) fought many fights against a variety of stylists.  Most fought with considerable contact in the course of their own training.  At one point, it was not uncommon for people to get seriously injured in school fights over who would have the priviledge of training with the "master" or teacher at a higher level.  Many TMA schools have adjusted training somewhat in the modern era - and most spar in some form.  Some are even rather effective at it.


----------



## MartialIntent (Apr 17, 2006)

cfr said:
			
		

> As an example we will use a man I admire very much, Renzo Gracie. Renzo could see a bite, a foul tactic, a version of an armlock, from Silat, or White Crane, or Yellow Monkey Fever, etc etc, and probably be able to INTEGRATE and apply that move very quickly. Why? Because he already has such a strong base on the ground. He understands the positions, and he has a great delivery system. Compare that with say an Aikido stylist. He may see the same application for a bite, or a choke, etc, but never be able to effectively use it. Especially against a wrestler or another groundfighter. Why? Because he doesn't have that delivery system.


Interesting thoughts but with any respect that may be due, the above point is an attitude driven from a wholly partisan standpoint. In truth, as an aikidoka, if I'm physically close enough to choke or more especially bite, something has gone badly awry and I've lost control of whatever it was I was attempting to do. But hey, this is a *genuine* fight we're talking, _right_? In which case this is usually inevitable at some point. And that said, I'd certainly not be looking to capitalize on such an "opportunity", I'll be thinking I'm too effing close ie. I'm gonna have to start blocking strikes, or more worryingly, blades - at which point I would be getting the same responses from all my senses that exit is the best -and in my opinion only- strategy.

The implication from the above seems to be that my "base" or "delivery system" as an aikidoka is inherently weaker? I would argue that I simply endeavor not to be in such close proximity to my opponent and if I *am* in the position to bite, I'm kind of aware that he's also in the position to plant his elbow in my face. Ummm... Real world live-or-die defensive situations [and not theoretical posturing commonplace on MA forums] are seldom about applying _this_ lock or working _that_ technique - one does all that in the sanctity, safety and sterility of one's practise locale. If I find myself in some gawd-awful parking lot in a position to apply a chokehold, why wouldn't I use the face-away opportunity to get the hell outta there? Likewise, a bite is too often an invitation for broken teeth at best [my experience] and potentially a fractured jaw. 

Again, I'm not dissing anyone and certainly not anyone's art, but for me, the layman's use of Aikido-as-whipping-boy in SD discussions frequently grows tiresome.

Ultimately, I'm wondering are all the _sleeves-rolled-up_ thinking fighters getting lost in the incessant debate? Or are they out there right now getting on with it while indoors the hypothesizing continues...

Respects!


----------



## still learning (Apr 17, 2006)

Hello, Many of us view sports with rules.  Street fighting..No rules, anything goes,bite,stab,shoot,club,stone,eye removal,thoat attacks,break something,even kill.

Sounds harsh...when someone attacks you on the street...expect the worst...fight dirty and hard....Aloha

Doing sports fighting will improve your fighting skills for sure!!!

My son does High school sport Judo and Wrestling, his skills has improve alot. When he shows up for our Kempo training you can see the improvement,especially in the takedowns and throws. ...Aloha


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2006)

IMHO, bottom line is, its all going to come down to how you train.  There are people out there who do a TMA, but still add in aliveness, resistance, etc. etc in their training, but the problem lies in the fact that many people bunch all TMA's together, without fully knowing how everyone is training.  Unless we go out and look at every single person in the world, to see how they're training, to say that "X" art doesn't do this or that is wrong!

Mike


----------



## cfr (Apr 17, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Excellent posts. The one thing I really disagree with, though, is the comment "DEAD arts." Very few arts can be called truely dead, and most of them either are dead as in extinct or on the koryu list. Even that list doesn't guarantee that the art is dead. Stylists will evolve even if the art doesn't... and even rigid traditionalists respond to the times to some extent.
> 
> The thing that TMAists have to defend themselves against in reality is the unrealistic training methods that have moved from being A PART of training to being the whole of training. All the "great masters" (with the exception of Funakoshi, if you really want to call him a master, which I don't) fought many fights against a variety of stylists. Most fought with considerable contact in the course of their own training. At one point, it was not uncommon for people to get seriously injured in school fights over who would have the priviledge of training with the "master" or teacher at a higher level. Many TMA schools have adjusted training somewhat in the modern era - and most spar in some form. Some are even rather effective at it.


 
Agreed, and like my last post, lets disregard this comment entirely as well as it will lead to the typical TMA vs. MMA debate, which I want to avoid desperately. My questions at the bottom of my original post were more what I was asking.


----------



## cfr (Apr 17, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> IMHO, bottom line is, its all going to come down to how you train. There are people out there who do a TMA, but still add in aliveness, resistance, etc. etc in their training, but the problem lies in the fact that many people bunch all TMA's together, without fully knowing how everyone is training. Unless we go out and look at every single person in the world, to see how they're training, to say that "X" art doesn't do this or that is wrong!
> 
> Mike


 
Agreed! I bounced around between a couple of different TMA schools because they seemed so unrealistic. They seemed that way because they were "dead" and lacked aliveness.


----------



## Robert Lee (Apr 17, 2006)

M/A training Is like going to school to college. To votech. You learn the subject matter The foundation. Then you have to apply it. Just as you do your job What ever it may be. M/A to be applied needs a certion amount of resistive training so you can find out how you can use what you were supposed to have been learning.  Plus A person has to remember to stay in shape and condition the body to be able to use the tools when needed with out gasing out or being injured from lack of conditioning.  So yes If your training does not include some resistive training then how can it be called live training. whens it really theory of practice saying this will work. As long as the other person is not resisting   letting you do something. it looks good that way but is not tested for you. So how do you know you can use it in a real time action. Its a choice in training that makes one art workable that is training it harder and pushing your self to explore what you have learned. Like I said that is what we do after getting out of school and have to work a job we have to apply what we have learned.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 17, 2006)

Hopefully none of us will ever have to apply (or apply again) what we've learned for real. But, you're all correct. It comes down to application or you're ability to do so, under pressure.


----------



## cfr (Apr 19, 2006)

You know something I just realized that I find interesting (Im sure I will lose what little popularity I have around here). You start a post like "TMA vs. MMA", and there will be a flurry of activity. People will jump in from all over the place to defend what they beleive. It will grow to 10 + pages in just a few days. 

Also, you start a post like "how can I improve my _", and the responses will be through the roof. Experts will begin popping out of the woodwork, and the amount of wisdom that comes from experts will be endless.

Then start a post like "Do the street guys here think their training could be imporoved by learning these concepts first"? 

Pretty quiet. 

I asked this question in hopes to gain insights from people who train for SD. Not to put anyone down or exploit perceived weakness', but to learn from one another. To hopefully find someone that would have arguements for or against. No such luck. My goals are really SD, but I believe in different training methods than most people with this goal.

Just an ovservation.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 19, 2006)

O.k. if it is street that is your focus, forget about "sport" in any way or manner, in your training. Slim your training down, making conditioning a part of it as well, put on the gear and go at it. Take the basics that are taught, and train to implement tham realistically. Use scenario training, start bouncing at night clubs for real experience, Train in the clothing you'll most likely be wearing etc.. Combine the TMA and MMA stuff, both have positives when it comes to reality.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 20, 2006)

Matt Thornton as quoted by cfr is 100% correct.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Apr 20, 2006)

Train your body the way you intend to use it.......that goes for any martial art.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 21, 2006)

Short and Sweet, Perfect!


----------



## Zujitsuka (May 13, 2006)

As was said earlier, it is not so much what you train in, but HOW you train. Check out this article from Coach Scott Sonnon's Circular Strength Training Magazine that discusses hard work (sparring, "aliveness"), and soft work (drills, kata): http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/19/razy.html

Peace & blessings,


----------

