# MMA as self defense



## lonewolfofmibu (May 12, 2010)

I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.

I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you. 

I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match


----------



## tellner (May 12, 2010)

Let's take a look at the basic things which will help you defend yourself effectively:


Strong
Good endurance
Aggressive
Appreciation of distance
Timing
Can hit hard and accurately
Can keep from getting hit
Can take a hit
Comfortable in close
Competent on the ground
Used to contact
Not fazed by aggression
Skills trained under repeatedly under pressure

Are all of these developed in a good MMA training program? 
A half-assed MMA program?
If you've got these are you better off than almost anyone you're likely to come up against?


----------



## baughman (May 12, 2010)

MMA is good self defense for the simple facts..

They train full contact.

They train a few punchs, kicks, take downs , and submissions over and over agian until its instinct. 

Any art that trains with contact is good self defense no matter what its called. I use to train Muay Thai many years ago. Alot of the time when someone starts training. They turn there back or cover up when they get hit the first few times. Takes a bit of training to get that instinct out of your head. You never know how you will react unless its under pressure.


----------



## tellner (May 12, 2010)

Just in case I wasn't clear, any decent MMA program will give you all those important skills and attributes. It will do this as well as if not better than most other ways you could spend your time.


----------



## jks9199 (May 12, 2010)

MMA (and any other combat sport) can definitely help you with self defense.  But it's got some significant problems, too.  You're certainly finding out what you can do against a resisting opponent, and what you can do when you've been hit, choked, etc.  The training is great conditioning, too.

But it doesn't tell you what you can do in street clothes.  Nor does it tend to involve an opponent who is significantly larger (or smaller) than you.  Your hands are wrapped and gloved; hitting with unprotected hands is quite different (as many boxers who defend themselves discover).  Not impossible, but different.  The environment is controlled.  And -- as a general rule -- your opponent isn't really trying to kill you.  And there's no ambush going on...

Short of going out and getting mugged, attacked, robbed, shot, etc... no training is perfect.  You need to balance your training, using different and appropriate methods to practice and to address the inherent weaknesses of training.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2010)

MMA is better training than many arts for street self defense. I only see two major problems with it....

1) It's a sport. MMA fighters train with rules and develop reflexes that are inappropriate for the street. The best example is a willingness to go to the ground. The moment I drop to my back and break some guy's arm with a perfect arm bar is the same moment his buddy whacks me in the skull with a pool cue.

2) Few of the MMA fighters I've met are aware that this is true. 

Keep in mind that one can say that about a lot of different fighting styles. Boxers who train wrapped all the time will break a hand the first time they punch someone for real. The world is littered with the corpses of tae kwon do black belts who never learned not to kick for the head on the street.

The key to good self defense is to recognize and train against the weaknesses of your primary system. To deny they exist gives your opponent an opening to kill you through.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

Hi,

You know, I'm going to go the controversial route again. Let's see how this flies...

I have come to the realisation that no martial art or sport is "good" for self defence! 

That's right, none of them, not even my own. Neither is MMA, Tae Kwon Do, or anything else that gets the moniker "martial art" or "combative sport". They are not designed for it, they are not geared up for it, they do not have it as a goal in any way whatsoever. Does that mean that the skills learnt there cannot be utilised for self defence? Not at all.

As I've said in another thread, the idea that martial arts are good for, or even meant for self defence, is rather inaccurate. It comes from marketing and popular media, not from the systems themselves. To understand that, you simply need to look at what the systems themselves actually are, what they are teaching, and how they are teaching to realise that. Then you need to understand what self defence actually is. That difference will be the focus of this post.

To begin with, martial arts. And by that, I am refering to what is refered to Traditional Martial Arts, whether newer systems such as Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Karate (in the main), Judo, or older systems such as Japanese Koryu arts, Chinese arts such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Taiji, Bagua, or similar. These systems teach methods removed from the legal requirements of todays society, and against attacking and assaulting methods not found today, including against weapons that simply are not encountered.

The way things are taught is a formalised structure, learning skills by rote, as it were, and then methods of application according to the methods of the system. To take a few examples from the Japanese Koryu traditions, a system such as Katori Shinto Ryu will only ever train with pre-structured series of techniques (kata), with the speed, intensity, power and so forth being increased with time. There is also a great focus on study of things such as strategy. Systems such as Owari Kan Ryu (a school of spearmanship) actually start with shiai (a form of competitive sparring) before kata training. And systems such as Araki Ryu have a tradition of heavily pressure testing kata. So there is a variety of teaching and training methodologies just in that small area. But you may notice that the focus in none of them is self defence.

The more modern systems such as Karate often talk about their self defence aspects in their teachings, but is it really there, in the actual art itself? Again, teaching happens primarily via repetition of basic movements and kata, often with sparring used to heighten the application of the skills. But sparring is not self defence application, as it is a method of sharpening the practitioners skills against another practitioner, often of similar skill and experience, using the same strategies and tactics, attacking and defending with the same techniques. This is very different to self defence, but we'll get to that.

When it comes to sport systems (which can be part of traditional systems, such as Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, and so on), the sporting aspect is really a method of testing individual abilities in an even setting. The method of testing varies, obviously, but it is really just variations of the same idea. In order to test safely, there are always rules involved, both explicit and implicit. As the theme of this thread is MMA, let's look at that.

The explicit rules are fairly simple. Certain techniques are not allowed (fish-hooking, eye-gouging, groin strikes, in some organisations elbows and knees are disallowed in certain circumstances, such as when an opponent is on the ground, or to certain targets such as the back of the head, and so on). The implicit rules are where we get our biggest deviation from anything close to self defence, or, as many put it, "a real, or street fight". These include the environment (padded floor, cage or ropes surrounding it), single opponents, a lack of weapons, no "surprise" attacks, and so on. Added to that are the methods of "winning", which include ways os scoring points, or gaining submissions (implicit rule: don't actually break anything or damage in a permanent way), as well as ways the fight will be stopped (the opponent gives up, is submitted, or gets knocked out, the time expires, the corner throws in the towel, and referee stoppage). These are important, as they again take you away from a real fight, especially the referee stoppage. 

There are other major differences, including the timeline for both, but I've covered those often enough in other threads. The point here is that these methods are again not in any way methods of self defence. But that brings us to what exactly is self defence anyway, and how is it taught if not in martial arts or combative sports?

Well, the first thing to realise is that self defence is not focused on techniques. It is, instead, focused on protecting yourself and others against outside (uncontrolable) dangers. So your first port of call should be to recognise what those potential dangers are. And they are very different to what you encounter inside a ring, cage, dojo, kwoon, dojang, and so on. Added to that is the fact that the responces from a self defence approach will be different to that of martial arts or combative sports, in that self defence will seek to keep you safe in the easiest way possible (avoidance of situations that lend themselves to danger, followed by de-escalation, followed by pre-emptive striking, then you start to get into actual defences against attacks, but even then it's based around easily adapted principles rather than techniques), whereas martial arts and combative sports will seek to engage (in most cases, a very few older systems will teach escape and avoidance as well, but the majority will still be focused on engaging), and have a desired outcome of subduing, defeating, injuring, killing, or other, but not escape safely. This is the biggest key difference between self defence and martial arts or combative sports.

When it comes to martial arts and sporting aspects, if these are taught under the guise of self defence, without any consideration to the realities of what self defence actually is, it simply is not self defence. The things learnt there can certainly be very useful in a self defence situation, however it is not what they are designed for, and that should always be recognised above all else.


----------



## TigerLove (May 13, 2010)

Chris Parker, your posts always are argumented and true tellings.

I think also (at least i think that we think the same) that martial arts can be great for self defense, but it's not their focus, and they are not designed for self defense, they are designed for fighting.

There are systems designed only for self defense - first i can think of is Krav Maga.

But i also think it's not only about what you were teached, it's more about which mind set you have in your head, do you know difference between fighting and self defense.

Self defense have only one purpose - saving your head. Nothing, i mean nothing else matters.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

Hi TigerLove,

Not quite. Martial arts are designed to put across the philosophy, values, ideals, and teachings of a particular system (or teacher), which may or may not have anything to do with combat effectiveness. That is just the vehicle they use to get those teachings across.

Think of Kendo, is that anything to do with fighting? No, I'm afraid not. Is it a martial art? Yes. Is it a combative sport? Yes. 

Frankly, there are no martial art systems designed for self defence. There can't be, as that goes against the basic idea of a martial art in the first place. There are systems designed for self defence, but they are not martial arts. They are DefTac systems and RBSD systems, which do not have a lot of the benefits of the depth of a martial art system. But they are designed for self defence. 

When it comes to Krav Maga, that is not designed for self defence either. It was initially based primarily on Shotokan karate, and was developed for the Israeli military, so that rules out street self defence to begin with. It is closer to an RBSD system than anything else, but to say it is designed for self defence is to misunderstand what self defence is (and the difference between it and martial, security, sporting, and military needs and uses).


----------



## punisher73 (May 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi,
> 
> You know, I'm going to go the controversial route again. Let's see how this flies...
> 
> ...


 
True, but there are some grey areas as well.  When karate was first practiced, it was for a civilian self-defense art.  That means, that it WASN'T used on the battlefield or against samuari like many state.  It was designed to be used against a sudden attack and to injure the opponent and get away quickly.  It was also not designed for two people squaring off and trading shots in a ring like boxing does so well (this is one of many reasons that you don't see "karate" in MMA etc.)

The roots are still there before they were changed over for self improvement etc.  It is up to the instructor and student to know what the goal is and train accordingly.  RBSD isn't the answer either, all of those techniques come from the TMA's anyways so again it comes back down to training methodology.  

People assume that MMA fighters are somehow ignorant of the fact that sport is different than a "real fight".  People train MMA because they want to and enjoy it.  The people I know that train MMA for the street add in the missing factors while they train.  They take into account while grappling possible weapons, or other people, bites, eye gouges etc.  When standing they take into account verbal deescalation of the situation and situational awareness and other things.

There is no perfect art, there is no perfect range, there is only the best YOU can do with what God/Nature gave you.  It is up to YOU to find what fits you best and train it accordingly.  It won't matter what system you practice or who you have as your instructor if you never take the lessons learned and make them your own.


----------



## TigerLove (May 13, 2010)

@Chris Parker

I agree with you! 

Would you be kind and explain me difference between Krav Maga and RBSD systems?

Last week i was at Krav Maga seminar, and i can't imagine something better for self defense then it.

By the way, in my country there is Tactical Technic Combat System (T.T.C.S), teached By Shihan Dean Rostohar, i think you must have heard of him.

From his mouth, that is for "person who carries a weapon in his/her professional and official work, a person who deals with protection or simply a person who wants to learn to protect and defend him/herself".


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> True, but there are some grey areas as well. When karate was first practiced, it was for a civilian self-defense art. That means, that it WASN'T used on the battlefield or against samuari like many state. It was designed to be used against a sudden attack and to injure the opponent and get away quickly. It was also not designed for two people squaring off and trading shots in a ring like boxing does so well (this is one of many reasons that you don't see "karate" in MMA etc.)
> 
> The roots are still there before they were changed over for self improvement etc. It is up to the instructor and student to know what the goal is and train accordingly. RBSD isn't the answer either, all of those techniques come from the TMA's anyways so again it comes back down to training methodology.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely agreed, Punisher. 

With regard to the Karate origins, I see that the same way I see things such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, developed by Musashi Miyamoto primarily from his personal experiences in real duels with real swords. However, if all you wanted was to learn life-saving skills with a sword (back in the day), the method of instruction would be very different to learning "the art of the sword". Same with Karate. The origins are in actual use, but to train it for that use is not to train it as a martial art, and to train it as a martial art is not to train it for a sudden assault (although that can certainly be a part of it).

RBSD is the answer to certain questions only, really. But then, so are martial arts. And yes, RBSD is pretty well defined by it's training methods rather than technical aspects, and most RBSD systems assume previous experience. But the focus of those systems is handling modern assaults/attacks etc (although I personally feel they are rather limited in that they deal almost exclusively only with the assault itself, rather than dealing with awareness and other things), so they really are the modern training for self defence. As to them taking their techniques from TMA systems, that seems to be more for convenience in the teachings, and most RBSD guys seem to have come from a TMA background, and realised that a lot of what they were training was simply not anything to do with self defence. For the record, though, I prefer the martial art approach, incorporating RBSD and DefTac approaches for the self defence aspect, as that gives the greatest benefits and longevity to study.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> @Chris Parker
> 
> I agree with you!
> 
> ...


 

Essentially, the focus of RBSD systems is to prepare you for the pre-fight (handling the sudden assault, handling the adrenaline, surviving a barrage etc) by use of a variety of drills designed to simulate real assaults (what ít's like being hit and continuing, getting an adrenaline dump and then acting, etc). Krav Maga includes a number of drills similar, but also has a more formal approach, and teaches a range of skills, including unarmed and armed methods, group defences, and more. These things are not done in an RBSD system per se, but the principles an RBSD puts across can be used for such situations.

Yes, I know of Dean, his TTCS system seems to be designed for military use, same as Krav Maga. So it can be thought of as similar, but with a different origin. Remember, though, what I said about pretty much all martial arts claiming self defence in their marketing. After all, are you going to go to a seminar if the guy says "This is not designed to help you, although parts of it might!"?


----------



## MattJ (May 13, 2010)

Excellent posts by Chris Parker and Punisher, couldn't agree more. I have often said that there is no type of training can totally prepare someone for a real attack - there are too many variables that are impossible to train for. And nothing anyone learns will work until you internalize it, and make it work for you. 

jks - 



> But it doesn't tell you what you can do in street clothes. Nor does it tend to involve an opponent who is significantly larger (or smaller) than you. Your hands are wrapped and gloved; hitting with unprotected hands is quite different (as many boxers who defend themselves discover). Not impossible, but different. The environment is controlled. And -- as a general rule -- your opponent isn't really trying to kill you. And there's no ambush going on...


 
Fair to say that no one, _in any type of training_, is really trying to kill you - that is not a flaw of MMA training. *All* training environments are controlled, too. I will say that some MMA places do train in street clothes (shirts/shorts), and it is also common to train with folks that are much bigger/smaller than yourself. You may be confusing MMA competition with MMA training.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

Ha, train a Koryu system properly and you should certainly feel like your opponent is trying to kill you! To quote Shitami Sensei, 16th Dai Shihan of the Sosuishitsu Ryu,

"From the moment of bowing-in for kata practice, you and your partner are professional warriors whose only goal is to kill one another.  You must have that mindset to properly execute or understand the kata."

With that said, I agree completely with you, MMA training is not MMA competition, just as TMA training is not fighting. And training is street clothes is always a good idea (we do the same thing with our street classes from time to time).


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Excellent posts by Chris Parker and Punisher, couldn't agree more. I have often said that there is no type of training can totally prepare someone for a real attack - there are too many variables that are impossible to train for. And nothing anyone learns will work until you internalize it, and make it work for you.
> 
> jks -
> 
> ...


Please take note that I stated very few absolutes there; I used words like "tend" and "generally."  Some MMA clubs do have fighters who train with people outside their own weight class -- but most of the small handful I've seen generally pair people up who are approximately the same size, for example.  Of course, I've seen this happen way too much in police DT training, too.  While it's useful to pair up with someone similar in size -- it's necessary to pair up with people larger and smaller, too, for real world defensive applications.

MMA is great training -- but like so many others have said, and as I said in my post, no one form of training is complete by itself.  Truthfully, as Chris Parker said, no martial art is "good" self defense training.  Self defense is different from "fighting" which is why most DT programs and most good self-defense classes don't resemble martial arts training of any sort to any great extent.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 13, 2010)

I missed this earlier, might address it now...



lonewolfofmibu said:


> I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.
> 
> I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match


 
I personally wouldn't want to be attacked by either!

A little more seriously, you may be underestimating your "someone on the street" a bit there. Just because someone has a fight career (whether amateur or professional) and has learned how to hit doens't make them the most dangerous. A typical attacker on the street is not a street fighter, but what is refered to as a street predator. This person has no compunction about hurting you, is looking just to cause pain and damage, is wanting an easy target, wants to attack with no or minimal risk to themselves, and is usually very experienced at doing just that. Your guy may train to hit people in a ring, this guy just hits people. Not someone to be underestimated, I feel.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2010)

lonewolfofmibu said:


> I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.
> 
> I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match


 
A little late to the party, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways.   IMHO, I think that many TMAs can benefit from MMA, and likewise, MMA can benefit from TMAs.  MMA will give you the contact, the striking, kicking, clinching and grappling.  But like anything, it too has its limits.  Keep in mind that people need to be able to seperate the ring mentality from the real world mentality.  

As its been said, there is no one magical solution to self defense.  People will argue this point, with people from both camps, MMA and TMA, each saying that their respectful art is better.  I beg to differ.  Again, both can benefit from each other.  IMO, if someone really wants to be as well rounded as possible, they'll be open minded and smart enough to look at their training and see whats lacking.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 13, 2010)

Chris,  a little off topic but since you brought up RBSD and Defensive Tactics, would you care to mention some of the more effective and applicable ones you have discovered?

Thanks


----------



## teekin (May 14, 2010)

Chris, my duck, this is way way off topic, but the most brutal criminal element and most violent population I can think of is within the USA prison system. They seem to turn out the most mentally and physically violent humans without fail. There is a methodology that Works! going on in there.
 It supprises me that this has not been reverse engineered to produce a close combat system. Or perhaps it has?
Lori


----------



## Chris Parker (May 14, 2010)

Okay, in reverse order, Lori first:

I have little doubt of that at all, I really wouldn't like to be attacked by someone like that either! But then, I really don't like being attacked at all... 

As to if there already exists a system based in prison, well, it has certainly influenced a great number of modern systems, but I don't know of any prison-jutsu, so to speak. But we do look at lessons from prisons ourselves, including lessons on being a "hard target", defences against being shanked, and a fair few more.

Now to Sensible Maniac:

I'll start with Defensive Tactics. Basically, they are simple, principle based programs in order to impart a specific skill-set, with the training based on constant repetition of the principles through a range of applications, and are always focused on gross-motor applications. To give some idea, this is a rather abridged version of a program I'm teaching this month (without giving away our secrets....)

*PROGRAM: Knife Against Blunt Weapons*

*Aim:* To give a skill defending against impact weapons (clubs, baseball bats, etc) with a knife or short blade.

This program gives a non-lethal approach, focused on ending the attackers ability to continue an assault.

*Principles Used:* Double-handed jam high, double-handed jam low, disabling cut downwards, disabling cut upwards, comma-cut.

*Program:* Jam a strike, then secure and cut to the arm (disabling the weapon hand), then use a comma-cut to the leg to prevent being chased. Escape.

This is used against inside and outside strikes to the head and body, as well as against downward strikes to the head.

*Extra Principles: *Evasive step backwards, shifting the opponents weapon down and across (clearing an escape path), shifting the opponents weapon up and across (clearing an escape path).

The above program features 8 "techniques", trained two each week over 4 weeks, or in one 2-3 hour long class. At the end, although there is not a real breadth of technique, the practitioner has the skills necessary to defend against a clubbing weapon with a short blade (or similar). This is very much a DefTac Program, and this is the typical way we train one.

When it comes to RBSD approaches, there's quite a few that I like. A good simple one is a spinning drill, in which the practitioner leans over and points to a spot on the ground, then spins around that spot for about 10 or 15 seconds (basically until they are told to stop), at which point they rise, and go through whatever drill you are doing (hit a pad, defend against a grapple, and so on).The dizziness from spinning is very similar to the feeling of being king-hit or suckerpunched, so it's a good thing to get used to it without having to eat punch after punch.

Another is against the wall, where the parctitioner starts with their back facing a wall (about half a foot away), and their eyes closed. Their partner then gives them a solid shove, knocking them back into the wall, and starts punching with whatever has been decided (head, body, whatever), and the practitioner immediately opens their eyes and simply defends. This is then repeated facing side-on to the wall, then facing the wall itself, and the intensity is ramped up as well. These two are designed to get your adrenaline going, and giving you the ability to keep going.

Others are things like a piggy-in-the-middle drill, where the attacks can come from anyone, any direction, with any weapon (ramped up with experience, obviously), such as are found in many Krav Maga schools and Geoff Thompsons Animal Day exercises, as well as "boogey man days" where, during a normal class, one of the students will be the "boogey man" and attack any other member of the class at any time in any way. Obviously these are for our more experienced guys and girls, and can be very confronting. 

In my class I try to make it clear that the martial art side has many benefits, but there are very definate reasons that our self defence side of things is quite different. And that is because it has to be.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 26, 2010)

lonewolfofmibu said:


> I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.
> 
> I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match


 
There is considerable truth to that.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 26, 2010)

Just to throw in some perspective.

Yes training actually hitting a target that's resisiting is great for self defense but to put it into perspective:

Some fights in bars that I've seen.

Guy bites off a piece of another guys ear.
Guy hits another guy with a pool cue and barely misses his throat hitting him just below on the collar bone and scrapes off skin as it's deflected off the collar bone.
Guy gets jumped by two guys then outside his friend comes on with a crowbar and messes the two up badly.

What does all this demonstrate?

The street has many more variables involved and weapons usually come into play.
That isn't to say there is nothing effective about MMA, just that it doesn't take in the complete picture of adressing weapons and the variables of the street.

The answer is to learn to avoid violence and understand that if forced to deal with it effectively, you'll need more than what MMA has to offer.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 16, 2010)

I think when you say that no martial art/combative sport is good for self-defense, you have to take into consideration the fact that, at one point in time, they _were_. The majority of martial arts and fighting systems were in fact created as a means of self-defense against whatever threat happened to face them at the time.

I believe that it is the context within which people today learn martial arts that makes them ineffective as a self-defense system, that is to say as either a competitive sport or merely a means of fitness/perfecting form for the sake of self-improvement and accomplishment. This is mainly because of the various limitations that have been placed upon them over time (with a decreasing emphasis on legitimate self-defense).


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 16, 2010)

SensibleManiac said:


> *The answer is to learn to avoid violence* and understand that if forced to deal with it effectively, you'll need more than what MMA has to offer.




Quote for truth, as the saying goes, with the part I consider of paramount importance bolded.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 17, 2010)

Hey Gruenwald,



Gruenewald said:


> I think when you say that no martial art/combative sport is good for self-defense, you have to take into consideration the fact that, at one point in time, they _were_. The majority of martial arts and fighting systems were in fact created as a means of self-defense against whatever threat happened to face them at the time.
> 
> Maybe not the best choice of words on my part then. What I meant to get across is that they are not designed for such use, and as such are not actually the optimum way of developing self defence skills. However I did not mean that martial arts/sports cannot be used for self defence training, nor that they have no use for it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jul 17, 2010)

I train/instruct in both MMA and Kempo. One of my MMA guys came to a Kempo class. We were working on knives that day. He thought it would be good to shoot in and take me down, while I had a knife. Bad idea, got stab in the throat=dead MMA fighter. We also work/drill against knives or any other type of weapons coming into play while on the ground. I don't see many MMA fighters practicing this. You fight like how you train.


----------



## K831 (Jul 17, 2010)

Kempojujutsu said:


> I don't see many MMA fighters practicing this. You fight like how you train.



This is the part people just don't seem to get. It's about hard wiring that NMM and mindset. 

Sure, an MMA guy can be a force on the street, and they are surely more able to handle some SD situations than someone with no training, but to say that MMA should be a first choice for someone wanting to train for SD as a whole is just silly.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> I missed this earlier, might address it now...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Unless you are walking down a Welsh street with a mate and attack two guys in women's clothes, very silly as they were MMA fighters one of whom decked the two guys who attacked them. Video on here somewhere lol!

No you do not fight like you train, if you an idiot who shows off you remain an idiot who shows off and really, confusing all MMA fighters with this idiot isn't good n'est pas? You don't know the other thousands of MMAers out there so can't judge anything other than one idiot.

A great many fighters fight MMA because they can fight legally, a great many of them also fight illegally,as doormen, police officers, soldiers, martial arts instructors even ambulance men and firemen etc, all tend to get attacked and all have good defensive skills. 

Please do stop with the MMA bashing and the MMA myths, it is what it is, people can either defend themselves or not, whatever their martial art.


----------



## hzulkar (Jul 18, 2010)

Well, In my opinion, if you have the basics of how to punch, kick, block, lock and move properly and know how to apply them then you have the basics of how to fight which can be used for self defence. Whether its MMA or TMA or whatever MA, if you have the basics, then it can be used for basic self defense purposes. It depends on how you are able to apply your training in real life and the situation (environment) that you are in and your current condition (either in good shape, or just recovered from diarrhea, or working for 36 hrs straight and on your way home) will affect the outcome. And a bit of luck.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

People make far too much fuss about self defence, it should be kept very simple. Simple is hard to do however so people go for complicated which is easy to do and makes far more money for instructors.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2010)

Hi Irene,

I feel I'm being misunderstood here, I'll try to clarify if I may.



Tez3 said:


> Unless you are walking down a Welsh street with a mate and attack two guys in women's clothes, very silly as they were MMA fighters one of whom decked the two guys who attacked them. Video on here somewhere lol!
> 
> I remember that clip, quite enjoyed it. Very good example of "pick your targets"....
> 
> ...


 


Chris Parker said:


> I personally wouldn't want to be attacked by either!
> 
> This was in reference to being attacked by an MMA-trained fighter or a street-predator. Both are dangerous in their own ways, and neither are people I would want to have attack me.
> 
> ...


 
I hope that helps clear up my position here, and I would hope that you would understand my respect for MMA athletes, as well as pretty much anyone who dedicates themselves to something along these lines.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris I should have pointed that judging and fight as you train comment to the poster it was intended for ..kempojutsu. Sorry wasn't intended for you!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2010)

Ah, it's all cool, I actually enjoy these discussions because they allow me to clarify my position to myself as much as to everyone else... so I like the opportunity to do so! Thanks for that!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, it's all cool, I actually enjoy these discussions because they allow me to clarify my position to myself as much as to everyone else... so I like the opportunity to do so! Thanks for that!


 

No worries mate!

I do get rather annoyed when the example of one person who comes into a club/gym/school is used to show the failings of a particular style. You can't judge anything but what one person does. We had a guy who came in once, a brown belt Judoka, when grappling he actually bit one of our guys! This doesn't mean that Judo is a pants style, just means this guy was an idiot!
The guy who shoots into a knife attack shouldn't be ridiculed, he was either an idiot or he was trying his best and has now learned how to defend against knives but to state that MMAers can't defend themselves because this one guy chose to shoot is vastly unfair. I could show you half a dozen MMAers who could do a perfectly functional safe disarm, doesn't mean all can do it. I can also show you half a dozen maybe more karateka and Judoka who would freeze at the sight of a knife aimed at them, doesn't mean all karateka and judoka will do that. I for one rarely shoot if at all, tends to be a beginners favourite as soon as they learn it.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jul 19, 2010)

With MMA becoming more popular each and every day, the term is starting to become very loose. There are those who train in MMA and use various martial art skills in there teaching. Then there are the ones who use MMA as a sport type of martial art. I have been to at least 6 gyms here in the U.S that teach the sport style and none teach knife defense. 

Tez, I wasn't bashing MMA, was using one of my fighters as an example. He trains a certain way and when he was put outside of his enviroment he resorted to his training methods. So that proved my point you fight or react the way you train.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Kempojujutsu said:


> With MMA becoming more popular each and every day, the term is starting to become very loose. There are those who train in MMA and use various martial art skills in there teaching. Then there are the ones who use MMA as a sport type of martial art. I have been to at least 6 gyms here in the U.S that teach the sport style and none teach knife defense.
> 
> Tez, I wasn't bashing MMA, was using one of my fighters as an example. He trains a certain way and when he was put outside of his enviroment he resorted to his training methods. So that proved my point you fight or react the way you train.


 
Sorry I disagree, it proved how *he *reacted only. if you come to a club here and do the same to an MMA fighter its very unlikely he will shoot in, he/she will do something you recognise as being TMA.

I've said before that _here_, the term MMA is simply for fighting in the cage/ring, when people train different arts for other reasons we call it cross training, it may sound pendantic but it does save confusion when talking about MMA etc. Again _here _most MMAers have a TMA background, many are Dan grades so are familiar with knife defences and other stuff so will respond appropriately.
We make sure that any newcomers to our club who haven't done TMA, are taught any self defence techniques that they can use if attacked but we aren't a commercial gym so while we have pro fighters we can also train as we wish.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2010)

You know, I think it does actually fit with Kempojujutsu's understanding, in that the guy who rushed a knife did so because that is what he had trained as a successful strategy. With your guys, as you say, they are dominantly TMA guys who have trained MMA as well (and have a seperate but integrated self defence training as well), so I would hope that they would respond a little differently... but they would still be responding (fighting) the way they had trained. Kempojujutsu's guy simply didn't have the training background your guys do, but the ideas as to the effects of training on actions stand, on both your parts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> You know, I think it does actually fit with Kempojujutsu's understanding, in that the guy who rushed a knife did so because that is what he had trained as a successful strategy. With your guys, as you say, they are dominantly TMA guys who have trained MMA as well (and have a seperate but integrated self defence training as well), so I would hope that they would respond a little differently... but they would still be responding (fighting) the way they had trained. Kempojujutsu's guy simply didn't have the training background your guys do, but the ideas as to the effects of training on actions stand, on both your parts.


 
Oooh I hate a man that agrres with everyone 

I can see what you mean though, I was trying to say basically don't judge one guys reaction as being everyones. 
My and my instructor's TMA art is karate but it's karate as in Jissen karate, self defence against non martial artists as originally conceived by the orginators of karate. There's a good number of people who train this way, for the best example have a look at Iain Abernethy's training.
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_5.asp

On Saturday Iain was teaching the Bunkai of Naihanchi and the amount of techniques in there that are used in MMA would probably surprise many. People forget that MMA is martial arts, I think the use of the initials tends to make people overlook the martial arts aspect and they assume its something different, perhaps in America with it's high percentage of wrestlers and its emphasis on wrestling it is a bit different from what we do. There is no reason why MMA techniques and mindset don't make good self defence, it is after all only what you learn in your TMA. Choosing the wrong techniques is possible in any style, choosing too fanciful a technique is also common in any style. Keep it simple!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2010)

Yeah, I can see that is what you were saying, but that was a different argument to what we were saying (hence me being able to agree with everyone... you don't really hate me, do you? I mean, I'm really very nice.... or so I've managed to lead people to believe....).

We were simply saying that the results of training is that you will follow that training under pressure. That can be positive and useful, or it can be less than ideal. I personally think there are plenty of examples of both. The example given here is one of putting too much trust in something being what it isn't, and buying into the belief that it is effective and useful where it isn't.

As for Iain, I have huge amounts of respect for him (he's actually the cover story of our local MA magazine in the most recent issue, which is one of two reasons I bought it).


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I can see that is what you were saying, but that was a different argument to what we were saying (hence me being able to agree with everyone... you don't really hate me, do you? I mean, I'm really very nice.... or so I've managed to lead people to believe....).
> 
> We were simply saying that the results of training is that you will follow that training under pressure. That can be positive and useful, or it can be less than ideal. I personally think there are plenty of examples of both. The example given here is one of putting too much trust in something being what it isn't, and buying into the belief that it is effective and useful where it isn't.
> 
> As for Iain, I have huge amounts of respect for him (he's actually the cover story of our local MA magazine in the most recent issue, which is one of two reasons I bought it).


 

Nah course I don't hate you! In fact I'm going to have to PM you about a certain person who's trying to take over training, he isn't getting enough blood to smell lol! Turned into a real pain. I'll do it a bit later have to get some sleep before nightshift.

Of course that chap could have responded with a shoot because that's the only technique he knows how to do lol! Beginners tend to go with what they know how to do rather than use a technique they have picked out as being appropriate....what I'm trying to say is there's too many variables to decide that you fight like you train exactly, I would say more you fight with the techniques you know you can do, a beginner may only have a couple, a master several more or they may have too many! the MMA lad may have responded differently if he'd been more experienced and though aha a nice punch will do the trick (or whatever) or better still the 'on me toes' technique away from the knife wielder. It doesn't have to be the style he trains in that makes him react like that it could be sheer lack of experience. A white belt in any style could do an equally inapt move yet they train self defence intently.
You know I'm thinking now the title of the thread is skewhiff, probably inviting misconceptions etc 


Iain came to training with a yellow... okay gold trackie top on with Australia writ large across it, (just to please the Aussies).


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jul 19, 2010)

I now England and probably most of Europe things are very different from here in the U.S in regards to training. I was watching the episode of Michael Bisping, and they said he had training in Jujutsu, karate, kickboxing etc. 

Here in the U.S when you talk about MMA espcially on the local/ameatur level, most guys have never trained before. Most guys are little wanna be gang bangers, or have been in trouble with the law. Or are your local tough guy who gets in fights every weekend at the bar/pub.

I have guys that come in every week wanting to know when they can fight in the cage. So we start them out with about 20 minutes of cardio training. They next thing you know these tough guys are huffing and puffing and ready to puke. Most of the time it only takes 5 minutes to get this result.

MMA in Europe it seems like, the people are farther adavanced then their counter parts here in the U.S. Again this maybe why there is so much confusing in this tread.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2010)

Hey Irene,



Tez3 said:


> Nah course I don't hate you! In fact I'm going to have to PM you about a certain person who's trying to take over training, he isn't getting enough blood to smell lol! Turned into a real pain. I'll do it a bit later have to get some sleep before nightshift.
> 
> Oh good! I feel better now....
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Kempojujutsu said:


> I now England and probably most of Europe things are very different from here in the U.S in regards to training. I was watching the episode of Michael Bisping, and they said he had training in Jujutsu, karate, kickboxing etc.
> 
> Here in the U.S when you talk about MMA espcially on the local/ameatur level, most guys have never trained before. Most guys are little wanna be gang bangers, or have been in trouble with the law. Or are your local tough guy who gets in fights every weekend at the bar/pub.
> 
> ...


 

Ah gang bangers! Now you see we have another language problem  a gangbang in the UK is an orgy and gang banger well you can guess so it makes me smile when I see the American version as I see a massive love in not a fight.

We tend not to get so many people coming into the MMA that are u/t hardmen (under training, squaddie word) we get more martial arts people and boxers ( yes I know that a martial art) Judo players and BJJ people. there's all the wannabes of course but they don't go anywhere near training.
Bisping trains at Wolfslair and his coaches include some very good at self defence techniques. Some like Karl Tanswell are known for SD and MMA. Three fighters off the top of my head that you may have seen;
Ross Pearson BB in TKD and brown in Judo
Dan Hardy BB TKD
Paul Daly BB karate.

http://www.clubbchimera.com/?p=131


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jul 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ah gang bangers! Now you see we have another language problem  a gangbang in the UK is an orgy and gang banger well you can guess so it makes me smile when I see the American version as I see a massive love in not a fight.


 
Well in the U.S it also means that too. But it also means some wanna be street thug that belongs too some affliated gang.


----------



## teekin (Jul 19, 2010)

Kempojujutsu said:


> I now England and probably most of Europe things are very different from here in the U.S in regards to training. I was watching the episode of Michael Bisping, and they said he had training in Jujutsu, karate, kickboxing etc.
> 
> Here in the U.S when you talk about MMA espcially on the local/ameatur level, most guys have never trained before. Most guys are little* wanna be gang bangers,* or have been in trouble with the law. Or are your local tough guy who gets in fights every weekend at the bar/pub.
> 
> ...


 
I think Tez's 1st reaction not so far off !!!!!! just sayin'  :lol:


Lori


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> You know, I think it does actually fit with Kempojujutsu's understanding, in that the guy who rushed a knife did so because that is what he had trained as a successful strategy. With your guys, as you say, they are dominantly TMA guys who have trained MMA as well (and have a seperate but integrated self defence training as well), so I would hope that they would respond a little differently... but they would still be responding (fighting) the way they had trained. Kempojujutsu's guy simply didn't have the training background your guys do, but the ideas as to the effects of training on actions stand, on both your parts.


 
I don't see much better response among quite a few TMA systems, either, especially the Korean and Japanese empty hand systems, that tack on knife defense as an addition.

Quite frankly, unless it's from the FMA's or Malaysian arts, most of what I see will get you killed about as fast as those same folks claim MMA will.


----------



## TheLegend731 (Aug 4, 2010)

I think mma could teach you to fight effectively. Self-defense however, may not be its strongpoint, because I don't see self-defense as mma's main objective. There are arts that are designed just for fighting and some that were made just for self-defense. Some are known as killing arts for self-defense.

So, although I do think that an mma practitioner may have an edge over an average person, it might be not be as effective as an art that specializes in real scenario self-defense like krav maga or systema.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 5, 2010)

The constituent parts that make up MMA are designed for self defence, as most fighters I know are very skilful in their TMA's it stands to reason they can defend themselves just fine. It doesn't take the brain of Stephen Hawking to be able to switch from rules to non rules. We can all switch on to running like hell to save our lives even if we only jog for fun or even not at all.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The constituent parts that make up MMA are designed for self defence, as most fighters I know are very skilful in their TMA's it stands to reason they can defend themselves just fine. It doesn't take the brain of Stephen Hawking to be able to switch from rules to non rules. We can all switch on to running like hell to save our lives even if we only jog for fun or even not at all.


 
Yeah, no kidding.......it always amuses me the folks who claim that MMA fighters can't defend themselves because they spend all their time fighting in a ring.......but the person making the claim doesn't seem to find it ironic that they think they CAN defend themselves, despite spending most of their time in an office or factory.


----------

