# What if MMA matches were fought to the death?



## Makalakumu

This is a gruesome question and I apologize for offending anyone, but what if winning was determined by killing you opponent with your bare hands? How would that change the sport? What would a match look like? What would the fighters fight for? What would be the impact on the MA community assuming that MMA remains wildly popular.


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> This is a gruesome question and I apologize for offending anyone, but what if winning was determined by killing you opponent with your bare hands?



THen it wouldn't be legal, anywhere-PPV would be out the window, so there'd be no revenue to support it, barring some sort of underground, internet feed, and it would become the object of a federal investigation when heard of.

Of course, such matches do take place underground, and you never hear of anyone involved. The fighters surely don't get sponsorhips from TAPOUT and such....:lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> How would that change the sport? What would a match look like? What would the fighters fight for? What would be the impact on the MA community assuming that MMA remains wildly popular.



Well, if it were a "death match" under the same rules as at present, the fights would be rather long and boring, wouldn't they? If the rules were changed to even say "Vale Tudo" rules, but "to the death?" Well, it would be "vale tudo," but to the death.....:lol:

And they say there's no such thing as a stupid question. :lfao:

Human nature being what it is, we'd watch it.


----------



## JWLuiza

Did you watch the Running Man again?


----------



## punisher73

I don't know, go back and research the roman gladiators.

As to what the sport would look like, take the UFC's "illegal tactics and fouls list" and that's what you would see more of.  There would be alot less people participating in it that's for sure.  Oh, and everyone in it would be undefeated.


----------



## Steve

The sport would quickly run out of legitimate athletes and what you'd have is a stable of fighters who are some combination of desperate, insane, poor, criminal, and sadistic.  

While death wasn't unheard of in Gladiatorial combat, it didn't occur every match and wasn't nearly as common as people often think.


----------



## Xue Sheng

What if MMA matches were fought to the death? 

Then they would be held in here







Not in here


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


> What if MMA matches were fought to the death?
> 
> Then they would be held in here



or here:




I know-it was Richard Dawson's death that inspired this, right?

View attachment $the-running-man-1.jpg
:lol:....just, just....:lol:


----------



## Gentle Fist

Then MMA wouldn't be around too much longer.

Chuck Norris would stand alone


----------



## Makalakumu

This question is hypothetical. Of course we don't live in a society where this is possible, but what if we did? What would it look like? What if the pay was so good, that a couple of fights would have you set for life? What if you were a slave and fighting was how you got free? What if society was simply that deranged and people were that blood thirsty? What would the sport look like?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Makalakumu said:


> This question is hypothetical. Of course we don't live in a society where this is possible, but what if we did? What would it look like? What if the pay was so good, that a couple of fights would have you set for life? What if you were a slave and fighting was how you got free? What if society was simply that deranged and people were that blood thirsty? What would the sport look like?



You just described Ancient Rome and the Gladiatorial Games&#8230; and there is your answer


----------



## Instructor

Gentle Fist said:


> Then MMA wouldn't be around too much longer.
> 
> Chuck Norris would stand alone



My favorite response!


----------



## Nomad

Then there would be a lot less fighting, and a lot more killing.  Two very different terms, IMO... fighting is about beating and dominating your opponent.  Killing is just that, and doesn't necessarily require the dominance aspects.  Oh yeah, and the champions would likely be psychotics of one sort or another.


----------



## Omar B

I think someone has been watching too many martial arts movies.  No company's business model operates on destroying assets.  It's not a working business model aside from being distastfull and willnver sell enough. Plus, not many athletes are gonna sign up for a fifty/fifty chance of death.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Omar B said:


> I think someone has been watching too many martial arts movies. No company's business model operates on destroying assets. It's not a working business model aside from being distastfull and willnver sell enough. Plus, not many athletes are gonna sign up for a fifty/fifty chance of death.



Not 50/50 but.....


----------



## Dirty Dog

Xue Sheng said:


> Not 50/50 but.....



Bad example. Jousting was specifically set up to try to AVOID killing people. Lances were wood, without the long steel tips that were used in war. Armor was modified from its war cofiguration (for example, you would never have seen the "frog mouth" helm worn for jousting in real combat). Jousting was the MMA of its time...


----------



## Cyriacus

It wouldnt be too interesting. Not many people would make a Career out of what is essentially signing on to eventually die slowly and painfully.


----------



## Buka

It would change our appreciation of a fighter's record. John Smith being 6-1 would have a whole new meaning.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Buka said:


> It would change our appreciation of a fighter's record. John Smith being 6-1 would have a whole new meaning.



All that would really matter to Mr Smith though....would be the 1


----------



## The Last Legionary

It should be this way. No more ***** rules, just full tilt gladiatorial mayhem! Like the old days, where the sands will drink heavily of the blood of the losers.


----------



## kungfu penguin

sounds like the hunger games to me


----------



## Cyriacus

kungfu penguin said:


> sounds like the hunger games to me



...Only more sensible


----------



## Makalakumu

I think we'd see more attacks designed to disable the opponent so that a killing technique would be applied.  Chokes would be applied to unconsciousness and follow up techniques would be applied.  People would be knocked out and stomps would be applied to finish.  Certain head first throws would be employed that would immediately disable the opponent.  Neck breaking techniques would appear in the wrestlers repertoire.  There would be no tap outs.


----------



## Cyriacus

Makalakumu said:


> I think we'd see more attacks designed to disable the opponent so that a killing technique would be applied.  Chokes would be applied to unconsciousness and follow up techniques would be applied.  People would be knocked out and stomps would be applied to finish.  Certain head first throws would be employed that would immediately disable the opponent.  Neck breaking techniques would appear in the wrestlers repertoire.  There would be no tap outs.



Speaking of which, didnt PRIDE used to have stomping?


----------



## Makalakumu

Cyriacus said:


> Speaking of which, didnt PRIDE used to have stomping?



Yup, and damn I thought someone was going to die.  I remember Wanderlei stomping on some dudes head!  But then the ref jumped in...


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> I Chokes would be applied to unconsciousness and follow up techniques would be applied.



Wouldn't ya just keep applying the choke as a "follow up technique?" 

I mean,"no blood flow to the brain/air flow to the lungs"= _*death*_, eventually....


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Wouldn't ya just keep applying the choke as a "follow up technique?"
> 
> I mean,"no blood flow to the brain/air flow to the lungs"= _*death*_, eventually....



Good point.  LOL.


----------



## Cyriacus

Makalakumu said:


> Yup, and damn I thought someone was going to die.  I remember Wanderlei stomping on some dudes head!  But then the ref jumped in...



I remember the Soccer Kicks more. I specifically have this recollection of someones (I dont recall specifics) head bending nearly 90 degrees sideways, and I honestly thought He was surely maimed. But He was ok. Well, besides being unable to defend Himself enough for the Referee to stop it.

EDIT: It *may* have been Cro Cop. To Youtube!


----------



## Omar B

Xue Sheng said:


> Not 50/50 but.....



You could have tried to pick a worse example to prove me wrong but in fact you chose pne that actually makes my point.  They are wearing armor (including helms not used in battle), wooden lances, established rules about points values for unhorsings, 8 times at the stocks.  All there to make sure the "knight" survives.


----------



## Newguy77

It would be amazing randy courture and fedor emenilankeo wouldnt have good records. They both lost early in their careers.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> Yup, and damn I thought someone was going to die. I remember Wanderlei stomping on some dudes head! *But then the ref jumped in...*




and kicked the guy too?


----------



## Siamese

Xue Sheng said:


> What if MMA matches were fought to the death?
> 
> Then they would be held in here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in here



 Not all matches were fought to the death. They had enough common sense death might get in the way of reusing the popular gladiators. I think over the centuries the rules and attitude in the colloseum varried, from an WWE thing to sick the Lions on those christians.


----------



## SandaBoxing

MMA fights already starts out as a fight to the death. It just gets stopped before serious injury or death can occur. 

Trying to put your fists, knees, elbows, shin, etc. into someone's face as hard as you can, and repeatedly until he gets KO'ed or TKO'ed is indeed doing the same as  trying to kill him in the street, prison, etc. with your limbs.  A KO is a KO. From the thousands of streetfight videos available online, most streetfights also ends when there's a KO. Either by the bystanders, the cops or even the guy who won; he stops. Rarely does anyone gets head stomped to death. 

And a choke hold that's sunk in is certainly a death move. If an MMA fighter chokes you out in a streetfight with no witnesses around in a dark alley, he now has your life in his hands and the decision that you live or die, is now his. Same if you got KO'ed by him. He can chose to go home and eat a Hot Pocket or stay and headstomp you to death.


----------



## Makalakumu

SandaBoxing said:


> MMA fights already starts out as a fight to the death. It just gets stopped before serious injury or death can occur.
> 
> Trying to put your fists, knees, elbows, shin, etc. into someone's face as hard as you can, and repeatedly until he gets KO'ed or TKO'ed is indeed doing the same as  trying to kill him in the street, prison, etc. with your limbs.  A KO is a KO. From the thousands of streetfight videos available online, most streetfights also ends when there's a KO. Either by the bystanders, the cops or even the guy who won; he stops. Rarely does anyone gets head stomped to death.
> 
> And a choke hold that's sunk in is certainly a death move. If an MMA fighter chokes you out in a streetfight with no witnesses around in a dark alley, he now has your life in his hands and the decision that you live or die, is now his. Same if you got KO'ed by him. He can chose to go home and eat a Hot Pocket or stay and headstomp you to death.



I don't know why this never registered, but it's true. The ref is stopping the action if it's going to actually kill. However, the ref is also stopping a bunch of other actions that are illegal.


----------



## drop bear

You would kind of loose the point of grass roots mma. Which is for a bit of fun. Same as any sport fought to the death.


----------



## Gnarlie

Would the fighters be less skilled as it would be harder for them to gain real experience? 

Fast finishes that are currently illegal, like the throat punch, groin kick as an opener, and deliberate strikes to the base of the skull would be more prevalent. I think we would see fewer techniques that take time to apply, and more bias towards lower-risk-higher-return striking combos.

I'd be interested to see a match where you put three people in the octagon at the same time, to see how that would change the MMA game. 

Gnarlie


----------



## drop bear

Gnarlie said:


> Would the fighters be less skilled as it would be harder for them to gain real experience?
> 
> Fast finishes that are currently illegal, like the throat punch, groin kick as an opener, and deliberate strikes to the base of the skull would be more prevalent. I think we would see fewer techniques that take time to apply, and more bias towards lower-risk-higher-return striking combos.
> 
> I'd be interested to see a match where you put three people in the octagon at the same time, to see how that would change the MMA game.
> 
> Gnarlie



Three people winds up stupid. Two people engages an one snipes. So nobody wants to engage. And it becomes a stand around fest.


----------



## SandaBoxing

Makalakumu said:


> The ref is stopping the action if it's going to actually kill. However, the ref is also stopping a bunch of other actions that are illegal.



True that there are many rules now in current MMA compared to what was allowed in early UFCs. But even with the current rules of MMA, there are NO OTHER martial arts tournament that allows the same level of brutality as MMA. All of the TMA's that claims they're too deadly for MMA, yet they also conduct their own tournaments with a megacrap-ton of rules and regulations as well as all the body armor worn, rivaling riot gear of prison guards. 

During the early UFC's, especially UFC 1-4, there were only 3 illegal techniques which were no biting, no eye gouging (eye strikes were legal) and no fish-hooking. But these moves did not disqualify the fighter nor stop the fight. He was fined $1,000/incident. Each fighter was paid $2,000 per fight (win or lose) and the main purse for winning it all was $60,000. Therefore, a fighter could have use these wussy ladies' tactics of biting and eyegouging, be fined but still come out way, way, way ahead should she wins the $60,000 prize, which was enormous for any martial artists up to that time as the average full time MA'ist made squat as a salary. And $60k was a lot in 1994, still nice today too for a day's work.

Eye strikes was certainly allowed, so were strikes to the throat, nutsack, back of the head, spinal column, all pressure points, etc. Raining knees and elbows to the face/head of down opponent, soccer kicking someone's head on the ground, stomping their skull pressed against the mat, no problem at all and was done in quite a few fights. Yet Royce Gracie proved that his BJJ style beat them all and all other styles. Jason Delucia (Kung-Fu) tried to get out of a hold by eye gouging Gracie, which is why Gracie didn't let go when DeLucia tapped furiously and the Ref jumped in but too late, the arm was popped at the elbow. Same with the Karateka who bit Gracie, you can see him trying to tap like crazy but Gracie didn't let go of the choke. On the street, Gracie could have killed both of them if he wanted to. Gracie said all of this in some post interviews to explain why he didn't let go once they tapped. This was an unwritten rule in Vale Tudo in Brazil, although there were no rules, if you used cowardly moves such as biting and eye gouging, don't expect the tap to stop the fight before you're at least severely injured + direct trip to the hospital, but hopefully not maimed for life. 

Gracie proved that Ninja deathstrikes and junk don't really work against experienced fighters. And UFC contenders and champions today would annihilate Royce Gracie in his prime. BJJ has long since been a staple of MMA training, and it's not a surprise like it was 20+ years ago.


----------



## SandaBoxing

Gnarlie said:


> Would the fighters be less skilled as it would be harder for them to gain real experience?
> 
> Fast finishes that are currently illegal, like the throat punch, groin kick as an opener, and deliberate strikes to the base of the skull would be more prevalent. I think we would see fewer techniques that take time to apply, and more bias towards lower-risk-higher-return striking combos
> 
> Gnarlie



All of these strikes that you mentioned were indeed, legal, in the early UFC's. One of dominating techniques was to take control of the back, hook the ankles at the opponent's knees to cause him to flatten out and rain a million down elbows to the back of his head, neck and spine. He'd tap really quick or spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. 

Throat punches are no big deal as a fighter's chin should be down. The chin is an easier and more damaging target than the throat. I'd rather get punched in the throat, which has happened a few times when I was very new, than get punched on the chin. I've been sidekicked in the throat and it didn't even stop the fight, just a sore throat 3 hours later when the adrenaline wore off, that went away the next day. When training, sparring hard and in actual fights, kicks goes towards my groin often. The Muay Thai inside leg kick sometimes strikes the groin and so do knees. A trained fighter is very weary of this and is very used to addressing such strikes, as it's heading in the same direction as an inside leg kick. Same goes with a throat strike, just treat it like any other punch towards the face by not letting it hit you.


----------



## SandaBoxing

drop bear said:


> Three people winds up stupid. Two people engages an one snipes. So nobody wants to engage. And it becomes a stand around fest.



This is very true:    




They do this often in Krav Maga where you spar 2 on 1. They do a lot of self defense moves that looks cool in theory, but when it's sparring time, I tear most them apart as an experienced fighter, and I'm not even that good. Now the KM gyms that have ring fighters, those are legit.


----------



## Chris Parker

SandaBoxing said:


> MMA fights already starts out as a fight to the death. It just gets stopped before serious injury or death can occur.



No, it doesn't. It starts out as an MMA match. And remains one until it ends&#8230; as an MMA match. It's set up deliberately to avoid serious injury or death, and such ideas go against the very concept of a sporting contest in the first place.



SandaBoxing said:


> Trying to put your fists, knees, elbows, shin, etc. into someone's face as hard as you can, and repeatedly until he gets KO'ed or TKO'ed is indeed doing the same as  trying to kill him in the street, prison, etc. with your limbs.


 
No, it's really not.



SandaBoxing said:


> A KO is a KO.



Sure&#8230; but that's really not the same thing as an intention to kill.



SandaBoxing said:


> From the thousands of streetfight videos available online, most streetfights also ends when there's a KO. Either by the bystanders, the cops or even the guy who won; he stops. Rarely does anyone gets head stomped to death.



The question isn't where they stop, it's why&#8230; and the reason is that it's not a fight to the death. Why not? Well, there's any number of reasons&#8230; ranging from societal rules, to legal realities, to personal morals and ethics (yes, even "bad guys" have morals and ethics)&#8230; but the point is, it's not a fight to the death.



SandaBoxing said:


> And a choke hold that's sunk in is certainly a death move.



No, it isn't. It can be, but it isn't by definition one. It's a restraining hold, a submission hold, an incapacitating one, or, in extreme circumstances, can be a lethal one.



SandaBoxing said:


> If an MMA fighter chokes you out in a streetfight with no witnesses around in a dark alley, he now has your life in his hands and the decision that you live or die, is now his.



Which is fantasist thinking, realistically. 



SandaBoxing said:


> Same if you got KO'ed by him. He can chose to go home and eat a Hot Pocket or stay and headstomp you to death.



Yeah&#8230; not actually that realistic, when you look at it honestly.


----------



## drop bear

Am going to suggest being unconscious during a self defence situation is not a great place to be.


----------



## Chris Parker

And&#8230; where do you see that being argued against?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> And&#8230; where do you see that being argued against?



You are leaning towards mma being not moves of death. But it kind of sort of is. Many people do die from chokes punches throws etc. Now a mma match is not intended to cripple or kill. But it is sort of there in the background regardless.

A ko being a prime example of if it were a fight to the death then there is not much chance given to the unconscious guy. So there are elements where sanda is getting a bit vigorous with the concept.

But he is not all together wrong.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> You are leaning towards mma being not moves of death.



Right, let's clear this up. Firstly, the "moves" of MMA are specifically done because they are not "moves of death"&#8230; so I'm not "leaning towards" anything. Secondly, we're looking at a context (MMA match or training) which is completely removed from the idea of lethality, so yeah, again, it's not a fight to the death in any form at all (other than tragic accidents). Thirdly, the "moves" aren't the reason it's not even in the same category here&#8230; but they are the behaviour which exhibits why it's not in the same category.



drop bear said:


> But it kind of sort of is.



No, it's not. At all.



drop bear said:


> Many people do die from chokes punches throws etc.



No, they don't. It's incredibly rare to have anyone die from a choke or a throw&#8230; and with most punches that kill, it's not the punch that does the damage&#8230; and, again, it gets into the realm of "tragic accident". The same applies to most choking or throw-related deaths&#8230; the only cases I can think of where someone is deliberately choked to death are more a crime of passion, and it's never anything seen in MMA.



drop bear said:


> Now a mma match is not intended to cripple or kill.



This we agree on.



drop bear said:


> But it is sort of there in the background regardless.



And this we don't. Believe me, I do train in methods that are specifically lethal, and the separation between that and MMA training is not dissimilar to the separation between playing pool, and swimming in a pool.



drop bear said:


> A ko being a prime example of if it were a fight to the death then there is not much chance given to the unconscious guy.



Again, rather besides the point.



drop bear said:


> So there are elements where sanda is getting a bit vigorous with the concept.
> 
> But he is not all together wrong.



Yes, he is.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Right, let's clear this up. Firstly, the "moves" of MMA are specifically done because they are not "moves of death"&#8230; so I'm not "leaning towards" anything. Secondly, we're looking at a context (MMA match or training) which is completely removed from the idea of lethality, so yeah, again, it's not a fight to the death in any form at all (other than tragic accidents). Thirdly, the "moves" aren't the reason it's not even in the same category here&#8230; but they are the behaviour which exhibits why it's not in the same category.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. It's incredibly rare to have anyone die from a choke or a throw&#8230; and with most punches that kill, it's not the punch that does the damage&#8230; and, again, it gets into the realm of "tragic accident". The same applies to most choking or throw-related deaths&#8230; the only cases I can think of where someone is deliberately choked to death are more a crime of passion, and it's never anything seen in MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> This we agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> And this we don't. Believe me, I do train in methods that are specifically lethal, and the separation between that and MMA training is not dissimilar to the separation between playing pool, and swimming in a pool.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, rather besides the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is.



So from someone who specifically trains in lethal techniques.

What are these more lethal techniques?

how often does someone die either in training or as a result of training?

Are there examples of people dying from these techniques recorded in the news for example?

Are these techniques different fundamentally to mma techniques?


----------



## Chris Parker

You really want to do it this way? Okay&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> So from someone who specifically trains in lethal techniques.
> 
> What are these more lethal techniques?



Typically, they involve weapons. But there are some specifically (and deliberately) lethal empty hand methods taught as well, such as severe breaks of various forms, and others. But most of the time, if ya wanna kill someone, grab a weapon.



drop bear said:


> how often does someone die either in training or as a result of training?



Historically? It's certainly happened. It's happened in non-lethal methods as well. In my classes? No-one. But that's because there are safety measures in place in order to train such things (such as specific equipment, particularly structured drilling methods, and so on).



drop bear said:


> Are there examples of people dying from these techniques recorded in the news for example?



Recognising that I'm talking about classical weaponry techniques and methods here, not often, no. But you do occasionally get the loon with a "sam-yoo-rye sword" going nuts and hacking some poor unsuspecting person with it, admittedly not with any real technique behind it&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Are these techniques different fundamentally to mma techniques?



Yes. But that's not the important aspect.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> You really want to do it this way? Okay&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Typically, they involve weapons. But there are some specifically (and deliberately) lethal empty hand methods taught as well, such as severe breaks of various forms, and others. But most of the time, if ya wanna kill someone, grab a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Historically? It's certainly happened. It's happened in non-lethal methods as well. In my classes? No-one. But that's because there are safety measures in place in order to train such things (such as specific equipment, particularly structured drilling methods, and so on).
> 
> 
> 
> Recognising that I'm talking about classical weaponry techniques and methods here, not often, no. But you do occasionally get the loon with a "sam-yoo-rye sword" going nuts and hacking some poor unsuspecting person with it, admittedly not with any real technique behind it&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But that's not the important aspect.



We'll otherwise we fall into he said she said.

So I was thinking king more weaponless as in the context of mma death match. Let's not get into gun fu.

Do you have examples of the extra lethality of other systems. And possibly where they killed people?


----------



## SandaBoxing

Chris Parker said:


> No, it doesn't. It starts out as an MMA match. And remains one until it ends as an MMA match. It's set up deliberately to avoid serious injury or death, and such ideas go against the very concept of a sporting contest in the first place.



You need to understand what I said. Throwing a punch, kick, knee or elbow towards someone's head at maximum power and repeatedly is the SAME in an MMA fight as it would be in a fight to the death. The MMA fighter is still throwing everything he has at his opponent. He's not saving anything special that would be more vicious were it a streetfight.

And most streetfights or even violent attacks, are rarely fights to the death. Most are just fights to the KO, just like a sports fight. 

Even this right here didn't even result in a KO, let alone death: 





A choke hold is a death technique and it works just the same in the cage as it does in the street. Every when someone has you in a choke and you tap; you are being spared your life by that person as 10-20 seconds and you die, while he goes to jail for manslaughter or worse.


----------



## K-man

Xue Sheng said:


> You just described Ancient Rome and the Gladiatorial Games&#8230; and there is your answer



Except that most gladiators were slaves who were granted special privileges or even their freedom if they performed well for their master.



SandaBoxing said:


> MMA fights already starts out as a fight to the death. It just gets stopped before serious injury or death can occur.


Garbage! No one in sport gets into the ring for a fight to the death, hoping that the ref will save them.



SandaBoxing said:


> Trying to put your fists, knees, elbows, shin, etc. into someone's face as hard as you can, and repeatedly until he gets KO'ed or TKO'ed is indeed doing the same as  trying to kill him in the street, prison, etc. with your limbs.  A KO is a KO. From the thousands of streetfight videos available online, most streetfights also ends when there's a KO. Either by the bystanders, the cops or even the guy who won; he stops. Rarely does anyone gets head stomped to death.
> 
> And a choke hold that's sunk in is certainly a death move. If an MMA fighter chokes you out in a streetfight with no witnesses around in a dark alley, he now has your life in his hands and the decision that you live or die, is now his. Same if you got KO'ed by him. He can chose to go home and eat a Hot Pocket or stay and headstomp you to death.



As has been stated in other threads the rules take out the more dangerous strikes. And street fights don't stop with the KO. Many times the guy on the ground gets injured from the kicks he receives after he is ko'd.



SandaBoxing said:


> This is very true:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do this often in Krav Maga where you spar 2 on 1. They do a lot of self defense moves that looks cool in theory, but when it's sparring time, I tear most them apart as an experienced fighter, and I'm not even that good. Now the KM gyms that have ring fighters, those are legit.



You must be a great fighter or maybe the Krav guys are not doing what they have been taught. Sparring in Krav is not the same as fighting in Krav.



SandaBoxing said:


> A choke hold is a death technique and it works just the same in the cage as it does in the street. Every when someone has you in a choke and you tap; you are being spared your life by that person as 10-20 seconds and you die, while he goes to jail for manslaughter or worse.


Certainly a choke is a lethal technique. If you apply it on the street here it is now classified as attempted murder or intent to intentionally cause serious injury. In a competition you are not being spared. The implied agreement before entering the ring is that a choke is released as soon as you lose consciousness. To think otherwise is just crazy. It is covered under the rule ... "Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent". I think most people could agree that killing your opponent would be 'unsportsmanlike'.
:asian:


----------



## SandaBoxing

K-man said:


> Garbage! No one in sport gets into the ring for a fight to the death, hoping that the ref will save them.



I already explained this part 2x already. Try reading it again, thanks.



> As has been stated in other threads the rules take out the more dangerous strikes.



Did you not understand the part where I said that UFC 1-4 had no disqualifying strikes? 



> And street fights don't stop with the KO. Many times the guy on the ground gets injured from the kicks he receives after he is ko'd.



So you're trying to tell that no street fights ever stopped once someone is KO'ed? What if I showed you 5 videos of such, would you admit to your absurdity? 



> You must be a great fighter or maybe the Krav guys are not doing what they have been taught. Sparring in Krav is not the same as fighting in Krav.



LOL, yeah...I'm pretty sure they all enjoy getting clowned by someone who's just visiting their gym and beating them down right? Especially the senior level students. Pads don't hit back chief. 



> Certainly a choke is a lethal technique. If you apply it on the street here it is now classified as attempted murder or intent to intentionally cause serious injury. In a competition you are not being spared. The implied agreement before entering the ring is that a choke is released as soon as you lose consciousness. To think otherwise is just crazy. It is covered under the rule ... "Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent". I think most people could agree that killing your opponent would be 'unsportsmanlike'.
> :asian:



You still don't understand. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.


----------



## K-man

SandaBoxing said:


> I already explained this part 2x already. Try reading it again, thanks.


I did but I must be a little slow. Perhaps you could explain it in simple terms that even I can understand. 



SandaBoxing said:


> Did you not understand the part where I said that UFC 1-4 had no disqualifying strikes?


Yes, but there was still the understanding that the competitors were not trying to kill each other or seriously maim each other. If you had been around a little longer or read some of my earlier posts you would read where I say that the early UFC bouts were the closest to real fighting. However it would have been just a matter of time before someone was killed or permanently maimed. The authorities would have closed it all down if the organisers didn't self regulate.



SandaBoxing said:


> So you're trying to tell that no street fights ever stopped once someone is KO'ed? What if I showed you 5 videos of such, would you admit to your absurdity?


No. What I said was 'many' fights don't finish with the KO. In many gang related instances the assault can continue for quite some time.



SandaBoxing said:


> LOL, yeah...I'm pretty sure they all enjoy getting clowned by someone who's just visiting their gym and beating them down right? Especially the senior level students. Pads don't hit back chief.


Well I would really be surprised if that were to happen. No offence but if you tried that in my school I would just call the police. Sparring in KM is totally different to sparring in MMA. In MMA sparring is generally conducted in a less intense way than you would find in the MMA ring. You don't spar using point of the elbow strikes to the head or spine, you don't train using full force forearm strikes to the back of the head and you don't apply armbars with the speed and force you would use in a serious street situation. In Krav we spar with gloves at a much lower intensity and we don't throw in the techniques that could cause serious injury. They are trained in drills and scenarios. It is different methodology. So if you came into my school and started 'downing' people I would ask you to stop and if you didn't I would call the police. If in your wisdom you chose to attack me, well and good. I would have done the right thing. 'Downing people' smacks of competition and we don't compete. 



SandaBoxing said:


> You still don't understand. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.


Well I know I'm slow but a little advice. This forum is for friendly discussion. If you continue in this style of discussion I am sure that you will cop a lot of negative reps. Just a friendly warning.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> We'll otherwise we fall into he said she said.
> 
> So I was thinking king more weaponless as in the context of mma death match. Let's not get into gun fu.
> 
> Do you have examples of the extra lethality of other systems. And possibly where they killed people?



You're missing the point. The "lethal" systems are weaponry systems, not unarmed ones. And I'm not talking about "gun fu", I'm talking about the classical arts that I study&#8230; but if you want to bring that into it, I can remember a SEAL trainer talking about the hand-to-hand combat methods they have&#8230; which are non-lethal. Why? Because they have their weaponry for that.

Asking for examples of systems being used to lethal effect is frankly asking for the wrong thing&#8230; your insistence on you-tube as some sort of "proof" completely misses reality on a number of levels&#8230; but, to placate you, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

Many of my systems are filled with records of lethal engagements, Musashi is just an easy one to reference here as a case study in the type of systems I'm referring to.



SandaBoxing said:


> You need to understand what I said. Throwing a punch, kick, knee or elbow towards someone's head at maximum power and repeatedly is the SAME in an MMA fight as it would be in a fight to the death. The MMA fighter is still throwing everything he has at his opponent. He's not saving anything special that would be more vicious were it a streetlight.



I do understand what you're saying, and, well, you're wrong. Which is what I said. So&#8230; maybe you need to pay a little more attention to my comments, then?

Throwing a punch/elbow/knee etc in an MMA match is NOT the same as in a street engagement. To begin with, it's rare that such things are really thrown at "maximum power&#8230; repeatedly"&#8230; you'd be gassed in less than a minute, and wouldn't make it through the rest of the fight. Additionally, it opens you up by over-committing, which is far easier to counter&#8230; most MMA competitors throw their strikes closer to a boxer&#8230; in balance, guarded, without unnecessarily overbalancing, or exposing themselves to counters. That, by necessity, slows things a bit and removes some power&#8230; which is what's needed there. Then there's the protective equipment and gloves worn&#8230; a different sense of targeting (you're not going to see someone stomping down on a temple in an MMA match, far more potentially lethal than anything you actually see there). Oh, and seriously, quit with the whole "fight to the death" thing&#8230; it's tired, and desperately inaccurate&#8230; if it was actually a fight to the death, they'd be pulling blades on each other.

So, to sum up; not a fight to the death&#8230; not similar to a fight to the death&#8230; not even that similar to a "regular" street confrontation&#8230; the MMA guy isn't throwing everything (if he wants to actually have any success)&#8230; and he is holding back a range of more "vicious" things that might come up in a streetfight.

In other words, no. You're wrong.



SandaBoxing said:


> And most streetfights or even violent attacks, are rarely fights to the death. Most are just fights to the KO, just like a sports fight.


 
So you're saying that an MMA match is exactly the same as a streetfight "to the death", but that streetfights aren't to the death? They're to the KO (which is wrong)? And that makes them just like as sports fight (which is also wrong)? Really? Can you see the contradiction in your own comments here?



SandaBoxing said:


> Even this right here didn't even result in a KO, let alone death:



Yeah, I remember that&#8230; not really sure what your point is, though&#8230; "MMA are real fights to the death, just like real life, except they stop first&#8230; real life fights are fights to the death&#8230; except most fights aren't fights to the death, they're fights to the knock out&#8230; except this example isn't' a fight to the death or knock out&#8230;" Huh?

To be honest, I think you're taking an incredibly narrow view of real world violence&#8230; you're simply not accounting for probably 90%+ of the types of violence out there&#8230; do you know the difference between social and asocial violence? What an educational beatdown is? A monkey dance? Social rules regarding the application of violence?

Outside of sports match fighting, do you have any real knowledge of violence? That's a serious question, by the way.



SandaBoxing said:


> A choke hold is a death technique and it works just the same in the cage as it does in the street. Every when someone has you in a choke and you tap; you are being spared your life by that person as 10-20 seconds and you die, while he goes to jail for manslaughter or worse.



There is a huge difference between a potentially lethal technique and a lethal technique&#8230; a choke is potentially lethal, sure&#8230; but it's not a "death technique". It's a restraint and control/subduing technique. Oh, and spare me the whole "you're being spared your life" garbage, okay? 10-20 seconds isn't long enough, and you're making it out to be something it's just not. Believe me, if you want to kill someone, and you have access to their neck or throat, a choke is rather slow and ineffective compared with a whole range of other things.


----------



## Chris Parker

SandaBoxing said:


> I already explained this part 2x already. Try reading it again, thanks.



No, you haven't. You've repeated the same flawed and inaccurate ideas twice. It's been read, and seen as the garbage it is.



SandaBoxing said:


> Did you not understand the part where I said that UFC 1-4 had no disqualifying strikes?



Except that it had a range of banned actions, combined with a range of implied rules (single opponent, no weapons, known environment, known opponent, referee, implied rules of "sportsmanship", and so on). So&#8230; no.



SandaBoxing said:


> So you're trying to tell that no street fights ever stopped once someone is KO'ed? What if I showed you 5 videos of such, would you admit to your absurdity?



And if we showed you 5 clips of fights that didn't stop once someone is knocked out? And five that stopped before? What would any of that prove, other than that there is no single pattern that all violent encounters fit? 

Oh, and son? Careful with your choice of words there&#8230; K-man is not the one being absurd here.



SandaBoxing said:


> LOL, yeah...I'm pretty sure they all enjoy getting clowned by someone who's just visiting their gym and beating them down right? Especially the senior level students. Pads don't hit back chief.



Honestly, I'm thinking it's more that you're ignoring the context of what you're doing there, and are just trying to do what you want, regardless of the actual situation&#8230; I've seen that a number of times before, frankly. I have no idea where your idea of "pads don't hit back" comes from&#8230; unless you were meant to be doing a pad drill when you decided to "clown them"&#8230; no one else mentioned pads&#8230; 



SandaBoxing said:


> You still don't understand. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.



Perhaps you could try to realise that, well, we've been at this a lot longer than you, and have a much wider view than you to&#8230; and you're wrong. But hey, you've had that explained to you a number of times already&#8230; and you still don't understand.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> This is very true:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do this often in Krav Maga where you spar 2 on 1. They do a lot of self defense moves that looks cool in theory, but when it's sparring time, I tear most them apart as an experienced fighter, and I'm not even that good. Now the KM gyms that have ring fighters, those are legit.



Basically this is a video of a bunch of idiots with no skill whatsoever brawling in the dirt, and you put this up as an example of what exactly? Quality sparring? Krav Maga? Self defence? If that is what you are basing your fighting prowess on then you need professional help.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> So you're trying to tell that no street fights ever stopped once someone is KO'ed? What if I showed you 5 videos of such, would you admit to your absurdity?



That is not what he is saying. I will tell you a story; A few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by 2 guys in his home (a second story flat). They beat the crap out of him and kicked him in the groin. Did it end there? No they then threw him off the balcony. End of fight? No, after throwing him off the balcony they then went down to him and repeatedly stomped on his groin. Does any of that sound like an MMA fight?


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> MMA fights already starts out as a fight to the death. It just gets stopped before serious injury or death can occur.
> 
> Trying to put your fists, knees, elbows, shin, etc. into someone's face as hard as you can, and repeatedly until he gets KO'ed or TKO'ed is indeed doing the same as  trying to kill him in the street, prison, etc. with your limbs.  A KO is a KO. From the thousands of streetfight videos available online, most streetfights also ends when there's a KO. Either by the bystanders, the cops or even the guy who won; he stops. Rarely does anyone gets head stomped to death.
> 
> And a choke hold that's sunk in is certainly a death move. If an MMA fighter chokes you out in a streetfight with no witnesses around in a dark alley, he now has your life in his hands and the decision that you live or die, is now his. Same if you got KO'ed by him. He can chose to go home and eat a Hot Pocket or stay and headstomp you to death.



:idunno:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Makalakumu said:


> This is a gruesome question and I apologize for offending anyone, but what if winning was determined by killing you opponent with your bare hands?



Who would voluntarily enter such a thing?



Makalakumu said:


> How would that change the sport?



It would make it shorter lived - along with the competitors?



Makalakumu said:


> What would a match look like?



Probably more like a TMA in a life or death situation but with both fighters as the attacker.



Makalakumu said:


> What would the fighters fight for?



Their lives obviously.



Makalakumu said:


> What would be the impact on the MA community assuming that MMA remains wildly popular.



I doubt it would be around long enough to have any serious impact at all.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Attention all Members:
Let us all take a moment to look at the logo at the top of the page. Specifically, where it says "friendly". 
And then, perhaps we can dial down the level of hostility a little bit?

Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That is not what he is saying. I will tell you a story; A few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by 2 guys in his home (a second story flat). They beat the crap out of him and kicked him in the groin. Did it end there? No they then threw him off the balcony. End of fight? No, after throwing him off the balcony they then went down to him and repeatedly stomped on his groin. Does any of that sound like an MMA fight?




Punch kicked and thrown?

Sorry about your mate by the way.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Except that most gladiators were slaves who were granted special privileges or even their freedom if they performed well for their master.
> 
> 
> Garbage! No one in sport gets into the ring for a fight to the death, hoping that the ref will save them.
> 
> 
> 
> As has been stated in other threads the rules take out the more dangerous strikes. And street fights don't stop with the KO. Many times the guy on the ground gets injured from the kicks he receives after he is ko'd.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a great fighter or maybe the Krav guys are not doing what they have been taught. Sparring in Krav is not the same as fighting in Krav.
> 
> 
> Certainly a choke is a lethal technique. If you apply it on the street here it is now classified as attempted murder or intent to intentionally cause serious injury. In a competition you are not being spared. The implied agreement before entering the ring is that a choke is released as soon as you lose consciousness. To think otherwise is just crazy. It is covered under the rule ... "Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent". I think most people could agree that killing your opponent would be 'unsportsmanlike'.
> :asian:



Depends on the krav unfortunately. From a sports perspective there is a lot of" why?"Moments when looking at their training and there really is no need for those moments to be there.

But I don't think we would see anything like krav in a mma fight to the death. Looking at no rules street fights and those lesser rules first ufc and vale tudo. There is not a departure from the basic punching kicking choking module.

There would not even be much departure from the tactic of sitting on top of someone and beating on someone or going for that rear naked.

It would just allow some of the extra stuff like head stomping or spiking people with throws. And no ref.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Basically this is a video of a bunch of idiots with no skill whatsoever brawling in the dirt, and you put this up as an example of what exactly? Quality sparring? Krav Maga? Self defence? If that is what you are basing your fighting prowess on then you need professional help.



No it was in response to my post that a three way fight winds up looking like a spaz fest.

I said it looks dumb he said it looks dumb and now you are saying it looks dumb. You are just doing it all angry.

They do it by the way.
http://www.mma-core.com/videos/fights/San_Do_3_Man_Fighting_Fight_Clip/10008107


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Depends on the krav unfortunately. From a sports perspective there is a lot of" why?"Moments when looking at their training and there really is no need for those moments to be there.



Krav isn't a sport&#8230; it's not interested in being a sport&#8230; it has no interest in anything that would be better suited to sports application&#8230; why would you expect it to follow the ideologies of sports methodologies? It's like complaining that ice-cream doesn't have as much fibre as a salad&#8230; it's not claiming to be.



drop bear said:


> But I don't think we would see anything like krav in a mma fight to the death. Looking at no rules street fights and those lesser rules first ufc and vale tudo. There is not a departure from the basic punching kicking choking module.



There's no such thing as a "mma fight to the death", nor is there really any such thing as a "no rules" fight, street or otherwise. You're also looking at mechanical techniques, which is the least important and least relevant aspect&#8230; it's not where the difference is.



drop bear said:


> There would not even be much departure from the tactic of sitting on top of someone and beating on someone or going for that rear naked.



Tactically, there can be quite a departure from that&#8230; it's not something I ever teach, for instance. To me, it's wasted energy.



drop bear said:


> It would just allow some of the extra stuff like head stomping or spiking people with throws. And no ref.



What would allow such things? Your hypothetical death match? But, again, you're focusing on techniques&#8230; not the right thing to look at.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm, I missed this yesterday...



SandaBoxing said:


> True that there are many rules now in current MMA compared to what was allowed in early UFCs. But even with the current rules of MMA, there are NO OTHER martial arts tournament that allows the same level of brutality as MMA. All of the TMA's that claims they're too deadly for MMA, yet they also conduct their own tournaments with a megacrap-ton of rules and regulations as well as all the body armor worn, rivaling riot gear of prison guards.



Garbage. 

"All of the TMA's"..? Really? I train in things that are genuinely too dangerous to safely put into a competitive format, without dramatically changing the way they work, and you know what? We don't do any competitive format at all. I know you're new here, but it might behoove you to realise that you're stepping into an area where there's a lot of knowledge and experience particularly in areas you have no idea about. I might suggest being less dismissive of others' systems, and certainly avoid what you're about to say 



SandaBoxing said:


> During the early UFC's, especially UFC 1-4, there were only 3 illegal techniques which were no biting, no eye gouging (eye strikes were legal) and no fish-hooking. But these moves did not disqualify the fighter nor stop the fight. He was fined $1,000/incident. Each fighter was paid $2,000 per fight (win or lose) and the main purse for winning it all was $60,000. Therefore, a fighter could have use these wussy ladies' tactics of biting and eyegouging, be fined but still come out way, way, way ahead should she wins the $60,000 prize, which was enormous for any martial artists up to that time as the average full time MA'ist made squat as a salary. And $60k was a lot in 1994, still nice today too for a day's work.



"Wussy ladies tactics?" "should SHE win"? Seriously, you're going for misogyny now? Good way to ingratiate yourself 



SandaBoxing said:


> Eye strikes was certainly allowed, so were strikes to the throat, nutsack, back of the head, spinal column, all pressure points, etc. Raining knees and elbows to the face/head of down opponent, soccer kicking someone's head on the ground, stomping their skull pressed against the mat, no problem at all and was done in quite a few fights.



This is going to surprise you, but that's actually rather irrelevant 



SandaBoxing said:


> Yet Royce Gracie proved that his BJJ style beat them all and all other styles.



No, he didn't. He proved that he could beat the deliberately chosen opponents in a tournament he (well, his family) had a large part in setting up and creating, in a grappler friendly environment, in a context he knew how to prepare for (when the opponents didn't). And it didn't last long. He didn't prove anything about BJJ, if you look at it objectively as a single person can't. If you had 1,000 similar tournaments set up at the same time, with no collusion between them, with a similar mix of opponents, all at relatively equal skill/experience levels, and BJJ won a significant number of those, all that would prove is that BJJ is potentially the best suited system for that particular environment Royce beating people only showed that Royce beat those people nothing more.



SandaBoxing said:


> Jason Delucia (Kung-Fu) tried to get out of a hold by eye gouging Gracie, which is why Gracie didn't let go when DeLucia tapped furiously and the Ref jumped in but too late, the arm was popped at the elbow. Same with the Karateka who bit Gracie, you can see him trying to tap like crazy but Gracie didn't let go of the choke. On the street, Gracie could have killed both of them if he wanted to.



He could have killed them? Fine But I gotta ask so what? Any competitor in a martial arts tournament could say the same thing. "I coulda killed him with my tornado twisting spinning back fly kick, I just decided not to"



SandaBoxing said:


> Gracie said all of this in some post interviews to explain why he didn't let go once they tapped. This was an unwritten rule in Vale Tudo in Brazil, although there were no rules, if you used cowardly moves such as biting and eye gouging, don't expect the tap to stop the fight before you're at least severely injured + direct trip to the hospital, but hopefully not maimed for life.



And Delucia said something different.. of course, you're going to trust Royce, which is fine.. but you really should realise that Royce's word on what Royce did, when it conflicts with other accounts, isn't unimpeachable...



SandaBoxing said:


> Gracie proved that Ninja deathstrikes and junk don't really work against experienced fighters. And UFC contenders and champions today would annihilate Royce Gracie in his prime. BJJ has long since been a staple of MMA training, and it's not a surprise like it was 20+ years ago.



"Ninja deathstrikes and junk" might it be time to remind you of the "No Art-bashing" clause you agreed to when you signed up here?

And, again, no all Royce proved was that he won at the time. But you really, really need to get your head around the fact that a competitive arena, and the forms of fighting found (and useful) there are not actually the same as others there are plenty of things that work great in a match, but are questionable, if not downright dangerous, to do in other circumstances and vice versa. I wouldn't take my training into an Octagon, but that doesn't' mean it doesn't "work" just that it's not suited for that environment and context.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Krav isn't a sport&#8230; it's not interested in being a sport&#8230; it has no interest in anything that would be better suited to sports application&#8230; why would you expect it to follow the ideologies of sports methodologies? It's like complaining that ice-cream doesn't have as much fibre as a salad&#8230; it's not claiming to be.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "mma fight to the death", nor is there really any such thing as a "no rules" fight, street or otherwise. You're also looking at mechanical techniques, which is the least important and least relevant aspect&#8230; it's not where the difference is.
> 
> 
> 
> Tactically, there can be quite a departure from that&#8230; it's not something I ever teach, for instance. To me, it's wasted energy.
> 
> 
> 
> What would allow such things? Your hypothetical death match? But, again, you're focusing on techniques&#8230; not the right thing to look at.




OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.

If you want to focus on other elements aside from technique then raise that. 

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.

What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.
> 
> If you want to focus on other elements aside from technique then raise that.



I think it was established pretty early on (say, nearly two years ago&#8230 that  such a hypothetical was just going to be a rehash of the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome&#8230; and the thread really has moved onto other ideas since then&#8230; but really, I'm just responding to what you're putting down (and others). 



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.



Then you need to understand just where the differences lie. Expecting a non-sporting system to make sense from a sports perspective is just plain baseless&#8230; and to then expect that non-sport system to have modifications to a non-existent sports application to make it viable for what it's actually for is, well&#8230; really, lunacy is the best word I can come up with. Of course, I have no idea what these "really strange ideas" you're talking about are&#8230; maybe if you put them down, we can see why they're the way they are.



drop bear said:


> What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.



You've missed the point. What they're good for is tactically useless to me, which makes them wasted effort. And they're high percentage in a particular context or two&#8230; not universally.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I think it was established pretty early on (say, nearly two years ago&#8230 that  such a hypothetical was just going to be a rehash of the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome&#8230; and the thread really has moved onto other ideas since then&#8230; but really, I'm just responding to what you're putting down (and others).
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to understand just where the differences lie. Expecting a non-sporting system to make sense from a sports perspective is just plain baseless&#8230; and to then expect that non-sport system to have modifications to a non-existent sports application to make it viable for what it's actually for is, well&#8230; really, lunacy is the best word I can come up with. Of course, I have no idea what these "really strange ideas" you're talking about are&#8230; maybe if you put them down, we can see why they're the way they are.
> 
> 
> 
> You've missed the point. What they're good for is tactically useless to me, which makes them wasted effort. And they're high percentage in a particular context or two&#8230; not universally.



Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.

OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't. The sport context is the right way to go.

That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

I mean come on seriously?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.



So in this hypothetical death match we can use anything that you have available for your style of MA on the battlefield or are we now making rules. I mean Krav is not taught for the ring in the first place, but principally at lower levels empty hand. Later it includes weapons as does Systema. Chris would have all the things that I have seen at his Dojo. I mean with some of the stuff he has you would be lucky to even make it into the ring. Looks like the match needs to be transferred to the Colosseum after all.   



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.



I can't see anything from Krav fitting into a sports perspective. Krav is designed to finish a fight in seconds rather than minutes. It's techniques are to destroy, not submit. It trains to regain your feet if you go to the ground, not to try to wear your opponent down. Apart from that, why would anyone want to make it into a sport? The modifications that would make it 'street viable' are the basic principles. If it was going to be for sport, why would anyone bother with things like Krav and Systema. Those styles of MA wouldn't be worth a cracker if you took out the things that make them work.



drop bear said:


> What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.



I teach rear naked choke and many other chokes as well. I teach how to apply them properly, how to reverse them or escape from them and how to apply them in a way that is extremely difficult to escape. But it each them as standing chokes. Sure they can be used on the ground if required but in Krav that is the least preferred option. I don't teach anything like the triangle choke because I don't want my guys spending more time on the ground than they need. I don't teach ground and pound. I would rather my guys be on their feet where they could kick or stomp. Ground and pound is fine in a one on one situation but if there is a possibility of more than one opponent then you can be in trouble real fast.
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.



We've moved on to tactically useless as you've been insisting on questioning the approach of my system&#8230; and I've been pointing out that the tactical application and requirements are fairly different&#8230; to the point that the MMA tactics you are bringing up are tactically useless to my needs.

I'm not MMA.



drop bear said:


> OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't.



See, you're halfway there&#8230; our punching method is very different, and yes, there are specific reasons for that.



drop bear said:


> The sport context is the right way to go.



Er&#8230; no, not necessarily. Not at all, actually.



drop bear said:


> That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.



Yes, MMA has it's reasons, absolutely. But thinking that just because MMA has it's reasons for it's applications within MMA contexts that that means it's the right approach for other contexts is rather, well, fanciful.



drop bear said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc
> 
> I mean come on seriously?



Yeah, far from what I'd advise as well&#8230; but I'm not sure what your point is here.



K-man said:


> So in this hypothetical death match we can use anything that you have available for your style of MA on the battlefield or are we now making rules. I mean Krav is not taught for the ring in the first place, but principally at lower levels empty hand. Later it includes weapons as does Systema. Chris would have all the things that I have seen at his Dojo. I mean with some of the stuff he has you would be lucky to even make it into the ring. Looks like the match needs to be transferred to the Colosseum after all.



Ha, that was only a part of my collection&#8230; 



K-man said:


> I can't see anything from Krav fitting into a sports perspective. Krav is designed to finish a fight in seconds rather than minutes. It's techniques are to destroy, not submit. It trains to regain your feet if you go to the ground, not to try to wear your opponent down. Apart from that, why would anyone want to make it into a sport? The modifications that would make it 'street viable' are the basic principles. If it was going to be for sport, why would anyone bother with things like Krav and Systema. Those styles of MA wouldn't be worth a cracker if you took out the things that make them work.



Yep, that's exactly what I've been saying. We'll see if it gets through...



K-man said:


> I teach rear naked choke and many other chokes as well. I teach how to apply them properly, how to reverse them or escape from them and how to apply them in a way that is extremely difficult to escape. But it each them as standing chokes. Sure they can be used on the ground if required but in Krav that is the least preferred option. I don't teach anything like the triangle choke because I don't want my guys spending more time on the ground than they need. I don't teach ground and pound. I would rather my guys be on their feet where they could kick or stomp. Ground and pound is fine in a one on one situation but if there is a possibility of more than one opponent then you can be in trouble real fast.
> :asian:



Same&#8230; mind you, an RNC is not one of my "go-to" action&#8230; we have&#8230; nastier approaches to such methods (standing).


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, that was only a part of my collection&#8230;


Mmm! And therein lies the problem. How many toys should any one lad be allowed?
:hmm:


----------



## Dirty Dog

K-man said:


> Mmm! And therein lies the problem. How many toys should any one lad be allowed?
> :hmm:



Just one more...


----------



## Chris Parker

Only one&#8230;? Aww&#8230; but I have my eye on, well&#8230; lots&#8230; plus a few more&#8230;


----------



## SandaBoxing

K-man said:


> I did but I must be a little slow. Perhaps you could explain it in simple terms that even I can understand.
> 
> Yes, but there was still the understanding that the competitors were not trying to kill each other or seriously maim each other. If you had been around a little longer or read some of my earlier posts you would read where I say that the early UFC bouts were the closest to real fighting. However it would have been just a matter of time before someone was killed or permanently maimed. The authorities would have closed it all down if the organisers didn't self regulate.
> 
> No. What I said was 'many' fights don't finish with the KO. In many gang related instances the assault can continue for quite some time.



Already explained this.



> Well I would really be surprised if that were to happen. No offence but if you tried that in my school I would just call the police.



No one has called the police on me yet for sparring so I'm good, thanks for the concern.



> Sparring in KM is totally different to sparring in MMA. In MMA sparring is generally conducted in a less intense way than you would find in the MMA ring. You don't spar using point of the elbow strikes to the head or spine, you don't train using full force forearm strikes to the back of the head and you don't apply armbars with the speed and force you would use in a serious street situation.  In Krav we spar with gloves at a much lower intensity and we don't throw in the techniques that could cause serious injury. They are trained in drills and scenarios. It is different methodology. So if you came into my school and started 'downing' people I would ask you to stop and if you didn't I would call the police. If in your wisdom you chose to attack me, well and good. I would have done the right thing. 'Downing people' smacks of competition and we don't compete.



You've been watching too many MMA movies.



> Well I know I'm slow but a little advice. This forum is for friendly discussion. If you continue in this style of discussion I am sure that you will cop a lot of negative reps. Just a friendly warning.




You're the one calling my post "GARBAGE" and now you're getting mad because I don't agree with you nor want to keep repeating myself to you?


----------



## SandaBoxing

Chris Parker said:


> You're missing the point. The "lethal" systems are weaponry systems, not unarmed ones. And I'm not talking about "gun fu", I'm talking about the classical arts that I study&#8230; but if you want to bring that into it, I can remember a SEAL trainer talking about the hand-to-hand combat methods they have&#8230; which are non-lethal. Why? Because they have their weaponry for that.



Well I train with knives, sticks, swords, handguns and AK-47 too.   We already know that knives and swords will beat any unarmed MMA fighter and a guy with a shotgun + 10 round mag should kill any silly Ninja running up to him with a sword easily. But what's the point of bringing such into a discussion about what works in Martial Arts fighting. It's not like you're ever going to get a chance to prove it by killing someone for real. Although I do enjoy stick fighting like this:  



    While in a sparring match or cage fight, this is where you find out if your skills as a Martial Artist using YOUR martial art(s) really work.


----------



## SandaBoxing

Chris Parker said:


> I do understand what you're saying, and, well, you're wrong. Which is what I said. So maybe you need to pay a little more attention to my comments, then?
> 
> Throwing a punch/elbow/knee etc in an MMA match is NOT the same as in a street engagement. To begin with, it's rare that such things are really thrown at "maximum power repeatedly" you'd be gassed in less than a minute, and wouldn't make it through the rest of the fight. Additionally, it opens you up by over-committing, which is far easier to counter most MMA competitors throw their strikes closer to a boxer in balance, guarded, without unnecessarily overbalancing, or exposing themselves to counters. That, by necessity, slows things a bit and removes some power which is what's needed there. Then there's the protective equipment and gloves worn a different sense of targeting (you're not going to see someone stomping down on a temple in an MMA match, far more potentially lethal than anything you actually see there). Oh, and seriously, quit with the whole "fight to the death" thing it's tired, and desperately inaccurate if it was actually a fight to the death, they'd be pulling blades on each other.
> 
> So, to sum up; not a fight to the death not similar to a fight to the death not even that similar to a "regular" street confrontation the MMA guy isn't throwing everything (if he wants to actually have any success) and he is holding back a range of more "vicious" things that might come up in a streetfight.
> 
> In other words, no. You're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that an MMA match is exactly the same as a streetfight "to the death", but that streetfights aren't to the death? They're to the KO (which is wrong)? And that makes them just like as sports fight (which is also wrong)? Really? Can you see the contradiction in your own comments here?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I remember that not really sure what your point is, though "MMA are real fights to the death, just like real life, except they stop first real life fights are fights to the death except most fights aren't fights to the death, they're fights to the knock out except this example isn't' a fight to the death or knock out" Huh?
> 
> To be honest, I think you're taking an incredibly narrow view of real world violence you're simply not accounting for probably 90%+ of the types of violence out there do you know the difference between social and asocial violence? What an educational beatdown is? A monkey dance? Social rules regarding the application of violence?
> 
> Outside of sports match fighting, do you have any real knowledge of violence? That's a serious question, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between a potentially lethal technique and a lethal technique a choke is potentially lethal, sure but it's not a "death technique". It's a restraint and control/subduing technique. Oh, and spare me the whole "you're being spared your life" garbage, okay? 10-20 seconds isn't long enough, and you're making it out to be something it's just not. Believe me, if you want to kill someone, and you have access to their neck or throat, a choke is rather slow and ineffective compared with a whole range of other things.



I already answered this.


----------



## SandaBoxing

Chris Parker said:


> No, you haven't. You've repeated the same flawed and inaccurate ideas twice. It's been read, and seen as the garbage it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it had a range of banned actions, combined with a range of implied rules (single opponent, no weapons, known environment, known opponent, referee, implied rules of "sportsmanship", and so on). So no.
> 
> 
> 
> And if we showed you 5 clips of fights that didn't stop once someone is knocked out? And five that stopped before? What would any of that prove, other than that there is no single pattern that all violent encounters fit?
> 
> Oh, and son? Careful with your choice of words there K-man is not the one being absurd here.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm thinking it's more that you're ignoring the context of what you're doing there, and are just trying to do what you want, regardless of the actual situation I've seen that a number of times before, frankly. I have no idea where your idea of "pads don't hit back" comes from unless you were meant to be doing a pad drill when you decided to "clown them" no one else mentioned pads
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could try to realise that, well, we've been at this a lot longer than you, and have a much wider view than you to and you're wrong. But hey, you've had that explained to you a number of times already and you still don't understand.



Old age doesn't guarantee wisdom.


----------



## SandaBoxing

RTKDCMB said:


> Basically this is a video of a bunch of idiots with no skill whatsoever brawling in the dirt, and you put this up as an example of what exactly? Quality sparring? Krav Maga? Self defence? If that is what you are basing your fighting prowess on then you need professional help.



Not if you understood it in context as to what I was responding to, which was a post made by Drop Bear.


----------



## SandaBoxing

drop bear said:


> Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.
> 
> OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't. The sport context is the right way to go.
> 
> That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc
> 
> I mean come on seriously?



Yeah, it's usually very difficult to explain to people who don't fight nor spar full contact, how much of their techniques wouldn't work in a real fight vs. someone who's an experienced fighter. This was why the early UFC's were so beautiful as it pitted styles vs. styles to prove what worked and what didn't. There were no disqualifying technique. All  Ninja Death Strikes were available, and none of them worked vs. 165 lb Royce Gracie who just took them down and dominated. And the Brazilians have been fighting their no rules matches of Vale Tudo for decades before. MMA today is leaps and bounds beyond what Royce Gracie was 20+ years ago in 1993.  1993 Royce in his prime, would maybe be a decent contender in today's MMA, but nowhere near top contender nor champion.

What I like about the Krav Maga school that I'm sparring at currently is that they have legit Pro and Amateur MMA fighters there so there's a respect for real techniques and what experienced fighters can do. There's no hooplah about how KM is so deadly and not meant for sport. And it's during sparring that they find out real quick that they can't just walk up to me and kick me in the nuts. Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.


----------



## ballen0351

SandaBoxing said:


> Well I train with knives, sticks, swords, handguns and AK-47 too.   We already know that knives and swords will beat any unarmed MMA fighter and a guy with a shotgun + 10 round mag should kill any silly Ninja running up to him with a sword easily.


You need to watch the style bashing its not allowed here


> But what's the point of bringing such into a discussion about what works in Martial Arts fighting. It's not like you're ever going to get a chance to prove it by killing someone for real.


sure you can it happens people use force and even deadly force to defend themselves all the time.  That is where you learn what your style is all about or more importantly yourself is all about in real life situations NOT in some little ring with a ref and a cut man and rules and judges


> s Although I do enjoy stick fighting like this:
> 
> 
> 
> While in a sparring match or cage fight, this is where you find out if your skills as a Martial Artist using YOUR martial art(s) really work.


not even close


----------



## wimwag

Can we bash on kyukido?  Its not officially recognized as a martial art.


----------



## K-man

SandaBoxing said:


> What I like about the Krav Maga school that I'm sparring at currently is that they have legit Pro and Amateur MMA fighters there so there's a respect for real techniques and what experienced fighters can do. There's no hooplah about how KM is so deadly and not meant for sport. And it's during sparring that they find out real quick that they can't just walk up to me and kick me in the nuts. Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.


As I said, sparring in Krav is not the same as sparring in say MMA. If it is being taken that way I would question the instruction. Sparring in the conventional sense is to and fro, both sides trying to get in to strike. Krav is mostly, not always, waiting for the attacker to enter, so walking up to you to kick you in the nuts is not Krav. Sorry.

Oh! When I asked you to explain your position in the earlier post, I really meant it. I did not understand what you were trying to say. To reply by saying "I already told you" really means that you didn't state it clearly in the first place. 

:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dirty Dog said:


> Just one more...



At least one more than the other lads.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> Old age doesn't guarantee wisdom.



True, but having wisdom helps you get to old age.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> Well I train with knives, sticks, swords, handguns and AK-47 too.   We already know that knives and swords will beat any unarmed MMA fighter and a guy with a shotgun + 10 round mag should kill any silly Ninja running up to him with a sword easily.



Any real Ninja would not allow the guy with the shotgun to see them running up to them with a sword - being stealthy and all.


----------



## drop bear

SandaBoxing said:


> Yeah, it's usually very difficult to explain to people who don't fight nor spar full contact, how much of their techniques wouldn't work in a real fight vs. someone who's an experienced fighter. This was why the early UFC's were so beautiful as it pitted styles vs. styles to prove what worked and what didn't. There were no disqualifying technique. All  Ninja Death Strikes were available, and none of them worked vs. 165 lb Royce Gracie who just took them down and dominated. And the Brazilians have been fighting their no rules matches of Vale Tudo for decades before. MMA today is leaps and bounds beyond what Royce Gracie was 20+ years ago in 1993.  1993 Royce in his prime, would maybe be a decent contender in today's MMA, but nowhere near top contender nor champion.
> 
> What I like about the Krav Maga school that I'm sparring at currently is that they have legit Pro and Amateur MMA fighters there so there's a respect for real techniques and what experienced fighters can do. There's no hooplah about how KM is so deadly and not meant for sport. And it's during sparring that they find out real quick that they can't just walk up to me and kick me in the nuts. Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.



And the thing is if you can krav a pro mmaer. Then you can really krav.

I am happy for people not to spar. But if they don't they still need to show that their stuff will work. Sparring is one method self defence is another. But I want to see it tested.

Scripted drils and combat scenarios probably not so much. But even then if I saw a good one that would be a bit reasonable.

But otherwise they are right about the style bashing. You are not allowed to do it. So for me I just keep asking for proof and not accept peoples opinions as fact generally.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> We've moved on to tactically useless as you've been insisting on questioning the approach of my system and I've been pointing out that the tactical application and requirements are fairly different to the point that the MMA tactics you are bringing up are tactically useless to my needs.
> 
> I'm not MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> See, you're halfway there our punching method is very different, and yes, there are specific reasons for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Er no, not necessarily. Not at all, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, MMA has it's reasons, absolutely. But thinking that just because MMA has it's reasons for it's applications within MMA contexts that that means it's the right approach for other contexts is rather, well, fanciful.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, far from what I'd advise as well but I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, that was only a part of my collection
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what I've been saying. We'll see if it gets through...
> 
> 
> 
> Same mind you, an RNC is not one of my "go-to" action we have nastier approaches to such methods (standing).



Then if your context is different please show me your system working in context.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SandaBoxing said:


> Yeah, it's usually very difficult to explain to people who don't fight nor spar full contact, how much of their t*echniques wouldn't work in a real fight vs. someone who's an experienced fighter*.



And you're basing this on what exactly?



SandaBoxing said:


> This was why the early UFC's were so beautiful as it pitted styles vs. styles to prove what worked and what didn't. There were no disqualifying technique. All  Ninja Death Strikes were available, and none of them worked vs. 165 lb Royce Gracie who just took them down and dominated.



And then got so beaten up by Kimo, who had no martial arts training, that he could not continue. I don't remember seeing any 'Ninja death strikes' thrown at him, in fact the only guy who did Ninjitsu didn't even fight Royce Gracie.

It's been said before and I'll say it again, there was NOTHING proven in any meaningful or relevant way about what works or not or what styles are effective or not due to the very limited amount of data obtained (only a few out of the 100's of styles represented, only a few practitioners out of the millions competed, only a few match-ups etc). It is like testing a new medicine on 5 people and expecting the FDA to approve it.



SandaBoxing said:


> Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.



I would say that, either, they are beginners or just not very good. For most of the martial artists I know it takes a lot more than simple jabs and footwork to stop them.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> So in this hypothetical death match we can use anything that you have available for your style of MA on the battlefield or are we now making rules. I mean Krav is not taught for the ring in the first place, but principally at lower levels empty hand. Later it includes weapons as does Systema. Chris would have all the things that I have seen at his Dojo. I mean with some of the stuff he has you would be lucky to even make it into the ring. Looks like the match needs to be transferred to the Colosseum after all.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see anything from Krav fitting into a sports perspective. Krav is designed to finish a fight in seconds rather than minutes. It's techniques are to destroy, not submit. It trains to regain your feet if you go to the ground, not to try to wear your opponent down. Apart from that, why would anyone want to make it into a sport? The modifications that would make it 'street viable' are the basic principles. If it was going to be for sport, why would anyone bother with things like Krav and Systema. Those styles of MA wouldn't be worth a cracker if you took out the things that make them work.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach rear naked choke and many other chokes as well. I teach how to apply them properly, how to reverse them or escape from them and how to apply them in a way that is extremely difficult to escape. But it each them as standing chokes. Sure they can be used on the ground if required but in Krav that is the least preferred option. I don't teach anything like the triangle choke because I don't want my guys spending more time on the ground than they need. I don't teach ground and pound. I would rather my guys be on their feet where they could kick or stomp. Ground and pound is fine in a one on one situation but if there is a possibility of more than one opponent then you can be in trouble real fast.
> :asian:



I have no issue people adding elements. But it seems chris was telling me that we are now off topic and should stay there.

Can I see krav then finishing a fight in seconds please? If that is your context let's see that.

I understand that you may not do elements like the triangle choke. But some of the elements you do are not really the best for the job. Especially if they are sports elements to start with.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> And you're basing this on what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> And then got so beaten up by Kimo, who had no martial arts training, that he could not continue. I don't remember seeing any 'Ninja death strikes' thrown at him, in fact the only guy who did Ninjitsu didn't even fight Royce Gracie.
> 
> It's been said before and I'll say it again, there was NOTHING proven in any meaningful or relevant way about what works or not or what styles are effective or not due to the very limited amount of data obtained (only a few out of the 100's of styles represented, only a few practitioners out of the millions competed, only a few match-ups etc). It is like testing a new medicine on 5 people and expecting the FDA to approve it.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that, either, they are beginners or just not very good. For most of the martial artists I know it takes a lot more than simple jabs and footwork to stop them.




Not if they are really good jabs and footwork. I still get stopped by simple jabs and footwork.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> And the thing is if you can krav a pro mmaer. Then you can really krav.
> 
> I am happy for people not to spar. But if they don't they still need to show that their stuff will work. Sparring is one method self defence is another. But I want to see it tested.
> 
> Scripted drils and combat scenarios probably not so much. But even then if I saw a good one that would be a bit reasonable.
> 
> But otherwise they are right about the style bashing. You are not allowed to do it. So for me I just keep asking for proof and not accept peoples opinions as fact generally.



I have repeatedly asked you, and those who share your views (And we know who they are) to show a video of yourself training and you have not obliged, yet *you *want proof. If you want proof of how well a self defence martial art works in a context it is designed for, then go attack someone who does it (that is the only way you will know for sure), I do not recommend it. 

Basically I do not have to prove the earth is round to those who believe it is flat, I know it's round and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I have repeatedly asked you, and those who share your views (And we know who they are) to show a video of yourself training and you have not obliged, yet *you *want proof. If you want proof of how well a self defence martial art works in a context it is designed for, then go attack someone who does it (that is the only way you will know for sure), I do not recommend it.
> 
> Basically I do not have to prove the earth is round to those who believe it is flat, I know it's round and that's all that matters to me.



I don't want to attack anybody. I don't see how that is necessary and I haven't asked for any individual to expose themselves to criticism. I just want to see their system working in the context they say it works.

And you also don't have to prove the earth is flat to those who believe it is round?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I have no issue people adding elements. But it seems chris was telling me that we are now off topic and should stay there.
> 
> Can I see krav then finishing a fight in seconds please? If that is your context let's see that.
> 
> I understand that you may not do elements like the triangle choke. But some of the elements you do are not really the best for the job. Especially if they are sports elements to start with.


Firstly the only elements I add to any of my training are possibly elements of Systema.  I don't train any sport elements so I don't know where that comment comes from. 

As far as finding video of the type of Krav training I am referring to, I couldn't find one. If I do find one I will post it later. However if you are anywhere near a Krav school you could observe first hand what I am talking about. Most fights are over in seconds so I'm not sure why you want me to post video to show Krav guys training that. We train to enter, clinch, knee and elbow as fast as possible but with control. 

This is is along the same lines that I am describing.  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJlooO_4jQ

Boxers train to go 2 or 3 minute rounds, MMA normally 5. Street fights don't last that long. We are not training for the ring and we are not training to take on trained fighters.
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I don't want to attack anybody.



That is good to hear.



drop bear said:


> I don't see how that is necessary and I haven't asked for any individual to expose themselves to criticism. I just want to see their system working in the context they say it works.



A self defence art works in the context of self defence, that is someone attacking someone who does that art and they had no choice but to defend themselves. Testing that art in a sporting context or a challenge match will never give you a true indication of whether that art works for self defence or not. Testing a sporting art in a sporting context is fine.The only true test of a self defence art will only come from a real attack by someone trying to assault them. That is the only test that matters and even that is subjective and depends upon the circumstances, the attacker and the practitioner getting attacked etc. The art I study has never been used in the UFC or any other MMA format, so some might think it has not been 'proven' but many of our students and black belts have been attacked in the street and most have managed to defend themselves successfully with not too much trouble, even against multiple attackers, so that to me is proof enough it works for me to continue teaching and training it.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Firstly the only elements I add to any of my training are possibly elements of Systema.  I don't train any sport elements so I don't know where that comment comes from.
> 
> As far as finding video of the type of Krav training I am referring to, I couldn't find one. If I do find one I will post it later. However if you are anywhere near a Krav school you could observe first hand what I am talking about. Most fights are over in seconds so I'm not sure why you want me to post video to show Krav guys training that. We train to enter, clinch, knee and elbow as fast as possible but with control.
> 
> This is is along the same lines that I am describing.  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJlooO_4jQ
> 
> Boxers train to go 2 or 3 minute rounds, MMA normally 5. Street fights don't last that long. We are not training for the ring and we are not training to take on trained fighters.
> :asian:



This is the thing about context. If the context is drills then the sports model is the same as the street. And why I am harping on resisted vs unresisted and not street vs sport.

 that drill is parrying boxing style parries. And returning with punches and elbows. Good parries are good parries regardless. Returning with good punching and an elbow is the same.

A great boxer or Thai guy will give you the best method to apply that. With all the variables that go in to making those work. A kraver who could box would do the same.

But ignoring the boxing method within that because there is some sort of difference is making a mistake.

Even sparring would help that drill. A lot of that is hard to pull off if you don't know the move is coming. The head control works but if they squirm you need an option for that. But you are not going to find that out unless you find a training method where those moves come out of the blue.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> This is the thing about context. If the context is drills then the sports model is the same as the street. And why I am harping on resisted vs unresisted and not street vs sport.
> 
> that drill is parrying boxing style parries. And returning with punches and elbows. Good parries are good parries regardless. Returning with good punching and an elbow is the same.
> 
> A great boxer or Thai guy will give you the best method to apply that. With all the variables that go in to making those work. A kraver who could box would do the same.
> 
> But ignoring the boxing method within that because there is some sort of difference is making a mistake.
> 
> Even sparring would help that drill. A lot of that is hard to pull off if you don't know the move is coming. The head control works but if they squirm you need an option for that. But you are not going to find that out unless you find a training method where those moves come out of the blue.


I'm not sure why you are trying to teach me how to teach my class. You have no idea how we train. Just because you train one way does not invalidate the way we train. I used to box. I understand what you are saying. But the boxing style training we do in Krav is not the same as you would do in your MMA. It is for a different purpose. It is to learn to defend against a boxer type attack, how to move in to clinch on a boxer type attack, to develop continuous attacking and to condition against being hit. It is not for the ring and it is not to pace yourself to last through a three minute round. Krav is an explosive art. Burst in through the attacker's defence and destroy. I do not want to teach boxing and I am not ignoring the boxing method. I think you are confusing what I teach in Krav and what I teach in Goju. Perhaps we would do better if you concentrated on your MMA and leave me to my areas of expertise.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I'm not sure why you are trying to teach me how to teach my class. You have no idea how we train. Just because you train one way does not invalidate the way we train. I used to box. I understand what you are saying. But the boxing style training we do in Krav is not the same as you would do in your MMA. It is for a different purpose. It is to learn to defend against a boxer type attack, how to move in to clinch on a boxer type attack, to develop continuous attacking and to condition against being hit. It is not for the ring and it is not to pace yourself to last through a three minute round. Krav is an explosive art. Burst in through the attacker's defence and destroy. I do not want to teach boxing and I am not ignoring the boxing method. I think you are confusing what I teach in Krav and what I teach in Goju. Perhaps we would do better if you concentrated on your MMA and leave me to my areas of expertise.




Which is drills?

And it looks the same.

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

More accurately I think the better explanation would be. I train for unscripted and resisted attacks.


----------



## wingchun100

Makalakumu said:


> This is a gruesome question and I apologize for offending anyone, but what if winning was determined by killing you opponent with your bare hands? How would that change the sport? What would a match look like? What would the fighters fight for? What would be the impact on the MA community assuming that MMA remains wildly popular.



It would be an event that didn't live up to the MA part of the abbreviation. You would have people in it who might be good at killing, but not necessarily good at martial arts.


----------



## wimwag

wingchun100 said:


> It would be an event that didn't live up to the MA part of the abbreviation. You would have people in it who might be good at killing, but not necessarily good at martial arts.




Points would be purely symbolic.  Bring your own weapon.  I choose weedeater.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> This is the thing about context. If the context is drills then the sports model is the same as the street.



That would depend upon the purpose and intent of the drill. If you are drilling defenses against a certain type of attack the sport model might only involve counters that are within the competition rules and only to the legal scoring areas whereas the 'street' method will involve counters that are designed to damage the weak points. A sporting method would not include kicks to the groin for example.
.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That would depend upon the purpose and intent of the drill. If you are drilling defenses against a certain type of attack the sport model might only involve counters that are within the competition rules and only to the legal scoring areas whereas the 'street' method will involve counters that are designed to da
> 
> mage the weak points. A sporting method would not include kicks to the groin for example.
> .



Not really as the training is fundamentally the same. It is then just a style variant. A kick boxing drill is not the street version of boxing.


----------



## wingchun100

wimwag said:


> Points would be purely symbolic.  Bring your own weapon.  I choose weedeater.



Points being symbolic in MMA? Why not? That's what happened to video games. Seriously, can anyone name the last game they played where points mattered?


----------



## wimwag

wingchun100 said:


> Points being symbolic in MMA? Why not? That's what happened to video games. Seriously, can anyone name the last game they played where points mattered?






Words with Friends.  I am your god king lol


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Then if your context is different please show me your system working in context.



I don't think you're grasping the distinction between "context" and "application".

Context is the surrounding influences and environment which shapes and defines something. Every clip I've shown has been an example of the context of those systems and techniques in kata form are actually a very good way of showing that.

Application is the usage of one or more aspects, not necessarily in the context of the actual system itself. 

I'll put it this way for MMA, training drills (including pad work, working position, shadow boxing, sparring etc etc etc) are all part of the context of MMA. But the application of MMA is primarily in MMA competition. Of course, both context and application influence each other a great deal the intended application is a big part of the context (but not all of it), and changes in the application can change the context but that's getting rather deeper into it than we need to just yet.


----------



## Transk53

Chris Parker said:


> I don't think you're grasping the distinction between "context" and "application".
> 
> Context is the surrounding influences and environment which shapes and defines something. Every clip I've shown has been an example of the context of those systems&#8230; and techniques in kata form are actually a very good way of showing that.
> 
> Application is the usage of one or more aspects, not necessarily in the context of the actual system itself.
> 
> I'll put it this way&#8230; for MMA, training drills (including pad work, working position, shadow boxing, sparring etc etc etc) are all part of the context of MMA. But the application of MMA is primarily in MMA competition. Of course, both context and application influence each other a great deal&#8230; the intended application is a big part of the context (but not all of it), and changes in the application can change the context&#8230; but that's getting rather deeper into it than we need to just yet.




Nice post there. Good way of conveying it.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I don't think you're grasping the distinction between "context" and "application".
> 
> Context is the surrounding influences and environment which shapes and defines something. Every clip I've shown has been an example of the context of those systems and techniques in kata form are actually a very good way of showing that.
> 
> Application is the usage of one or more aspects, not necessarily in the context of the actual system itself.
> 
> I'll put it this way for MMA, training drills (including pad work, working position, shadow boxing, sparring etc etc etc) are all part of the context of MMA. But the application of MMA is primarily in MMA competition. Of course, both context and application influence each other a great deal the intended application is a big part of the context (but not all of it), and changes in the application can change the context but that's getting rather deeper into it than we need to just yet.




people say street but do drills.

The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.

The context of mma is resisted and unscripted attacks. And training for that.

I can show application of resisted and unscripted attacks.

I am less able to show street context or application in any martial art.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> people say street but do drills.
> 
> And you don't do drills in MMA?
> 
> The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.
> 
> ??? And this applies to RBSD training but not MMA training?
> 
> The context of mma is resisted and unscripted attacks. And training for that.
> 
> In this context I would have to say that this is exactly what our Krav training is for and what the end use of My TMA is for too. What do you think reality based MA training is for if it is not for the street?
> 
> I can show application of resisted and unscripted attacks.
> 
> So we don't train against resisted and unscripted attack but you do?
> 
> I am less able to show street context or application in any martial art.
> 
> Mainly because most fights aren't caught on camera and even if they were they aren't posted on Youtube. Also of the fights on youtube only a small percentage would be martial artists.
> 
> One of the few ... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=72pBCMzwhJI


I think it's patently obvious from your posts that we should all give up every martial art we practise and take up MMA because it is the only 'real' martial art, and that is assuming that the only reason we train is for a 'real' fight.
:asian:


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> people say street but do drills.
> 
> The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.
> 
> The context of mma is resisted and unscripted attacks. And training for that.
> 
> I can show application of resisted and unscripted attacks.
> 
> I am less able to show street context or application in any martial art.



Let me put this here, too:


> 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.



MMA is indeed preparing for "resisted and unscripted attacks."  In a very particular context: that of a sporting competition.  You're preparing to fight an opponent in an agreed match of similar size and weight, reasonably comparable experience, at an agreed time and place which is prepared for the event.  I'm not saying that there is no transfer or relevance to self defense or even non-self defense situations like Monkey Dances.  (A Monkey Dance is a status show, and it's what a lot of people think of when they say a fight.  Two people, both with "points" to lose, butt heads.  The pattern is predictable, and almost always follows a nearly scripted pattern.)

You can certainly apply MMA training to "resisted and unscripted attacks."  But the context of MMA lacks some preparation for real violence.  You do learn to keep fighting when rocked -- but not for really being blindsided and ambushed.  By definition -- MMA doesn't include weapons -- and they can be a major game changer and perspective re-aligner.  There's no practice or need for explaining or justifying the force used -- or even a real need to control yourself beyond not using illegal targets or strikes (like elbow spikes) -- which are vital elements of self defense.

There's that _deja vu_ again...  

Look, you keep asking people to show "proof" or "video" of self defense.  There's really just not a lot of it out there for the simple reason that a real violent attack isn't likely to occur in front of a camera.  There are some -- but they're often hard to see and hard to follow because the cameras aren't set up for that.  Or it's over before you knew what happened.  It's kind of like asking for videos of real traffic crashes...


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Let me put this here, too:
> 
> 
> MMA is indeed preparing for "resisted and unscripted attacks."  In a very particular context: that of a sporting competition.  You're preparing to fight an opponent in an agreed match of similar size and weight, reasonably comparable experience, at an agreed time and place which is prepared for the event.  I'm not saying that there is no transfer or relevance to self defense or even non-self defense situations like Monkey Dances.  (A Monkey Dance is a status show, and it's what a lot of people think of when they say a fight.  Two people, both with "points" to lose, butt heads.  The pattern is predictable, and almost always follows a nearly scripted pattern.)
> 
> You can certainly apply MMA training to "resisted and unscripted attacks."  But the context of MMA lacks some preparation for real violence.  You do learn to keep fighting when rocked -- but not for really being blindsided and ambushed.  By definition -- MMA doesn't include weapons -- and they can be a major game changer and perspective re-aligner.  There's no practice or need for explaining or justifying the force used -- or even a real need to control yourself beyond not using illegal targets or strikes (like elbow spikes) -- which are vital elements of self defense.
> 
> There's that _deja vu_ again...
> 
> Look, you keep asking people to show "proof" or "video" of self defense.  There's really just not a lot of it out there for the simple reason that a real violent attack isn't likely to occur in front of a camera.  There are some -- but they're often hard to see and hard to follow because the cameras aren't set up for that.  Or it's over before you knew what happened.  It's kind of like asking for videos of real traffic crashes...



Correct and why we make do with unscripted and resisted until we can find something better. Because people are saying there is no transfer from that sort of training to self defence.

If I can show good technique in a sports context it is still good technique. People need to seriously think about when to discount that as sport.

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.

Because any technique works in a drill.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I think it's patently obvious from your posts that we should all give up every martial art we practise and take up MMA because it is the only 'real' martial art, and that is assuming that the only reason we train is for a 'real' fight.
> :asian:



No what I am saying is drills are part of sport training. And that a little actual evidence that what you say is true does not go astray.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Correct and why we make do with unscripted and resisted until we can find something better. Because people are saying there is no transfer from that sort of training to self defence.
> 
> If I can show good technique in a sports context it is still good technique. People need to seriously think about when to discount that as sport.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Because any technique works in a drill.



Show one person who has said that there is NO transfer from sport to self defense concerns.  However -- there is better training for self defense and street situations than sparring.  Sparring is excellent training for duelling and for competition.  But it's got lots of things, that have been explained at length, that are counterproductive or worse for self defense.  One simple example: move in, engage, then disengage, and repeat.  Self defense -- once your out, GET GONE!  Re-engaging may move you out of self defense into assault -- and is just plain dangerous.  Scenario training -- done properly, which, I've said several times is MUCH harder and more involved than most people envision -- is one of the more effective ways to have realistic violent encounters.  Training for real violence may well make you lousy at sparring -- but that doesn't mean that it's not solid training.  It's kind of like comparing a strong man competitor's gym workout with a body builders.  There'll be overlap -- but there's a lot different, too.  And focusing on the strong man events may well be counterproductive to developing the physique for a body building competition.  But that doesn't mean the workouts are useless.

To be blunt -- it certainly doesn't seem like you understand, or are willing to understand, the difference between a violent encounter and a competitive match.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  I don't know.  But every discussion seems to spin back to the same place, so something is certainly not working.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Show one person who has said that there is NO transfer from sport to self defense concerns.  However -- there is better training for self defense and street situations than sparring.  Sparring is excellent training for duelling and for competition.  But it's got lots of things, that have been explained at length, that are counterproductive or worse for self defense.  One simple example: move in, engage, then disengage, and repeat.  Self defense -- once your out, GET GONE!  Re-engaging may move you out of self defense into assault -- and is just plain dangerous.  Scenario training -- done properly, which, I've said several times is MUCH harder and more involved than most people envision -- is one of the more effective ways to have realistic violent encounters.  Training for real violence may well make you lousy at sparring -- but that doesn't mean that it's not solid training.  It's kind of like comparing a strong man competitor's gym workout with a body builders.  There'll be overlap -- but there's a lot different, too.  And focusing on the strong man events may well be counterproductive to developing the physique for a body building competition.  But that doesn't mean the workouts are useless.
> 
> To be blunt -- it certainly doesn't seem like you understand, or are willing to understand, the difference between a violent encounter and a competitive match.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  I don't know.  But every discussion seems to spin back to the same place, so something is certainly not working.




Have you seen the videos posted as examples?

Now if your scenarios are resisted and unscripted then that is a different story.

If you go out and actually fight people that is a different story as well.

And that would be about context.

I am happy for people to disregard competitive match if they can show me violent encounter.


----------



## Chris Parker

Oh dear lord&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> people say street but do drills.



Why do you think street training wouldn't incorporate drills? Do you think they're just the purview of sports training? Do you know what drills actually are?



drop bear said:


> The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.



Uh&#8230; no. The context of the training is (in part) the idealised or intended application&#8230; and drills are not application, they are training methodologies geared towards skill development.

In other words, I don't think you understand what context, application, drills, or anything at all you've been talking about actually are.



drop bear said:


> The context of mma is resisted and unscripted attacks. And training for that.



Uh&#8230; no, it's not. The context of MMA is application and success in a competitive format (MMA competition). Training is geared towards that.

In other words, I don't think you understand what context, application, or anything you're talking about actually is.



drop bear said:


> I can show application of resisted and unscripted attacks.



Right&#8230; and that's different to others (non-sporting) that can do the same thing, is it?



drop bear said:


> I am less able to show street context or application in any martial art.



You don't get what context is. Street context is easy to show&#8230; you just have to be able to identify it's characteristics&#8230; which you have shown a complete inability to do.



drop bear said:


> Correct and why we make do with unscripted and resisted until we can find something better.



Oh dear&#8230; I really don't think you get what you're saying here&#8230; your context is competitive matches&#8230; which is unscripted (but not unpredictable, despite the rhetoric) and resisted (in a different way to real violent encounters, where resistance is actually not what happens)&#8230; so of course that's part of what your training centres around. It's got nothing to do with having to "make do until you can find something better", it's that your training is geared towards competition, and has adopted training methods suited to that end. The fact that you don't get other contexts, methods, approaches, applications, and, well, anything else doesn't change anything&#8230; and it's not helping you here at all.



drop bear said:


> Because people are saying there is no transfer from that sort of training to self defence.



Garbage. No one has said that, you've inferred it when people have said that sports training isn't geared towards self defence (in other words, there are better approaches if that's your aim). It has also been said (constantly) that sports training can give a large number of benefits when it comes to self defence&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> If I can show good technique in a sports context it is still good technique. People need to seriously think about when to discount that as sport.



Er&#8230; think about what? If you're trying to say that you applying a "good technique" (such as the triangle sweep you posted in another thread) in a competition, it's still a "good technique", uh, who said it wasn't? The only thing we've said is that what is a good technique (i.e. a practical, sensible, appropriate selection of tactic and mechanics) in a sports competition isn't necessarily a good technique in a street defence situation. No-one's discounting "good techniques", they're pointing out differences in context and how it pertains to application.



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.



Er&#8230; no. Actually, they don't. For one thing, no-one is "hiding" behind anything&#8230; they're trying to educate you and broaden your understanding (which you seem steadfastly determined to resist). As far as showing a street example, rather than a drill&#8230; again, I really don't think you know what you're asking for.



drop bear said:


> Because any technique works in a drill.



Hmm&#8230; no, not actually the case there. 






To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of Stephan's&#8230; he's a little caught up in his system as "the answer"&#8230; but this is funny&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> No what I am saying is drills are part of sport training.



They're a part of, well, all martial arts that I am aware of&#8230; and believe me, that's a fair few&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> And that a little actual evidence that what you say is true does not go astray.



Except that the evidence you're demanding isn't actually evidence&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Have you seen the videos posted as examples?



Which videos?



drop bear said:


> Now if your scenarios are resisted and unscripted then that is a different story.



Er&#8230; you really don't get what scenario training is, do you? "Unscripted" is the most common form&#8230; "resisted" is, and you're gonna love this, unrealistic.



drop bear said:


> If you go out and actually fight people that is a different story as well.



What?



drop bear said:


> And that would be about context.



No, it wouldn't be. It'd be about application.



drop bear said:


> I am happy for people to disregard competitive match if they can show me violent encounter.



Then you're going to be disappointed&#8230; and continue to be completely out of your depth when trying to discuss things here.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Have you seen the videos posted as examples?
> 
> Now if your scenarios are resisted and unscripted then that is a different story.
> 
> If you go out and actually fight people that is a different story as well.
> 
> And that would be about context.
> 
> I am happy for people to disregard competitive match if they can show me violent encounter.



Since it's a bit off topic here -- I'm going to steal this and start a new thread shortly.  In brief, properly conducted scenario training will include "unscripted" portions, and may include resistance.  A lot depends on the goal of the specific scenario.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think street training wouldn't incorporate drills? Do you think they're just the purview of sports training? Do you know what drills actually are?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh&#8230; no. The context of the training is (in part) the idealised or intended application&#8230; and drills are not application, they are training methodologies geared towards skill development.
> 
> In other words, I don't think you understand what context, application, drills, or anything at all you've been talking about actually are.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh&#8230; no, it's not. The context of MMA is application and success in a competitive format (MMA competition). Training is geared towards that.
> 
> In other words, I don't think you understand what context, application, or anything you're talking about actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> Right&#8230; and that's different to others (non-sporting) that can do the same thing, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get what context is. Street context is easy to show&#8230; you just have to be able to identify it's characteristics&#8230; which you have shown a complete inability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear&#8230; I really don't think you get what you're saying here&#8230; your context is competitive matches&#8230; which is unscripted (but not unpredictable, despite the rhetoric) and resisted (in a different way to real violent encounters, where resistance is actually not what happens)&#8230; so of course that's part of what your training centres around. It's got nothing to do with having to "make do until you can find something better", it's that your training is geared towards competition, and has adopted training methods suited to that end. The fact that you don't get other contexts, methods, approaches, applications, and, well, anything else doesn't change anything&#8230; and it's not helping you here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Garbage. No one has said that, you've inferred it when people have said that sports training isn't geared towards self defence (in other words, there are better approaches if that's your aim). It has also been said (constantly) that sports training can give a large number of benefits when it comes to self defence&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Er&#8230; think about what? If you're trying to say that you applying a "good technique" (such as the triangle sweep you posted in another thread) in a competition, it's still a "good technique", uh, who said it wasn't? The only thing we've said is that what is a good technique (i.e. a practical, sensible, appropriate selection of tactic and mechanics) in a sports competition isn't necessarily a good technique in a street defence situation. No-one's discounting "good techniques", they're pointing out differences in context and how it pertains to application.
> 
> 
> 
> Er&#8230; no. Actually, they don't. For one thing, no-one is "hiding" behind anything&#8230; they're trying to educate you and broaden your understanding (which you seem steadfastly determined to resist). As far as showing a street example, rather than a drill&#8230; again, I really don't think you know what you're asking for.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm&#8230; no, not actually the case there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of Stephan's&#8230; he's a little caught up in his system as "the answer"&#8230; but this is funny&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> They're a part of, well, all martial arts that I am aware of&#8230; and believe me, that's a fair few&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the evidence you're demanding isn't actually evidence&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Which videos?
> 
> 
> 
> Er&#8230; you really don't get what scenario training is, do you? "Unscripted" is the most common form&#8230; "resisted" is, and you're gonna love this, unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't be. It'd be about application.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're going to be disappointed&#8230; and continue to be completely out of your depth when trying to discuss things here.



Easy then.

Show application of technique to resisted and unscripted attack.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Now if your scenarios are resisted and unscripted then that is a different story.



Define unscripted, define resisted. 

You seem to have the belief that only what is unscripted and fully resisted is effective for practicing martial arts. They are not always the best way to go. When I teach a particular defence against a particular hold I would call that scripted, if I did that unscripted they I could not teach it very well and the student could not perform it properly. When I do free sparring with a training partner, even when I am taking it easy on them, I would not call it either scripted or non resistant. I do not know what my partner is going to do at any particular time because we did not get together beforehand and rehearse every move. My training partner is not going to stand still and let me attack, he is going to block and move around etc. That is resisting even though he is not trying to actually knock me unconscious like in a MMA match. There are times during training when too much resistance is a bad idea. If I am performing a self defence technique, for example a wrist lock to a takedown, my training partner is not supposed to move for me, I have to make him move (so not totally nonresistant) but if he resists too much then I have to apply more force to make the technique work and that's how people get hurt.



drop bear said:


> If you go out and actually fight people that is a different story as well.



So do mean go and challenge someone to a challenge match, a sporting competition with a specific rule-set such as an MMA match or just go out and assault someone?



drop bear said:


> I am happy for people to disregard competitive match if they can show me violent encounter.



Competitive matches are easier to come by.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Easy then.
> 
> Show application of technique to resisted and unscripted attack.



Sigh...

Look, you don't actually get what you're arguing against here&#8230; or what you're asking for, and why it's simply not actual evidence for anything. Additionally, why on earth would I be wanting to bend to your demands when you haven't even bothered to answer any of the questions I've asked you?

That said, no, it's not that easy. For one thing, I don't record my classes&#8230; I don't have any real need or desire to do so. Secondly, you've been told repeatedly that "unscripted" is not unique to MMA training, so why you're thinking it doesn't exist elsewhere I have no idea (frankly, it's an arrogant delusion). Next, exactly what constitutes "unscripted" can vary a great degree based on the system itself, and the specific goals of the training being dealt with. Finally, I deal with reality&#8230; and the simple fact is that reality, as pertaining to actual violent encounters, doesn't actually feature "resistance", especially not as seen in a competitive form. It's simply, and plainly unrealistic.

I will, however, give you a small insight into some of the training methods I employ.

This month, we're looking at knife defence&#8230; specifically, we're looking at instinctive responses, with each week adding to the previous. The first week, we simply looked at evasive movement&#8230; the second added deflective actions&#8230; the third catching and controlling&#8230; with the fourth (next week) adding striking as a counter, and the fifth adding takedowns. Each week we begin with some basic repeated (partially scripted) movements&#8230; for the first week, for example, the series of attacks were set, but the exact evasions weren't, although options were provided. After going through the list of possible/likely attacking angles, it was then trained in a free-form, consistent/constant attack&#8230; the attacker would come in with five cuts, thrusts, grabs, or anything else, to which the defender would evade. Completely free-form (unscripted), but sticking to defined parameters.

As we went through the month, we added other skills&#8230; this week we added catch and control. From the catch, we then added a natural response on the attackers side&#8230; which is to attempt to retrieve their weapon/weapon arm. It's important to note that this is not "resistance", as it's really just an attempt to continue the attack already begun. Some students tried to escape the grab, rather than naturally respond with the aim of being able to continue their attack&#8230; so I had to bring everyone in, and explain the realities of the drill to them. Next week, we'll add striking, and repeat. By the end of the month, the drill is to have the attacker come in with a series of un-nominated attacks, to which the defender responds with any skill they have developed.

That, for the record, is an unscripted drill with realistic response. And that's how "street" skills are trained&#8230; well, it's one method. There are others.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Look, you don't actually get what you're arguing against here&#8230; or what you're asking for, and why it's simply not actual evidence for anything. Additionally, why on earth would I be wanting to bend to your demands when you haven't even bothered to answer any of the questions I've asked you?
> 
> That said, no, it's not that easy. For one thing, I don't record my classes&#8230; I don't have any real need or desire to do so. Secondly, you've been told repeatedly that "unscripted" is not unique to MMA training, so why you're thinking it doesn't exist elsewhere I have no idea (frankly, it's an arrogant delusion). Next, exactly what constitutes "unscripted" can vary a great degree based on the system itself, and the specific goals of the training being dealt with. Finally, I deal with reality&#8230; and the simple fact is that reality, as pertaining to actual violent encounters, doesn't actually feature "resistance", especially not as seen in a competitive form. It's simply, and plainly unrealistic.
> 
> I will, however, give you a small insight into some of the training methods I employ.
> 
> This month, we're looking at knife defence&#8230; specifically, we're looking at instinctive responses, with each week adding to the previous. The first week, we simply looked at evasive movement&#8230; the second added deflective actions&#8230; the third catching and controlling&#8230; with the fourth (next week) adding striking as a counter, and the fifth adding takedowns. Each week we begin with some basic repeated (partially scripted) movements&#8230; for the first week, for example, the series of attacks were set, but the exact evasions weren't, although options were provided. After going through the list of possible/likely attacking angles, it was then trained in a free-form, consistent/constant attack&#8230; the attacker would come in with five cuts, thrusts, grabs, or anything else, to which the defender would evade. Completely free-form (unscripted), but sticking to defined parameters.
> 
> As we went through the month, we added other skills&#8230; this week we added catch and control. From the catch, we then added a natural response on the attackers side&#8230; which is to attempt to retrieve their weapon/weapon arm. It's important to note that this is not "resistance", as it's really just an attempt to continue the attack already begun. Some students tried to escape the grab, rather than naturally respond with the aim of being able to continue their attack&#8230; so I had to bring everyone in, and explain the realities of the drill to them. Next week, we'll add striking, and repeat. By the end of the month, the drill is to have the attacker come in with a series of un-nominated attacks, to which the defender responds with any skill they have developed.
> 
> That, for the record, is an unscripted drill with realistic response. And that's how "street" skills are trained&#8230; well, it's one method. There are others.




What questions did I miss?

I have asked everybody for unscripted. Not just you. And so far got nothing. Not a bean. I have been told a lot of things about it. I have been told a lot of stuff that is supposed to happen in a fight. I have also been told a lot of things that will happen in a mma match. (Which is truly funny at times)

What am I supposed to make of that. That everybody is hiding their unscripted training? See sport is easy to find unscripted or resisted. I just need to find a match or heavy sparring.

I get all of these scrips of how a fight goes and I am not sure why I am supposed to just take peoples word for it. 

Otherwise I am making the point that training is pretty much training. There is really no street or sport. 

I have no real issue with drills as a component of training. My issue is they are being called the street. It is pretty much how all skills are trained.

People are just yelling street sport at everything regardless if it applies or not.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> What questions did I miss?



All of them.



drop bear said:


> I have asked everybody for unscripted. Not just you. And so far got nothing. Not a bean. I have been told a lot of things about it. I have been told a lot of stuff that is supposed to happen in a fight. I have also been told a lot of things that will happen in a mma match. (Which is truly funny at times)



You've asked for things that are unrealistic to show/find. You've asked for things that only match what you think martial arts (well, MMA at least) is about/made up of. You've missed the reasons you've been told that this is an unrealistic request/demand of yours. You've missed that you've actually been told what the differences are between an MMA match and a fight.

And you're still not listening.



drop bear said:


> What am I supposed to make of that. That everybody is hiding their unscripted training? See sport is easy to find unscripted or resisted. I just need to find a match or heavy sparring.



Of course it's easy to find unscripted footage of competitive systems&#8230; it's how the competitions work. 

You still aren't listening to what you're being told.



drop bear said:


> I get all of these scrips of how a fight goes and I am not sure why I am supposed to just take peoples word for it.



Because they're a lot more experienced in this than you are, have done the research, and know what's what, and what's garbage.

You haven't listened. 



drop bear said:


> Otherwise I am making the point that training is pretty much training. There is really no street or sport.



Which is completely and utterly incorrect.

You haven't listened. You've just tried to insist upon your own inaccurate, incomplete, and flawed ideas. 



drop bear said:


> I have no real issue with drills as a component of training. My issue is they are being called the street. It is pretty much how all skills are trained.



Then you're (still) not understanding drills, "street" training, scenario, or anything else. Despite a dedicated thread to help you understand.

You're not listening. Oh, and this idea of what drills actually are? That's one of the questions I had that you haven't answered yet&#8230; in the previous post of mine you quoted. Right at the top.



drop bear said:


> People are just yelling street sport at everything regardless if it applies or not.



No, son, they're explaining to you that your method of training is great for MMA competition, but can have some issues in other contexts and applications.

You haven't listened.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> What questions did I miss?
> 
> I have asked everybody for unscripted. Not just you. And so far got nothing. Not a bean. I have been told a lot of things about it. I have been told a lot of stuff that is supposed to happen in a fight. I have also been told a lot of things that will happen in a mma match. (Which is truly funny at times)
> 
> What am I supposed to make of that. That everybody is hiding their unscripted training? See sport is easy to find unscripted or resisted. I just need to find a match or heavy sparring.
> 
> I get all of these scrips of how a fight goes and I am not sure why I am supposed to just take peoples word for it.
> 
> Otherwise I am making the point that training is pretty much training. There is really no street or sport.
> 
> I have no real issue with drills as a component of training. My issue is they are being called the street. It is pretty much how all skills are trained.
> 
> People are just yelling street sport at everything regardless if it applies or not.


And you didn't answer my questions either so really there is not much point in trying to discuss anything with you. You have your perceived notion of what is lacking in every other form of MA apart from MAs that compete in the ring. You assume that everyone training a martial art wants to compete. You have dismissed as 'drills' everything that has been posted to illustrate the type of training we are doing.

To be honest, I couldn't give a toss what you think. You are totally irrelevant when it comes to my training and everyone else's training as well.

Chris gave you an example of the type of knife defence he is teaching. I am doing a similar thing, perhaps a little different in that we are working more on slashing and multiple stabbing. It is totally unscripted. What we are training is not sport so for you to keep claiming that there is no street or sport is total bunkum. 

In reality I wonder if you are just trolling!


----------



## skribs

Plenty of movies have already depicted this.  Usually it is either an underground camp where people are kidnapped and brought to it, or it's a corrupt privatized prison system.  It's a simple plot that gets a lot of good martial arts action, and yes - people would watch it.  Some people would believe the deaths are staged and would rationalize it that way, others are just sadistic.


----------



## donnaTKD

street fighting involves a lot of drills - getting yourself in / out unscathed for one putting a guy on his butt for another --- from what i've read i don't think that any of you have ever been in a proper full on street fight.

a lot of things come into play - the street itself for one is a weapon there's lampposts, curbstones, tarmac, concrete of varying surfaces, then there's weapons brought in by other people not just the guy you're going to take out then there's the whole atmosphere of it all and how it goes down depends on what happens next - for sure MA has it's place but in the world of the street it'll only go so far and you can do all sorts of drills to try and prepare yourself for what MIGHT happen but it rarely happens in a choreographed manner (like in the movies) so you can't really prepare for it.

i've seen some self defense classes and i've often thought if anything went down and they tried half of that they'd get mullered before the fight had started for real.

and MMA is a contact sport - people can't die cos it'd just tuk up the whole thing --- it's what we call scripted violence - you know roughly what to expect and you train for that in a nice comfy gym with a padded octogon for safety etc......  oh and people can throw in the towl if they think that you've had enough of a hammering -try that one in a street fight - it just ain't gunna be happening is it ?????

wake up and get real.............

donna


----------



## RTKDCMB

donnaTKD said:


> oh and people can throw in the towl if they think that you've had enough of a hammering -try that one in a street fight - it just ain't gunna be happening is it ?????
> 
> donna



If you try to throw in the towel in a street fight your opponent will just strangle you with it.


----------



## donnaTKD

point proven


----------



## drop bear

donnaTKD said:


> point proven




Not really.

Does anybody train in a manner where if they were really getting messed up they can't quit?

Except sparring which is a bit like that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9iu7YBoe_Pg


----------



## donnaTKD

nope 

and that's the difference between unchoreographed street fighting and the choreographed safe mma you see on the tv.

no one would sign up for death in a age fight.


----------



## drop bear

donnaTKD said:


> nope
> 
> and that's the difference between unchoreographed street fighting and the choreographed safe mma you see on the tv.
> 
> no one would sign up for death in a age fight.




What do you mean by choreographed?


----------



## donnaTKD

in that there are "set" moves for each MA and you learn in a comfy environment how to defend and attack against those moves knowing that they are bound by a tightly controlled rule structure whereas in a street fight there are no rules everything is fair game


----------



## drop bear

donnaTKD said:


> in that there are "set" moves for each MA and you learn in a comfy environment how to defend and attack against those moves knowing that they are bound by a tightly controlled rule structure whereas in a street fight there are no rules everything is fair game




Do you feel there is a better method to prepare someone for a street fight?

Or does not training set moves gives some sort of advantage?


----------



## donnaTKD

i agree training does help with things like awareness and to expect the unexpected but in a street scrap where anything goes then you gotta "wing it" so training in set moves whereby you know roughly what's going to come next is not going to help much for the simple fact that you don't know what's coming next.

as for an advantage - hard to say cos it's so different to anything that would happen in class.  street fights often involve more than one person with / without weapons so you can train to defend against certain scenarios in class but until one the guys friends slams a bottle over the back of your head while your "doing" a rehearsed move on him - suppose you could train for that but until it happens you don't know, it's an unscripted event and very difficult to train for.

MA as a rule follows a set of rules and the moves have patterns to them of which you know what to do to counter those moves in a street fight there are no patterns to follow and what happens next is "up in the air"


----------



## donnaTKD

as for better ways to practice against what happens in a street fight.............

more realistic training might be an advantage instead of training in a classroom you could train outside and get people to come at you - you can do that in a gym to.  but the people that come at you in class often hold back for fear of hurting you whereas out on the street they're going to do everything possible to put you in a box - they don't hold back the more they can hurt you the more they "get off on it" --- i've never had that feeling when i'm sparring or competeing so that's different and very difficult to train for.

plus often in street fight the guy doing the attack on you will be high as a kite (drugs alcohol) and no amount of pain is going to stop him / her (girls are as bad as boys) so that's different - when we're in a gym / dojo we're all clean and sober so there's no "real world" from that aspect.


----------



## RTKDCMB

donnaTKD said:


> i agree training does help with things like awareness and to expect the unexpected but in a street scrap where anything goes then you gotta "wing it" so training in set moves whereby you know roughly what's going to come next is not going to help much for the simple fact that you don't know what's coming next.



Sounds like you are saying when a real fight begins, all training goes out the window, which, with the proper training, is simply not true.



donnaTKD said:


> as for an advantage - hard to say cos it's so different to anything that would happen in class.  street fights often involve more than one person with / without weapons so you can train to defend against certain scenarios in class but until one the guys friends slams a bottle over the back of your head while your "doing" a rehearsed move on him - suppose you could train for that but until it happens you don't know, it's an unscripted event and very difficult to train for.
> 
> MA as a rule follows a set of rules and the moves have patterns to them of which you know what to do to counter those moves in a street fight there are no patterns to follow and what happens next is "up in the air"



All martial arts techniques are rehearsed, its called 'practice', the random nature of a street fight is why you practice in class and do things over and over and over again until it comes more naturally to you so that when a random attack occurs you can deal with it accordingly.



donnaTKD said:


> plus often in street fight the guy doing the attack on you will be high  as a kite (drugs alcohol) and no amount of pain is going to stop him /  her (girls are as bad as boys) so that's different - when we're in a gym  / dojo we're all clean and sober so there's no "real world" from that  aspect.



The good thing about an attacker who is drunk is that they will be more off balance and uncoordinated. Every martial artist who drinks knows that a high blood/alcohol content will lower their chances of being able to successfully defend themselves so it is their choice if they want to take that chance or not.


----------



## drop bear

donnaTKD said:


> as for better ways to practice against what happens in a street fight.............
> 
> more realistic training might be an advantage instead of training in a classroom you could train outside and get people to come at you - you can do that in a gym to.  but the people that come at you in class often hold back for fear of hurting you whereas out on the street they're going to do everything possible to put you in a box - they don't hold back the more they can hurt you the more they "get off on it" --- i've never had that feeling when i'm sparring or competeing so that's different and very difficult to train for.
> 
> plus often in street fight the guy doing the attack on you will be high as a kite (drugs alcohol) and no amount of pain is going to stop him / her (girls are as bad as boys) so that's different - when we're in a gym / dojo we're all clean and sober so there's no "real world" from that aspect.



I train with guys who will quite readily beat me until I cry. Not because they hate me but because that is what they are there to do. When we spar serious buisness. It is not fun.


----------



## Buka

If MMA matches were fought to the death here in Massachusetts I can almost guarantee there would be at least one MMA judge who would cause a split decision.


----------

