# The "Reality" of UFC/NHB fighting, pressure testing sports moves, and the Real World.



## Edmund BlackAdder

Recently, a small group of vocal individuals arrived on these here shores. They are firm believers in the "Reality" arts, and often look down on those who do not worship at the altar of Shamrock and Ortiz.

They insist on "pressure testing" their so called techniques. That those who do not are some how, "wimps" and "geeks" or, worse.

So, how "real" are these so-called "No Holds Bared" fights that these "Modern Day Warriors" use to "test" themselves?

Not very.

Well, that is not true.

If one is looking strictly for sport, they are very real. As real as Pro Boxing, and Pro Hockey.

But if one is looking at these contests as a way to test one's ability to defend oneself, they are as "real" as the WWE style Pro Wrestling.

Why?

Simple.  A -real- fight has only 1 rule.
Survive.

There are no forbidden holds, moves, etc.

Yes, there are consequences to your actions. If you kill your opponent, you're in deep ****. But, there is no "rule" that will "DQ" you.

So, what can you do in the street, but not the UFC?



> *UFC Rules*
> http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules
> Fouls:
> 1.   Butting with the head.
> 2.   Eye gouging of any kind.
> 3.   Biting.
> 4.   Hair pulling.
> 5.   Fish hooking.
> 6.   Groin attacks of any kind.
> 7.   Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
> 8.   Small joint manipulation.
> 9.   Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
> 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
> 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
> 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
> 13. Grabbing the clavicle.
> 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
> 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
> 16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
> 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
> 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
> 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
> 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
> 21. Spitting at an opponent.
> 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
> 23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
> 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
> 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
> 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
> 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
> 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
> 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
> 30. Interference by the corner.
> 31. Throwing in the towel during competition.



PRIDE's rules are very similar:


> http://www.pridefc.com/pride2004/about/rules.htm
> 1
> No head butting, eye gouging, hair pulling, biting or fish hooking.
> 2
> No attacking the groin
> 3
> No strikes (kicks, elbows, punching) to the back of the head (which includes the occipital region and the spine). The sides of the head and the area around the ears are not considered to be the back of the head.
> 4
> No small joint manipulation (control of four or more fingers/toes is necessary).
> 5
> No elbow strikes to the head and face.
> 6
> No intentionally throwing your opponent out of the ring.
> 7
> No running out of the ring.
> 8
> No purposely holding the ropes. Fighters cannot purposely hang an arm or leg on the ropes. Hanging on the ropes will result in an immediate warning.
> 9
> No kicks or knees to the head or the face of an opponent who falls face down.
> 10
> No application of oil, ointment, spray, Vaseline, massaging cream, hair cream, or any other substances is permitted to any part of the fighter's body before and during the fights. The discovery of any of these substances will result in a disqualification.



So, eliminated are the majority of effective "take out" moves. This greatly lessens if not eliminates the effectiveness of these techniques.

So, how does one "Win"?

Easy.



> Ways To Win:
> 1. Submission by:
> Physical tap out.
> Verbal tap out.
> 2. Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest.
> 3. Decision via the scorecards, including:
> Unanimous decision.
> Split decision.
> Majority decision.
> Draw, including:
> Unanimous draw.
> Majority draw.
> Split draw.
> 4. Technical decision.
> 5. Technical draw.
> 6. Disqualification.
> 7. Forfeit.
> 8. No contest.



In a -real- fight, there are no referees.  No "Tap outs". No TKO's. No "decisions" or "disqualifications.".  There is simply the one who survived, and the vanquished. The later often in a very bad way.

In fact, PRIDE is very specific in stating that they are a SPORT and NOT REAL COMBAT!


> In the PRIDE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIPS the safety of the fighters and the integrity of the sport are of the utmost importance. The rules of our organization exist to protect the fighters...



The "Safety of the fighters"..."protect the fighters".

It's a sport people, not a "testing ground".

There may be a "do not walk on the grass" sign, but the Marine ducking gunfire doesn't care.  In the same way, the guy with the knife asking for your wallet doesn't care about that nice trophy you won for good sportsmanship.  Fight on the street like you do in the ring...go home in a bag.

It's that simple.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Recently, a small group of vocal individuals arrived on these here shores. They are firm believers in the "Reality" arts, and often look down on those who do not worship at the altar of Shamrock and Ortiz.
> 
> They insist on "pressure testing" their so called techniques. That those who do not are some how, "wimps" and "geeks" or, worse.
> 
> So, how "real" are these so-called "No Holds Bared" fights that these "Modern Day Warriors" use to "test" themselves?
> 
> Not very.
> 
> Well, that is not true.
> 
> If one is looking strictly for sport, they are very real. As real as Pro Boxing, and Pro Hockey.
> 
> But if one is looking at these contests as a way to test one's ability to defend oneself, they are as "real" as the WWE style Pro Wrestling.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Simple. A -real- fight has only 1 rule.
> Survive.
> 
> There are no forbidden holds, moves, etc.
> 
> Yes, there are consequences to your actions. If you kill your opponent, you're in deep ****. But, there is no "rule" that will "DQ" you.
> 
> So, what can you do in the street, but not the UFC?
> 
> 
> 
> PRIDE's rules are very similar:
> 
> 
> So, eliminated are the majority of effective "take out" moves. This greatly lessens if not eliminates the effectiveness of these techniques.
> 
> So, how does one "Win"?
> 
> Easy.
> 
> 
> 
> In a -real- fight, there are no referees. No "Tap outs". No TKO's. No "decisions" or "disqualifications.". There is simply the one who survived, and the vanquished. The later often in a very bad way.
> 
> In fact, PRIDE is very specific in stating that they are a SPORT and NOT REAL COMBAT!
> 
> 
> The "Safety of the fighters"..."protect the fighters".
> 
> It's a sport people, not a "testing ground".
> 
> There may be a "do not walk on the grass" sign, but the Marine ducking gunfire doesn't care. In the same way, the guy with the knife asking for your wallet doesn't care about that nice trophy you won for good sportsmanship. Fight on the street like you do in the ring...go home in a bag.
> 
> It's that simple.


-And I thought the pro sport training methodology guys were always the trolls...But I'll bite anyway...

It is as simple as the scientific method to me... 

You come up with a hypothesis. You design experiments to test that hypothesis. If the results of the tests don't support your hypothesis, you adjust your hypothesis and retest. Once your hypothesis is supportable with repeatable results by anybody. It becomes good solid theory.

MMA is that experiment as far as one on one empty hand techniques go. Until somebody comes up with an experiment that is more realistic for empty hands MMA will be the dominant theory on empty hand techniques. Is it perfect? No. Weapons and mutiple oponents aren't addressed, but it is as empiracle as it gets for one on one empty hands techniques.

Arguing hypothesis against hypothesis is for theologians and philosophers. Not martial artists. I'll stick to the scientific method and the solid theory it reveals.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Which means it is great for sport, but useless for the street.

How many street fights are "one on one"?
How many do not involve a weapon of some kind?

Can you "tap me out" if I'm holding a blade? Please try. It doesn't work. A good number of the positions you place yourself in, and the restrictions demanded as a sport, eliminate the effectiveness as a reality training tool.

Allow me just these:
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.

and I can put a 300lb champion in a world of hurt as he is not "Trained to defend against them.".

Sport arts are like coloring inside the lines. The real world is never that neat.

But, since you are one of the experts who profess that this is real, effective and legit I will ask you: Where do you "test", what is your win-loss record, and what's your success record against someone 2 weight classes above you?


----------



## tshadowchaser

I must agree that in a real fight there are no rules except those which you put upon youslef.
Any santioned fight/match must have rules and when their are rules certian moves,strikes, etc. will not be allowed


----------



## RoninPimp

> Which means it is great for sport, but useless for the street.


-How in the entire friggin universe is a jab and cross combo, or knees from the clinch, or elbows from the mount not useful for the str33t?



> How many street fights are "one on one"?


-Some. Does anybody have effective techniques aginst mutiple opponents?



> How many do not involve a weapon of some kind?


-See my response above just change "mutiple opponents" to "weapons".



> Can you "tap me out" if I'm holding a blade?


-No. Pull a knife on me and I WILL shoot you though.



> A good number of the positions you place yourself in, and the restrictions demanded as a sport, eliminate the effectiveness as a reality training tool


-No they do not. They empiracly show what works one on one with no weapon. Some SD can look like that.



> Allow me just these:
> 3. Biting.
> 4. Hair pulling.
> 5. Fish hooking.
> 6. Groin attacks of any kind.
> 7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
> 8. Small joint manipulation.
> 
> and I can put a 300lb champion in a world of hurt as he is not "Trained to defend against them.".


-To do 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 requires you to be in a dominate position with someone. MMA ground training is built around gaining a dominate position. How do you plan to do that if you don't train to do it? And what would proclude you hypothetical "300lbs champion" from training defenses against them?



> But, since you are one of the experts who profess that this is real, effective and legit I will ask you: Where do you "test", what is your win-loss record, and what's your success record against someone 2 weight classes above you?


-I have never claimed expertise, but I've been training in this stuff for a long time. I train with guys way heavier than me all the time. Sometimes I'm the hammer. Sometimes I'm the nail.


----------



## Andrew Green

Ok, I think it's important to make a distinction right away between the training method (pressure test) and the competition format...

Weapons can be trained with live, with protection.  Eye gouges?  Safety goggles.  Two on one?  go for it, it's lots of fun 

These things aren't allowed in competition, but can be trained.

To look at the competitive format and judge the entire system of training based on competition rules would be as ignorant as to look at WTF sparring and judge TKD based solely on that, or point fighting for karate.

Presssure testing != UFC rules, it's a way of training, MMA competitions are one aspect, and one that most will never compete in.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I have said it before and I will say it again, unless the guy you are facing has the ability to, and very possibly may, Kill you pressure testing is no better a gauge than anything else.

MMA, pressure testing, Sports MA, Traditional MA are all just training and they all have their advantages and disadvantages. There are no bad martial arts just the occasional bad martial artists whether that be skill or attitude. 

Bottom line tough is tough not matter what you train or if you train. 

And the marine ducking bullets, getting in hand to hand with a real enemy... now that is pressure testing. 

If there are rules involved, you still have no idea how you will really respond. And for that matter you can never know how you will really respond because no 2 fights are alike. So you won in the ring, you beat the guy with a knife and the guy with the club was no problem. But what about the next guy with a knife or a club or for that matter a gun. If anyone thinks that pressure testing will prepare you for these better than any other type of traininggood luck.


----------



## RoninPimp

> I have said it before and I will say it again, unless the guy you are facing has the ability to, and very possibly may, Kill you pressure testing is no better a gauge than anything else.


-Excuse me a second while I pick my chin off the floor. So unless I'm fighting to the death in training, there's no benefit to it? You can't possibly be serious.


----------



## cfr

I would say where I train is a happy medium between "sport" and the "deadly techniques styles" and I really dig it. However, it always shocks me though how dumb people think MMA guys are. This argument has been had over and over. Do you really think the guys that train for MMA arent smart enough to poke your eye out or bight you if you jump them on the street? Those MMA guys are used the aredeniline and uncooperative opponents that others simply arent, probably better enabling them to take on more than 1 opponent. Many arguements in favor of sport styles can be found here:

http://www.straightblastgym.com/

One of my favorite paragraphs is: 

Street technique versus Sport Techniques or "Just add dirt" I can hear it now from all the street fighters... "But Luis, what about eye gauges, hair pulling, biting, ripping, pinching, scrotum striking, yanking and smashing, scratching, spitting, foaming at the mouth, growling, breaking bottles, wearing boots, colon control and crapping at will?" Well, what about all that? If you can't even hit a guy with a 16oz. glove how the hell are you going to eye jab him? If you can't keep a guy from putting you on the ground and proceeding to do his best *rendition* of River Dance on your cranium, how the hell are you going to just kick him in the balls or bite him? And if you indeed are getting punched, kicked, and out grappled by a superior martial artist and you get the bright idea to bite him, what's to stop him then from doing the same if not worse to youand from a much better vantage point to boot? (Pun intended.) Bottom lineif you build a foundation on movement (timing and awareness in motion) and the attributes necessary to deliver and apply efficient strikes, controls and finishes, you just need to add the foul or dirty tactics. It doesn't work the other way around. "Be like waterthen just add dirt." Luis (El Che) Guitierez - 3-12-2000 

Despite what Ive written I do see the shortcomings in MMA training. I just think that too many people think "style vs style". The "on paper techniques". My style has these techs, yours has those. Do you really think MMA guys would be bound to those rules if you were trying to hurt one of their loved ones?


----------



## SFC JeffJ

cfr said:
			
		

> I would say where I train is a happy medium between "sport" and the "deadly techniques styles" and I really dig it. However, it always shocks me though how dumb people think MMA guys are. This argument has been had over and over. Do you really think the guys that train for MMA arent smart enough to poke your eye out or bight you if you jump them on the street? Those MMA guys are used the aredeniline and uncooperative opponents that others simply arent, probably better enabling them to take on more than 1 opponent. Many arguements in favor of sport styles can be found here:
> 
> http://www.straightblastgym.com/
> 
> One of my favorite paragraphs is:
> 
> Street technique versus Sport Techniques or "Just add dirt" I can hear it now from all the street fighters... "But Luis, what about eye gauges, hair pulling, biting, ripping, pinching, scrotum striking, yanking and smashing, scratching, spitting, foaming at the mouth, growling, breaking bottles, wearing boots, colon control and crapping at will?" Well, what about all that? If you can't even hit a guy with a 16oz. glove how the hell are you going to eye jab him? If you can't keep a guy from putting you on the ground and proceeding to do his best *rendition* of River Dance on your cranium, how the hell are you going to just kick him in the balls or bite him? And if you indeed are getting punched, kicked, and out grappled by a superior martial artist and you get the bright idea to bite him, what's to stop him then from doing the same if not worse to you&#8230;and from a much better vantage point to boot? (Pun intended.) Bottom line&#8230;if you build a foundation on movement (timing and awareness in motion) and the attributes necessary to deliver and apply efficient strikes, controls and finishes, you just need to add the foul or dirty tactics. It doesn't work the other way around. "Be like water&#8230;then just add dirt." Luis (El Che) Guitierez - 3-12-2000
> 
> Despite what Ive written I do see the shortcomings in MMA training. I just think that too many people think "style vs style". The "on paper techniques". My style has these techs, yours has those. Do you really think MMA guys would be bound to those rules if you were trying to hurt one of their loved ones?



Well said.  I've just started crosstraining in BJJ.  Several of the guys I work out with do train for NHB competitions.  They also train in self defense techniques on a regular basis.  Only before a fight will they not train in that aspect.

Jeff


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Well said.  I've just started crosstraining in BJJ.  Several of the guys I work out with do train for NHB competitions.  They also train in self defense techniques on a regular basis.  Only before a fight will they not train in that aspect.
> 
> Jeff


Would that be because the self defense techniques are usually holds that are bared in the "NHB" competitions, and once you get going, you tend to go on autopilot and fight like you've been trained?

Which is why the patty-cake player who always pulls his punches, who is used to going light with his partners, who always stops shy of that sweet spot (so as to not hurt anyone) when confronted in the street ends up in a world of hurt.

Train for sports = fight for sports.
Train for the street = fighting for the street.
Train for war = real war.

As I said, nothing wrong with sport fighting. It's fun to watch. I just don't have any delusions that Mr. UFC is street-fight capable.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Would that be because the self defense techniques are usually holds that are bared in the "NHB" competitions, and once you get going, you tend to go on autopilot and fight like you've been trained?
> 
> Which is why the patty-cake player who always pulls his punches, who is used to going light with his partners, who always stops shy of that sweet spot (so as to not hurt anyone) when confronted in the street ends up in a world of hurt.
> 
> Train for sports = fight for sports.
> Train for the street = fighting for the street.
> Train for war = real war.
> 
> As I said, nothing wrong with sport fighting. It's fun to watch. I just don't have any delusions that Mr. UFC is street-fight capable.


-So how does one train for the str33t?


----------



## green meanie

cfr said:
			
		

> I would say where I train is a happy medium between "sport" and the "deadly techniques styles" and I really dig it. However, it always shocks me though how dumb people think MMA guys are. This argument has been had over and over. Do you really think the guys that train for MMA arent smart enough to poke your eye out or bight you if you jump them on the street? Those MMA guys are used the aredeniline and uncooperative opponents that others simply arent, probably better enabling them to take on more than 1 opponent. Many arguements in favor of sport styles can be found here:
> 
> http://www.straightblastgym.com/
> 
> One of my favorite paragraphs is:
> 
> Street technique versus Sport Techniques or "Just add dirt" I can hear it now from all the street fighters... "But Luis, what about eye gauges, hair pulling, biting, ripping, pinching, scrotum striking, yanking and smashing, scratching, spitting, foaming at the mouth, growling, breaking bottles, wearing boots, colon control and crapping at will?" Well, what about all that? If you can't even hit a guy with a 16oz. glove how the hell are you going to eye jab him? If you can't keep a guy from putting you on the ground and proceeding to do his best *rendition* of River Dance on your cranium, how the hell are you going to just kick him in the balls or bite him? And if you indeed are getting punched, kicked, and out grappled by a superior martial artist and you get the bright idea to bite him, what's to stop him then from doing the same if not worse to youand from a much better vantage point to boot? (Pun intended.) Bottom lineif you build a foundation on movement (timing and awareness in motion) and the attributes necessary to deliver and apply efficient strikes, controls and finishes, you just need to add the foul or dirty tactics. It doesn't work the other way around. "Be like waterthen just add dirt." Luis (El Che) Guitierez - 3-12-2000
> 
> Despite what Ive written I do see the shortcomings in MMA training. I just think that too many people think "style vs style". The "on paper techniques". My style has these techs, yours has those. Do you really think MMA guys would be bound to those rules if you were trying to hurt one of their loved ones?


 
No doubt. Well said!


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Excuse me a second while I pick my chin off the floor. So unless I'm fighting to the death in training, there's no benefit to it? You can't possibly be serious.


Yes, I am.

MMA is not Self Defense training. It's training for a sport competition.
Pro Boxing is a sport, not a self defense art.
Olympic TKD is a sport, not a combat art.
Most martial artists play safe in the school, and condition themselves to hold back. This hurts them when they go on autopilot. You fight as you train.

In a fight, the rule is survive.
In NHB fights it is a long document, worded and enforced so that both fighters live to fight again, intact.
On the street, at the front, the only rule is to come back alive and intact, no matter what you do to the other guy.

Kendo is not sword combat.
WEKAF is not stick combat or sword fighting.
Fencing is not a battlefield art.
SCA Padded stick and carpet armour is not a real sword fight.
The UFC/NHB fight is not a substitute for a street fight.

The only way to know if your **** works, is actual, real world application. The more "rules" you add to the mix, the further from reality and therefore the less valuable the test is, from a real world perspective.

Ford doesn't run a computer simulation, they smash cars up. From every angle, at every speed. They -destroy- cars to test them. They don't do it so that they can reuse it, or just make a little ding. The make em go boom.  Computer manufacturers boil, fry, freeze, throw, fling, mash, smash and crash things, to see just how far they can push them. They don't put little rubber safety boots on them and only wack things from the side. The same is true in defense arts.

Traditional arts such as Karate, Arnis, Kung Fu, etc, when learned from a qualified instructor, are based on techniques that -have- been battlefield tested. The mix-n-matcher who makes up his own fart is not that guy. Techniques that have been battle tested and refined do not need to be "tested", only learned, and integrated into your automatic response system. It is then your responsibility to pull it off right when your *** is on the line.

See, regardless on if you are a big macho sweaty UFC jock, or a skinny little Wing Chun Dummy, the only real question is: When I need to pull it off, is it going to work for me?  

You can go so far in practice, sparring and competition. But none of these, nor any "limited to the safe stuff" testing is a substitute for "reality". Reality is not an MTY show, and anyone who believes that way is simply put, a fool who will someday be hurting bad, when someone doesn't stop the fight after they tap out and cry uncle.


----------



## cfr

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Would that be because the self defense techniques are usually holds that are bared in the "NHB" competitions, and once you get going, you tend to go on autopilot and fight like you've been trained?
> 
> Which is why the patty-cake player who always pulls his punches, who is used to going light with his partners, who always stops shy of that sweet spot (so as to not hurt anyone) when confronted in the street ends up in a world of hurt.
> 
> Train for sports = fight for sports.
> Train for the street = fighting for the street.
> Train for war = real war.
> 
> As I said, nothing wrong with sport fighting. It's fun to watch. I just don't have any delusions that Mr. UFC is street-fight capable.


 
This being said, could you please point me to the school that has me:

1; Really poking people in the eyes/ biting/ kicking to the groin/ etc.
2; Fighting against a real knife and not get cut. 
3; Fighting against multiple opponents that are really trying to hurt me.


After all, that must be the only way to really train for the street according to what you've described here, right? A school with . No "Tap outs". No TKO's. No "decisions" or "disqualifications.". Per what you've listed here, it would appear thats the only way to train for the street.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Well said.  I've just started crosstraining in BJJ.  Several of the guys I work out with do train for NHB competitions.  They also train in self defense techniques on a regular basis.  Only before a fight will they not train in that aspect.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff - Just so we're clear, I'm in agreement with you. :cheers:


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -So how does one train for the str33t?


Talk to guys like Hoch Hochheim, Mark Hatmaker, Jim McCann and Tim Tackett. They train people to survive, not just win a match.


----------



## cfr

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> The only way to know if your **** works, is actual, real world application. The more "rules" you add to the mix, the further from reality and therefore the less valuable the test is, from a real world perspective.


 
This being said, you have no idea if your style works or not, do you? That is unless you train in the methods I listed above. (biting, real weapons, multiple opps really trying to hurt you, etc.)


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

cfr said:
			
		

> This being said, could you please point me to the school that has me:
> 
> 1; Really poking people in the eyes/ biting/ kicking to the groin/ etc.
> 2; Fighting against a real knife and not get cut.
> 3; Fighting against multiple opponents that are really trying to hurt me.
> 
> 
> After all, that must be the only way to really train for the street according to what you've described here, right? A school with . No "Tap outs". No TKO's. No "decisions" or "disqualifications.". Per what you've listed here, it would appear thats the only way to train for the street.


As someone, I believe Andrew said, there are ways to train for that safely. A quality instructor has the tools and knowledge to do so.

Gun disarms - use paint ball guns (with proper eye protection and the guns chronoed).  Hurts like a SOB up close. Safe, but immediate feedback.

Knife work - use a hard rubber or dull metal trainer. You feel it, you'd be cut. You don't have to train with live steel, but as if it were live steel.

Multiple opponents - realize that if they clinch you, it's a boot party and your head is the dance floor. Work on divide, separate, avoid techniques. Yes, running like hell is a valid self defense technique.

Eyes, Groin, etc - Goggles, RedMan suits, etc.  The cops don't play patty cake, the marines sure don't. Why should you?

Am I making sense here?  

In the end, you can train for most situations. But, until you need to really use it, not just 'test with rules', no one knows for certain. Thats the pucker factor. When there is no tap backs, time outs, or DQ's.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

cfr said:
			
		

> This being said, you have no idea if your style works or not, do you? That is unless you train in the methods I listed above. (biting, real weapons, multiple opps really trying to hurt you, etc.)


My style works.

I'm still here.

Last fight wore out a pair of nikes, and ended up with a black eye and damn sore jaw. Left an impression on my opponent. He tasted awful btw. It's interesting how someone will often let you go when in a fight, you grab their groin and purr at them.


----------



## cfr

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Talk to guys like Hoch Hochheim, Mark Hatmaker, Jim McCann and Tim Tackett. They train people to survive, not just win a match.


 
Ive never had the pleasure of meeting Mr Tackett. However, Im in JKD. My instructor got certified to teach from him. My instructor and I have had this discussion and guess what? He agrees with my points! Why? Because "on paper" doesnt equal reality. 

On paper street techniques: Eye gouging, groin kicks, weapons, multiple opponents, etc.

On paper sport techs: Punch, kick, clinch, ground, submission, etc.

I say on paper because theres nothing stopping either mentality from crossing over the line and employing each others techs. Again my questions, do you really believe an MMA guy wouldnt emply the street techs in a life and death scenario? Exactly how much training do you think is required to poke out an eyeball or do a groin kick? Im not saying these techs are easy because I doubt they are, but that would be for anyone, trained either way. Again, I wouldnt discredit street techs as I believe they are useful. I just dont get how or why someone would come up with these theories having no way of backing them up?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -How in the entire friggin universe is a jab and cross combo, or knees from the clinch, or elbows from the mount not useful for the str33t?



When your arms are being held by the other 2 attackers. Or he has a gun. Or if you cannot get into the clinch. 



> -Some. Does anybody have effective techniques aginst mutiple opponents?



Yes they do.  They tend to wear uniforms, and funny hats, and jump out of planes and fast boats, but yeah.



> -See my response above just change "mutiple opponents" to "weapons".



 Ok.



> -No. Pull a knife on me and I WILL shoot you though.



Can you out draw the guy behind you?



> -No they do not. They empiracly show what works one on one with no weapon. Some SD can look like that.



The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. 

According to the FBI, muliple attackers are involved over 62% of the time. 

Combined, gun and knife deaths are about 96% of the fatalities. Blunt force or other is 5-6%.

This would strongly imply that training and counting on open hand techniques against an unarmed jock is not a good reality based defense strategy.



> -To do 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 requires you to be in a dominate position with someone. MMA ground training is built around gaining a dominate position. How do you plan to do that if you don't train to do it? And what would proclude you hypothetical "300lbs champion" from training defenses against them?





> -I have never claimed expertise, but I've been training in this stuff for a long time. I train with guys way heavier than me all the time. Sometimes I'm the hammer. Sometimes I'm the nail.


But all within rules. So regardless of all your "testing" you have no idea if you'd survive a real fight.


----------



## cfr

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> My style works.
> 
> I'm still here.
> 
> Last fight wore out a pair of nikes, and ended up with a black eye and damn sore jaw. Left an impression on my opponent. He tasted awful btw. It's interesting how someone will often let you go when in a fight, you grab their groin and purr at them.


 
And you think an MMA guy couldnt have done those things? That he would be limited to rules?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

I'm mostly in agreement with you. But, you will fight as you train. If you never train for, or always stop short, you will do that in a pinch.  That is why you often hear about some poor dumb patty cake blackbelt losing a street fight.  He tagged the other guy and waited for him to "uke" and got pasted as a result.  It's why I liked sparring with people from 1 particular school. They only played in the safe zone. Head shots weren't allowed, so they didn't train to defend. I hit them. Alot. They whined. Alot. It was fun.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Bottom line:
Yes, there are overlaps.  But anything with rules is limited in it's effectiveness to test effectiveness.

NHB/UFC/Kendo/Fencing/Karate Tournaments/etc.  All are a great way to test yourself and have fun within a particular set of guidelines and rules. Yes, the things that work in that environment can work in the street, IF! one trains to pull them off in the manner needed in that environment. There are ways to do that, safely.  But pretending that what works in a cage fight 1 on 1 will work against 3 weapon wielding attackers is pure stupidity. Unfortunately, too many hot bloods seem to feel that their sport fighting is just as good as, or better than the stuff done by guys who do train for the real no-rules world.


----------



## Hand Sword

"What makes the grass grow?"    " Blood! Blood! Blood!"


We don't train to be merciful here! Mercy is for the weak! Here, on the street, or in competition, if a man confronts you, he is the enemy! An enemy deserves no mercy!

Strike first! Strike hard!  No mercy sir!


----------



## Hand Sword

Do I have the right mindset?

(I hope so. I'm at work again, and trying to get another 6 pk of pepsi--LOL!)


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

:drinkbeer :drink2tha :cheers: 

Only have 4 left, but I'll split em with you!


----------



## SFC JeffJ

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> "What makes the grass grow?"    " Blood! Blood! Blood!"
> 
> 
> We don't train to be merciful here! Mercy is for the weak! Here, on the street, or in competition, if a man confronts you, he is the enemy! An enemy deserves no mercy!
> 
> Strike first! Strike hard!  No mercy sir!



Kill Kill Kill with Cold Blue Steel?

Hooah!!!


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> :drinkbeer :drink2tha :cheers:
> 
> Only have 4 left, but I'll split em with you!


-Drinking and posting at the same time? Tha would explain a lot. Your posts are so full of contradictions and straw men I hardly know where to begin. You even even answered a question that I asked someone else like it was directed to you. You have got to be a troll. Isn't that breaking forum rules? I'll try to respond tomorrow. It's my bedtime now...


----------



## Hand Sword

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Drinking and posting at the same time? Tha would explain a lot. Your posts are so full of contradictions and straw men I hardly know where to begin. You even even answered a question that I asked someone else like it was directed to you. You have got to be a troll. Isn't that breaking forum rules? I'll try to respond tomorrow. It's my bedtime now...


 
It's only Pepsi!


----------



## Flying Crane

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Traditional arts such as Karate, Arnis, Kung Fu, etc, when learned from a qualified instructor, are based on techniques that -have- been battlefield tested. The mix-n-matcher who makes up his own fart is not that guy. Techniques that have been battle tested and refined do not need to be "tested", only learned, and integrated into your automatic response system.
> 
> See, regardless on if you are a big macho sweaty UFC jock, or a skinny little Wing Chun Dummy, the only real question is: When I need to pull it off, is it going to work for me?


 
While I agree in part with _some_ of what you are saying, any technique that has been battlefield tested still needs to be developed by the individual to a level where it can be used.  Just because it may have been battlefield tested in the past doesn't mean it will magically work without serious effort to develope your useage skill.  Practicing the technique under challenging conditions is a good way to do that.  I guess that would be "pressure testing". 

And remember: nothing is going to work _for_ me.  Rather, I need to figure out how to _use it_.  I am the active party, not the technique.  I cannot be passive and expect material to simply "work for me".

I think MMA style training is ONE way to develop useable skills.  It is not the only way, and it is not the best way for everyone.  For some, if that is your interest, then yes it is, but not for others.  The experience of combat in a MMA event, or in MMA training of course is not the same as real combat, but NO type of training is.  Any kind of training can only approximate real combat.  But I could see where the experience of MMA training, where you fight against other skilled, strong, and tough individuals, could serve you well on the street.  It is no guarantee, but it could certainly be useful.  

I don't think anyone would argue that Mike Tyson would be a formidable opponent on the street, and his experience is boxing which has a large set of rules with no kicks, no takedowns and such.  But that doesn't mean he couldn't be tough on the street.  Same thing with MMA guys.

I think the big problem is that people tend to want to take the extreme position: MMA is the ONLY way to do it; or MMA is worthless on the street.  Neither position is accurate.  MMA can be good on the street, but like anything else there is simply no guarantee.


----------



## Hand Sword

Yes. As always it is the individual, and their abilities to adapt, whatever style, that counts.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Drinking and posting at the same time? Tha would explain a lot. Your posts are so full of contradictions and straw men I hardly know where to begin. You even even answered a question that I asked someone else like it was directed to you. You have got to be a troll. Isn't that breaking forum rules? I'll try to respond tomorrow. It's my bedtime now...


So it might seem to a more limited intellect. But I am as much a troll as you are, though perhaps more diverse and attractive than the common mud pit troll.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> It's only Pepsi!


Yeah.  Only *Burp* Pepsi.  (slides bottle of rum into pocket)
:drinky:


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> While I agree in part with _some_ of what you are saying, any technique that has been battlefield tested still needs to be developed by the individual to a level where it can be used.  Just because it may have been battlefield tested in the past doesn't mean it will magically work without serious effort to develope your useage skill.  Practicing the technique under challenging conditions is a good way to do that.  I guess that would be "pressure testing".
> 
> And remember: nothing is going to work _for_ me.  Rather, I need to figure out how to _use it_.  I am the active party, not the technique.  I cannot be passive and expect material to simply "work for me".
> 
> I think MMA style training is ONE way to develop useable skills.  It is not the only way, and it is not the best way for everyone.  For some, if that is your interest, then yes it is, but not for others.  The experience of combat in a MMA event, or in MMA training of course is not the same as real combat, but NO type of training is.  Any kind of training can only approximate real combat.  But I could see where the experience of MMA training, where you fight against other skilled, strong, and tough individuals, could serve you well on the street.  It is no guarantee, but it could certainly be useful.
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue that Mike Tyson would be a formidable opponent on the street, and his experience is boxing which has a large set of rules with no kicks, no takedowns and such.  But that doesn't mean he couldn't be tough on the street.  Same thing with MMA guys.
> 
> I think the big problem is that people tend to want to take the extreme position: MMA is the ONLY way to do it; or MMA is worthless on the street.  Neither position is accurate.  MMA can be good on the street, but like anything else there is simply no guarantee.


:cheers:


----------



## Hand Sword

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> So it might seem to a more limited intellect. But I am as much a troll as you are, though perhaps more diverse and attractive than the common mud pit troll.


 
I look at myself as a wishnick!


----------



## green meanie

"And the wheels on the bus go round and round... round and round... round and round..."


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Excuse me a second while I pick my chin off the floor. So unless I'm fighting to the death in training, there's no benefit to it? You can't possibly be serious.



Ahhh no, that is not my point.

Sorry I'm late responding, I have been busy, and actually part of that was training. I have decided to train more and post less. And believe me I need the training.

Actually that is not what I am saying, if I were to say that I would be insane. I was either not clear, or what I wrote was misinterpreted or not read fully.

Training does prepare you for fighting better than the average Joe. But fighting in a ring has rules were fighting on the street does not, and no 2 fights are alike. I do not believe that fighting in the ring prepares you any better for real life fighting than true traditional Martial arts training.

As for pressure testing by going out an picking fights, that is dangerous and will eventually get those who partake in that activity seriously hurt, thrown in jail or worse.

There is always someone out there that is bigger, stronger, meaner, luckier, crazier or better trained. And if your goal is to go out and pick fights to see how good you are eventually you will run into one of these people. And if you are real lucky you will only have a brief hospital stay. That is what I mean by tough is tough. 

Training is important very important, but the goal of training, at least in traditional martial arts, should be for more than fighting. Yes it is part of it, but so are self-knowledge, self-cultivations, self-confidence and just plain physical fitness and health.

I use to work with a guy, 25 years ago, that was tough, not trained in MA at all but just plain tough and a little crazy, actually as it turned out a lot crazy. Picture an old school biker with biceps the size of most peoples thighs make him 5 foot 10 inches tall and you got a good picture of what he looked like, and it is very likely he is in jail today - if we are all lucky. 

This guy I worked with I will call Ben, because I do not want to give out his real name, because he is also the scariest person I have ever talked to, and long after working with Ben I worked as security in a hospital with a mental health and detox unit and Ben is still hands down the scariest person I ever knew.

Ben got pulled over on the Mass. turnpike by a Mass. State Police Officer, and if anyone is from Mass. and knows about MSP 25 years ago you know they were well trained, generally tough, and pressure tested...daily. Much the same as they are today, but with fewer rules.

After Ben got pulled over it led to him being arrested on a multiple of Vehicle violations. But it was apparently the last charge, the driving while drunk charge that set him off. Suffice to say trooper 1 ended up fighting for his life and locking himself in his car for protection and to call for back up (I have no idea why Ben was not shot due to this, could be justification, but I am not sure). Trooper 2 arrived and would not get out of his car until trooper 3 arrived (Ben was physically dismantling trooper 1's car at the time). Trooper 2 and 3 with the assistance of trooper 1 took Ben down and arrested him. Ben went to jail; trooper 1 went to the hospital.

The point is that if you engage in pressure testing you will eventually run into a Ben and that is something I would not wish on anyone. That is what makes pressure testing so dangerous and as a training tool it does not prepare you any better for the Bens of the world. So you beat a couple of guys, so what. Next time youre in a bar and run into Ben and pick a fight with him, if youre lucky you end up in the hospital.

Training good, pressure testing bad, that is my point. 

MMA, TMA, JMA, CMA, whatever you call it and train, all good and can help you a lot in a fight. But I do not think any one is superior to the other. It all comes down to the person that has done the training. There are no bad martial arts; it is the martial artist that trains in that art that makes the difference.


----------



## Chris Thompson

>They empiracly show what works one on one with no weapon>

Has anyone thought of comparing MMA tactics systematically to what actually happens in street assaults? I've seen a fair number of these, and very few of them bore any resemblance to a MMA bout. "Ground and pound" does happen on the street, and bouncers do use submission holds to convince aggressive drunks to cooperate, but otherwise there's very little connection. The typical street assault begins in extreme close distance, from surprise, and involves one man putting the other on the ground immediately and then hurting him from a standing position. The mere fact that both people in a MMA fight know it's a fight beforehand makes such events totally dissimilar to street violence- therefore, they prove nothing about street violence.
But that doesn't mean any other style is all that similar to street violence either.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> As someone, I believe Andrew said, there are ways to train for that safely. A quality instructor has the tools and knowledge to do so.
> 
> Gun disarms - use paint ball guns (with proper eye protection and the guns chronoed). Hurts like a SOB up close. Safe, but immediate feedback.
> 
> Knife work - use a hard rubber or dull metal trainer. You feel it, you'd be cut. You don't have to train with live steel, but as if it were live steel.
> 
> Multiple opponents - realize that if they clinch you, it's a boot party and your head is the dance floor. Work on divide, separate, avoid techniques. Yes, running like hell is a valid self defense technique.
> 
> Eyes, Groin, etc - Goggles, RedMan suits, etc. The cops don't play patty cake, the marines sure don't. Why should you?
> 
> Am I making sense here?
> 
> In the end, you can train for most situations. But, until you need to really use it, not just 'test with rules', no one knows for certain. Thats the pucker factor. When there is no tap backs, time outs, or DQ's.


-So are you for the sport training method then? Because that's what you listed. The MMA training method is the empty hands version for what you listed.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> My style works.
> 
> I'm still here.
> 
> Last fight wore out a pair of nikes, and ended up with a black eye and damn sore jaw. Left an impression on my opponent. He tasted awful btw. It's interesting how someone will often let you go when in a fight, you grab their groin and purr at them.


-So your style works because you're here. What about everybosy else that's still here? Must be dumb luck huh? Strange logic indeed...


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Talk to guys like Hoch Hochheim, Mark Hatmaker, Jim McCann and Tim Tackett. They train people to survive, not just win a match.


-I've seen some of Hock's material. It aint that impressive.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Bottom line:
> Yes, there are overlaps. But anything with rules is limited in it's effectiveness to test effectiveness.
> 
> NHB/UFC/Kendo/Fencing/Karate Tournaments/etc. All are a great way to test yourself and have fun within a particular set of guidelines and rules. Yes, the things that work in that environment can work in the street, IF! one trains to pull them off in the manner needed in that environment. There are ways to do that, safely. But pretending that what works in a cage fight 1 on 1 will work against 3 weapon wielding attackers is pure stupidity. Unfortunately, too many hot bloods seem to feel that their sport fighting is just as good as, or better than the stuff done by guys who do train for the real no-rules world.


-Who has ever pretended that MMA will work against 3 weapon weilding attackers? That is a strawman. The fact of the matter is outside of a firearm, 3 guys with weapons always win against one.


----------



## Rich Parsons

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Who has ever pretended that MMA will work against 3 weapon weilding attackers? That is a strawman. The fact of the matter is outside of a firearm, 3 guys with weapons always win against one.



Ronin et al,

While the intelligent MMA practitioners know this. While the intelligent people not in MMA also recognize this as well. 

It is always the few who want what they are studying to be the BEST and unbeatable. Adn they figuratively beat their chests and posture about how this specifically will be the end all or is the end all. 

I would add even if three opponents with boots are a major problem when you are on the ground. Weapons just make it that much worse. 


Good Points being made here. Thank you guys please keep it coming.


----------



## RoninPimp

> I do not believe that fighting in the ring prepares you any better for real life fighting than true traditional Martial arts training.


-It's not about getting in the ring. Its about "pressure testing" techniques in training so you actually know they work. The evidence is overwelming that many traditional MA techniques don't work that well.



> As for pressure testing by going out an picking fights, that is dangerous and will eventually get those who partake in that activity seriously hurt, thrown in jail or worse.
> 
> There is always someone out there that is bigger, stronger, meaner, luckier, crazier or better trained. And if your goal is to go out and pick fights to see how good you are eventually you will run into one of these people. And if you are real lucky you will only have a brief hospital stay.


-Nobody I know would ever advocate that.



> Training is important very important, but the goal of training, at least in traditional martial arts, should be for more than fighting. Yes it is part of it, but so are self-knowledge, self-cultivations, self-confidence and just plain physical fitness and health.


-Those things are great and I agree, but they are very subjective things. And aren't true for everybody. Those things are also a part of just about every sport from boxing to surfing.



> Training good, pressure testing bad, that is my point.


-They are one in the same and I think that's where some of the confusion lies. Pressure testing does NOT mean seaking out violence.



> There are no bad martial arts


-This is the typical PC kind of answer. I disagree. Some produce fighters, other just produce dancers.


----------



## RoninPimp

Chris Thompson said:
			
		

> >They empiracly show what works one on one with no weapon>
> 
> Has anyone thought of comparing MMA tactics systematically to what actually happens in street assaults? I've seen a fair number of these, and very few of them bore any resemblance to a MMA bout. "Ground and pound" does happen on the street, and bouncers do use submission holds to convince aggressive drunks to cooperate, but otherwise there's very little connection. The typical street assault begins in extreme close distance, from surprise, and involves one man putting the other on the ground immediately and then hurting him from a standing position. The mere fact that both people in a MMA fight know it's a fight beforehand makes such events totally dissimilar to street violence- therefore, they prove nothing about street violence.
> But that doesn't mean any other style is all that similar to street violence either.


-That's why awareness is the cornerstone of SD. If you don't see an assult coming, you can't do much about it no matter how good a fighter you are. 2 untrained people fighting doesn't look like MMA because most people suck at fighting.


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -It's not about getting in the ring. Its about "pressure testing" techniques in training so you actually know they work. The evidence is overwelming that many traditional MA techniques don't work that well.


 
Please, feel free to produce this evidence.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> --They are one in the same and I think that's where some of the confusion lies. Pressure testing does NOT mean seaking out violence..


 
Then explain pressure testing so I no longer have this misconception.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> --This is the typical PC kind of answer. I disagree. Some produce fighters, other just produce dancers.


 
Amazing..

That is the first time in my life I have ever been accused of being politically correct. Would it still be a politically correct statement if I said I have bee saying that for over 20 years? Long before politically correct was a term.

Now, if I may, 
Are you then saying the without pressure testing martial arts are a waste of time?


And I would also be very interested in what you considered traditional martial arts training?


----------



## Andrew Green

[/quote]
And I would also be very interested in what you considered traditional martial arts training?[/quote] 

Oh dear, I see this getting ugly based solely on word play here...

"Traditional Martial Arts" is a faulty term, in that different arts will train very different.  Boxing is traditional in a sense, but it is not usually called that, even though it is older and more engrained in our history then most that are.

By "traditional" what is probably being meant in this context is a reliance on "old knowledge / beliefs".  Meaning that things are done a certain way, because that is the way they where done by the person that started this lineage.

"Non-traditional" would be where things are done because they are believed to be the best way to do them.  And if something else comes along, that way will be adapted and the other discarded.

This is different then "traditional arts" because the old ways can not be discarded.  If some Shotokan practitioners decided more boxing like punches would be better, and a good chunk of the time should be devoted to ground work and kata should be eliminated they would no longer being doing Shotokan, regardless of whether or not their ability to fight got better or worse.



> Now, if I may,
> Are you then saying the without pressure testing martial arts are a waste of time?



 I would say it depends on your objective.  I'd imagine the majority of Tai Chi practitioners do not pressure test their stuff, yet I'd also say they are not wasting there time.  They are enjoying themselves, improving balance, strength, helath, etc.  Getting exactly what they wanted out of it.

Now if your only goal was to be a fighter, and you didn't pressure test anything I'd say you are seriously misguided in your efforts...

But as long as people are enjoying what they do they are not wasting there time.  If it is giving secondary benefits like fitness, conditioning, ability to fight, coordination, stress relief, etc.  That's all just a bonus.


----------



## RoninPimp

> Please, feel free to produce this evidence.


-Watch the early UFC's. The one diminsional traditional MAers didn't do well to put it midly.



> Then explain pressure testing so I no longer have this misconception.


-Pressure testing=sparring=randori=drilling with resistance=rolling=training with "Aliveness". Take your pick of termonology.



> Are you then saying the without pressure testing martial arts are a waste of time?


-I am saying they are a waste of time for learning effective SD techniques. 



> And I would also be very interested in what you considered traditional martial arts training?


-Arts with a kata dependant training method, with little or no sparring. Is there a more common definition?


----------



## Andrew Green

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> MMA, TMA, JMA, CMA, whatever you call it and train, all good and can help you a lot in a fight. But I do not think any one is superior to the other. It all comes down to the person that has done the training. There are no bad martial arts; it is the martial artist that trains in that art that makes the difference.



I'm going to disagree.  There are better and worse martial arts.  That is a simple fact. Of course which is better or worse depends on your goal.

Like tools, it makes no sense to say "all tools are equal" for a job, because as soon as you specify the job the question gets silly.

What's better, a screw driver or a welding torch?

Depends on what you want to do with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Watch the early UFC's. The one diminsional traditional MAers didn't do well to put it midly.?


 
Not what I would call overwhelming proof.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Pressure testing=sparring=randori=drilling with resistance=rolling=training with "Aliveness". Take your pick of termonology.?


 
Sounds an awful lot like the traditional Jujitsu and non sport TDK I first trained.

And sounds an awful lot like the traditional CMA I do train.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> --I am saying they are a waste of time for learning effective SD techniques. ?


 
But the traditional MA that I have trained and does train effective self-defense techniques. And before you ask how I know, I once had a job where I had to use them on an all too regular basis.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Arts with a kata dependant training method, with little or no sparring. Is there a more common definition?


 
And I would say you definition is a best lacking and more likely incorrect.

Kata is important to Japanese martial arts and forms are important to Chinese martial arts, but that is not all that they are. 

If this is based on your experience with TMA schools then I would suggest you were not at a good TMA school


----------



## RoninPimp

> Not what I would call overwhelming proof.


-You can choose to ingore the evidence. It won't change anything though. Do you have any evidence at all to counter my argument? Or just more opinion?



> Sounds an awful lot like the traditional Jujitsu and non sport TDK I first trained.
> 
> And sounds an awful lot like the traditional CMA I do train.


-That's great. Do you limit techniques in your CMA sparring to CMA techniques?



> I once had a job where I had to use them on an all too regular basis.


-Please be specific or that argument means nothing.



> And I would say you definition is a best lacking and more likely incorrect.


-That may be. I'm not interested in debating this issue. Its not really relavant to this thread. Plus, I've never trained in a TMA.


----------



## cfr

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Not what I would call overwhelming proof.


 
Out of curiosity, what would you call overwhelming proof then? Tomorrow is UFC 59, and we still don't see many TMA (for lack of better words) guys in them. Why do you think that is? They were in the first few but dissolved over time. Any ideas as to why? Is it because their techs are just too deadly? Again, Im not of the fixed MMA mindset, I just think that they have some awesome points on these matters that are pretty tough to argue.


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -You can choose to ingore the evidence. It won't change anything though. Do you have any evidence at all to counter my argument? Or just more opinion?.


 
There is no evidence needed. You are stating your opinion based on a small group of people by comparison to all those that train TMA. 

You are basing the UFC as evidence that all of TMA is useless and kata based. You want me to except as overwhelming proof that all Traditional martial artists all over the world are no good based on the UFC. 

That is simply not overwhelming proof. 



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That's great. Do you limit techniques in your CMA sparring to CMA techniques?.


 
I currently train 2 different CMA styles I have trained greater than 2. I have used CMA to spare, TDK, Karate, Aikido, and other CMA. Since techniques and or applications can be similar from one TMA to another I can not say which was this CMA and which was that CMA and which was jujitsu and which was TDK.

I also said I trained Jujitsu and non-sport tdk before. 



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -
> -Please be specific or that argument means nothing.


 
And being specific would help how? 

I have already stated that I use to work in a hospital that had a mental health and detox. I was security at the time, which is as specific as I will get.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That may be. I'm not interested in debating this issue. Its not really relevant to this thread. Plus, I've never trained in a TMA.


 
Then your opinion about TMA could be considered invalid.

And you are then only interested in a one sided debate, is that what I am understanding here. 

And how is it not relevant to the thread? If you are stating that TMA is no good without pressure testing than you have made it relevant by your own statement. If you have never trained TMA then how you would you know what it is and if it is good or not?


----------



## Flying Crane

Keep in mind that what we now call "traditaional" were actually new and cutting-edge back in their day.  They are only traditional to us, because by comparison, they are older.  The arts have always undergone change, as people felt they had a better way to do things.  What we see now as MMA, someday will probably fall within the ranks of "traditional".


----------



## Xue Sheng

cfr said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what would you call overwhelming proof then? Tomorrow is UFC 59, and we still don't see many TMA (for lack of better words) guys in them. Why do you think that is? They were in the first few but dissolved over time. Any ideas as to why? Is it because their techs are just too deadly? Again, Im not of the fixed MMA mindset, I just think that they have some awesome points on these matters that are pretty tough to argue.


 
First I am not against MMA and I am not saying it is a lesser of a MA than TMA. But the UFC does not the martial arts world make. 

This is based on a small group of people by comparison to all those that train Martial arts. Why don't boxers do college Wrestling? Does that mean one is no good? Of course not, it is different training that is all. It does not mean one is valid and one is not.

Has there been every example of every style of TMA represented in the UFC? No, and based on the few that tried you claim all TMA is flawed. This is not enough for me to except as proof. What TMA styles tried?

You are basing the UFC as evidence that all of TMA is useless and kata based. You want me to except as overwhelming proof that all Traditional martial artists all over the world are no good based on the UFC. This would include Europe, Russia, China, Japan USA, etc.

That is simply not overwhelming proof.


----------



## cfr

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> First I am not against MMA and I am not saying it is a lesser of a MA than TMA. But the UFC does not the martial arts world make.
> 
> This is based on a small group of people by comparison to all those that train Martial arts. Why don't boxers do college Wrestling? Does that mean one is no good? Of course not, it is different training that is all. It does not mean one is valid and one is not.
> 
> Has there been every example of every style of TMA represented in the UFC? No, and based on the few that tried you claim all TMA is flawed. This is not enough for me to except as proof. What TMA styles tried?
> 
> You are basing the UFC as evidence that all of TMA is useless and kata based. You want me to except as overwhelming proof that all Traditional martial artists all over the world are no good based on the UFC. This would include Europe, Russia, China, Japan USA, etc.
> 
> That is simply not overwhelming proof.


 

Great. Any thoughts on the questions I asked?


----------



## MartialIntent

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> My style works.
> 
> I'm still here.
> 
> Last fight wore out a pair of nikes, and ended up with a black eye and damn sore jaw. Left an impression on my opponent. He tasted awful btw. It's interesting how someone will often let you go when in a fight, you grab their groin and purr at them.


 
I'm curious... What *is* your style? Is it based upon anything currently in existence or formulated through your own bare-knuckle experience?

Respects!


----------



## Xue Sheng

cfr said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what would you call overwhelming proof then? Tomorrow is UFC 59, and we still don't see many TMA (for lack of better words) guys in them. Why do you think that is? They were in the first few but dissolved over time. Any ideas as to why? Is it because their techs are just too deadly? Again, Im not of the fixed MMA mindset, I just think that they have some awesome points on these matters that are pretty tough to argue.


 
Actually I felt I answered them.

I have no idea why, what TMA styles were they.

Since I basically stated TMA and MMA are both good. Are they too deadly no. Possibly not interested and feel they have nothing to prove. But to deadly? no.

As for overwhelming proof, not my place to say. I am just stating that what was presented to me as overwhelming proofisnt.

Now how about answering my questions.


----------



## RoninPimp

> There is no evidence needed. You are stating your opinion based on a small group of people by comparison to all those that train TMA.


-LOL, you don't need evidence to argue your point, but it helps. I have evidence to support my claims. You do not.



> You are basing the UFC as evidence that all of TMA is useless and kata based. You want me to except as overwhelming proof that all Traditional martial artists all over the world are no good based on the UFC.
> 
> That is simply not overwhelming proof.


-I am saying that any art that doesn't have empty hand techniques that resemble what is seen in the UFC doesn't have the most effective empty hand techniques. If thousands upon thousands of amateur and professional fights, challenge matches, and sparring sessions aren't overwhelming proof, then I don't know what would ever be proof to you.



> I currently train 2 different CMA styles I have trained greater than 2. I have used CMA to spare, TDK, Karate, Aikido, and other CMA. Since techniques and or applications can be similar from one TMA to another I can not say which was this CMA and which was that CMA and which was jujitsu and which was TDK.
> 
> I also said I trained Jujitsu and non-sport tdk before.


-That's also great. You should expand your horizons more and add as many different styles as possible to that list.



> And being specific would help how?
> 
> I have already stated that I use to work in a hospital that had a mental health and detox. I was security at the time, which is as specific as I will get.


-You can't use information, you claim to have, that you won't share to argue your point.



> And you are then only interested in a one sided debate, is that what I am understanding here.
> 
> And how is it not relevant to the thread? If you are stating that TMA is no good without pressure testing than you have made it relevant by your own statement. If you have never trained TMA then how you would you know what it is and if it is good or not?


-I am interested in your side, but you haven't produced any evidence to support your claims. I stated what my definition of TMA is. If its wrong, I don't want to make that the focus of the discussion. I will gladly use the term "kata focussed arts that don't spar" in its place. 

I have never trained in an art that is kata focussed and doesn't spar. Arts that are kata focussed and don't spar that don't have techniques that resemble techniques found in MMA don't have the most effective empty hand techniques. Do you see my point now? TMA is so much easier to type...


----------



## RoninPimp

> Has there been every example of every style of TMA represented in the UFC? No, and based on the few that tried you claim all TMA is flawed. This is not enough for me to except as proof. What TMA styles tried?


-I do not know why every style hasn't tested itself in MMA. You would have to ask them yourself. I would like to know the answer myself. 

-Several styles of Karate and Kung-Fu, and TKD were in the early UFC's. They got crushed. Do your research and watch them.


----------



## cfr

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Why don't boxers do college Wrestling?
> 
> Has there been every example of every style of TMA represented in the UFC? No, and based on the few that tried you claim all TMA is flawed. This is not enough for me to except as proof. What TMA styles tried?


 
# 1 No, that means they are boxers, not wrestlers. 
# 2 I doubt every style of TMA has been in the UFC. I never said it was flawed, but I'm still curious as to why they dont dont enter these rule bound sports any longer? Lets not forget, at one time they did. Maybe it has something to do with all the character building TMA training they do?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I do not know why every style hasn't tested itself in MMA. You would have to ask them yourself. I would like to know the answer myself.
> 
> -Several styles of Karate and Kung-Fu, and TKD were in the early UFC's. They got crushed. Do your research and watch them.


Were they "crushed" because their techniques are flawed, or because under the rules of a UFC style match, much of the sting is removed?

I train in Filipino arts, Arnis to be exact. Many of the techniques I've learned are not legal in a UFC match. Small joint manipulations, certain SCJJ movements, etc. Seems that someone who knows the rules, who can work well within them, would have the advantage over someone who doesn't play be the rules. I've done Kenpo.  Same thing. Movements that are geared towards joint destruction, etc aren't allowed.  Looking at the rules that were posted, and my limited knowledge of TMA, seems that alot of their "good stuff" wouldn't be allowed.  Hard to test something when you can't use it.


----------



## cfr

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Were they "crushed" because their techniques are flawed, or because under the rules of a UFC style match, much of the sting is removed?
> 
> I train in Filipino arts, Arnis to be exact. Many of the techniques I've learned are not legal in a UFC match. Small joint manipulations, certain SCJJ movements, etc. Seems that someone who knows the rules, who can work well within them, would have the advantage over someone who doesn't play be the rules. I've done Kenpo. Same thing. Movements that are geared towards joint destruction, etc aren't allowed. Looking at the rules that were posted, and my limited knowledge of TMA, seems that alot of their "good stuff" wouldn't be allowed. Hard to test something when you can't use it.


 
Mr Hubbard as mentioned throughout this thread, Id say Im a middle of the roader between TMA and MMA. I think they both have value, it just really annoys me when people claim MMA training is useless in the street. In addition to this, I am still hard pressed to see anyone come up with an answer to the following points:

Street technique versus Sport Techniques or "Just add dirt" I can hear it now from all the street fighters... "But Luis, what about eye gauges, hair pulling, biting, ripping, pinching, scrotum striking, yanking and smashing, scratching, spitting, foaming at the mouth, growling, breaking bottles, wearing boots, colon control and crapping at will?" Well, what about all that? If you can't even hit a guy with a 16oz. glove how the hell are you going to eye jab him? If you can't keep a guy from putting you on the ground and proceeding to do his best *rendition* of River Dance on your cranium, how the hell are you going to just kick him in the balls or bite him? And if you indeed are getting punched, kicked, and out grappled by a superior martial artist and you get the bright idea to bite him, what's to stop him then from doing the same if not worse to youand from a much better vantage point to boot? (Pun intended.) Bottom lineif you build a foundation on movement (timing and awareness in motion) and the attributes necessary to deliver and apply efficient strikes, controls and finishes, you just need to add the foul or dirty tactics. It doesn't work the other way around. "Be like waterthen just add dirt." Luis (El Che) Guitierez - 3-12-2000


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Were they "crushed" because their techniques are flawed, or because under the rules of a UFC style match, much of the sting is removed?
> 
> I train in Filipino arts, Arnis to be exact. Many of the techniques I've learned are not legal in a UFC match. Small joint manipulations, certain SCJJ movements, etc. Seems that someone who knows the rules, who can work well within them, would have the advantage over someone who doesn't play be the rules. I've done Kenpo. Same thing. Movements that are geared towards joint destruction, etc aren't allowed. Looking at the rules that were posted, and my limited knowledge of TMA, seems that alot of their "good stuff" wouldn't be allowed. Hard to test something when you can't use it.


-I would argue their technique was flawed. There were even fewer rules early on. Groin strikes and small joint locks were allowed. There are rules, but they are as limited as fighter safety will allow. The MMA and BJJ curricullums I've been exposed to address the "dirty tactics" as dangers and techniques to use. The training method certainly can take those into account by using goggles and other safety gear already mentioned. Somebody that wants to use dirty tactics whether striking or grappling still needs an effective "delivery syatem" to use them. A cross is a better delivery system than a reverse punch to deliver a strike whether it is a fist or an eye gouge.


----------



## Xue Sheng

cfr said:
			
		

> # 1 No, that means they are boxers, not wrestlers.
> # 2 I doubt every style of TMA has been in the UFC. I never said it was flawed, but I'm still curious as to why they dont dont enter these rule bound sports any longer? Lets not forget, at one time they did. Maybe it has something to do with all the character building TMA training they do?


 
#1 - it also means they were trained differently with different objectives, tactics and rule sets.

In an attempt to keep this friendly

After walking away form this I wonder if this could be a reason as to why more TMA people do not participate in the UFC, and it is also the same reason why more TMA people do not participate in professional boxing. They are not trained to follow the rules required to be in these competitions.

I maybe off base, but I previously mentioned I had spared against people in styles that were not mine, and I learned an awful lot that way. However there was one I refused to spare, Sports TDK. This was not because I felt they were better or that I was better it was because after being invited and getting there I was hit with a set of sports TDK rules that I was to follow in order to spare. I do not know those rules, I did not train by those rules, I did not nor have I ever thought of Martial Arts by those rules. As a matter of fact I never really applied rules to MA sparing at all, and yes I have been hurt.  

This could have something to do with why there are few or no TMA in UFC. 

I still stand by the belief that MMA and TMA are both very good training and I honestly do not feel one is better than the other nor do I feel the need to prove it. 

Now.... I&#8217;m out


----------



## Flying Crane

Anybody who says "MMA is no good on the streets" is a fool.

Anybody who says "TMA is no good on the street" is a fool.

Anybody who says "If you don't train like MMA, then your stuff is no good" is a fool.

Anybody who says "MMA is the only and best way to 'pressure test' your techniques, and if you don't do it this way you're a fool" is a fool.

Anybody who says "TMA doesn't need to 'pressure test' (in whatever way seems reasonable) techniques because they were battlefield tested once upon a time" is a fool.

Anybody who says "TMA has been proven utterly worthless by the UFC" is a fool.

In order to use your stuff, you need to train in a way to realistically develop those skills, but this can be accomplished in many ways, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MMA.  TMA have many valid and effective ways to develop these skills also.  

This "my style is better than your style" nonsense is really really stupid.


----------



## Rich Parsons

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I would argue their technique was flawed. There were even fewer rules early on. Groin strikes and small joint locks were allowed. There are rules, but they are as limited as fighter safety will allow. The MMA and BJJ curricullums I've been exposed to address the "dirty tactics" as dangers and techniques to use. The training method certainly can take those into account by using goggles and other safety gear already mentioned. Somebody that wants to use dirty tactics whether striking or grappling still needs an effective "delivery syatem" to use them. A cross is a better delivery system than a reverse punch to deliver a strike whether it is a fist or an eye gouge.



Yes, in the first one possible up to the third one, Groin shots and throat shots and eye shots and fish hooks were on the fine list. Meaning you could do them but you had to pay a fine. One or two of thsoe and unless you one the top prize and you would be in the hole on that one.


----------



## RoninPimp

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> #1 - it also means they were trained differently with different objectives, tactics and rule sets.
> 
> In an attempt to keep this friendly
> 
> After walking away form this I wonder if this could be a reason as to why more TMA people do not participate in the UFC, and it is also the same reason why more TMA people do not participate in professional boxing. They are not trained to follow the rules required to be in these competitions.
> 
> I maybe off base, but I previously mentioned I had spared against people in styles that were not mine, and I learned an awful lot that way. However there was one I refused to spare, Sports TDK. This was not because I felt they were better or that I was better it was because after being invited and getting there I was hit with a set of sports TDK rules that I was to follow in order to spare. I do not know those rules, I did not train by those rules, I did not nor have I ever thought of Martial Arts by those rules. As a matter of fact I never really applied rules to MA sparing at all, and yes I have been hurt.
> 
> This could have something to do with why there are few or no TMA in UFC.
> 
> I still stand by the belief that MMA and TMA are both very good training and I honestly do not feel one is better than the other nor do I feel the need to prove it.
> 
> Now.... Im out


-Do you not understand that MMA has the least restrictive rule set of any other combative sport or any other style's sparring rules?

-It's pretty easy to surmise that TMA guys don't compete in MMA because they know, whether they admit it or not, that they would get beaten badly.


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> rule set .


 
implies rules, of which in TMA as I know it there are none.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -It's pretty easy to surmise that TMA guys don't compete in MMA because they know, whether they admit it or not, that they would get beaten badly.


 
okie dokie

bye now


----------



## RoninPimp

Is there any other way to train without severly hurting your training partners?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Actually I felt I answered them.
> 
> I have no idea why, what TMA styles were they.
> 
> Since I basically stated TMA and MMA are both good. Are they too deadly no. Possibly not interested and feel they have nothing to prove. But to deadly? no.
> 
> As for overwhelming proof, not my place to say. I am just stating that what was presented to me as overwhelming proofisnt.
> 
> Now how about answering my questions.


 
For the above.

Negative reps from anonymous people because I don't agree with them or they cant refute what is being said, I can handle.

Have a nice day


----------



## green meanie

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Anybody who says "MMA is no good on the streets" is a fool.
> 
> Anybody who says "TMA is no good on the street" is a fool.
> 
> Anybody who says "If you don't train like MMA, then your stuff is no good" is a fool.
> 
> Anybody who says "MMA is the only and best way to 'pressure test' your techniques, and if you don't do it this way you're a fool" is a fool.
> 
> Anybody who says "TMA doesn't need to 'pressure test' (in whatever way seems reasonable) techniques because they were battlefield tested once upon a time" is a fool.
> 
> Anybody who says "TMA has been proven utterly worthless by the UFC" is a fool.
> 
> In order to use your stuff, you need to train in a way to realistically develop those skills, but this can be accomplished in many ways, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MMA. TMA have many valid and effective ways to develop these skills also.
> 
> This "my style is better than your style" nonsense is really really stupid.


 
Nicely put. :asian:


----------



## SFC JeffJ

Both sides of this argument have some valid points.   Instead of arguing about them for the billionth time, how about learning from each other?  Why can't we all get along?(sorry, couldn't resist)

Seriously though, has anyone seen this argument change anyones mind?

Jeff


----------



## green meanie

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Seriously though, has anyone seen this argument change anyones mind? Jeff


 
Really now Jeff, show a little patience. We're only on page 6 after all... give it a little time.


----------



## Robert Lee

I tried to read over all the different listed posts on this subject. TMA MMA  MA CMA ect.  It all boils down to how you trained how you perform with what you do. The UFC Pride K 1 All have a good bunch of fighters. Sure rules apply But look as to why . Those people that get in the ring train hard at what they do and  are used to being hit or being put on the ground having to defend under stress of a real application. M/A before the word traditional came into play. Was trained much more grueling then many train today. There was NO karate Do, Gung Fu Jujitsu Most all arts trained harder. But then life styles changed Many of the Arts went in to preserve type mode. Several arts have lost real application of hidden aspects with in some katas Because it was not handed down To but a few that have passed on. Many schools say they train for streets. But do not train for live application. And  Many people who train M/A do not train it to a point to where they could get it working on the streets. JUST a few would fall into that area of training.  A MM/A person  would perform better on the streets better then many of the people who train at a dojo kwoon ect for what 3 hours a week. Most street fighters do not train at all. They just fight And a good street fighter can out fight  alot of trained M/A people. Training  M/A does not mean now you can fight. Fighting tells that well we can not just fight and fight. To come close you train a point of live resistive training. Its good to at least make some kind of contact  and tap out training. That way you learn to apply. Kata has some good tools in it. BUT I have heard from several people over the years the old story in this kata you fighting 2 3 4 people. THATS not good instruction from there intructor. In a kata you are not fighting any body. You are solo training and each movement breaks down to a seperate application. Plus often is repeaterd for left and right defence counters. Then some dont relize they are being taught Hear something from behind and turn and defend. They just think they are turning.  Boxing a good boxer can fight on the streets What I am saying Is What ever method a person trains If they train hard push there self to be as good as they can They can get there method working. The average Joe that trains M/A would not make it far on the streets in the ring or just any thing much that has to do with fighting. Not unless that person has a strong survival instinct  And MM/A fighters they work very hard on getting in shape If most M/A schools pushed ther students that hard they would see a drop in enrollment. But those left would be the ones that really want what they train. Yes people get in the M/A for many reasons. And that is fine. Train the students for what they want Not what has became tradition You will find the few that want stronger skills and the ones that want less. 2 types of classes  Remember fighting is not so much the style or method its the person that does it that makes it his.  All styles are MM/A if you research your art


----------



## Bob Hubbard

What's the difference between doing a kata, and working reps on a bag or pad?
Very little IMO.  In both you are working to learn and fine tune a technique. Is a boxers shadow boxing, really all that different than solo form practice? I don't think so.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I'm curious... What *is* your style? Is it based upon anything currently in existence or formulated through your own bare-knuckle experience?
> 
> Respects!



I have no style, as I see all arts as one. I feel I can learn as much from  Taijiquan as I can "reality based" people like Hoch, as well as cage fighters and pro boxers. I believe in ending a fight fast, efficiently and with as little effort and injury to self as possible. Spending time trying to close with someone, take them down, cuddle and tap em, in my opinion is inefficient when I have a perfectly good pipe, bat, broomstick or blade.  Give the fact that I am more likely to be attacked by a group, than an individual, and weapon weilding ones at that, fantasizing that the moves I learned watching the last UFC PPV will save my *** in the street seems to me to be poor form.

I find the best technique is no technique. Meaning, that I have avoided the confrontation, intact. I see no reason to seek out confrontation, to "test" my skills against a crippling set of fantasy safety rules, or put myself in real danger just so I can brag to a bunch of braindead children who wet themselves in mudpits about how "hardcore" they are.

I see NHB for what it is. A sport. A fun one to watch, a fun one to play in, and one that is as "real" as the WWE.

That is my "Style".  The style of no style, just whatever works at that moment, that second.

:asian:


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Ronin - You say your training works on the street?

That is prepares you for those situations?

How do you deal with the simple fact that it ignores the stated facts that the majority (60-75%) of confrontations will be with armed groups with no rules, when your training is all 1-on-1 in a safe controled environment?

How many real street fights have you been in?

The last fight I was in was over 10 years ago. I've managed to avoid physical confrontations since then, despite being in bars with bike gangs, seedy neighborhoods, and a nasty habit of taking 2am strolls through my local park during the warm weather.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> What's the difference between doing a kata, and working reps on a bag or pad?
> Very little IMO. In both you are working to learn and fine tune a technique. Is a boxers shadow boxing, really all that different than solo form practice? I don't think so.


-Shadow boxing is usually done as a warm up. It doesn't make up the majority of a boxing workout. Reps on a bag or pad develope timing and power. Shadow boxing and kata does neither. It is also way more strenuous.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Shadow boxing is usually done as a warm up. It doesn't make up the majority of a boxing workout. Reps on a bag or pad develope timing and power. Shadow boxing and kata does neither. It is also way more strenuous.


How many Kata have you done? If you haven't experienced it correctly, yuo cannot compare.  I've done kata. There is a right way to do them.  Sadly, most people really only do air dance.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Ronin - You say your training works on the street?
> 
> That is prepares you for those situations?
> 
> How do you deal with the simple fact that it ignores the stated facts that the majority (60-75%) of confrontations will be with armed groups with no rules, when your training is all 1-on-1 in a safe controled environment?
> 
> How many real street fights have you been in?
> 
> The last fight I was in was over 10 years ago. I've managed to avoid physical confrontations since then, despite being in bars with bike gangs, seedy neighborhoods, and a nasty habit of taking 2am strolls through my local park during the warm weather.


-Have you read anything I've posted? MMA prepares you for the str33t when when a particular str33t confrontation is 1 on 1 with no weapons. The only thing effective with multiple oponents and weapons is running, avoidence, or a firearm. What do you do that will help you in those situations that I don't?

-I have been in dozens, but not past my teens. With one exception when I punched a neighbor that had it coming. Not really a str33t fight that one.

-OK, so you can avoid fighting like all reasonable adults. What does that have to do with the actual empty hands techniques?


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> How many Kata have you done? If you haven't experienced it correctly, yuo cannot compare. I've done kata. There is a right way to do them. Sadly, most people really only do air dance.


-That's horrible logic. How much MMA or BJJ have you done? See how that goes nowhere? I have dabbled with Judo Kata.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Maybe thats where my training has gone beyond the "only effective 35% of the time" level that it seems yours is stuck at. I've read what you post, but it hasn't impressed me much, due to your limited training background.  There's this guy "Clyde", does a thing called "Kenpo". He's over on the mudpit. Look him up. He might show you a few "dance steps" that will educate you a bit better.

And, who the hell said I was a reasonable adult? I want that person brought up on charges. Charges I say!!!!!


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Maybe thats where my training has gone beyond the "only effective 35% of the time" level that it seems yours is stuck at. I've read what you post, but it hasn't impressed me much, due to your limited training background. There's this guy "Clyde", does a thing called "Kenpo". He's over on the mudpit. Look him up. He might show you a few "dance steps" that will educate you a bit better.
> 
> And, who the hell said I was a reasonable adult? I want that person brought up on charges. Charges I say!!!!!


-You didn't ansewr my question. I'll ask it again. What do you do that will help you in those situations that I don't?
And my 20 years of training is limited?


----------



## cfr

I liked the "fool" comments Flying Krane made, they were awesome. 

I think it ignorant to think that thousands of years worth of TMA training is worthless and un-street worthy with their eye pokes, biting, groin shots, etc. 

I also think its equally ignorant to believe that MMA guys couldnt adquately defend themselves with their spending lots of time against resisting opponenets, delivery systems, aggressive training, etc.

You know, someone mentioned that this debate has been had over and over and has never changed anyones mind. Ive always managed to stay out of this debate, and I think I liked it much better that way. 

Peace


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That's horrible logic. How much MMA or BJJ have you done? See how that goes nowhere? I have dabbled with Judo Kata.


The school where I train has had some rather well qualified rollers teach at it.  I've spent a fair amount of time on the mats with them up to about a year ago. I'll honestly say I' think I've been tapped more times in 30 minutes than Ron Jeremy's been kissed in a year, LOL!  See this guy? Fun guy to roll with. We had some Sombo at last years MT M&G, looking likely to have more this year as well.

I've done both, so I feel confident making a rough comparison.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -You didn't ansewr my question. I'll ask it again. What do you do that will help you in those situations that I don't?
> And my 20 years of training is limited?


I'm not here to teach you, and I doubt you could afford my fees.  I told you where to look for an answer. There are many more. You just won't like them.

20 years is not much compared to 50+? I once watched a man in his mid 70's toss guys in their 30's around like toys. They weren't playing. He took on all comers, the only rule is, once you are down, you're out, and only 2 at a time max.  He hit Hard! for an old geezer.   I'm in my mid 30's, decent shape, good endurance. He was better. Period.  We didn't "cuddle", or go for a take down or a tap out.  It was come and get me, so we did, and we went splat.  No dance steps there, just smoooooth!

Your training is limited because you dismiss centuries of refined techniques, simply because they are "old", or "not real". The Filipinos have some wicked knife stuff, old school Karate has some solid punches, and what is boxing, but a refined version of the gentlemans art?  Even Savate can be very effective. I'd rather kick you than punch you. More mass and momentium in my boot than my hand.

I cannot explain in a few paragraphs how to deal with group situations. That requires a tactical mindset that you sadly do not seem open to, convinced that 1-on-1 training and practice is good enough.  It isn't. If it was, that is all the military and cops would do. They don't. They drill more.

They do not do NHB training. Because Sport Fighting is NOT the same as practiced battlefield techniques. Period.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

For the record. The person in question was a Tai Chi master, from China, at a Kenpo event in the mid west.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Have you read anything I've posted? MMA prepares you for the str33t when when a particular str33t confrontation is 1 on 1 with no weapons. The only thing effective with multiple oponents and weapons is running, avoidence, or a firearm. What do you do that will help you in those situations that I don't?
> 
> -OK, so you can avoid fighting like all reasonable adults. What does that have to do with the actual empty hands techniques?


 
Good point about real assaults. In my experience, most of the serious street altercations that are not easily avoidable invove multiple and/or armed attackers. The one on one fisticuff type scenario is generally avoidable by mature adults.

Heres the thing about empty hands, IMO: unarmed is unarmed no matter how good you are. This argument over what does the "most bestest" training, thus to me is a bit pointless. As the saying goes; "to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail". To many martial artists, MMA and others, everything is a situation where unarmed techniques will save you - therefore you MUST practice always in the most realistic manner (manner debatable, obviously). The truth is that in many situations, NO level of unarmed proficiency will have ANY utility. If we want to talk about and debate reality, therefore, let's put our smart money on the study of assault prevention and escape and stop debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. 

Ok, you think an MMA competitor will have the edge on the street over a similiarly experienced TMA. So what? Both will be at an almost total disadvantage against a sixteen year old at distance with a handgun, no hesitation and no conscience.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> For the record. The person in question was a Tai Chi master, from China, at a Kenpo event in the mid west.


 
BTW, my Tai Chi instructor, the late Mr. Tri of Sacramento, CA could (and did) do the same things.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

On any given day, anyone can get lucky and come out on top.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

so seriously, what's with all the chest-thumping over this?

you'd think anybody with (did ronin say 20?  doubtful since he spells 'street' with arabic numerals...) years experience would have gotten past the "my art can beat up your art" thing.

martial arts is, ultimately, about becoming a better human being.  evolving and growing.  to get all swole up about whether your road to the mountain is better than some other guy's road to the mountain sort of misses the point, don't you think?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Kinda the way I see it.


----------



## RoninPimp

cfr said:
			
		

> I liked the "fool" comments Flying Krane made, they were awesome.
> 
> I think it ignorant to think that thousands of years worth of TMA training is worthless and un-street worthy with their eye pokes, biting, groin shots, etc.
> 
> I also think its equally ignorant to believe that MMA guys couldnt adquately defend themselves with their spending lots of time against resisting opponenets, delivery systems, aggressive training, etc.
> 
> You know, someone mentioned that this debate has been had over and over and has never changed anyones mind. Ive always managed to stay out of this debate, and I think I liked it much better that way.
> 
> Peace


-I didn't address the comments by Flying Krane because I didn't make any of the statements he refered to.

-"Thousands" of years of TMA is a horiible exageration. TKD and Karate are 20th century arts. CMA documentation iirc goes back only a few hundred years. The oldest documentation, again iirc, on Koryu arts only go back to the late middle ages.

-At any rate I have not stated that TMA's are worthless. I have said they are demonstratably less effective than MMA where empty hands are concerned. Nobody has been able to refute this with any evidence. Only opinion.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The school where I train has had some rather well qualified rollers teach at it. I've spent a fair amount of time on the mats with them up to about a year ago. I'll honestly say I' think I've been tapped more times in 30 minutes than Ron Jeremy's been kissed in a year, LOL! See this guy? Fun guy to roll with. We had some Sombo at last years MT M&G, looking likely to have more this year as well.
> 
> I've done both, so I feel confident making a rough comparison.


-It sounds as though you've barely experianced MMA. The link you provide is of a JKD guy that is a blue belt in BJJ. That's great, and I'm sure he has plenty to teach. But his credentials are light as far as MMA goes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I dunno. He's actually competed, and won, several times.  Seems holding a few titles would be credible, even if they aren't the PPV leagues. He'll be at the MT M&G this year. Stop in, I'll introduce ya.


----------



## Andrew Green

Here's my take, everyone likes to use the extreme views on the other side to argue against, and while there are a few people that seem to believe those, they are generally not people with more then a few months training.

From my point of view:

MMA is a competitive format, in the old days it had no real rules, apart from the environment.  It started a system of showing what did and did not work in that environment.

It may not be real, and has grown even less real, but, there are fairly good methods of testing what is and what is not a reliable technique in a restricted arena.

Yes, it is not "real", neither is a wind tunnel or computer simulation, but if the plane crashes in those I wouldn't want to be onboard for a real test flight.

Training, is like the simulations before a test flight, on a plane we will likely never have to fly.  We can get get close to reality, but never match it.  It's a lab, for experimenting.

What MMA practitioners tend to say is that certain things will not work, now some are naive and say this because they didn't see anything like it on the UFC.  Others say this because they are experienced and have tried this stuff, had it tried on them, been hit with it and come to realise, it's not reliable in a fight.  

They will also offer up the proof, "try it yourself" and give the parameters to demonstrate the experiment, try it on a reasonably skilled fighter, at least in the skills the technique is supposed to work against.

Now of course there are situations where physical techniques can be used that are not fights, wrist locks, come alongs, off balancing, etc.  Not to mention that a lot of stuff that doesn't work on skilled fighters, works really well on unskilled ones, better then the stuff that works on skilled ones even.

Another thing that I have found is that most MMA practitioners with reasonable experience are not prone to making claims about the "street", it is a uncontrolled environment with far too many variables.  Anything can happen, and strange things can work.

What they usually advocate is that the best method to prepare, even though this should not be the goal, is having a solid base in all areas of fighting, and being able to adapt to different situations.  And the best way to get this is by allowing yourself to be put in all sorts of situations through sparring with limited rules.  Because if you end up in a fight, your best bet will be experience fighting live, even if the experience was gained in more controlled environments.  Like if you suddenly have to fly a plane, you'd have been better logging hours in a simulator that gives many different sorts of problems to work around rather then just knowing the manual, which hasn't actually been tested in recent memory.

Where the feuds usually start is where a fanboy from either side comes in and starts making claims about what the other does.  This can be a UFC fan claiming traditional styles are worthless because they don't work in the UFC.  Or it can be from a traditional stylist claiming his fancy technique will KO anyone that trys to shoot on them.

One thing I have learnt is that it is near impossible to do everything.  There simply isn't enough time.  And the more you try to do, the less skill you will have at the individual parts.  A MMA fighter is never going to be as good at boxing as someone that only boxes.

So we have different systems focusing on different areas.  Some hit there area better then others, some don't seem to hit any area well...

But, the problems all seem to start when people make claims about there art fitting in other peoples areas of expertise.  (ex. "No, you cannot drop to horse stance and drop and elbow to stop a shot, it's been tried, didn't work...")

Street fighting however, is outside everyones area, at least everyone not in jail anyways... so it gets all wierd.


----------



## RoninPimp

> I'm not here to teach you, and I doubt you could afford my fees. I told you where to look for an answer. There are many more. You just won't like them.


-You are avoiding the question, and I never asked for instruction.



> 20 years is not much compared to 50+? I once watched a man in his mid 70's toss guys in their 30's around like toys. They weren't playing. He took on all comers, the only rule is, once you are down, you're out, and only 2 at a time max. He hit Hard! for an old geezer. I'm in my mid 30's, decent shape, good endurance. He was better. Period. We didn't "cuddle", or go for a take down or a tap out. It was come and get me, so we did, and we went splat. No dance steps there, just smoooooth!


How does this story help your argument?



> Your training is limited because you dismiss centuries of refined techniques, simply because they are "old", or "not real".


-I have said their empty hand techniques are less effective than MMA. The evidence is overwhelming. Nobody has been able to refute this with solid evidence.



> I cannot explain in a few paragraphs how to deal with group situations. That requires a tactical mindset that you sadly do not seem open to, convinced that 1-on-1 training and practice is good enough. It isn't. If it was, that is all the military and cops would do. They don't. They drill more.


-You are avoiding the question. Again. I have ran into scores of LEO's in Judo and BJJ. And the new Army combatives manual if full of basic BJJ.



> Because Sport Fighting is NOT the same as practiced battlefield techniques. Period.


-I never said it was. Please stop with this strawman.


----------



## RoninPimp

> Ok, you think an MMA competitor will have the edge on the street over a similiarly experienced TMA. So what?


-I believe this to be true. I agree that it is not important. The point I am trying to make is that MMA guy is better equiped against a criminal than a TMA guy if it is empty hands and 1 on 1. I also believe that the same *sport training methodology* that makes MMA so effective in its context, is the most effective way to find out what works with any scenario. Weapons, multiple oponents, rough terrain, whatever.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I dunno. He's actually competed, and won, several times. Seems holding a few titles would be credible, even if they aren't the PPV leagues. He'll be at the MT M&G this year. Stop in, I'll introduce ya.


-That's great. Getting in the cage is huge. What's the MT M&G? So you honestly believe that TMA training has as much training benefit as hard MMA sparring? And by training benefit I mean like in increasing combat effectiveness.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Nobody has been able to refute this with any evidence. Only opinion.



Once upon a time I used to bounce in a place maybe a half mile down the strip from a gaidojutsu school.  Their guys -- pretty stereotypical MMA dudes -- used to come in often.  95% of the time they were good guys.  Kept to themselves.  Tipped well.  Treated the staff with respect.  Took no for an answer if they tried to buy someone a drink.  Good dancers, too.  The other 5% of the time, they got politely but indisputably removed by our staff -- each and every one a TMA dude, with a little kickboxing between us.  Never stood a chance, because none of us were willing to go to the ground.

Every single time I've played with an MMA guy, I've had a lot of fun.  If we played by their rules, they won.  If we played by my rules, I won.  If we sort of mixed it, I came out on top most of the time -- usually by using a move they weren't prepared for (often a minor joint manipulation).

Several judoka and jiu-jutsu practitioners have gone on record saying they dislike what MMA has done to their arts.  Specifically, they see people training to perform that which will score points -- as opposed to people training to perform that which will be street effective.  These are professional grapplers, people who rolled before folks started calling it 'rolling'.

What I will say for MMA guys is they tend to be in shape, and they tend to be strong.  That goes a long way in a fight.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> So you honestly believe that TMA training has as much training benefit as hard MMA sparring? And by training benefit I mean like in increasing combat effectiveness.



absolutely.

training methodology is a different matter, and i'd say most mma guys train harder than most tma guys.  a lot of us tma folks place less emphasis on the physical than mma practitioners -- which would put your average mma guy ahead of a tma guy with the same level of expertise.

but that's because mma guys train harder, not because mma is combatively superior to tma.  there's no such thing as a superior martial art, just superior dedication and superior instruction.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That's great. Getting in the cage is huge. What's the MT M&G? So you honestly believe that TMA training has as much training benefit as hard MMA sparring? And by training benefit I mean like in increasing combat effectiveness.


I believe quality TMA training will better equip you for a wider range of confrontations.  Note, I said Quality training.  Training under some bozo who doesn't understand the dance steps means you're just dancing. A solid instructor can take you alot farther.  Case in point: I thought tai chi was just "stretching for oldies", until I started talking with a guy who explained the throws, joint destructions, and other serious stuff that's buried in there. Unfortunately, it's hard to find those nuggets of intel in a world full of "microwave popcorn fu" (You know, black belt in 10 minutes or you get it free guys?)  I've had similar discussions with CMA and Kenpo guys. Some of them "get it", and others just go through the motions. You have to find the guys who understand why, not just the parrots. (Too many out there, in all styles IMO).

The MMA attitude has some pluses. After all, it's hard to outrun 20 screaming gangbangers when you're sucking air from step 1.   Plus, if you look like you can bench a small nation...it tends to intimidate, which always is a good deterrent. 

MT M&G Info. Under construction, but theres video from last year in the video gallery.


----------



## RoninPimp

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> Once upon a time I used to bounce in a place maybe a half mile down the strip from a gaidojutsu school. Their guys -- pretty stereotypical MMA dudes -- used to come in often. 95% of the time they were good guys. Kept to themselves. Tipped well. Treated the staff with respect. Took no for an answer if they tried to buy someone a drink. Good dancers, too. The other 5% of the time, they got politely but indisputably removed by our staff -- each and every one a TMA dude, with a little kickboxing between us. Never stood a chance, because none of us were willing to go to the ground.
> 
> Every single time I've played with an MMA guy, I've had a lot of fun. If we played by their rules, they won. If we played by my rules, I won. If we sort of mixed it, I came out on top most of the time -- usually by using a move they weren't prepared for (often a minor joint manipulation).
> 
> Several judoka and jiu-jutsu practitioners have gone on record saying they dislike what MMA has done to their arts. Specifically, they see people training to perform that which will score points -- as opposed to people training to perform that which will be street effective. These are professional grapplers, people who rolled before folks started calling it 'rolling'.
> 
> What I will say for MMA guys is they tend to be in shape, and they tend to be strong. That goes a long way in a fight.


-My BS meter is going off because according to Wikipedia "gaidojutsu" is a hybrid style in AZ. You are in OR. Giving you the benefit of doubt, one story is hardly enough evidence to overcome similar stories with every thing reversed, plus the more important and overwhelming video evidence of early MMA and other challenge match videos.


----------



## RoninPimp

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> absolutely.
> 
> training methodology is a different matter, and i'd say most mma guys train harder than most tma guys. a lot of us tma folks place less emphasis on the physical than mma practitioners -- which would put your average mma guy ahead of a tma guy with the same level of expertise.
> 
> but that's because mma guys train harder, not because mma is combatively superior to tma. there's no such thing as a superior martial art, just superior dedication and superior instruction.


-I don't understand. You say "absolutely", but you say "tma folks place less emphasis on the physical". That's a contradiction. How can the actual  physical techniques of combat be equaly developed when by your own statement that tma's are less physical?


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I believe quality TMA training will better equip you for a wider range of confrontations. Note, I said Quality training. Training under some bozo who doesn't understand the dance steps means you're just dancing. A solid instructor can take you alot farther. Case in point: I thought tai chi was just "stretching for oldies", until I started talking with a guy who explained the throws, joint destructions, and other serious stuff that's buried in there. Unfortunately, it's hard to find those nuggets of intel in a world full of "microwave popcorn fu" (You know, black belt in 10 minutes or you get it free guys?) I've had similar discussions with CMA and Kenpo guys. Some of them "get it", and others just go through the motions. You have to find the guys who understand why, not just the parrots. (Too many out there, in all styles IMO).
> 
> The MMA attitude has some pluses. After all, it's hard to outrun 20 screaming gangbangers when you're sucking air from step 1.  Plus, if you look like you can bench a small nation...it tends to intimidate, which always is a good deterrent.
> 
> MT M&G Info. Under construction, but theres video from last year in the video gallery.


-And all that there secret hidden Tai Chi knowledge helped you when you were rolling against the MMA guys and constantly tapping? Doesn't sound like it if you were constantly tapping.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

gaidojutsu used to be around in the southwest desert AZ, NV, NM, TX, parts of CA and I heard parts of mexico.  haven't seen any since i moved back home about 4 years back, but they could be going strong back there still. 

 up in my neck of the woods, the scene is pretty dominated by bjj and octagon fighters.  randy couture's sportfight is picking up considerable steam.

for the meat of your argument, you're right -- MMA challenge matches seem to favor the MMA guys.  but most of those matches i've seen play by the MMA rules so don't really apply to the question you're asking.

have you seen matches where an MMA guy, for example, fought under muay thai rules?  or an MMA guy in one of the dog brothers' events?  i personally haven't, but i think it would go a long way towards answering your question.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I don't understand.



honestly, i don't think you're trying to.  seems like you've made up your mind, so i'm going to bed.

you say some cool things on this forum sometimes, dude.  sometimes your way of saying it can turn folks off.  that's sort of unfortunate.


----------



## RoninPimp

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> little boy, you don't know me, so i'll tell you this once for free. if i tell you something, it's true to the best of my knowledge. i've been wrong plenty of times, but i don't go 'round saying what isn't so. not on purpose anyway.
> 
> gaidojutsu used to be around in the southwest desert AZ, NV, NM, TX, parts of CA and I heard parts of mexico. haven't seen any since i moved back home about 4 years back, but they could be going strong back there still.
> 
> up in my neck of the woods, the scene is pretty dominated by bjj and octagon fighters. randy couture's sportfight is picking up considerable steam.
> 
> for the meat of your argument, you're right -- MMA challenge matches seem to favor the MMA guys. but most of those matches i've seen play by the MMA rules so don't really apply to the question you're asking.
> 
> have you seen matches where an MMA guy, for example, fought under muay thai rules? or an MMA guy in one of the dog brothers' events? i personally haven't, but i think it would go a long way towards answering your question.


-I am no little boy. Don't refer to me as one. I was going off the information I had available to me. I stand corrected. Refer to what I said about stories being available for both sides. And the more important video evidence. And again, MMA rules are the least restrictive. What does Thai boxing and the Dog Brothers have to do with this? They both train in the same "Alive" manner as MMA.


----------



## RoninPimp

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> honestly, i don't think you're trying to. seems like you've made up your mind, so i'm going to bed.
> 
> you say some cool things on this forum sometimes, dude. sometimes your way of saying it can turn folks off. that's sort of unfortunate.


-I don't understand your point because it was a contradiction. I state the truth as I see it bluntly in the most scientific and scholarly way I can. If that "turns folks off", I don't really care. It's the interwebs.


----------



## RoninPimp

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> so seriously, what's with all the chest-thumping over this?
> 
> you'd think anybody with (did ronin say 20? doubtful since he spells 'street' with arabic numerals...) years experience would have gotten past the "my art can beat up your art" thing.
> 
> martial arts is, ultimately, about becoming a better human being. evolving and growing. to get all swole up about whether your road to the mountain is better than some other guy's road to the mountain sort of misses the point, don't you think?


-I am not arguing "my style vs. your style".I am arguing for the scientific method to be applied to SD training. I am 35. I have wrestled since high school. I trained in Judo prior to my current training in BJJ and MMA that I have been doing since 1997. I can private message you with easily verafiable instructor names if you wish. Just let me know. I do not lie about my MA experiance.


----------



## green meanie

Okay, I've tried staying out of this and maybe I'm not getting all that's being said here but it seems to me that it mostly boils down to this:

RoninPimp's argument is that you have to test your stuff in an 'alive' manner or you won't know if it will work or not -and I think most people on here agree with that. I know I do. But what some people are trying to point out and suggest is: if you're training for competition; if competition is the focal point, even an extreme level of competition like the UFC, and you're never taking the time to train with self-defense in mind, then it's going to be somewhat flawed when it's applied on the street. No one is saying that it doesn't have value or that it wouldn't work. Just like no one is saying that boxing doesn't have value on the street or wrestling doesn't have value on the street. What is being suggested is that you should try to consider incorporating self-defense situations into your 'pressure testing' practices. Because no one is disputing the value of an intense MMA-style practice session but why not create a two on one situation and 'pressure test' that? Is there anyone who can't see the value of a good solid practice of intense training spent the way RoninPimp describes but one that brings more situations into the equation that just a one on one match up? There's so many things that could be tried out and tested: multiple opponents, weapons, training outside, etc. because somewhere in the middle of all this is some common ground. It'd be nice if we could find it.

My two cents...

Thoughts?


----------



## Xue Sheng

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -"Thousands" of years of TMA is a horiible exageration. TKD and Karate are 20th century arts. CMA documentation iirc goes back only a few hundred years. The oldest documentation, again iirc, on Koryu arts only go back to the late middle ages.


 
Sorry, I had every intension of not posting here again, but there is something that is historically incorrect.

Traditional martial arts do not only come from Japan, they also come from China and Sh&#249;ai j&#299;ao is very old. There are also other old CMA styles.

Chinese wrestling art presently called Sh&#249;ai j&#299;ao - from the Zhao dynasty 1122 to 221 BC


----------



## Rich Parsons

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Have you read anything I've posted? MMA prepares you for the str33t when when a particular str33t confrontation is 1 on 1 with no weapons. The only thing effective with multiple oponents and weapons is running, avoidence, or a firearm. What do you do that will help you in those situations that I don't?



Ronin P,

This is not a post against you, just a follow up addition.

What can one do different from what I have done?

Train for multiple opponents with weapons. It is easier with impact then knife, but the training can help you also position yourself to be able to break free.

It can also do what I call the Guardian tactics. You know this when you are out and you have to take care of those with you, even if they do not know it.  So as they get to the car per your request or orders, you delay the attackers. Then make the break. 

Unless you are very trained in weapons and up against an untrained person who looses a weapon and you get it, or if you can improvise a weapon yourself will the odds change. But still not necessarily in one's favor. Hence why some people carry palm sticks or pocket knives or even a firearm to deal with this type of stuff. 

Peace


----------



## Rich Parsons

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> so seriously, what's with all the chest-thumping over this?
> 
> you'd think anybody with (did ronin say 20? doubtful since he spells 'street' with arabic numerals...) years experience would have gotten past the "my art can beat up your art" thing.
> 
> martial arts is, ultimately, about becoming a better human being. evolving and growing. to get all swole up about whether your road to the mountain is better than some other guy's road to the mountain sort of misses the point, don't you think?



I have over 20 years of Martial Arts training and teaching. I also have some street experience during my training and before my training began. 

I spell str33t when I am making a point about people's attititude. This is a way to make a statement about those who are in experienced in a sarcastic point of way. Not sure which way it was meant or why it was used. Jsut chiming in with how I might have used it myself.


----------



## Rich Parsons

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -At any rate I have not stated that TMA's are worthless. I have said they are demonstratably less effective than MMA where empty hands are concerned. Nobody has been able to refute this with any evidence. Only opinion.



Hence your arguements about pressure testing. Right?

So if a TMA such as a FMA used pressure tests not point sparring, used some hand pads to avoid breaking skin to bad, and mixed it up, would that also justify your point?

Yet, I would think you might conceed that one or two or even a few in any given arts does this, but this is not what you have seen on the whole or on the average. Correct?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -And all that there secret hidden Tai Chi knowledge helped you when you were rolling against the MMA guys and constantly tapping? Doesn't sound like it if you were constantly tapping.


I didn't say that. Understanding what is there, and being able to pull it off are 2 different things dude. Primo's also been training in Arnis for a lot longer than I. We also stayed within the 'safe' limits, so I wasn't allowed to bring a folding chair on the floor. LOL.


----------



## Rich Parsons

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That's great. Getting in the cage is huge. What's the MT M&G? So you honestly believe that TMA training has as much training benefit as hard MMA sparring? And by training benefit I mean like in increasing combat effectiveness.




The MT M&G is the Martial Talk Meet and Greet. It is a seminar for our members to show up and do some teaching, I have not seen the complete list of instructors, BTW I taught last year, and to do some cross training and see what people have and like to do. 

Many of the people I crossed hands with where extremely surpised that this stick jock had joint locks and control that worked and or could execute their techniques under another name. It is a good way to meet people and have fun.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I believe quality TMA training will better equip you for a wider range of confrontations. Note, I said Quality training. Training under some bozo who doesn't understand the dance steps means you're just dancing. A solid instructor can take you alot farther. Case in point: I thought tai chi was just "stretching for oldies", until I started talking with a guy who explained the throws, joint destructions, and other serious stuff that's buried in there. Unfortunately, it's hard to find those nuggets of intel in a world full of "microwave popcorn fu" (You know, black belt in 10 minutes or you get it free guys?) I've had similar discussions with CMA and Kenpo guys. Some of them "get it", and others just go through the motions. You have to find the guys who understand why, not just the parrots. (Too many out there, in all styles IMO).
> 
> The MMA attitude has some pluses. After all, it's hard to outrun 20 screaming gangbangers when you're sucking air from step 1.   Plus, if you look like you can bench a small nation...it tends to intimidate, which always is a good deterrent.
> 
> MT M&G Info. Under construction, but theres video from last year in the video gallery.




While at work, a woman was watching a Tai Chi tape. She knwe I was into Martial Arts and asked if I could do this? I told her I could not move that slow yet. I am still learning. I then went on to explain the destruction or application of each technique being demonstrated. She said, "NO!, it is not conbative, it is for stretching and better health." My reply was along the lines of, Yes that may be the way the instructor is teaching it. But here is also the Yang to the Yin that is being taught.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

People are told that Tai Chi is for health only. Thankfully, one of my clients is a certified Yang Chen Fu center, and they go deeper than just the dance steps.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

tai chi is an excellent illustration of the crux of this thread...

tai chi is a potentially deadly art.  in some ways more destructive than most.

the way tai chi is taught in america, and the way it's usually trained, it focuses on meditation, stretching and relaxation.  very few tai chi practitioners gain any combative ability from training.

if you were to train for combat using tai chi concepts and techniques, you'd wind up seriously dangerous.

the mma/tma question brought up in this thread can be addressed in the same way.  it's the method of training, not the style you train in.


----------



## FearlessFreep

One thing that occurs to me is that at various times, our society or culture tends to view the pat in different ways.  Sometimes 'old' is associated with 'classic', 'proven', 'venerable' and 'new' is suspect, ubproven, a fad.  At  other times we view 'old' as 'outdated', 'obsolete', and 'new' is 'modern', 'scientific', 'progressive'

I wonder how that colors our view of martial arts?

I suspect that ones view of TMA vs MMA is probably going to developed as much as a result of your own view of 'old' versus 'new', which often seems to be at leas partially product of the culture at large, rather than any drect meaningful difference in effetiveness between the old and the new


----------



## RoninPimp

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hence your arguements about pressure testing. Right?
> 
> So if a TMA such as a FMA used pressure tests not point sparring, used some hand pads to avoid breaking skin to bad, and mixed it up, would that also justify your point?
> 
> Yet, I would think you might conceed that one or two or even a few in any given arts does this, but this is not what you have seen on the whole or on the average. Correct?


-The Dog Brothers do just that. And I guess I could agree to that. It seems athough few TMA guys do that.


----------



## cfr

Thos post is almost up to 10 pages... and I just thought Id do my little part.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I didn't say that. Understanding what is there, and being able to pull it off are 2 different things dude. Primo's also been training in Arnis for a lot longer than I. We also stayed within the 'safe' limits, so I wasn't allowed to bring a folding chair on the floor. LOL.


-So what was the point of your post then?


----------



## RoninPimp

I really don't know what to say to those speaking of Tai Chi as combat effective, except to LOL. Do any Tai Chi guys anywhere on the planet "pressure test" anything they do? If not, its more hypothetical conjecture.


----------



## cfr

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -The Dog Brothers do just that. And I guess I could agree to that. It seems athough few TMA guys do that.


 

I think we could probably all agree that the Dog Brothers are far more the exception than the rule. Perhaps one tenth of 1 percent trains like that. 

Now I'll save another arguement: I have no overwhelming proof, no real scentific data or analysis to speak of, I just pulled those numbers outta my rear.


----------



## Robert Lee

I guess while fighting on the streets  be it TMA or MMA its just about fighting that counts. If you are better that day and walk away not harmed and the other person you fought did not over take you then you did something that worked. We can sit around and say this is better and that is not forever. But the old saying action is stronger then words means just that. Words tells view points action shows what happens. So only then will it matter what works or not. Because in fighting there is no real style just method. And performance. And thats the person That time that day. no magic bullet But i will say those that prepare better for action perform better in action.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -So what was the point of your post then?


You asked questions, and made false assumptions. I corrected them.
That was the point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> I really don't know what to say to those speaking of Tai Chi as combat effective, except to LOL. Do any Tai Chi guys anywhere on the planet "pressure test" anything they do? If not, its more hypothetical conjecture.


And again, you show your bias and limitations.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Oy vey!

Give it up folks.  

Trying to convince RP that anything outside the realm of Gracie and Shamrock worship land is real is as effective as trying to convince a fish that water is dry.  His mind is like a ball of lead. Full and dense.  To him and his ilk, only the cage matters, only the wizdom of the pit of mud and it's bog monsters counts. The only way he'll change his mind is if Mr Miyagi shows up and kicks his ***, preferably in a ring, and safe in a cage with a rule book, a ref and a rather hot ring girl.  Nothing else can matter, for to think outside the ring will cause his head to explode.

I'll be blunt as it's worth the vacation:
*Ronin, not everything can or should be "tested". To believe so that it has to be tested, and that such narrow parameter tests somehow prove effectiveness, is the act of an absolute moron. A dunderhead, a clueless pratt, an absolute and total git! All of which, I see you and your ilk as. *

You have repeatedly and very clearly shown that you lack experience, understanding and familiarity with the traditional arts. You rely instead on tired and safe unsupportable positions.  You aren't a fighter, you aren't a martial artist. You are a sport guy, trying to argue with people who in a real fight would destroy you, because you continue to fail to understand, you cannot test for reality. It's a pass-fail event.

To those who understood where I was going, and why, the drinks are on me.
To those who don't get it, can't take the time, or like Ronin there are too stupid to comprehend, I've got 2 words for you.
:2xBird2:

To everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together folks.
Just be sure it's allowed by the rule book, or the ref isn't watching you.
Hate to get DQ'ed in a street fight.



J.O.B. S.Q.U.A.D. - Cuz Kissing *** isn't in our Profile!
1.2.3. for life baby! Whooooo!

(In all seriousness, isn't that the form of communication you're more familiar with? You know, "sewer-style"? I mean, I did leave off the swearing, so it does lose a bit in the translation, but I think I'm on your level here. Well, other than the rats and occational bit of used TP.)


----------



## Rook

This has been an interesting thread and one that has had more faulty logic than any I have ever been on.  

First, let me note that I'm not particularly beholden to either the TMA or MMA camps, as I participate in a modernized karate system that doesn't much resemble either.  

The idea of classifying entire arts as "works" or "doesn't work" strikes me as absurd.  Rather, each one worked for the founders under the conditions they found themselves in and has been (generally) blindly followed by legions of monkeys that believe they know the "one true way."  This applies for all arts, including all TMAs, MMA, MMA derivatives, RBSD arts etc.  

The "founders" of MMA, Shamrock often cited in their first rank, found themselves in 1 on 1 unarmed combat in a limited ruleset.  They adapted.  

The founders of JJJ found themselves in battle with people with wood-laminate armor with swords and rocks in Japan.  They adapted.  

CMA is an enormously diverse category.  Let me use Tai Chi as an example.  Chen Tai Chi was started by a bodyguard who adapted to his situation.  Yang Tai Chi showed up when Chen's tactics were adapted by Yang Lu Chan, who was much more interested in challenge matches than bodyguard work.  Health Tai Chi showed up when people were more interested in health benefits than challenge matches or bodyguard work.  And so on.  

The fact that each of these styles became respected in its own arena, under specific sets of requirements and assumptions doesn't mean that they don't work outside those envirments, but rather that they have to be changed or adapted to whatever envirnment you find yourself in.  

The excessive identification with heros of your art makes progress difficult - this thread less than some, but the fact that an art was practiced by Japanese samurai (JJJ), Spetz (Systema), or some great hero, be he named Shamrock, Lee, Kimura, Gracie, Miyagi, Yang, Sun, or any other of the innumerable masters of the past and present doesn't mean that all practitioners absorb their abilities upon signing up for MMA, JKD, Judo, BJJ, karate or tai chi.  Their abilities are not what matters - your abilities decide what will work for you... so finding the toughest man in history and deciding to follow him doesn't make for the best results, even if his situation were the same as yours.  Your own capabilities may be very different.  

The terms "the street" or "the real world" encompass much too large of areas to be tested - we have to test to a given situation.  Each art has, at some point, done that to its own situation.  That does not guarantee it would work in the situation you personally might face in a self defense incident.  

Lastly, I see no evidence to suggest that TMA gives any greater situational awareness than MMA - the implication that TMA practitioners are somehow better at seeing a street attack comin than MMA practitioners is somewhat absurd.


----------



## Rook

Oh, the MMA ruleset... I was going to mention that.  The current UFC ruleset is not the only set of conditions for which MMA fighters train.  UFC 1 and 2 had only biting and eyegouging disallowed - Finnfight still operates that way.  

Incidentally, the AFC (Absolute Fighting Championship) has been held I believe three times in Russia - and it has no referee stoppages or limits on techniques (that includes allowing eyegouges, throat strikes and groin attacks).  It had many traditional fighters.  The current champion is Igor Vovchanchyn - a kickboxer turned MMA fighter who also fights in PRIDE.  The fact that it is dominated, without much in the way of rules, by an MMA fighter and not a CMA fighter eyegouging people should tell us something about the envirnment too.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And again, you show your bias and limitations.


-That doesn't change the fact that untested techniques are hypothetical. And I should just take your word for their usefulness?


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Oy vey!
> 
> Give it up folks.
> 
> Trying to convince RP that anything outside the realm of Gracie and Shamrock worship land is real is as effective as trying to convince a fish that water is dry. His mind is like a ball of lead. Full and dense. To him and his ilk, only the cage matters, only the wizdom of the pit of mud and it's bog monsters counts. The only way he'll change his mind is if Mr Miyagi shows up and kicks his ***, preferably in a ring, and safe in a cage with a rule book, a ref and a rather hot ring girl. Nothing else can matter, for to think outside the ring will cause his head to explode.
> 
> I'll be blunt as it's worth the vacation:
> *Ronin, not everything can or should be "tested". To believe so that it has to be tested, and that such narrow parameter tests somehow prove effectiveness, is the act of an absolute moron. A dunderhead, a clueless pratt, an absolute and total git! All of which, I see you and your ilk as. *
> 
> You have repeatedly and very clearly shown that you lack experience, understanding and familiarity with the traditional arts. You rely instead on tired and safe unsupportable positions. You aren't a fighter, you aren't a martial artist. You are a sport guy, trying to argue with people who in a real fight would destroy you, because you continue to fail to understand, you cannot test for reality. It's a pass-fail event.
> 
> To those who understood where I was going, and why, the drinks are on me.
> To those who don't get it, can't take the time, or like Ronin there are too stupid to comprehend, I've got 2 words for you.
> :2xBird2:
> 
> To everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together folks.
> Just be sure it's allowed by the rule book, or the ref isn't watching you.
> Hate to get DQ'ed in a street fight.
> 
> 
> 
> J.O.B. S.Q.U.A.D. - Cuz Kissing *** isn't in our Profile!
> 1.2.3. for life baby! Whooooo!
> 
> (In all seriousness, isn't that the form of communication you're more familiar with? You know, "sewer-style"? I mean, I did leave off the swearing, so it does lose a bit in the translation, but I think I'm on your level here. Well, other than the rats and occational bit of used TP.)


-Your strawmen and insults prove nothing. I though this forum didn't allow insults like this and was "above" it? Or does that only apply to the "sport guys"?


----------



## Rook

What precisely has possessed people to believe that MMA stops working when they leave the cage/ring?  

I would agree that TMA may be more aligned to goals other than survival in the ring, but that doesn't mean that MMA doesn't work, that their training is ineffectual or that their fighters are not capable of fighting outside the ring.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That doesn't change the fact that untested techniques are hypothetical. And I should just take your word for their usefulness?


If you knew much of the back history of the traditional arts, you would find ample evidence of their effectiveness.

A quick search turned up this: http://www.internaldamagetaichi.com/
Seems more akin to a fighting art that a senior moment to me.

Quoting TomMarker at SDF:


> Tai Chi is generally broken down into four components.
> 1. Shuai Chiou (throwing techniques)
> 2. Chin Na (joint locking techniques)
> 3. Ti (Hand)
> 4. Da (Foot)
> 
> Go talk to a karate/tkd/tsd guy (who is worth a ****) and he will tell you that the forms/kata/hyungs are composed of:
> 1. Throwing techniques.
> 2. Locking techniques.
> 3. Hand techniques.
> 4. Foot techniques.



and then there is http://www.chung-hua.com/taichicombat.html which gives a bit more info on how it is used as a combat art.

Then again, they don't teach this down at the local health club or community center.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Rook said:
			
		

> What precisely has possessed people to believe that MMA stops working when they leave the cage/ring?
> 
> I would agree that TMA may be more aligned to goals other than survival in the ring, but that doesn't mean that MMA doesn't work, that their training is ineffectual or that their fighters are not capable of fighting outside the ring.


The simple fact that training for competition is not the same as training for battle.  Street fights and war have no rounds, no time outs, no DQ, no ref and rarely any rules.

The NHB fighter may have better cardio, better pain resistance and tolerance, and more strength.  He needs it, because, like a boxer, he must withstand a number of punishing blows while getting into postition to try and twist or choke someone into submission.  He isn't worrying about the guy pulling a blade, or someone hitting him from behind with a bottle.  Its 1-on-1, unarmed.

Next time you roll, do it 2 on 1.  Add in a pair of rubber (ie safe) training blades. It changes things. Considering that almost 100% of competitions are unarmed, and over 60% of street confrontations are armed, that makes a difference.  All the cardio and all the endurance in the world isn't going to save you if it's a 3 on 1, and they're packing heat. The only thing you'll be packing is your shorts. Mike Tyson's a bad ***, but he isn't worrying about Hollyfield pulling a glock in the 3rd round. So I doubt he trains for that situation.

Show me a NHB/UFC training course that includes weapon use and disarms, street smart tactics, etc, and I might change my attitude.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Your strawmen and insults prove nothing. I though this forum didn't allow insults like this and was "above" it? Or does that only apply to the "sport guys"?


Insults yes.
Strawman no.  While there are holes purposefully inserted into my arguments, you've yet to find, and exploit them.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If you knew much of the back history of the traditional arts, you would find ample evidence of their effectiveness.
> 
> A quick search turned up this: http://www.internaldamagetaichi.com/
> Seems more akin to a fighting art that a senior moment to me.
> 
> Quoting TomMarker at SDF:
> 
> 
> and then there is http://www.chung-hua.com/taichicombat.html which gives a bit more info on how it is used as a combat art.
> 
> Then again, they don't teach this down at the local health club or community center.


-The technique video in that first link is pathetic. I cannot believe you would post that as evidence of effective fighting technique. The second link is what? Add copy? How does that prove anything?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I wasn't posting them for video critiques. More the information around them. As I said "quick search". Though I don't think SDF would be considered ad copy.


----------



## Robert Lee

a person can go train any where they can. Is it effective for them it is to there own personal limits. No style or method should be considered best. And Words they are just words Agin how we train  helps performance. exposer to the different aspects of fighting a person finds uses and weakness that needs work.  If you never watched a ufc fighter and then fought himon the streets I bet he would not tell hey I am a MM/A ufc fighter. Then if you won or lost was it TMA or MMA that won NO it was that fighter that day. Now if you won so easy or lost so bad you might think different But agin its that fight that day. Win you did something right loose you need more understanding on your methods. Best of all Most MMa or TMA people do not go out and fight just to be doing it. So perhaps you go a lifetime and never need to really fight. But you trained that life time to fight and most of all be some kind of better person to your family yor friends and your neighbor. What did you get then M/A taught you more then just to fight it helped you to become a better person. So it payed off in more ways then one. We all know that M/A does not make you able to fight it helps you to be able to fight better then before How much it is up to you Not TMA versus MMA  Those that instruct How many students are now better then you how many as good How many have come and gone never staying long enough to learn much An instructor should try to relate training to a point that students are espected to become better then him. That means giving intruction that takes them forward in method that give quality of learning Thats not done teaching a full class. Thats working with each and evry student finding and seeing there personal needs so they can apply the parts of there style/ method in there way. We are not like robots to all think the same and do the same. Tools are given then the person finds ways to use them. The intsructor assists there. So be it boxing MMA TMA ect its not set that one is better for real time use More time defending by words shows less time training if you are comfortable where you are at and trust what you can do ok But I was taught we can all learn something from even the dumbest person So we can all learn something from all methods of combat


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I wasn't posting them for video critiques. More the information around them. As I said "quick search". Though I don't think SDF would be considered ad copy.


He won't get it Bobby. Problem with being a 386 in a 64Bit world.


----------



## shinbushi

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that what we now call "traditaional" were actually new and cutting-edge back in their day.  They are only traditional to us, because by comparison, they are older.  The arts have always undergone change, as people felt they had a better way to do things.  What we see now as MMA, someday will probably fall within the ranks of "traditional".


Actually many of the training methods, overly relying on forms, point sparring, on contact drills which is in the curriculumsof Many TMA, is not that traditional.  many of the training methods of combat sports were how many warriorstraining in times of peace.  Both in Japan and Greece.  The Olympics was basically a way for different nation states to show off their martial skills of their warriors without having to go to war.


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> The simple fact that training for competition is not the same as training for battle. Street fights and war have no rounds, no time outs, no DQ, no ref and rarely any rules.
> 
> The NHB fighter may have better cardio, better pain resistance and tolerance, and more strength. He needs it, because, like a boxer, he must withstand a number of punishing blows while getting into postition to try and twist or choke someone into submission. He isn't worrying about the guy pulling a blade, or someone hitting him from behind with a bottle. Its 1-on-1, unarmed.
> 
> Next time you roll, do it 2 on 1. Add in a pair of rubber (ie safe) training blades. It changes things. Considering that almost 100% of competitions are unarmed, and over 60% of street confrontations are armed, that makes a difference. All the cardio and all the endurance in the world isn't going to save you if it's a 3 on 1, and they're packing heat. The only thing you'll be packing is your shorts. Mike Tyson's a bad ***, but he isn't worrying about Hollyfield pulling a glock in the 3rd round. So I doubt he trains for that situation.
> 
> Show me a NHB/UFC training course that includes weapon use and disarms, street smart tactics, etc, and I might change my attitude.


-The BJJ curriculum I've been exposed to has weapon disarms and addresses "street smart tactics" aka awareness.

-You do list potential flaws with MMA training. They are the same EXACT potential flaws with TMA training. That's why its a strawman. Facing weapons or mutiples with empty hands is a losing proposition no matter your training background. How does that in any way argue for your claim that TMA empty hand techniques are the equal of MMA techniques? It doesn't. Why can you not grasp this concept? Why do refuse to address this question?


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> He won't get it Bobby. Problem with being a 386 in a 64Bit world.


-Mods, are insults now allowed? I will THRIVE if they are. Please let me know. I will not unleash the floodgates unless a Mod says its OK.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I wasn't posting them for video critiques. More the information around them. As I said "quick search". Though I don't think SDF would be considered ad copy.


-The "information" on those pages is not verafiable, because it is not footnoted. Therefore, for all intents and purposes it is add copy.


----------



## RoninPimp

shinbushi said:
			
		

> Actually many of the training methods, overly relying on forms, point sparring, on contact drills which is in the curriculumsof Many TMA, is not that traditional. many of the training methods of combat sports were how many warriorstraining in times of peace. Both in Japan and Greece. The Olympics was basically a way for different nation states to show off their martial skills of their warriors without having to go to war.


-Excellent point! The sport training method is as old as war.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

1- And where is that, who is the instructor, and what is his or her background?  Did they "test" every technique they taught you on the street?

2- Yes, they are. Yes it is. I have addressed the question. You are incapable of understanding the answer.  I will try again, in simplier terms.

Sport not = street
Street not = sport

techniques designed for sport not best for street.
techniques designed for street not best for sport.
sport techniques avoid 'danger' spots. You get DQ if use them.
street techniques target 'danger' spots. You get time in cell, friend named bubba if use them. But you be live.

we be clear? me speak slow now, hope understand do you.
jedi you become.
use the force Pimp!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -The "information" on those pages is not verafiable, because it is not footnoted. Therefore, for all intents and purposes it is add copy.


Ok, so with proper references, please show where tai chi has been scientifically proven to be an ineffective self defense art. Without referencing any UFC fights though, since those are sports and not self defense situations.

I will accept police reports, published journals, or expert witness testimony. 
But not "my buddy said" or "well there was this thread on this forum".


----------



## Bob Hubbard

For the record, if anyone reading has a problem, use the Report to Mod feature. I'm in this discussion and will not be bothered to moderate it. Theres 20+ mods on this site. I'm certain theres more than 1 of them who will see any reports that members send in and investigate.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Mods, are insults now allowed? I will THRIVE if they are. Please let me know. I will not unleash the floodgates unless a Mod says its OK.


I know you will.  Damn mud, gets on everything. One would almost think, it wasn't really mud, but something slightly, stickier and more, ah, fragrant.

Hey, is that hay mixed in there?


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> 1- And where is that, who is the instructor, and what is his or her background? Did they "test" every technique they taught you on the street?
> 
> 2- Yes, they are. Yes it is. I have addressed the question. You are incapable of understanding the answer. I will try again, in simplier terms.
> 
> Sport not = street
> Street not = sport
> 
> techniques designed for sport not best for street.
> techniques designed for street not best for sport.
> sport techniques avoid 'danger' spots. You get DQ if use them.
> street techniques target 'danger' spots. You get time in cell, friend named bubba if use them. But you be live.
> 
> we be clear? me speak slow now, hope understand do you.
> jedi you become.
> use the force Pimp!


-I guess I will ask you again then, what are these techniques that are used in sport that won't work in the street? A jab and cross? O Soto Gari? Knees from the clinch? Elbows from the mount? 

-And why couldn't an MMA guy use dirty techniques like eye gouges and groin strikes? He would be better at them because if he is better at hitting your head with a jab and cross, he'll be better at it if your eyes are the target.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ok, so with proper references, please show where tai chi has been scientifically proven to be an ineffective self defense art. Without referencing any UFC fights though, since those are sports and not self defense situations.
> 
> I will accept police reports, published journals, or expert witness testimony.
> But not "my buddy said" or "well there was this thread on this forum".


-For the hundreth time...You made the claim of it's effectiveness. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you. I cannot prove a negative. This is how science works. This is how the courts and law works too. 

The MMA jock riders are wrong. TMA is NOT full of nerds and geeks. Nerds and geeks would understand middle school level science.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Tell you what Pimple, you answer how training 100% unarmed will equip you to deal with the 60% of armed encounters, and I'll answer your 2 questions.  But please, make it fast. I'd like to reply before the cops get here and make me tap.


----------



## Andrew Green

How about we try a different approach to this....

MMA is to boxing as martial arts as a whole is to MMA.

Boxing skills are important in MMA, but on there own don't mean much.  Too many other variables.  Against a unskilled fighter this might not ba a issue though, you don't need everything too win.

MMA is a specialized aspect of martial arts in the same way.  It does not take into account much outside of a one on one fight.  Other stuff can be added through training, despite it not being a competitive format.  We can train weapons, 2 on 1, dirty tactics with limitations, etc.

But not everything can fit within that realm.

What about cases where you need to physically control a person, but they are not actively fighting?  So you don't want to do any damage, just move them or hold them?

How about cases where they are actively trying to hit you, but have no skill and are just flailing...  maybe a drunk, maybe a child, maybe you work with mentally ill patients?  

These sort of cases present problems for pressure testing as the reactions of the person you would be doing them on do not match those of a competitor.

Another thing to consider is that untrained people react differently then trained ones.  a single solid punch to the solar plexis "karate style" most likely will drop someone that is not used to getting hit.  But will not stop someone that is.

There are limitations to both methods, and they cover different types of situations.  MMA fighters tedn to understand the value of being well rounded within the rules of their training, and most tend to avoid making claims outside of that.

Personally I think that a person could become even more well rounded, bringing in "traditional" techniques, that while they may not work on trained fighters, are still really good techniques.

There are good people on both sides, that have good stuff to offer.  And of course their are idiots on both sides who should be ignored.

But, wouldn't the benefit of a large, multi discipline board be too learn from each other, rather then trying to force everyone into our box?


----------



## shinbushi

[FONT=&quot]





			
				Robert Lee said:
			
		

> BUT I have heard from several people over the years the old story in this kata you fighting 2 3 4 people. THATS not good instruction from there instructor. In a kata you are not fighting any body. You are solo training and each movement breaks down to a separate application.


 A little off topic, but that is assuming the karate, tae kwon do, Kung Fu model of kata or forms.  Most indigenous JMA have 2-man kata.  Both the unarmed and armed (kenjutsu, bojutsu, sojutsu etc) arts[/FONT]


----------



## RoninPimp

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Tell you what Pimple, you answer how training 100% unarmed will equip you to deal with the 60% of armed encounters, and I'll answer your 2 questions. But please, make it fast. I'd like to reply before the cops get here and make me tap.


-It wouldn't, but why are you saying MMA guys limited to 100% unarmed training? True, in a MMA specific class they will be doing more ring focussed techniques and strategies. The basics from that will still work for unarmed situations though. If they are interested in weapons training they should train weapons in the same manner. Drill and spar. Drill and spar. I have never argued against this. Both MMA and TMA empty hand techniques are of little value when faced with weapons and mutiples. The sport training method is the path to truth in combat, whether its empty hands or not.

-Now please answer my questions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -For the hundreth time...You made the claim of it's effectiveness. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you. I cannot prove a negative. This is how science works. This is how the courts and law works too.
> 
> The MMA jock riders are wrong. TMA is NOT full of nerds and geeks. Nerds and geeks would understand middle school level science.


There are several hundred arts/styles/etc.
They have been around for a long time. Decades, Centuries, and in a few cases, longer.  Wing Chun dates back quite a ways. Karate (real karate, not the watered down stuff) dates back over 100 years. Numerous Chinese arts have longer histories. The simple fact that they continue to be used, taught and passed down indicate their effectiveness. American GI's at the end of World War 2, learned Karate in Okinawa and Japan, impressed by it's effectivness.  If it wasn't effective, if they hadn't "experienced" it, why would hardened combat veterans bother with it? Simple - They wouldn't.

Experienced combat troops, learned the hand to hand art of their enemy, and brought it home to teach and pass on so as to become better.

That is the proof.

Given: Karate was used by the Japanese during World War 2
Given: Karate was learned from the Japanese after World War 2 by the victorious American Army.
If an art is effective, then it will be used by those most qualified to determine it's effectiveness.
If the Victor learns if from the vanquished, it must be of value.
Therefore Karate is of value and is effective to a combat soldier.


----------



## RoninPimp

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There are several hundred arts/styles/etc.
> They have been around for a long time. Decades, Centuries, and in a few cases, longer. Wing Chun dates back quite a ways. Karate (real karate, not the watered down stuff) dates back over 100 years. Numerous Chinese arts have longer histories. The simple fact that they continue to be used, taught and passed down indicate their effectiveness. American GI's at the end of World War 2, learned Karate in Okinawa and Japan, impressed by it's effectivness. If it wasn't effective, if they hadn't "experienced" it, why would hardened combat veterans bother with it? Simple - They wouldn't.
> 
> Experienced combat troops, learned the hand to hand art of their enemy, and brought it home to teach and pass on so as to become better.
> 
> That is the proof.
> 
> Given: Karate was used by the Japanese during World War 2
> Given: Karate was learned from the Japanese after World War 2 by the victorious American Army.
> If an art is effective, then it will be used by those most qualified to determine it's effectiveness.
> If the Victor learns if from the vanquished, it must be of value.
> Therefore Karate is of value and is effective to a combat soldier.


-That is not empirical proof by along shot. It is weak anecdotal evidence at best. Wikipedia's articles on the "scientific method" and "proof" would do you good with a read.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -It wouldn't, but why are you saying MMA guys limited to 100% unarmed training? True, in a MMA specific class they will be doing more ring focussed techniques and strategies. The basics from that will still work for unarmed situations though. If they are interested in weapons training they should train weapons in the same manner. Drill and spar. Drill and spar. I have never argued against this. Both MMA and TMA empty hand techniques are of little value when faced with weapons and mutiples. The sport training method is the path to truth in combat, whether its empty hands or not.
> 
> -Now please answer my questions.



We're getting there.

You admit that pure NHB training is more focused on ring than street?

Empty hand techniques are of little value when confronted by multiple opponents and/or weapons?

You claim that their basics will work in unarmed situations? But do they work when one cannot effect a take down, clinch or try for a submission? 

You claim that through sports you can find truth in combat, but what is that truth?


I am not saying that they are limited to only unarmed, but that most of them limit themselves to unarmed. There is a difference. As you train, you become. If you train to not aim for the spine, you will tend to omit that target when on autopilot, because when on autopilot if you target it in the ring, you get DQed. That is why I say that pure NHB training does not prepare you for the street.

A true "Mixed" approach will allow you to play in both worlds.

Have I answered your question?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That is not empirical proof by along shot. It is weak anecdotal evidence at best. Wikipedia's articles on the "scientific method" and "proof" would do you good with a read.


No, that is basic logic, with a premise, and conditions, and a proof.
US servicemen learned Karate after WW2, brought it back and opened schools. That is a fact.
These were combat hardened veterans.
Another fact.
Why would they learn something, from an enemy they hated (yes, hated), if it wasn't effective in their eyes?
They wouldn't.
This would mean (and I have read interviews with numerous people on both sides) that Karate had been used in battle by the Japanese, against the Americans.
Notice, they didn't come home and open samurai sword schools. They opened Karate schools. Because swords don't work too good against machine guns it seems.


----------



## RoninPimp

> You admit that pure NHB training is more focused on ring than street?


-From a strategic standpoint? Yes. From demonstrating the most effective empty hand techniques? No. That is because the most effective empty hand techniques work wherever they are used. Ring strategy ids drastically different that str33t strategy. I have always said this in so many words, going back to the first page. Why did it take 11 pages before you read my posts?



> Empty hand techniques are of little value when confronted by multiple opponents and/or weapons?


-I have said this over and over. You may get lucky, but 99 times out of 100, empty hands loses.



> You claim that their basics will work in unarmed situations? But do they work when one cannot effect a take down, clinch or try for a submission?


-Basic striking could.



> You claim that through sports you can find truth in combat, but what is that truth?


-Truth in combat to me is effectiveness in combat.



> I am not saying that they are limited to only unarmed, but that most of them limit themselves to unarmed. There is a difference. As you train, you become. If you train to not aim for the spine, you will tend to omit that target when on autopilot, because when on autopilot if you target it in the ring, you get DQed. That is why I say that pure NHB training does not prepare you for the street.


-Some do and would readily state that. The same can be said of TMA guys though. The spine is a bad example for you. If you are in a position to strike the spine with any force, you are in a dominate position. Gaining and maintaining a dominate position is a HUGE part of MMA. Who would be better at this, the MMA guy or the TMA guy who is trained primarily in forms?



> Have I answered your question?


-No, and you asked the same questions AGAIN that I had already answered, but I answered them AGAIN anyway.


----------



## Andrew Green

Moderator note:

This thread seems to have run it's course and is going in cricles at this point, getting more personal each lap.  Thread locked, please feel free to RTM any posts you feel need looked at.

Andrew Green / MMA Moderator


----------

