# So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?



## Hanzou

I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.

And btw, there's varying rulesets for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less rules.


----------



## marques

If MMA is good, it is because it a known reference. In the past, Boxing was used as the reference, I feel. Also because it is a sport and you can choose going there. MA self defence focused cannot cause a conflict to test itself, in a proper situation.

It is not good in the sense it favours some styles. You change the rules and it will favour (other) some styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.
> 
> And btw, there's varying rulesets for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less rules.


Why do you need a "better" test? No test of martial arts' street effectiveness will ever be complete if you include the concept of avoiding violence when you can. MMA is a good test, and incomplete in its own way.


----------



## Leo89

I think the ability to defend oneself in a brawl is the real test of effectiveness right there, as for "the streets" a lot of people carry guns these days.


----------



## Danny T

For empty hand striking and grappling agreed upon fighting under a particular rule set with time limits and rest periods, presently nothing.

However:
What does it do for conflict resolution or de-escalation in a self defense situation?
What does it do for a weapon attack defensive situation?
What does it do for a disparity of force via size and/or in numbers situation?
What does it do for the possibility of surprise or ambushed attack?


----------



## Paul_D

Figthng, martial arts and self defence are three different things, not one in the same.  Hence you cannot use one to judge the effectiveness of the others. MMA is a good test for the effectiveness of MMA, that is all.


----------



## oaktree

The pros of mma is that you are going against a guy who doesn't just stand there and not react or is compliance .see I can say something good about it. My concern is that  though the ring prepares you in an encounter with someone who is equally your weight with, the ring leaves out a lot of variables that you would encounter in a street fight scenario. I also think that because the precondition mindset of an mma fighter is to fight in a street encounter this may be less ideal.
A lot of the rbsd type things are more in line of what I see for street scenario, I tell my students be in the mindset of the worse possible scenario big guy has a knife and all his friends think you have a pretty face and you have stomach ache and diarrhea, what would you do?


----------



## Kickboxer101

There's no such as the best test. People want to test themselves in different ways, some like to test themselves by going for belt ranks people want to test themselves by doing the best kata they can do others want to test by doing point fighting and some want to test themself with weapons or breaking and yes some want to test with mma. If mma was the one ultimate test for everyone there'd be a lot less people doing martial arts because not everyone wants to get in a cage and fight and that doesn't mean they're weak or not a good martial artist they just have different goals. For me mma isn't the ultimate test because I don't do mma and I don't want to do mma so it's not a test for me because its not what I do same with a lot of other people.


----------



## Leo89

Paul_D said:


> Figthng, martial arts and self defence are three different things, not one in the same.  Hence you cannot use one to judge the effectiveness of the others. MMA is a good test for the effectiveness of MMA, that is all.


So, if you're backed into a corner, the last resort being a fight, you wouldn't call defending yourself self defense?

If there's a difference between self defense and a fight (where most SD takes place), then please enlighten me.


----------



## Buka




----------



## Buka

Probably should have read - Bait and double leg takedown shack. My bad.


----------



## hoshin1600

I admit the bait analogy is appropriate but looking at the actual premise of the question in a different way , ,,if you do self defense training how do you assure that what you are doing works or is even realistic?  Is it even possible to test self defense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> I admit the bait analogy is appropriate but looking at the actual premise of the question in a different way , ,,if you do self defense training how do you assure that what you are doing works or is even realistic?  Is it even possible to test self defense?


You test it with as realistic an attack as you safely can.


----------



## Hanzou

marques said:


> It is not good in the sense it favours some styles. You change the rules and it will favour (other) some styles.



Change which rules specifically? There were very few rules in the first UFC, and very few rules in other MMA style competitions, but the same styles dominate regardless.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> Probably should have read - Bait and double leg takedown shack. My bad.



Due to my knee issue, tackle is more than appropriate.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Why do you need a "better" test? No test of martial arts' street effectiveness will ever be complete if you include the concept of avoiding violence when you can. MMA is a good test, and incomplete in its own way.



I'm simply asking the question, since some people like to say that MMA isn't the "best" test for a system's effectiveness.



Kickboxer101 said:


> There's no such as the best test. People want to test themselves in different ways, some like to test themselves by going for belt ranks people want to test themselves by doing the best kata they can do others want to test by doing point fighting and some want to test themself with weapons or breaking and yes some want to test with mma. If mma was the one ultimate test for everyone there'd be a lot less people doing martial arts because not everyone wants to get in a cage and fight and that doesn't mean they're weak or not a good martial artist they just have different goals. For me mma isn't the ultimate test because I don't do mma and I don't want to do mma so it's not a test for me because its not what I do same with a lot of other people.



I would argue that many people do those "tests" because they believe at the end of their journey they're going to be better fighters. Just about everyone walking through the doors of a dojo or kwoon does so with the belief that they're going to be able to stop someone bigger or stronger from hurting them. The problem is that breaking a bunch of boards, doing pre-arranged kata, going for belt ranks, etc. isn't going to make you capable of doing that.

Fighting, whether in the cage, or on the mat will do that.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Fighting, whether in the cage, or on the mat will do that.



If that is how you feel then why even bother with martial arts? Why not just go around being a chingon and brawling? 

Yesterday I fought on the mat, but we did it for the competition we are going to be attending, so because of that we had to adhere to many silly rules, like nothing below the waist can be struck, no grappling and no hitting the back. Only targets available are face, head, and upperbody, plus it is touch contact but with no rules on level of force applied. 

I detest it but at the same time I never turn down any type of sparring. I bring this up because this kind of sparring will NEVER make you a better fighter. There are way too many rules and the rules turn it into more of a game of tag rather than a fight. We are even told to not see it as a fight because it isn't one, it is a game and nothing more. 

It is good for conditioning your body from a cardio aspect and is great for strategy (really makes you think how you are going to get those points when your opponent has so little he or she needs to protect.) It is also good for practicing to not get hit, which is always very important. 

Then we have our own personal way of sparring where each bout is 30 seconds and you can do anything you wish, with no protective gear other than your cup. You can grapple (which is about 50% of our style) you can kick kidneys and the back to break down your opponent and soften them up. 

There are no points awarded here, just do as much damage as you can while receiving as little as possible, the level of contact here is about medium to high but not full force as we want to do this for at least the entire class and not have to stop it due to a serious injury. 

This is where the actual test for your skill is, we also only do this about twice a month because if we did this all the time we would be hurt often. Thirty seconds may seem short but when the sifu calls to switch you immediately have to trade opponents so everyone gets a chance to spar everyone.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> MMA ...


You should test your MA skill in the following order:

- punching skill in boxing,
- kicking/punching skill in kick boxing,
- wrestling skill in wrestling/Judo,
- ground skill in BJJ,
- kicking/punching/wrestling skills in Sanda/Sanshou.
- kicking/punching/wrestling and ground skill in MMA.

IMO, most people are not ready to jump right into MMA yet.

Besides to cross train the striking art and the grappling art, there is an integration task after that. Just to train boxing and wrestling doesn't mean that you know how to integrate both.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> I'm simply asking the question, since some people like to say that MMA isn't the "best" test for a system's effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that many people do those "tests" because they believe at the end of their journey they're going to be better fighters. Just about everyone walking through the doors of a dojo or kwoon does so with the belief that they're going to be able to stop someone bigger or stronger from hurting them. The problem is that breaking a bunch of boards, doing pre-arranged kata, going for belt ranks, etc. isn't going to make you capable of doing that.
> 
> Fighting, whether in the cage, or on the mat will do that.


No it's not not everyone trains to be a fighter at all and the fact you seem to think they do is very closed minded. Not everyone wants to fight people, the reason people in their 70s start training at that age isn't to kick someone's butt it's for the challenge and to get in shape and just learn and to meet new people


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> No it's not not everyone trains to be a fighter at all and the fact you seem to think they do is very closed minded. Not everyone wants to fight people, the reason people in their 70s start training at that age isn't to kick someone's butt it's for the challenge and to get in shape and just learn and to meet new people



And also, not all of us are interested in MMA competitions. I myself am training for karate tournaments such as kyokyushin rules ect. They have no submission grappling there so why would I bother caring about it? Someday I will go into MMA stuff but for now it just doesn't concern me. I do grappling and will being Jiu Jitsu training along with Karate but that isn't to go into MMA, it is simply because I love martial arts and Jiu Jitsu is a cool Martial Art that I will have the opportunity of practicing.

The whole attitude of MMA being some sort of crucible for martial arts and it's styles just seems ridiculous to me. For one as you said not everyone wishes to be a competitive fighter and two, many people just want something fun to do and be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. The odds of a bjj master attacking you and your loved ones or some champion ship mma fighter doing that are slim to none. The majority of martial arts styles out there can offer you enough skill to protect your life against the common rabble.

You don't need to be some sort of championship fighter to simple defend yourself against a moron. Another thing is the fact that styles are not things that are set in stone and the practicioner can adapt their figthing to fit what they wish to do.

Let's look at Karate for example, there is light contact point sparring, then there is heavy contact kumite, the karateka can do both but they need to train toward what they wish to do. The same goes for every goal, if you wish to be good at self defense then train for that, if you want both then train for both. If you want heavy contact competitions then train for that along with what else you wish to do with your style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Kickboxer101 said:


> There's no such as the best test.


Here are some "one person attack while another person defends" testing methods.

If your opponent's first 20

- punches can land on your head, or
- roundhouse kick can land on your body, or
- single leg can take you down, or
- side mount can tap you out, or
- pushes to push you outside a circle,
- ...

you lose that round, otherwise you win that round. Test for 15 round and record the result. Keep your record for 3 years and see the final result.

For example, if you want to train Sanda/Sanshou, you have to train not to be pushed off the stage.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> If that is how you feel then why even bother with martial arts? Why not just go around being a chingon and brawling?



Because there's some things simple brawling won't teach you. 

Like the Guard for example.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Because there's some things simple brawling won't teach you.
> 
> Like the Guard for example.



That's the only thing it can't teach you? If that's the case get a lady of the night and practice guard that way.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> No it's not not everyone trains to be a fighter at all and the fact you seem to think they do is very closed minded. Not everyone wants to fight people, the reason people in their 70s start training at that age isn't to kick someone's butt it's for the challenge and to get in shape and just learn and to meet new people



I never said "everyone".

However, you're being disingenuous here. Clearly people aren't spending hundreds of dollars a month to simply wear silk pajamas, dance around and learn Asian words. They're clearly seeking an elevated fighting ability.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> I never said "everyone".
> 
> However, you're being disingenuous here. Clearly people aren't spending hundreds of dollars a month to simply wear silk pajamas, dance around and learn Asian words. They're clearly seeking an elevated fighting ability.



Hey now, they are a mix of cotton and polyester.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> That's the only thing it can't teach you?



I said "for example". The implication in that phrasing is that there is more than just one example.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I never said "everyone".
> 
> However, you're being disingenuous here. Clearly people aren't spending hundreds of dollars a month to simply wear silk pajamas, dance around and learn Asian words. They're clearly seeking an elevated fighting ability.


Not always, but most of the time that's true. People spend money on a lot of sports that don't teach them to fight, and there are those within MA that study for reasons other than fighting skill.


----------



## marques

Hanzou said:


> Change which rules specifically? There were very few rules in the first UFC, and very few rules in other MMA style competitions, but the same styles dominate regardless.


Dominate always the styles made for / more focused on competition. That's clear.

If you stop the fights on the ground when they become 'boring', stand up styles are favoured. Just one example because I don't have many off the top of my head, in fact.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> I never said "everyone".
> 
> However, you're being disingenuous here. Clearly people aren't spending hundreds of dollars a month to simply wear silk pajamas, dance around and learn Asian words. They're clearly seeking an elevated fighting ability.


Firstly who's spending hundreds? Second why do you think parents put their kids into Martial arts? So they can become amazing fighters? No to teach disipline and respect and keep fit. Some people enjoy throwing punches and kicks as a work out as opposed to running and lifting weights. That's why boxercise classes are so popular you're not learning about the boxing technique and they don't correct you on It it's just to work out. Not every single person in the world wants to fight if you do good for you but what you want isn't the same as everyone and I think you should hurry up and realise that


----------



## SenseiHitman

I think all forms of MMA are a good test.  I think every healthy young martial artist should get involved in some sort of full contact fighting whether it be kickboxing shoot fighting cage fighting or whatever your style accommodates.  Now, I have done them all and I can tell you none of them are like a real fight but in each case you get a chance to practice controlling fear and pushing you physical limits.  All full contact fights are a thousand times safer to be in than any real street or combat situation. I mean heck you got a referee who will most likely stop the action before any real damage gets done.  So I say they are all a good test but they just are not the same as real street fighting or combat.   Any form of full contact or MMA fighting requires the fighter to be in top physical condition and control his fear.  On that note, I have seen many fat out of shape so called gurus of martial arts say that there style is only for combat and would get them disqualified if they did what they were trained to do in the ring, when I suspect their fat *** would get dropped in the 1st 15 seconds.  Then the same idiots will tell their students that being in top physical condition is unnecessary sine their style is so deadly. I feel sorry for anyone training under such a fool.  So I say again any form of MMA or full contact fighting is a good test a test for your ability to control fear and to get into the best physical shape you can.  None of them compare to the real deal but they all can help the student strive to be the best he can.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I never said "everyone".


May be you should just say "grappler".

Have you ever met any wrestler, Judo guy, BJJ guy who trains for "health"? I have not.

May be the grappling world is different from the striking world. In the striking world you can punch/kick into the thin air, or kick/punch on a heavy bag to get that "health" benefit. In the grappling world you just can't wrestle against a "non-existent opponent".

The grappling game is "sport" by definition.


----------



## Kickboxer101

SenseiHitman said:


> I think all forms of MMA are a good test.  I think every healthy young martial artist should get involved in some sort of full contact fighting whether it be kickboxing shoot fighting cage fighting or whatever your style accommodates.  Now, I have done them all and I can tell you none of them are like a real fight but in each case you get a chance to practice controlling fear and pushing you physical limits.  All full contact fights are a thousand times safer to be in than any real street or combat situation. I mean heck you got a referee who will most likely stop the action before any real damage gets done.  So I say they are all a good test but they just are not the same as real street fighting or combat.   Any form of full contact or MMA fighting requires the fighter to be in top physical condition and control his fear.  On that note, I have seen many fat out of shape so called gurus of martial arts say that there style is only for combat and would get them disqualified if they did what they were trained to do in the ring, when I suspect their fat *** would get dropped in the 1st 15 seconds.  Then the same idiots will tell their students that being in top physical condition is unnecessary sine their style is so deadly. I feel sorry for anyone training under such a fool.  So I say again any form of MMA or full contact fighting is a good test a test for your ability to control fear and to get into the best physical shape you can.  None of them compare to the real deal but they all can help the student strive to be the best he can.


No not every young healthy person should do it because they may not /want/ to. There's no rules when it comes to training some people don't want to come out of training bruised up and so sore they can't get up for work the next day and yes absolutely in some martial art there are moves that would get you disqualified that would end a real fight very quick. Watch any mma fight and you'll see them get even a light poke to the eyes and their on the floor holding their eyes or a light kick to the groin they're rolling around the floor holding their nuts. Fact is people on here seem to think to be good at martial arts you've got to go round fighting everyone you can if that was the requirement to do martial arts there would be a lot less people doing it


----------



## JR 137

The more I train and the more diverse people I come across in MA (diverse meaning reasons and goals for training), the more I'm convinced that fighting and SD are a state of mind.  There's a mindset involved that most often determines that person's success in defending themself.  I've met a lot of excellent dojo fighters who I wouldn't want backing me up when stuff hits the fan.  I've met a lot of people with zero training that I'd want at my side in a heartbeat.

The dojo is a controlled environment, even though people may be training at full force/resistance.  Competition is a controlled environment, albeit less predictable in what you'll encounter.  Same for the cage.

Elite fighters are elite for many reasons; they're mentally tough, physically tough, and are athletically gifted.  The combination of all those things makes them elite.  No matter how physically tough and athletically gifted you are, if you're not mentally tough, you'll only get so far.

Full contact/fully resisted training can help with the mental toughness.  It teaches people they're not made out of glass and can actually keep going even though they've been hit.  They realize a punch to the stomach won't kill them.  It helps them to keep moving forward despite getting hit.  It teaches them to not fall down and cry in a fetal position.  It also teaches them to hit with intent and hit hard.  Training like that will help with the mental toughness.  It doesn't matter if it's TKD, karate, kung fu, judo, jujitsu, nor anything else.

It takes a certain mindset to fight.  Not everyone has it.  And not everyone who does have it wants to get into the ring nor the cage to prove it.  I've got better things to do with my time than train at the intensity and the duration that aspiring fighters do.  I know that if I had no other choice, I could throw a pretty good beating on a lot of people.  I also know there's plenty of people out there who'd easily do that same to me.  And I'm smart enough to know you can't judge how much of a challenge someone will present by just looking at them.

Do not know karate works?  I know I work.  Would I be more or less effective if I studied any other art/style?  Maybe a little bit either way, but not much.  Would I be as effective if I sat around every day doing absolutely nothing?  Absolutely not.

Also keep in mind that competitive fighters have time to prepare for who they're fighting, and know who, when and where.  A guy walking down the street minding his own business doesn't have any of those luxuries.  One minute he's having a great time chatting up some young lady at the bar and before he realizes what's going on, some tough guy is grabbing him and trying to choke him out or punch his face in.


----------



## drop bear

So nobody can come up with a better test?

Or did i miss a post somewhere.

I mean that just kind of looked like it was the point of the thread. And whe have had two pages of posts so far.


----------



## SenseiHitman

Kickboxer101 said:


> No not every young healthy person should do it because they may not /want/ to. There's no rules when it comes to training some people don't want to come out of training bruised up and so sore they can't get up for work the next day and yes absolutely in some martial art there are moves that would get you disqualified that would end a real fight very quick. Watch any mma fight and you'll see them get even a light poke to the eyes and their on the floor holding their eyes or a light kick to the groin they're rolling around the floor holding their nuts. Fact is people on here seem to think to be good at martial arts you've got to go round fighting everyone you can if that was the requirement to do martial arts there would be a lot less people doing it



The reason I feel it is a good idea is based on my own experience.  It gave me a way to work on controlling my fear of fighting and it gave me a workout ethic that has survived with me to this day.  I am 48 years old and I am proud to say I am in better shape then most men in their 20s.  Yes, we all know how much it hurts to get poked in the eyes or kicked in the groin, those are a couple of the favorite targets that many so called self defense gurus claim would lead them to victory in the street over an MMA fighter.  As if they = MMA fighters dont know this super secret technique.  What if they do it to you first?  If you are not fit to fight that poke to the eye or kick to the groin better land just right or its over.  Another guru getting body slammed on the ground.


----------



## SenseiHitman

drop bear said:


> So nobody can come up with a better test?
> 
> Or did i miss a post somewhere.


No better test that I know of MMA is a good test.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So nobody can come up with a better test?
> 
> Or did i miss a post somewhere.
> 
> I mean that just kind of looked like it was the point of the thread. And whe have had two pages of posts so far.


I started from the premise that there's no need for a "better" test. No test will ever be perfect, and MMA is a pretty good test of effectiveness for those interested in going that route.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

SenseiHitman said:


> The reason I feel it is a good idea is based on my own experience.  It gave me a way to work on controlling my fear of fighting and it gave me a workout ethic that has survived with me to this day.  I am 48 years old and I am proud to say I am in better shape then most men in their 20s.  Yes, we all know how much it hurts to get poked in the eyes or kicked in the groin, those are a couple of the favorite targets that many so called self defense gurus claim would lead them to victory in the street over an MMA fighter.  As if they = MMA fighters dont know this super secret technique.  What if they do it to you first?  If you are not fit to fight that poke to the eye or kick to the groin better land just right or its over.  Another guru getting body slammed on the ground.


You're comparing competitive athletes who train like monsters to people often well past their prime and who often have a full-time job in addition to teaching. They're not training for MMA competition, so why even talk about their ability to fight in MMA?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I started from the premise that there's no need for a "better" test. No test will ever be perfect, and MMA is a pretty good test of effectiveness for those interested in going that route.



And that route you mean martial arts.

Why do you think there is no need for a better test?

I was pretty sure a japanese game show would at least have come up with something.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Not always, but most of the time that's true. People spend money on a lot of sports that don't teach them to fight, and there are those within MA that study for reasons other than fighting skill.



Yes, but the main reason people enter martial arts is to feel less worried about walking down the street, or to stop the school yard bully from messing with them.

Those skills require fighting ability.


----------



## SenseiHitman

All I am saying is that if you are young and healthy and want to be as prepared as possible do it.  I would not recommend MMA fighting for anyone not young and healthy.  I dont do it anymore. Now, I would recommend that anyone who takes his training seriously get in the best shape you can and do something to help you overcome the crippling effect of fear that one faces in a self defense situation.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> Firstly who's spending hundreds? Second why do you think parents put their kids into Martial arts? So they can become amazing fighters?



Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Hanzou

marques said:


> Dominate always the styles made for / more focused on competition. That's clear.
> 
> If you stop the fights on the ground when they become 'boring', stand up styles are favoured. Just one example because I don't have many off the top of my head, in fact.



Which some leagues do. Grappling styles still do just fine.

Again, which rules specifically are hindering more traditional styles from doing well?


----------



## Kickboxer101

SenseiHitman said:


> The reason I feel it is a good idea is based on my own experience.  It gave me a way to work on controlling my fear of fighting and it gave me a workout ethic that has survived with me to this day.  I am 48 years old and I am proud to say I am in better shape then most men in their 20s.  Yes, we all know how much it hurts to get poked in the eyes or kicked in the groin, those are a couple of the favorite targets that many so called self defense gurus claim would lead them to victory in the street over an MMA fighter.  As if they = MMA fighters dont know this super secret technique.  What if they do it to you first?  If you are not fit to fight that poke to the eye or kick to the groin better land just right or its over.  Another guru getting body slammed on the ground.


Well it worked for you great but it's not for everyone which is a lot of people don't seem to understand


----------



## SenseiHitman

It's not the rules it's the way they train.  No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA.  It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.


----------



## SenseiHitman

Hanzou said:


> Which some leagues do. Grappling styles still do just fine.
> 
> Again, which rules specifically are hindering more traditional styles from doing well?



It's not the rules it's the way they train.  No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA.  It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.


----------



## Kickboxer101

gpseymour said:


> You're comparing competitive athletes who train like monsters to people often well past their prime and who often have a full-time job in addition to teaching. They're not training for MMA competition, so why even talk about their ability to fight in MMA?


Absolutely and most of those guys run their own school as well and don't have a load of trainers and strength and conditioning coaches and nutritionists or physiotherapists and don't take supplements and well let's be honest a lot of mma fighters are taking PEDs as well, I mean since the new drug testing has come in in the ufc so many guys have gotten caught and even more have coincidentally lost a lot of muscle and don't look as great shape


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be you should just say "grappler".
> 
> Have you ever met any wrestler, Judo guy, BJJ guy who trains for "health"? I have not.



Again, "health" is a secondary benefit to training. I know plenty of people who are doing Bjj to stay in shape, but that is secondary to their desire to defend themselves.



> May be the grappling world is different from the striking world. In the striking world you can punch/kick into the thin air, or kick/punch on a heavy bag to get that "health" benefit. In the grappling world you just can't wrestle against a "non-existent opponent".
> 
> The grappling game is "sport" by definition.



Rolling is physically taxing on the body. I've done plenty of boxing and karate in my time, and honestly rolling is probably the most draining type of sparring around. Very rarely have I come out of Bjj rolling not drenched in sweat.


----------



## Kickboxer101

SenseiHitman said:


> It's not the rules it's the way they train.  No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA.  It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.


Um no most traditional martial artists won't do mma for a very simple reason..,they're not mma fighters they're not training to do mma if they wanted to do mma they'd go to an mma school


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And that route you mean martial arts.
> 
> Why do you think there is no need for a better test?
> 
> I was pretty sure a japanese game show would at least have come up with something.


By "that route" I mean MMA. There are a lot of reasons people study martial arts, and not all are related to MMA. And there are many of us for whom MMA could be a useful test, but it's not where our interest lies, so we use other means.

Since a perfect test of ability to defend oneself is pretty much impossible (assuming we include avoidance as part of the self-defense skills), and the same can be said of pure fighting technique (assuming we're trying to keep the fighters reasonably safe), there's no sense trying to perfect the test. We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained. MMA is a good test for some people. Other tests work just as well for others. I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other. If we can improve a test, so that it is better than it was, that's good. But comparing disparate tests and trying to define an equivalency is like trying to compare black belts between arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but the main reason people enter martial arts is to feel less worried about walking down the street, or to stop the school yard bully from messing with them.
> 
> Those skills require fighting ability.


That's the reason many people enter, but not all. My first class I entered I don't know if that's what I had in mind. I know it was with the second and third times I started. I also know people who entered specifically to learn to compete - they wanted to win some trophies, etc. And I know people who started an art because it seemed cool/fun/aesthetically pleasing to them. For those two groups, defending themselves in a fight was not their aim. One group often includes people who can already defend themselves, and who want a trophy for fighting. The others often simply have different motives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.


Actually, from the attitudes of many of the parents whose kids I taught when I was at my instructor's school, I'd say most have fighting ability as a secondary aim, and the discipline (and getting the energy out) is the primary for many parents.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> By "that route" I mean MMA. There are a lot of reasons people study martial arts, and not all are related to MMA. And there are many of us for whom MMA could be a useful test, but it's not where our interest lies, so we use other means.
> 
> Since a perfect test of ability to defend oneself is pretty much impossible (assuming we include avoidance as part of the self-defense skills), and the same can be said of pure fighting technique (assuming we're trying to keep the fighters reasonably safe), there's no sense trying to perfect the test. We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained. MMA is a good test for some people. Other tests work just as well for others. I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other. If we can improve a test, so that it is better than it was, that's good. But comparing disparate tests and trying to define an equivalency is like trying to compare black belts between arts.



Oh. those other tests that are good of other things.

How about you dont be vague. If there are other tests for other things.

What are those tests?

what are those other things?

Why are those tests more suitable?


----------



## drop bear

This contradicts.



gpseymour said:


> We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained




this.


gpseymour said:


> . I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other.



Dont you think.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> Um no most traditional martial artists won't do mma for a very simple reason..,they're not mma fighters they're not training to do mma if they wanted to do mma they'd go to an mma school



It goes much deeper than that I'm afraid. People coming from traditional styles have to almost completely abandon their base system in order to prepare themselves for MMA. Meanwhile, people from Bjj, Wresting, Boxing, Muay Thai, or Kyokushin for example simply have to fill their system's gaps, but they can retain their base.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Oh. those other tests that are good of other things.
> 
> How about you dont be vague. If there are other tests for other things.
> 
> What are those tests?
> 
> what are those other things?
> 
> Why are those tests more suitable?


Well, if someone is training for aesthetic reasons, forms tests are a better evaluation. 

If we are talking combat effectiveness, there are tests that are reasonable, which are more suitable for folks who don't want to beat people up. I've discussed some of them elsewhere (hard sparring, simulated attacks, etc.). There was a time when I was fit enough to have competed in something like MMA if I wanted to. I could have trained up the skills needed and would have probably done competently well. I wouldn't have been great, but I'd have managed okay if I'd put in enough hours. But I'd have had to go in and do my best to beat up someone who hadn't done anything to deserve it. I've just never been interested in that, so I never went that route. Something like BJJ probably would have suited me well back then if I'd run into it. Now? My joints suck, so there's no way I want to get into submission contests. I enjoy rolling, because I can just tap out the moment there's a good lock and any level of discomfort. That approach doesn't' work for competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This contradicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this.
> 
> 
> Dont you think.


No. Two tests can be very different, fit very different needs, and both be reasonable. If both are reasonable for their purposes, why would I bother to try to rank them against each other?


----------



## Ironbear24

SenseiHitman said:


> It's not the rules it's the way they train.  No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA.  It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.



Again many places don't care about MMA competition because they are not going to these competitions. If someone is going to Tae Kwon Do dojang expecting to be a prominent MMA fighter then more than likely the Sensei there will tell them to go elsewhere. 

This doesn't make Tae Kwon Do bad or inferior, it just isn't designed with MMA in mind. The same can be said for boxing, you go to a boxing gym expecting to come out a prominent MMA fighter you are going to be disappointment because Boxing was never designed with MMA in mind. You go to Judo or Jiu Jitsu to become a legendary kickboxer then you are obviously going to be dissapointed because those are not designed to make a you great kick boxer. 

These styles have their purposes and if you want MMA, then go do that or take more than on art so you can deal with MMA. If what you say has any truth to it why is my Dojo more successful than the mma gym here in town? They are both close to all of us and are within reasonable traveling distance, so by your logic we should be dropping our dojo and going since it is just all around better. 

Obviously there is something keeping us here though and the same goes for the other place, they are not bad or by any means terrible, people that go to both have their different goals and reasons.


----------



## Headhunter

Okay let me ask you this if according to you mma is the ultimate test to see how good your skills are and that's the only way to show it then tell me what's your mma record? Let's see a video of your fights? Or have you never fought an mma fight? If that's the case then you're simply contradicting yourself and if you say oh yeah I spar or I roll well cool but that's not fighting mma is it. Every martial art club spars so if all you do is spar you're no better than anyone else who spars in their gym.

It's actually funny how much of a fanboy you are


----------



## Ironbear24

Headhunter said:


> Okay let me ask you this if according to you mma is the ultimate test to see how good your skills are and that's the only way to show it then tell me what's your mma record? Let's see a video of your fights? Or have you never fought an mma fight? If that's the case then you're simply contradicting yourself and if you say oh yeah I spar or I roll well cool but that's not fighting mma is it. Every martial art club spars so if all you do is spar you're no better than anyone else who spars in their gym.
> 
> It's actually funny how much of a fanboy you are



I agree with some things here, aside from the last statement, maybe he is just being honest with the forum about his opinion? There isn't anything wrong with that. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they should be labeled something negative.

Anyway I do agree with the fight record comment and every other statement. We all have some form of resistance training that we do whether it be drills or whatever variety of sparring. There was only one place I seen that didn't spar ever and I did not stay there.


----------



## hoshin1600

Hanzou said:


> Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.



I think you are mistaken. Do you have children?   My son likes ninja turtles so yes he likes to kick and punch. I send him to a karate class because I want him to learn to focus. He is learning from a traditional guy and I have no illusion that he is learning to defend himself. That is not even on my radar at this point. When he needs to learn to fight I will address that as his parent.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.


You just said it yourself the kids want to do punches and kicks like superheroes not actually to fight. They want to throw the cool kicks and punches which they can do without fighting I doubt there are many 5-10 year olds who train for the specific reason of fighting someone and parents want their kids to learn how to control themselves and how to use situational awareness to walk away from trouble they don't their 7 year old breaking another kids jaw and putting him in hospital


----------



## Kickboxer101

Ironbear24 said:


> I agree with some things here, aside from the last statement, maybe he is just being honest with the forum about his opinion? There isn't anything wrong with that. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they should be labeled something negative.
> 
> Anyway I do agree with the fight record comment and every other statement. We all have some form of resistance training that we do whether it be drills or whatever variety of sparring. There was only one place I seen that didn't spar ever and I did not stay there.



Don't really think you can call headhunter out on calling him a fanboy when you did the exact same thing only yesterday lol 


Ironbear24 said:


> Are you a Kenpo karate teacher? I think I am going to obey what my sifu told me about the reasoning behind such drills over some biased bjj fanboy on the internet.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> Don't really think you can call headhunter out on calling him a fanboy when you did the exact same thing only yesterday lol



That was said to Hanzou who objectively is a fan boy for bjj. I doubt this individual is an mma fan boy but hey if he is I'll stand corrected.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Well, if someone is training for aesthetic reasons, forms tests are a better evaluation.
> 
> If we are talking combat effectiveness, there are tests that are reasonable, which are more suitable for folks who don't want to beat people up. I've discussed some of them elsewhere (hard sparring, simulated attacks, etc.). There was a time when I was fit enough to have competed in something like MMA if I wanted to. I could have trained up the skills needed and would have probably done competently well. I wouldn't have been great, but I'd have managed okay if I'd put in enough hours. But I'd have had to go in and do my best to beat up someone who hadn't done anything to deserve it. I've just never been interested in that, so I never went that route. Something like BJJ probably would have suited me well back then if I'd run into it. Now? My joints suck, so there's no way I want to get into submission contests. I enjoy rolling, because I can just tap out the moment there's a good lock and any level of discomfort. That approach doesn't' work for competition.



So why do these tests create better martial artists than MMA?


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Okay let me ask you this if according to you mma is the ultimate test to see how good your skills are and that's the only way to show it then tell me what's your mma record? Let's see a video of your fights? Or have you never fought an mma fight? If that's the case then you're simply contradicting yourself and if you say oh yeah I spar or I roll well cool but that's not fighting mma is it. Every martial art club spars so if all you do is spar you're no better than anyone else who spars in their gym.
> 
> It's actually funny how much of a fanboy you are



So you have a better test?

I love how people avoid a topic they cant answer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So why do these tests create better martial artists than MMA?


You're back to "better". I never said that about them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're back to "better". I never said that about them.



Ok. so no better test then.

Cool we are 4 pages in and we have no solutions.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Ok. so no better test then.
> 
> Cool we are 4 pages in and we have no solutions.



And you won't, these things are very opinion based. 

Personally I think it all comes down to heavy contact sparring for the best "test" MMA or not you can do that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. so no better test then.
> 
> Cool we are 4 pages in and we have no solutions.


As I said, that's where I started. I don't think there is a single solution to this - it's all relative.


----------



## Hanzou

Headhunter said:


> Okay let me ask you this if according to you mma is the ultimate test to see how good your skills are and that's the only way to show it then tell me what's your mma record? Let's see a video of your fights? Or have you never fought an mma fight? If that's the case then you're simply contradicting yourself and if you say oh yeah I spar or I roll well cool but that's not fighting mma is it. Every martial art club spars so if all you do is spar you're no better than anyone else who spars in their gym.
> 
> It's actually funny how much of a fanboy you are



I consistently cross-train at a MMA gym, and I'm the assistant grappling coach (well was) at said gym. So yeah, I've been around MMA fighters on a fairly consistent basis.

I have fought MMA fights. Not professionally (I'm a bit too old for that), but informally.

I'm afraid you won't be seeing a video of me fighting a MMA fight anytime soon. For starters, a Bjj guy fighting in MMA isn't a noteworthy event, and secondly I have a long running injury that would prevent me from participating in one anyway.

Now, on the other hand someone coming from a more traditional system (ala Kung Fu, JJJ, etc.) fighting in even an amateur MMA fight would be a far more noteworthy event. However, people have told me that traditional arts are a poor fit for MMA. I'm struggling to find the reason why. 

I'm still waiting for that one poster who told me it's the rules that favor sport fighters over traditional MA to tell me exactly what rule is making it impossible for TMA practitioners to compete.


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> I think you are mistaken. Do you have children?



Yes, two.



> My son likes ninja turtles so yes he likes to kick and punch. I send him to a karate class because I want him to learn to focus. He is learning from a traditional guy and I have no illusion that he is learning to defend himself. That is not even on my radar at this point. When he needs to learn to fight I will address that as his parent.



Again, I find it quite odd that we're arguing whether someone learning a MARTIAL art is learning to fight or not. What do you think your son is learning? He's learning fighting stances, how to properly kick and punch, how to block blows and counter-attack, etc. What do you think the purpose behind all of that training is?


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> You just said it yourself the kids want to do punches and kicks like superheroes not actually to fight. They want to throw the cool kicks and punches which they can do without fighting I doubt there are many 5-10 year olds who train for the specific reason of fighting someone and parents want their kids to learn how to control themselves and how to use situational awareness to walk away from trouble they don't their 7 year old breaking another kids jaw and putting him in hospital



Why exactly would I pay a martial art school to teach my kids to walk away from a bully or how to "control themselves"? I can teach him that for free.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes, two.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I find it quite odd that we're arguing whether someone learning a MARTIAL art is learning to fight or not. What do you think your son is learning? He's learning fighting stances, how to properly kick and punch, how to block blows and counter-attack, etc. What do you think the purpose behind all of that training is?


Not all things you and I would call martial arts are focused on training fighting skills, though that's where they all started. There are entire groups of martial arts that are almost entirely focused on internal development, rather than fighting skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Why exactly would I pay a martial art school to teach my kids to walk away from a bully or how to "control themselves"? I can teach him that for free.


Not all parents can, or possibly will. Some people do send their kids to anti-bullying classes. That's why many commercial dojos offer that kind of class.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Not all things you and I would call martial arts are focused on training fighting skills, though that's where they all started. There are entire groups of martial arts that are almost entirely focused on internal development, rather than fighting skill.



Well that's fair. I've often said that there are styles that teach you how to fight, and there are styles that teach you how to pretend.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Well that's fair. I've often said that there are styles that teach you how to fight, and there are styles that teach you how to pretend.



And what arts are these?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> And what arts are these?


Modern Chinese martial dancing.


----------



## Headhunter

Hanzou said:


> I consistently cross-train at a MMA gym, and I'm the assistant grappling coach (well was) at said gym. So yeah, I've been around MMA fighters on a fairly consistent basis.
> 
> I have fought MMA fights. Not professionally (I'm a bit too old for that), but informally.
> 
> I'm afraid you won't be seeing a video of me fighting a MMA fight anytime soon. For starters, a Bjj guy fighting in MMA isn't a noteworthy event, and secondly I have a long running injury that would prevent me from participating in one anyway.
> 
> Now, on the other hand someone coming from a more traditional system (ala Kung Fu, JJJ, etc.) fighting in even an amateur MMA fight would be a far more noteworthy event. However, people have told me that traditional arts are a poor fit for MMA. I'm struggling to find the reason why.
> 
> I'm still waiting for that one poster who told me it's the rules that favor sport fighters over traditional MA to tell me exactly what rule is making it impossible for TMA practitioners to compete.



 the question wasnt have you been around mma fighters I wasn't asking where you coach. An "informal" fight is nothing but sparring. Not a noteworthy event what so none of your friends or family bothered to film it. 

So you're injured, to old, you cross train and have no evidence to back it up because its not a big thing. Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

I guess you're not testing your abilities so you don't know if what you're doing works because all your doing is sparring you're not fighting mma fights which according to you is the be all and end all.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> So you have a better test?
> 
> I love how people avoid a topic they cant answer.


Not avoiding it because as has been stated mma is a test for mma fighters why would a karate guy or a kickboxer or a boxer do mma since that's not what they're training for. The guys who fight mma funnily enough train in mma gyms believe it or not. Mma isn't a test for other styles because its not even in Their thoughts if they wanted to do it they'd go to an mma gym. That's the truth about it. You and hanzou both seem to think everyone has to step into a cage to be happy with their abilities yet hanzou tells me he's never done so. What about you? You stepped in the cage have you tested yourself or are you contradicting yourself as well


----------



## Buka

And the bait was taken, devoured even.

You're gonna' need a bigger thread.


----------



## Hanzou

Headhunter said:


> the question wasnt have you been around mma fighters I wasn't asking where you coach. An "informal" fight is nothing but sparring. Not a noteworthy event what so none of your friends or family bothered to film it.
> 
> So you're injured, to old, you cross train and have no evidence to back it up because its not a big thing. Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.
> 
> I guess you're not testing your abilities so you don't know if what you're doing works because all your doing is sparring you're not fighting mma fights which according to you is the be all and end all.



None of that blabbering above has anything to do with the topic. The topic is based purely on styles and training methodology. There are styles that do well in MMA and styles that are nonexistent in MMA. So my question is why are some systems prevalent, while others are nonexistent?



Headhunter said:


> Not avoiding it because as has been stated mma is a test for mma fighters why would a karate guy or a kickboxer or a boxer do mma since that's not what they're training for.



There are Karate, Kickboxer, and Boxing guys who do MMA.



> The guys who fight mma funnily enough train in mma gyms believe it or not. Mma isn't a test for other styles because its not even in Their thoughts if they wanted to do it they'd go to an mma gym. That's the truth about it.



Except many traditionalists have, and have had to completely abandon their style in order to stand a chance. Alan Orr and his style of Wing Chun being a prime example. The question is why does that happen? The other question is if MMA isn't a good test for a style's effectiveness, what's a better one?


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Modern Chinese martial dancing.



Yes, that would definitely be one of them.

Sharif Bey's Hung Gar would be another.


----------



## oaktree

"MMA isn't a good test for a style's effectiveness, what's a better one?"

Effective at what is the question.
Most students in China and Japan study martial arts not to learn fighting but as a hobby or for discipline. Most elderly people find their way into martial arts for health and relaxation(especially in taiji case)

In my opinion it's not the art that isn't effective it's the person who knows how to use it effectively to his advantage. 
What differs a lot from effective and ineffective is the mindset, so in 3 categories that would be the hobbyist, the sport, and the killer. The hobbyist has no intention to fight that is your old lady, your kids, hippie. The sport is someone who competes and finds that since they are "fighting" they are more effective which they are compared to the hobbyist. Then there is the killer, the military, the criminal, the police the person who trains to kill if need be, and needs something that deals with the reality of the other person trying to kill you which life or death fighting can not be replicated in a cage, the air is different. Having someone with a knife trying to stab you in a dark alley for crack money is a different feel than fighting someone who wants to win a competition.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> And the bait was taken, devoured even.
> 
> You're gonna' need a bigger thread.



It still asstounds me that nobody even attempts to answer the question.

I was expecting all sorts of cool ideas. I dont know. Mc Map style gauntlets. Chess boxing mabye.Animal day perhaps.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Not avoiding it because as has been stated mma is a test for mma fighters why would a karate guy or a kickboxer or a boxer do mma since that's not what they're training for. The guys who fight mma funnily enough train in mma gyms believe it or not. Mma isn't a test for other styles because its not even in Their thoughts if they wanted to do it they'd go to an mma gym. That's the truth about it. You and hanzou both seem to think everyone has to step into a cage to be happy with their abilities yet hanzou tells me he's never done so. What about you? You stepped in the cage have you tested yourself or are you contradicting yourself as well



So karate kickboxing or boxing is also a reasonable test for martial arts?


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> So karate kickboxing or boxing is also a reasonable test for martial arts?


Karate competitions are a good test for karate guys, kickboxing matches are good for kickboxers and boxing matches are good for boxers and mma matches are good for mma fighters I have no idea why this is so confusing to some people


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> None of that blabbering above has anything to do with the topic. The topic is based purely on styles and training methodology. There are styles that do well in MMA and styles that are nonexistent in MMA. So my question is why are some systems prevalent, while others are nonexistent?
> 
> 
> 
> There are Karate, Kickboxer, and Boxing guys who do MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> Except many traditionalists have, and have had to completely abandon their style in order to stand a chance. Alan Orr and his style of Wing Chun being a prime example. The question is why does that happen? The other question is if MMA isn't a good test for a style's effectiveness, what's a better one?



So now you're contradicting yourself before you said no karate guys would dare do mma but now you've said karate people do do mma and no there's plenty who use their traditional background. Best example Stephen Thompson his style is karate and rogan has said almost every fight that he uses a point karate based style. But there's really no point in telling you anything you're so closed minded you'll never listen to anything including facts


----------



## Steve

Why you are training and what your goals are will dictate how best to test for results. 

If you're training to be a boxer, boxing matches will be a better test for you than MMA.  If you train for health and wellbeing, the tests will be very different.  If you're doing Wushu with the end goal of being able to perform like the guys in the video posted earlier, MMA isn't going to be very informative.  Testing for results is pretty easy if the goals of the training are well defined. 

Conversely, if the results are not well defined, as is the case with "self defense," then it seems reasonable that the best test is every test.  Well, maybe not "every" test, but many tests so that you are gauging aspects of the skills you are developing.  Competition will tell you a lot about your relative skill level in combat, but doesn't help you with knives. 

The point I'm trying to make is that, if your goal is self defense, I would think that you're best served by seeking out pretty much any kind of test you can think of.  The more the better.


----------



## Steve

Kickboxer101 said:


> So now you're contradicting yourself before you said no karate guys would dare do mma but now you've said karate people do do mma and no there's plenty who use their traditional background. Best example Stephen Thompson his style is karate and rogan has said almost every fight that he uses a point karate based style. But there's really no point in telling you anything you're so closed minded you'll never listen to anything including facts


My personal opinion is that karate guys who compete are going to have an advantage over those who do not.

An Aikidoka who competes will have a real advantage over those who do not.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Wing Chun succeed in MMA.  But it would take a person willing to fail a lot in order to see it.   That's one of the things competition helps you with.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> So now you're contradicting yourself before you said no karate guys would dare do mma but now you've said karate people do do mma and no there's plenty who use their traditional background




Where did I say that? There's a variety of karate styles out there. Kyokushin is definitely prevalent in MMA, and Loyoto Machida is famous for his karate style in MMA. There are some more traditional Karate systems that would never set foot in a cage and those se the ones I was referring to earlier.



> But there's really no point in telling you anything you're so closed minded you'll never listen to anything including facts


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> My personal opinion is that karate guys who compete are going to have an advantage over those who do not.
> 
> An Aikidoka who competes will have a real advantage over those who do not.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Wing Chun succeed in MMA.  But it would take a person willing to fail a lot in order to see it.   That's one of the things competition helps you with.



What I find interesting is that there are Wing Chun experts who say that WC isnt compatible with MMA for a host of reasons (excuses);


----------



## BigMotor

Leo89 said:


> I think the ability to defend oneself in a brawl is the real test of effectiveness right there, as for "the streets" a lot of people carry guns these days.


I concur, the acid test is being able to defend, when attacked. And yes. a lot of people carry guns, and that is a big equalizer against any attack by multiple assailants. 
They defend effectively against being attacked by someone in a car, or with dogs too.

Society has devolved into savagery in some ways, and I keep that in mind on an everyday basis.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.
> 
> And btw, there's varying *rulesets* for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less *rules*.



That is the fallacy in your OP question, there are *rules* that each *individual* has to abide by in order to *compete*. Let's break that down;  there are rules so you can only compare MA that abide by those rules.  Individuals: there are only two, unarmed opponents rather than the possibility of multiple attackers who could be armed.  And finally...compete;  it's a game.

So MMA is not the best thing to determine effectiveness unless it is a comparison of ONLY those MA's that fall into those narrow parameters.


----------



## Kickboxer101

I'm going to say one more thing about this which I'm sure the op will have an arguments to but the fact is an mma fight is not like a street fight for the simple fact that in a mma or only sport combat fight they circle each other throwing jabs and leg kicks trying to gage the distance and find range, sometimes a fight will start and it'll take a few minutes for anyone to even throw a punch and no fight will ever be full 15 minutes of throwing non stop punches but in a real fight there's no circling or looking for openings and just moving around the one attacking will be moving in full force throwing as many punches as he can as quick as he can and he won't stop or move back to get out the way. That's the biggest difference. In a combat fight the opponent is trying to get in and take as little damage as possible and get out whereas if someone's trying to take your wallet they're just throwing caution to the wind and going in guns blazing trying to take you out and not thinking about preserving themselves so their not to beat up so the doctor stops the fight or they're to tired for the next round. Those are ring fighter considerations but not street fighters


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> It still asstounds me that nobody even attempts to answer the question.
> 
> I was expecting all sorts of cool ideas. I dont know. Mc Map style gauntlets. Chess boxing mabye.Animal day perhaps.



Not really sure why you're quoting me, bro, I'm a supporter of all things MMA. Especially the training.

I know it's not for everybody, but what is? But I just love it. (what's "animal day", though)


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> That is the fallacy in your OP question, there are *rules* that each *individual* has to abide by in order to *compete*. Let's break that down;  there are rules so you can only compare MA that abide by those rules.  Individuals: there are only two, unarmed opponents rather than the possibility of multiple attackers who could be armed.  And finally...compete;  it's a game.
> 
> So MMA is not the best thing to determine effectiveness unless it is a comparison of ONLY those MA's that fall into those narrow parameters.



I disagree. MMA rules (and the rules of various MMA-friendly styles) are in place to ensure the safety of the fighters, and to maximize certain techniques that can be performed over and over again in order to gain mastery of those techniques and use them on a multitude of opponents. 

For example, you can't practice eye gouging, groin striking, or biting to a level of mastery, but you can practice a triangle choke, a knee bar, a clinch,  or an uppercut to a level of mastery against a variety of opponents without seriously injuring or killing yourself or your opponent.

Jigoro Kano proved this training methodology to be very effective against more traditional methodologies at various points  in the 1800s. His methodology was proven again in the first UFCs in the 1990s. Training under "rules" or safety conditions simply leads to better martial artists.


----------



## oaktree

And it is the rules and gentlemen agreement that prevent it from resembling what a life and death encounter occurs.
Interesting you mention Kano as other schools were doing what he was doing in fact his classical style is where he originally learned it from. 

The 1886 judo vs jujutsu matches never happened? [Archive]  - E-Budo.com
History - Kodokan vs Other Jujutsu | Jiushin Kan Malta | Martial Arts | Jiushin Ryu Jujutsu - Jiu-Jitsu - Ju-Jitsu | MJER Iaijutsu - Iaido
A Historical Question Concerning Kano Sensei [Archive]  - E-Budo.com

When I first saw the UFC I did not think it was realistic and put it in the same category as TV wrestling or roller Derby, no realism is people going to war, cops facing a knife wielding maniac on PCP, or the mugger, or the serial killer. The argument that MMA is real is silly and maybe it is for the group of demographic male 15 to 30 crowd who think so.  Good luck in your training


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Computer problems, will retry.


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> And it is the rules and gentlemen agreement that prevent it from resembling what a life and death encounter occurs.
> Interesting you mention Kano as other schools were doing what he was doing in fact his classical style is where he originally learned it from.
> 
> The 1886 judo vs jujutsu matches never happened? [Archive]  - E-Budo.com
> History - Kodokan vs Other Jujutsu | Jiushin Kan Malta | Martial Arts | Jiushin Ryu Jujutsu - Jiu-Jitsu - Ju-Jitsu | MJER Iaijutsu - Iaido
> A Historical Question Concerning Kano Sensei [Archive]  - E-Budo.com
> 
> When I first saw the UFC I did not think it was realistic and put it in the same category as TV wrestling or roller Derby, no realism is people going to war, cops facing a knife wielding maniac on PCP, or the mugger, or the serial killer. The argument that MMA is real is silly and maybe it is for the group of demographic male 15 to 30 crowd who think so.  Good luck in your training


If the UFC isn't real, then how you train also isn't real.  Right?   Unless... Do you guys assault each other in class?

Edit just to add a little more context.  I didn't think that the UFC was real when I first saw it either.  I still don't, and agree with those who (IMO) correctly point this out.  However, this idea that any other self defense training is MORE realistic than MMA just doesn't hold water. 

It's different, and as I said before, if self defense is one's goal, my personal opinion is that the more different tests, the better.  I wouldn't expect someone who wants to be competent in self defense to spend a ton of time training MMA.  But testing your skills with competent MMAists just seems like common sense to me.  Just like testing your skills in any other way.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

You're free to disagree, but you reply is incorrect on many levels.  Let's examine:



Hanzou said:


> I disagree. MMA rules (and the rules of various MMA-friendly styles) are in place to ensure the safety of the fighters...



Lets' stop right there and spend a moment.  Your phrase 'MMA rules' thus disqualifies the premise of your OP.  It only tests the effectiveness of MMA that adheres to the specific rule set in the specific artificial environment that is thus created.  That in no way shows it's effectiveness or ineffectiveness in regards to another sport MA or a traditional MA or a defense/offense MA.



Hanzou said:


> to maximize certain techniques that can be performed over and over again in order to gain mastery of those techniques and use them on a multitude of opponents.



Some techniques can be used in multiple environments, some cannot.  For example, taking someone to the ground in hopes of putting them in a submission, in an artificially created environment, with a specific rule set is fine and can get you the win.  In the street it's pretty stupid.  Sure, against someone that's surprised and/or inexperienced it may work.  Against someone experienced and armed and/or with additional assailants it's just about the worst thing you can do. 

Thus...



> I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles



Is apples to oranges.  A MA that focuses on non-competition techniques (or competition techniques in a completely different venue i.e. MMA vs. kick boxing) can't have MMA results used as a measuring stick.  



Hanzou said:


> For example, you can't practice eye gouging, groin striking, or biting to a level of mastery



Why can't you?  Sure, you can't gouge out the eyes of your classmates, but there are many types of safety gear in use that allows for many such techniques.  Gouging the eyes by-the-way is more about commitment than mastering.  It is the ability to get into a position to do so and then committing to the act rather than the act itself.  



Hanzou said:


> Training under "rules" or safety conditions simply leads to better martial artists.



False.  It only leads to someone conditioned for the rule set.  In a MA with a different focus, rules aren't used, needed or desired.  And a MA that is focused on SD for example, rules are a detriment.  I've covered this in-depth before.  Multiple times.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> If the UFC isn't real, then how you train also isn't real.  Right?   Unless... Do you guys assault each other in class?



Question wasn't directed at me, but it's been covered before.  Scenario-based training.


----------



## Steve

Kong Soo Do said:


> Question wasn't directed at me, but it's been covered before.  Scenario-based training.


So, that's a no, then.  Scenario based training is one way to evaluate skill among many.  And scenario based training can be really good or it can really suck.  And it is always "not real" by definition.  No more or less "real" than MMA.

But, yeah.  If self defense were the goal, scenario based exercises is a great idea... in addition to many other "tests."


----------



## Hanzou

oaktree said:


> And it is the rules and gentlemen agreement that prevent it from resembling what a life and death encounter occurs.



The problem is that all training has rules and gentleman agreements, and this includes "life or death" training and scenarios. If they didn't, you wouldn't have a lot of training partners left.



> Interesting you mention Kano as other schools were doing what he was doing in fact his classical style is where he originally learned it from.
> 
> The 1886 judo vs jujutsu matches never happened? [Archive]  - E-Budo.com
> History - Kodokan vs Other Jujutsu | Jiushin Kan Malta | Martial Arts | Jiushin Ryu Jujutsu - Jiu-Jitsu - Ju-Jitsu | MJER Iaijutsu - Iaido
> A Historical Question Concerning Kano Sensei [Archive]  - E-Budo.com



Ah yes, the "sour grapes" argument consistently brought up by the classical Jujutsu community. Look real closely at the people who question whether or not the judo vs. JJJ match ever happened. Do you see any Japanese source questioning that it happened? No. All you see are a bunch of American and European Japanophiles who have an axe to grind because their particular style of Japanese jujutsu has fallen by the wayside. 

Consider if those matches never happened, why did Kano jiujitsu (later called Judo) become so popular? Why did several prominent Jujutsu practitioners join his school? Why did so many classical Jujutsu masters surrender their art to Kano and his Kodokan? 





> When I first saw the UFC I did not think it was realistic and put it in the same category as TV wrestling or roller Derby, no realism is people going to war, cops facing a knife wielding maniac on PCP, or the mugger, or the serial killer. The argument that MMA is real is silly and maybe it is for the group of demographic male 15 to 30 crowd who think so.  Good luck in your training



So you can't tell fantasy from reality? Well that explains quite a bit of your posts on here.


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> If the UFC isn't real, then how you train also isn't real.  Right?   Unless... Do you guys assault each other in class?
> 
> Edit just to add a little more context.  I didn't think that the UFC was real when I first saw it either.  I still don't, and agree with those who (IMO) correctly point this out.  However, this idea that any other self defense training is MORE realistic than MMA just doesn't hold water.
> 
> It's different, and as I said before, if self defense is one's goal, my personal opinion is that the more different tests, the better.  I wouldn't expect someone who wants to be competent in self defense to spend a ton of time training MMA.  But testing your skills with competent MMAists just seems like common sense to me.  Just like testing your skills in any other way.


The UFC isn't real because you are not dealing with the variables and pressure the street encounters provide.
 It is why the majority of RBSD choose a different approach to deal with the variables and condition the mindset for a life and death encounter over a sporting mind set. Most MMA gyms are training people to compete or to deal with an opponent one on one they are not teaching how to deal with knives, different types of weapons, multiple attackers, rushed attacks, guns, dirty fighting, in close spaces, attacks in cars, fighting on stairs the list goes on but you can see that RBSD is geared towards self protection and is better equipped for life and death encounters because the person is conditioned to have a life or death fight over a sporting competition. 

IF UFC training is the realist it can get than why are most securities, law enforce and the likes training in cage matches?
Why are most on here saying that it isn't the realist for self defense? Come on man its a sport it even advises itself as one


----------



## oaktree

Hanzou said:


> The problem is that all training has rules and gentleman agreements, and this includes "life or death" training and scenarios. If they didn't, you wouldn't have a lot of training partners left.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the "sour grapes" argument consistently brought up by the classical Jujutsu community. Look real closely at the people who question whether or not the judo vs. JJJ match ever happened. Do you see any Japanese source questioning that it happened? No. All you see are a bunch of American and European Japanophiles who have an axe to grind because their particular style of Japanese jujutsu has fallen by the wayside.
> 
> Consider if those matches never happened, why did Kano jiujitsu (later called Judo) become so popular? Why did several prominent Jujutsu practitioners join his school? Why did so many classical Jujutsu masters surrender their art to Kano and his Kodokan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't tell fantasy from reality? Well that explains quite a bit of your posts on here.


As I said before a conditioned mindset in sports goes into a fight with a sporting mindset,
a person from a gang goes into a fight to kill or be killed it is a different way of thinking. 
I have said before having met BJJ guys who think they can go for take downs and stuff but when it comes to a guy with a knife knowing how to use it and who's mindset and intent is to kill that guy they have no clue what to do or how to approach it. I think its like me describing war and you saying well football is like war its the closest you can get is how this conversation is. As for the Judo and Jujutsu comment it had to do with people who were there during the time period and written by a third party source since kano word is not as trusting on the issue. Please actually read it the works were dug up by actual researchers


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> You're free to disagree, but you reply is incorrect on many levels.  Let's examine:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets' stop right there and spend a moment.  Your phrase 'MMA rules' thus disqualifies the premise of your OP.  It only tests the effectiveness of MMA that adheres to the specific rule set in the specific artificial environment that is thus created.  That in no way shows it's effectiveness or ineffectiveness in regards to another sport MA or a traditional MA or a defense/offense MA.



Actually it does, since Boxers, Kickboxers, Jiujitieros, Muay Thai fighters, brawlers, etc. can all participate. The term "MMA" simply means mixed martial arts. Nothing stops a traditional (unarmed) martial artist from participating in a MMA fight or competition.



> Some techniques can be used in multiple environments, some cannot.  For example, taking someone to the ground in hopes of putting them in a submission, in an artificially created environment, with a specific rule set is fine and can get you the win.  In the street it's pretty stupid.  Sure, against someone that's surprised and/or inexperienced it may work.  Against someone experienced and armed and/or with additional assailants it's just about the worst thing you can do.



And what if someone takes YOU to the ground, or you're a female who is taken to the ground and pinned by your larger and stronger attacker?

On the flip side, what if you need to control someone without hurting them? What if you need to make sure your assailant doesn't get up again but you're unwilling or unable to do a lot of damage to them? In all of those cases, learning to fight off the ground, on the ground, or learning to take someone down is vitally important.



> Why can't you?  Sure, you can't gouge out the eyes of your classmates, but there are many types of safety gear in use that allows for many such techniques.  Gouging the eyes by-the-way is more about commitment than mastering.  It is the ability to get into a position to do so and then committing to the act rather than the act itself.



You know as well as I do that actually gouging out someone's eyes is far different than pretending to gouge someone's eyes through safety goggles. Just like pretending to bite someone in a class is far different than trying to bite someone on top of you punching you in the face or smashing your head into cement.



> False.  It only leads to someone conditioned for the rule set.  In a MA with a different focus, rules aren't used, needed or desired.  And a MA that is focused on SD for example, rules are a detriment.  I've covered this in-depth before.  Multiple times.



Which is nonsense. We have several examples of people (typically women) utilizing "sport" techniques in self defense situations and choking out their assailants or breaking their limbs.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> So, that's a no, then.  Scenario based training is one way to evaluate skill among many.  AndN scenario based training can be really good or it can really suck.  And it is always "not real" by definition.  No more or less "real" than MMA.
> 
> But, yeah.  If self defense were the goal, scenario based exercises is a great idea... in addition to many other "tests."



It would still need to be competitive. And not too restricted by its own rules. 

These thing normally require a dungeon master of sorts.  And i am not sure how you would control that factor.


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> The UFC isn't real because you are not dealing with the variables and pressure the street encounters provide.


Neither are you in training, regardless of the approach.  If it's not "real" than by definition it is some shade of pretend.


> It is why the majority of RBSD choose a different approach to deal with the variables and condition the mindset for a life and death encounter over a sporting mind set. Most MMA gyms are training people to compete or to deal with an opponent one on one they are not teaching how to deal with knives, different types of weapons, multiple attackers, rushed attacks, guns, dirty fighting, in close spaces, attacks in cars, fighting on stairs the list goes on but you can see that RBSD is geared towards self protection and is better equipped for life and death encounters because the person is conditioned to have a life or death fight over a sporting competition.


Who knows whether that is true?  it's like a vitamin commercial.  The only difference is that, by law, those vitamin commercials are now required to say, "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA."


> IF UFC training is the realist it can get than why are most securities, law enforce and the likes training in cage matches?
> Why are most on here saying that it isn't the realist for self defense? Come on man its a sport it even advises itself as one


Many do.  I don't know about you, but the BJJ and MMA schools around here are full of cops, security guards, jail guards, and DT instructors.

Seems to me that if you're training for self defense, you should be realistic about what you actually can and can't do.  And MMA is one really good way to do that.  Competition in general.  You're delusional if you think 100% of any one training or evaluative model is going to do the trick.  If you can't punch or kick or grapple well enough to even work out with an MMA gym, I sincerely hope you aren't teaching other people or promoting yourself as an expert.  God help those poor people whom you are conning out of their money.

So, just to be clear.  I'm not suggesting that MMA is the one test.  I'm saying it should be one of many.  The more diverse the training and the evaluations of skill are, the better.  Because ultimately, it's all make believe unless you're actually... you know... assaulting each other.  Which I hope you're not doing.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Hanzou

oaktree said:


> As I said before a conditioned mindset in sports goes into a fight with a sporting mindset,
> a person from a gang goes into a fight to kill or be killed it is a different way of thinking.



And like I said we have numerous examples of people using "sport" styles just fine in self defense situations, so this idea that people have "sport conditioned mindsets" is nonsense. It's like that dumb argument where people believe that a Judo player isn't going to kick you in the face once you hit the concrete simply because they do Judo.



> I have said before having met BJJ guys who think they can go for take downs and stuff but when it comes to a guy with a knife knowing how to use it and who's mindset and intent is to kill that guy they have no clue what to do or how to approach it.



I seriously doubt anyone would attempt a takedown against someone wielding a knife.



> I think its like me describing war and you saying well football is like war its the closest you can get is how this conversation is.



Uh no. I said that ALL training has rules, even your hardcore realistic boogey-man fighting system. Your analogy sucks because people actually die in war. I seriously doubt anyone's dying in your "hardcore" Kung Fu class.



> As for the Judo and Jujutsu comment it had to do with people who were there during the time period and written by a third party source since kano word is not as trusting on the issue. Please actually read it the works were dug up by actual researchers



And again, look at the sources. The people saying it didn't happen aren't the Japanese who were there, it's Europeans and Americans translating text much later and jumping to conclusions because they can't except that their "dangerous Japanese Jujutsu" was beaten by a "lowly" sport style.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> The UFC isn't real because you are not dealing with the variables and pressure the street encounters provide.
> It is why the majority of RBSD choose a different approach to deal with the variables and condition the mindset for a life and death encounter over a sporting mind set. Most MMA gyms are training people to compete or to deal with an opponent one on one they are not teaching how to deal with knives, different types of weapons, multiple attackers, rushed attacks, guns, dirty fighting, in close spaces, attacks in cars, fighting on stairs the list goes on but you can see that RBSD is geared towards self protection and is better equipped for life and death encounters because the person is conditioned to have a life or death fight over a sporting competition.
> 
> IF UFC training is the realist it can get than why are most securities, law enforce and the likes training in cage matches?
> Why are most on here saying that it isn't the realist for self defense? Come on man its a sport it even advises itself as one



How is your mindset conditioned?


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> As I said before a conditioned mindset in sports goes into a fight with a sporting mindset,
> a person from a gang goes into a fight to kill or be killed it is a different way of thinking.


What if the gang member trained BJJ?  Would he go in with both the sporting mindset AND the kill or be killed mindset?  Would he go insane from too many mindsets?  Would he cry?  

Seriously...  if you think that a gang member has a killer mindset because of or in spite of sport, you're delusional.  And conversely, if you think that Jake the IT guy has a sport or a killer mindset because of or in spite of his training in some version of martial arts, you're equally delusional.  Particularly if that person is afraid to spar or work out with an MMAist because their self defense skills don't work on them. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I seriously doubt anyone would attempt a takedown against someone wielding a knife.


And if they do, is that a systemic issue or an individual one?  

And, just speaking for me, if self defense is the goal, I think JUST training for competition is a bad idea.  But competition should be a part of the mix, or you just won't know what you're good and bad at.  10 minutes in a competition, win or lose, is as informative as a year in training.


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> Neither are you in training, regardless of the approach.  If it's not "real" than by definition it is some shade of pretend.
> Who knows whether that is true?  it's like a vitamin commercial.  The only difference is that, by law, those vitamin commercials are now required to say, "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA."
> Many do.  I don't know about you, but the BJJ and MMA schools around here are full of cops, security guards, jail guards, and DT instructors.
> 
> Seems to me that if you're training for self defense, you should be realistic about what you actually can and can't do.  And MMA is one really good way to do that.  Competition in general.  You're delusional if you think 100% of any one training or evaluative model is going to do the trick.  If you can't punch or kick or grapple well enough to even work out with an MMA gym, I sincerely hope you aren't teaching other people or promoting yourself as an expert.  God help those poor people whom you are conning out of their money.
> 
> So, just to be clear.  I'm not suggesting that MMA is the one test.  I'm saying it should be one of many.  The more diverse the training and the evaluations of skill are, the better.  Because ultimately, it's all make believe unless you're actually... you know... assaulting each other.  Which I hope you're not doing.


[/quote][/QUOTE]
Actually Steve having someone with a plastic knife try to cut me is as close to my real encounters with people with knives try to kill me so I can say if my training does not match anything from prison. gang fights, criminals, and finally what police  have experienced as well then ya its not real. And again talking to you is like a war vet and a high school foot ball player comparing war and football. There is a lot of police foot ball leagues too doesn't mean it helps them prepare more for dealing with a knife attack from a guy on pcp


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> And if they do, is that a systemic issue or an individual one?
> 
> And, just speaking for me, if self defense is the goal, I think JUST training for competition is a bad idea.  But competition should be a part of the mix, or you just won't know what you're good and bad at.  10 minutes in a competition, win or lose, is as informative as a year in training.



I agree. My background is Relson Gracie Jiujitsu which is heavily self defense based, but has a strong competitive side, and a longstanding relationship with MMA.

As I said before, MMA is a good tester for your Bjj, since MMA guys are used to things like the Guard and will attempt to punch you in the face while in your Guard. Every Bjjer should experience that type of training. It's very good for them, and its a part of classic Bjj anyway. I actually think MMA is better than competitive Bjj for the future viability of the art. All that Berimbolo stuff looks cool in a tournament, but doesn't mean squat if someone can just lean down and sock you in the face.


----------



## oaktree

Hanzou said:


> And like I said we have numerous examples of people using "sport" styles just fine in self defense situations, so this idea that people have "sport conditioned mindsets" is nonsense. It's like that dumb argument where people believe that a Judo player isn't going to kick you in the face once you hit the concrete simply because they do Judo.
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt anyone would attempt a takedown against someone wielding a knife.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh no. I said that ALL training has rules, even your hardcore realistic boogey-man fighting system. Your analogy sucks because people actually die in war. I seriously doubt anyone's dying in your "hardcore" Kung Fu class.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, look at the sources. The people saying it didn't happen aren't the Japanese who were there, it's Europeans and Americans translating text much later and jumping to conclusions because they can't except that their "dangerous Japanese Jujutsu" was beaten by a "lowly" sport style.


And there are cases in which mma fighters have gone into the encounter and lost but your example and mine do not prove mma case either way as it is up to the individual however because MMA doesn't prepare against someone to deal with guns and knifes tie goes to the runner me
As for your takedown let me put it this way and this is coming from someone who fought in those friendly gang fights you never know what the other guy has and you never know how far he will go and a word about knives you learn about in prison the best knife attacks are the ones never seen so when you go to fight a guy you assume is empty handed side way stance and as you prepare to strike maybe go for a shoot that is when that knife does attack and that is what the UFC does not prepare you for. 
As for the jujutsu judo thread Ellis who is actually well known on classical koryu stuff states
*Jonathan Zwicker, who has scoured newspapers and other 19th century documents, trying to find some reference to these famous matches. *
Means there are people trying to find proof of the match.
*Murata Naoki, the Kodokan's chief archivist, was interviewed about this earlier this year in a newspaper and said: "historical material is scarce and unknowns are many. So dreams and legends have spread."*
So there is the Kodokan themselves saying there is not enough material proof of it. There if you read shows inconsistency in Kano's story and other stories Remember the Japanese are very good record keepers and this would have been most likely well recorded but as Ellis and others have pointed out there have been more hype on the match(if one took place) 
Also have you read, the a lot of ideas Kano used were already in place in other koryu arts so the myth that Kano created randori does not exist and I have cited the sources that say so. 
Anyway gentleman I have business to attend and I will not  be responding to the thread any more after all rehashing does get dull  enjoy your debate


----------



## Deleted member 34973

hmmm....been awhile since I have been here. I'll be silent on this one.

Good to see that these subjects are still heavily debated.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> So, that's a no, then.



Well, in regards to your question;



> Unless... Do you guys assault each other in class?



Then the answer is yes.  Now, we don't get stupid with it.  No one wants to be injured.  But with some basic safety gear one can take a groin strike, bite, 'gouge' or weapon attack (safety weapon).  

And this is the premise of why the OP question is not really applicable.  MMA doesn't need defense inside of an elevator, on stairs or in a car.  It doesn't need weapons (improvised or conventional).  And SD MA doesn't need submission holds to make someone tap.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> Actually it does, since Boxers, Kickboxers, Jiujitieros, Muay Thai fighters, brawlers, etc. can all participate. The term "MMA" simply means mixed martial arts. Nothing stops a traditional (unarmed) martial artist from participating in a MMA fight or competition.



And again, you've proven your incorrect in your question.  You require an unarmed participant.  You require a one-on-one.  You require an artificial environment.  Which means your attempting to justify or compare one to another with no common basis, methodology or goal.  Apples and golf balls.



Hanzou said:


> And what if someone takes YOU to the ground,



Then I grab and twist the groin or I bite off and ear or nose or finger or I put a thumb in the eye or I pull my edged weapon (which I always have in a position for just such a need) or I draw my firearm and shoot him in the head or neck or whatever is available...multiple times.  

More later if I have time...


----------



## Hanzou

oaktree said:


> And there are cases in which mma fighters have gone into the encounter and lost but your example and mine do not prove mma case either way as it is up to the individual however because MMA doesn't prepare against someone to deal with guns and knifes tie goes to the runner me



I would argue that no martial art prepares you to deal with guns and knives.

Unarmed opponents on the other hand.......



> As for your takedown let me put it this way and this is coming from someone who fought in those friendly gang fights you never know what the other guy has and you never know how far he will go and a word about knives you learn about in prison the best knife attacks are the ones never seen so when you go to fight a guy you assume is empty handed side way stance and as you prepare to strike maybe go for a shoot that is when that knife does attack and that is what the UFC does not prepare you for.



And what traditional martial arts would you recommend that would appropriately combat that situation?



> As for the jujutsu judo thread Ellis who is actually well known on classical koryu stuff states
> *Jonathan Zwicker, who has scoured newspapers and other 19th century documents, trying to find some reference to these famous matches. *
> Means there are people trying to find proof of the match.
> *Murata Naoki, the Kodokan's chief archivist, was interviewed about this earlier this year in a newspaper and said: "historical material is scarce and unknowns are many. So dreams and legends have spread."*
> So there is the Kodokan themselves saying there is not enough material proof of it. There if you read shows inconsistency in Kano's story and other stories Remember the Japanese are very good record keepers and this would have been most likely well recorded but as Ellis and others have pointed out there have been more hype on the match(if one took place)
> Also have you read, the a lot of ideas Kano used were already in place in other koryu arts so the myth that Kano created randori does not exist and I have cited the sources that say so.



Uh, the Kodokan never said that. What he said was that the historical material is scarce and not all the information is known. That's a pretty far cry from saying that something NEVER happened, which appears to be the conclusion of the sour grapes over at e-budo. And yeah, the Japanese are great record keepers, but many records were also destroyed during the second World War where we firebombed and nuked Japan from one end of the country to another.

Again, simply look at the *effects* of the Jujutsu world before Kano and after Kano. You're talking about a major realignment of classical Japanese martial arts with Kano and the Kodokan at the center. If Kano and his students didn't show superiority over the classical systems, I would love to hear your alternative theory on how that realignment occurred.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Why do you need a "better" test? No test of martial arts' street effectiveness will ever be complete if you include the concept of avoiding violence when you can. MMA is a good test, and incomplete in its own way.



I think this is a good example.  That said I would say MMA, Lei Tai, Dog Brother's Gatherings, basically all full contact competitions are good testing but they all lack things.  None of them have you training to avoid, sometimes Dog Brother's stuff will be outside so you get some environmental impact but it's not like dealing with the environment in a bar or an alley way etc.

To be genuinely better than any of the above you would have to do something like LOCKUP does with their instructor training.  They will actually make you run, jump obstacles, fight on uneven and muddy terrain etc.  However that is not cheap and it is LEO/Corrections only if I am not mistaken, forget about the fact it is also instructor only.


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> And again, you've proven your incorrect in your question.  You require an unarmed participant.



Because there's no way to test if one or both people are dead or maimed.



> You require a one-on-one.



If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.



> You require an artificial environment.



For safety and legal purposes.



> Which means your attempting to justify or compare one to another with no common basis, methodology or goal.  Apples and golf balls.



We're simply creating a fair testing environment. If your martial art has an unarmed component that's supposed to be functional, what's the problem with it being utilized in that environment? If it fails in a controlled environment, why would it succeed in an uncontrolled environment?




> Then I grab and twist the groin or I bite off and ear or nose or finger or I put a thumb in the eye or I pull my edged weapon (which I always have in a position for just such a need) or I draw my firearm and shoot him in the head or neck or whatever is available...multiple times.



Grabbing and twisting the groin, or going for biting ears, noses, and fingers while someone is on top raining blows down on your face?

Interesting......


----------



## jks9199

There are 6 pages for me to catch up on and I'm only up to page 2 or 3, so I may well repeat stuff that's been covered.

The question asked is really how do you test your training?  I'd suggest rethinking that, and asking what aspect of your training do you want to test?  If you're testing a car, you don't test the tires and the seats the same way, do you?  Do you test a hammer and a screwdriver by the same standards?  Of course not, and you don't test all aspects of your training with just one exercise.

MMA style sparring tests certain things -- like your ability to function while getting pounded, to actually deliver effective strikes to an opponent who isn't cooperating, and just plain how well you can hang in there.  All good things to test, and assess.  As one of my style's manuals puts it: _Sparring is one way to test the learned techniques against an actual opponent._ But there are still other things to assess in measuring whether your training is effective.

But it doesn't test some things, like knowing when to quit, whether to escape rather than fight, de-escalation techniques....  Scenario training lets you test some of those elements, if done well.  With the right gear, you can go pretty close to full force   even. But it's still a "laboratory" -- do the right thing, the role player gives the right response.  So it's got (at least) a flaw, too.  

Slow motion "One Step" drills allow you to move to targets that are hard to protect,with little risk of injury.  They let you stop, back up, and reassess or try something different, too.  But you're moving slow so there's no real impact or injury likely... (oopses do happen, people land badly, etc.)... and it's artificially slow.

So... rather than ask "is X a good test", ask yourself instead "what does X test --and does that test benefit my training?"


----------



## Steve

[/QUOTE]
Actually Steve having someone with a plastic knife try to cut me is as close to my real encounters with people with knives try to kill me so I can say if my training does not match anything from prison. gang fights, criminals, and finally what police  have experienced as well then ya its not real. And again talking to you is like a war vet and a high school foot ball player comparing war and football. There is a lot of police foot ball leagues too doesn't mean it helps them prepare more for dealing with a knife attack from a guy on pcp[/QUOTE]
Wait.  So, you're really saying that the defensive tactics instructors who train in mma are not learning anything useful when they do so?   That's like playing football to them?  Dude, you're heading over the edge.


----------



## Steve

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well, in regards to your question;
> 
> 
> 
> Then the answer is yes.  Now, we don't get stupid with it.  No one wants to be injured.  But with some basic safety gear one can take a groin strike, bite, 'gouge' or weapon attack (safety weapon).
> 
> And this is the premise of why the OP question is not really applicable.  MMA doesn't need defense inside of an elevator, on stairs or in a car.  It doesn't need weapons (improvised or conventional).  And SD MA doesn't need submission holds to make someone tap.


That's a fun exercise and seems like it could be very helpful.   But those safety precautions sound a lot like rules to me.  It's like competition, but without the points.  

But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario.  Regarding the premise of the OP, isn't it about what other tests are a better measure for martial arts.  So, I think there's some room to interpret in a convenient manner, such as you're doing.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> Why can't you? Sure, you can't gouge out the eyes of your classmates, but there are many types of safety gear in use that allows for many such techniques. Gouging the eyes by-the-way is more about commitment than mastering. It is the ability to get into a position to do so and then committing to the act rather than the act itself.



This.  Is the argument that negates most of your other arguments.

This is why effective training has rules a ref and a safeish environment.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I think this is a good example.  That said I would say MMA, Lei Tai, Dog Brother's Gatherings, basically all full contact competitions are good testing but they all lack things.  None of them have you training to avoid, sometimes Dog Brother's stuff will be outside so you get some environmental impact but it's not like dealing with the environment in a bar or an alley way etc.
> 
> To be genuinely better than any of the above you would have to do something like LOCKUP does with their instructor training.  They will actually make you run, jump obstacles, fight on uneven and muddy terrain etc.  However that is not cheap and it is LEO/Corrections only if I am not mistaken, forget about the fact it is also instructor only.



Why is uneven ground obstacles and mud so expensive or exclusive?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> That's a fun exercise and seems like it could be very helpful.   But those safety precautions sound a lot like rules to me.  It's like competition, but without the points.
> 
> But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario.  Regarding the premise of the OP, isn't it about what other tests are a better measure for martial arts.  So, I think there's some room to interpret in a convenient manner, such as you're doing.


The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.

This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.


----------



## Ironbear24

kempodisciple said:


> The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.
> 
> This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.



I agree with you here, I myself find myself doing lots of fancy stuff and acting cocky when I spar against less experienced people. When it comes to more experienced people however all of the sudden the confidence goes way down. Certain things you can get away with while others will be more difficult. 

That aside confidence I feel is very important in both self defense and competition and the only way to built any confidence is resistance training.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.
> 
> This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.



Scenarios in theory are good.  But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue. 

I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Scenarios in theory are good.  But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.
> 
> I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.



Stuff like this immediately comes to mind;


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> Stuff like this immediately comes to mind;


Read the title. DEMO. Meaning that's not how they actually train it's a way to get people interested. People want to see cool looking throws and kicks and punches. If you put 2 guys on the floor and had them grapple for a few minutes for a demo it'd bore the hell out of anyone who doesn't know what they're looking at and would be very unlikely to get ah new students


----------



## BigMotor

drop bear said:


> It still asstounds me that nobody even attempts to answer the question.
> I was expecting all sorts of cool ideas. I dont know. Mc Map style gauntlets. Chess boxing mabye.Animal day perhaps.



I will answer it directly, the best method to determine what is the best fighting style is to have an open match.
If you can put one together, or if you know someone who can, then do that. The rules should be very strict, such as: no breaking of the neck, no breaking of the knee, or elbow, in sum, no permanent damage or deadly moves.are allowed.
That will restrain any fools from signing up, or anyone without a conscience. Let it be known that any criminal acts will be dealt with, on the spot if needed, and in court as well.

You could begin an open competition with a yearly championship. Does that sound like what you may be interested in? And you would be in charge of the rule writing and the matches.
Make it contractual, have them sign a contract, and give references too,ie, have someone vouch for the fighter

You would answer any questions that you have, I can assure you of that.


----------



## Langenschwert

I don't think there's a "better" test. It's one of many. One should train in a resistant manner if you want to be able to deal with a chaotic situation like a fight. If you're doing Iaido, then this is all moot. If you're doing unarmed, MMA-style training is a great way to do this. How this is even a question is beyond me. My swordsmanship skill improved _vastly_ when I devoted time to fighting in HEMA tournaments. It's as close as we can get to a real duel, so we train for it as a way to measure our progress. It's not a real duel though, and we recognize that. It tests range, timing and the use of techniques under pressure. It doesn't test adrenaline under lethal threat, how sharp blades behave, how one fights after being injured by a blade, etc. But it is very useful nonetheless.

If there are things you want to test, find something that tests that particular skill or group of skills. This isn't rocket science.

MMA teaches you to use a set of unarmed techniques against a resisting opponent within limited area to move in. That in itself makes it worth doing. Just learning what do to when you're pinned to a wall is useful, and getting yourself off the cage mimics that.

Note that I don't do MMA, but I do a fair amount of resistant unarmed training: modern combatives (the foundation of our curriculum is bare knuckle boxing) and Judo.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Fact is like it or not some people don't want to fight. They don't want to spar they don't want to get hit. That's why martial arts is for everyone of any age if it was all about fighting and getting hit only a certain age group would. That's why people do tai chi there's no fighting in that but it's a very popular martial art for that very reason. That's why cardio kickboxing classes are popular. Fact is you do what you like and everyone will do what they like and if people don't want to train hard its their choice and they don't need to justify themselves to anyone


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.


One training that I like very much is to ask your opponent to hold on a kicking shield and run toward you with full speed. You then try to use just 1 kick to stop him. If your kick can push him back, you win that round, otherwise you lose that round. Test this for 100 rounds and record the result. It's a very safe training. People from all MA styles should be able to do it.

If you have soft mat and your training partner knows how to fall, you can try "foot sweep" when he charges in toward you. Still test this for 100 rounds and record the result.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.



How would you know if you only train in an artificial environment?  



Hanzou said:


> Grabbing and twisting the groin, or going for biting ears, noses, and fingers while someone is on top raining blows down on your face?
> 
> Interesting......



More than interesting, it's effective.  Better than trying some competition-focused technique that takes time and your attention on the one or two other threats in the vicinity.  Besides, you're making quite the broad sweeping assumption that he'll be 'raining blows down on your face'.  Perhaps with your training.  Not the way I train.  Likely he'll be too busy bleeding from the artery I cut or the multiple gun shots I put in him or trying to recover from his nose being bitten off to worry about 'raining blows down'.  That's because I can do things in my training that you aren't allowed to do in yours.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario.



What happens more often;  someone throws you on a soft, padded, dry, level surface in a well lit spot with a referee that enforces arbitrary rules or someone trying to rob, murder, rape someone in a parking lot?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> Scenarios in theory are good.



No, scenarios in reality are good.



drop bear said:


> But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.



Um, what issue does it become?  That very statement demonstrates you don't have clue as to what reality based training is all about.  You WANT to manipulate a situation for a desired result.  Is it a shoot/don't shoot situation?  Is it a situation that can be verbally de-escalated?  Are there improved weapons available?  By manipulating a scenario, one can achieve a multitude of realistic outcomes.  



drop bear said:


> I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.



I think you spend too much time on youtube.  You don't understand reality based training so you wouldn't know a good one from a bad one.  You have no point of reference.


----------



## BigMotor

Where Is Delete?


----------



## BigMotor

Kickboxer101 said:


> Fact is like it or not some people don't want to fight. They don't want to spar they don't want to get hit. That's why martial arts is for everyone of any age if it was all about fighting and getting hit only a certain age group would. That's why people do tai chi there's no fighting in that but it's a very popular martial art for that very reason. That's why cardio kickboxing classes are popular. Fact is you do what you like and everyone will do what they like and if people don't want to train hard its their choice and they don't need to justify themselves to anyone



OK, that is true, but you have a tone of sanctimony in your post. And they don't need to justify themselves to me. 
But it is not your job to say it for them, let them speak for themselves, if they can. Because I suspect that a lot of them are spineless.
Note: If you question my hard tone, I have my reasons. And I will gladly communicate them in PM's. to anyone.


----------



## Steve

Kong Soo Do said:


> What happens more often;  someone throws you on a soft, padded, dry, level surface in a well lit spot with a referee that enforces arbitrary rules or someone trying to rob, murder, rape someone in a parking lot?


I think it's a toss up, frankly.  Kind of a silly question, isn't it?  I mean, at some point, if you're distinguishing between two things that are exceedingly unlikely, the real question is, does it matter?


----------



## Kickboxer101

BigMotor said:


> OK, that is true, but you have a tone of sanctimony in your post. And they don't need to justify themselves to me.
> But it is not your job to say it for them, let them speak for themselves, if they can. Because I suspect that a lot of them are spineless.
> Note: If you question my hard tone, I have my reasons. And I will gladly communicate them in PM's. to anyone.


I'm simply saying people will do whatever they want to do whether or not its good in the eyes of the op


----------



## KangTsai

I think it's the best concept for a martial test: A fight between two fighters of similar skills, with rules designed to let the fighters live to fight again, mostly.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Why is uneven ground obstacles and mud so expensive or exclusive?


On the "why only LEO", in the US there is a growing industry of "LE only" Combative training.  I think there are a few reasons.  First, especially with "train the trainer" courses, there is an assumption the people sent have been vetted by their agencies and so the chances of dead weight or the "tough guy" or wants to prove how tough they are has been weeded out.  They teach things related to weapon retention and other LE specific concerns and there may be a fear, real or imagined, that people would apply for the training with the intent to learn the techniques to defeat the technique.  There are actually videos from inside prison showing inmates practicing how to defeat cuffing and weapon retention techniques so this fear is not entirely unfounded.  Also saying LEO only gives an air of exclusivity I suppose.

As for the cost, the instructors tend to have rather extensive resumes.  Example I would with a guy who has a side job working for one of the main companies that trains SWAT team members, executive protection etc.  He can point to being a Marine sent on "interesting" duties, assigned to the White House Protection Detail, SWAT Team member and Gang Investigator for a major California Police Department and now the SWAT Team tactical commander for my PD.  That kind of resume commands a good salary, THEN then company itself needs its cut.  Many of these companies, so long as the people maintain certification, and show proof they followed the "rules" so to speak, will also supply an expert for court in the event of a law suit.

Also, these trainings often come to you, so if you can't supply an obstacle course, they can bring one with them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> Read the title. DEMO. Meaning that's not how they actually train it's a way to get people interested. People want to see cool looking throws and kicks and punches. If you put 2 guys on the floor and had them grapple for a few minutes for a demo it'd bore the hell out of anyone who doesn't know what they're looking at and would be very unlikely to get ah new students



Actually that is how they train, considering that they have to create scenarios for their black belt tests.


----------



## Juany118

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, scenarios in reality are good.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, what issue does it become?  That very statement demonstrates you don't have clue as to what reality based training is all about.  You WANT to manipulate a situation for a desired result.  Is it a shoot/don't shoot situation?  Is it a situation that can be verbally de-escalated?  Are there improved weapons available?  By manipulating a scenario, one can achieve a multitude of realistic outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you spend too much time on youtube.  You don't understand reality based training so you wouldn't know a good one from a bad one.  You have no point of reference.


I think when drop is saying "manipulate the scenario" he means the "planner" manipulating it to get a desired result such as "see my way is best.  If you would have done it the other way you would be dead."

Thing is I have never been in that kind of reality based training.  Well that isn't actually true.  Sometimes to prove a point I have been in scenarios that are all but Kobayashi Maru tests to wake you up and ram a point home so you can focus on the training ahead.

I think part of the problem is this.  "Reality based Martial Arts" have become "a thing".  The ones marketed to civilians do, imo, raise some concerns similar to what Drop is saying because, being new, and the fact people see them as an alternative to more "formal" training, I can see the people running these programs as allowing marketing to influence the curriculum.

That said, when I speak about reality based training I am talking about adding scenarios to an already existing curriculum.  In short they already know X and you are simply putting them in scenarios to put them A) under pressure and B) to let people know what does and doesn't work in particular scenarios.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> How would you know if you only train in an artificial environment?



So you're saying if you beat a guy in the gym, dojo, or a ring you're not actually beating them?

That makes zero sense.



> More than interesting, it's effective.  Better than trying some competition-focused technique that takes time and your attention on the one or two other threats in the vicinity.



Going for someone's groin from the bottom of mount is pretty damn stupid. Trying to bite someone from the bottom of mount is also pretty damn stupid.

You mean competition focused techniques that have been proven to work when someone is actually punching you in the face?

You do understand that the root of that "competition focused technique" isn't competition right?

Also if you can't get the one guy off of you who is blasting you in the face, it doesn't matter how many people are in the vicinity, you're going to get knocked out or killed by the single guy on top hitting you in the head.



> Besides, you're making quite the broad sweeping assumption that he'll be 'raining blows down on your face'.  Perhaps with your training.  Not the way I train.  Likely he'll be too busy bleeding from the artery I cut or the multiple gun shots I put in him or trying to recover from his nose being bitten off to worry about 'raining blows down'.  That's because I can do things in my training that you aren't allowed to do in yours.



And what if he isn't bleeding from a cut artery or a gunshot wound because you can't reach your gun, or your knife got knocked away? What if he takes your gun away from you and starts pistol whipping you with it while he's on top of you? See how silly this becomes? There's too many variables at play and when you add weapons to the mix anything can happen.

I can assure you that it's next to impossible to bite someone's nose off from the bottom of the mount. I hope you guys figure that out during your scenario training.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> Actually that is how they train, considering that they have to create scenarios for their black belt tests.


Yeah okay


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying if you beat a guy in the gym, dojo, or a ring you're not actually beating them?
> 
> That makes zero sense.



That's not what I said, and you don't understand the premise of my position.



Hanzou said:


> Going for someone's groin from the bottom of mount is pretty damn stupid. Trying to bite someone from the bottom of mount is also pretty damn stupid.



Maybe in you're artificial world.  In the real world it's been used effectively many times.  Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding.  That's real world.  It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it.  I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box.  That is pretty damn stupid.  You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yeah okay


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> Maybe in you're artificial world.  In the real world it's been used effectively many times.  Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding.  That's real world.  It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it.  I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box.  That is pretty damn stupid.  You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.



Alright I'll bite; How exactly would you break the posture of someone on top, and control their head and arms enough to bite their nose from the bottom of mount?


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Scenarios in theory are good.  But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.
> 
> I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.


So, of course, it doesn't happen...  Except it does, but lots of the scenario training videos simply aren't released to YouTube, etc.

I'll try to dig up my thread later that goes into scenario training in depth -- but a quick summary is that good scenario training is a lot of work.  They need to be structured, with an objective or purpose to the exercise.  They need to be debriefed and discussed, and repeated if necessary until the goal is successfully achieved, and the failings understood.

Again -- I would ask instead of "Is MMA training a good test of self defense" or "Is scenario a good test of self defense?" instead "Does this training/exercise/test test what I want to test?  What is it testing?"


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> So, of course, it doesn't happen...  Except it does, but lots of the scenario training videos simply aren't released to YouTube, etc.
> 
> I'll try to dig up my thread later that goes into scenario training in depth -- but a quick summary is that good scenario training is a lot of work.  They need to be structured, with an objective or purpose to the exercise.  They need to be debriefed and discussed, and repeated if necessary until the goal is successfully achieved, and the failings understood.
> 
> Again -- I would ask instead of "Is MMA training a good test of self defense" or "Is scenario a good test of self defense?" instead "Does this training/exercise/test test what I want to test?  What is it testing?"



And just because there is no evidence of my lazer eyes being used doesn't mean i am not frying people to a crisp every day either.

I mean come on. 

The objective is simple. you pick two win points. say one team has to rob a guy. one team has to prevent it. And then they go head to head and see what happens.

Testing is not defined by a script. that is movies.


----------



## drop bear

double post.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> That's not what I said, and you don't understand the premise of my position.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in you're artificial world.  In the real world it's been used effectively many times.  Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding.  That's real world.  It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it.  I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box.  That is pretty damn stupid.  You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.



So you have moved off positional dominance protective gear rules. And the ability to do moves like groin grabs. To having to rely on groin grabs. Which nobody trains for real anyway.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> Fact is like it or not some people don't want to fight. They don't want to spar they don't want to get hit. That's why martial arts is for everyone of any age if it was all about fighting and getting hit only a certain age group would. That's why people do tai chi there's no fighting in that but it's a very popular martial art for that very reason. That's why cardio kickboxing classes are popular. Fact is you do what you like and everyone will do what they like and if people don't want to train hard its their choice and they don't need to justify themselves to anyone



Thats fine. In general for me I am suggesting objectively better. Some people like pizza but they are not going to loose weight eating it.

So with training I am happy for people to train at any level they want. I dont want people to be sold the idea that any training will achieve the same results.

It is as unfair on that person as selling them a pizza diet.

I dont compete. I dont want to put in the work rate. That is fine. If i did want to compete I would have to change my training habits or I will get bashed. Because there are training methods that consistantly work to keep a person safe in that environment

It would be unfair if I was sold this only train the way I want or I can do what I like and then thrown under a bus when it comes time to use that training.

It is an immoral stance to take when preparing people for a competition. It should be more immoral if you are preparing someone for self defence.

It is about an honest assesment of work put in to result you get out.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> On the "why only LEO", in the US there is a growing industry of "LE only" Combative training.  I think there are a few reasons.  First, especially with "train the trainer" courses, there is an assumption the people sent have been vetted by their agencies and so the chances of dead weight or the "tough guy" or wants to prove how tough they are has been weeded out.  They teach things related to weapon retention and other LE specific concerns and there may be a fear, real or imagined, that people would apply for the training with the intent to learn the techniques to defeat the technique.  There are actually videos from inside prison showing inmates practicing how to defeat cuffing and weapon retention techniques so this fear is not entirely unfounded.  Also saying LEO only gives an air of exclusivity I suppose.
> 
> As for the cost, the instructors tend to have rather extensive resumes.  Example I would with a guy who has a side job working for one of the main companies that trains SWAT team members, executive protection etc.  He can point to being a Marine sent on "interesting" duties, assigned to the White House Protection Detail, SWAT Team member and Gang Investigator for a major California Police Department and now the SWAT Team tactical commander for my PD.  That kind of resume commands a good salary, THEN then company itself needs its cut.  Many of these companies, so long as the people maintain certification, and show proof they followed the "rules" so to speak, will also supply an expert for court in the event of a law suit.
> 
> Also, these trainings often come to you, so if you can't supply an obstacle course, they can bring one with them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



So how much are you paying for this stuff?


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, scenarios in reality are good.
> 
> Um, what issue does it become?  That very statement demonstrates you don't have clue as to what reality based training is all about.  You WANT to manipulate a situation for a desired result.  Is it a shoot/don't shoot situation?  Is it a situation that can be verbally de-escalated?  Are there improved weapons available?  By manipulating a scenario, one can achieve a multitude of realistic outcomes.
> 
> I think you spend too much time on youtube.  You don't understand reality based training so you wouldn't know a good one from a bad one.  You have no point of reference.



So you are creating a script?

You want people to participate in a story of your design that appears to be a test. 

You can manipulate any outcome you want. A scenario shouldnt be about that. because stories are not reality.

I understand honest training. And you are not giving a description of that.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I think when drop is saying "manipulate the scenario" he means the "planner" manipulating it to get a desired result such as "see my way is best.  If you would have done it the other way you would be dead."
> 
> Thing is I have never been in that kind of reality based training.  Well that isn't actually true.  Sometimes to prove a point I have been in scenarios that are all but Kobayashi Maru tests to wake you up and ram a point home so you can focus on the training ahead.
> 
> I think part of the problem is this.  "Reality based Martial Arts" have become "a thing".  The ones marketed to civilians do, imo, raise some concerns similar to what Drop is saying because, being new, and the fact people see them as an alternative to more "formal" training, I can see the people running these programs as allowing marketing to influence the curriculum.
> 
> That said, when I speak about reality based training I am talking about adding scenarios to an already existing curriculum.  In short they already know X and you are simply putting them in scenarios to put them A) under pressure and B) to let people know what does and doesn't work in particular scenarios.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Oh man I did a knife defence course with textas and white t shirts. And I eviscerated the guy.(I taught hocks system for a year and a bit) He was more texta than shirt by the time I was finished.

It showed that no matter how good your knife defence was you are a shishkabab.

But then that did not fit the script the instructor was trying to show. As he was trying to sell a method that defends against knives.. And it was all excuse this and in the street that.

It was tragic.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> And just because there is no evidence of my lazer eyes being used doesn't mean i am not frying people to a crisp every day either.
> 
> I mean come on.
> 
> The objective is simple. you pick two win points. say one team has to rob a guy. one team has to prevent it. And then they go head to head and see what happens.
> 
> Testing is not defined by a script. that is movies.



Congratulations.  That's a textbook example of crappy scenario training.  Let's try to turn it to a better example...

So, your scenario is a robbery.  Successful completion is defined as the defender isn't robbed.  

Where is the robbery?  Night, day?  Street, home invasion...  One robber or several?  Armed, or unarmed?  (See, work...)  For convenience, let's simply use a straightforward street robbery, a single robber, armed with a knife, who will attempt to rob the student at some point as they walk down a path, time of day being whenever we're training.  (This is pretty loose, by the way.  Really, we'd probably define in the plan the timing and nature -- ambush, direct confrontation, etc-- of the robbery.)  If the student avoids the robbery entirely, for example, somehow detects the robber lurking and changes their route, that's a win.  If there's a confrontation, then the robber is going to back off and flee if the victim makes enough noise to attract enough attention to realistically get help.  If it become physical... the rules of the fight are shaped by the safety equipment available.  Thought point... is simply surrendering your wallet a win -- or will the robber then attempt to escalate to an abduction?  H'mm, gotta think on that one, huh?

So, we get our plan together.  Select a role player who can do the job, and stick to the plan, improvising enough but not too much.  (Damn hard to find!)  Appoint a safety monitor.  You also have an evaluator/referee who stays pretty much on top of the scenario, calling red light when necessary for safety, and tracking what the student is doing.  Maybe giving the role player cues, too.

Then we get everyone together.  Safety checks -- make sure the area is controlled (don't want a cop wandering into the middle thinking it's real, for example.  Which has happened...).  Make sure nobody brings real weapons into the training area.  Double check that, then check it again.  Because that's one of the best ways to have a tragedy happen -- like someone getting shot in a supposedly safe scenario.)  Finally... brief the roleplayers.  Set them up.  Brief the students.  And, finally, we get to run the scenario.

Go out, see what happens.  Get to the end.  Stop everything, and talk it out.  Why did you do A?  What did the robber see?  What if you did B?  and... if the student got robbed...  make a small change or two, maybe, and run it again.  See if we get the positive result.  In the end, we want the student to close with a success, not a failure.

You can, depending on what's going on, shortcut some of the steps in planning, or do some on the fly -- but the essence is there.  What do I mean by shortcut?  Well, on the fly, the recertifying Taser Instructor students assemble a series of scenarios for the first timers.  We hit the key points -- each stage has a point (shoot/don't shoot, use this tactic or that tactic, etc.)  Then we run the first timers through...  and cover the lessons learned each way.  In the end, everyone debriefs what was good, bad, could be better...


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> So, your scenario is a robbery. Successful completion is defined as the defender isn't robbed.



Why. The robber has all the advantages. Most times you should get robbed.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> So you are creating a script?
> 
> You want people to participate in a story of your design that appears to be a test.
> 
> You can manipulate any outcome you want. A scenario shouldnt be about that. because stories are not reality.
> 
> I understand honest training. And you are not giving a description of that.



You don't get it.  Yes, there's a script.  It's a TRAINING activity.  There's a goal and purpose to it.  We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player).  I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting.  If the student does A, the role player does B...  Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little.  When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them...  and it's happened.  Good way for a role player not to be invited back.  If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.  

When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals?  Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right?  Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Why. The robber has all the advantages. Most times you should get robbed.


Well, I kind of presumed that we wanted to focus on the legal side of the equation -- but it can be quite educational sometimes to look at it from the crook's point of view.  

But... just like you can't do good science with too many variables, you can't run a good scenario with both sides freely at play.  That's a whole different type of force on force training.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Well, I kind of presumed that we wanted to focus on the legal side of the equation -- but it can be quite educational sometimes to look at it from the crook's point of view.
> 
> But... just like you can't do good science with too many variables, you can't run a good scenario with both sides freely at play.  That's a whole different type of force on force training.



Yeah its a different mentality. The sports approach.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> You don't get it.  Yes, there's a script.  It's a TRAINING activity.  There's a goal and purpose to it.  We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player).  I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting.  If the student does A, the role player does B...  Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little.  When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them...  and it's happened.  Good way for a role player not to be invited back.  If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.
> 
> When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals?  Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right?  Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.



Sparring is a form of scenario training.  It is not manufactured to produce an outcome. So you do a scenario like escape from mount.  You may not escape.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Sparring is a form of scenario training.  It is not manufactured to produce an outcome. So you do a scenario like escape from mount.  You may not escape.


It is "manufactured to produce an outcome."  If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape.  You don't get out, you keep working.

You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules.  That's not scenario training, that's just bad training.  A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win.  Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff...  Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.


----------



## Druid11

jks9199 said:


> There are 6 pages for me to catch up on and I'm only up to page 2 or 3, so I may well repeat stuff that's been covered.
> 
> The question asked is really how do you test your training?  I'd suggest rethinking that, and asking what aspect of your training do you want to test?  If you're testing a car, you don't test the tires and the seats the same way, do you?  Do you test a hammer and a screwdriver by the same standards?  Of course not, and you don't test all aspects of your training with just one exercise.
> 
> MMA style sparring tests certain things -- like your ability to function while getting pounded, to actually deliver effective strikes to an opponent who isn't cooperating, and just plain how well you can hang in there.  All good things to test, and assess.  As one of my style's manuals puts it: _Sparring is one way to test the learned techniques against an actual opponent._ But there are still other things to assess in measuring whether your training is effective.
> 
> But it doesn't test some things, like knowing when to quit, whether to escape rather than fight, de-escalation techniques....  Scenario training lets you test some of those elements, if done well.  With the right gear, you can go pretty close to full force   even. But it's still a "laboratory" -- do the right thing, the role player gives the right response.  So it's got (at least) a flaw, too.
> h
> Slow motion "One Step" drills allow you to move to targets that are hard to protect,with little risk of injury.  They let you stop, back up, and reassess or try something different, too.  But you're moving slow so there's no real impact or injury likely... (oopses do happen, people land badly, etc.)... and it's artificially slow.
> 
> So... rather than ask "is X a good test", ask yourself instead "what does X test --and does that test benefit my training?"



I agree. And would also add that MMA style sparring tests whether you can go toe to toe with someone in a cage (or ring) and I already know I can't, so why would I want to test that?  I'm a woman and I've actually trained MMA and I can tell you I figured out very early on that I was never going to be able to go full contact with a guy.  Skill may help to equalize size advantage, but it doesn't erase it and if the person is both bigger and just as skilled as you 9 time out of 10 you are going to your butt kicked.  I originally picked a MMA school because I work nights and in an environment with some potentially dangerous people and I thought I should train something that would be the "most" effective, but I quickly learned nothing is effective if you don't like the training and I kind of hated training BJJ (once again nothing against the system, just not my cup of tea), so I trained Mauy Thai exclusively.  I enjoyed it, but I am never going to stand there and trade blows with an attacker.  If I did I'd be stupid...and dead.

For a few reasons (the potential for getting hurt and not being able to work not the least among them) I stopped training Mauy Thai.  I recently found a traditional Karate (Isshinryu) school and I'm really enjoying training there.  No we don't spar full contact.  The instructor has said in class that sparring is part of the sport aspect and everything you would do in a real fight is illegal.  I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a sport. I don't question why football players don't (or shouldn't) lead with their head, because it's a sport and there are rules to protect the participants.  I train martial arts now, for fun, exercise, and to maybe learn some self defense.  Mostly in that order.  My instructor does teach some more practical self defense drills and the school incorporates Judo throws and wrist locks into their curriculum.  In a real attack (and knock and wood I will never be in that situation) I will hopefully either be able to use something like that on the person or kick them very hard in sensitive spot and run away.  I would never want to be in a protracted fight with anyone, because I know that if it's a guy who is bigger and stronger than me, no matter how much I train, I'm probably going to loose.

I am under no delusions that if I become a black belt in my particular current style that I will become some sort of ultimate fighting machine.  I know people who are black belts in other traditional styles of martial arts and none of them think that they are some sort of fighting machine either.  So, I guess what I took way too long in saying is, that MMA is a great test if you want to test how much punishment you can give and also take.  I don't want to test that (I have a day job), so if would be a really crappy test for me.


----------



## Juany118

jks9199 said:


> You don't get it.  Yes, there's a script.  It's a TRAINING activity.  There's a goal and purpose to it.  We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player).  I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting.  If the student does A, the role player does B...  Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little.  When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them...  and it's happened.  Good way for a role player not to be invited back.  If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.
> 
> When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals?  Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right?  Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.




I think it's being missed how dynamic real life incidents are and that is what scenario training is about.  Simply stumbling upon 3 bank robbers, you might as well just do this 



 Jump to 2:20.

Are their bystanders in the "cross fire" what environment is it?  Simulated room, entire house, bar, street?  Is the person physically aggressive from the jump or do they try to sucker you?  Are they armed?  If so with what?  Are you allowed to be armed?  if the training is happening in a "furnished" area are you allowed to use improvised weapons?  Is the person "high" on something?  This can be simulated, in part, with sparring body armor to simulate increased pain resistance?

Officers of course need less scripting because, in theory, everyone involved has enough training already where they can "riff" a bit.


----------



## Juany118

jks9199 said:


> It is "manufactured to produce an outcome."  If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape.  You don't get out, you keep working.
> 
> You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules.  That's not scenario training, that's just bad training.  A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win.  Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff...  Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.




Hey I said Kobayashi Maru first!!!!   That said I find that useful with shoot house training.  You create it for the first guy or team through BUT only for that team.  That wakes people up and kinda gets them to pay more attention for the rest of the day where you have the "real" scenarios.  After the "no win scenario" people tend to pie the corners better, you have the person covering an area more apt to focus on the area rather than taking quick peeks to see what the other guy(s)/gal(s) are clearing etc.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> It is "manufactured to produce an outcome."  If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape.  You don't get out, you keep working.
> 
> You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules.  That's not scenario training, that's just bad training.  A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win.  Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff...  Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.



Or a mma fight if the other guy is just better than you. 

It is a test you can loose. Even if it is not fair.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So how much are you paying for this stuff?


I am not paying for it, the department does.  But as an example, a "train the trainer course" can be $650 and that is cheap.  Gracie Combatives is $995.00 for certification and $795.00 for recert for each level (one and two).  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.


Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.


----------



## RTKDCMB

BigMotor said:


> Where Is Delete?


Not there.


----------



## BigMotor

RTKDCMB said:


> Not there.


Then where? I am dreadfully concerned that my faux pas is showing.


----------



## BigMotor

Kickboxer101 said:


> I'm simply saying people will do whatever they want to do whether or not its good in the eyes of the op



Then please accept my humble apoplexy....uhhh...apology. I can be too hard on people, it is a failing of mine.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.



Yeah, that made zero sense. 

The point is this; if you're not capable of beating one guy, the goal of trying to take down multiple guys is kind of silly. If you can quickly and efficiently dispatch a guy in a fight, then we can start talking about more than one guy.


----------



## Hanzou

Druid11 said:


> The instructor has said in class that *sparring is part of the sport aspect and everything you would do in a real fight is illegal.*  I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a sport. I don't question why football players don't (or shouldn't) lead with their head, because it's a sport and there are rules to protect the participants.



No offense, but your instructor is blowing smoke up your behind.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.


If one thing is a critical, foundational pre-requisite for another, you can't just learn the other and expect it to work.  If X is a pre-requisite for Y and you can't do X, then you can't do Y. 

If learning to add is a prerequisite for learning algebra, then the contrapositive is also true.  Right?  You can't learn algebra if you can't add.

Only way I can make sense of it is that you're suggesting that defending against a single person is completely unrelated to defending against multiple people.  Is that what you're saying?  is there some other way that your response makes sense?


----------



## Druid11

Hanzou said:


> No offense, but your instructor is blowing smoke up your behind.



In what way? We do light contact sparring with no strikes to the head or below the belt (i.e things that would be effective in a real fight).  In what way is my instructor lying to me by saying that's a sport version of fighting? It's a game.  It helps develop timing speed and an understanding of distance, but it's still just a game.  Certainly in a real fight I'd strike to the lower body or the head.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Druid11 said:


> In what way? We do light contact sparring with no strikes to the head or below the belt (i.e things that would be effective in a real fight).  In what way is my instructor lying to me by saying that's a sport version of fighting? It's a game.  It helps develop timing speed and an understanding of distance, but it's still just a game.  Certainly in a real fight I'd strike to the lower body or the head.


Ignore him he hates any type of traditional martial arts and is completely biased towards mma which is basically what this thread is showing. Your instructor is absolutely right. My kickboxing coach says the same thing that sparring is used to get speed timing distance and cardio and not necessary to learn to fight and he's trained British champions in kickboxing and from him I've won 4 fights so its obviously right. Like I've said before if you enjoy your training then that's the most important thing


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.




you know how people keep mentioning the Kobayashi Maru. That is the reality of multiple attackers.

That is why bouncers work in teams.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> Ignore him he hates any type of traditional martial arts and is completely biased towards mma which is basically what this thread is showing. Your instructor is absolutely right. My kickboxing coach says the same thing that sparring is used to get speed timing distance and cardio and not necessary to learn to fight and he's trained British champions in kickboxing and from him I've won 4 fights so its obviously right. Like I've said before if you enjoy your training then that's the most important thing



You won 4 fights and enjoyed your training?

Who is your coach?


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> You won 4 fights and enjoyed your training?
> 
> Who is your coach?


I'm not going to name names online. That can just cause to much hassle when more and more information is given out especially if someone sees something I say on here they don't like it could end up just going in all sorts of bad directions and I don't need that bs lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> None of that blabbering above has anything to do with the topic. The topic is based purely on styles and training methodology. There are styles that do well in MMA and styles that are nonexistent in MMA. So my question is why are some systems prevalent, while others are nonexistent?
> 
> 
> 
> There are Karate, Kickboxer, and Boxing guys who do MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> Except many traditionalists have, and have had to completely abandon their style in order to stand a chance. Alan Orr and his style of Wing Chun being a prime example. The question is why does that happen? The other question is if MMA isn't a good test for a style's effectiveness, what's a better one?


Wait. Were you asking in the OP about a test for a *style*? I had read it as a question about testing a person's ability.

MMA is certainly not a useful test for some styles. Those styles that include things that aren't useful in that context (whether they are useful elsewhere or not) and those styles that lack things that are necessary in that context (but may or may not be necessary in other contexts).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It still asstounds me that nobody even attempts to answer the question.
> 
> I was expecting all sorts of cool ideas. I dont know. Mc Map style gauntlets. Chess boxing mabye.Animal day perhaps.


What about my point that none of those are "better" or "worse" unless we know specifically what we're testing for? They each test different things.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> I'm not going to name names online. That can just cause to much hassle when more and more information is given out especially if someone sees something I say on here they don't like it could end up just going in all sorts of bad directions and I don't need that bs lol



My coach is a guy called anton zafir. my striking coach is a guy called dan Zealand and my bjj coach is a guy called bruno something.

I dont exactly think it is the end of the world if people know who I train with. I mean what is someone going to do ring them up and accuse e of being mean on the internet?

So otherwise you do enjoyable fight camps? Because that would be a trick. Ours are screaming crying crap fests.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What about my point that none of those are "better" or "worse" unless we know specifically what we're testing for? They each test different things.



I am not stopping people being specific.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Wait. Were you asking in the OP about a test for a *style*? I had read it as a question about testing a person's ability.
> 
> MMA is certainly not a useful test for some styles. Those styles that include things that aren't useful in that context (whether they are useful elsewhere or not) and those styles that lack things that are necessary in that context (but may or may not be necessary in other contexts).



See when it is non specific it becomes a non answer


----------



## Hanzou

Druid11 said:


> In what way? We do light contact sparring with no strikes to the head or below the belt (i.e things that would be effective in a real fight).  In what way is my instructor lying to me by saying that's a sport version of fighting? It's a game.  It helps develop timing speed and an understanding of distance, but it's still just a game.  Certainly in a real fight I'd strike to the lower body or the head.



I'm talking specifically about this quote;



Druid11 said:


> The instructor has said in class that sparring is part of the sport aspect and everything you would do in a real fight is illegal.  I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a sport.



Plenty of people have defended themselves utilizing techniques they perform in sparring or competition. To say that "real" fighting is made up entirely of illegal (read: deadly) techniques is nonsense that deserves to be repudiated.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Wait. Were you asking in the OP about a test for a *style*? I had read it as a question about testing a person's ability.
> 
> MMA is certainly not a useful test for some styles. Those styles that include things that aren't useful in that context (whether they are useful elsewhere or not) and those styles that lack things that are necessary in that context (but may or may not be necessary in other contexts).



So I ask again; Why wouldn't some styles work in the MMA context? Also what particular styles have that handicap?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> My personal opinion is that karate guys who compete are going to have an advantage over those who do not.
> 
> An Aikidoka who competes will have a real advantage over those who do not.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Wing Chun succeed in MMA.  But it would take a person willing to fail a lot in order to see it.   That's one of the things competition helps you with.


I'd assume you're talking about an advantage in combat effectiveness, in which case I'd tend to agree in general. I only raise that point because an Aikidoka who is interested in developing the most flow and aiki will probably not do that by preparing for competition, and competition will not provide any noticeable advantage for that goal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So I ask again; Why wouldn't some styles work in the MMA context? Also what particular styles have that handicap?


Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'd assume you're talking about an advantage in combat effectiveness, in which case I'd tend to agree in general. I only raise that point because an Aikidoka who is interested in developing the most flow and aiki will probably not do that by preparing for competition, and competition will not provide any noticeable advantage for that goal.


Yeah, if two identical twin aikidoka, both trained the same in all ways, but one also competes. If those two were jumped by a couple of bad guys (also identical twins), the one who competes will be more capable of applying his or her technique effectively.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.


Regarding small joint manipulation, I think that has more to do with unnecessary injury than it being a tactical advantage.  I've broken my toes many times, and my finger once.   It doesn't stop things in the moment, necessarily, but hurts like hell later on.


And for pain time, knee bars and heel hooks are legal, but if you feel pain, you are already injured.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd assume you're talking about an advantage in combat effectiveness, in which case I'd tend to agree in general. I only raise that point because an Aikidoka who is interested in developing the most flow and aiki will probably not do that by preparing for competition, and competition will not provide any noticeable advantage for that goal.



Depends if aki is related to combat effectivness i suppose.

Or can be gained along the way to combat effectivness. So say discipline could be gained through competition due to the training required.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.



And also shouldnt be recommended for things like police work either.  Because you can't just snap a guys arms off. And the stylist would be disadvantaged in that arena as well. For the same reasons.

Which is one of the stranger things i have picked up from these discussions. Is that it is unsuitable for tasks that have been commonly associated with akido.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> My personal opinion is that karate guys who compete are going to have an advantage over those who do not.
> 
> An Aikidoka who competes will have a real advantage over those who do not.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Wing Chun succeed in MMA.  But it would take a person willing to fail a lot in order to see it.   That's one of the things competition helps you with.


I agree but I would change "compete" to "fight".  I only say that because their are people who due to occupation (Law Enforcement, Corrections, Bouncers, etc.) who get similar experiences on a fairly regular basis.  The thing is you have to face someone who is completely resisting and that only happens in a fight and fights happen to people who don't compete, on a regular basis, if their occupation demands, as well as to those who chose to compete.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Druid11

Hanzou said:


> Plenty of people have defended themselves utilizing techniques they perform in sparring or competition. To say that "real" fighting is made up entirely of illegal (read: deadly) techniques is nonsense that deserves to be repudiated.



Sure a body kick that lands to the liver could be really effective in a real fight, but in a real fight I would also strike the face and I would strike below the belt (the "everything" I was talking about in my original post).  Those two things I don't do in my particular brand of sparring.  Therefore sparring (for my classes) is just the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective of a real fight.  Which is both what I meant and my instructor meant when he made the statement to class.  To be honest I think you took what I said word for word too literally.  I'm not sure if it's an honest misunderstanding or you're were being purposely obtuse.  I can't imagine why you would think that I believe no legal move is ever effective. But all sparring has rules, so I would say that no sparring is fully representative of a real fight (some styles are closer than others to a real fight) and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but that is the truth.

You're question was what's a better test for martial arts than MMA and my answer is why do I have to test my style by your rules when it's not what I want to do?  As I said I'm never going to be able to go toe to toe with someone who is just as trained and usually (because I'm a woman) bigger than me, so why would I want to test whether I can?  Especially in an enclosed environment where I couldn't escape?  I don't claim to know any super secrete death blows, nor does my instructor claim to be able to teach them.  He does teach joint locks and Judo throws, both of which I think would work in a practical self defense situation.  But as I said in my earlier post, I really mostly practice martial arts for fun and exercise with self defense as a bonus.


----------



## Hanzou

Druid11 said:


> Sure a body kick that lands to the liver could be really effective in a real fight, but in a real fight I would also strike the face and I would strike below the belt (the "everything" I was talking about in my original post).  Those two things I don't do in my particular brand of sparring.  Therefore sparring (for my classes) is just the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective of a real fight.  Which is both what I meant and my instructor meant when he made the statement to class.  To be honest I think you took what I said word for word too literally.  I'm not sure if it's an honest misunderstanding or you're were being purposely obtuse.  I can't imagine why you would think that I believe no legal move is ever effective. But all sparring has rules, so I would say that no sparring is fully representative of a real fight (some styles are closer than others to a real fight) and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but that is the truth.



Didn't you say that you guys do light sparring in class where you don't hit the face or do any kind of serious striking? If that's the case, how do you know you can take or give a punch? Have you actually ever fought someone larger than you in class where they were really trying to hurt you or beat you into submission? If not, I'd be very careful believing your personal prowess in a confrontation. My main concern with your post was your notion that sparring only represents the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective or a real fight. The thing is, sparring is supposed to be reflective of a real fight.

As for sparring having rules, it certainly does. Those rules keep you safe from doing permanent damage when you're training. However, it is a failure in instruction to believe that because it has rules it is not beneficial in preparing you for a real-life conflict where your life may be on the line. Take my style Bjj for example. Our sparring certainly has rules, but those rules allow us to go full power and full speed. Since we go full speed and full power, a person experiences what its like for someone larger and more powerful imposing their will upon them. The smaller/weaker person must then use their skills to truly escape and overcome their handicap. In the end, the benefits of that hard sparring overrides the limitation of the rules. Further, once you get to a certain point, you can start peeling back the rules and increase your effectiveness.



> You're question was what's a better test for martial arts than MMA and my answer is why do I have to test my style by your rules when it's not what I want to do?  *As I said I'm never going to be able to go toe to toe with someone who is just as trained and usually (because I'm a woman) bigger than me, so why would I want to test whether I can?  Especially in an enclosed environment where I couldn't escape?*  I don't claim to know any super secrete death blows, nor does my instructor claim to be able to teach them.  He does teach joint locks and Judo throws, both of which I think would work in a practical self defense situation.  But as I said in my earlier post, I really mostly practice martial arts for fun and exercise with self defense as a bonus.



You don't have to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that a woman is perfectly capable of taking someone down larger than themselves, or capable of going toe-to-toe with someone equally trained if they have the right training. When I first started Bjj, a female purple belt choked me out in a matter of seconds despite me being literally twice her size. Meanwhile I easily took down a female black belt when I first started karate many years ago. 

It all comes down to training.

While you may view self defense as a secondary issue, I'm sure there are people in your class who view it as a primary concern, and "light contact sparring", kata, etc. simply isn't going to get it done.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.



Wouldn't styles that lack a grappling game also be less successful in an actual confrontation? I've seen plenty of situations where someone is tackled or slammed, and women especially are vulnerable to someone being on top of them and imposing their will upon them.

As Steve said, Bjj and MMA grappling has plenty of joint locks that are only useful for destructions, and many of those moves are perfectly legal in MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Regarding small joint manipulation, I think that has more to do with unnecessary injury than it being a tactical advantage.  I've broken my toes many times, and my finger once.   It doesn't stop things in the moment, necessarily, but hurts like hell later on.
> 
> 
> And for pain time, knee bars and heel hooks are legal, but if you feel pain, you are already injured.


I wasn't referring to them as a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are additional options. They become a tactical disadvantage if you are used to using them in your training, but have to avoid them in competition.

I'm not familiar with leg bars and heel hooks in use, so I can't speak to how they operate. The technique I have in mind is a wrist lock that actually binds on the smallest metacarpal about half the time. If done slowly (meaning your partner stops when you get near it so you can apply some pressure), it can be done safely, but there is very little distance between where the discomfort first starts and that small bone breaks. I'm personally familiar with two instances of a break in that bone even at fairly slow speeds, one with a too-patient partner. There's no way that kind of technique would be useful in competition - if done with resistance, there's simply no time to submit before the break. It either works (break, if it binds on that bone), or it fails (wrist rotates into a different position - time for a different technique).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends if aki is related to combat effectivness i suppose.
> 
> Or can be gained along the way to combat effectivness. So say discipline could be gained through competition due to the training required.


Aiki is only related to combat effectiveness when it is used properly, meaning that attempting to create aiki moments actually reduces combat effectiveness. Meh, that's probably too long a discussion for this thread - too much of a sidetrack.

My point was that someone working for maximum aiki needs to work without resistance with a very compliant uke for many years. This, IMO, is what we see in a lot of aiki arts. Adding in realistic resistance makes the path to aiki much longer, so if someone is seeking the fastest path to pure aiki, they don't want resistance. If they want a faster path to combat effectiveness, then resistance is necessary, and that's where competition can help.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And also shouldnt be recommended for things like police work either.  Because you can't just snap a guys arms off. And the stylist would be disadvantaged in that arena as well. For the same reasons.
> 
> Which is one of the stranger things i have picked up from these discussions. Is that it is unsuitable for tasks that have been commonly associated with akido.


Agreed. Those techniques are not ideal for police work, either. When I've trained people with that sort of responsibility, I do teach the techniques, but encourage them to de-emphasize them and/or to use them as transitions instead of going for the lock in them. There's plenty left they can work with and other ways to use those movements, but those wouldn't be ideal for them.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Yeah, if two identical twin aikidoka, both trained the same in all ways, but one also competes. If those two were jumped by a couple of bad guys (also identical twins), the one who competes will be more capable of applying his or her technique effectively.


Not necessarily.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> No offense, but your instructor is blowing smoke up your behind.


That used to be an actual resuscitation technique. I don't know how effective it was though.


----------



## Druid11

Hanzou said:


> Didn't you say that you guys do light sparring in class where you don't hit the face or do any kind of serious striking? If that's the case, how do you know you can take or give a punch? Have you actually ever fought someone larger than you in class where they were really trying to hurt you or beat you into submission? If not, I'd be very careful believing your personal prowess in a confrontation. My main concern with your post was your notion that sparring only represents the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective or a real fight. The thing is, sparring is supposed to be reflective of a real fight.
> 
> As for sparring having rules, it certainly does. Those rules keep you safe from doing permanent damage when you're training. However, it is a failure in instruction to believe that because it has rules it is not beneficial in preparing you for a real-life conflict where your life may be on the line. Take my style Bjj for example. Our sparring certainly has rules, but those rules allow us to go full power and full speed. Since we go full speed and full power, a person experiences what its like for someone larger and more powerful imposing their will upon them. The smaller/weaker person must then use their skills to truly escape and overcome their handicap. In the end, the benefits of that hard sparring overrides the limitation of the rules. Further, once you get to a certain point, you can start peeling back the rules and increase your effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that a woman is perfectly capable of taking someone down larger than themselves, or capable of going toe-to-toe with someone equally trained if they have the right training. When I first started Bjj, a female purple belt choked me out in a matter of seconds despite me being literally twice her size. Meanwhile I easily took down a female black belt when I first started karate many years ago.
> 
> It all comes down to training.
> 
> While you may view self defense as a secondary issue, I'm sure there are people in your class who view it as a primary concern, and "light contact sparring", kata, etc. simply isn't going to get it done.



I know exactly what kind of punishment I can take because I've sparred full contact in both western boxing and Mauy Thai and a little bit in BJJ.  I said in my OP (and I think other posts) I used to train MMA.  And as I said, while some sparring (full contact with strikes to the head and below the belt ect) is closer to being reflective of a real fight, no sparring is completely reflective because it has rules and real fights don't have rules.  I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting.  And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.

I imagine you were a white belt when you first started BJJ.  One would assume a purple belt is better trained than a white belt therefore her better skill helped negate your size.  If it was reversed, she the white belt and you the purple belt, do you think that same thing might have happened? Maybe?  You could be having an off day and made a mistake, but I don't think it would 9 time out of 10.  

I don't know exactly what you mean you say that you took down a female black belt in karate?  Did you win a point sparring match?  Maybe she let you.  Most of our black belts will let lower belts get some hits in while sparring.  Or she was having an off day or maybe she was a sucky black belt (I am under no illusions that they don't exist).  If you mean you knocked her out in a full contact bout, then you are kind of making my point.  Standing and trading blows with someone much bigger than you in the end is probably not going to work out well (this especially applies to the purely striking arts).  You're eventually going to get hit (it's almost impossible to to block every strike ever) and you're going to get hurt.  There is a reason there are things called weight classes, and it's because the bigger person has the advantage.

I'm not saying that woman shouldn't train in full contact fighting arts if they want to (I did and I liked it, but I can't afford to get hurt).  I just don't think that they should delude themselves into thinking that they could go toe to toe with a huge guy with training and expect not to get hurt especially outside the relative safety of the gym or dojo.

As for people at my dojo, I think the majority are like me and there for fun and exercise.  As I said we do learn joint locks and Judo throws which would be effective in a real life situation (and yes we train them against a resisting opponent).  But honestly if self-defense was someone's number one priority in training they probably shouldn't have picked a traditional dojo that teaches kata (though my instructor pulls several moves from the katas and teaches them as self defense moves) and does point sparring.  They should have picked a reality based self defense system.


----------



## Hanzou

Druid11 said:


> I know exactly what kind of punishment I can take because I've sparred full contact in both western boxing and Mauy Thai and a little bit in BJJ.  I said in my OP (and I think other posts) I used to train MMA.  And as I said, while some sparring (full contact with strikes to the head and below the belt ect) is closer to being reflective of a real fight, no sparring is completely reflective because it has rules and real fights don't have rules.  I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting.  And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.



My point is that that type of sparring is far more reflective of a real fight than light contact sparring, kata, or one step drilling. Thus your instructor (or you) saying that sparring is merely for the "sport side" is nonsense.



> I don't know exactly what you mean you say that you took down a female black belt in karate?  Did you win a point sparring match?  Maybe she let you.  Most of our black belts will let lower belts get some hits in while sparring.  Or she was having an off day or maybe she was a sucky black belt (I am under no illusions that they don't exist).  If you mean you knocked her out in a full contact bout, then you are kind of making my point.  Standing and trading blows with someone much bigger than you in the end is probably not going to work out well (this especially applies to the purely striking arts).  You're eventually going to get hit (it's almost impossible to to block every strike ever) and you're going to get hurt.  There is a reason there are things called weight classes, and it's because the bigger person has the advantage.



I mean that I completely dominated her physically, to the point that she doubled over after I kicked her in her stomach. I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.



> I'm not saying that woman shouldn't train in full contact fighting arts if they want to (I did and I liked it, but I can't afford to get hurt).  I just don't think that they should delude themselves into thinking that they could go toe to toe with a huge guy with training and expect not to get hurt especially outside the relative safety of the gym or dojo.



I don't think any woman who does full contact martial arts deludes themselves in that way. I think that women in more traditional styles DO delude themselves into thinking that they can stop a larger person from beating them down and imposing their will upon them. I also believe that many traditional MA instructors reinforce that delusion by creating ridiculous notions that they disseminate to their students.



> As for people at my dojo, I think the majority are like me and there for fun and exercise.  As I said we do learn joint locks and Judo throws which would be effective in a real life situation (and yes we train them against a resisting opponent).



If you're doing light contact sparring, how are you practicing Judo throws and joint locks against resisting opponents?



> But honestly if self-defense was someone's number one priority in training they probably shouldn't have picked a traditional dojo that teaches kata (though my instructor pulls several moves from the katas and teaches them as self defense moves) and does point sparring.  They should have picked a reality based self defense system.



No argument there.


----------



## Druid11

Hanzou said:


> My point is that that type of sparring is far more reflective of a real fight than light contact sparring, kata, or one step drilling. Thus your instructor (or you) saying that sparring is merely for the "sport side" is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean that I completely dominated her physically, to the point that she doubled over after I kicked her in her stomach. I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any woman who does full contact martial arts deludes themselves in that way. I think that women in more traditional styles DO delude themselves into thinking that they can stop a larger person from beating them down and imposing their will upon them. I also believe that many traditional MA instructors reinforce that delusion by creating ridiculous notions that they disseminate to their students.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're doing light contact sparring, how are you practicing Judo throws and joint locks against resisting opponents?
> 
> 
> 
> No argument there.



Yes, certain types of sparring are more reflective of a real fight then others, which I've said, so I don't really get your point.  They are still part of the sport aspect of martial arts because they have rules (sports have rules) and real fights don't.  You can use techniques you use in sparring in a real fight, but there are some techniques you might use in a real fight you would never use in sparring.  I never said that sparring was completely unrelated to a real fight however.  And my instructor was talking about point sparring not all sparring.  My original point was we spar for sport and nothing wrong with it as long as you know it's not reflective of a real fight.  So I've yet to understand how my instructor is blowing smoke up my *** by telling me the truth.  I have no desire to spar full contact and see no reason why I should have to, just to prove myself to you or anyone else. 

Though I do think one step sparring is useful if you do it at speed (or at least work on getting up to speed).  You work on blocking a blow and countering it.  It's useful as a drill.  And point sparring is useful to work on timing and distance.  They have there purpose.  Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't helpful.

I took Taekwondo as kid, as well as karate now.  I've never had an instructor tell me I would be able to take on much bigger opponents that were just as well trained as me.  I've been told skill can help you defeat a larger opponent who is untrained (or not as well trained) and that is true, skill can help to negate size.  Nor was I ever taught to stand there and take punishment for no reason.  If anything traditional martial arts teach more get in use a technique and get away then MMA did, at least in my experience.  I see a lot less eat a kick to land a punch in my karate classes then I did in my Muay Thai ones.  Honestly I think you've maybe just experienced really bad traditional teachers.

And I'm not sure how hard is to understand how we do joint locks and Judo throws with a resisting opponent.  Person A grabs person B, person B tries to perform a technique.  Person A resists them, either Person B is successful and Person A taps or is thrown or Person B is not and the instructor points out how they might have done it better.  We don't incorporate joint locks or throws in sparring.  It's done as drill, but we're not expected to limply grab or passively allow the lock or throw, at least not after each person has the basic technique down.  It's not wildly different from how techniques were taught or drilled in BJJ from my experience.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Aiki is only related to combat effectiveness when it is used properly, meaning that attempting to create aiki moments actually reduces combat effectiveness. Meh, that's probably too long a discussion for this thread - too much of a sidetrack.
> 
> My point was that someone working for maximum aiki needs to work without resistance with a very compliant uke for many years. This, IMO, is what we see in a lot of aiki arts. Adding in realistic resistance makes the path to aiki much longer, so if someone is seeking the fastest path to pure aiki, they don't want resistance. If they want a faster path to combat effectiveness, then resistance is necessary, and that's where competition can help.



Not sure.  I still dont get the difference between aki.  And being good. 

Otherwise then you just train with a compliant uke and then test those skills real time.  I mean it takes years to be a top level fighter anyway.

Pad work for example is compliant. It is not like that ever gets thrown out.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Those techniques are not ideal for police work, either. When I've trained people with that sort of responsibility, I do teach the techniques, but encourage them to de-emphasize them and/or to use them as transitions instead of going for the lock in them. There's plenty left they can work with and other ways to use those movements, but those wouldn't be ideal for them.



So you can or can't fight in a manner that leaves people crippled?  

I am lost here.  I mean if you can fight mma or spar then there should be some element of control over what you do and what you dont do. 

I can certainly do it.  And I don't consider myself any sort of martial arts genius.

You could still reasonably test Akido in a live manner. Now this may not specifically be mma.  But i am pretty sure it also won't involve breaking arms every time either.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't referring to them as a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are additional options. They become a tactical disadvantage if you are used to using them in your training, but have to avoid them in competition.
> 
> I'm not familiar with leg bars and heel hooks in use, so I can't speak to how they operate. The technique I have in mind is a wrist lock that actually binds on the smallest metacarpal about half the time. If done slowly (meaning your partner stops when you get near it so you can apply some pressure), it can be done safely, but there is very little distance between where the discomfort first starts and that small bone breaks. I'm personally familiar with two instances of a break in that bone even at fairly slow speeds, one with a too-patient partner. There's no way that kind of technique would be useful in competition - if done with resistance, there's simply no time to submit before the break. It either works (break, if it binds on that bone), or it fails (wrist rotates into a different position - time for a different technique).



Yeah.  But you are comparing a very small chance of ever getting that lock to getting punched in the head.

I mean how often do you think you will be in that sort of dilemma in say a MMA style match?

It becomes a bit like the danger of getting your knee kicked out in a fight.


----------



## drop bear

Druid11 said:


> I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting. And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.



I have taken down real dirty fighters due to training in better basics though. A lot of better basics actually automatically counter dirty fighting.

Exept for biting pretty much.  In which case I nose gouge them.

Now where i am happy to go all schoolyard in a fight.  There is enough hurt within the rule set to finish an attacker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't styles that lack a grappling game also be less successful in an actual confrontation? I've seen plenty of situations where someone is tackled or slammed, and women especially are vulnerable to someone being on top of them and imposing their will upon them.
> 
> As Steve said, Bjj and MMA grappling has plenty of joint locks that are only useful for destructions, and many of those moves are perfectly legal in MMA.


They would have fewer options. They wouldn't necessarily be "less successful". There are many instances of people successfully defending themselves using only strikes. This is part of the difference between MMA and a self-defense encounter. In any competition (or even in sparring), we can discuss "less successful", because we can compare the results over several matches. In self-defense, you are either successful, or you are not. The only variability between those points is level of injury and the like. So, we could say a style without grappling has a lower absolute probability of success in self-defense, but we'd probably be playing semantics on that, since we couldn't come up with any real evidence to support there being a statistically significant difference in effectiveness. Someone recently (on another thread) said that all someone would need is some boxing, and that's a reasonable approach. Adding a few more tools probably increases odds a bit, especially if those added tools include resistance to takedowns and some techniques for getting back up if you end up on the ground. But just being able to hit someone hard, accurately, while protecting yourself from the attack, should be sufficient to most encounters.

I don't know how any move that is only useful for destruction would be useful in MMA - legal or not. If I use a standing arm bar (we have a few), there's simply no way to use that to hold someone in place. I have only two choices: transition immediately to another technique, or go ahead and try to break the arm. There's no lock available other than complete commitment to the break. Trying to hold it in place leaves too many openings for either escape or counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  But you are comparing a very small chance of ever getting that lock to getting punched in the head.
> 
> I mean how often do you think you will be in that sort of dilemma in say a MMA style match?
> 
> It becomes a bit like the danger of getting your knee kicked out in a fight.


I'm not sure what you're asking, DB. I haven't claimed those are a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are another option (any additional options create a marginal tactical advantage - nothing unique to those techniques). The issue is a matter of the pattern recognition we train (that's really what we are all doing as we become better at whatever martial skills we train). If you train yourself to recognize openings for techniques and to smoothly move into them without thought (to remove the decision delay), and have a number of techniques that aren't useful for competition (illegal, unsafe, or simply unusable in competition), then you're likely to have some moments when you find yourself moving toward those techniques and having to bail to something else. That actually wouldn't be much of an issue against an untrained or outmatched attacker, but against a similarly skilled opponent it would create openings that could cost you the match.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.


I've never met a martial art that taught "trading blows with someone much larger" as their philosophy of self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not sure.  I still dont get the difference between aki.  And being good.


In some ways, it's the same thing. Maybe Tony can step in and clarify if he's reading this. Every competitor who uses throws/locks/takedowns will occasionally get that one where it feels like the other guy didn't exist. Like the guy almost threw himself down for you, though you know he was trying to stay up. That feeling is where the "aiki" is, by my definition. In the aiki arts, we train to feel the point where that's possible, and to use that as often as possible. The "pure aiki" arts train only to use that - not realistic in my experience for self-defense unless you are spectacularly skilled. In NGA, for instance, we train a lot around finding that feel, how to expose that moment in common attacks and movement, but if it's not there, we'll hit them (which often opens up a new opportunity for "aiki"). I see a lot of aiki principles in some of the BJJ I've looked at. I keep wanting to roll with a BJJ black belt to see if I'm seeing what I think I see. So, someone who is really good at almost any grappling will be using some aiki principles, even if they don't use the term.



> Otherwise then you just train with a compliant uke and then test those skills real time.  I mean it takes years to be a top level fighter anyway.
> 
> Pad work for example is compliant. It is not like that ever gets thrown out.


The difference with "pure aiki" training, is that if you ever add resistance by an opponent who knows as much as you do, things stagnate quickly. If both are only willing to look for purely aiki movements and techniques, both will be attacking very softly (gentle pushes, etc.) and "feeling" for the moment when their opponent responds with a small, significant gap that allows that pure aiki response. It turns into a dance. That dance can be a useful training technique at times, but too much of it removes the training from the realities of an attacker.

If the opponent knows as much, and is willing to go non-aiki, they have an advantage. There are open moments when a takedown/throw/lock will work, but will take some moderate force (which means it's not purely aiki). The one who is going purely aiki will pass up that opportunity, while his opponent will take it...and win. The self-defense approach within an aiki art, obviously, is to train both aiki and non-aiki applications of techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you can or can't fight in a manner that leaves people crippled?
> 
> I am lost here.  I mean if you can fight mma or spar then there should be some element of control over what you do and what you dont do.
> 
> I can certainly do it.  And I don't consider myself any sort of martial arts genius.
> 
> You could still reasonably test Akido in a live manner. Now this may not specifically be mma.  But i am pretty sure it also won't involve breaking arms every time either.



I can - just not with those techniques at speed. We practice those much slower, or move fast to the point of application and release the technique before completion. Both are approximations that keep the uke safe.

And, yes, we can test it live - we do it often enough. So, for a standing arm bar, for instance, if I'm going at speed and with resistance with someone of reasonable skill, I'll go for that technique and release the arm as I apply it. My partner will know what just happened and will stop to reset our grappling/sparring. If I didn't have control of his body and it was unlikely I'd have had good control of his arm and body, he won't reset and will follow through as if he'd escaped the destruction (the most likely result if I try to apply it fully without that arm/body control). The same goes for the joint lock I referred to - I simply release the had as I apply the technique at speed, so there's no risk to my partner.

Of course, for all the techniques that don't have that risk, I can simply apply them to the point of control then use them as submissions, like you see in BJJ.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't know how any move that is only useful for destruction would be useful in MMA - legal or not. If I use a standing arm bar (we have a few), there's simply no way to use that to hold someone in place. I have only two choices: transition immediately to another technique, or go ahead and try to break the arm. There's no lock available other than complete commitment to the break. Trying to hold it in place leaves too many openings for either escape or counter.



Then break the arm.  I am not sure what the issue is there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> In some ways, it's the same thing. Maybe Tony can step in and clarify if he's reading this. Every competitor who uses throws/locks/takedowns will occasionally get that one where it feels like the other guy didn't exist. Like the guy almost threw himself down for you, though you know he was trying to stay up. That feeling is where the "aiki" is, by my definition. In the aiki arts, we train to feel the point where that's possible, and to use that as often as possible. The "pure aiki" arts train only to use that - not realistic in my experience for self-defense unless you are spectacularly skilled. In NGA, for instance, we train a lot around finding that feel, how to expose that moment in common attacks and movement, but if it's not there, we'll hit them (which often opens up a new opportunity for "aiki"). I see a lot of aiki principles in some of the BJJ I've looked at. I keep wanting to roll with a BJJ black belt to see if I'm seeing what I think I see. So, someone who is really good at almost any grappling will be using some aiki principles, even if they don't use the term.
> 
> 
> The difference with "pure aiki" training, is that if you ever add resistance by an opponent who knows as much as you do, things stagnate quickly. If both are only willing to look for purely aiki movements and techniques, both will be attacking very softly (gentle pushes, etc.) and "feeling" for the moment when their opponent responds with a small, significant gap that allows that pure aiki response. It turns into a dance. That dance can be a useful training technique at times, but too much of it removes the training from the realities of an attacker.
> 
> If the opponent knows as much, and is willing to go non-aiki, they have an advantage. There are open moments when a takedown/throw/lock will work, but will take some moderate force (which means it's not purely aiki). The one who is going purely aiki will pass up that opportunity, while his opponent will take it...and win. The self-defense approach within an aiki art, obviously, is to train both aiki and non-aiki applications of techniques.



Do you feel that will become an issue in a MMA match?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can - just not with those techniques at speed. We practice those much slower, or move fast to the point of application and release the technique before completion. Both are approximations that keep the uke safe.
> 
> And, yes, we can test it live - we do it often enough. So, for a standing arm bar, for instance, if I'm going at speed and with resistance with someone of reasonable skill, I'll go for that technique and release the arm as I apply it. My partner will know what just happened and will stop to reset our grappling/sparring. If I didn't have control of his body and it was unlikely I'd have had good control of his arm and body, he won't reset and will follow through as if he'd escaped the destruction (the most likely result if I try to apply it fully without that arm/body control). The same goes for the joint lock I referred to - I simply release the had as I apply the technique at speed, so there's no risk to my partner.
> 
> Of course, for all the techniques that don't have that risk, I can simply apply them to the point of control then use them as submissions, like you see in BJJ.



So then where does this idea that you are dependant on these arm breaking moves to give you an even chance in a fight come from?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Then break the arm.  I am not sure what the issue is there.


And how is that useful for competition?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Do you feel that will become an issue in a MMA match?


I'm not sure what you mean by "become an issue". Are you asking if I think trying to work aiki would be problematic, or if I think aiki applications would work, or if I think being trained in them is effective for MMA, or what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So then where does this idea that you are dependant on these arm breaking moves to give you an even chance in a fight come from?


I never said I was dependent upon them to have an even chance. I said I've trained myself to use them, and actively avoiding something you've trained to use slows you down. It's not their being unavailable that's the issue (they're also unavailable to everyone else) - it's the fact that I'd have to actively avoid them, because they're part of the core of what I do. It'd be like asking a boxer not to throw a cross. If nobody else is allowed to throw a cross, then his only issue is likely to be those folks who don't train a cross, so they don't have to pay attention to NOT doing one (they wouldn't have, anyway). It would be a useful training exercise, but not a good competition for him.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And how is that useful for competition?



You win.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You win.


I wasn't aware there was a contest going on.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You win.


I think I understand what he is getting at.  I'll give another example.  You can use bil sau for striking pressure points (under the arm, tmj, temple etc) but I tend to use phoenix eye fist or the digital thumb.  When I use bil sau it is to thrust at the eyes so to use bil sau for something other than the eyes will make me slower because I will have to think about it.  In competition this can get you in trouble not because of a rule but because being slower will make you more vulnerable.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't aware there was a contest going on.



If it is sparring or training you let the lock go if it is going to hurt someone. If you can skill up to better a fully resisting opponent while not trying to cripple them then life will be easier for you when you are trying to cripple them. 

If it is a contest. Tear that arm off and keep it as a souvenir. That would be the advantage of a limb destruction.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I think I understand what he is getting at.  I'll give another example.  You can use bil sau for striking pressure points (under the arm, tmj, temple etc) but I tend to use phoenix eye fist or the digital thumb.  When I use bil sau it is to thrust at the eyes so to use bil sau for something other than the eyes will make me slower because I will have to think about it.  In competition this can get you in trouble not because of a rule but because being slower will make you more vulnerable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



So driving a knuckle into an eye rather than an index finger throws your whole game out?

As i have said.  For me big gloves, little gloves, strange environments, different hand shapes, day,night. All those little elements that may mean the difference in a fight are the least of my concerns.

I don't believe in needing everything perfect before i fight someone.


I also dont have to punch people in BJJ or kick a guy during a boxing match.


----------



## JP3

One way to test one's martial arts skill/knowledge etc I stumbled upon was to have my wife, who is a really hot looking lady by the way, wear a tight miniskirt and a crop top, hair done right and some spike heels so she looked like a high-priced call girl (it was a adults-only Halloween thing), have said hot lady get one too many tequila shots in her and fire back at some smart-*** younger girl who was talking smack and have to step into the situation when the younger girl's boyfriend took offense at my wife's rather abrupt descent into obligatorily profane commentary about the other girls figure, i.e. he stepped into the developing cat fight which I, as of that time, hadn't noticed (it was loud).  He stepped forward, and being more than a little inebriated, went to put his hands on my lady in what I happened to notice right then was going to be an unfriendly fashion.  So, I intercepted said unfriendly hands with my own even more unfriendly ones and that took care of the set up.

It ended quickly, but not in the best way possible... which was it shouldn't have started at all. We needed to go before the security guys got there. Ah well. Talking about it the next week in class to one of my guys, we decided that perhaps getting into a bar fight with someone who has been drinking, when You've been drinking as well, might not be that great an idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If it is sparring or training you let the lock go if it is going to hurt someone. If you can skill up to better a fully resisting opponent while not trying to cripple them then life will be easier for you when you are trying to cripple them.
> 
> If it is a contest. Tear that arm off and keep it as a souvenir. That would be the advantage of a limb destruction.


Contests are not for practicing doing permanent damage to people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So driving a knuckle into an eye rather than an index finger throws your whole game out?
> 
> As i have said.  For me big gloves, little gloves, strange environments, different hand shapes, day,night. All those little elements that may mean the difference in a fight are the least of my concerns.
> 
> I don't believe in needing everything perfect before i fight someone.
> 
> 
> I also dont have to punch people in BJJ or kick a guy during a boxing match.


The point is simple: the more of your training that doesn't apply to a given set of competition rules, the more likely you are to have what I call a "stutter movement", where you start to do something and have to semi-consciously change to something different. A competitor of roughly equal skill should be able to take advantage of those to great advantage. Of course, the more you train to a given set of rules, the more automatic the adjustments become - enough training for competition can pretty much remove the stutter movements, but then I'd be spending part of my training time specifically preparing for competition, which isn't my goal. (Glove differences aren't part of this, because there's no decision to be made.)


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So driving a knuckle into an eye rather than an index finger throws your whole game out?
> 
> As i have said.  For me big gloves, little gloves, strange environments, different hand shapes, day,night. All those little elements that may mean the difference in a fight are the least of my concerns.
> 
> I don't believe in needing everything perfect before i fight someone.
> 
> 
> I also dont have to punch people in BJJ or kick a guy during a boxing match.


Not what I said. If I train to only use a particular strike for target A and then decide to use it on target H I need to think about it vs it being automatic it makes you "stutter".  The issue really doesn't apply to a phoenix eye fist because that is just a modified punch so the mechanics are largely the same.  The bil sau however is a finger thrust and so if you are going to use it you have to practice it in a very particular way.

The same applies to a "break." If you only train to break and not to submit, then you have to "think" to not follow through on the break, which again makes you slow/hesitant/stutter.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Contests are not for practicing doing permanent damage to people.



Now you know why they call them fights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Now you know why they call them fights.


And now you may recall one of the objections I have to some competitors. I have no interest in stepping into a competition with someone who is actually willing to purposely hurt me for the sake of a win, and there are folks who are willing to do that (in any sport). My self-defense training is all about preventing those injuries, both in training and in an actual attack.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The point is simple: the more of your training that doesn't apply to a given set of competition rules, the more likely you are to have what I call a "stutter movement", where you start to do something and have to semi-consciously change to something different. A competitor of roughly equal skill should be able to take advantage of those to great advantage. Of course, the more you train to a given set of rules, the more automatic the adjustments become - enough training for competition can pretty much remove the stutter movements, but then I'd be spending part of my training time specifically preparing for competition, which isn't my goal. (Glove differences aren't part of this, because there's no decision to be made.)



gotcha. 

Ok spending part of your time training a different skill set does not take away from your understanding of martial arts. It enhances is.

Training one skill set and then not being able to mentally or physically shift or adapt to a new environment does take away from your understanding of martial arts.

I believe you need to approach martial arts with an open mind to really gain from it. rather than be fixed in place conceptually.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And now you may recall one of the objections I have to some competitors. I have no interest in stepping into a competition with someone who is actually willing to purposely hurt me for the sake of a win, and there are folks who are willing to do that (in any sport). My self-defense training is all about preventing those injuries, both in training and in an actual attack.



Depends what your context is. You may for example need to engage in some risk to mitigate a greater risk. So if you were training for a life or death street attack. You may need to risk an injury in a safer environment to gain skills that will protect you in a more dangerous one.

If your context isnt fighting. Then you would train accordingly. Like I do pretty much. I dont take that extra step to become better because the cost of being better is too great.

I like pizza and sleep ins so I dont fight.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> And now you may recall one of the objections I have to some competitors. I have no interest in stepping into a competition with someone who is actually willing to purposely hurt me for the sake of a win, and there are folks who are willing to do that (in any sport). My self-defense training is all about preventing those injuries, both in training and in an actual attack.


I don't even know if I would put it that way.  The two are completely different mindsets.  The person who trained as a warrior who walks into a competition will look like the guy who is willing to purposefully hurt another for the sake of a mere win bit in reality he was simply fighting because fighting (vs competing) is what he knows.  It's why the only time I will compete (if I want to) will be in Full Contact Short Weapon Free Fighting at tournaments like Kuo Shu.  The competitors have helmets and the weapons are padded (so they hurt but usually don't break anything) because when I am fighting, vs training, I really only have one speed.  I can "disconnect" a little a school because I am friends with everybody there but in a competition with strangers?  I don't have that connection so I just act.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> gotcha.
> 
> Ok spending part of your time training a different skill set does not take away from your understanding of martial arts. It enhances is.
> 
> Training one skill set and then not being able to mentally or physically shift or adapt to a new environment does take away from your understanding of martial arts.
> 
> I believe you need to approach martial arts with an open mind to really gain from it. rather than be fixed in place conceptually.


I never said it took away from the understanding. But when approaching training with a limited calendar (most people I've trained with), you allocate your hours where they have the highest impact toward your objective. If I spend considerable training time learning to react properly for competition (to remove the stutter movements), then that's time I'm not actually preparing for the full range of self-defense options. It's a choice, and there are pro's and con's on both sides of the choice. The better fitted a given art is to the competition in question (in this case, MMA), the easier the choice likely would be. If the art contains a fair amount of stuff that's inappropriate or otherwise ill-suited to the competition, then it gets harder and harder to justify training to that competition while training that art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends what your context is. You may for example need to engage in some risk to mitigate a greater risk. So if you were training for a life or death street attack. You may need to risk an injury in a safer environment to gain skills that will protect you in a more dangerous one.
> 
> If your context isnt fighting. Then you would train accordingly. Like I do pretty much. I dont take that extra step to become better because the cost of being better is too great.
> 
> I like pizza and sleep ins so I dont fight.


There's a certain level of injury I'm willing to routinely risk. A broken arm is far beyond that point. With a broken arm, my ability to defend myself becomes dramatically reduced for an extended period. That's entirely contrary to the point of my training. Of course, there's always some risk of that happening, anyway, during routine training, but it's much easier to mitigate if I'm not competing against a gorilla who doesn't care about my goals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I don't even know if I would put it that way.  The two are completely different mindsets.  The person who trained as a warrior who walks into a competition will look like the guy who is willing to purposefully hurt another for the sake of a mere win bit in reality he was simply fighting because fighting (vs competing) is what he knows.  It's why the only time I will compete (if I want to) will be in Full Contact Short Weapon Free Fighting at tournaments like Kuo Shu.  The competitors have helmets and the weapons are padded (so they hurt but usually don't break anything) because when I am fighting, vs training, I really only have one speed.  I can "disconnect" a little a school because I am friends with everybody there but in a competition with strangers?  I don't have that connection so I just act.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


My frame of reference comes from other sports. There are people in soccer, for instance, who are absolutely willing to injure an opponent to help their team win. If those folks exist in sports like soccer, I'm certain they exist in martial arts competitions. In some competitions I'd consider the risk controllable. In others, it's much harder to stop someone from hurting you if they just get frustrated and decide your arm is no longer yours to keep.

The difference between these gorillas and the fighters who simply go all-out is really a matter of intent. If someone brings everything they have into a full-contact competition, they may well KO their opponent. If they are ethical, IMO, they will not attempt to take their opponent's knee out, especially if they know that opponent already has a problem with the knee. They'll probably try to get them to keep weight on it more to take advantage of the weakness and poorer mobility, but they won't aim for that long-term damage.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I never said it took away from the understanding. But when approaching training with a limited calendar (most people I've trained with), you allocate your hours where they have the highest impact toward your objective. If I spend considerable training time learning to react properly for competition (to remove the stutter movements), then that's time I'm not actually preparing for the full range of self-defense options. It's a choice, and there are pro's and con's on both sides of the choice. The better fitted a given art is to the competition in question (in this case, MMA), the easier the choice likely would be. If the art contains a fair amount of stuff that's inappropriate or otherwise ill-suited to the competition, then it gets harder and harder to justify training to that competition while training that art.



Yeah.  You can only train in  one dimension. You will understand the art by route. But not how it pieces together as a concept.

I think this is why some people complain about the difficulty of transitioning from the gym to a staircase or a lift and i have rarely seen that as a big issue


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> My frame of reference comes from other sports. There are people in soccer, for instance, who are absolutely willing to injure an opponent to help their team win. If those folks exist in sports like soccer, I'm certain they exist in martial arts competitions. In some competitions I'd consider the risk controllable. In others, it's much harder to stop someone from hurting you if they just get frustrated and decide your arm is no longer yours to keep.
> 
> The difference between these gorillas and the fighters who simply go all-out is really a matter of intent. If someone brings everything they have into a full-contact competition, they may well KO their opponent. If they are ethical, IMO, they will not attempt to take their opponent's knee out, especially if they know that opponent already has a problem with the knee. They'll probably try to get them to keep weight on it more to take advantage of the weakness and poorer mobility, but they won't aim for that long-term damage.


Makes sense.  I dabbled in soccer but my main sport reference is track (440 hurdles and the 1/4 mile hard to attack people, we hurt ourselves  ) and foil as well as sabre Olympic Fencing which is hard to hurt people directly in as well.  As such I don't have the "cripple the other guy" in my personal calculus of sports.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  You can only train in  one dimension. You will understand the art by route. But not how it pieces together as a concept.
> 
> I think this is why some people complain about the difficulty of transitioning from the gym to a staircase or a lift and i have rarely seen that as a big issue


Not sure I understand that last part, mate. As for the limited understand, I'll just disagree. We don't examine just a single dimension of the art, nor of the techniques we use. Just because I don't compete doesn't mean I take a narrow view of what I do. That's your internal script.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Not sure I understand that last part, mate. As for the limited understand, I'll just disagree. We don't examine just a single dimension of the art, nor of the techniques we use. Just because I don't compete doesn't mean I take a narrow view of what I do. That's your internal script.


Tbh I see competition as a narrow view.  It's only in a "real" no holds barred fight where the eyes are truly open.  I remember fencing, even in my martial arts class now and the past thinking "this is fun."  I also remember saying "oh **** I have to choke this SOB out or I am going to die" (no exaggeration).  The two are so different.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not sure I understand that last part, mate. As for the limited understand, I'll just disagree. We don't examine just a single dimension of the art, nor of the techniques we use. Just because I don't compete doesn't mean I take a narrow view of what I do. That's your internal script.



It is pretty complicated. And hard to explain.


It is not whether or not you compete but whether you can use the concepts of your system to function in a new environment. You say cant compete because you cannot use your entire skill set. Basically if you had to change invent or adapt on the fly you get stuck. 

Basically your big issue is that you will get iinto a situation where you could go for an arm destruction and then not be able to work around that. And that is not very likley to even come up. let alone shift the fight.

lets compare an issue like that which is pretty minor to say a MMA fighter who competes and does not use his whole grappling arsenal. By in this case doing Muay Thai.






Which is pretty common.

Now we have had raised in this thread that some people struggle if they have not been trained specifically to fight on stairs or in a lift and so on.

That minor change to the unfamiliar snuffs them.

And i believe the reason someone hits this issue they are focused too much on the specifics. They get into an arm destruction opportunity and have to stall because they have practiced whatever and cant do that movement. It is an indication of training by route.

I have never encountered somone who has been winning a fight untill it gets to stairs and then loose due to some sort of shift. (And i have seen a lot of fights on stairs. and even some elevators)

So you have this issue. with arm destructions and whether or not you can choose them or another option. But it is not you alone who has this it. it is a trend I have noticed. people have to train in the gear they fight in. Or struggle to do 2 styles at once.

And I think it comes down to how you internalize your martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Tbh I see competition as a narrow view.  It's only in a "real" no holds barred fight where the eyes are truly open.  I remember fencing, even in my martial arts class now and the past thinking "this is fun."  I also remember saying "oh **** I have to choke this SOB out or I am going to die" (no exaggeration).  The two are so different.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Not a lot of self defence guys clamouring to engage in real NHB fights though.

Mabye that is a competition you could start.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is pretty complicated. And hard to explain.
> 
> 
> It is not whether or not you compete but whether you can use the concepts of your system to function in a new environment. You say cant compete because you cannot use your entire skill set. Basically if you had to change invent or adapt on the fly you get stuck.
> 
> Basically your big issue is that you will get iinto a situation where you could go for an arm destruction and then not be able to work around that. And that is not very likley to even come up. let alone shift the fight.
> 
> lets compare an issue like that which is pretty minor to say a MMA fighter who competes and does not use his whole grappling arsenal. By in this case doing Muay Thai.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is pretty common.
> 
> Now we have had raised in this thread that some people struggle if they have not been trained specifically to fight on stairs or in a lift and so on.
> 
> That minor change to the unfamiliar snuffs them.
> 
> And i believe the reason someone hits this issue they are focused too much on the specifics. They get into an arm destruction opportunity and have to stall because they have practiced whatever and cant do that movement. It is an indication of training by route.
> 
> I have never encountered somone who has been winning a fight untill it gets to stairs and then loose due to some sort of shift. (And i have seen a lot of fights on stairs. and even some elevators)
> 
> So you have this issue. with arm destructions and whether or not you can choose them or another option. But it is not you alone who has this it. it is a trend I have noticed. people have to train in the gear they fight in. Or struggle to do 2 styles at once.
> 
> And I think it comes down to how you internalize your martial arts.


You're once again re-drawing my argument to suit you. What I said was that there's enough of what I do that doesn't fit with MMA competition that I'd have to either 1) spend a lot of time training specifically for that competition (which, by the way, is what the Muay Thai guys are probably doing in your example), or 2) deal with having a lot of my go-to techniques that aren't available, leaving me with those stutter-movements, giving a distinct advantage to my opponent.

Your comment doesn't, in any way, clarify or refute mine. I could - just like the Muay Thai guys - take the time to train to that difference. But that'd take me away from my training objective, rather than toward it. That's not a useful approach for me. If I was interested in competing, I could spend that extra time and adapt what I do to the rules (like most, I'd need cross-training, too). But why would I?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not a lot of self defence guys clamouring to engage in real NHB fights though.
> 
> Mabye that is a competition you could start.


Most "self defense guys" I know aren't really interested in competition.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're once again re-drawing my argument to suit you. What I said was that there's enough of what I do that doesn't fit with MMA competition that I'd have to either 1) spend a lot of time training specifically for that competition (which, by the way, is what the Muay Thai guys are probably doing in your example), or 2) deal with having a lot of my go-to techniques that aren't available, leaving me with those stutter-movements, giving a distinct advantage to my opponent.
> 
> Your comment doesn't, in any way, clarify or refute mine. I could - just like the Muay Thai guys - take the time to train to that difference. But that'd take me away from my training objective, rather than toward it. That's not a useful approach for me. If I was interested in competing, I could spend that extra time and adapt what I do to the rules (like most, I'd need cross-training, too). But why would I?



If you train to adapt to the rules. You are training to adapt..

Might fix that issue you have stalling at certain points.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you train to adapt to the rules. You are training to adapt..
> 
> Might fix that issue you have stalling at certain points.


Just because I don't train to adapt to those rules, that doesn't mean I don't train to adapt. Again, your internal script.

Training to adapt can happen in other ways that don't include leaving out part of the core of the art.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Just because I don't train to adapt to those rules, that doesn't mean I don't train to adapt. Again, your internal script.
> 
> Training to adapt can happen in other ways that don't include leaving out part of the core of the art.



Like?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Like?


No need to justify my training to you, but I'll humor you with a few examples:

Low-light training
Training in street clothes
Training outside
Training without mats
Defending from the knees
Defending from a chair
Training with one arm stuck in obi
Defending entirely inside a square
Defending with nothing but feet (no hands, only movement, kicks, etc.)
Training entirely off-handed
Training with people from other styles
Training in other styles
And many more.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> No need to justify my training to you, but I'll humor you with a few examples:
> 
> Low-light training
> Training in street clothes
> Training outside
> Training without mats
> Defending from the knees
> Defending from a chair
> Training with one arm stuck in obi
> Defending entirely inside a square
> Defending with nothing but feet (no hands, only movement, kicks, etc.)
> Training entirely off-handed
> Training with people from other styles
> Training in other styles
> And many more.


Yeah training to fit into the rules from the jump is something I have no problem with.  A full featured MA with competition rules can still be effective.  However training without those rules and then trying to adapt to them I think can be problematic as it violates, imo, the "train like you fight" method.  Think of just normal muscle memory. As an example, in Wing Chun we have a hand technique used to block low attacks or pin a hand temporarily to create an opening called gum sau.  It should just be a cupping hand, not a grab.  I had a problem though, since I had spent so many years training to grab the wrist, to transition either into a lock or take down, if I had a drill where I was supposed to perform a gum sau, I either would instinctively lap sau (grab) or stutter as I caught myself mid grab. I think, if I wanted to go into some sort of professional competition, that I would have to seriously modify my training regime in order to have the muscle memory that conformed to the new rule set.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

A heel hook represents a real risk of


gpseymour said:


> You're once again re-drawing my argument to suit you. What I said was that there's enough of what I do that doesn't fit with MMA competition that I'd have to either 1) spend a lot of time training specifically for that competition (which, by the way, is what the Muay Thai guys are probably doing in your example), or 2) deal with having a lot of my go-to techniques that aren't available, leaving me with those stutter-movements, giving a distinct advantage to my opponent.
> 
> Your comment doesn't, in any way, clarify or refute mine. I could - just like the Muay Thai guys - take the time to train to that difference. But that'd take me away from my training objective, rather than toward it. That's not a useful approach for me. If I was interested in competing, I could spend that extra time and adapt what I do to the rules (like most, I'd need cross-training, too). But why would I?


I think because it will dramatically improve your facility with the techniques you do use and also help with many intangibles.

Guys who compete in Bjj often also compete in other rule sets, such as grappling, boxing and Muay Thai.   And within grappling, there are many varying rule sets.    You don't have to open up the full can of whupass every time.   But you should be able to keep your brain engaged and show some critical thinking and sound decision making, even under pressure.   

Mma guys don't find themselves punching guys in an IBJJF competition any more than guys just go nuts and take a guy down in a boxing match.

I genuinely question the entire presumption that muscle memory to the point where you crank to 11 in an encounter is good training.   Maybe if you live on death planet five or are named snake plisken...


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> A heel hook represents a real risk of
> 
> I think because it will dramatically improve your facility with the techniques you do use and also help with many intangibles.
> 
> Guys who compete in Bjj often also compete in other rule sets, such as grappling, boxing and Muay Thai.   And within grappling, there are many varying rule sets.    You don't have to open up the full can of whupass every time.   But you should be able to keep your brain engaged and show some critical thinking and sound decision making, even under pressure.
> 
> Mma guys don't find themselves punching guys in an IBJJF competition any more than guys just go nuts and take a guy down in a boxing match.
> 
> I genuinely question the entire presumption that muscle memory to the point where you crank to 11 in an encounter is good training.   Maybe if you live on death planet five or are named snake plisken...


From reading the previous posts of @gpseymour I believe his method of teaching, and training, self defense is that you don't go hands on unless the situation is cranked to 11.

It's similar to my situation.  I need to keep techniques in boxes due to the UoF continuum. Now I don't necessarily have the opportunity to just walk away (which many typical self defense scenarios allow for) but as an example if I face "just" passive resistance I can only justify soft empty hand techniques.  If the situation rises to the level where I can justify full on striking or my baton then the situation is 11.  So when I train my "hard" control techniques, striking and stick work, I practice like it is 11.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> If learning to add is a prerequisite for learning algebra, then the contrapositive is also true. Right? You can't learn algebra if you can't add.



If you have never learned simultaneous equations you will have a much less chance of being able to solve them even when you do learn algebra to solve single equations and how to add up.



Steve said:


> Only way I can make sense of it is that you're suggesting that defending against a single person is completely unrelated to defending against multiple people. Is that what you're saying? is there some other way that your response makes sense?



They are not unrelated but there are variables that are in play with multiple attackers that are not present for a single attacker and there are tactics that are required to deal with them that need to be learned.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> You win.


He wins the competition because breaking the arm is useful or he wins the argument with you on this forum?


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> From reading the previous posts of @gpseymour I believe his method of teaching, and training, self defense is that you don't go hands on unless the situation is cranked to 11.
> 
> It's similar to my situation.  I need to keep techniques in boxes due to the UoF continuum. Now I don't necessarily have the opportunity to just walk away (which many typical self defense scenarios allow for) but as an example if I face "just" passive resistance I can only justify soft empty hand techniques.  If the situation rises to the level where I can justify full on striking or my baton then the situation is 11.  So when I train my "hard" control techniques, striking and stick work, I practice like it is 11.


i don't think that what I said is contrary to what you are saying. Maybe I don't understand, but what I'm suggesting is that competition is good for pressure testing appropriate techniques and tactics, and that this idea that one can't Scale back training for a non lethal context is bad juju.  

Kind of the same thing you're saying.  Right?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> i don't think that what I said is contrary to what you are saying. Maybe I don't understand, but what I'm suggesting is that competition is good for pressure testing appropriate techniques and tactics, and that this idea that one can't Scale back training for a non lethal context is bad juju.
> 
> Kind of the same thing you're saying.  Right?


It can be but that's why I kinda dig say "Dog Brothers" and old school MMA.  If your goal is train for 11, because you are either avoiding the fight entirely or going Snake Plisken, then you have to do some noticeable adjustments to your training regime due to the rulesets of most modern competitions.  As an example, I used to compete in Fencing competitions in high school and college.  The Kali I currently study has some Spanish Sword influence but much of what I train and spar to do (with all the protective gear and padded weapon during the sparring of course) would be completely illegal in Fencing.  If I was to go back to fencing I would have to do some major reprogramming.

Since there are ways to pressure test without the reprogramming, while not "sanctioned" competitions why go through the reprogramming to begin with?  Especially as it runs the risk of messing with your already established self defense game.


----------



## Buka

I can't fight on stairs.
I don't even go to 11 in a fight.
I kind of like Snake Plissken, though.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> I can't fight on stairs.
> I don't even go to 11 in a fight.
> I kind of like Snake Plissken, though.



Anyone can fight on stairs, Buka. Just probably not well. Let the legs go and roll down on the opponent is one way. Try not to be fighting "uphill," as it were.
I know I liked Maggie (Adrienne Barbeau, very nice).
I try to do only 1 thing at 11, and it is not fighting. Fighting gets me up to a 6.


----------



## Buka

JP3 said:


> Anyone can fight on stairs, Buka. Just probably not well. Let the legs go and roll down on the opponent is one way. Try not to be fighting "uphill," as it were.
> I know I liked Maggie (Adrienne Barbeau, very nice).
> I try to do only 1 thing at 11, and it is not fighting. Fighting gets me up to a 6.



Not me. There's some things in life some people just can't do, I can't fight on stairs. Trained on them, but, alas to no avail, it's as if I have three left feet.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No need to justify my training to you, but I'll humor you with a few examples:
> 
> Low-light training
> Training in street clothes
> Training outside
> Training without mats
> Defending from the knees
> Defending from a chair
> Training with one arm stuck in obi
> Defending entirely inside a square
> Defending with nothing but feet (no hands, only movement, kicks, etc.)
> Training entirely off-handed
> Training with people from other styles
> Training in other styles
> And many more.



A lot of those are specifically leaving out parts of your martial art. If one wrist lock is a core what is defending with only your feet?


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Not me. There's some things in life some people just can't do, I can't fight on stairs. Trained on them, but, alas to no avail, it's as if I have three left feet.



I fight on stairs. because stupid people think that is a cool thing to have right at the point where a bouncer denies people entry.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> He wins the competition because breaking the arm is useful or he wins the argument with you on this forum?



He wins the competition which is usefull because you dont get punched in the face any longer.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Yeah training to fit into the rules from the jump is something I have no problem with.  A full featured MA with competition rules can still be effective.  However training without those rules and then trying to adapt to them I think can be problematic as it violates, imo, the "train like you fight" method.  Think of just normal muscle memory. As an example, in Wing Chun we have a hand technique used to block low attacks or pin a hand temporarily to create an opening called gum sau.  It should just be a cupping hand, not a grab.  I had a problem though, since I had spent so many years training to grab the wrist, to transition either into a lock or take down, if I had a drill where I was supposed to perform a gum sau, I either would instinctively lap sau (grab) or stutter as I caught myself mid grab. I think, if I wanted to go into some sort of professional competition, that I would have to seriously modify my training regime in order to have the muscle memory that conformed to the new rule set.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



The training by rote issue.

sorry been misspelling that.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Anyone can fight on stairs, Buka. Just probably not well. Let the legs go and roll down on the opponent is one way. Try not to be fighting "uphill," as it were.
> I know I liked Maggie (Adrienne Barbeau, very nice).
> I try to do only 1 thing at 11, and it is not fighting. Fighting gets me up to a 6.



I havent seen anybody winning a fight get to stairs and then been outclassed by some sort of environmental expert.

Have seen people fall down them which will maees a guy up. But I am putting that down to miss adventure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> A heel hook represents a real risk of
> 
> I think because it will dramatically improve your facility with the techniques you do use and also help with many intangibles.
> 
> Guys who compete in Bjj often also compete in other rule sets, such as grappling, boxing and Muay Thai.   And within grappling, there are many varying rule sets.    You don't have to open up the full can of whupass every time.   But you should be able to keep your brain engaged and show some critical thinking and sound decision making, even under pressure.
> 
> Mma guys don't find themselves punching guys in an IBJJF competition any more than guys just go nuts and take a guy down in a boxing match.
> 
> I genuinely question the entire presumption that muscle memory to the point where you crank to 11 in an encounter is good training.   Maybe if you live on death planet five or are named snake plisken...


I never said the muscle memory would cause me to crank to 11. It just leads me to the techniques I train and use the most, and those include some which are not useful for competition. Again, those who compete in various competitions generally train for those competitions. Competing in them without specifically training for them will cost the competitor a level of effectiveness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> i don't think that what I said is contrary to what you are saying. Maybe I don't understand, but what I'm suggesting is that competition is good for pressure testing appropriate techniques and tactics, and that this idea that one can't Scale back training for a non lethal context is bad juju.
> 
> Kind of the same thing you're saying.  Right?


Again, I never said I couldn't scale back. What I said was that techniques that don't have a "scale back" to them become useless in that context, and if those are primary techniques, you have to consciously avoid them unless you train for the competition enough to remove them automatically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Anyone can fight on stairs, Buka. Just probably not well. Let the legs go and roll down on the opponent is one way. Try not to be fighting "uphill," as it were.
> I know I liked Maggie (Adrienne Barbeau, very nice).
> I try to do only 1 thing at 11, and it is not fighting. Fighting gets me up to a 6.


I'd personally prefer to be fighting uphill. Far more targets, and easier to take the other guy down when his legs are so handy.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> From reading the previous posts of @gpseymour I believe his method of teaching, and training, self defense is that you don't go hands on unless the situation is cranked to 11.
> 
> It's similar to my situation.  I need to keep techniques in boxes due to the UoF continuum. Now I don't necessarily have the opportunity to just walk away (which many typical self defense scenarios allow for) but as an example if I face "just" passive resistance I can only justify soft empty hand techniques.  If the situation rises to the level where I can justify full on striking or my baton then the situation is 11.  So when I train my "hard" control techniques, striking and stick work, I practice like it is 11.



How do I explain this. They are not really boxes but ideas.

You can fight a guy without going mental on them. If you train for what is presence of mind during a fight rather than just reacting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A lot of those are specifically leaving out parts of your martial art. If one wrist lock is a core what is defending with only your feet?


Yes, but all of those are still training for self-defense - developing specific parts of what we do. And in those training exercises, I expect a bit of stutter-movement along the way. Since it's not a competition, there's no downside. For instance, when I started practicing with one or both hands tucked into my obi to keep them out of the situation, I would often find those hands trying to reach up and fight - that's the reason for them being tucked in. After a bit of training, I was able to keep them out of the fight fairly consistently without the obi, which made it easier to use them separately when I needed to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I havent seen anybody winning a fight get to stairs and then been outclassed by some sort of environmental expert.
> 
> Have seen people fall down them which will maees a guy up. But I am putting that down to miss adventure.


I'd bet that if you have two equally skilled fighters, and only one of them has trained extensively on stairs, that's the guy who wins a fight on stairs.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd bet that if you have two equally skilled fighters, and only one of them has trained extensively on stairs, that's the guy who wins a fight on stairs.



And I bet the better fighter will generally win regardless as to what environment you put them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but all of those are still training for self-defense - developing specific parts of what we do. And in those training exercises, I expect a bit of stutter-movement along the way. Since it's not a competition, there's no downside. For instance, when I started practicing with one or both hands tucked into my obi to keep them out of the situation, I would often find those hands trying to reach up and fight - that's the reason for them being tucked in. After a bit of training, I was able to keep them out of the fight fairly consistently without the obi, which made it easier to use them separately when I needed to.



Same method as I am sugesting. Same result. Which is a better understanding of your martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And I bet the better fighter will generally win regardless as to what environment you put them.


No argument there. It would take a rather drastic difference in environment to offset an advantage in skill and preparation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Same method as I am sugesting. Same result. Which is a better understanding of your martial arts.


Except that you seem to be suggesting that competition is the only path. My point is that there are other methods that don't have the costs presented by competition. For those of us not otherwise inclined to competition, the other ways are a better fit.


----------



## Kickboxer101

gpseymour said:


> Except that you seem to be suggesting that competition is the only path. My point is that there are other methods that don't have the costs presented by competition. For those of us not otherwise inclined to competition, the other ways are a better fit.


Yeah I mean competition is risky I mean I've started looking round and I think im going to stop competing because its just to damm risky. A boxer who lost a decision in a fight I watched on TV is now in a coma and has brain damage, I saw on the news about a guy who died in his first amateur fight. I've been lucky when I competed I haven't taken to many shots but competing is just so risky and before I didn't really appreciate that fact but now I'm training now kenpo I honestly am enjoying that more than I have done competing. I still love kickboxing and I will still train it for the workout and the fact you do learn a lot about your punches and kicks but some people just don't want to put themselves in that position where they can get hurt badly or even die


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> How do I explain this. They are not really boxes but ideas.
> 
> You can fight a guy without going mental on them. If you train for what is presence of mind during a fight rather than just reacting.



Let me first explain the idea of "boxes".  It is simply a metaphor.  At each level of resistance I am limited to specific techniques so I picture myself as having a series of boxes labeled "passive resistance", "defensive resistance", "active aggression", "aggravated active aggression" and finally "lethal force."  

When I hit "active aggression" that means the suspect is not fighting to get away but is actively assaulting me in a manner that can cause serious bodily injury.  At that point I am all in, period.  So on the one hand you are right, I don't have to go mental on them, but then again I never go mental.  When I say "11" or "all in" I mean I am using techniques to end that assault ASAP because that suspect has the capability of seriously injuring me.  

I suppose it is my mind set/experience coloring the idea as well.  95% of the time I am dealing with Defensive Resistance.  In that scenario the person is simply trying to get away thus when they cross the line to active aggression it means something.  They either A) knowingly want to put a serious beat down on me or due to intoxicants or mental defect are completely out of control so in an unreasoning rage want to put a serious beat down on me.

As for "general" self defense there are so many ways to avoid an assault to begin with and someone who is serious about self defense should also train these skills, that way if you have to go hands on you are in a situation similar to the one I note above.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> The training by rote issue.
> 
> sorry been misspelling that.


The entire point of training though, "train how you fight" is so that when you decide on the goal the actions are reflex built on muscle memory.  The problem I experienced is that one specific technique was very similar to another I trained for years.  Never had the issue with gum sau at the elbow, only at the wrist (as an example.). If you aren't allowing muscle memory to do the work, you are more apt to make mistakes in my experience.  

Note I mentioned "once deciding on a goal".  I am not talking about fighting mindlessly like a robot, rather I decide on a course of action... am I looking to prone out a suspect so they can be cuffed?  Am I trying to stop an active physical assault?  What are my best target areas under the circumstances?  Decide on the goal then act.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No argument there. It would take a rather drastic difference in environment to offset an advantage in skill and preparation.



And so i choose to try to be the better fighter rather than relying on having a set of stairs handy.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Except that you seem to be suggesting that competition is the only path. My point is that there are other methods that don't have the costs presented by competition. For those of us not otherwise inclined to competition, the other ways are a better fit.



Exept you engage in competition with rules.  

Unless there is some dramatic difference in formalised competition that I am missing. 

(the only differences i can think of by the way is that it is more intense. Performed at a greater skill level. And with more riding on the outcome. Which are not exactly road blocks)


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The entire point of training though, "train how you fight" is so that when you decide on the goal the actions are reflex built on muscle memory.  The problem I experienced is that one specific technique was very similar to another I trained for years.  Never had the issue with gum sau at the elbow, only at the wrist (as an example.). If you aren't allowing muscle memory to do the work, you are more apt to make mistakes in my experience.
> 
> Note I mentioned "once deciding on a goal".  I am not talking about fighting mindlessly like a robot, rather I decide on a course of action... am I looking to prone out a suspect so they can be cuffed?  Am I trying to stop an active physical assault?  What are my best target areas under the circumstances?  Decide on the goal then act.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.

Your training really should reflect that. 

So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings.  Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent.  And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.

If their level of threat increases.  I shut down the threat.  Not raise my own level of threat.

And I do that with better basics.  The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby.  Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.

Part of that is incidental training.  So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.


----------



## JP3

You guys all missed my joke triple stack, I'm disappointed.

Jerry, having been the bouncer at both the top and bottom of the staris denying someone entry, I can tell you for experience that fighting uphill is definitely NOT where you want to be. You take them down or out and they fall into you and they always, I repeat, always, have friends. At the top of the stairs, they become each others problem or problems.

Drop, I thought you'd like Adrienne Barbeau, c'mon man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept you engage in competition with rules.
> 
> Unless there is some dramatic difference in formalised competition that I am missing.
> 
> (the only differences i can think of by the way is that it is more intense. Performed at a greater skill level. And with more riding on the outcome. Which are not exactly road blocks)


Except I don't engage in formalized competition, so I'm not sure what the point of saying that is.

For me, there's not so much riding on competition. I'd be the one to back off in a competition, rather than KO somebody. It's just not worth the "win" to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.
> 
> Your training really should reflect that.
> 
> So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings.  Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent.  And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.
> 
> If their level of threat increases.  I shut down the threat.  Not raise my own level of threat.
> 
> And I do that with better basics.  The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby.  Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.
> 
> Part of that is incidental training.  So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.


Nothing about muscle memory (technically, engraining of neural pathways) precludes adjustment. Muscle memory is what all athletes use to avoid having to think about their movements. And yes, they are all adjusting constantly. But they've done so many variations that the movement is learned with a broad amount of generalization, so the neural pathways serve even when you do something that's only similar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> You guys all missed my joke triple stack, I'm disappointed.
> 
> Jerry, having been the bouncer at both the top and bottom of the staris denying someone entry, I can tell you for experience that fighting uphill is definitely NOT where you want to be. You take them down or out and they fall into you and they always, I repeat, always, have friends. At the top of the stairs, they become each others problem or problems.
> 
> Drop, I thought you'd like Adrienne Barbeau, c'mon man.


I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.

Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.
> 
> Your training really should reflect that.
> 
> So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings.  Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent.  And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.
> 
> If their level of threat increases.  I shut down the threat.  Not raise my own level of threat.
> 
> And I do that with better basics.  The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby.  Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.
> 
> Part of that is incidental training.  So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.



Yes but with proper training those movements, even the adjustments, should be largely instinctive.  I don't think "bil sau" to address one attack or gan sau to address another.  It simply happens.  

As far as the "I shut down the threat" that is exactly what I am doing and either we are having a battle of semantics or I didn't explain my particular requirement well.  By law and policy I can only use X techniques for Y level of threat.  Literally it says "passive resistance permits soft empty hand control techniques, defensive resistance=hard empty hand control techniques, active aggression=empty hand striking..." Etc.  So I must ensure that my use of force is objectively appropriate for the level of force I am encountering.  If I use strikes on someone engaged in defensive resistance I will get disciplined and if I do injury to the person can be successfully sued.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.
> 
> Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.



Sideways. so you both dont go love up down the stairs.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Yes but with proper training those movements, even the adjustments, should be largely instinctive.  I don't think "bil sau" to address one attack or gan sau to address another.  It simply happens.  It might be how I have taught.  Here are two basic defenses, bong sau and gan sau.  Bongs address, largely, straight and round punches, a gan addresses low attacks.  However the way I am taught they are variations on a theme a focus on the elbow and how it connects shoulder to wrist.  So I don't think about the adjustments, I don't think "here comes a low strike time to gan", I just gan.
> 
> As far as the "I shut down the threat" that is exactly what I am doing and either we are having a battle of semantics or I didn't explain my particular requirement well.  By law and policy I can only use X techniques for Y level of threat.  Literally it says "passive resistance permits soft empty hand control techniques, defensive resistance=hard empty hand control techniques, active aggression=empty hand striking..." Etc.  So I must ensure that my use of force is objectively appropriate for the level of force I am encountering.  If I use strikes on someone engaged in defensive resistance I will get disciplined and if I do injury to the person can be successfully sued.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



No I think we are discussing completely different approaches.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No I think we are discussing completely different approaches.


Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Read this passage today and thought of this thread.



> I had been practicing weapon-craft when Beocca sought me out. We practiced every day, using stakes instead of swords, and some men grumbled that they did not need to play at fighting, and those I opposed myself and, when they had been beaten down to the mud, I told them they needed to play more and complain less.


its from one of Bernard Cromwell's books.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nothing about muscle memory (technically, engraining of neural pathways) precludes adjustment. Muscle memory is what all athletes use to avoid having to think about their movements. And yes, they are all adjusting constantly. But they've done so many variations that the movement is learned with a broad amount of generalization, so the neural pathways serve even when you do something that's only similar.



And yet the difference between arm locks and arm breaking confounds.


----------



## Buka

An aside to the stair thing - when I was a kid (maybe eight) my dad was building something in the cellar. I went to see what he was doing, and promptly fell face first down the stairs. I was crying and seeing stars.
He told me "unlike falling on your way upstairs, when you're headed down and fall - at least you accomplish your objective, which was to get down the stairs."

That always stuck with me, especially while training on stairs. But I still sucked at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sideways. so you both dont go love up down the stairs.


If the stairs are wide enough, that might be interesting, too. Probably preferable (for me) to being on the uphill side. As I think about it more, there are some advantages on the uphill side, but they bother me. A knee to the head is much easier there, but I'd have to take a foot off the ground...on stairs. Not my preference. I'd rather have full use of my arms and lots of targets for them, so at the same level (as you said, sideways) or below them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Read this passage today and thought of this thread.
> 
> its from one of Bernard Cromwell's books.


Yes, and that wasn't a competition. Interesting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And yet the difference between arm locks and arm breaking confounds.


No, it doesn't. You're missing what I described. There are breaks (destructions) that are done from a point where there is no base for holding the lock. Imagine an arm bar where I'm standing under your arm, breaking upwards. There are too many ways to escape and even counter that application if it's used as a standing lock, but it works well as a break. There's no way to adapt that position to a submission - as soon as someone tries to pause at the lock to submit me, I can counter easily. There are many other examples of these. They aren't likely to be included in the training of someone preparing for competition, because they'd be worse than useless there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> An aside to the stair thing - when I was a kid (maybe eight) my dad was building something in the cellar. I went to see what he was doing, and promptly fell face first down the stairs. I was crying and seeing stars.
> He told me "unlike falling on your way upstairs, when you're headed down and fall - at least you accomplish your objective, which was to get down the stairs."
> 
> That always stuck with me, especially while training on stairs. But I still sucked at it.


"Philosophical, dad, but my face hurts!"


----------



## BigMotor

This is a good thread, there are those things that I agree with, and those that I do not, but this is a dynamic sorting of things. 
I wish that there was more of it in life, some people in general society, have become so stupid in their beliefs, and cannot change them.
I am trying to change, and find what works in a fight, whether it is Tae Kwon Do, or a street fight. This thread has helped me. Thanks guys.


----------



## BigMotor

Buka said:


>



See what I mean? Just look at that fish, it is humorous, it is funny. I take this to mean that this poster considers the whole discussion as bogus. This is America, so to each his own, I think that it is relevant to me and many others,.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and that wasn't a competition. Interesting.


You don't think so?  Huh.  I think it fit the definition of competition very well. 

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that competition is the only way to actually apply technique in context.  It's just the most accessible for most people.  If you are in a profession where you routinely put your hands on other people, you may not need competition.  If not, you may need to be more creative and more specific.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You don't think so?  Huh.  I think it fit the definition of competition very well.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that competition is the only way to actually apply technique in context.  It's just the most accessible for most people.  If you are in a profession where you routinely put your hands on other people, you may not need competition.  If not, you may need to be more creative and more specific.


Okay, maybe you and I are using different definitions - it has happened to us before. When I speak of competition, I'm referring to something that goes beyond the training group. I think I actually adopted someone else's view on MT that though sparring in the dojo may become competitive, it is not a competition. I've been using that distinction in my discussions.

The quote seems to refer to fighting within the training group, which is why I referred to it not being a competition.


----------



## Buka

BigMotor said:


> See what I mean? Just look at that fish, it is humorous, it is funny. I take this to mean that this poster considers the whole discussion as bogus. This is America, so to each his own, I think that it is relevant to me and many others,.



Actually, I don't think any discussion is bogus. I was just kind of funnin' with Hanzou, who beside being a great poster, is one hell of a fisherman.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, it doesn't. You're missing what I described. There are breaks (destructions) that are done from a point where there is no base for holding the lock. Imagine an arm bar where I'm standing under your arm, breaking upwards. There are too many ways to escape and even counter that application if it's used as a standing lock, but it works well as a break. There's no way to adapt that position to a submission - as soon as someone tries to pause at the lock to submit me, I can counter easily. There are many other examples of these. They aren't likely to be included in the training of someone preparing for competition, because they'd be worse than useless there.



Bloody hell. You think you are describing something that nobody else has experienced.






A decent arm drag is an arm destruction.





Watch the arm go straight. Give that a decent reef and see what happens?

Wrestling arm destruction.





Jujitsu wrist locks.





Standing arm breaks are perfectly legit. Not very nice. And not very easy to get on a guy that is trying to beat you up.

You can choose to do them or not as your morality dictates.

You could compare that to a fighter who does part of his training in Gi and goes for a collar choke that is not there. Because he is competing no gi. Or a BJJ guy who has trained wrist locks but is not allowed to do them in MMA.

Exept nobody has that problem.

And because nobody has that problem. You may have to consider it is you with the issue. Not the rule set.

Everybody else can ajust to different circumstances. You can't Juanny can't a few other posters who don't like rule sets and competition. Can't.

There is a trend that reflects the sort of training people do to the inability to make fast effective adaptations while fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Bloody hell. You think you are describing something that nobody else has experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A decent arm drag is an arm destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the arm go straight. Give that a decent reef and see what happens?
> 
> Wrestling arm destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jujitsu wrist locks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing arm breaks are perfectly legit. Not very nice. And not very easy to get on a guy that is trying to beat you up.
> 
> You can choose to do them or not as your morality dictates.
> 
> You could compare that to a fighter who does part of his training in Gi and goes for a collar choke that is not there. Because he is competing no gi. Or a BJJ guy who has trained wrist locks but is not allowed to do them in MMA.
> 
> Exept nobody has that problem.
> 
> And because nobody has that problem. You may have to consider it is you with the issue. Not the rule set.
> 
> Everybody else can ajust to different circumstances. You can't Juanny can't a few other posters who don't like rule sets and competition. Can't.
> 
> There is a trend that reflects the sort of training people do to the inability to make fast effective adaptations while fighting.


I'm not even going to finishreading  that, because you are once again commenting on something I didn't say. I never said nobody else dealt with these issues. However, an arm drag is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about something that can be used also as a destruction. I'm talking about something that doesn't actually have another purpose. I could transition into an arm drag instead of one of the standing arm bars, but that's not the same thing as not setting up for that arm bar in the first place. 

I'm not sure why you have such a fit over this, DB. There are techniques that suck for competition use. Some arts have more of them. Those arts could be adjusted to be better suited to those competitions, but what would be the point if that's not the goal of those studying the art? I have said I could probably adjust and put in the extra effort to prepare for MMA-style competition, but since that type of competition holds no interest for me, that would be a waste of my time. Why do you want me so badly to compete?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not even going to finishreading  that, because you are once again commenting on something I didn't say. I never said nobody else dealt with these issues. However, an arm drag is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about something that can be used also as a destruction. I'm talking about something that doesn't actually have another purpose. I could transition into an arm drag instead of one of the standing arm bars, but that's not the same thing as not setting up for that arm bar in the first place.
> 
> I'm not sure why you have such a fit over this, DB. There are techniques that suck for competition use. Some arts have more of them. Those arts could be adjusted to be better suited to those competitions, but what would be the point if that's not the goal of those studying the art? I have said I could probably adjust and put in the extra effort to prepare for MMA-style competition, but since that type of competition holds no interest for me, that would be a waste of my time. Why do you want me so badly to compete?



I never said you should compete. I am saying that not competing because you cant use arm destructions is a cop out.

It is a basic variation on too deadly to spar.

If you dont want to compete that is fine. If you don't want to spar that is fine. If you are suggesting that you cant do either of these things because it takes away from your training as this limb destroying weapon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I never said you should compete. I am saying that not competing because you cant use arm destructions is a cop out.
> 
> It is a basic variation on too deadly to spar.
> 
> If you dont want to compete that is fine. If you don't want to spar that is fine. If you are suggesting that you cant do either of these things because it takes away from your training as this limb destroying weapon.


It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.

It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.

And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.
> 
> It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.
> 
> And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".


Okay, I am fairly certain I understand what you mean and, for the sake of illustration I will use an EXTREME example.  Before I started studying Kali I used expandable batons for control.  The dynamic controls start with an angle 5 (thrust).  




Now the baton I am issued is not a friction but rather a "positive" lock which requires the depression of a button in the butt of the baton for it to collapse.  Ergo I can use it to thrust for blunt force trauma and not risk it collapsing.  As such I can also thrust like a sword, meaning to do damage.  So while yes, I can aim my angle 5 to do a lock, there are also angle 5's that have no other purpose than to do blunt force trauma.

There are attacks to the joints that are similar.  The movement, if done from a different angle or different target can result in only a break just as an angle 5 can only result in trauma, or turned into a lock.  The difference is the detail and intent on the maneuver being trained and if you train with a particular maneuver and intent, changing it to another takes effort.  

I would NEVER try a dynamic lock with a baton now.  I have changed my methodology due to my Kali training.  If I use an angle 5 dynamically it is to cause blunt force trauma, my locks with a baton now are if I need an escort hold or if the target is static, say holding onto a banister for dear life to avoid cuffing.  Why?  Because I want to limit the amount of thought I need to do mid fight.  I don't want to have to "switch gears" depending on my context which is why I prefer sanctioned weapon competition vs empty hand.  In weapon competition we wear armor and use padded weapons so I only have to worry about the same "red zones" I do at work (angle 5 to the "family jewels" is frowned upon as an example  ) 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not a variation on "too deadly". It's a realistic assessment. Yes, there are folks who train part-time in gi's, then compete in no-gi. But it's pretty unlikely to find someone who trains full-time in a gi and competes no-gi. Why? Because they'd find themselves reaching for the gi too often. I never said adaptation wasn't possible. I said training for those adaptations would take me away from what I actually train for. I have no interest in training for competition, so why would I invest the extra time to do so? If competition fit with how I'm already training, I might use the occasional competition as part of my validation.
> 
> It's not that foreign a concept. I remember a karateka I used to train with telling me about the time he entered a "tough man" contest (that'd be back in the 80's, probably). When he stepped in the ring, they told him he couldn't kick, which wasn't part of the posted rules shared with him in advance (most likely an attempt to tame the "lethal karate guy"). He hadn't trained for no-kick, so his approach sucked, and he got his butt kicked. If he'd had time to prepare for that rule, he might have fared better, but without that training he wasn't really ready for the competition, because his strategy anticipated and centered around the use of his kicks to control the distance. That's much the same issue I'd run into if I didn't take the time to train an approach that doesn't use those no-base destructions, locks that have no room for submission, etc.
> 
> And as for your comment earlier that breaks are usable, no. Just, no. I've commented before that I'm absolutely not willing to hurt someone for the sake of a "win".



You were reminded of a karateka who was too deadly for a competition but was defeated because of rules. 


Sigh.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Okay, I am fairly certain I understand what you mean and, for the sake of illustration I will use an EXTREME example.  Before I started studying Kali I used expandable batons for control.  The dynamic controls start with an angle 5 (thrust).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the baton I am issued is not a friction but rather a "positive" lock which requires the depression of a button in the butt of the baton for it to collapse.  Ergo I can use it to thrust for blunt force trauma and not risk it collapsing.  As such I can also thrust like a sword, meaning to do damage.  So while yes, I can aim my angle 5 to do a lock, there are also angle 5's that have no other purpose than to do blunt force trauma.
> 
> There are attacks to the joints that are similar.  The movement, if done from a different angle or different target can result in only a break just as an angle 5 can only result in trauma, or turned into a lock.  The difference is the detail and intent on the maneuver being trained and if you train with a particular maneuver and intent, changing it to another takes effort.
> 
> I would NEVER try a dynamic lock with a baton now.  I have changed my methodology due to my Kali training.  If I use an angle 5 dynamically it is to cause blunt force trauma, my locks with a baton now are if I need an escort hold or if the target is static, say holding onto a banister for dear life to avoid cuffing.  Why?  Because I want to limit the amount of thought I need to do mid fight.  I don't want to have to "switch gears" depending on my context which is why I prefer sanctioned weapon competition vs empty hand.  In weapon competition we wear armor and use padded weapons so I only have to worry about the same "red zones" I do at work (angle 5 to the "family jewels" is frowned upon as an example  )
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


That's a pretty good example, Juany. If you trained that movement, you'd have to keep enough conscious control to avoid using it at work. If you started that movement then caught yourself and stopped it, you might provide enough opening that they get out of it. In your case, that could eventually mean injury to someone - most likely the person you're trying to control. In competition against a highly skilled opponent, it probably means they get in a counter in that little gap (because, let's face it, little gaps are where most fights are won/lost).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You were reminded of a karateka who was too deadly for a competition but was defeated because of rules.
> 
> 
> Sigh.


I'm not saying I (or he) thought he was too deadly. The rules were changed, most likely by someone who thought he was - this was during the heavy Norris/Van Damme era, so people running these contests thought kicks were some super-deadly thing, apparently. He would have readily used them - as kickboxers do - had he been allowed. They removed some of his primary weapons - which would have made him roughly equal to the other competitors.


----------



## dowz

(off-topic alert!)

good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?


----------



## Steve

dowz said:


> (off-topic alert!)
> 
> good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?


Ever see the movie, the music man?  A marching band that can't play music is a con.  All of the other stuff is a byproduct of being able to fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Ever see the movie, the music man?  A marching band that can't play music is a con.  All of the other stuff is a byproduct of being able to fight.


Unless being able to fight is not the point of a person's training. For many of us, and I count myself in that number, we tend assume that is the primary purpose (at least at the onset of training). There are some who train in some of the "internal" arts specifically for those reasons, rather than them being a byproduct. For some of them, the ability to fight is a byproduct, if it develops at all. It's not my path, but it's no different than someone using any other discipline (yoga, a daily exercise regimen, etc.) for those same purposes.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Unless being able to fight is not the point of a person's training. For many of us, and I count myself in that number, we tend assume that is the primary purpose (at least at the onset of training). There are some who train in some of the "internal" arts specifically for those reasons, rather than them being a byproduct. For some of them, the ability to fight is a byproduct, if it develops at all. It's not my path, but it's no different than someone using any other discipline (yoga, a daily exercise regimen, etc.) for those same purposes.


I disagree.  We can discuss primary and secondary purposes of training, and that's all fine and good.  But if you aren't learning to fight, you aren't learning a martial art. 

Or said the other way, if you're interested in training in Tae Bo, just don't kid yourself.  This is true whether your personal flavor of Tae Bo is called Karate, Aikido or whatever else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I disagree.  We can discuss primary and secondary purposes of training, and that's all fine and good.  But if you aren't learning to fight, you aren't learning a martial art.
> 
> Or said the other way, if you're interested in training in Tae Bo, just don't kid yourself.  This is true whether your personal flavor of Tae Bo is called Karate, Aikido or whatever else.


I don't think we actually disagree on this, Steve. It's just a matter of what we include in "martial arts". 10 years ago, my use of that term would have only included training intended to prepare fighting ability. In the last decade, I've found that definition less rigidly applicable, and now I tend to include anything drawn from fight training. So, if someone wants to call Tae Bo an "exercise martial art", I don't really have a problem. I'd just call it exercise, but I don't really have a problem with their usage. Just as I once referred to competition training as "martial sports" (after seeing some point fighting that I didn't feel was at all applicable to actual fighting), but later determined that some (though admittedly not all) of that training was also actually preparing the folks for fighting outside that competition, so now I only use the term "martial sport" as a way to distinguish training that is primarily aimed at competition, rather than as a distinction from ability to fight.

So, if you use "martial art" to refer to something that's preparing students to fight, I can roll with that. Or not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't think we actually disagree on this, Steve. It's just a matter of what we include in "martial arts". 10 years ago, my use of that term would have only included training intended to prepare fighting ability. In the last decade, I've found that definition less rigidly applicable, and now I tend to include anything drawn from fight training. So, if someone wants to call Tae Bo an "exercise martial art", I don't really have a problem. I'd just call it exercise, but I don't really have a problem with their usage. Just as I once referred to competition training as "martial sports" (after seeing some point fighting that I didn't feel was at all applicable to actual fighting), but later determined that some (though admittedly not all) of that training was also actually preparing the folks for fighting outside that competition, so now I only use the term "martial sport" as a way to distinguish training that is primarily aimed at competition, rather than as a distinction from ability to fight.
> 
> So, if you use "martial art" to refer to something that's preparing students to fight, I can roll with that. Or not.


Personally, I would say that it should teach someone practical fighting skills within some context.  "Some" can refer to really anything that fits the bill.  I have a pretty broad and forgiving definition myself, but it does stop short of none. 

For example, I would consider kyudo a martial art, even though it's not very practical in the 20th century.  You're actually learning to shoot real arrows.  Wrestling is a martial art, too, IMO.  Even if the context is limited, if you're learning actual fighting skills, you're learning a martial art.

It's about defining the salient characteristics of a martial art.  I think there's really only one, but without that one thing it's no longer a martial art.

Going back to the Music Man analogy, I'd say that a marching band has two salient characteristics, without either of which it would not be a marching band:  marching and music.  If you're not playing music, you're not a marching band.  You're just marching while carrying musical instruments and while that might be all kinds of fun, it's not a band without the music.  Similarly, without marching, you're just a band.

All of that said, I get queasy when I hear people talk about how martial skill or fighting skills aren't a necessary part of martial arts.  Once again, primary or secondary purposes of training, no problem.  I completely understand that people don't all train martial arts to be a hardass.  No problem.  But just like people play music "just for fun" they're still playing music (even if it's not very good music).


----------



## jks9199

dowz said:


> (off-topic alert!)
> 
> good discussion - i just want to throw a spanner into the works though... whoever said Martial Arts is all about fighting... and competition is not only about sparring. What about character development, or inner cultivation from martial arts practice... or patterns/forms/kata/poomsae which demonstrates the beauty and grace of martial arts?


Good point -- but very off topic.  Perhaps you'd care to start a new thread about how you test(?) non-violent/non-competitive aspects of the arts?


----------



## BigMotor

Buka said:


> Actually, I don't think any discussion is bogus. I was just kind of funnin' with Hanzou, who beside being a great poster, is one hell of a fisherman.



OK, I thought that you were being humorous.


----------



## drop bear

I don't care if your martial art teaches  you to fight or not. 

But i do see the value of defining the ones that do..  Just in case


----------



## Paul_D

Leo89 said:


> If there's a difference between self defense and a fight (where most SD takes place), then please enlighten me.



It is an hour long, but it will enlighten you.
The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> It is an hour long, but it will enlighten you.
> The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy



The thing with ian Abernathy is that people can disagree with his opinion.

He seems to get quoted as a definitive authority on self defence.

And I still dont see it.

Ok. I mentioned this to greysemor I will mention it again.

I train a fighting system. we put people in the ring and they bash each other for money or trophies.

Nobody really struggles defending themselves when they are attacked on the street.(There was this one guy who fought a whole football team but that was his mistake)

Nobody really struggles to avoid danger,ambushes or attacks.

Nobod really struggles de-escalating potentual conflicts.

There may be a few rough edges to iron out if they really wanted to be shmick at that sort of thing. But to suggest that you would have to focus your training to a specific environment ue to some major risk that you will fail because of that means that the training you are doing now does not equip you with the mental tools to ajust to new environments.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> But to suggest that you would have to focus your training to a specific environment ue to some major risk that you will fail because of that means that the training you are doing now does not equip you with the mental tools to ajust to new environments.



People aren't saying that. The point is if you wish to compete then you must train for competitions. If you are not then you will not do well regardless of whatever your style is. Are you aware that many mma gyms don't compete outside of their own gym?

Does this make them bad? I don't think so, if they don't want to compete that's fine, maybe competitions are the last thing on their minds, maybe they just want to defend themselves and have no concern for chasing medals and trophies.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> The thing with ian Abernathy is that people can disagree with his opinion.



Sure they can.



drop bear said:


> He seems to get quoted as a definitive authority on self defence.



Not really. He is often quoted as AN authority, which isn't the same thing at all.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> People aren't saying that. The point is if you wish to compete then you must train for competitions. If you are not then you will not do well regardless of whatever your style is. Are you aware that many mma gyms don't compete outside of their own gym?
> 
> Does this make them bad? I don't think so, if they don't want to compete that's fine, maybe competitions are the last thing on their minds, maybe they just want to defend themselves and have no concern for chasing medals and trophies.



Self defence is competition lite.  Upsets people as well though.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Self defence is competition lite.  Upsets people as well though.



There is nothing to be upset about and it isn't something complicated. People will argue about the best arts and best styles ect but in the end it comes down to the training methods.

Then it comes down to the individual and that individuals goals. If Joe shmoe is not interested in being a world championship fighter why should he be so concerned about how he will do in a competition? 

If he wishes to do it for self defense only or just simply for something fun and athletic to do, then competing for points medals and trophies under a rule set will be the last thing on his mind.

Here is another example, a boxer loves boxing, he wishes to compete because he joys it. He would have to train for competitions, what kind of competitions though? Boxing of course. People would say his style is incomplete because it has no kicks or grappling but why should he care? He is a boxer who's goals are only related to boxing.

Joe shmoe from earliers goals are for simply self defence and having fun.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Self defence is competition lite.  Upsets people as well though.



I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.
After all, there are rules in place in any competition to minimize or at least control the level of risk, nobody in a competition should be actually trying to kill or cripple you (although risks exist, that isn't the GOAL...) and weapons (designed or improvised) are not a factor.


----------



## Ironbear24

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.
> After all, there are rules in place in any competition to minimize or at least control the level of risk, nobody in a competition should be actually trying to kill or cripple you (although risks exist, that isn't the GOAL...) and weapons (designed or improvised) are not a factor.



Agreed. At first I didn't know what the statement "lite" meant, but yeah competitions are far from self defense. I doubt anyone seriously feels like their life is danger when they enter a ring. If they do then they don't belong there in the first place.


----------



## Langenschwert

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.



This might be dependant on the relative skill of your opponent. For a pro MMA fighter, the average yotz in a bar thowing a telegraphed haymaker might be competition lite. For a no-contact practitioner from John Doe's mcdojo, it's certainly more than that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Langenschwert said:


> This might be dependant on the relative skill of your opponent. For a pro MMA fighter, the average yotz in a bar thowing a telegraphed haymaker might be competition lite. For a no-contact practitioner from John Doe's mcdojo, it's certainly more than that.



If you want to talk about specific cases, then fine. But the comment was "competition vs defense" which is a generality. 
Competition is defense-lite.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.
> After all, there are rules in place in any competition to minimize or at least control the level of risk, nobody in a competition should be actually trying to kill or cripple you (although risks exist, that isn't the GOAL...) and weapons (designed or improvised) are not a factor.



Yeah.  People say that.But you don't often see it in the training.  I wouldn't put some guy who trains 3 nights a week and is unfit in a competition.

They would get bashed.

A competition fight camp is serious business. And that is to prepare a guy for a fight that he will probably walk away from.
ematch Ready: Chris Weidman's Fight Camp Training

A Day in the Life of a Muay Thai Fighter

For self defence I have never seen a training requirement anywhere near that. But everyone seems happy to suggest that they are prepared to defend themselves.


What is the fighting prep for these life and death encounters consist of?


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  People say that.But you don't often see it in the training.  I wouldn't put some guy who trains 3 nights a week and is unfit in a competition.



That would be because competition isn't defense. I'm glad you agree with me. 
Competition, for one thing, is generally a fairly long thing, while most defensive encounters are finished in a few seconds.



drop bear said:


> They would get bashed.



And yet, here I am, a worn out tired old fat man who is assaulted on a far too regular basis, almost always by people who are much younger and fitter than me. And somehow I manage to defend myself. I've been in this "arena" since 1979. I've had my nose broken once (sucker punched, which nobody is going to stop - but it was the only hit he landed). I've had a couple very minor bruises. My glasses fell off once when I ducked a punch and got stepped on. But that's it. And while I can't provide an accurate number, I'd say during that time I've been assaulted at least twice a month, on average.
Why aren't I getting bashed?

Maybe... because competition (while worthwhile) isn't defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The thing with ian Abernathy is that people can disagree with his opinion.
> 
> He seems to get quoted as a definitive authority on self defence.
> 
> And I still dont see it.
> 
> Ok. I mentioned this to greysemor I will mention it again.
> 
> I train a fighting system. we put people in the ring and they bash each other for money or trophies.
> 
> Nobody really struggles defending themselves when they are attacked on the street.(There was this one guy who fought a whole football team but that was his mistake)
> 
> Nobody really struggles to avoid danger,ambushes or attacks.
> 
> Nobod really struggles de-escalating potentual conflicts.
> 
> There may be a few rough edges to iron out if they really wanted to be shmick at that sort of thing. But to suggest that you would have to focus your training to a specific environment ue to some major risk that you will fail because of that means that the training you are doing now does not equip you with the mental tools to ajust to new environments.


We did talk about this before, and I've actually agreed with you on a lot of points. 

There's nothing wrong with the type of training you do - it is effective preparation for self-defense in most cases. It leaves some things out, but so does everything else. It doesn't train specifically for some circumstances, but that's a marginal issue not a major one. Someone who's good will be good mostly regardless of the environment. Training to some of those other environments is about becoming more adaptable, not about having to train to that specific environment. One of the advantages you have in your training is that you're probably sparring/training with some folks who get pretty intense. Most folks at a casual martial arts school aren't going to be that intense.

Meanwhile, schools that train specifically for self-defense train some stuff you don't, and that probably gives them some advantage (perhaps only slight) over someone not trained for that stuff. And they miss some of the intensity you get in your training for competition. It's a trade-off, and if they don't focus it right, it can get off-track and end up not being as effective as it should be. There are training methods that help avoid that issue. These schools will usually have students who mostly commit fewer hours and sometimes less energy to their training. That's the larger difference, in my opinion, and the reason self-defense systems have to take a different approach to training.

There is more to self-defense than just the fighting skills you mention you train. Fortunately, a lot of that other stuff comes as a result of being confident, which is a side-effect of the fighting ability. There's more that can be learned beyond those side effects. Nobody has to learn them, but those of us who focus on self-defense are looking for those marginal advantages in things like de-escalation. It's a choice in how we train.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Self defence is competition lite.  Upsets people as well though.


Actually, not if they're being logical about it. This is EXACTLY part of the argument I make about not needing to compete to be competent for self-defense. Competition trains you to defend against a highly skilled opponent. The chances of an attacker on the street being anywhere near that skilled are vanishingly low, so self-defense training doesn't try to get to the point of fending off a Gracie. Instead, we get to work on things like weapon defense, weapon use, multiple attacker evasion and defense, etc. to gain some percent improvement of our chances in those situations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.
> After all, there are rules in place in any competition to minimize or at least control the level of risk, nobody in a competition should be actually trying to kill or cripple you (although risks exist, that isn't the GOAL...) and weapons (designed or improvised) are not a factor.


The way I look at it, both are limited versions of the other, with some stuff added in. Competition has a more limited attack set and (hopefully) lower risk than self-defense. Self-defense deals with less-skilled attackers and shorter confrontations.

If you look at self-defense training through the paradigm of prep for competition, you'll think self-defense is lacking.
If you look at competition training through the paradigm of self-defense training, you'll think it's leaving out stuff.

In both cases, you'd be wrong. Ironbear's comment about the boxer is spot-on for this. It's only lacking if it fails to meet the objectives of the person training.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> That would be because competition isn't defense. I'm glad you agree with me.
> Competition, for one thing, is generally a fairly long thing, while most defensive encounters are finished in a few seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here I am, a worn out tired old fat man who is assaulted on a far too regular basis, almost always by people who are much younger and fitter than me. And somehow I manage to defend myself. I've been in this "arena" since 1979. I've had my nose broken once (sucker punched, which nobody is going to stop - but it was the only hit he landed). I've had a couple very minor bruises. My glasses fell off once when I ducked a punch and got stepped on. But that's it. And while I can't provide an accurate number, I'd say during that time I've been assaulted at least twice a month, on average.
> Why aren't I getting bashed?
> 
> Maybe... because competition (while worthwhile) isn't defense.


So you don't have to train as hard.  You don't have to be in your prime but are able to be successful at self defence. 

Maybe because self defence (while worthwhile ) is competition lite.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  People say that.But you don't often see it in the training.  I wouldn't put some guy who trains 3 nights a week and is unfit in a competition.
> 
> They would get bashed.
> 
> A competition fight camp is serious business. And that is to prepare a guy for a fight that he will probably walk away from.
> ematch Ready: Chris Weidman's Fight Camp Training
> 
> A Day in the Life of a Muay Thai Fighter
> 
> For self defence I have never seen a training requirement anywhere near that. But everyone seems happy to suggest that they are prepared to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> What is the fighting prep for these life and death encounters consist of?


There, again, you're equating the student's commitment level with the training. That's not the same thing. If people going for competition were committing 2-3 hours a week and not committing to exercise outside those hours, competition training wouldn't be effective as it is currently laid out. Competition training works precisely because of the commitment the person makes to that training. Most of us teaching self-defense don't get that level of commitment. That's not a negative about the students - just a reality of their priorities. So we use different training methods, better suited to the students we serve.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We did talk about this before, and I've actually agreed with you on a lot of points.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the type of training you do - it is effective preparation for self-defense in most cases. It leaves some things out, but so does everything else. It doesn't train specifically for some circumstances, but that's a marginal issue not a major one. Someone who's good will be good mostly regardless of the environment. Training to some of those other environments is about becoming more adaptable, not about having to train to that specific environment. One of the advantages you have in your training is that you're probably sparring/training with some folks who get pretty intense. Most folks at a casual martial arts school aren't going to be that intense.
> 
> Meanwhile, schools that train specifically for self-defense train some stuff you don't, and that probably gives them some advantage (perhaps only slight) over someone not trained for that stuff. And they miss some of the intensity you get in your training for competition. It's a trade-off, and if they don't focus it right, it can get off-track and end up not being as effective as it should be. There are training methods that help avoid that issue. These schools will usually have students who mostly commit fewer hours and sometimes less energy to their training. That's the larger difference, in my opinion, and the reason self-defense systems have to take a different approach to training.
> 
> There is more to self-defense than just the fighting skills you mention you train. Fortunately, a lot of that other stuff comes as a result of being confident, which is a side-effect of the fighting ability. There's more that can be learned beyond those side effects. Nobody has to learn them, but those of us who focus on self-defense are looking for those marginal advantages in things like de-escalation. It's a choice in how we train.



Ok. Here is a different element to the conversation. Not about specificity but But that self defence people also tend not to train at the same level of intensity either. 

So if you were training a specific skill set that was applicable to SD. And believed that you were training for a life or death fight. Then a lot of these discussions would change. 

How many people do you think would recommend, train what makes you happy, or only commit the time you can spare if there legitimately was a guy at the end of that training waiting to beat you to death?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There, again, you're equating the student's commitment level with the training. That's not the same thing. If people going for competition were committing 2-3 hours a week and not committing to exercise outside those hours, competition training wouldn't be effective as it is currently laid out. Competition training works precisely because of the commitment the person makes to that training. Most of us teaching self-defense don't get that level of commitment. That's not a negative about the students - just a reality of their priorities. So we use different training methods, better suited to the students we serve.



If self defence really is the serious business that is now being claimed.  Then that is a negative on the instruction. 

If self defence is not as serious as being claimed then fine.  Train how you want.  Have fun,take days off. 

It is a contradictory stance that people take.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So if you were training a specific skill set that was applicable to SD. And believed that you were training for a life or death fight. Then a lot of these discussions would change.
> 
> How many people do you think would recommend, train what makes you happy, or only commit the time you can spare if there legitimately was a guy at the end of that training waiting to beat you to death?









I don't believe anybody has ever said that defensive encounters are all about life or death. 

What has been said is that the potential exists, whereas in competition the entire ruleset is intended to prevent such things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. Here is a different element to the conversation. Not about specificity but But that self defence people also tend not to train at the same level of intensity either.
> 
> So if you were training a specific skill set that was applicable to SD. And believed that you were training for a life or death fight. Then a lot of these discussions would change.
> 
> How many people do you think would recommend, train what makes you happy, or only commit the time you can spare if there legitimately was a guy at the end of that training waiting to beat you to death?


What I would recommend about intensity is irrelevant. People want to learn to defend themselves, and this is their commitment level. I could ramp things up to a high intensity that would require more fitness, and most of them would leave. My goal is to help them improve their chances. I can make small improvements quickly, then large improvements over longer time periods.

If I had my magic wand, I'd have students who want to train at higher intensity, like I did in my late 20's. I'd then change out some of my teaching and training methods to fit that higher level of intensity. But that's not the reality. I teach for reality.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If self defence really is the serious business that is now being claimed.  Then that is a negative on the instruction.
> 
> If self defence is not as serious as being claimed then fine.  Train how you want.  Have fun,take days off.
> 
> It is a contradictory stance that people take.


It's not an issue with the instruction. The instruction fits the students. What's so difficult to understand about that?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not an issue with the instruction. The instruction fits the students. What's so difficult to understand about that?



The instruction fits the task.

And personally i would like the students to raise to the level of the instruction. Not the instruction to Lower to the level of the student.

But that is just me.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't believe anybody has ever said that defensive encounters are all about life or death.
> 
> What has been said is that the potential exists, whereas in competition the entire ruleset is intended to prevent such things.



Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car. 

Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things.  Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What I would recommend about intensity is irrelevant. People want to learn to defend themselves, and this is their commitment level. I could ramp things up to a high intensity that would require more fitness, and most of them would leave. My goal is to help them improve their chances. I can make small improvements quickly, then large improvements over longer time periods.
> 
> If I had my magic wand, I'd have students who want to train at higher intensity, like I did in my late 20's. I'd then change out some of my teaching and training methods to fit that higher level of intensity. But that's not the reality. I teach for reality.



The reality is that all the external factors in self defence work in your favor as much as it works against you and so near enough is generally good enough.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.
> 
> Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things.  Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.



That's still a fallacy, a poor example. There is much danger in racing as well as normally driving. Competitions have tons of rules and a referee to minimize any risk of death as small as possible.

Plus neither example of racing or driving have people going out of their way to harm you.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> That would be because competition isn't defense. I'm glad you agree with me.
> Competition, for one thing, is generally a fairly long thing, while most defensive encounters are finished in a few seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here I am, a worn out tired old fat man who is assaulted on a far too regular basis, almost always by people who are much younger and fitter than me. And somehow I manage to defend myself. I've been in this "arena" since 1979. I've had my nose broken once (sucker punched, which nobody is going to stop - but it was the only hit he landed). I've had a couple very minor bruises. My glasses fell off once when I ducked a punch and got stepped on. But that's it. And while I can't provide an accurate number, I'd say during that time I've been assaulted at least twice a month, on average.
> Why aren't I getting bashed?
> 
> Maybe... because competition (while worthwhile) isn't defense.


Maybe you've been lucky never to have only been assaulted by incompetents.  That's playing the odds, but isn't necessarily an endorsement of your training,


----------



## Steve

There's more to self defense than fighting only when it's convenient to say so.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Maybe you've been lucky never to have only been assaulted by incompetents.  That's playing the odds, but isn't necessarily an endorsement of your training,



So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?


Who knws?  He works in an ER in Colorado?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?



Most people are pretty bad at fighting. That is why some people train.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> That's still a fallacy, a poor example. There is much danger in racing as well as normally driving. Competitions have tons of rules and a referee to minimize any risk of death as small as possible.
> 
> Plus neither example of racing or driving have people going out of their way to harm you.



Racing has tons of rules and a referee. 

Otherwise i am not sure what intentions have to do with risk.  Plenty of activities can have risk without bad intentions. And vica versa i suppose.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> There's more to self defense than fighting only when it's convenient to say so.



And the circumstances are always against you.  For some reason us poor SD guys never get the numbers,weapons or ambushes.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Langenschwert said:


> For a no-contact practitioner from John Doe's mcdojo, it's certainly more than that.


From a mcdojo perhaps.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> ematch Ready: Chris Weidman's Fight Camp Training
> 
> A Day in the Life of a Muay Thai Fighter
> 
> For self defence I have never seen a training requirement anywhere near that.


That is because self defence people are training for self defence not competition.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.
> 
> Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things.  Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.


There are many things a race car driver does not have to worry about that someone on the road has to: The possibility that the driver next to you is drunk, that the driver on the cross street is not going to run a red light whilst you are trying to cross, that a pedestrian is not going to run in front of you, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The instruction fits the task.
> 
> And personally i would like the students to raise to the level of the instruction. Not the instruction to Lower to the level of the student.
> 
> But that is just me.


What you would like is irrelevant. I teach for reality.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.
> 
> Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things.  Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.


I think this is a decent analogy in concept. It does get to the idea that competition training requires some things that defense training doesn't (higher speeds, sneaky passing, etc.), and vice-versa (intersections, speed limits, red lights, etc.). 

The analogy does miss in some areas. If someone were only trained for track racing, they'd completely suck on the streets (no understanding of red lights, can't park, speeding everywhere, etc.). We wouldn't expect deficiencies of that magnitude from competition training (assuming it's hard training like MMA). And race driving is inherently more dangerous than driving on the street. There are fewer dangers numerically (fewer cars, no intersections, etc), but the magnitude of risk is so much higher. That's probably reversed from the competition vs. defense side, where there are more frequent dangers in competition (every moment you're in an MMA match, someone's trying to hit you, etc.) and more significant dangers on the street (someone might try to kill you, which they probably won't in the ring).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The reality is that all the external factors in self defence work in your favor as much as it works against you and so near enough is generally good enough.


I'm not sure I followed that entirely, DB, so correct me if I misread it. I think you're saying that moderate improvements are useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Maybe you've been lucky never to have only been assaulted by incompetents.  That's playing the odds, but isn't necessarily an endorsement of your training,


Knowing his background, I'm going to doubt he's been that lucky. It's possible, I suppose.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Racing has tons of rules and a referee.
> 
> Otherwise i am not sure what intentions have to do with risk.  Plenty of activities can have risk without bad intentions. And vica versa i suppose.



The point is the other cars aren't out to kill you or even make contact with you, so yes it is a poor example.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Who knws?  He works in an ER in Colorado?





drop bear said:


> Most people are pretty bad at fighting. That is why some people train.



Many people in the E.R are on drugs and can be very compative. It's not your everyday occurrence but it does happen. Ask any CNA and they'll tell you.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Many people in the E.R are on drugs and can be very compative. It's not your everyday occurrence but it does happen. Ask any CNA and they'll tell you.


Of course.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> The point is the other cars aren't out to kill you or even make contact with you, so yes it is a poor example.



So you have never driven?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Many people in the E.R are on drugs and can be very compative. It's not your everyday occurrence but it does happen. Ask any CNA and they'll tell you.



I worked security for those sorts of guys as a patrol guard. Had a mate who did it full time.  In a busy hospital in a major city.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I followed that entirely, DB, so correct me if I misread it. I think you're saying that moderate improvements are useful.



Not really all these risks that occur in self defence. Are also saftey mesures. So if I get jumped by some robber and have the numbers and the weapons then I have less risk than he does.

Ultimately the risk of getting crippled or killed in a self defence is pretty slim.

So I have to have a guy who wants to attack me.

I have to be in a position for him to attack me.

He has to go from wanting to attack to actually attacking.

He has to be fairly good at violence.

He has to want to not only attack me but really want to cripple or kill me.

There is nobody to help at that point.

And bouncing you notice that people pass though all of these hurdles If the get stopped at any one the risk goes away. I can get in hundreds of situations that have the potential for violence that never eventuate.

This self promotion of self defence risk,danger of self defence and therefore self promotion of training methods is not as realistic as people would have us believe.

You are at more risk on the roads.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because self defence people are training for self defence not competition.



They are not training as diligently.

Why do you think that is?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What you would like is irrelevant. I teach for reality.









I mean it is even on the sig I have in the bottom of every post I write. You have to believe people are capable of more.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think this is a decent analogy in concept. It does get to the idea that competition training requires some things that defense training doesn't (higher speeds, sneaky passing, etc.), and vice-versa (intersections, speed limits, red lights, etc.).
> 
> The analogy does miss in some areas. If someone were only trained for track racing, they'd completely suck on the streets (no understanding of red lights, can't park, speeding everywhere, etc.). We wouldn't expect deficiencies of that magnitude from competition training (assuming it's hard training like MMA). And race driving is inherently more dangerous than driving on the street. There are fewer dangers numerically (fewer cars, no intersections, etc), but the magnitude of risk is so much higher. That's probably reversed from the competition vs. defense side, where there are more frequent dangers in competition (every moment you're in an MMA match, someone's trying to hit you, etc.) and more significant dangers on the street (someone might try to kill you, which they probably won't in the ring).



Exept. And here is the cool part of the analogy. They still drive to the race track. 

Now this idea came to me when we were all telling war stories in the gym.  That regardless if you train for the ring.  You are still going to have as much access to real street experience as anybody else. 

Just like the racing car guy.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Exept. And here is the cool part of the analogy. They still drive to the race track.
> 
> Now this idea came to me when we were all telling war stories in the gym.  That regardless if you train for the ring.  You are still going to have as much access to real street experience as anybody else.
> 
> Just like the racing car guy.



And still neither the drivers on the race track or the drivers on the street will be attempting to kill you.


----------



## Kickboxer101

God is this silly thread still going


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> They are not training as diligently.


Do you know what 'diligent' means?


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> God is this silly thread still going



Yup...


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Do you know what 'diligent' means?





diligent
ˈdɪlɪdʒ(ə)nt/
_adjective_

having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties.
"after diligent searching, he found a parcel"


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> God is this silly thread still going



You think near enough is good enough when it comes to self defence training.

Others don't.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> diligent
> ˈdɪlɪdʒ(ə)nt/
> _adjective_
> 
> having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties.
> "after diligent searching, he found a parcel"


So you think someone training for self defense does not show as much care and conscientiousness in their training as someone training for competition?


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> And still neither the drivers on the race track or the drivers on the street will be attempting to kill you.


Statistically speaking, even if someone assaults you, mugs you, rapes you or whatever else, they are not trying to kill you. 

Of course, if you are a drug addict, drug dealer, gang member or engage in any other behavior, your chances can go up.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Statistically speaking, even if someone assaults you, mugs you, rapes you or whatever else, they are not trying to kill you.
> 
> Of course, if you are a drug addict, drug dealer, gang member or engage in any other behavior, your chances can go up.



The point is still relevant, people at the race track and the roads are not actively attempting to cause any damage to you.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> I train a fighting system.


Have you listen to the podcast?

You are still talking about getting into brawls with people rather than dealing with Self Defence against Non consensual Criminal Violence, which is what I am talking about.

I have no doubt about your systems ability in a fight, but muggers and rapists don't square off with their victims in a fight them to determine who is the most skilled.  They use distraction and deception to take you out of the game before you even realise you were in it, hence the skills needed to be successfully dealing with NCCV are not the same as the skills needed to be successful and fighting/brawling.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> The point is still relevant, people at the race track and the roads are not actively attempting to cause any damage to you.


That is not always true.  Is it?  In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car.

I don't have the time to dig into the NHTSA site, but it looks like from a quick google search that well over half of all traffic fatalities are a result of road rage, and many involve firearms.

Regarding the track, by its very nature, the activity is very dangerous.  But, if I can recommend that MMA is more like being a stunt driver than a race car driver.  The guys and gals who drive for a living are highly skilled individuals.  While the cars and motorcycles they drive are modified and there are many safety features involved, if I ever needed to go fast in a car, I'd want one of those guys driving.  They can drift to within inches of where they want to go, and they maneuver vehicles in ways we can only dream of.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> So you think someone training for self defense does not show as much care and conscientiousness in their training as someone training for competition?



Yes.  

That was the point of the example i posted.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> That is not always true. Is it?



There are never absolutes, generally speaking people rarely get aggressive with another driver the same way people attack each other outside of a vehicle.

Usually it's a honk and maybe some middle fingers and that's it. You and dropbear once again seem to argue just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Have you listen to the podcast?
> 
> You are still talking about getting into brawls with people rather than dealing with Self Defence against Non consensual Criminal Violence, which is what I am talking about.
> 
> I have no doubt about your systems ability in a fight, but muggers and rapists don't square off with their victims in a fight them to determine who is the most skilled.  They use distraction and deception to take you out of the game before you even realise you were in it, hence the skills needed to be successfully dealing with NCCV are not the same as the skills needed to be successful and fighting/brawling.



Yes.  The roadblocks to violence i was discussing with greysemor. 

Or even that crocwise video i posted. 

Or that triangle defence meme I have used. 

Basically they need to have me set up before they even can initiate a violent attack. 

And i use sensible saftey mesures to counter crocodiles, triangles and violent attacks.  In addition to martial arts training.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> There are never absolutes, generally speaking people rarely get aggressive with another driver the same way people attack each other outside of a vehicle.
> 
> Usually it's a honk and maybe some middle fingers and that's it. You and dropbear once again seem to argue just for the sake of arguing.



I am not taking up a semantic stace over this example.

Hey its different because in a car you are sitting down.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> There are never absolutes, generally speaking people rarely get aggressive with another driver the same way people attack each other outside of a vehicle.
> 
> Usually it's a honk and maybe some middle fingers and that's it. You and dropbear once again seem to argue just for the sake of arguing.


Generally speaking?   Huh.  And according to the stats I saw, it looks like over 2/3rds of traffic fatalities involve road rage.  So, isn't it more correct to say that, generally speaking, road rage is a serious issue?

And don't you think it's interesting that you're downplaying the seriousness of what people will encounter in a car, while simultaneously playing up the risks of not being in a car?  Statistics be damned, right?  It's how we feel, and clearly you feel safer in your car.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Generally speaking?   Huh.  And according to the stats I saw, it looks like over 2/3rds of traffic fatalities involve road rage.  So, isn't it more correct to say that, generally speaking, road rage is a serious issue?
> 
> And don't you think it's interesting that you're downplaying the seriousness of what people will encounter in a car, while simultaneously playing up the risks of not being in a car?  Statistics be damned, right?  It's how we feel, and clearly you feel safer in your car.



I never said I feel safer in my car, the whole thing is called a strawman argument. I said which is factual, people do not get into their car and think, "hey I'm going to kill someone today" or even "hey my goal is to get out there and harm someone".

Martial arts competitions do have people that will want to harm someone to an extent, no martial arts tournaments have people who will try to kill you.

However a killer or a mugger on the streets or at home ect will have the intention to kill you or harm you. The point here is intention, and in the road rage incidents for a fight to happen they would both need to exit the vehicle, at that point it becomes a self defense situation that is outside of a car.

It isn't something that is complicated, it is a case of intentions vs no intention. Car accidents that lead to anger are exactly that, they are accidents. No one is going to accidentally stab you or accidentally pull a gun on you, or accidentally strike you in a competition, all those example have intent.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> I never said I feel safer in my car, the whole thing is called a strawman argument. I said which is factual, people do not get into their car and think, "hey I'm going to kill someone today" or even "hey my goal is to get out there and harm someone".
> 
> Martial arts competitions do have people that will want to harm someone to an extent, no martial arts tournaments have people who will try to kill you.
> 
> However a killer or a mugger on the streets or at home ect will have the intention to kill you or harm you. The point here is intention, and in the road rage incidents for a fight to happen they would both need to exit the vehicle, at that point it becomes a self defense situation that is outside of a car.
> 
> It isn't something that is complicated, it is a case of intentions vs no intention. Car accidents that lead to anger are exactly that, they are accidents. No one is going to accidentally stab you or accidentally pull a gun on you, or accidentally strike you in a competition, all those example have intent.



Why is intention inherently riskier?


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Why is intention inherently riskier?



If I have no intention to do physical harm to you, what is the likelihood hood of me doing any physical harm to you?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Generally speaking?   Huh.  And according to the stats I saw, it looks like over 2/3rds of traffic fatalities involve road rage.  So, isn't it more correct to say that, generally speaking, road rage is a serious issue?
> 
> And don't you think it's interesting that you're downplaying the seriousness of what people will encounter in a car, while simultaneously playing up the risks of not being in a car?  Statistics be damned, right?  It's how we feel, and clearly you feel safer in your car.


The thing is though, intent (regarding road rage related accident fatalities.) First many of those fatalities are that if the "rager." Last and perhaps most importantly, if the "weapon" was the car, most of the time the rager doesn't have an intent to do harm.  They are driving like a complete asshat, trying to get you out of their way, make you slam on your brakes, to intimidate etc, but that's different than the guy walking down a street looking for a straight up victim to attack with intent.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> If I have no intention to do physical harm to you, what is the likelihood hood of me doing any physical harm to you?



It is the football vs fight sports argument.

Just because playing football leaves you with a greater chance of injury or death.  They are not intentionally trying to hurt you so it is safer.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The thing is though, intent (regarding road rage related accident fatalities.) First many of those fatalities are that if the "rager." Last and perhaps most importantly, if the "weapon" was the car, most of the time the rager doesn't have an intent to do harm.  They are driving like a complete asshat, trying to get you out of their way, make you slam on your brakes, to intimidate etc, but that's different than the guy walking down a street looking for a straight up victim to attack with intent.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


is it all that different?   The typical guy walking down the street looking for a victim is rarely looking to kill someone, and usually would prefer any physical contact at all.   But, as with road rage, things can escalate pretty quickly.

The difference is that almost everyone will encounter aggressive driving as a weekly, if not daily occurrence.   Conversely, most people are never physically assaulted.   

Drop bears football comment is apropos.   But it's also like the difference between being afraid of sharks vs being afraid of drowning.   One of those might actually happen, but psychologically, we push that down and focus on what is unlikely instead.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> is it all that different?   The typical guy walking down the street looking for a victim is rarely looking to kill someone, and usually would prefer any physical contact at all.   But, as with road rage, things can escalate pretty quickly.
> 
> The difference is that almost everyone will encounter aggressive driving as a weekly, if not daily occurrence.   Conversely, most people are never physically assaulted.
> 
> Drop bears football comment is apropos.   But it's also like the difference between being afraid of sharks vs being afraid of drowning.   One of those might actually happen, but psychologically, we push that down and focus on what is unlikely instead.



My only point is that they have in their mind "if it doesn't go my way someone is getting hurt" they aren't going to just walk away.  The road rage guy (in the car) first, doesn't have that in mind...they are aggressively driving and while the accident (and potential death) is their fault, the fault is one based on recklessness vs actual intent to do harm.  There IS a not insignificant percentage of "road rage incidents that fit your idea though, however they have resulted from the use of a firearm after the driver(s) are off the road and out of vehicles. 

I was just trying to draw a line behind an "intentional" attack (which may well result in death) and a reckless action (which can also result in death), which while criminal lacks the intent of say a robbery or assault.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> It is the football vs fight sports argument.
> 
> Just because playing football leaves you with a greater chance of injury or death.  They are not intentionally trying to hurt you so it is safer.



They are trying to tackle you, everyone understands that there are risks that come with that.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> They are trying to tackle you, everyone understands that there are risks that come with that.



They are tackling the ball.  You are just the person carrying it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

better test = when you do your technique and it works.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yes.


Then you obviously don't know much about how others train for self defense.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> That is not always true.  Is it?  In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car.
> 
> I don't have the time to dig into the NHTSA site, but it looks like from a quick google search that well over half of all traffic fatalities are a result of road rage, and many involve firearms.
> 
> Regarding the track, by its very nature, the activity is very dangerous.  But, if I can recommend that MMA is more like being a stunt driver than a race car driver.  The guys and gals who drive for a living are highly skilled individuals.  While the cars and motorcycles they drive are modified and there are many safety features involved, if I ever needed to go fast in a car, I'd want one of those guys driving.  They can drift to within inches of where they want to go, and they maneuver vehicles in ways we can only dream of.



I did a study (as part of a Law Enforcement group) a little over ten years ago on the leading cause of traffic fatalities. What I found was - it depends on how you do the study and how you use the information available. For instance - improper lane changes, or drifting out of your lane, can be reported differently, depending on how the reports are written, categorized and/or read and evaluated. Some of them might be from "distracted driving" which can be anything, from talking on the phone or to the person riding shotgun, or fiddling with the radio, texting etc. Or they might be from impaired driving. Or from excessive speed. Or from drifting on curves. Or from weather conditions. (many different ones, rain, snow, ice, fog) Or from equipment failure (such as blowouts) Or due to road rage. Or from animals on the road. Or poorly designed curves. While all of those thing are different - they might have been reported as a lane change/drift incident.

But I'm pretty sure we all know what causes a whole lot of accidents and fatalities.

Excessive speed. (definitely number one, in my opinion)
Impaired driving.
Distracted driving.
Nit wit A-holes.
Bad conditions.

I don't think road rage has cracked the top ten yet. But I believe it's going to. What is it that makes people so enraged while driving and another driver does something stupid? Regular people who would _never_ get so upset and prone to violence in any other aspect of their lives, just flip out. It's just seems like it's so out of character for most people. I can't figure this out, and I've been pondering it for a long while - and truth be told, have felt it myself. I try to avoid it like the plague, especially since I frequently carry. And do we as trained Martial Artists need to avoid it even more than others? I kinda' think we do.

Another interesting thing I found was it was drastically different when done in a state to state breakdown. (rural and city being so unalike)

Sorry for the derail.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> i use sensible saftey mesures to counter triangles


Muggers don't go around putting people in triangle chokes. You are talking about young males getting into street/bar figths which is not the samething as people defending themselves from criminals.  Either you haven't listened to the podcast, or have and didn't undertand it.  Either makes attempts at continued discussion futile, so I won't waste my time or yours trying.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> My only point is that they have in their mind "if it doesn't go my way someone is getting hurt" they aren't going to just walk away.  The road rage guy (in the car) first, doesn't have that in mind...they are aggressively driving and while the accident (and potential death) is their fault, the fault is one based on recklessness vs actual intent to do harm.  There IS a not insignificant percentage of "road rage incidents that fit your idea though, however they have resulted from the use of a firearm after the driver(s) are off the road and out of vehicles.
> 
> I was just trying to draw a line behind an "intentional" attack (which may well result in death) and a reckless action (which can also result in death), which while criminal lacks the intent of say a robbery or assault.


I think you should look into road rage a little more, because you are proposing as facts things which just are not true.  You have in mind that you are going to argue a position, and reality isn't playing a role.

And this idea that every mugger is prepared to,kill isn't true, either.  Statistics on violent crimes just don't bear this out.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I did a study (as part of a Law Enforcement group) a little over ten years ago on the leading cause of traffic fatalities. What I found was - it depends on how you do the study and how you use the information available. For instance - improper lane changes, or drifting out of your lane, can be reported differently, depending on how the reports are written, categorized and/or read and evaluated. Some of them might be from "distracted driving" which can be anything, from talking on the phone or to the person riding shotgun, or fiddling with the radio, texting etc. Or they might be from impaired driving. Or from excessive speed. Or from drifting on curves. Or from weather conditions. (many different ones, rain, snow, ice, fog) Or from equipment failure (such as blowouts) Or due to road rage. Or from animals on the road. Or poorly designed curves. While all of those thing are different - they might have been reported as a lane change/drift incident.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure we all know what causes a whole lot of accidents and fatalities.
> 
> Excessive speed. (definitely number one, in my opinion)
> Impaired driving.
> Distracted driving.
> Nit wit A-holes.
> Bad conditions.
> 
> I don't think road rage has cracked the top ten yet. But I believe it's going to. What is it that makes people so enraged while driving and another driver does something stupid? Regular people who would _never_ get so upset and prone to violence in any other aspect of their lives, just flip out. It's just seems like it's so out of character for most people. I can't figure this out, and I've been pondering it for a long while - and truth be told, have felt it myself. I try to avoid it like the plague, especially since I frequently carry. And do we as trained Martial Artists need to avoid it even more than others? I kinda' think we do.
> 
> Another interesting thing I found was it was drastically different when done in a state to state breakdown. (rural and city being so unalike)
> 
> Sorry for the derail.


The AAA Foundation did a study I found, just last year.  There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents.  I think that the latter is a result of the former.  But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves.  They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate.  In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't.  But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other.  The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger.  It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.  (Interesting note, I saw on an infographic that guys driving blue BMWs are the most likely to engage in aggressive driving and road rage... that seems pretty specific.. not sure if it's true, but it was funny). 

They say that aggressive driving is a factor in over half of all traffic fatalities (lower than the NHTSA number of over 65%, but still very high).  They also say that over 90% of drivers believe that aggressive driving and road rage are a "somewhat" or "very serious" threat to their personal safety.  



> In a 2016 AAA Foundation study, many drivers admitted having let their anger and frustration get the best of them at least once in the past year, engaging in behaviors such as yelling, honking, gesturing at, or purposefully tailgating another driver. However, you never know how another driver might respond; the same study found that nearly 8 million drivers had gotten out of their car to confront another driver or even bumped or rammed another car on purpose.


Here's a convenient summary of common, aggressive driving behaviors.  Some are less dangerous than others.  I was surprised at the number of incidents where people who are intentionally (that's a key word from earlier in the thread) cutting people off and tailgating.  Also, I was surprised at how often people got out of their cards to confront someone or, worse, used their car as a weapon by bumping or ramming another car on purpose. 


> According to estimates by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, drivers engaged in the following angry and aggressive behaviors during the previous year, including:
> 
> Yelling at another driver: 47 percent (95 million drivers)
> Purposefully tailgating: 51 percent (104 million drivers)
> Honking to show annoyance or anger: 45 percent (91 million drivers)
> Making angry gestures: 33 percent (67 million drivers)
> Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes: 24 percent (49 million drivers)
> Cutting off another vehicle on purpose: 12 percent (24 million drivers)
> Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver: 4 percent (8 million drivers)
> Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose: 3 percent (6 million drivers)


6 million drivers bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose.  In contrast, in 2015 (according to the FBI) an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes occurred nationwide.  "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force."

Trying to draw this back to the thread here, this derail is the result of people trying to nitpick an analogy, and as a result, making ridiculous assumptions based upon staunch defense of an unreasonable position.  To suggest that road rage is other than intentional, or to try to downplay how pervasive its affects are on drivers in the USA (and probably elsewhere), is silly.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I think you should look into road rage a little more, because you are proposing as facts things which just are not true.  You have in mind that you are going to argue a position, and reality isn't playing a role.
> 
> And this idea that every mugger is prepared to,kill isn't true, either.  Statistics on violent crimes just don't bear this out.



Ummm I do look at the statistics actually and have even written reports that contribute to said statistics.  The issue is this, understanding the context of the "road rage" statistics. 

They confabulate the motor vehicle "accidents" that result in death with the "he followed them to a parking lot, got out of his car and shot the other driver" deaths.  In the motor vehicle accident incidents, for the purposes of highlighting the danger of road rage.   This is why in the LE community we at times also refer to the purely vehicle issues as "aggressive driving" incidents.  While the "accident" ones can result in criminal charges those charges are based on things worded like this...



> *§ 3732.  Homicide by vehicle.*
> 
> *(a)  Offense.--*Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.



The underlined section is the important part.  Why?  Because proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible without a confession from the driver or a statement from a passenger in the vehicle with the offender.  It gets even murkier if you are trying to determine if the "purposeful tailgating" was actually a "road rage" issue or an issue of an asshat in a hurry who was in control emotionally BUT was trying to get someone out of the passing lane when they aren't passing, as an example.  Another reason for the term "aggressive driving" and why this is more and more becoming the "watch word" for such incidents.

As for the last bit, again it is a legal thing.  There was a reason I put in parentheses "which may well result in death." First a mugger has the knowledge, and thus requisite intent, that he may "have" to commit bodily injury to accomplish his goal of robbery.  As there is always a chance that someone will die when some is intentionally inflicting bodily injury you have B and C below...



> *§ 2502.  Murder.*
> 
> *(a)  Murder of the first degree.--*A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.
> 
> *(b)  Murder of the second degree.--*A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
> 
> *(c)  Murder of the third degree.--*All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Ummm I do look at the statistics actually and have even written reports that contribute to said statistics.  The issue is this, understanding the context of the "road rage" statistics.
> 
> They confabulate the motor vehicle "accidents" that result in death with the "he followed them to a parking lot, got out of his car and shot the other driver" deaths.  In the motor vehicle accident incidents, for the purposes of highlighting the danger of road rage.   This is why in the LE community we at times also refer to the purely vehicle issues as "aggressive driving" incidents.  While the "accident" ones can result in criminal charges those charges are based on things worded like this...
> 
> 
> 
> The underlined section is the important part.  Why?  Because proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible without a confession from the driver or a statement from a passenger in the vehicle with the offender.
> 
> As for the last bit, again it is a legal thing.  There was a reason I put in parentheses "which may well result in death." First a mugger has the knowledge, and thus requisite intent, that he may "have" to commit bodily injury to accomplish his goal of robbery.  As there is always a chance that someone will die when some is intentionally inflicting bodily injury you have B and C below...


Do you believe that things in real life are limited only to those things that can be legally proven?

The term "straw man" has been used a lot recently.  But do you understand that arguing about whether something can be legally proven in a court of law is a straw man when the discussion is about whether or not something represents real danger to people?   Those are not the same things.  When I say to you that, according to the AAA Foundation study from 2016, over 6 million drivers used their cars to intentionally bump or ram another car, and you say, "proving the level of intent necessary for a crime of intent is pretty much impossible," you are ACTUALLY arguing a straw man.  

I appreciate that you are sharing an interesting perspective, but while related, criminal prosecution is not actually relevant.  Whether someone can be prosecuted isn't the point, when we can all (if we're being honest) admit that we encounter dangerous drivers every day.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Do you believe that things in real life are limited only to those things that can be legally proven?



When it comes to statistics what can and can not be proven is vital, heck it is the point of statistics to provide proof.  That is why it is important to distinguish between a study done by an advocacy organization (AAA) and a regulatory body such as the NHTSA which published... DOT HS 809 707

Said report noting in part...


> The crash data suggest that road rage is a relatively small traffic safety problem, despite the volume of news accounts and the general salience of the issue. It is important to consider the issues objectively because programmatic and enforcement efforts designed to reduce the incidence of road rage might detract attention and divert resources from other, objectively more serious traffic safety problems. Although cases of road rage are relatively rare, the incidence of aggressive driving is much more frequent and a measurable contributing factor to traffic crashes.


----------



## Steve

I'll just quote one of my earlier posts:

There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.

What a report is written to address is also important.  The one you quote above is "presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) *to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving*." (emphasis mine).  So, taking any of the conclusions from this document out of context would be a little risky.  It does have a lot of interesting information about the various reasons people drive aggressively.

From the NHTSA website:  "Aggressive driving has become a serious problem on our roadways. What is aggressive driving? Most of us know it when we see it, but NHTSA, after discussions with law enforcement and the judiciary, defines aggressive driving as occurring when "an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.""

What's the problem here?  You're moving from premise to premise, creating various strawman arguments and trying to score some points over what is an analogy for a completely different subject.  What's really on your mind?


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> The AAA Foundation did a study I found, just last year.  There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents.  I think that the latter is a result of the former.  But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves.  They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate.  In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't.  But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other.  The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger.  It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.  (Interesting note, I saw on an infographic that guys driving blue BMWs are the most likely to engage in aggressive driving and road rage... that seems pretty specific.. not sure if it's true, but it was funny).
> 
> They say that aggressive driving is a factor in over half of all traffic fatalities (lower than the NHTSA number of over 65%, but still very high).  They also say that over 90% of drivers believe that aggressive driving and road rage are a "somewhat" or "very serious" threat to their personal safety.
> 
> 
> Here's a convenient summary of common, aggressive driving behaviors.  Some are less dangerous than others.  I was surprised at the number of incidents where people who are intentionally (that's a key word from earlier in the thread) cutting people off and tailgating.  Also, I was surprised at how often people got out of their cards to confront someone or, worse, used their car as a weapon by bumping or ramming another car on purpose.
> 
> 6 million drivers bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose.  In contrast, in 2015 (according to the FBI) an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes occurred nationwide.  "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force."
> 
> Trying to draw this back to the thread here, this derail is the result of people trying to nitpick an analogy, and as a result, making ridiculous assumptions based upon staunch defense of an unreasonable position.  To suggest that road rage is other than intentional, or to try to downplay how pervasive its affects are on drivers in the USA (and probably elsewhere), is silly.



Sometimes I merge into traffic so seamlessly I can actually hear other drivers honking their approval.
Now, if I can only get me a blue BMW and a French Poodle with a sweater vest to ride shotgun - I'd be the balls.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I'll just quote one of my earlier posts:
> 
> There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents. I think that the latter is a result of the former. But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves. They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate. In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't. But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other. The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger. It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.
> 
> What a report is written to address is also important.  The one you quote above is "presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) *to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving*." (emphasis mine).  So, taking any of the conclusions from this document out of context would be a little risky.  It does have a lot of interesting information about the various reasons people drive aggressively.
> 
> From the NHTSA website:  "Aggressive driving has become a serious problem on our roadways. What is aggressive driving? Most of us know it when we see it, but NHTSA, after discussions with law enforcement and the judiciary, defines aggressive driving as occurring when "an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.""
> 
> What's the problem here?  You're moving from premise to premise, creating various strawman arguments and trying to score some points over what is an analogy for a completely different subject.  What's really on your mind?



No I am not.  What I said first was respond to the introduction of road rage and the potential accidents and/or deaths and first raised the issue of "intent" vs "recklessness" as even in road rage incidents many of the accidents are reckless vs intentional results where as injury and/or death as a result of an assault starts with an intent to injure out of the gate.  

Next you posted a result of a AAA study and stated that statistics prove road rage is a major problem.  I noted that there is a problem in that sometimes people confabulate different data points, accidents vs road rage related shootings or aggressive driving vs road rage.   You then said it was wrong for me to quibble about intent in the face of statistics from an advocacy group is wrong.  I then responded with a report by a regulatory agency that concluded that road rage accidents/deaths are over exaggerated due to various factors.  

As for the purpose of the report you are correct, sorta.  They did the research, coming to the conclusion that road rage, while a problem is exaggerated, in order to provide guidance on how to distribute finite Enforcement and Prevention resources.  The same study also supported what I said earlier, aggressive driving exists independent of road rage.  So I don't see how I have changed my key point which is...

Simply because two things dangerous doesn't make them analogous.  In this case you have one danger that requires intent on the part of one participant and the other that more often than not doesn't.


----------



## Steve

double post...


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Sometimes I merge into traffic so seamlessly I can actually hear other drivers honking their approval.
> Now, if I can only get me a blue BMW and a French Poodle with a sweater vest to ride shotgun - I'd be the balls.


My wife has a bias against men in BMWs.  Personally, as a guy who has always driven small cars, I think the two worst categories of drivers are men in raised pickup trucks and women in SUVs.   Are these biases fair?  Probably not, and they aren't scientific, but whenever I'm cut off, tailgated or blocked, it's almost always by either a guy in a jacked up pickup or a woman in an SUV.

Volvo drivers tend to be passively negligent, I believe.  My working theory is that it's because they feel safe and so are more inclined to take risks.  Same with women in SUVs.

There are no studies to support my blanket statements above, just to be clear.  This is based upon my own experience of driving among these idiots for 30 years without ever having an accident or citation.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> No I am not.  What I said first was respond to the introduction of road rage and the potential accidents and/or deaths and first raised the issue of "intent" vs "recklessness" as even in road rage incidents many of the accidents are reckless vs intentional results where as injury and/or death as a result of an assault starts with an intent to injure out of the gate.
> 
> Next you posted a result of a AAA study and stated that statistics prove road rage is a major problem.  I noted that there is a problem in that sometimes people confabulate different data points, accidents vs road rage related shootings or aggressive driving vs road rage.   You then said it was wrong for me to quibble about intent in the face of statistics from an advocacy group is wrong.  I then responded with a report by a regulatory agency that concluded that road rage accidents/deaths are over exaggerated due to various factors.
> 
> As for the purpose of the report you are correct, sorta.  They did the research, coming to the conclusion that road rage, while a problem is exaggerated, in order to provide guidance on how to distribute finite Enforcement and Prevention resources.  The same study also supported what I said earlier, aggressive driving exists independent of road rage.  So I don't see how I have changed my key point which is...
> 
> Simply because two things dangerous doesn't make them analogous.  In this case you have one danger that requires intent on the part of one participant and the other that more often than not doesn't.


You don't see road rage as being a form of aggressive driving?  That isn't consistent.  So, while not synonymous, they are analogous in that all road rage is a form of "aggressive driving" while not all aggressive driving is road rage.  All French poodles are dogs, not all dogs are French poodles.   I'm trying to be very clear, because this is like the third or fourth time I've made this point. 

Also, I don't think I've said you're changing your main point.  I have suggested you are arguing actual strawmen, something you've accused many other people of doing in the past.  You're moving from one premise to the other and crafting irrelevant arguments which you then refute.  Your main point remains the same, but that's not the same thing.  Is it?  You are now hyperfocusing on "road rage" and missing the forest for the trees.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but if it's on purpose, that is a strawman.  The idea of enforcement and whether or not it's prosecutable isn't relevant.  It's smoke and mirrors.

I can think of some other analogies, which might help.  But frankly, I'm afraid to try and explain to you any more because you might get even more lost in the weeds.   My impression is that, as you've done in other threads, you're getting hung up on language.  You're not being as precise as you think.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> You don't see road rage as being a form of aggressive driving?  That isn't consistent.  So, while not synonymous, they are analogous in that all road rage is a form of "aggressive driving" while not all aggressive driving is road rage.  All French poodles are dogs, not all dogs are French poodles.   I'm trying to be very clear, because this is like the third or fourth time I've made this point.
> 
> Also, I don't think I've said you're changing your main point.  I have suggested you are arguing actual strawmen, something you've accused many other people of doing in the past.  You're moving from one premise to the other and crafting irrelevant arguments which you then refute.  Your main point remains the same, but that's not the same thing.  Is it?  You are now hyperfocusing on "road rage" and missing the forest for the trees.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but if it's on purpose, that is a strawman.  The idea of enforcement and whether or not it's prosecutable isn't relevant.  It's smoke and mirrors.
> 
> I can think of some other analogies, which might help.  But frankly, I'm afraid to try and explain to you any more because you might get even more lost in the weeds.   My impression is that, as you've done in other threads, you're getting hung up on language.  You're not being as precise as you think.



Road rage is aggressive driving BUT most aggressive driving is not road rage.  That is why I say you must look at aggressive driving independent of road rage, so your dog analogy is right on.

As for a strawman, and maybe I misunderstood, I believed that you were trying to say that road rage incidents that result in death or injury is analogous to a consensual fight or an assault of some kind.  My main point (and I will admit to derailing getting trapped in a "what is and how serious is the road rage problem) was simply that they aren't analogous because road rage and/or aggressive driving doesn't necessarily have the intent to cause bodily injury (which can result in death) where as a consensual fight, or a person engaged in an assault, has the intent to cause bodily injury.


----------



## Steve

If I...
"

Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes

Cutting off another vehicle on purpose

Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver

Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose"
Then I am doing things on purpose.  The words above are not mine.  they're from the AAA Foundation website based upon a study they conducted.  I haven't fully vetted their methodology, but they're making a specific point which is that people, for many reasons, are aggressive behind the wheel and do things that put other people in danger... and that they do these things on purpose.  I didn't make that up.  And while you make a fine point that they are an advocacy group, the above is not incongruous with the NHTSA study you shared, which also highlights the dangers of aggressive driving.

AND, all of the above are in response to a strawman you propped up by going down the rabbit hole of legal intent and a singular focus on road rage.  My original statement to Ironbear was, _"In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage *and aggressive driving* than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car."_  That's exactly what I wrote.  And it seems to be true, given the number of incidents of road rage and the violent crime stats from the FBI.  I also acknowledged at the time that I had just done a quick google search, so I mean, I don't think I was trying to mislead anyone, but I have enjoyed reading both the report you posted and several others since then.

I then suggested that the analogy was more like a stunt driver than a race car driver, which I think was good stuff, but maybe not so much as it was completely ignored. 

Full disclosure, I also said earlier that statistically speaking, even if someone is trying to rob you, rape you or assault you, they are very rarely trying to kill you.  They may have intent to do bodily harm, but that's not the same as trying to end your life.  Is it?

And also, I said something about how self defense is fighting only when it's convenient to say so.  "Self defense" is whatever we want it to be.

Edit:  What's frustrating about this is that I feel like the points are lost in the back and forth about whether or not road rage and aggressive driving are the same thing, and how one is a subset of the other.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> If I...
> "
> 
> Trying to block another vehicle from changing lanes
> 
> Cutting off another vehicle on purpose
> 
> Getting out of the vehicle to confront another driver
> 
> Bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose"
> Then I am doing things on purpose.  The words above are not mine.  they're from the AAA Foundation website based upon a study they conducted.  I haven't fully vetted their methodology, but they're making a specific point which is that people, for many reasons, are aggressive behind the wheel and do things that put other people in danger... and that they do these things on purpose.  I didn't make that up.  And while you make a fine point that they are an advocacy group, the above is not incongruous with the NHTSA study you shared, which also highlights the dangers of aggressive driving.
> 
> AND, all of the above are in response to a strawman you propped up by going down the rabbit hole of legal intent and a singular focus on road rage.  My original statement to Ironbear was, _"In fact, I think that statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of road rage *and aggressive driving* than of being mugged or assaulted outside of a car."_  That's exactly what I wrote.  And it seems to be true, given the number of incidents of road rage and the violent crime stats from the FBI.  I also acknowledged at the time that I had just done a quick google search, so I mean, I don't think I was trying to mislead anyone, but I have enjoyed reading both the report you posted and several others since then.
> 
> I then suggested that the analogy was more like a stunt driver than a race car driver, which I think was good stuff, but maybe not so much as it was completely ignored.
> 
> Full disclosure, I also said earlier that statistically speaking, even if someone is trying to rob you, rape you or assault you, they are very rarely trying to kill you.  They may have intent to do bodily harm, but that's not the same as trying to end your life.  Is it?
> 
> And also, I said something about how self defense is fighting only when it's convenient to say so.  "Self defense" is whatever we want it to be.
> 
> Edit:  What's frustrating about this is that I feel like the points are lost in the back and forth about whether or not road rage and aggressive driving are the same thing, and how one is a subset of the other.



You can do something on purpose and lack criminal intent. A more blatant example, that even lacks recklessness is the hunter (legally hunting) who aims at a deer, misses but on the other side of the deer is brush inadvertently concealing another person who is struck by the bullet.  

Now if a person intentionally "tapped" the bumper of another vehicle at speed, causing a vehicle to lose control you can demonstrate the intent.  Getting out of a vehicle to engage in a confrontation also demonstrates intent.

Lane changes, tail gating, "brake checking", high beam flashing etc do not demonstrate the requisite intent however and these methods of "aggressive driving" are by far the most common.

A chart on this page shows the number of incidents that resulted in death in one year Aggressive Driving however the vast majority of the categories (and % of events) fails to demonstrate the intent to do injury to another.  

As for your point regarding aggressive driving vs assaults I would agree with you regarding those that end in death (there were just under 16,000 homicides last year vs the 44k + deaths noted on the chart) but in terms of assaults, robberies etc I am not so sure.  

In 2010 there were 5.4 million accidents.  How many of those were a result of aggressive driving is unclear.  On the other side of the argument the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics manages an annual survey of violent victimization due to the fact the FBI statistics don't cover "simple assaults" and the fact the UCR submissions by police are not only voluntary but also only covers crimes reported to police.  In 2010 there were 4.9 million violent victimization and in 2012 the survey showed approximately 5.8 million.  So, frighteningly, the number of violent acts against our fellow citizens is not to far off and all of those victimizations have the requisite intent.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  Cam you tell me specifically what from my post prompted you to write this?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Its like talking to a rock.


How so?  first I acknowledge that there are more fatal accidents in the US than homicides.  I don't even raise the argument that we don't know how many of those fatalities are a result of aggressive driving, I just basically give you that one.

Next as you said you were more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving, I noted the total number of car accidents (ergo road rage and aggressive driving accidents will be less) and then showed how a Federal Agency determined that the rate of violent victimization in the US is comparable to the *total* number of accidents in the US.  That seems rather on point.

Next I am drawing a distinction from an aggressive driving accident and a violent victimization because an aggressive driving accident (not road rage) doesn't have the requisite intent to commit bodily injury (regardless of whether a death is involved, where as a violent victimization has said intent.  I find this rather on point as well because an analogy needs an apples to apples comparison in my mind and intent is a key element.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> How so?  first I acknowledge that there are more fatal accidents in the US than homicides.  I don't even raise the argument that we don't know how many of those fatalities are a result of aggressive driving, I just basically give you that one.
> 
> Next as you said you were more likely to be a victim of road rage and aggressive driving, I noted the total number of car accidents (ergo road rage and aggressive driving accidents will be less) and then showed how a Federal Agency determined that the rate of violent victimization in the US is comparable to the *total* number of accidents in the US.  That seems rather on point.
> 
> Next I am drawing a distinction from an aggressive driving accident and a violent victimization because an aggressive driving accident (not road rage) doesn't have the requisite intent to commit bodily injury (regardless of whether a death is involved, where as a violent victimization has said intent.  I find this rather on point as well because an analogy needs an apples to apples comparison in my mind and intent is a key element.


i think you're like a rock because after all of this, you're still talking about criminal intent.   baffling.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Muggers don't go around putting people in triangle chokes. You are talking about young males getting into street/bar figths which is not the samething as people defending themselves from criminals.  Either you haven't listened to the podcast, or have and didn't undertand it.  Either makes attempts at continued discussion futile, so I won't waste my time or yours trying.



So you dishonestly take one example out of three.  And think the overall concept does not apply.


----------



## KenpoBoxer

Fact is mma is nothing like a street fight. I've had to fight in the streets before and it's nothing like any sparring match or cage fight. There's no circling or feints or flicking out light leg kicks or jabs.

There's no martial art that completely prepares you to fight in the street anyone no matter how good they are will get hit in a fight any boxer any mma fighter any karate you'll all get hit.


----------



## RTKDCMB

I was beginning to forget what this thread was actually about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They are not training as diligently.
> 
> Why do you think that is?


Priorities


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I mean it is even on the sig I have in the bottom of every post I write. You have to believe people are capable of more.


The issue is that they have other priorities. And for some (I'd count me among this group unless and until my knees improve) can only work at high intensity for short periods, and not very often. If I go hard for 30 minutes, I can expect my knees to be crappy for at least two days. That's a reality, and I see students come in with analogous limitations (so far, minimum age for my students has been in their 40's).

I get a lot more out of most students than they think I will. They overcome fears, they perform physically in ways they didn't think they could, and they develop skills they didn't have. What part of that isn't believing they are capable of more?

There are training methods that work well with high intensity, and I know some of those and use them at times. I also know gentler methods of training that combine well with intermittent high-intensity training to get people some effective defensive skills. Why should I abandon those techniques and serve only those who are willing to commit to the higher intensity levels? What would be the point? I have a training method that works for those folks. You know one that works for a different group. Good. They both need to be served.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept. And here is the cool part of the analogy. They still drive to the race track.
> 
> Now this idea came to me when we were all telling war stories in the gym.  That regardless if you train for the ring.  You are still going to have as much access to real street experience as anybody else.
> 
> Just like the racing car guy.


Nope. That's changing the analogy. Training for the racetrack doesn't actually require driving there. Someone else could do that. For street-driving, they'd need to learn to drive on the street, too, and that can't be effectively learned on the track. That's why I say the analogy misses, because track training isn't nearly as effective for the street as, say, competition MMA training is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Statistically speaking, even if someone assaults you, mugs you, rapes you or whatever else, they are not trying to kill you.
> 
> Of course, if you are a drug addict, drug dealer, gang member or engage in any other behavior, your chances can go up.


Agreed. The better statement in the post you quoted might have been, "Neither the cars on the track nor the cars on the street are actually trying to hurt you."


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The better statement in the post you quoted might have been, "Neither the cars on the track nor the cars on the street are actually trying to hurt you."


Cars don't kill people; people kill people.


----------



## Mephisto

gpseymour said:


> The issue is that they have other priorities. And for some (I'd count me among this group unless and until my knees improve) can only work at high intensity for short periods, and not very often. If I go hard for 30 minutes, I can expect my knees to be crappy for at least two days. That's a reality, and I see students come in with analogous limitations (so far, minimum age for my students has been in their 40's).
> 
> I get a lot more out of most students than they think I will. They overcome fears, they perform physically in ways they didn't think they could, and they develop skills they didn't have. What part of that isn't believing they are capable of more?
> 
> There are training methods that work well with high intensity, and I know some of those and use them at times. I also know gentler methods of training that combine well with intermittent high-intensity training to get people some effective defensive skills. Why should I abandon those techniques and serve only those who are willing to commit to the higher intensity levels? What would be the point? I have a training method that works for those folks. You know one that works for a different group. Good. They both need to be served.


Slow day at work here. I'm haven't kept up. With the entirety of this thread but I'm gonna comment anyways. The problem with the above quote and people that disagree with the op is that they can't justify that what they do is not the best. I don't train mma don't care about it but I can see it's value and I realize that it's an effective and quite possibly the best way to test empty hand fighting in all ranges. It's the best test, but I don't care I don't fight people and have little need to test how I'd do fighting people in all ranges. I box, I really like it and realize it has its limits. GPSeymore has guys with physical limits, that's fine you don't have to train for an mma fight, you don't have test yourself in the best way. Obviously mma is not the best way for your guys with physical limits but that doesn't change that it's the best overall method to test empty hand fighting ability in all ranges relatively safely. I'm open to other suggestions. There are other ways to test specific skills, I can accept that. I'm with op though in that mma is the best relatively standardized approach to test one's ability to handle an aggressive striking and grappling resisting opponent. I just simply don't care that I don't train that way.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Priorities



And thats fine.

It is the tragic ego bolsetering excuses that get me.

If you dont train as hard you basically wont be as good a martial artist.

If you dont train with quality proffesionals you wont be as good a martial artist.

This is a pretty basic rule which is generally correct.

Now I do train with quality martial artists. But I dont train as hard as I could due to priorities. That is why the guys that do are better martial artists than me.

I do not have to rationalise that.

Yet that seems to be the argument at the moment.

This idea that self defense is somehow a harder pursuit and so therefore raises your martial arts status to a higher level falls apart when you look at work rate and level of proficiency.


----------



## drop bear

Mephisto said:


> Slow day at work here. I'm haven't kept up. With the entirety of this thread but I'm gonna comment anyways. The problem with the above quote and people that disagree with the op is that they can't justify that what they do is not the best. I don't train mma don't care about it but I can see it's value and I realize that it's an effective and quite possibly the best way to test empty hand fighting in all ranges. It's the best test, but I don't care I don't fight people and have little need to test how I'd do fighting people in all ranges. I box, I really like it and realize it has its limits. GPSeymore has guys with physical limits, that's fine you don't have to train for an mma fight, you don't have test yourself in the best way. Obviously mma is not the best way for your guys with physical limits but that doesn't change that it's the best overall method to test empty hand fighting ability in all ranges relatively safely. I'm open to other suggestions. There are other ways to test specific skills, I can accept that. I'm with op though in that mma is the best relatively standardized approach to test one's ability to handle an aggressive striking and grappling resisting opponent. I just simply don't care that I don't train that way.



The difference is you dont have to make excuses.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. That's changing the analogy. Training for the racetrack doesn't actually require driving there. Someone else could do that. For street-driving, they'd need to learn to drive on the street, too, and that can't be effectively learned on the track. That's why I say the analogy misses, because track training isn't nearly as effective for the street as, say, competition MMA training is.


yes but my analogy is closer to the actual case and it is a point people miss quite often.

There is no more access to real life self defence experience in a self defence school than in a sport fighting school.

Basically what I mean here is you are getting your self defence knowledge from the experiences of the people you train with. (Driving to the race track)

I have basically the same access to that knowlege and experience in my school.

Now if you were someone with an expertise in street. That dynamic would change.

eg. Paul cale.






But as it stands it kind of equals itself out in that department. And where I think self defence goes a bit wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And thats fine.
> 
> It is the tragic ego bolsetering excuses that get me.
> 
> If you dont train as hard you basically wont be as good a martial artist.
> 
> If you dont train with quality proffesionals you wont be as good a martial artist.
> 
> This is a pretty basic rule which is generally correct.
> 
> Now I do train with quality martial artists. But I dont train as hard as I could due to priorities. That is why the guys that do are better martial artists than me.
> 
> I do not have to rationalise that.
> 
> Yet that seems to be the argument at the moment.
> 
> This idea that self defense is somehow a harder pursuit and so therefore raises your martial arts status to a higher level falls apart when you look at work rate and level of proficiency.


It's a different pursuit, with some different things to focus on, but not a better pursuit by any means. It can be pursued with the same vigor and intensity as prepping for MMA competition, for instance. I'd say I was approaching about that same intensity for a time in my late 20's and early 30's. Not the same level of martial artists to mix it up with, even then, but a decent group. Most schools (including mine) don't hit that level consistently, to fit the needs of the students.

But, yeah, the intensity of your training and the level of your partners (especially sparring partners) are pretty good predictors of outcome. Time can make up for both to an extent (10 years at lower intensity produces results that can come faster with higher intensity).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's a different pursuit, with some different things to focus on, but not a better pursuit by any means. It can be pursued with the same vigor and intensity as prepping for MMA competition, for instance. I'd say I was approaching about that same intensity for a time in my late 20's and early 30's. Not the same level of martial artists to mix it up with, even then, but a decent group. Most schools (including mine) don't hit that level consistently, to fit the needs of the students.
> 
> But, yeah, the intensity of your training and the level of your partners (especially sparring partners) are pretty good predictors of outcome. Time can make up for both to an extent (10 years at lower intensity produces results that can come faster with higher intensity).



Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.

You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.

And that is a big factor at full noise.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.
> 
> You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.
> 
> And that is a big factor at full noise.




Acually more importantly you dont get to defend against tough. Which is a different level of technical skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> yes but my analogy is closer to the actual case and it is a point people miss quite often.
> 
> There is no more access to real life self defence experience in a self defence school than in a sport fighting school.
> 
> Basically what I mean here is you are getting your self defence knowledge from the experiences of the people you train with. (Driving to the race track)
> 
> I have basically the same access to that knowlege and experience in my school.
> 
> Now if you were someone with an expertise in street. That dynamic would change.
> 
> eg. Paul cale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as it stands it kind of equals itself out in that department. And where I think self defence goes a bit wrong.


A reasonable point, analogies aside.

I'd say there's a bit more to the experience part than a general equality (everyone getting the same real-world experience), but the value of the differing experiences is hard to quantify. The only significant difference is in working on real-world simulations versus competition. I believe there's value to be had in both sides (intensity and level of opponent on one side, preparation for more varied specific situations on the other), but there's room for debate on that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.
> 
> You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.
> 
> And that is a big factor at full noise.


You can still develop toughness, even on the slower route - just less frequent exposure to the toughening extremes. Of course, there are approaches that don't include a full range toughness development, and that is a gap in those. Sometimes an appropriate gap, but a gap nonetheless. How much of an issue it is depends upon the situation you end up dealing with, and what your natural response was to start with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Acually more importantly you dont get to defend against tough. Which is a different level of technical skill.


Actually, even in slow and easy classes, I've run into a lot of folks who already had their tough. I've had a lot more opportunity to train against tough than to work on my own toughness, so that's less of an issue, in my experience.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Hanzou said:


> I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.
> 
> And btw, there's varying rulesets for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less rules.



The best test? Going out in the streets and getting into fights, although that can get you thrown in jail or shot.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> You can still develop toughness, even on the slower route - just less frequent exposure to the toughening extremes. Of course, there are approaches that don't include a full range toughness development, and that is a gap in those. Sometimes an appropriate gap, but a gap nonetheless. How much of an issue it is depends upon the situation you end up dealing with, and what your natural response was to start with.


There are also multiple ways to achieve toughness.  My first way of "getting" tough that served me well was Ft. Knox KY in the early 90's training to be a Cav Scout.  Sleep deprivation, PT to muscle failure, road marches with full pack.  The last one was the most telling.  It turned out I had a stress fracture in my right foot, I thought I just sprained something.  The mental toughness created though made it so I completed 3/4 of that road march before my foot was physically incapable of supporting my weight.

That translated later into my cycling obsession.  There were riders who were physically stronger than me who I would chase up steep climbs, sometimes vomiting on myself during the following descent because I pushed myself to a heart rate if over 200 bpm.  

The point being you can create the toughness needed for a fight without fighting, hell without training martial arts period, you just need to push past limits consistently.  I know some people who can do that on their own.  I will be honest and say I never would have believed I could do it without those Drill Sgts barking in my ear.  But even if you take the "slow road" in the Dojo there are ways to find a "fast road" outside.  

I think a good example is a crossfit gym near me.  I know the coach there and he has a gift to find what is needed to push each student individually.  He turned a half marathoner into someone who did one of those crazy "endurance" runs through Death Valley because he made her realize what she thought were her limits were self imposed blocks, that she could go deeper.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, even in slow and easy classes, I've run into a lot of folks who already had their tough. I've had a lot more opportunity to train against tough than to work on my own toughness, so that's less of an issue, in my experience.



That was my biggest issue moving from SD to MMA.  Was people no longer just buckled. They fought back hard. I had to redevelop my technique considerably.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There are also multiple ways to achieve toughness.  My first way of "getting" tough that served me well was Ft. Knox KY in the early 90's training to be a Cav Scout.  Sleep deprivation, PT to muscle failure, road marches with full pack.  The last one was the most telling.  It turned out I had a stress fracture in my right foot, I thought I just sprained something.  The mental toughness created though made it so I completed 3/4 of that road march before my foot was physically incapable of supporting my weight.
> 
> That translated later into my cycling obsession.  There were riders who were physically stronger than me who I would chase up steep climbs, sometimes vomiting on myself during the following descent because I pushed myself to a heart rate if over 200 bpm.
> 
> The point being you can create the toughness needed for a fight without fighting, hell without training martial arts period, you just need to push last limits consistently.  I know some people who can do that on their own.  I will be honest and say I never would have believed I could do it without those Drill Sgts barking in my ear.  But even if you take the "slow road" in the Dojo there are ways to find a "fast road" outside.  I think a good example is a crossfit gym near me.  I know the coach there and he has a gift to find what is needed to push each student individually.  He turned a half marathoner into someone who did one of those crazy "endurance" runs through Death Valley because he made her realize what she thought were her limits were self imposed blocks, that she could go deeper.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You kind of need to engage in something tough though. 

Which is the point.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> A reasonable point, analogies aside.
> 
> I'd say there's a bit more to the experience part than a general equality (everyone getting the same real-world experience), but the value of the differing experiences is hard to quantify. The only significant difference is in working on real-world simulations versus competition. I believe there's value to be had in both sides (intensity and level of opponent on one side, preparation for more varied specific situations on the other), but there's room for debate on that.



Depends on what the training consists of.  And the quality of the guy running it.

Here we move into the concept of self taught.  So where you may have a legitimate back ground in fighting or martial arts.  Do you have the same legitimate background in these seld defense concepts?

And so does this specific training achieve what we are trying to achieve?

And the issue is we just dont know.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You kind of need to engage in something tough though.
> 
> Which is the point.


But you can build it, like anything, overtime.  Now military training is designed to do is ASAP but there are other methods that take longer, and arguably more dedication due to the time involved, as well.  Look at Tai Chi.  Yeah its slow, but look at some of the stances, how deep they can be, the control, relaxation and balance needed.  It is "soft" and "slow" so we don't equate them with tough but to get there, to do that you have to be tough.  It's all a matter of what path you take, a fast and arguably more brutal one, or a slower and more gentle one but in the end they find themselves at the same destination, the only difference is a matter of time.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> But you can build it, like anything, overtime.  Now military training is designed to do is ASAP but there are other methods that take longer, and arguably more dedication due to the time involved, as well.  Look at Tai Chi.  Yeah its slow, but look at some of the stances, how deep they can be, the control, relaxation and balance needed.  It is "soft" and "slow" so we don't equate them with tough but to get there, to do that you have to be tough.  It's all a matter of what path you take, a fast and arguably more brutal one, or a slower and more gentle one but in the end they find themselves at the same destination, the only difference is a matter of time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



And you think tai chi takes short cuts because of priorities?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And you think tai chi takes short cuts because of priorities?


No, Tai chi is actually one of the longer paths to toughness imo.  I mentioned it to illustrate the idea that there is a faster path (say training to be recon in the Army) and a slower path Tai Chi.  It's not about short cuts though.  Perhaps the following analogy works better.  

Lifting weights to build the strength. One adds weight quickly, building the strength via eventually hitting muscle failure.  The other builds strength by walking that fine line so you grow stronger but without crossing the "failure" line.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

There are plenty of examples where toughness alone, absent any "self defense" training has been sufficient for self defense.  Maybe that should be more of an emphasis in self defense training.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> There are plenty of examples where toughness alone, absent any "self defense" training has been sufficient for self defense.  Maybe that should be more of an emphasis in self defense training.



Also reflected in sport success.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Cars don't kill people; people kill people.


Oh yeah?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> There are plenty of examples where toughness alone, absent any "self defense" training has been sufficient for self defense.  Maybe that should be more of an emphasis in self defense training.



This is why many MA schools have times they push hard. The Japanese concept is "shugyo", which I interpret as learning through struggle. Hard work - pushing past limits - changes us. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Also reflected in sport success.



Agreed. It's why many of us frequently hated our favorite coaches. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RTKDCMB said:


> Oh yeah?



Well played, sir. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Balrog

Hanzou said:


> I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.
> 
> And btw, there's varying rulesets for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less rules.


I'm a late arrival to this thread.  My $0.02 worth:

The best test for the effectiveness of your style is how you feel about training in it.  Nothing else matters.


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> I'm a late arrival to this thread.  My $0.02 worth:
> 
> The best test for the effectiveness of your style is how you feel about training in it.  Nothing else matters.


That's crazy.  Of ciurse the Millennials I supervise would love it if I appraised them based on how they feel.  Lol.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is why many MA schools have times they push hard. The Japanese concept is "shugyo", which I interpret as learning through struggle. Hard work - pushing past limits - changes us.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


Resilience is a trait we haven't really done a very good job of instilling in this current crop of young adults.  Not to say they won't learn it, but it's not something many young people are entering the work force exhibit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Resilience is a trait we haven't really done a very good job of instilling in this current crop of young adults.  Not to say they won't learn it, but it's not something many young people are entering the work force exhibit.


I think in a work setting, we run into the fact that so many of them have been told they are smart, over and over. Psychological studies have shown that people who are praised for their intelligence are likely to quit or avoid a difficult task earlier than those praised for their hard work.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Resilience is a trait we haven't really done a very good job of instilling in this current crop of young adults.  Not to say they won't learn it, but it's not something many young people are entering the work force exhibit.



What I love is the reaction of my friends that are Millenials.  I watched an interesting evolution.  It started with "that's BS that we are less resilient" then the studies came out, especially the ones about University Counselling budgets going through the roof and the new studies by Child Psychologists about participation awards started coming out.  So now some have actually started to say "well if that's true it's the Baby Boomers fault not ours!!!"


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> I'm a late arrival to this thread.  My $0.02 worth:
> 
> The best test for the effectiveness of your style is how you feel about training in it.  Nothing else matters.



Would you use that for any other training?


----------



## Steve

What's awesome is that we now have millennials entering into management.  I think that, as a generation, there are a lot of positive traits.  I think we're in good hands, as they grow into leadership as a generation.  But, yeah, resilience isn't one of those generational traits.   I've also observed that, on the whole, it's challenging to get them to work independently.  Everything is a group project.  Also, they tend to overstate the good things as a way to avoid conflict.  The meeting wasn't good.  It was AWESOME.  You didn't do a good job on that presentation.  You did an OUTSTANDING job on that presentation.

The lack of resilience, combined with the inclination to collaborate and the overstating of results has caused a lot of problems for them as they begin to manage performance in others. 

We are doing things a little different with our youngest.   The rule is, she has to do something that's hard every day.  On a practical level, we aren't making her do things differently from her older siblings.  But the narrative is different.  When she does her homework and says, "This is hard."  Our response is, "Good.  When you figure it out, let me know."


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Would you use that for any other training?


I feel like it wouldn't work very well, and how I feel is all that matters.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> What's awesome is that we now have millennials entering into management.  I think that, as a generation, there are a lot of positive traits.  I think we're in good hands, as they grow into leadership as a generation.  But, yeah, resilience isn't one of those generational traits.   I've also observed that, on the whole, it's challenging to get them to work independently.  Everything is a group project.  Also, they tend to overstate the good things as a way to avoid conflict.  The meeting wasn't good.  It was AWESOME.  You didn't do a good job on that presentation.  You did an OUTSTANDING job on that presentation.
> 
> The lack of resilience, combined with the inclination to collaborate and the overstating of results has caused a lot of problems for them as they begin to manage performance in others.
> 
> We are doing things a little different with our youngest.   The rule is, she has to do something that's hard every day.  On a practical level, we aren't making her do things differently from her older siblings.  But the narrative is different.  When she does her homework and says, "This is hard."  Our response is, "Good.  When you figure it out, let me know."



Where i am at the moment is still pretty much rural. So you don't really get a choice.

I trained with a 16 year old boxer who had already had 30fights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> What's awesome is that we now have millennials entering into management.  I think that, as a generation, there are a lot of positive traits.  I think we're in good hands, as they grow into leadership as a generation.  But, yeah, resilience isn't one of those generational traits.   I've also observed that, on the whole, it's challenging to get them to work independently.  Everything is a group project.  Also, they tend to overstate the good things as a way to avoid conflict.  The meeting wasn't good.  It was AWESOME.  You didn't do a good job on that presentation.  You did an OUTSTANDING job on that presentation.
> 
> The lack of resilience, combined with the inclination to collaborate and the overstating of results has caused a lot of problems for them as they begin to manage performance in others.
> 
> We are doing things a little different with our youngest.   The rule is, she has to do something that's hard every day.  On a practical level, we aren't making her do things differently from her older siblings.  But the narrative is different.  When she does her homework and says, "This is hard."  Our response is, "Good.  When you figure it out, let me know."


I learned recently that part of an update to Marine training, a drill sergeant was specifically praising them for doing what was hard for them (including praising the quiet ones for speaking up). A good approach, Steve.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I learned recently that part of an update to Marine training, a drill sergeant was specifically praising them for doing what was hard for them (including praising the quiet ones for speaking up). A good approach, Steve.



speaking of creating tough and survival or fighting mentality. This is a method the army uses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> speaking of creating tough and survival or fighting mentality. This is a method the army uses.



Taking a lot of falls takes some tough. And that looks like a lot of fun, too. I love it when "fun" and "tough" come together.

(A side story: A shodan I trained with brought some of our art to the Marines (the DT instructor requested it after he handed a couple of larger Marines their *** in training). He'd have loved it if there was some BJJ there at the time, too.)


----------



## Balrog

drop bear said:


> Would you use that for any other training?


Martial arts training in some ways is much like insurance.  You hope you never need to use it, but you train for the 1% occurrence when you do.  If you don't feel good about your training, you won't stay with it and you'll train somewhere else, just like changing insurance companies.


----------



## Balrog

Steve said:


> That's crazy.  Of ciurse the Millennials I supervise would love it if I appraised them based on how they feel.  Lol.


You misunderstood what I said, and I guess I didn't express it clearly.  If you don't feel like your training is doing you any good, you will go train somewhere else and/or in something else.  That's what I meant by how you feel about the training.  My apologies for phrasing it poorly.


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> You misunderstood what I said, and I guess I didn't express it clearly.  If you don't feel like your training is doing you any good, you will go train somewhere else and/or in something else.  That's what I meant by how you feel about the training.  My apologies for phrasing it poorly.


I agree, but ultimately, how you feel about it is completely disconnected from whether it works or not.  How you feel about your training will have a lot more to do with customer service skills and effective marketing than anything related to martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I agree, but ultimately, how you feel about it is completely disconnected from whether it works or not.  How you feel about your training will have a lot more to do with customer service skills and effective marketing than anything related to martial arts.


It can be disconnected, but isn't always. For me, my evaluation of the effectiveness of what's taught has always been part of how I feel about it.

I do like Balrog's test, as it fits individual needs. If someone is in MA for fun, and they are having fun (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it for competition, and are getting good results in competition (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it to learn to defend themselves, and find that they are learning effective defensive skills (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished.

It's certainly not the whole test, but probably a necessary part of the evaluation. So long as we are honest in how we come to that conclusion, it serves us pretty well.


----------



## Mephisto

I'm surprised by all the mental acrobatics some of you guys perform to justify what you do as the best possible test of fighting skill, which is what this thread is all about. We're getting into individual feelings and personal arguments about this and that, it's ridiculous. A test is meant to assess how an individual performs and meets a given standard. I guess this is like when very intelligent doctors are able to believe the world is only five thousand or so years old. The smarter you are the more able you are to convince yourself that your worldview is correct.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It can be disconnected, but isn't always. For me, my evaluation of the effectiveness of what's taught has always been part of how I feel about it.
> 
> I do like Balrog's test, as it fits individual needs. If someone is in MA for fun, and they are having fun (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it for competition, and are getting good results in competition (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it to learn to defend themselves, and find that they are learning effective defensive skills (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished.
> 
> It's certainly not the whole test, but probably a necessary part of the evaluation. So long as we are honest in how we come to that conclusion, it serves us pretty well.


I disagree.  Or, well, maybe it's more correct to say that I see this way of thinking as fraught with danger.   It's great, until you are confronted by an external, objective measure of it's effectiveness.

For example, I'm soccer dad Bob and I want to get my kid, Billy Joe, into some real self defense training.  He's unruly and has a lot of energy, and he's also been having some trouble with bullies at school.  Just to be very clear, I'm looking for effective self defense training for little Billy Joe.

So, I do some research and sign him up at the Starfleet Ambujitsu School down the road.  They are SUPER nice, and there are lots of kids there.  They talk a lot about self defense, have a lot of statistics about self defense and do a really nice job of answering all of my questions and addressing my concerns.  They even have an anti-bully program that sound perfect for little Billy Joe.   Billy Joe loves it because he gets to go and run around, kicking and yelling, and he's on track to be a black belt in just a few years.  The school is clean and professional looking, and the cost is what I would consider to be reasonable.

All of those things above have NOTHING to do with whether the art is effective or not, but as a consumer, I would have no way to know that.  All of those things would contribute to making me FEEL really good about the training.  But the only way I might ever know that it's actually about as effective as day camp is if my kid gets into a fight and gets the **** beat out of him.

And truly?  Even then, I would probably FEEL so good about the training that I would rationalize the event.  I might say to myself, "Bob.  Good thing Billy Joe is a black belt in Ambujitsu.  If he didn't have that high quality self defense training, he probably would have been killed."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I disagree.  Or, well, maybe it's more correct to say that I see this way of thinking as fraught with danger.   It's great, until you are confronted by an external, objective measure of it's effectiveness.
> 
> For example, I'm soccer dad Bob and I want to get my kid, Billy Joe, into some real self defense training.  He's unruly and has a lot of energy, and he's also been having some trouble with bullies at school.  Just to be very clear, I'm looking for effective self defense training for little Billy Joe.
> 
> So, I do some research and sign him up at the Starfleet Ambujitsu School down the road.  They are SUPER nice, and there are lots of kids there.  They talk a lot about self defense, have a lot of statistics about self defense and do a really nice job of answering all of my questions and addressing my concerns.  They even have an anti-bully program that sound perfect for little Billy Joe.   Billy Joe loves it because he gets to go and run around, kicking and yelling, and he's on track to be a black belt in just a few years.  The school is clean and professional looking, and the cost is what I would consider to be reasonable.
> 
> All of those things above have NOTHING to do with whether the art is effective or not, but as a consumer, I would have no way to know that.  All of those things would contribute to making me FEEL really good about the training.  But the only way I might ever know that it's actually about as effective as day camp is if my kid gets into a fight and gets the **** beat out of him.
> 
> And truly?  Even then, I would probably FEEL so good about the training that I would rationalize the event.  I might say to myself, "Bob.  Good thing Billy Joe is a black belt in Ambujitsu.  If he didn't have that high quality self defense training, he probably would have been killed."


Actually, some of those things do contribute to the effectiveness of the school for what you're looking for (though not necessarily for the stated purpose). In that situation, a parent will likely say they're looking for the techniques for fending off an attacker (and that's obviously part of it), but they're more concerned about the child's safety, and all the things that keep him from being bullied and keep him out of a fight will help with that. The parent will feel good about the result because it fits an unspoken need. 

Now, as to the stated need (which is still part of the objective), sending the kid to competition might clarify that, especially if it's an open competition with relatively loose rules. That, however, is unlikely for kids (we obviously protect them more than adults), so what he's competing in is less heavily tied to defense than an adult analog would be. If, on the other hand, the school includes some realistic attack simulations with reasonable speed, we can add some additional verification. Best test maybe is a combination of the two (competition and realistic simulations). If the school is using either, and the results are poor, the parent will not feel good about the program - which was part of my point. If some decent validation points are present, then the "feel" test will include those results.

And we realistically know that even good training can still leave someone getting their butt kicked, if they are blindsided, attacked by someone more skilled, or just happen to trip over a curb during the altercation. This is where the "feel" test can let us down - just as it can let us down if the attacker is crappy and does the tripping, and so crappy MA appears to be effective. 

It's not an infallible test. I do think it's a useful test.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, some of those things do contribute to the effectiveness of the school for what you're looking for (though not necessarily for the stated purpose).


Noooooo...  nooooooo.  Come on.  Features and benefits.  It's like buying a house that doesn't have a roof, but saying, "Hey, it's got a basketball hoop already installed."   





> In that situation, a parent will likely say they're looking for the techniques for fending off an attacker (and that's obviously part of it), but they're more concerned about the child's safety, and all the things that keep him from being bullied and keep him out of a fight will help with that. The parent will feel good about the result because it fits an unspoken need.


BS.  Come on, man.  You know this is BS.  It's salesmanship.  And the thing is, sure, the parent will feel good.  That's my entire point.  They'll feel good as long as there is no external feedback. 

I'm pointing out that what makes a person feel good about their training can, and often does, have nothing to do with whether the training is effective. 

And so, you need external feedback.  The nature, frequency and diversity of that feedback will depend upon the nature, frequency and diversity of context for which you are training.  If you're training for self defense, this ambiguous thing, I would expect you're going to look for frequent and diverse means of gaining feedback.  Eschewing any means for feedback is shortsighted, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Noooooo...  nooooooo.  Come on.  Features and benefits.  It's like buying a house that doesn't have a roof, but saying, "Hey, it's got a basketball hoop already installed."   BS.  Come on, man.  You know this is BS.  It's salesmanship.  And the thing is, sure, the parent will feel good.  That's my entire point.  They'll feel good as long as there is no external feedback.
> 
> I'm pointing out that what makes a person feel good about their training can, and often does, have nothing to do with whether the training is effective.
> 
> And so, you need external feedback.  The nature, frequency and diversity of that feedback will depend upon the nature, frequency and diversity of context for which you are training.  If you're training for self defense, this ambiguous thing, I would expect you're going to look for frequent and diverse means of gaining feedback.  Eschewing any means for feedback is shortsighted, IMO.


We're not as far apart on this as you think, Steve. My point was that there are often other needs that get met that we don't even realize go into our "feeling good" about our training (in my case, that included a sense of community, a sense of challenge, and some other stuff). That part admittedly doesn't have much to do with the overall effectiveness of the art for combat, but it does have to do with whether the art meets our needs.

As for the external validation, I still maintain that internal validation is useful. For those of us who aren't interested in MMA-style competition, we have to be more vigilant. We don't have that automatic check-and-balance system that outside competition provides. I've been thinking about this a bit because of this thread, and the same applies for every technique anyone trains that they don't get to use in competition (either because of rules, or simple lack of opportunity). They have to make a judgment about the effectiveness of that technique for its intended purpose. This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> We're not as far apart on this as you think, Steve. My point was that there are often other needs that get met that we don't even realize go into our "feeling good" about our training (in my case, that included a sense of community, a sense of challenge, and some other stuff). That part admittedly doesn't have much to do with the overall effectiveness of the art for combat, but it does have to do with whether the art meets our needs.
> 
> As for the external validation, I still maintain that internal validation is useful. For those of us who aren't interested in MMA-style competition, we have to be more vigilant. We don't have that automatic check-and-balance system that outside competition provides. I've been thinking about this a bit because of this thread, and the same applies for every technique anyone trains that they don't get to use in competition (either because of rules, or simple lack of opportunity). They have to make a judgment about the effectiveness of that technique for its intended purpose. This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.


That's all fine and good, my friend.  But it's a red herring as my post was in response to Balrog's declaration that how one feels about their training is all that matters.  If you're training for self defense, that can be a very misleading and potentially dangerous position to take. 

Regarding the rest, making people feel good is good business.  But it's not necessarily good martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's all fine and good, my friend.  But it's a red herring as my post was in response to Balrog's declaration that how one feels about their training is all that matters.  If you're training for self defense, that can be a very misleading and potentially dangerous position to take.
> 
> Regarding the rest, making people feel good is good business.  But it's not necessarily good martial arts.


Again, I don't think we're all that far apart. I'm good with this.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.



This bit not really.

In the gym i can hold a person down and make them go "Ow that really hurts"

Now i have done that in self defence.
Exactly to the level that i have trained it. That alone has been enough to quell an attack. 

So whether or not it dislocates a limb is not vital to proove.

And the reason is here that in training you did stop the threat. You may not have mangled the guy in the process as you may consider in a real fight.  But you do shut your training partner down.

If for some reason i want to walk the mean streets of bad lands with 16 ounce sparring gloves.  And dedicated myself to only the tools i have used in the gym.  Exactly in the manner i have trained them.  Same force everything.

I still have the tools to defend myself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This bit not really.
> 
> In the gym i can hold a person down and make them go "Ow that really hurts"
> 
> Now i have done that in self defence.
> Exactly to the level that i have trained it. That alone has been enough to quell an attack.
> 
> So whether or not it dislocates a limb is not vital to proove.
> 
> And the reason is here that in training you did stop the threat. You may not have mangled the guy in the process as you may consider in a real fight.  But you do shut your training partner down.
> 
> If for some reason i want to walk the mean streets of bad lands with 16 ounce sparring gloves.  And dedicated myself to only the tools i have used in the gym.  Exactly in the manner i have trained them.  Same force everything.
> 
> I still have the tools to defend myself.


That's evidence it hurts. It's not really evidence of its ability to break, and that was my point when I mentioned destructions. I can practice any of the destructions to a point of pain, but I can't really verify the break (well, except by accident). There are times a painful lock is sufficient, and there are times it's not. A brown belt I trained with many years ago was a bouncer at a local bar. He came in one Monday and told us about a guy who stood up through a shoulder lock, ignoring the pain. It dislocated the guy's shoulder, as it should. He kept fighting, but the arm wasn't much use. Police suspected drugs were involved.

That lock is intended to be useful for both locking and destruction. We could verify the lock and the pain. In class (and in competition), there is no safe way to verify the destruction. We have to accept that what we're feeling could go far enough to destroy, unless and until someone has a chance to actually use it as a destruction.


----------



## Ironbear24

Mephisto said:


> I'm surprised by all the mental acrobatics some of you guys perform to justify what you do as the best possible test of fighting skill, which is what this thread is all about. We're getting into individual feelings and personal arguments about this and that, it's ridiculous. A test is meant to assess how an individual performs and meets a given standard. I guess this is like when very intelligent doctors are able to believe the world is only five thousand or so years old. The smarter you are the more able you are to convince yourself that your worldview is correct.



Actually everyone here agrees the best way to find out is to actually have to use it in a life or death fight. Since we can't actually do that though legally the next best thing is sparring.

The rest of the thread devolved into semantics to be honest.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> I still have the tools to defend myself.



So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?


Sure. He hasn't practiced specific techniques for that, I think, but if he hits them hard enough or gets their arm in an appropriate lock, he'll be able to disarm them. Would he be more effective if he also had some specific techniques developed for that? Probably. By how much? Hard to say. It's a matter of percentages, rather than can/can't, IMO.


----------



## Ironbear24

gpseymour said:


> Sure. He hasn't practiced specific techniques for that, I think, but if he hits them hard enough or gets their arm in an appropriate lock, he'll be able to disarm them. Would he be more effective if he also had some specific techniques developed for that? Probably. By how much? Hard to say. It's a matter of percentages, rather than can/can't, IMO.



and you are more likely to know how to do it if you train for it specifically, this is why self defense training is better for self defense than sports training.


----------



## Buka

Maybe there's something to be said for both sides. I SO fell in love with Martial Arts when I first started training, oh, man, it was just the best thing ever. I felt so good about my training, which I knew was the real deal awesome. Except it wasn't. It was really poor Martial Arts.

But the way it made me feel was something I had not experienced before. The way I felt is what kept me in Martial Arts. When I started training in what I consider quality Martial Arts, I felt the same way - fricken' awesome.

Even though how I first felt had nothing to do with if what I was doing was any good - how I felt was directly responsible for me being around the following week....and the one after that.


----------



## Mephisto

Ironbear24 said:


> Actually everyone here agrees the best way to find out is to actually have to use it in a life or death fight. Since we can't actually do that though legally the next best thing is sparring.
> 
> The rest of the thread devolved into semantics to be honest.


I realize most of us agree the best test of fighting ability is to actually fight someone. I'm referring to mma competition and various rule sets as the best mode of testing empty hand fighting ability and it seems that view gets a lot of push back. You guys keep bringing up physical limitations of practitioners, weapons, deadly joint destructions, situational awareness, feeling, and things that either can't be reasonably tested or don't pertain to fighting ability. We are talking about a reproduceable method to test fighting ability. Right now mma is the best we have. I realize fighting ability is only one component of self defense but I think it is important for those that choose to be able to test their fighting ability and those that claim proficiency in fighting should be able to prove this in some manner. Some schools and friends I know have different alive drills that are more removed from mma competition that still assess the same skills mma does but these are isolated instances and not widely available. What we need are standardized methods (like mma competitive ruleset) that test fighting ability from entry level to high level.


----------



## Mephisto

Ironbear24 said:


> So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?


There are ways to test that and dog brothers are a good example. You still have a lot of knife and weapons guys that do nothing but compliant drills. On top of that the same camp that only does compliant knife drills does the same for empty hand and they also will down play something like mma and what it can offer. As an active member of the FMA community I see this a lot.


----------



## Ironbear24

Mephisto said:


> deadly joint destructions



and weight classes, then spending 90% of the fight on the floor. It isn't close enough to reality, I don't really need to go into why being on the floor is a stupid idea in a real fight, we have heard why a billion times before. Is it good? It is good to test your mma ability but beyond that no.

Boxing is similar, is it the best way to measure self defense? No but it sure is the best way to measure how good you are at boxing.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Actually everyone here agrees the best way to find out is to actually have to use it in a life or death fight. Since we can't actually do that though legally the next best thing is sparring.
> 
> The rest of the thread devolved into semantics to be honest.


I think there's a huge difference between most reliable way and "best" way.  I think that if anyone is in a life or death fight, that's a universally terrible thing. 

And does everyone agree that sparring is the next best thing?  Because I think that credible opinions vary on that one, too.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Steve said:


> I think there's a huge difference between most reliable way and "best" way.  I think that if anyone is in a life or death fight, that's a universally terrible thing.
> 
> And does everyone agree that sparring is the next best thing?  Because I think that credible opinions vary on that one, too.


Yeah sparring can have the same arguments as any sport. Wearing gloves, rules, limits, no weapons, no multi attacks not full contact etc


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yeah sparring can have the same arguments as any sport. Wearing gloves, rules, limits, no weapons, no multi attacks not full contact etc



Thats why we spar with no gear for our own personal tests.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Thats why we spar with no gear for our own personal tests.


Got to mess that sparring partner up!  Screw that guy.  He's looking at you funny and everything.  Take the pads off and spar like it means something!


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Got to mess that sparring partner up!  Screw that guy.  He's looking at you funny and everything.  Take the pads off and spar like it means something!



Lol, there is just no winning at this. We spar hard we are doing too hard. We spar light it is not real enough, we do a sport, it's a sport and not really self defense.

The moral of the story is you do you and not care what others think. Just care about what is working.


----------



## Mephisto

Ironbear24 said:


> and weight classes, then spending 90% of the fight on the floor. It isn't close enough to reality, I don't really need to go into why being on the floor is a stupid idea in a real fight, we have heard why a billion times before. Is it good? It is good to test your mma ability but beyond that no.
> 
> Boxing is similar, is it the best way to measure self defense? No but it sure is the best way to measure how good you are at boxing.


Self defense and fighting ability are two different things. Boxing is the bes we have to measure who is the best at punching. With mma you're getting too caught up on "reality" and missing the point which is assessing fighting ability. It is much easier for an experienced mma guy who has experience groundfighting to say "okay now I'm going to do everything I can to avoid going to the ground" than it is for a guy who doesn't train groundfighting because "it's not reality." Again, you're complaining about mma which admittedly has limitations but you're not proposing an alternative. I'm sure some gyms do groundfighting and drills to avoid the ground but it's not something widely available that anyone can do.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Lol, there is just no winning at this. We spar hard we are doing too hard. We spar light it is not real enough, we do a sport, it's a sport and not really self defense.
> 
> The moral of the story is you do you and not care what others think. Just care about what is working.


There's no winning or losing.  There is only living and dying.


----------



## Ironbear24

Mephisto said:


> Self defense and fighting ability are two different things. Boxing is the we have to measure who is the best at punching. With mma you're getting too caught up on "reality" and missing the point which is assessing fighting ability. It is much easier for an experienced mma guy who has experience groundfighting to say "okay now I'm going to do everything I can to avoid going to the ground" than it is for a guy who doesn't train groundfighting because "it's not reality." Again, you're complaining about mma which admittedly has limitations but you're not proposing an alternative. I'm sure some gyms to groundfighting and drills to avoid the ground but it's not something widely available that anyone can do.



I did propose an alternative many pages ago. I said self defense drills are the best. So long as they are high contact and not scripted.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?



What if there are a hundred guys with knives? 

Self defense obviously just does not work. Lets all do line dancing and eat cake.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> and you are more likely to know how to do it if you train for it specifically, this is why self defense training is better for self defense than sports training.



Not really. There are other factors. 

So imagine if you and your mates wanted to do mma.  And you get together and watch a heap of ufc videos and train specifically for a competition.

And you come up against a guy who hasn't seen a UFC but has trained quality striking and wrestling.

You will probably loose.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Not really. There are other factors.
> 
> So imagine if you and your mates wanted to do mma.  And you get together and watch a heap of ufc videos and train specifically for a competition.
> 
> And you come up against a guy who hasn't seen a UFC but has trained quality striking and wrestling.
> 
> You will probably loose.



I hang loose.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> What if there are a hundred guys with knives?
> 
> Self defense obviously just does not work. Lets all do line dancing and eat cake.



Red herring fallacy.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Red herring fallacy.


KC and the Sunshine Band.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Red herring fallacy.



Well yeah. "But does it work with against a knife" always is.

I just thought that it was a more entertaining way of putting it. like those duchebags who carry a concealed trainer into BJJ clas so they can have that "Ahah" moment.

I mean I could ring up a knife defence school. give them a days notice. Wave it at them from across the room and still probably pretend shank them with a trainer. That is just the advantage a knife has.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> I hang loose.



Mate I get punched in the head for a hobby.

Dont expect Shakespeare.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. "But does it work with against a knife" always is.
> 
> I just thought that it was a more entertaining way of putting it. like those duchebags who carry a concealed trainer into BJJ clas so they can have that "Ahah" moment.
> 
> I mean I could ring up a knife defence school. give them a days notice. Wave it at them from across the room and still probably pretend shank them with a trainer. That is just the advantage a knife has.



Thats the thing though, it isn't a red herring because when you say self defense. Getting attacked with a knife is a very realistic situation that can happen which is why I brought it up. MMA does not account for knife defense or any sort of weapon defense because they don't need to worry about it there.

When it comes to MMA training that to be better at it.

When it comes to self defense train specifically self defense to be better at it. It is not complicated.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Thats the thing though, it isn't a red herring because when you say self defense. Getting attacked with a knife is a very realistic situation that can happen which is why I brought it up. MMA does not account for knife defense or any sort of weapon defense because they don't need to worry about it there.
> 
> When it comes to MMA training that to be better at it.
> 
> When it comes to self defense train specifically self defense to be better at it. It is not complicated.



But getting attacked by a bunch of guys with knives isnt realistic? And self defence training does not account for multiple attackers with knives.

So self defence training makes no difference to not training at all. Because it does not address a hundred people with knives.


Actually you know what just back the truck up right there with your MMA does not address knives.

I have used MMA to address knives. And that is all the evidence anybody else ever needed to justify their stuff. Hell that is the mainstay of self defence training evidence.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> But getting attacked by a bunch of guys with knives isnt realistic? And self defence training does not account for multiple attackers with knives.
> 
> So self defence training makes no difference to not training at all. Because it does not address a hundred people with knives.
> 
> 
> Actually you know what just back the truck up right there with your MMA does not address knives.
> 
> I have used MMA to address knives. And that is all the evidence anybody else ever needed to justify their stuff. Hell that is the mainstay of self defence training evidence.



You are once again being obtuse. Self defense training addresses what people will commonly attack you with. It won't be common for multiple people to each have a knife and attack you.

I will not question whether you have or not used MMA to deal with a knife, but I will ask you what does MMA normally do about knife? What training does MMA offer for knife defense?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> You are once again being obtuse. Self defense training addresses what people will commonly attack you with. It won't be common for multiple people to each have a knife and attack you.
> 
> I will not question whether you have or not used MMA to deal with a knife, but I will ask you what does MMA normally do about knife? What training does MMA offer for knife defense?



How often have you been attacked by a knife to consider it common?


----------



## Mephisto

Ironbear24 said:


> You are once again being obtuse. Self defense training addresses what people will commonly attack you with. It won't be common for multiple people to each have a knife and attack you.
> 
> I will not question whether you have or not used MMA to deal with a knife, but I will ask you what does MMA normally do about knife? What training does MMA offer for knife defense?


What if we just forget about the knives for a second? The problem with knives or multiple opponents, or multiple opponents with knives, is there are no high percentage techniques. You have options and it's better to train something but an unarmed person will never have the advtanage over an armed person and most likely won't have the advantage over multiple people. Train your knives, I do it and enjoy it but I have no illusions about how an knife encounter can turn out. 

What do you think is the best method for testing empty hand fighting ability? Drills? Even alive drills are limited. They have established roles and confines, a ruleset if you will. Not to mention you don't have a large pool of people you don't know who are willing to test you and try their hardest to make sure you fail this test, as someone might do if you fought them in real life.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.
> 
> Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.



The start of the situation was due to my working as a bouncer in my mis-spent youth, however it was definitely a fight.  And no, you cannot simply stack up mats to recreate it.  Go to an apartment complex, get a student (or a teacher) and one of you stand about 1/3 of the way up, the other 2/3, and face each other up/down the stairs..... think about what you rather conclusorily posted, then come back and re-evaluate it would be my suggestion.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.
> 
> Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.


Oh hell, I avoid em all together.  The other day covering a fire escape entrance during a warrant service.  But if forced to chose I chose above.  Yes I lose targets but more than once I have seen someone willing to use another as a "sled", hell to be honest I did it once because I had no choice.  Being on the "downside" creates a disadvantage I am simply not comfortable with, even with my personally paid for training AND the tools that the Dept. paid for on top of it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Mephisto said:


> Not to mention you don't have a large pool of people you don't know who are willing to test you and try their hardest to make sure you fail this test, as someone might do if you fought them in real life.



In a sense we do, we aim to harm each other during the tests, but not aim to kill or do any permanent harm for obvious reasons.



Mephisto said:


> What if we just forget about the knives for a second?



Why should we? Knife defense is important because a knife or a sharp pointed object is an easy and readily available weapon, therefore it is a common thing to encounter.

But for the sake of your argument let's say knives do not exist in this world. No matter what you do, you cannot exactly replicate a life and death fight. We both admitted that already. This is why I said the best thing is high contact self defense drills that are not rehearsed because there you are not limited by gender or weight classes, or equipment. There are still some rules for the sake of not killing people but that will always exist.

Now going back to knives. You have trained with them and trained against them, do you not feel that you are better off now than if you have never trained that?

It comes down to the person who trains it will be better than someone who doesn't, it is that simple and that is what I am saying.


----------



## Mephisto

Ironbear24 said:


> In a sense we do, we aim to harm each other during the tests, but not aim to kill or do any permanent harm for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we? Knife defense is important because a knife or a sharp pointed object is an easy and readily available weapon, therefore it is a common thing to encounter.
> 
> But for the sake of your argument let's say knives do not exist in this world. No matter what you do, you cannot exactly replicate a life and death fight. We both admitted that already. This is why I said the best thing is high contact self defense drills that are not rehearsed because there you are not limited by gender or weight classes, or equipment. There are still some rules for the sake of not killing people but that will always exist.
> 
> Now going back to knives. You have trained with them and trained against them, do you not feel that you are better off now than if you have never trained that?
> 
> It comes down to the person who trains it will be better than someone who doesn't, it is that simple and that is what I am saying.


A drill has rules, an mma competition has rules. I just don't happen to think you can take a drill to the same level you can take mma. The advantage of sports is the large pool of experienced practitioners, this brings crowds which bring money which brings research and investment into making a practitioner the strongest he can be. Those who don't compete at an elite level can still greatly benefit and learn from those that do. 

As for knife training, I of course feel I'm better off with it. I feel though after I took up amateur boxing I'm several levels above where I was with just the knife training alone. Boxing has given me pressure tested attributes that enable me to apply them to knife training. I don't think it's bad for anyone to train knife, it's a scenario that could happen. I think empty hand fighting is more likely to happen, nearly every male I know has been in some form of empty hand fight. A small percentage of those guys have been in knife altercations. Using that reasoning an empty hand fight is much more likely than a knife fight. 

Ultimately though it doesn't matter. This thread was about the best possible test of fighting ability. I think mma is the best we've got. You assure us your gym has something better. I'm always willing to reconsider my viewpoint. Do you happen to have any video by chance? Because you also have to consider what is available to the majority of people in this country and world wide. This is why I always recommend people who want fighting ability go to an established style of combat sport. Combat sports have an established set of measures and balances. Non competitive schools have no checks and balances in many or most cases so there is no assurance that you'll find a good school.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> In a sense we do, we aim to harm each other during the tests, but not aim to kill or do any permanent harm for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we? Knife defense is important because a knife or a sharp pointed object is an easy and readily available weapon, therefore it is a common thing to encounter.
> 
> But for the sake of your argument let's say knives do not exist in this world. No matter what you do, you cannot exactly replicate a life and death fight. We both admitted that already. This is why I said the best thing is high contact self defense drills that are not rehearsed because there you are not limited by gender or weight classes, or equipment. There are still some rules for the sake of not killing people but that will always exist.
> 
> Now going back to knives. You have trained with them and trained against them, do you not feel that you are better off now than if you have never trained that?
> 
> It comes down to the person who trains it will be better than someone who doesn't, it is that simple and that is what I am saying.


Let's forget about "bonafide" knives...






Now admittedly I study Kali (although a different lineage) but this is 100% truth.  You basically can not go anywhere where a weapon isn't available if the person you face has the common sense to see it for what it is.  As such, for rl self defense, if you aren't considering this fact you are asking for trouble in an uncontrolled environment.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Let's forget about "bonafide" knives...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now admittedly I study Kali (although a different lineage) but this is 100% truth.  You basically can not go anywhere where a weapon isn't available if the person you face has the common sense to see it for what it is.  As such, for rl self defense, if you aren't considering this fact you are asking for trouble in an uncontrolled environment.



But i have still used MMA to defend knives.

And i get that this might be an irritating response.

But it is also still the benchmark for self defense effectivness.  So it is valid.

I mean validation of a method because i fought a guy once is defended to the death here.

And seriously if we are discussing improv weapons. I am constantly wrestling bottles and glasses off people.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> But i have still used MMA to defend knives.
> 
> And i get that this might be an irritating response.
> 
> But it is also still the benchmark for self defense effectivness.  So it is valid.
> 
> I mean validation of a method because i fought a guy once is defended to the death here.
> 
> And seriously if we are discussing improv weapons. I am constantly wrestling bottles and glasses off people.



And I am asking you how does an MMA practitioner deal with knives. And do MMA coaches teach knife defense. You haven't answered either.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But i have still used MMA to defend knives.
> 
> And i get that this might be an irritating response.
> 
> But it is also still the benchmark for self defense effectivness.  So it is valid.
> 
> I mean validation of a method because i fought a guy once is defended to the death here.
> 
> And seriously if we are discussing improv weapons. I am constantly wrestling bottles and glasses off people.


But there has been an important question asked, how does MMA train it.  You perform a job function that has given you experience beyond the gym.  So I think it is reasonable to ask whether or not what you describe is MMA, or is it "you.". I suspect it has more to do with you, bit an answer would be appreciated one way or the other.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> But there has been an important question asked, how does MMA train it.  You perform a job function that has given you experience beyond the gym.  So I think it is reasonable to ask whether or not what you describe is MMA, or is it "you.". I suspect it has more to do with you, bit an answer would be appreciated one way or the other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



And he more than likely will not answer you. He doesn't want to admit that MMA has any flaws in it. Honestly as I said before. MMA shouldn't have to worry about knife or weapon defense for the same reasons boxing doesn't have to worry about kicking or wrestling.

They will not encounter it in their sport, but here we have someone claiming that it has the answers for that, so I would like to hear what those answers are.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> And I am asking you how does an MMA practitioner deal with knives. And do MMA coaches teach knife defense. You haven't answered either.



Grab the guy. Pitch them into the ground
 Beat on them untill they give up the knife.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> And he more than likely will not answer you. He doesn't want to admit that MMA has any flaws in it. Honestly as I said before. MMA shouldn't have to worry about knife or weapon defense for the same reasons boxing doesn't have to worry about kicking or wrestling.
> 
> They will not encounter it in their sport, but here we have someone claiming that it has the answers for that, so I would like to hear what those answers are.



Not really.  If we are discussing self defense. The bar for whether or not something works is not set very high.

And speaking of wrestling there are a few complete systems with no answer to a decent wrestler.


Speaking of unanswered questions. Have you faced an attack with one knife more often than you have faced a hundred people with knives?

You know that common attack.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Not really.  If we are discussing self defense. The bar for whether or not something works is not set very high.
> 
> And speaking of wrestling there are a few complete systems with no answer to a decent wrestler.



There are more than you believe.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Grab the guy. Pitch them into the ground
> Beat on them untill they give up the knife



Great way to get stabbed.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Grab the guy. Pitch them into the ground
> Beat on them untill they give up the knife.



That only works if the guy is more sound and and fury and doesn't want to actually use the knife.  If someone means to cut/stab you the first thing you have to deal with is that knife.  Just trying to get inside their guard and take them down is indeed a good way to get stabbed and that's even facing a complete amature.  Think of the times you have clinched or taken someone down as they ineffectively punch you due to your superior position.  Now picture that I effective punch having 3-5 inches of sharp, pointy, steel at the end of it.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Great way to get stabbed.



But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method. 

Whole self defense systems are built on this idea.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> That only works if the guy is more sound and and fury and doesn't want to actually use the knife.  If someone means to cut/stab you the first thing you have to deal with is that knife.  Just trying to get inside their guard and take them down is indeed a good way to get stabbed.



I find this hilarious. Fighting a knife guy unarmed is a good way to get stabbed.

Which every one has of course forgotten at this point. 

I know you have relied on "I did it on the street" numerous times. Mabye it is not as trustworthy a test as people make out then.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method.
> 
> Whole self defense systems are built on this idea.



Yes, they often call that getting lucky or as I said a "bad guy" who was posing with the knife and not serious about using it.  But if you are facing a sober person who has no qualms about stabbing/cutting you trying to get inside their guard is at a minimum going to result in a hospital trip for stitches far more often than not.

Also one incident doesn't prove something works on its own.  To actually prove something takes multiple experiments/incidents.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I find this hilarious. Fighting a knife guy unarmed is a good way to get stabbed.
> 
> Which every one has of course forgotten at this point.
> 
> I know you have relied on "I did it on the street" numerous times. Mabye it is not as trustworthy a test as people make out then.


There is a difference.  If something is already proven using it yourself is simply a confirmation/proof of concept. 

It is already proven that trying to get inside someone's guard to take them down, to when armed with a knife, is a bad idea.  If it wasn't grappling arts like Jujutsu wouldn't have specific techniques to address the knife because there would be no point.  So in short you are trying to say in one incident you have disproved a few centuries of martial arts and battlefield experience.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Yes, they often call that getting lucky or as I said a "bad guy" who was posing with the knife and not serious about using it.  But if you are facing a sober person who has no qualms about stabbing/cutting you trying to get inside their guard is at a minimum going to result in a hospital trip for stitches far more often than not.
> 
> Also one incident doesn't prove something works on its own.  To actually prove something takes multiple experiments/incidents.



And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There is a difference.  If something is already proven using it yourself is simply a confirmation/proof of concept.
> 
> It is already proven that trying to get inside someone's guard to take them down, to when armed with a knife, is a bad idea.  If it wasn't grappling arts like Jujutsu wouldn't have specific techniques to address the knife because there would be no point.  So in short you are trying to say in one incident you have disproved a few centuries of martial arts and battlefield experience.



Proven by the same method i am proving mine though. They done it in a fight.  I done it in a fight.

Waiting a century makes that proof less reliable not more.

I mean there is battle field proof that suggests getting buck naked and painting yourself blue gives you the advantage because the gods can see you.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.



Most of them were. Because most of the world has no real idea how to fight effectively. 
The Real World (tm) counts. It has to. 
Even though I've never competed in an MMA (not the way I believe you define it, at least) I know that my training is effective. Because I've used it, repeatedly, in the Real World (tm). That doesn't mean I think it's perfect, nor that I think it will always be effective in every imaginable circumstance. Because people are imperfect, and all it takes is one little slip. Nor does it mean that I think the way I've trained is the only or the best way to train. Anyone who thinks that, regardless of the details of their training, is an idiot.
It means only that the way I've trained and the things I've trained have been effective for me.
It means that MMA can certainly be viewed as one valid method of testing your skills. But not the only one.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> I mean there is battle field proof that suggests getting buck naked and painting yourself blue gives you the advantage because the gods can see you.



Now you're delving into my family history...

The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.


You are missing what I am trying to say.  When you use already tested and proven techniques all you are doing is confirming it works. 

Moving to get past the bladed guard of a determined attacker to take them down and then beat them until you can take the knife is actually counter to what has been tested and proven to work not just via centuries of "martial arts" but centuries of full on warfare.  Even today it's what is taught to Military forces. 

If you are going to claim you have disproved what centuries has said is virtually necessary it takes more than a single incident.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Now you're delving into my family history...
> 
> The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
> Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...



I do have an official "i am not tackling the naked guy" At work.  So you may have a point.


----------



## Juany118

Dirty Dog said:


> Now you're delving into my family history...
> 
> The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
> Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...



Exactly, just another version of a battle cry/warfare... But did you have to go with the thong?  /Shudder.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> I do have an official "i am not tackling the naked guy" At work.  So you may have a point.



I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Again though you are missing the point.  When you use already tested and proven techniques all you are doing is confirming it works.
> 
> Moving to get past the bladed guard of a determined attacker to take them down and then beat them until you can take the knife is actually counter to what has been tested and proven to work not just via centuries of "martial arts" but centuries of full on warfare.  Even today it's what is taught to Military forces.
> 
> If you are going to claim you have disproved what centuries has said is virtually necessary it takes more than a single incident.



No i have said my method is proven by the same standards of proof. 

And wrestling is older.  And more battlefieldy.


----------



## Juany118

Dirty Dog said:


> I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.



We had that, regrettably, more than a few times over a period of time when we had a major issue with people smoking wet.  Now they are all doing heroin so they are unconscious when we show up.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.



By the way.  I do like how that guy was about to get shot.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No i have said my method is proven by the same standards of proof.
> 
> And wrestling is older.  And more battlefieldy.



If you can show me a system, history, etc that says it is a proven and accepted method to disarm a blade wielding opponent by getting past the blade, taking them down and beating it from them THEN your single incident confirms something proven.  A single incident however proves nothing empirical however on its own, that is one of the key portions of the scientific method.

The thing is you won't.  There is a reason that grappling arts, whether historic Pankration, Jujutsu, HEMA grappling etc had specific methods for dealing with a blade.  It's because they are needed.  You are right, wrestling is older BUT wrestling evolved into these other arts because people began to realize "hey if they have a weapon and I don't have one, I need a way to deal with that first otherwise I am probably going to end up on the short end of it."

Let's look at it another way.  First let's say all I did was study Wing Chun, and thus had no bonafide ground game.  However I got out of a ground game simply by striking my way out of it (which I have seen people do).  If I used your logic I would be able to say that I don't need to study arts with ground fighting to deal with a BJJ guy or wrestler because my one incident proved it was unnecessary.  You upon reading that would call BS, and rightly so imo.  The same logic applies here.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> If you can show me a system, history, etc that says it is a proven and accepted method to disarm a blade wielding opponent by getting past the blade, taking them down and beating it from them THEN your single incident confirms something proven. A single incident however proves nothing empirical however on its own, that is one of the key portions of the scientific method.



Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.

Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.






Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.

Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method.
> 
> Whole self defense systems are built on this idea.



No they aren't. You are once again being obtuse. They are built on effectiveness. Dead men do not live to spread technique.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> No they aren't. You are once again being obtuse. They are built on effectiveness. Dead men do not live to spread technique.



And how is this effectivness proven?


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.
> 
> Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.
> 
> Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing



Judo's has blade disarms. You don't simply grab them and hit them until they 'give up" the knife in Judo.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.
> 
> Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.
> 
> Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing



First I agree that grappling arts are used heavily in warfare.  Where you thought I didn't is beyond me.  I kept mentioning Jujutsu and specifically mentioned HEMA grappling already.  I am talking technique as you described it.  As an example Judo is actually born of Jujutsu (created by  Kanō Jigorō) and retains techniques that can be used to address the knife.  You do indeed use grappling to address the knife but the accepted method isn't to try and get inside the guys guard, take him down and beat him.  It can involve taking him down but it involves doing so by taking control of the limb controlling the knife and you don't start beating him until you have stripped him of the weapon.  This includes the training in the most modern combative systems such as Krav Maga, MCMAP, SOCP etc, not just older arts like Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, HEMA and FMA (which has a lot of grappling, especially in terms of disarming techniques),etc.

I actually mentioned HEMA grappling earlier, because while I don't technically study it I regularly discuss and am going to start sparring with a friend of mine who does compete in HEMA with the Longpoint.  We think it will be interesting to see how HEMA and FMA mesh on the floor.  In particular we have spent a lot of time talking about grappling and disarms and while specific techniques are different the concept, control the limb controlling the weapon and strip, is the same.  This became a specific point of conversation because when we started talking about it neither of us were aware how much grappling was involved in the other's system.

Now maybe you meant this (control then strip), but the way you described it makes it sound like you are trying to get inside his guard, without controlling the weapon limb, taking him down and beating him, again without controlling the weapon limb.  If my read was accurate then that is simply a bad idea all around and all the other systems seem to agree, including the Gracies.






If I didn't read correctly please explain the technique you used to take the subject down and why you think it's a good idea to not strip the knife and just beat him?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> First I agree that grappling arts are used heavily in warfare.  Where you thought I didn't is beyond me.  I kept mentioning Jujutsu and specifically mentioned HEMA grappling already.  I am talking technique as you described it.  As an example Judo is actually born of Jujutsu (created by  Kanō Jigorō) and retains techniques that can be used to address the knife.  You do indeed use grappling to address the knife but the accepted method isn't to try and get inside the guys guard, take him down and beat him.  It can involve taking him down but it involves doing so by taking control of the limb controlling the knife and you don't start beating him until you have stripped him of the weapon.  This includes the training in the most modern combative systems such as Krav Maga, MCMAP, SOCP etc, not just older arts like Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, HEMA and FMA (which has a lot of grappling, especially in terms of disarming techniques),etc.
> 
> I actually mentioned HEMA grappling earlier, because while I don't technically study it I regularly discuss and am going to start sparring with a friend of mine who does compete in HEMA with the Longpoint.  We think it will be interesting to see how HEMA and FMA mesh on the floor.  In particular we have spent a lot of time talking about grappling and disarms and while specific techniques are different the concept, control the limb controlling the weapon and strip, is the same.  This became a specific point of conversation because when we started talking about it neither of us were aware how much grappling was involved in the other's system.
> 
> Now maybe you meant this (control then strip), but the way you described it makes it sound like you are trying to get inside his guard, without controlling the weapon limb, taking him down and beating him, again without controlling the weapon limb.  If my read was accurate then that is simply a bad idea all around and all the other systems seem to agree, including the Gracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't read correctly please explain the technique you used to take the subject down and why you think it's a good idea to not strip the knife and just beat him?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



And that is one of the many excellent ways to disarm a knife. Thanks for posting that vid.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> And that is one of the many excellent ways to disarm a knife. Thanks for posting that vid.


No worries.  One of the techniques we use in Kali involves a bit more control to the wrist but also invloves bring the opponent's arm behind.  The reason for the extra wrist control is because you actually try to use the body of the opponent to strip the knife as you move the arm behind.  If they get cut or stabbed by their own knife it's all good because they are the one who initiated a deadly force encounter but even a blunt aluminum trainer can hurt if you get stabbed with it so we try to make sure the flat of the blade gets pushed against their body.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> No worries.  One of the techniques we use in Kali involves a bit more control to the wrist but also invloves bring the opponent's arm behind.  The reason for the extra wrist control is because you actually try to use the body of the opponent to strip the knife as you move the arm behind.  If they get cut or stabbed by their own knife it's all good because they are the one who initiated a deadly force encounter but even a blunt aluminum trainer can hurt if you get stabbed with it so we try to make sure the flat of the blade gets pushed against their body.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk








I do more stuff like this, lots of wrist and armlocks into takedowns.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> I do more stuff like this, lots of wrist and armlocks into takedowns.



Just for context here are some are some Kali methods to address a knife.











On the second video the instruction starts at 1:40.

To illustrate the point who is better than "Lucky Dog", of the notorious 'Dog Brothers", being willing to take a hit from  a shock knife 







lesson?  secure that damn arm and try to get to the outside and/or get such dominate control of that arm so while you are dealing with that knife arm the bad guy is so concerned about you getting his knife the free arm doesn't come to do something nasty.  If you do that with proper control you can strip it using his body, doing trauma to the his limb or using your own body, the ground, a door jam, it really don't matter but you can strip it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method.



Yes, being lucky is a proven method of not getting stabbed.



drop bear said:


> And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent.



Or the person who attacked you was incompetent?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Ironbear24 said:


> And that is one of the many excellent ways to disarm a knife.


I wouldn't go that far.


----------



## Juany118

RTKDCMB said:


> I wouldn't go that far.


I posted that one because I know some people have some major respect for Gracies and BJJ.  The issue I have with that may be the one you have, you need to use footwork.  you may be forced to stop the knife in the middle but that is an "oh crap" moment.  You need to get to the outside while you are dealing with the knife, not stop then move, otherwise they can still try to use weight and leverage to get you one way of the other with that blade.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Or the person who attacked you was incompetent?


exactly.   I think you have it!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Mephisto said:


> I realize most of us agree the best test of fighting ability is to actually fight someone. I'm referring to mma competition and various rule sets as the best mode of testing empty hand fighting ability and it seems that view gets a lot of push back. You guys keep bringing up physical limitations of practitioners, weapons, deadly joint destructions, situational awareness, feeling, and things that either can't be reasonably tested or don't pertain to fighting ability. We are talking about a reproduceable method to test fighting ability. Right now mma is the best we have. I realize fighting ability is only one component of self defense but I think it is important for those that choose to be able to test their fighting ability and those that claim proficiency in fighting should be able to prove this in some manner. Some schools and friends I know have different alive drills that are more removed from mma competition that still assess the same skills mma does but these are isolated instances and not widely available. What we need are standardized methods (like mma competitive ruleset) that test fighting ability from entry level to high level.


If we had to pick just one, yes, something like MMA is among the best. I don't think a single test is the best test. Using multiple methods of testing what you do is better, because each type of testing will have to make some compromises, and you can choose them to overlap and cover most of those compromises.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> First I agree that grappling arts are used heavily in warfare.  Where you thought I didn't is beyond me.  I kept mentioning Jujutsu and specifically mentioned HEMA grappling already.  I am talking technique as you described it.  As an example Judo is actually born of Jujutsu (created by  Kanō Jigorō) and retains techniques that can be used to address the knife.  You do indeed use grappling to address the knife but the accepted method isn't to try and get inside the guys guard, take him down and beat him.  It can involve taking him down but it involves doing so by taking control of the limb controlling the knife and you don't start beating him until you have stripped him of the weapon.  This includes the training in the most modern combative systems such as Krav Maga, MCMAP, SOCP etc, not just older arts like Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, HEMA and FMA (which has a lot of grappling, especially in terms of disarming techniques),etc.
> 
> I actually mentioned HEMA grappling earlier, because while I don't technically study it I regularly discuss and am going to start sparring with a friend of mine who does compete in HEMA with the Longpoint.  We think it will be interesting to see how HEMA and FMA mesh on the floor.  In particular we have spent a lot of time talking about grappling and disarms and while specific techniques are different the concept, control the limb controlling the weapon and strip, is the same.  This became a specific point of conversation because when we started talking about it neither of us were aware how much grappling was involved in the other's system.
> 
> Now maybe you meant this (control then strip), but the way you described it makes it sound like you are trying to get inside his guard, without controlling the weapon limb, taking him down and beating him, again without controlling the weapon limb.  If my read was accurate then that is simply a bad idea all around and all the other systems seem to agree, including the Gracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't read correctly please explain the technique you used to take the subject down and why you think it's a good idea to not strip the knife and just beat him?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Yeah just picked him up and dumped him.  I could tell you why that works.  And why it has worked for the 50,000 years it has been used on the battlefield. 

There are a whole bunch of real world circumstances that you have not factored in. 

But i dont have to.  Because it works on the street against real knives. And i know because i have done it. 

The sword throw.  Did not strip the weapon though.  Plenty of anti knife throws dont strip the weapon.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> exactly.   I think you have it!



Backflips.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> Lol, there is just no winning at this. We spar hard we are doing too hard. We spar light it is not real enough, we do a sport, it's a sport and not really self defense.
> 
> The moral of the story is you do you and not care what others think. Just care about what is working.


Actually, I think that's his point.

Okay, I won't speak for Steve. It's my point. Anything that plays for safety is too safe. Anything that doesn't is too dangerous (and actually becomes the dangerous situations we train to avoid). The best we can do is pick what fits us, while being purposeful about watching for the flaws in whatever we use for testing ourselves.

I train with compliant drills, because those make it easy to learn techniques (I've never met anyone in an organized MA system who didn't use them at some level). But those don't test, except at the most technical level. I spar and practice randori, because that lets me see where the weaknesses in my offense and defense are. But those are kept very safe and last longish periods of time, so they don't simulate an actual altercation very well. I use simulated attacks (more force, sometimes with practice weapons, sometimes with exact instructions to the "attacker" to create a specific situation to defend) because those let me work at higher speeds on attacks I'll never otherwise receive from someone I train with. Even putting those together, there are gaps, so I build in other exercises to fill those gaps.

Those using MMA competition as their testing platform have a good start. If they want to test their skills for self-defense, they will benefit from adding some other types of skill testing to overlap some of the areas where MMA isn't as strong.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Judo's has blade disarms. You don't simply grab them and hit them until they 'give up" the knife in Judo.



Not really.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> The start of the situation was due to my working as a bouncer in my mis-spent youth, however it was definitely a fight.  And no, you cannot simply stack up mats to recreate it.  Go to an apartment complex, get a student (or a teacher) and one of you stand about 1/3 of the way up, the other 2/3, and face each other up/down the stairs..... think about what you rather conclusorily posted, then come back and re-evaluate it would be my suggestion.


I never said you were wrong in your approach. I said I'd rather have use of my hands, and not depend upon my legs (you may want to know that I have crappy knees, so would be reluctant to use a kick on that surface, leaving me with no attacking limbs until they get close enough for me to use my hands on their head). I stand by that. It's my preference to have that control. YMMV

As for using the stacked mats as a simulation, sure I can. It's not a perfect replication, but it does provide a useful space to work in, where injuries are less likely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Mephisto said:


> The advantage of sports is the large pool of experienced practitioners, this brings crowds which bring money which brings research and investment into making a practitioner the strongest he can be. Those who don't compete at an elite level can still greatly benefit and learn from those that do.


Of this, only the large pool of opponents applies to the usefulness as a test of personal effectiveness. The rest still benefits even those who don't compete, at all, as much as it benefits the low-level competitor.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Not really.



Well gee I guess my Judo instruction was wrong then. They showed me to remove the knife and break the wrist and control the limbs. I guess they are all idiots and all I needed to do was grab them and punch them until they drop it. I mean, it's not like they can easily stab me while I grabbed them .


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But i have still used MMA to defend knives.
> 
> And i get that this might be an irritating response.
> 
> But it is also still the benchmark for self defense effectivness.  So it is valid.
> 
> I mean validation of a method because i fought a guy once is defended to the death here.
> 
> And seriously if we are discussing improv weapons. I am constantly wrestling bottles and glasses off people.


This goes to my point that training for MMA is, in fact, useful for self-defense. I would suggest, though, that you may have a different result than some from MMA, specifically because of your work. I see this difference in NGA. Though we focus on self-defense, some folks come in who do not. They tend to get into technical training and don't really react to a training knife as if it were a knife (not caring if they grab it by the blade, for instance). Because of your work, you're probably looking at your MMA training differently. We (adults) learn partly based upon the intent and importance we place upon the learning.

Your existing training worked, and would be better (for SD) if it included specifically training principles around weapons. One key principle I work with is keeping the knife away. Seems obvious, except that we treat every punch as if that hand might contain a knife. No "taking a punch" to get in. No wrapping an arm up against yourself to restrain it, if that would allow an un-noticed knife to have dangerous access. It's not just training a few techniques (actually, we don't train any techniques only for the knife - we train how to use them differently should you know there's a knife there). The primary part of knife defense, for me, is how it changes all of your other training, to give you a better chance of surviving the knife you didn't see.


----------



## Ironbear24

I prefer the methods I was shown compared the gracie video there simply because If I miss that, I am dead. If I miss some of the other methods at least I can evade and wait for another opportunity.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Not really.


Then I suggest you restudy how any competent Judo instructor will tell you how to deal with a knife.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method.
> 
> Whole self defense systems are built on this idea.


I know of no self-defense system built on a single instance of something working. I know of none built on a half-dozen instances.

Now, if you're referring to continuing validation, yeah. There are techniques ans principles that only get occasional real-world validation, and we have to take that for what it's worth. Best if there's some extra attempt made at validation besides that.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah just picked him up and dumped him.  I could tell you why that works.  And why it has worked for the 50,000 years it has been used on the battlefield.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of real world circumstances that you have not factored in.
> 
> But i dont have to.  Because it works on the street against real knives. And i know because i have done it.
> 
> The sword throw.  Did not strip the weapon though.  Plenty of anti knife throws dont strip the weapon.


Then as others said, he was incompetent or as I said he actually was trying to bully/bluff you and had no intent to use the knife.

Why because it DIDN'T work on the battlefield, this is a fact.  Jujutsu (and Judo) Pankration, HEMA grappling, FMA etc... They ALL have the grappler taking control of the blade wielding limb to disarm.  Why because they are arts forged on the battlefield know this. 

You keep saying "battlefield" ignoring what the battlefield arts actually teach in knife/blade defense.  They all teach you take control of the arm wielding the blade, each and everyone of them.  Show me one that doesn't since I have shown you three (Jujutsu, Judo, HEMA and FMA).  Until then please stop with the battlefield line...your turn to actually produce something beyond your one off experience with nothing to back up the fiat "battlefield" line that is contradicted by the doctrines of the battlefield arts you keep mentioning because they all say "if you are unarmed and the opponent armed, control the armed limb and o disarm" and this is a bonafide fact.

Your entire argument ignores what battlefield grappling arts actually train so you can say "I grappled, it worked once..." Either via dumb luck or an incompetent opponent "...so my training works. Or else you say the battlefield grappling arts you keep referencing are dead wrong.

As an example, the video you posted.  The person who took down the opponent was isolating the opponent's sword with his own sword.  Your video proved my point, not yours but I tried to be nice.  You need to isolate that weapon first and that means, when unarmed, isolating the limb wielding it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> Then as others said, he was incompetent or as I said he actually was trying to bully/bluff you and had no intent to use the knife.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



To be honest if someone grabbed me and tried punching me while I had a knife, they would be gutted like a fish. They would be exposing all of their centerline to me and well, that is where all the important stuff happens to be,


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I know of no self-defense system built on a single instance of something working. I know of none built on a half-dozen instances.
> 
> Now, if you're referring to continuing validation, yeah. There are techniques ans principles that only get occasional real-world validation, and we have to take that for what it's worth. Best if there's some extra attempt made at validation besides that.


And this is what I have been saying.  His premise basically is "it worked once thus proven" when in such a context it can be luck, it can be lack of intent to use on the part of the knife wielder etc.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> And this is what I have been saying.  His premise basically is "it worked once thus proven" when in such a context it can be luck, it can be lack of intent to use on the part of the knife wielder etc.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



It's like saying I didn't know what to do on this test, so I just marked C on all of the answers and barely passed. 

Yeah sure it can work, but is it likely going to work? When it comes to my life I would rather do something that has a high chance to work rather than something that maybe will work. 

It would make sense to go for the higher percentage chance to succeed.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> It's like saying I didn't know what to do on this test, so I just marked C on all of the answers and barely passed.
> 
> Yeah sure it can work, but is it likely going to work? When it comes to my life I would rather do something that has a high chance to work rather than something that maybe will work.
> 
> It would make sense to go for the higher percentage chance to succeed.



Luck is always a factor, as is the fact that many people who display a weapon are either A. Incompetent with it and/or B. Don't actually intend to use it and are brandishing it for mere intimidation.

I am not relying on any of the above and chose to train in a manner that assume the person has talent, if not trained skill and an intent to gut me.  Anything else is hubris which will end in my serious injury or death.


----------



## Steve

Do you guys realize you're making the same point drop bear has been making for months?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> To be honest if someone grabbed me and tried punching me while I had a knife, they would be gutted like a fish. They would be exposing all of their centerline to me and well, that is where all the important stuff happens to be,



If you tried to grab a persons arm mid shank you would get gutted as well.

I mean it is almost impossible without a knife. But we just flail around hoping to get lucky.

By the way you never mentioned if you fought one knife guy more times than a hundred knife guys.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Why because it DIDN'T work on the battlefield, this is a fact. Jujutsu (and Judo) Pankration, HEMA grappling, FMA etc... They ALL have the grappler taking control of the blade wielding limb to disarm. Why because they are arts forged on the battlefield know this.



Prove it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Do you guys realize you're making the same point drop bear has been making for months?



I am playing chess wile everyone else is playing checkers.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Just for context here are some are some Kali methods to address a knife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the second video the instruction starts at 1:40.
> 
> To illustrate the point who is better than "Lucky Dog", of the notorious 'Dog Brothers", being willing to take a hit from  a shock knife
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lesson?  secure that damn arm and try to get to the outside and/or get such dominate control of that arm so while you are dealing with that knife arm the bad guy is so concerned about you getting his knife the free arm doesn't come to do something nasty.  If you do that with proper control you can strip it using his body, doing trauma to the his limb or using your own body, the ground, a door jam, it really don't matter but you can strip it.



It is different on the street.  Different surface.  It could be dark. And there are no rules. 

It is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> I am playing chess wile everyone else is playing checkers.



Does that mean you won't king me?


----------



## Buka

Watched the UFC preliminary card when I got home from work tonight. What a great kick-back after a hard day's work, white bean and chicken chili, cold Bikini Blonde beer, warm fresh baked brown bread, and ice cold Grey Goose. And a corker of a wheel kick.

Last fight of the prelims ended with a text book wheel kick. Heel to jaw. Hard to tell how any fight will turn out, be it in in sport or in real life, but I don't understand how anyone that trains a striking style can't appreciate MMA. I mean, so much of it is what _we do_. Anyone who punches and kicks would have said, "That's what I'm f'n talkin' about!"


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Do you guys realize you're making the same point drop bear has been making for months?


We have both been making the same point actually (that you need pressure testing) until now when he did a complete 180 and is saying lucking out in one instance = a proven method.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is different on the street.  Different surface.  It could be dark. And there are no rules.
> 
> It is like comparing apples and oranges.


In terms of conditions, you do what you have to do but in essence what you are saying is "if you don't see the knife..." Well yeah, if you don't see the knife because it's too dark you won't know to use the proper techniques but if you can see the knife you can use it.  The surface doesn't really matter for the arm grab, if you can do your move you go get control of the arm and the Gracie video I showed illustrates a technique to use if you can't zone to the outside say due to being in a narrow hall way.

Are their times/circumstances where you can't do it?  Sure, this however applies to every single MA technique.  To say "under circumstance Z it won't work" doesn't mean that under circumstances A-Y it isn't the better choice.




drop bear said:


> If you tried to grab a persons arm mid shank you would get gutted as well.
> 
> I mean it is almost impossible without a knife. But we just flail around hoping to get lucky.
> 
> By the way you never mentioned if you fought one knife guy more times than a hundred knife guys.



In terms of mid shank yes, you are going to take a hit, but if they are doing the classic prison "sewing machine" shank you are still better off getting control of that arm.  If you don't, while you move through to do an inside guard take down that sewing machine is still going to be shanking the hell out of you.  

Yes unarmed against a knife wielder is dangerous as hell but if you just charge in there you are basically saying "kill me".

As for actual knife fighting I do full on sparring/competition al la the last video I posted, though we use chalked blades at the moment we haven't gotten shock knives.  If you don't go for that limb you end up "dead" every time, the other way you often end up injured but the times you end up dead are far less.



drop bear said:


> Prove it.



A few things here. First only need to look at two arts you named to try and defend your position, Judo (also thinking Jujutsu) and HEMA, when you add FMA it becomes more clear.  When you look at the traditional Martial Arts documented to be used on the battlefield, that we have records of the techniques they evolved techniques, even when from completely different cultures, specifically designed to deal with a knife and they do it by controlling the blade wielding limb. When different cultures over centuries develop the same thing it is rather telling and if those techniques weren't necessary they wouldn't have evolved so universally.  I actually found it odd you mentioned Judo and HEMA for this reason.  If someone is arguing you don't need to address the limb wielding the blade but then keep naming battlefield martial arts that evolved techniques to control the limb, it just seemed odd.  Even the HEMA video you linked showed this (controlling the blade with a blade to execute the take down) and the article had a woodcut of an unarmed person controlling the limb of an armed person.

When you next add to that the fact Modern Military and Security Forces train it this way you have additional proof because these groups don't train things that they haven't validated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Do you guys realize you're making the same point drop bear has been making for months?


He has been arguing against using real experiences as part of validation. Here he is making the argument that a single experience is sufficient validation (and, in fact, that entire systems are based upon that level of validation). Those are not equivalent. His experience is anecdotal evidence, and should go into the hopper as part of the validation. But there must be additional validation. If they aren't actually training those methods against a knife, there's likely no other type of validation (aggressive simulated attacks, etc.) being used.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> In terms of mid shank yes, you are going to take a hit, but if they are doing the classic prison "sewing machine" shank you are still better off getting control of that arm. If you don't, while you move through to do an inside guard take down that sewing machine is still going to be shanking the hell out of you.
> 
> Yes unarmed against a knife wielder is dangerous as hell but if you just charge in there you are basically saying "kill me".
> 
> As for actual knife fighting I do full on sparring/competition al la the last video I posted, though we use chalked blades at the moment we haven't gotten shock knives. If you don't go for that limb you end up "dead" every time, the other way you often end up injured but the times you end up dead are far less.



I saw the last video. If you add punching and kicking the dynamics change. You can't fight into turtle and just hang there.you will get bashed. Then stabbed.

We are also discussing real knives. In a life or death fight it is psychologically different.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> He has been arguing against using real experiences as part of validation. Here he is making the argument that a single experience is sufficient validation (and, in fact, that entire systems are based upon that level of validation). Those are not equivalent. His experience is anecdotal evidence, and should go into the hopper as part of the validation. But there must be additional validation. If they aren't actually training those methods against a knife, there's likely no other type of validation (aggressive simulated attacks, etc.) being used.



So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.

Even if you got lucky a few times.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Does that mean you won't king me?



Ironically to king someone in Australia means this.






Also they have nazi,s in new Zealand. I mean you have to have some stones to walk up to one of these guys and inform them you are the master race.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> A few things here. First only need to look at two arts you named to try and defend your position, Judo (also thinking Jujutsu) and HEMA, when you add FMA it becomes more clear. When you look at the traditional Martial Arts documented to be used on the battlefield, that we have records of the techniques they evolved techniques, even when from completely different cultures, specifically designed to deal with a knife and they do it by controlling the blade wielding limb. When different cultures over centuries develop the same thing it is rather telling and if those techniques weren't necessary they wouldn't have evolved so universally. I actually found it odd you mentioned Judo and HEMA for this reason. If someone is arguing you don't need to address the limb wielding the blade but then keep naming battlefield martial arts that evolved techniques to control the limb, it just seemed odd. Even the HEMA video you linked showed this (controlling the blade with a blade to execute the take down) and the article had a woodcut of an unarmed person controlling the limb of an armed person.



So if we look at wrestling. they control the limb?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I saw the last video. If you add punching and kicking the dynamics change. You can't fight into turtle and just hang there.you will get bashed. Then stabbed.
> 
> We are also discussing real knives. In a life or death fight it is psychologically different.


A few things.

1. The last video was simply to show the intensity.  If you look at the other videos they address what you do when the other person is doing the punching and the kicking.
2. Whether they punch or kick has a lot to do with how skilled the opponent is and relative strength difference.  These two factors related directly to how confident the person is in terms of retaining the knife.  If they don't have enough confidence they will not strike or kick because they will be overly concerned about losing the knife and/or having it turned against them.  

So you are right on your point about life and death, you just misidentify the dynamic that would be present.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.
> 
> Even if you got lucky a few times.


And your answer has what to do with what he said?  He was talking about how you are taking one single encounter and claim that validates something that has actually been invalidated by both historic and modern combat grappling arts, a fact you keep avoiding.  

Its weird really.  At one point you said that grappling arts have a long and storied military history, until it was pointed out those historic arts and now the modern military arts have blade specific unarmed defense.  After that you kinda start contradicting yourself.  You have spent this entire thread (and others) saying that MMA is one of the better forms of validation/testing (which it is).  

That said at one point you liked a response where it was said competition isn't the only one and that occupations, such as Law Enforcement, Military, Corrections etc can provide valdidation.   Now though you ignore the fact that Military and Law Enforcement have for centuries validated the techniques I am saying work (heck the techniques were born on the battlefield and evolved in very different cultures all over the world) by raising the very things (life and death, multiple types of environment) which warfare and law enforcement actions replicate better than formal competition.  There is no logical consistency in your argument, it's simply whatever you can come up with to address a specific response without caring whether or not you contradict a previous statement.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.
> 
> Even if you got lucky a few times.


At what point did I say full-contact wasn't used? I mentioned some options that are useful. I never said other stuff wasn't.

You're trying really hard, again, to make my argument something other than what was said.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And your answer has what to do with what he said?  He was talking about how you are taking one single encounter and claim that validates something that has actually been invalidated by both historic and modern combat grappling arts, a fact you keep avoiding.
> 
> Its weird really.  At one point you said that grappling arts have a long and storied military history, until it was pointed out those historic arts and now the modern military arts have blade specific unarmed defense.  After that you kinda start contradicting yourself.  You have spent this entire thread (and others) saying that MMA is one of the better forms of validation/testing (which it is).
> 
> That said at one point you liked a response where it was said competition isn't the only one and that occupations, such as Law Enforcement, Military, Corrections etc can provide valdidation.   Now though you ignore the fact that Military and Law Enforcement have for centuries validated the techniques I am saying work (heck the techniques were born on the battlefield and evolved in very different cultures all over the world) by raising the very things (life and death, multiple types of environment) which warfare and law enforcement actions replicate better than formal competition.  There is no logical consistency in your argument, it's simply whatever you can come up with to address a specific response without caring whether or not you contradict a previous statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Oh. well thats easy.

I will point out non blade specific wrestling has been used to train soldiers for the battlefield. And has been used against weapons effectively. Heck the techniques were born on the battlefield and evolved in very different cultures all over the world.

And that military and law enforcement have validated the techniques I am saying work.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> If you tried to grab a persons arm mid shank you would get gutted as well.
> 
> I mean it is almost impossible without a knife. But we just flail around hoping to get lucky.
> 
> By the way you never mentioned if you fought one knife guy more times than a hundred knife guys.



If you do it wrong yes, think of it as a block when someone is punching you, are you able to stop it? I know you have before, it is not that much different with a knife aside from the next step which is control of the limb. 

Like everything in martial arts it must be practiced many times before you can actually pull it off under stress. 



drop bear said:


> Prove it.



We already have, Juany showed you a GJJ video of how to disarm an attacker with a knife, then I showed you a Judo video of how to disarm an attacker with a knife, both do the same thing but with a different method. 1, they stop the knife mid attack by jamming the attack, and 2. They control the limb with a joint lock/ throw. 3. The knife is no longer with the attacker. 

You claimed that these arts did not have much answers for this yet they do and we have showed you this. There is your proof, whether or not you will accept it as proof is up to you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> At what point did I say full-contact wasn't used? I mentioned some options that are useful. I never said other stuff wasn't.
> 
> You're trying really hard, again, to make my argument something other than what was said.



So you agree with the above point.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> We already have, Juany showed you a GJJ video of how to disarm an attacker with a knife, then I showed you a Judo video of how to disarm an attacker with a knife, both do the same thing but with a different method. 1, they stop the knife mid attack by jamming the attack, and 2. They control the limb with a joint lock/ throw. 3. The knife is no longer with the attacker.
> 
> You claimed that these arts did not have much answers for this yet they do and we have showed you this. There is your proof, whether or not you will accept it as proof is up to you.



So a demo is proof.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> So a demo is proof.



The principals remain the same, person with knife attacks you in a fashion that many people would attack you in. You respond to it, you want to test in real life by all means put on a ku klux klan robe and run through east L.A.


It also serves as proof because you claimed they did not have answers to it, well this shows you they obviously do and train for it.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> The principals remain the same, person with knife attacks you in a fashion that many people would attack you in. You respond to it, you want to test in real life by all means put on a ku klux klan robe and run through east L.A.



Ok. so can determine effectiveness of self defence by adopting tried and tested principles.

We can't determine effectiveness by what may or may not work in a small sample of street violence.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> We can't determine effectiveness by what may or may not work in a small sample of street violence.



Jiu Jitsu  comes from a time where people attacked you with swords and knives, they were created to disarm and break their attackers while being unarmed. Judo is basically just more modernized Jiu Jitsu and has many of these same principals. 

So it is not one small sample of street violence, more like a couple thousand years of street violence that has stood the test of time.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Jiu Jitsu  comes from a time where people attacked you with swords and knives, they were created to disarm and break their attackers while being unarmed. Judo is basically just more modernized Jiu Jitsu and has many of these same principals.
> 
> So it is not one small sample of street violence, more like a couple thousand years of street violence that has stood the test of time.



So the art has to be a couple of thousand years old.

Sorry Akido. You are out.


----------



## Ironbear24

way to miss the point yet again, it is not about the age at all, it is about how long it has been applied and been working. Aikido also comes from an older named Daito Ryu Jiu Jitsu if you want to play that game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you agree with the above point.



What point. What I saw was an assertion that I don't use full contact. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What point. What I saw was an assertion that I don't use full contact.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Ok Do you use full contact as a method of testing?

And my point was.

So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.

Even if you got lucky a few times.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Ok. so can determine effectiveness of self defence by adopting tried and tested principles.
> 
> We can't determine effectiveness by what may or may not work in a small sample of street violence.


No, what we are saying is that you need what they sometimes call "representative sample size." So, to use the title of this thread, from years of what we now see as MMA (it is practically it's own art at this point imo, even if different fighters lean more towards striking or grappling as an individual) we can say that MMA works in the context of that kind of conflict. 

It goes even further because MMA is also a great example of how fighting can evolve a great deal over the years.  It started rather basic, this striking TMA vs that, grappler v grappler, grappler v striker etc.  Initially, skill being equal, grapplers usually beat strikers then fighters started showing uo that were pretty skilled at both, the grapplers started to lose, grappling still often ended a fight more often than a KO but the "pure" or almost lure grappler didn't.  Then they introduced gloves and made other rules changes and striking started to become the main way fights were ended because powerful blows to the head started to rise dramatically.   Does MMA Make You Stupid? Impact, Concussions and Brain Damage in Mixed Martial Arts - Grapplearts you still need grappling but striking has become "bigger".

So here we see how the rules of a competition have effected a MA's evolution by years of testing.  Similarly the "rules" (such as the existence of weapons) of the battle field contributed to the evolution of other Martial arts over years (in this case centuries) of testing.  One street encounter does equate to negating years of testing that say otherwise.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Oh. well thats easy.
> 
> I will point out non blade specific wrestling has been used to train soldiers for the battlefield. And has been used against weapons effectively. Heck the techniques were born on the battlefield and evolved in very different cultures all over the world.
> 
> And that military and law enforcement have validated the techniques I am saying work.



So please name a martial art, that we actually know the original techniques for (example modern Pankration is an modern approximation) and the fighting force trained in it, that lacked specific techniques to address a weapon wielder when unarmed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok Do you use full contact as a method of testing?
> 
> And my point was.
> 
> So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.
> 
> Even if you got lucky a few times.


On a limited basis, yes.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No, what we are saying is that you need what they sometimes call "representative sample size." So, to use the title of this thread, from years of what we now see as MMA (it is practically it's own art at this point imo, even if different fighters lean more towards striking or grappling as an individual) we can say that MMA works in the context of that kind of conflict.



and by context you mean of course sport,self defence,police,security and war.

The sorts of activities MMA trained people engage in.



Juany118 said:


> It goes even further because MMA is also a great example of how fighting can evolve a great deal over the years. It started rather basic, this striking TMA vs that, grappler v grappler, grappler v striker etc. Initially, skill being equal, grapplers usually beat strikers then fighters started showing uo that were pretty skilled at both, the grapplers started to lose, grappling still often ended a fight more often than a KO but the "pure" or almost lure grappler didn't. Then they introduced gloves and made other rules changes and striking started to become the main way fights were ended because powerful blows to the head started to rise dramatically. Does MMA Make You Stupid? Impact, Concussions and Brain Damage in Mixed Martial Arts - Grapplearts you still need grappling but striking has become "bigger".



Debatable. 



Juany118 said:


> So here we see how the rules of a competition have effected a MA's evolution by years of testing. Similarly the "rules" (such as the existence of weapons) of the battle field contributed to the evolution of other Martial arts over years (in this case centuries) of testing. One street encounter does equate to negating years of testing that say otherwise.



I am still talking thousands of years of wrestling.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> So please name a martial art, that we actually know the original techniques for (example modern Pankration is an modern approximation) and the fighting force trained in it, that lacked specific techniques to address a weapon wielder when unarmed.



Capoeira.

Capoeira, Runaway Slaves & The Dutch-Portuguese War

Combat glima. Who were of course vikings.





Traditional african wrestling.





You have to understand most people addressed weapons by having their own weapons.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Capoeira.
> 
> Capoeira, Runaway Slaves & The Dutch-Portuguese War



Well first that is largely a striking art, not wrestling.  Second...











So they do similar techniques to those that I was discussing.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well first that is largely a striking art, not wrestling.  Second...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they do similar techniques to those that I was discussing.



If they attack in that manner one stab and then stop. then fine grab the arm.


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> So please name a martial art, that we actually know the original techniques for (example modern Pankration is an modern approximation) and the fighting force trained in it, that lacked specific techniques to address a weapon wielder when unarmed.



He is just going in circles honestly, Many police officers use both Jiu Jitsu and Judo techniques.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Ironically to king someone in Australia means this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also they have nazi,s in new Zealand. I mean you have to have some stones to walk up to one of these guys and inform them you are the master race.


So, is a king hit like a sucker punch?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If they attack in that manner one stab and then stop. then fine grab the arm.



Oh since you added the videos via an edit, I didn't see them when I first responded so
1. Caporeia is out since it is a primary striking art and uses the knife defense everyone else has said works better.
2. Your videos are non-sequiturs.  Neither of them actually show any defensive techniques for fighting unarmed against an armed attacker, its all unarmed vs unarmed.  That said...

GLÍMA - The Martial Art of the Vikings by Tyr Neilsen







So Glima is out.  An interesting thing to note btw, if you didn't know, is that Glima has multiple styles.  One is a "combat" version which is basically just a Scandinavian style of HEMA (it also includes weapon use along with the grappling) and the rest are various forms of "folk wrestling" which are only intended to be used against another unarmed wrestler.

Also the Traditional African wrestling we see today that you noted is formally recognized as folk wrestling not combat wrestling, often used for either rights of passage, an exercise (not training regime) for warriors or bouts of honor.  As an example we have records of a version from the Canary islands that was documented by the Spanish in the early 15th century.  It had referees even then that the Spanish referred to as "hombres de honor."  So at least from what we can prove, that's out to

So thus far every art you have noted specifically (Glima, HEMA, Judo, Caporeia) either uses the techniques others note as superior OR has no documented proof of it being designed specifically for use on the battlefield and thus potentially opposing an armed combatants as they were, essentially, "friendly", though yes aggressive, sporting competitions (Traditional African wrestling as it has is known today and documented back to 1400.).


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> So, is a king hit like a sucker punch?



Yes.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If they attack in that manner one stab and then stop. then fine grab the arm.



No because it is not simply a matter of "stop" it is a matter of control and strip or control>destroy, then strip.  I get it.  Your method worked once for you.  You don't want to say it was lucky, that MMA training doesn't train you in the more effective methods of knife defense, that it WILL work again because, if you say any of that then you feel it brings your training into question.  The problem is it doesn't do that at all.

There is no single martial art out there that "has it all."  Some come closer than others.  In the case of unarmed combat against a single attacker I would say MMA is one of them, so for your job you picked a pretty good Martial art to study.  Like anything though, it's not perfect and in terms of addressing multiple attackers and/or weapons it has weakness.

No different than Kali.  Multiple attackers is always dicey but when unarmed I would say Kali has some weakness against multiple attackers. The Wing Chun I study, while it has locks throws and take downs has NO ground game, and it's take down defense is equally questionable.  This is why I study two arts atm, and still practice at ones I no longer study, to try and fill the gaps as best I can.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Oh since you added the videos via an edit, I didn't see them when I first responded so
> 1. Caporeia is out since it is a primary striking art and uses the knife defense everyone else has said works better.
> 2. Your videos are non-sequiturs.  Neither of them actually show any defensive techniques for fighting unarmed against an armed attacker, its all unarmed vs unarmed.  That said...
> 
> GLÍMA - The Martial Art of the Vikings by Tyr Neilsen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Glima is out.  An interesting thing to note btw, if you didn't know, is that Glima has multiple styles.  One is a "combat" version which is basically just a Scandinavian style of HEMA (it also includes weapon use along with the grappling) and the rest are various forms of "folk wrestling" which are only intended to be used against another unarmed wrestler.
> 
> Also the Traditional African wrestling we see today that you noted is formally recognized as folk wrestling not combat wrestling, often used for either rights of passage, an exercise (not training regime) for warriors or bouts of honor.  As an example we have records of a version from the Canary islands that was documented by the Spanish in the early 15th century.  It had referees even then that the Spanish referred to as "hombres de honor."  So at least from what we can prove, that's out to
> 
> So thus far every art you have noted specifically (Glima, HEMA, Judo, Caporeia) either uses the techniques others note as superior OR has no documented proof of it being designed specifically for use on the battlefield and thus potentially opposing an armed combatants as they were, essentially, "friendly", though yes aggressive, sporting competitions (Traditional African wrestling as it has is known today and documented back to 1400.).





Juany118 said:


> Oh since you added the videos via an edit, I didn't see them when I first responded so
> 1. Caporeia is out since it is a primary striking art and uses the knife defense everyone else has said works better.
> 2. Your videos are non-sequiturs.  Neither of them actually show any defensive techniques for fighting unarmed against an armed attacker, its all unarmed vs unarmed.  That said...
> 
> GLÍMA - The Martial Art of the Vikings by Tyr Neilsen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Glima is out.  An interesting thing to note btw, if you didn't know, is that Glima has multiple styles.  One is a "combat" version which is basically just a Scandinavian style of HEMA (it also includes weapon use along with the grappling) and the rest are various forms of "folk wrestling" which are only intended to be used against another unarmed wrestler.
> 
> Also the Traditional African wrestling we see today that you noted is formally recognized as folk wrestling not combat wrestling, often used for either rights of passage, an exercise (not training regime) for warriors or bouts of honor.  As an example we have records of a version from the Canary islands that was documented by the Spanish in the early 15th century.  It had referees even then that the Spanish referred to as "hombres de honor."  So at least from what we can prove, that's out to
> 
> So thus far every art you have noted specifically (Glima, HEMA, Judo, Caporeia) either uses the techniques others note as superior OR has no documented proof of it being designed specifically for use on the battlefield and thus potentially opposing an armed combatants as they were, essentially, "friendly", though yes aggressive, sporting competitions (Traditional African wrestling as it has is known today and documented back to 1400.).



There is no indication that one technique has been used over any other technique in the battlefield. Even if those systems contain it.

Mma has arm grabs and throws that would control a knife.  Because it has to deal with punching. Does not mean that particular method has to be used for every weapon encounter.

You just made that link yourself.

And if we are suggesting designed for the battlefield is an endorsement. How does that explain krav maga.

The idea of linage determining effectiveness is pretty slim.


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> You don't want to say it was lucky, that MMA training doesn't train you in the more effective methods of knife defense, that it WILL work again because, if you say any of that then you feel it brings your training into question. The problem is it doesn't do that at all.



Yes. Thank you, I said his before. MMA is like boxing in the sense it doesn't train for weapon defense because you will not face a weapon in a ring. 

He however thinks you can just grab and punch a guy until he "gives up his knife." Like geez I can admit my training has some faults here and there but in his head MMA is just perfect and has zero flaws.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Yes. Thank you, I said his before. MMA is like boxing in the sense it doesn't train for weapon defense because you will not face a weapon in a ring.
> 
> He however thinks you can just grab and punch a guy until he "gives up his knife." Like geez I can admit my training has some faults here and there but in his head MMA is just perfect and has zero flaws.



You think you can grab a knife off a guy as they are trying to stab you.

Have you ever tried that?

Actually. What battlefield was you martial art designed for?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> There is no indication that one technique has been used over any other technique in the battlefield. Even if those systems contain it.



first now you are moving goal posts.  First it was "there are battlefield wrestling arts that don't have techniques specifically designed to address a knife."  Now its "there is no indication that..."

Secondly, you don't design such specific techniques and perpetuate them unless they are seem as advantages over the "basics."



> Mma has arm grabs and throws that would control a knife.  Because it has to deal with punching. Does not mean that particular method has to be used for every weapon encounter.



Yes but if you don't train it in a slightly different ways there are issues.  First you need to be ready to do one thing.  It's not just about grabbing the arm, it's about grabbing it in such a way and then knowing how to strip it properly and quickly.  When you are holding the knife the wrist becomes a pivot joint and the knife can still carve your wrist up otherwise.



> You just made that link yourself.



In the minutes it took me to respond I made an entire web site?  GLÍMA - The Martial Art of the Vikings by Tyr Neilsen

Ummmm no.   All I did was also provide an individual photo off of Google Image search, which is what led me to the web site in the first place.  A web site with details about an martial art I have never studied and a school and people I have never known about until today.  That accusation is actually kinda sad in because of the desperation it evidences.



> And if we are suggesting designed for the battlefield is an endorsement. How does that explain krav maga.



Krav Maga uses a variation of the knife techniques I spoke about, the only difference is that after they lock down the knife arm then almost always go for destruction before a strip wher some arts focus on control>strip alone.











and then rather than keep linking short ones a 34 minute video that again is control control control.





[/quote]


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You think you can grab a knife off a guy as they are trying to stab you.
> 
> Have you ever tried that?
> 
> Actually. What battlefield was you martial art designed for?



You don't grab the knife off the guy and you know it, you are now just being ridiculous.  You take control of the knife wielding arm, again like in Lucky Dog's video, and then once you have sufficient control either destroy>strip or simply strip.

I think I have said more than enough to prove the point that you are simply reaching for any justification, regardless of how false or illogical, to defend an untenable position, with actual facts, videos and links vs your claims that were made where you clearly had little to no clue about the arts you were naming (already named em so no need to be redundant).  So I will allow you the last word as it won't be an better so long as it isn't accusing me of making stuff up again (which is calling me a liar in not so many words.) and if you don't actually produce a Martial Art that is actually to your point.  If you do then I would love to actually research the hell out of it and discuss it at length there after because I actually love learning new things, even it the new thing contradicts what I believed before.  .


----------



## drop bear

Ok serious knife defense business for a second. Just in case anyone wants to know. 

In any fight you don't really have the time and the space that you generally have in training. This kind of hampers your ability to react. So if you struggle to catch a sewing machine attack in training.  You are going to have a bad day if you attempt it for real.  This is why we don see a heck of a lot of punches caught out of mid air and turned into locks. And why the arm grab isn't the only weapon defense.

But this also means his ability to react is also hampered.So if you preempt. Say for example ignore the knife and just smash him to the ground fast.  You are counting on his inability to react to mabye keep you safe. 

If i miss the grab and get shanked.  I am exactly where i was. (you cant repeat that dynamic it become a lose lose) If I throw the guy and get shanked.  He is at least on the deck.  And i can do something.

For a knife attack you have to create a circumstance where the danger of getting stabbed becomes less. And you only have seconds in which to do that.  

You can achieve this in three ways grab the arm.  Hit the guy. Throw him.  Run off.  To apply these methods you need to be fast and you need to chain them together in a manner that is forcing him to react to you. 

So I can get away with just dumping the dude due to the speed in which that happens.  Depending on the circumstances,where he is, what he looks open to.  All sorts of real world factors. 

If the throw hadnt worked or took longer than a second or so.  Then i may have grabbed the arm for a lock. 

People are too linear in their approach to this.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> first now you are moving goal posts. First it was "there are battlefield wrestling arts that don't have techniques specifically designed to address a knife." Now its "there is no indication that..."
> 
> Secondly, you don't design such specific techniques and perpetuate them unless they are seem as advantages over the "basics."



Goal post was moved as soon as the knife was brought into the equation.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> You don't grab the knife off the guy and you know it, you are now just being ridiculous. You take control of the knife wielding arm, again like in Lucky Dog's video, and then once you have sufficient control either destroy>strip or simply strip.



Well no you grab for the arm. Miss and get stabbed. 

Or you grab for the arm. Get punched in the head by the other arm and get stabbed.

And then generally rinse and repeat.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Goal post was moved as soon as the knife was brought into the equation.




Since you directly addressed me I will answer.  Because someone else allegedly moved a goal post doesn't justify you moving goal posts, you know the "two wrongs don't make a right" thing?

The thing is while what you did was clearly a goal post move, the intro of the knife was arguably not, it all depends on what your reason for studying martial arts is.  If your primary motivation is self-defense then it is worth asking "is there a method that includes fighting with and/or defending against weapons" and knife defenses are not dissimilar to addressing other melee weapons.  Looking at the stats from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, it's not surprising.  (yes from 2009 but it is the last comprehensive report I can find.)





Asking that question shouldn't be seen as a threat to MMA's effectiveness, which is clearly a concern for you but rather than acknowledge that MMA has a short coming, the same as you demand of many others when they speak of their individual arts.  It seems this is a case of someone who has an issue taking his own medicine, especially when confronted with facts.

due to this response of yours though I am truly done because when the defense becomes "I know he is but what am I" school yard stuff there is truly no further use.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> You think you can grab a knife off a guy as they are trying to stab you.



Moved the goal posts. Refer to videos already posted for how to disarm a knife.



drop bear said:


> Goal post was moved as soon as the knife was brought into the equation.



No it was never moved. You said MMA is fine for self defense. Being attacked with a knife is a very real and common self defense scenario.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Since you directly addressed me I will answer.  Because someone else allegedly moved a goal post doesn't justify you moving goal posts, you know the "two wrongs don't make a right" thing?
> 
> The thing is while what you did was clearly a goal post move, the intro of the knife was arguably not, it all depends on what your reason for studying martial arts is.  If your primary motivation is self-defense then it is worth asking "is there a method that includes fighting with and/or defending against weapons" and knife defenses are not dissimilar to addressing other melee weapons.  Looking at the stats from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, it's not surprising.  (yes from 2009 but it is the last comprehensive report I can find.)
> 
> View attachment 20280
> 
> Asking that question shouldn't be seen as a threat to MMA's effectiveness, which is clearly a concern for you but rather than acknowledge that MMA has a short coming, the same as you demand of many others when they speak of their individual arts.  It seems this is a case of someone who has an issue taking his own medicine, especially when confronted with facts.
> 
> due to this response of yours though I am truly done because when the defense becomes "I know he is but what am I" school yard stuff there is truly no further use.



You moved the goal posts again when you decided that a martial arts technique should be based on its military history. 

And we did not see one example of your method being used.  

Otherwise i accept mma is not effective against knives. 

All unarmed responses are not effective against knives. Probably said that when that particular red herring was mentioned.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Moved the goal posts. Refer to videos already posted for how to disarm a knife.
> 
> 
> 
> No it was never moved. You said MMA is fine for self defense. Being attacked with a knife is a very real and common self defense scenario.



So is being attacked by two people with knives. 

Do how does your Self defense system address that?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> two wrongs don't make a right" thing?



Kid in bali got arrested for buying drugs.  But it turned out he got ripped off and only bought crushed paracetamol.

Two wrongs made a right.

Subscribe | theaustralian


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok serious knife defense business for a second. Just in case anyone wants to know.
> 
> In any fight you don't really have the time and the space that you generally have in training. This kind of hampers your ability to react. So if you struggle to catch a sewing machine attack in training.  You are going to have a bad day if you attempt it for real.  This is why we don see a heck of a lot of punches caught out of mid air and turned into locks. And why the arm grab isn't the only weapon defense.
> 
> But this also means his ability to react is also hampered.So if you preempt. Say for example ignore the knife and just smash him to the ground fast.  You are counting on his inability to react to mabye keep you safe.
> 
> If i miss the grab and get shanked.  I am exactly where i was. (you cant repeat that dynamic it become a lose lose) If I throw the guy and get shanked.  He is at least on the deck.  And i can do something.
> 
> For a knife attack you have to create a circumstance where the danger of getting stabbed becomes less. And you only have seconds in which to do that.
> 
> You can achieve this in three ways grab the arm.  Hit the guy. Throw him.  Run off.  To apply these methods you need to be fast and you need to chain them together in a manner that is forcing him to react to you.
> 
> So I can get away with just dumping the dude due to the speed in which that happens.  Depending on the circumstances,where he is, what he looks open to.  All sorts of real world factors.
> 
> If the throw hadnt worked or took longer than a second or so.  Then i may have grabbed the arm for a lock.
> 
> People are too linear in their approach to this.



You are still referring to grabbing the arm, as if we just try to magically pluck it out if the air. If that's what you think those techniques are about, then I can see why you don't like them. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You moved the goal posts again when you decided that a martial arts technique should be based on its military history.
> 
> And we did not see one example of your method being used.
> 
> Otherwise i accept mma is not effective against knives.
> 
> All unarmed responses are not effective against knives. Probably said that when that particular red herring was mentioned.



Since you keep accusing me falsely...

Earlier in this thread (I took screens shots in the event you decide to change a rating) you showed support for my point that competition is good for Testing but that some occupations are equally good test beds if you end up having to use the skills regularly as well. (the entire point of this thread).  I suspect because I specifically noted bouncers but okay, whatever.

Now suddenly mentioning an occupation as a valid test bed is moving a goal post.  Rofl. 

Oh and I did show you a video.  The full on sparring by one of the Dog Brother's founders "Lucky Dog".  Dog Brothers sparing and their Gatherings are at full intensity no different than MMA.  He even used a 7000 volt shock knife so we could see if and when he got "cut".  They just wear helmets with masks because of the added danger even a blunt weapon brings to the mix.  If Dog Brothers testing and sparring isn't seen as valid then MMA is equally invalid.

As for the last, again, a few centuries of testing and training would disagree.  It would say it is far more dangerous.  You want to avoid it if ever possible, but if you get trapped having to do it, you do it the way the rest of us have been saying because that method has a much higher chance of success in saving your life and letting you be the person walking away.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Since you keep accusing me falsely...
> 
> Earlier in this thread (I took screens shots in the event you decide to change a rating) you showed support for my point that competition is good for Testing but that some occupations are equally good test beds if you end up having to use the skills regularly as well. (the entire point of this thread).  I suspect because I specifically noted bouncers but okay, whatever.
> 
> Now suddenly mentioning an occupation as a valid test bed is moving a goal post.  Rofl.
> 
> Oh and I did show you a video.  The full on sparring by one of the Dog Brother's founders "Lucky Dog".  Dog Brothers sparing and their Gatherings are at full intensity no different than MMA.  He even used a 7000 volt shock knife so we could see if and when he got "cut".  They just wear helmets with masks because of the added danger even a blunt weapon brings to the mix.  If Dog Brothers testing and sparring isn't seen as valid then MMA is equally invalid.
> 
> As for the last, again, a few centuries of testing and training would disagree.  It would say it is far more dangerous.  You want to avoid it if ever possible, but if you get trapped having to do it, you do it the way the rest of us have been saying because that method has a much higher chance of success in saving your life and letting you be the person walking away.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I'll point this out again, because you seem to be getting very frustrated.  Drop Bear is arguing the same position that has been argued by "self defense" proponents around here for years.  It's been very interesting to watch. 

So, if you're seeing changes in Drop Bear's position, I'm not surprised.  He's specifically and intentionally (I believe) demonstrating how specious the arguments against MMA for self defense are by applying them in the other direction.  

You guys, conversely, are making the same arguments I've made for years about other kinds of "self defense" training.  While it's nice to see you all supporting what, in my opinion, makes the most sense, it's getting hard to watch.

And I know that instead of considering my post, you will tell me that this is different.  But, if you think that, you're not far enough back to see that it is not.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I generally try to read an entire thread before I start commenting, but I'm only halfway through so far and I'm seeing enough individual posts I want to respond to that I'm afraid I'll lose track of them if I wait until I slog through another 15 pages. Hopefully I won't duplicate too much of what others have said in the meantime ...



Hanzou said:


> Stuff like this immediately comes to mind;



That isn't scenario training. It's a demo with a little bit of play acting before hand.

Scenario training should (just like sparring) have multiple ways to fail (and therefore learn).

Depending on how the scenario is set up, some of those failure modes might be ...

Initiating physical conflict when it is unnecessary or tactically or legally unwise.
_Not_ initiating physical conflict when it _is_ necessary.
Initiating physical conflict too _soon_.
Initiating physical conflict too _late_.
Not positioning oneself before physical conflict occurs so as to have the advantage and possibly avoid the conflict entirely.
Being distracted by one part of a scenario so as not to detect the real danger coming from elsewhere.
Not taking advantage of the correct moment to disengage and leave the situation.
Saying or doing the wrong thing during interaction with law enforcement after the "main event", leading to a variety of unfortunate outcomes
Etc.

In my experience, scenario training can and should be just as psychologically stressful as hard sparring - not least because the rules and objectives may not be spelled out beforehand and a good scenario trainer will have set up non-obvious "traps"  - ways to lead the inexperienced student into trouble that have nothing to do with specific physical attacks.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> I don't know how any move that is only useful for destruction would be useful in MMA - legal or not. If I use a standing arm bar (we have a few), there's simply no way to use that to hold someone in place. I have only two choices: transition immediately to another technique, or go ahead and try to break the arm. There's no lock available other than complete commitment to the break. Trying to hold it in place leaves too many openings for either escape or counter.






gpseymour said:


> Contests are not for practicing doing permanent damage to people.



I understand that you personally would not want to use a technique in competition which leads to immediately breaking your opponent's arm without giving him a chance to tap. However it is perfectly legal to do so in MMA and there are plenty of competitors who are willing to do so.

I am only aware of one occasion where a MMA competitor actually _succeeded _in doing such a thing with a standing armlock. Shinya Aoki broke Keith Wisniewski's arm with a really nasty Waki Gatame. (About 2 minutes into the video if you want to skip directly to it.) Wisniewski went on to have 16 more fights after that one, so apparently the damage wasn't all that permanent, even though it did end the fight.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I'll point this out again, because you seem to be getting very frustrated.  Drop Bear is arguing the same position that has been argued by "self defense" proponents around here for years.  It's been very interesting to watch.
> 
> So, if you're seeing changes in Drop Bear's position, I'm not surprised.  He's specifically and intentionally (I believe) demonstrating how specious the arguments against MMA for self defense are by applying them in the other direction.
> 
> You guys, conversely, are making the same arguments I've made for years about other kinds of "self defense" training.  While it's nice to see you all supporting what, in my opinion, makes the most sense, it's getting hard to watch.
> 
> And I know that instead of considering my post, you will tell me that this is different.  But, if you think that, you're not far enough back to see that it is not.



Well here is the weird thing.  I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses.  MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword?  The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.

From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.

Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible.  At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument.  That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.


----------



## Juany118

To further expand on the above, I remembered reading the below and this is how I look at Martial Arts....



> . If there is one takeaway here it is this: no one martial art is perfect, but being proficient at any one of them will make you magnitudes more prepared should you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to fight for your life. Another important thing to notice is that where one martial art lacks a little, another may excel, meaning that training in combinations such as Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Boxing and Kali can make you a far more well-rounded fighter.



MMA is a well rounded art, but even a well rounded art will be imperfect somehow.


----------



## Balrog

Steve said:


> I agree, but ultimately, how you feel about it is completely disconnected from whether it works or not.  How you feel about your training will have a lot more to do with customer service skills and effective marketing than anything related to martial arts.


Now that I have to disagree with.  If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Well here is the weird thing.  I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses.  MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword?  The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.
> 
> From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.
> 
> Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible.  At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument.  That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.


Maybe it's not specific to you, but you've just happened to pick up the torch where it had fallen.  The piece you're missing, I think, is to believe that the larger conversation going on is specific to you, where I believe that it is not.  Think about this last several pages of interaction not as a conversation between you and Drop Bear (and GPSeymour), but more as a larger conversation about how all of these positions are created, what presumptions are being made as a group and the dynamics of these threads as people (in this case you, but if not, it would be someone else) take predictable positions and make predictable arguments for or against.


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> Now that I have to disagree with.  If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.


That's true.  But that's focusing once again on the sales side of the house.  I could have a system that will truly work for anyone who trains consistently.  I could make a self defense machine out of fat people or skinny, old or young, disabled, smart, not so smart, or even clumsy.  However, if I am so poor a businessman that I cannot sell my system, it benefits no one. 

But that is independent of whether it works or not.  Faith alone is not a reliable measure for whether a system is worth beans.


----------



## Juany118

Balrog said:


> Now that I have to disagree with.  If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.


 I see the point @Steve is making.  If isolated in a school, and if you don't have a lot of experience with other schools, styles or actually fighting, a decent, supportive teacher can give you a lot of confidence in what you are learning but that confidence only matters if what you are learning works practically.  As an example a few years ago my Guro/Sifu was asked by a friend who was the head of a nearby TKD school to come with some students for the Black belts to spar with.  He wanted them exposed to sparring against another style, in this case Wing Chun (WC).  Clearly being there long enough to be Black Belts and having participated in tournaments and stuff these were confident guys.  Thing is what happened that night is what happens when my Brother-in-Law who is a 3rd Dan and I first started sparring.  Why I am mentioning my Brother-in-Law will come in later.

The TKD guys were so used to just sparring and competing against other TKD guys that they simply weren't prepared for someone to almost instantly want to get A) within trapping range (basically elbow range) and B) for the majority of the blows to be fast straight punches or fast low kicks.  Now they didn't actually punch, they turned palm strikes essentially into slaps since it was a "friendly" but, yeah, the results weren't pretty for the TKD guys.  A couple days later my Guro/Sifu called his friend back and asked "when can we do that again, my guys had fun."  He was told it likely wouldn't happen again because the TKD guys didn't have fun.

I mentioned my Brother-in-Law for a specific reason.  Since we have been sparring we are now almost on equal footing.  I'll be honest and say he is better and more experienced at TKD (he is actually preparing for his next "promotion") than I am at WC and Kali so if we keep sparring he will likely start being the winner more often than I (unless I cheat and bring one of my training weapons  )  The problem wasn't his confidence, he is one of the most all around confident guys I have ever met in my life, it wasn't TKD either.  The problem  was caused by a few things but here were the two biggies.
----First, he never sparred with people other than other TKD Folks and so he needed to adjust to a different mind set coming at him.  The idea of me moving rapidly in and to his flank, close enough to be trapping his arm(s) at the elbow to open for a strike or take-down was alien to him.  I had explained it to him in theory before but in practice he was VERY uncomfortable and that made him slow at first.
----Second the sparring at his school was always points sparring based on hits.  In our early sparring matches I would purposefully go for takedowns whenever possible because I knew he would not be prepared for it.

Those two things would also be a major factor in a self defense situation which, imo, confidence can't get you through, only training for it will.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Maybe it's not specific to you, but you've just happened to pick up the torch where it had fallen.  The piece you're missing, I think, is to believe that the larger conversation going on is specific to you, where I believe that it is not.  Think about this last several pages of interaction not as a conversation between you and Drop Bear (and GPSeymour), but more as a larger conversation about how all of these positions are created, what presumptions are being made as a group and the dynamics of these threads as people (in this case you, but if not, it would be someone else) take predictable positions and make predictable arguments for or against.



Okay I can see that point.  I have only been part of these conversations for the last few months and tend to segregate myself, as you have seen, to Chinese, Filipino and Self Defense threads which likely limits my vision even further than simply my time here.  It kinda makes me ask though, if there will always be this kind of immediate defensive reaction with no room for a constructive back and forth, due to the large history you note, is it even worth contributing?

It's all something to think about though, thanks for the insight into some of the dynamics at play here.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Okay I can see that point.  I have only been part of these conversations for the last few months and tend to segregate myself, as you have seen, to Chinese, Filipino and Self Defense threads which likely limits my vision even further than simply my time here.  *It kinda makes me ask though, if there will always be this kind of immediate defensive reaction with no room for a constructive back and forth, due to the large history you note, is it even worth contributing?*
> 
> It's all something to think about though, thanks for the insight into some of the dynamics at play here.


LOL.  That's a million dollar question.  Personally, the thing that I have learned over the years here is that people have predictable and deeply rooted but often unconscious biases, and that it's hard to break out of that. 

I also think that, for the most part, everyone mostly agrees, but that where we don't, it's taken very personally. 

Anyway, I've kind of started viewing threads on the board in a more meta way, and I think it's helped me better understand some different perspectives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I understand that you personally would not want to use a technique in competition which leads to immediately breaking your opponent's arm without giving him a chance to tap. However it is perfectly legal to do so in MMA and there are plenty of competitors who are willing to do so.
> 
> I am only aware of one occasion where a MMA competitor actually _succeeded _in doing such a thing with a standing armlock. Shinya Aoki broke Keith Wisniewski's arm with a really nasty Waki Gatame. (About 2 minutes into the video if you want to skip directly to it.) Wisniewski went on to have 16 more fights after that one, so apparently the damage wasn't all that permanent, even though it did end the fight.


Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> They are not training as diligently.
> 
> Why do you think that is?


I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.

The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they *will*, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.

In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.

Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Balrog said:


> Now that I have to disagree with.  If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.


I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.
> 
> The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they *will*, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.
> 
> In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.
> 
> Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.


Urgency often drives action.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.


But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique.  You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence. 

Think of it this way.  "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root _competō. 

_


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.


It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective.  I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly.  I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable.  But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.

I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness.  It's a terrific metric for marketability.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective.  I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly.  I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable.  But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.
> 
> I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness.  It's a terrific metric for marketability.



Aside from the 5 of us we don't have many students who stick around in the adult course. Once we start hitting hard they leave.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.



I'm with you all the way, my brother. When I first competed in the early seventies everybody was trying to kill each other, so I did the same, and usually got my head handed to me. Then I got the swing of things and never wanted to actually injure anyone, just beat them. I had a rep as a gentleman who happened to win a lot, and was always proud of that. Same thing with ring fighting, I just wanted to win. I even felt bad if they were cut badly. And I've never tried to intentionally hurt anyone as a cop or a civilian.



Steve said:


> But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique.  You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence.
> 
> Think of it this way.  "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root _competō.
> _



I love this post. So true. (Love Steve going all Latin, too) . 

The best Martial Artists I've ever met were so calm while fighting, so relaxed, it's kind of spooky. Watched Rickson roll with a hundred people in a row over the course of several hours, big people, wrestlers, football players, Judo black belts, street guys, all who were trying to absolutely smoke him, and not being very gentle or polite about it. Although he was drenched in sweat, I don't think his pulse ever went above eighty. He treated them like they were lambs. It was fascinating.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.
> 
> The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they *will*, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.
> 
> In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.
> 
> Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.



Yeah. it is a contradiction that is all. This build up of this idea of training for a life or death conflict.

And the actual training that goes towards it.

Those guys who do self defence with the seriousness would probably do allright in the ring. I mean you put a bare knuckle gypsy boxer in MMA. He at least probably wouldn't get outstruck.

The skills transfer.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.


I never thought of it before but I think you hit it well.  If you are learning anything difficult for a practical purpose the "good" feeling about your training comes with hindsight.  During the initial training it can be both mentally and physically exhausting.  You get an endorphin rush that briefly gives you a feel good but after the crash you sometimes think "oh crap I will have to do that again and again."

Then that day comes when the training is used for real, doesn't matter if it is Martial Arts or those incredibly long nights studying till you pass out in Medical School (that is from my cousin and her experience.) You either save your own butt on the street, the patient in the ER and then, in hind sight, you actually appreciate the "hard" bits and are thankful for them because its not about the skill really, it's about the toughness to use those skills under major pressure.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well here is the weird thing.  I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses.  MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword?  The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.
> 
> From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.
> 
> Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible.  At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument.  That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.



The logic is bad.

A martial arts effectiveness has nothing to do with its military background. Krav from the IDF. can be functionally terrible.

You have one piece of evidence of this hundreds of years of effectiveness which is in reality about as legitimate as my one knife defence example. Or your one downward elbows example you used and defended to death. But then discounted when I did it.

And both get used to so commonly defend a system.

If you were trained by a guy who had been in knife fights then yeah. But otherwise there is just too much distance and ambiguity.

Otherewise. You just decided to start adding knives. But I can't add two or a hundred knives. You say you have unarmed defence against knives. And show no better success than any other method.

You say philipino systems were used in war. I say wrestling was used in war.

I say MMA has the sort of arm control you are looking to use for knife. You say it is not really arm control.

You have one method of dealing with a knife. And you can't have one method.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You are still referring to grabbing the arm, as if we just try to magically pluck it out if the air. If that's what you think those techniques are about, then I can see why you don't like them.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido





That is every knife defence I have ever done. He stabs you block the arm catch it attack the arm. attack the person somehow not die.

Akido is a perfect example because they do knife defence in competition.

And how does that work out?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Okay I can see that point.  I have only been part of these conversations for the last few months and tend to segregate myself, as you have seen, to Chinese, Filipino and Self Defense threads which likely limits my vision even further than simply my time here.  It kinda makes me ask though, if there will always be this kind of immediate defensive reaction with no room for a constructive back and forth, due to the large history you note, is it even worth contributing?
> 
> It's all something to think about though, thanks for the insight into some of the dynamics at play here.



No If you make senible arguments you will get sensible responses.


----------



## drop bear

Unarmed vs knife training is designed to make people feel good. If they are happy then the training is worthwhile.

That is why it is designed towards the success of the defender. An actual unarmed vs knife is desighed towards the success of the attacker.

So We go back to MMA as the test. People think mount defence looks like this.






When in reality it looks like this.





Knife defence in real life is notheing like knife defence in the gym.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah. it is a contradiction that is all. This build up of this idea of training for a life or death conflict.
> 
> And the actual training that goes towards it.
> 
> Those guys who do self defence with the seriousness would probably do allright in the ring. I mean you put a bare knuckle gypsy boxer in MMA. He at least probably wouldn't get outstruck.
> 
> The skills transfer.


Absolutely true.  Here's a picture of Conor McGregor in one of his early fights.  He did pretty well without any formal training at all.  








Juany118 said:


> I never thought of it before but I think you hit it well.  If you are learning anything difficult for a practical purpose the "good" feeling about your training comes with hindsight.  During the initial training it can be both mentally and physically exhausting.  You get an endorphin rush that briefly gives you a feel good but after the crash you sometimes think "oh crap I will have to do that again and again."
> 
> *Then that day comes when the training is used for real,* doesn't matter if it is Martial Arts or those incredibly long nights studying till you pass out in Medical School (that is from my cousin and her experience.) You either save your own butt on the street, the patient in the ER and then, in hind sight, you actually appreciate the "hard" bits and are thankful for them because its not about the skill really, it's about the toughness to use those skills under major pressure.


Okay.   I can't let you get away with this one.  "Then that day comes when the training is used for real."  Unless you're actively and routinely engaging in high risk behaviors, which I would say includes being a cop, bouncer, security guard or other professional risk taker, the chances of "that day... when the training is used for real," is likely never to come.  It's like saying, "I wear rubber soled shoes for that day when I'm struck by lightning."  When??? 

The reality is more like, "that day... when the training is passed on by me to someone else as I learned it in the hopes that because it worked for my teacher's teacher, it will work for you in the unlikely chance you ever need it."

I've spent a lot of time posting on this topic, and yet there are a few guys around here who still seem to think that experience is optional.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Absolutely true.  Here's a picture of Conor McGregor in one of his early fights.  He did pretty well without any formal training at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.   I can't let you get away with this one.  "Then that day comes when the training is used for real."  Unless you're actively and routinely engaging in high risk behaviors, which I would say includes being a cop, bouncer, security guard or other professional risk taker, the chances of "that day... when the training is used for real," is likely never to come.  It's like saying, "I wear rubber soled shoes for that day when I'm struck by lightning."  When???
> 
> The reality is more like, "that day... when the training is passed on by me to someone else as I learned it in the hopes that because it worked for my teacher's teacher, it will work for you in the unlikely chance you ever need it."
> 
> I've spent a lot of time posting on this topic, and yet there are a few guys around here who still seem to think that experience is optional.



Depends what you are teaching. If you are teaching a street dedicated version. Then you have to have your T,s crossed and your I,s dotted. About what actually happens on the street. And that takes experience. And then you really only have your own experience. Sort of.

You also have to think about what you see. And how that is your personal experience. So I have had plenty of 150KG bouncers teach me about de-escalation. And guess what not that many people escalate on 150kg bouncers.

Otherwise we get a lot of these dogmatic insanity about. street violence occures at close range. Nobody ever fences with weapons, going to the ground gets you attacked by multiple opponants. And so on. Without anybody ever really thinking about the exact circumstances as to why it happened and how you could change those curcumstances.

They are metaphorically playing checkers.

You wont get that in BJJ. or MMA as an example. "Never pass guard with one arm because you get triangled." 

And this is because experience and experimentation teaches you that there are a range of options you can employ that all work to a differing level. You have to think for yourself.

When people can start thinking for themselves regarding self defence. And experiment and experience. That is when we would gain real usable knowledge about self defence.

Untill then do MMA because at least that works somewhere.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Absolutely true.  Here's a picture of Conor McGregor in one of his early fights.  He did pretty well without any formal training at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.   I can't let you get away with this one.  "Then that day comes when the training is used for real."  Unless you're actively and routinely engaging in high risk behaviors, which I would say includes being a cop, bouncer, security guard or other professional risk taker, the chances of "that day... when the training is used for real," is likely never to come.  It's like saying, "I wear rubber soled shoes for that day when I'm struck by lightning."  When???
> 
> The reality is more like, "that day... when the training is passed on by me to someone else as I learned it in the hopes that because it worked for my teacher's teacher, it will work for you in the unlikely chance you ever need it."
> 
> I've spent a lot of time posting on this topic, and yet there are a few guys around here who still seem to think that experience is optional.




I was talking beyond martial arts in a self defense context and to life in general really (like you did with the basic training comment).  It's why I mentioned the Doctor thing as well.  I honestly think that applies to anything that is a product of hard work.  You have goals or intentions, sometimes what it takes to reach the goal or be prepared for it can "get you down" and to keep enthusiasm you need to achieve something for that hard work and training.

As to your self defense bit you are correct, those of use who have or had to use it, once or regularly are the "odd person out." I forgot, likely because I was projecting my own experience, (because I am rushing to get ready for dinner) that this is why I suggest anyone who is training in self defense do so where even if it is only at your school there is at least "friendly" competitive sparring.  I don't care if you wear armor or not but I think it's important.  Not only because it puts your skills under a pressure test BUT because when you get that win, or even just personal best of some sort under pressure, it makes the "downers" of the hard work seem worth it.

I always use an experience I had in High School.  I ran track and fenced.  I was always "dead" at the end of endurance runs.  They hurt because I had major trouble pacing myself for distances past a mile or two.  I had lots of downers because of it.  The first time though I did a sub 50 second 1/4 Mile in an offical race (it was the last one of my Senior year so it is my only "official" sub 50 as well) I was smiling, my coach was smiling, while I vomited in the field off the track.  I didn't even win, I came in third, but I was still smiling like a jack *** because I was never that fast before.  The "downers" paid off.

I suppose that may be one of the reasons why belt systems are so popular, it provides a goal, but they never mattered much to me.  Again projecting.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Depends what you are teaching. If you are teaching a street dedicated version. Then you have to have your T,s crossed and your I,s dotted. About what actually happens on the street. And that takes experience. And then you really only have your own experience. Sort of.
> 
> You also have to think about what you see. And how that is your personal experience. So I have had plenty of 150KG bouncers teach me about de-escalation. And guess what not that many people escalate on 150kg bouncers.
> 
> Otherwise we get a lot of these dogmatic insanity about. street violence occures at close range. Nobody ever fences with weapons, going to the ground gets you attacked by multiple opponants. And so on. Without anybody ever really thinking about the exact circumstances as to why it happened and how you could change those curcumstances.
> 
> They are metaphorically playing checkers.
> 
> You wont get that in BJJ. or MMA as an example. "Never pass guard with one arm because you get triangled."
> 
> And this is because experience and experimentation teaches you that there are a range of options you can employ that all work to a differing level. You have to think for yourself.
> 
> When people can start thinking for themselves regarding self defence. And experiment and experience. That is when we would gain real usable knowledge about self defence.
> 
> Untill then do MMA because at least that works somewhere.



You really should branch out from your comfort zone and actually try other things. You talk about "TMA" and other arts more than those who actually practice them and 9/10 times you say things that are completely ignorant about them.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> You really should branch out from your comfort zone and actually try other things. You talk about "TMA" and other arts more than those who actually practice them and 9/10 times you say things that are completely ignorant about them.



I have done other martial arts.  I just never drank the cool aid.

Most self defense instructors just dont have the experience to speak with authority on self defence.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> I have done other martial arts.  I just never drank the cool aid.
> 
> Most self defense instructors just dont have the experience to speak with authority on self defence.



Oh you drank some cool aid all right. Just because you find some bad places doesn't mean give up on it altogether, I went through 2 shitty instructors before I found my American kenpo instructor then the one I go to now


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Most self defense instructors just dont have the experience to speak with authority on self defence.



And you know this how? Have you researched many of their backgrounds? Or are you speaking out of the few times you tried it?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Oh you drank some cool aid all right. Just because you find some bad places doesn't mean give up on it altogether, I went through 2 shitty instructors before I found my American kenpo instructor then the one I go to now



Dude I do like 5 different systems now. Boxing, muay thai, wrestling,BJJ and mma.

I have three different instructors. That is a larger and more varied training set than you are engaged in isnt it?

There are concepts that are pretty consistant for good schools and bad schools. It is not style specific.

I have formed my opinion by training in a bunch of styles and then going out and using them on people. I saw what consistantly worked. And what did not.

I mean in twenty years of bouncing how many arms do you think i have grabbed?  or how many glasses that have the potentual to become weapons. hundreds? possibly thousands? And you are going to tell me under what curcumstances achieving that is possible and when it is not.

I mean you would want to back that up with a better logic strain than some fancy about me never having done a TMA.

There is a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't work well under certain conditions. And that is not the suface you are fighting in, what shoes you are wearing or if you are on a staircase.(they are tiny issues) It is whether or not the person is either committed to hurting you or committed to stopping you hurting them. That really is the biggest hurdle anyone will face going from martial arts to street fighting.

Now you can train that in the gym by getting some pads on and fighting some guy hard. Then it does not matter if it is kempo karate or MMA because you know it will work at speed and with resistance.

If you give them a knife and did it at speed with some real intent. You would find out almost nothing works.

If you did that with multiple oponants at speed and with intent you would find that almost nothing works.

But you need to consistantly raise there dynamics to suggest one style doesn't work. It just makes no sense.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> And you know this how? Have you researched many of their backgrounds? Or are you speaking out of the few times you tried it?



Almost nobody has a background in self defence.

I mean used in the street a few times doesn't fly now remember? The sample size is too small. Or is that suddenly going to change again.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Dude I do like 5 different systems now. Boxing, muay thai, wrestling,BJJ and mma.



As I said before. Do something that isn't commonly found in MMA. All of those things you mentioned are basically the same stuff you find in MMA. The major 4 boxing, bjj, Mt and wrestling. Try some karate, try some tkd, try some Judo. 

You talk so much about "TMA" yet you have done none of it. You just confirmed it now.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> As I said before. Do something that isn't commonly found in MMA. All of those things you mentioned are basically the same stuff you find in MMA. The major 4 boxing, bjj, Mt and wrestling. Try some karate, try some tkd, try some Judo.
> 
> You talk so much about "TMA" yet you have done none of it. You just confirmed it now.



I did judo. jujitsu and chinese boxing. Had a big todo with chris because it wasnt Japanese enough. Got an orange belt.

I train with a karate chamion who will be representing Australia.

Got to brown in zen do kai karate.

Did a month of wing chun.

Got a yellow cordy thing in capoeira.

I taught hocks system. Scientific fighting congress for a year or so.

Did a year or so of wadaroo or shotokan or something there as a kid.

And I bounced with karate guys and kickboxers akido guys bjjers mmaer all sorts of martial arts. And got to see them used against people in fights.

How about you go try some TMA and then come back with some experience.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> you go try some TMA and then come back with some experience.



Already there. One month of WC is laughable, there is no fighting system where you can train it only one month and become good at it.
A yellow rope is literally the first step up from white belt, not very major at all.

Never heard of that form of karate but congrats on brown belt. Why did you stop? Did you get orange in Judo or jiu-jitsu?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Already there. One month of WC is laughable, there is no fighting system where you can train it only one month and become good at it.
> A yellow rope is literally the first step up from white belt, not very major at all.
> 
> Never heard of that form of karate but congrats on brown belt. Why did you stop? Did you get orange in Judo or jiu-jitsu?



In wing chun I was Man handling the instructor after one month so I did something else.

White green then yellow for the capo.

Orange in the jujitsu.


----------



## Ironbear24

Sounds like a bad instructor to me. 

http://www.capoeirastl.org/ranking-system.html

This says otherwise, but I am not going to argue with you about it. You have more knowledge about it than I do after all since I have never done capoeira.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Ironbear24 said:


> Sounds like a bad instructor to me.
> 
> http://www.capoeirastl.org/ranking-system.html
> 
> This says otherwise, but I am not going to argue with you about it. You have more knowledge about it than I do after all since I have never done capoeira.


Different Capoeira lineages/instructors have different cord systems. It's not that well standardized, although many do use colors from the Brazilian flag in some combination or another.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Aiki is only related to combat effectiveness when it is used properly, meaning that attempting to create aiki moments actually reduces combat effectiveness. Meh, that's probably too long a discussion for this thread - too much of a sidetrack.
> 
> My point was that someone working for maximum aiki needs to work without resistance with a very compliant uke for many years. This, IMO, is what we see in a lot of aiki arts. Adding in realistic resistance makes the path to aiki much longer, so if someone is seeking the fastest path to pure aiki, they don't want resistance. If they want a faster path to combat effectiveness, then resistance is necessary, and that's where competition can help.





gpseymour said:


> In some ways, it's the same thing. Maybe Tony can step in and clarify if he's reading this. Every competitor who uses throws/locks/takedowns will occasionally get that one where it feels like the other guy didn't exist. Like the guy almost threw himself down for you, though you know he was trying to stay up. That feeling is where the "aiki" is, by my definition. In the aiki arts, we train to feel the point where that's possible, and to use that as often as possible. The "pure aiki" arts train only to use that - not realistic in my experience for self-defense unless you are spectacularly skilled. In NGA, for instance, we train a lot around finding that feel, how to expose that moment in common attacks and movement, but if it's not there, we'll hit them (which often opens up a new opportunity for "aiki"). I see a lot of aiki principles in some of the BJJ I've looked at. I keep wanting to roll with a BJJ black belt to see if I'm seeing what I think I see. So, someone who is really good at almost any grappling will be using some aiki principles, even if they don't use the term.



I agree with you on the definition of aiki, but I think I disagree on the best way to get there. Working with a compliant uke can be a good way to get an idea of what executing a technique with aiki will ultimately feel like, but I don't think it will get you to the point of actually being able to use aiki on a non-compliant opponent. For that I think you need the years of working with non-compliant opponents. That non-compliant experience feels like a major step away from aiki (especially at the beginner levels), but it's necessary to build the necessary sensitivity to the constant shifts in pressure, balance, and structure that a real opponent will make as he tries to overcome your defense.

I'm not against having compliant aiki/energy capturing drills as part of training, if only to remind the student of the ultimate goal, but I don't think it should be the primary focus if you want to be able to apply that  kind of movement in real life. Admittedly I'm not a practitioner of an official "aiki" art, but I've noticed that I personally started getting a lot more of those "aiki" moments after some years of non-compliant training than I did during years spent doing compliant drills in an art which promoted the idea of capturing an opponent's energy.

There is an understandable argument to be made that the aiki arts are more designed for use against an untrained assailant who is likely to feed fully committed, off-balance attacks than against a skilled competitor who will stay more on-balance and use feints to set up precisely timed  combinations and counters. Nevertheless, my experience suggests that working against the skilled competitor is actually the quicker road to being able to capture the energy of an untrained, overcommitted attacker.*

*(This only applies if you keep that ideal of effortlessly using the opponent's energy in mind while you are training against skilled, non-compliant opponent's. It's also possible to develop a style built around crushing your opponent with relentless pressure, if that's what you're into. Such an approach would probably not lead to much application of aiki.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> If you give them a knife and did it at speed with some real intent. You would find out almost nothing works.


This is why Marc Denny and Gabe Suarez have a video series out on knife defense titled "Die Less Often." They have considerable experience in weapons sparring (Denny) and law enforcement (Suarez) and they don't claim to have any techniques which will ensure your safety in a knife assault. Rather the idea is just to improve your chances. In a 100 alternate universes where you are attacked with a knife, perhaps you normally die in 90% of them. (Random number inserted there. I have no idea what the actual survival rate is for real world knife attacks.) By training the highest percentage defenses, perhaps you improve those odds so you only die in 65% of those alternate universes. (Once again, number pulled out of a hat. The point is that improving your odds does not mean you have a high probability of success.

I've sparred unarmed against (trainer) knives. Sometimes I win when doing so. Nevertheless, the experience is enough to convince me that I never want to face a real knife attack, even from an unskilled assailant.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So the art has to be a couple of thousand years old.


I'm not sure they had streets back then.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.


Yet plenty of people in these martial arts have been successful defending themselves.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Yet plenty of people in these martial arts have been successful defending themselves.


Plenty of people who have no training at all successfully defend themselves.  The question is whether people who train in martial arts are MORE successful at defending themselves.  And if so, which arts perform best?   Anyone have ideas about how to get this information?

My bet is that training that involves competition, whether formal or informal, will impart usable skills more consistently than those that don't.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Okay, now that I've finally read the whole thread and responded to some individual posts, I can try answering the original question: "what is a better test for martial arts than MMA?"

To start with, it depends on what you consider the primary purpose(s) of your martial art and what factors you consider when evaluating whether a test is "better" than another.

To clarify that second point, suppose you consider the primary purpose of a martial art to be physically defending against real world physical attacks. The most thorough and accurate test of that goal might be to hire a bunch of criminals to assault random practitioners of that art. To do a really through test, you can look at crime statistics (armed/unarmed, single attacker/multiple attackers, assault/robbery/rape/murder, etc) and have your minions attempt the appropriate percentage of each attack against a good sized, randomly selected sample of people studying that art. You'd also want a control group of untrained victims, selected to have similar demographics (age, gender, socio-economic status) to your group of trained targets. With the results from this test, you could draw real scientific conclusions, like "18 months of training in martial art A gives a female student a 30% greater chance of fending off an attempted sexual assault by a single unarmed attacker who is not known to her... 3 years of training gives a male student in his 20s a 5% greater chance of surviving a murder attempt with a knife... etc."

This would be a truly informative test, much more so than anything else we have - but for ethical, legal, and practical reasons I think most of us would agree that it isn't a _better _test than MMA. (At least not if we include morality, legality, and practicality in our definition of "better." ) Obviously this is an extreme example, but it's a reminder that we have to take these various factors into consideration. Suppose we like MMA as one of the best "tests" out there. Now suppose we want to evaluate the best martial art for a 65 year old who wants to start learning self-defense. Are you going to start throwing a bunch of 65+ year olds (with no previous experience) into MMA competition? Probably not, unless you want to see a significant number of serious injuries and deaths. You probably need to find some less hazardous testing procedure.

Getting back to the first part, regarding the purpose of the art ...

If you train for the primary goal(s) of improving your character (according to whatever your personal standards are), learning to avoid fights, having fun, achieving personal satisfaction or "spiritual enlightenment", then I don't know that it's practical or worthwhile to try finding some objective, external, generalizable test to see how well your art supports those aims. I'm happy to take the word of the individual practitioner for how well their practice is working for them in these cases.

For testing more combative applications of martial arts ,,,

If you are concerned with using and/or defending against weapons, then the sparring which occurs at the Dog Brothers gatherings is a better test than MMA.

If you are concerned with historical application of weapons (including the effects of armor and weapons which are no longer in common use), then some of the HEMA tournaments formats would be a better test.

If you are concerned with the use of firearms, then I will defer to those with the appropriate military/LEO background as to their opinions. (war games, scenario training, target firing under stress conditions, paintball/airsoft practice, etc?)

If you want to test defending unarmed against multiple attackers, use an similar approach to MMA, but in an environment where there is a point designated as the exit or a weapon which could be deployed by the defender. Victory condition for the defender is reaching that point while unrestrained by the attackers. If you want to make it even more challenging for the defender, make the designated goal location randomly placed and not immediately obvious from the defender's starting point. This approach will encourage the defender to maintain mobility and environmental awareness rather than being in a hurry to engage with the attackers or get into a clinch situation.

If you want to test the ability to maintain situational awareness and adaptability, you might start the fight out under standard MMA rules but in a cage with 2 or more gates rather than the standard one. At a randomly selected point in the match, one of the following randomly selected events may happen:

The gates may open and additional fighters enter from one gate to help fighter A or fighter B. If the other  fighter doesn't register the arrival of reinforcements coming to his opponent's aid and escape through the other gate in time, then he gets pummeled by multiple attackers until he escapes or taps out.
A training knife may be tossed into the cage for whichever fighter notices and can reach it first.
The gates may open and someone will yell, "it's the police". If either fighter is still in the cage when the police enter 15 seconds later, they are "arrested" and lose their purse for the night. Alternately, if one fighter is in a dominant position inflicting damage on a downed opponent, then only that fighter is arrested.
etc. Use your creativity.
If you want to test your art's ability to work in a setting where you may have to work _with_ allies rather than always being solo (useful for LEOs, bouncers, COs, military, etc.) , then there are various formats already in existence for team vs. team combat. Examples include 5 vs.5 person MMA, 2 vs. 2 MMA in a multi-level playground sort of environment with obstacles and raised platforms, SCA field battles with hundreds of armored fighters on each side, SWAT Team scenario drills, and so on. It is worth noting that the more open ended you allow the rules to be in these sort of contests, the more difficult it is to maintain safety since there's so much going on that a referee or other safety official will have a harder time keeping track of what's going on than in a one on one match.

There are plenty more possibilities, depending on what you want to test and how much risk you are willing to take. Use your creativity.

One note - some of these tests can be asymmetrical, meaning that one side is more likely to fail even if they are more skilled or more athletic. This means they are less likely to attract people wanting competition. It doesn't make them any less valid as tests, though. If anything it makes them more realistic tests. Sometimes (as I noted in a previous comment), the best you can do is die less often.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Man ... that last post was long enough to have been written by Chris Parker. If only I had inserted some multi-quotes to complete the experience ...


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay, now that I've finally read the whole thread and responded to some individual posts, I can try answering the original question: "what is a better test for martial arts than MMA?"
> 
> To start with, it depends on what you consider the primary purpose(s) of your martial art and what factors you consider when evaluating whether a test is "better" than another.
> 
> To clarify that second point, suppose you consider the primary purpose of a martial art to be physically defending against real world physical attacks. The most thorough and accurate test of that goal might be to hire a bunch of criminals to assault random practitioners of that art. To do a really through test, you can look at crime statistics (armed/unarmed, single attacker/multiple attackers, assault/robbery/rape/murder, etc) and have your minions attempt the appropriate percentage of each attack against a good sized, randomly selected sample of people studying that art. You'd also want a control group of untrained victims, selected to have similar demographics (age, gender, socio-economic status) to your group of trained targets. With the results from this test, you could draw real scientific conclusions, like "18 months of training in martial art A gives a female student a 30% greater chance of fending off an attempted sexual assault by a single unarmed attacker who is not known to her... 3 years of training gives a male student in his 20s a 5% greater chance of surviving a murder attempt with a knife... etc."
> 
> This would be a truly informative test, much more so than anything else we have - but for ethical, legal, and practical reasons I think most of us would agree that it isn't a _better _test than MMA. (At least not if we include morality, legality, and practicality in our definition of "better." ) Obviously this is an extreme example, but it's a reminder that we have to take these various factors into consideration. Suppose we like MMA as one of the best "tests" out there. Now suppose we want to evaluate the best martial art for a 65 year old who wants to start learning self-defense. Are you going to start throwing a bunch of 65+ year olds (with no previous experience) into MMA competition? Probably not, unless you want to see a significant number of serious injuries and deaths. You probably need to find some less hazardous testing procedure.
> 
> Getting back to the first part, regarding the purpose of the art ...
> 
> If you train for the primary goal(s) of improving your character (according to whatever your personal standards are), learning to avoid fights, having fun, achieving personal satisfaction or "spiritual enlightenment", then I don't know that it's practical or worthwhile to try finding some objective, external, generalizable test to see how well your art supports those aims. I'm happy to take the word of the individual practitioner for how well their practice is working for them in these cases.
> 
> For testing more combative applications of martial arts ,,,
> 
> If you are concerned with using and/or defending against weapons, then the sparring which occurs at the Dog Brothers gatherings is a better test than MMA.
> 
> If you are concerned with historical application of weapons (including the effects of armor and weapons which are no longer in common use), then some of the HEMA tournaments formats would be a better test.
> 
> If you are concerned with the use of firearms, then I will defer to those with the appropriate military/LEO background as to their opinions. (war games, scenario training, target firing under stress conditions, paintball/airsoft practice, etc?)
> 
> If you want to test defending unarmed against multiple attackers, use an similar approach to MMA, but in an environment where there is a point designated as the exit or a weapon which could be deployed by the defender. Victory condition for the defender is reaching that point while unrestrained by the attackers. If you want to make it even more challenging for the defender, make the designated goal location randomly placed and not immediately obvious from the defender's starting point. This approach will encourage the defender to maintain mobility and environmental awareness rather than being in a hurry to engage with the attackers or get into a clinch situation.
> 
> If you want to test the ability to maintain situational awareness and adaptability, you might start the fight out under standard MMA rules but in a cage with 2 or more gates rather than the standard one. At a randomly selected point in the match, one of the following randomly selected events may happen:
> 
> The gates may open and additional fighters enter from one gate to help fighter A or fighter B. If the other  fighter doesn't register the arrival of reinforcements coming to his opponent's aid and escape through the other gate in time, then he gets pummeled by multiple attackers until he escapes or taps out.
> A training knife may be tossed into the cage for whichever fighter notices and can reach it first.
> The gates may open and someone will yell, "it's the police". If either fighter is still in the cage when the police enter 15 seconds later, they are "arrested" and lose their purse for the night. Alternately, if one fighter is in a dominant position inflicting damage on a downed opponent, then only that fighter is arrested.
> etc. Use your creativity.
> If you want to test your art's ability to work in a setting where you may have to work _with_ allies rather than always being solo (useful for LEOs, bouncers, COs, military, etc.) , then there are various formats already in existence for team vs. team combat. Examples include 5 vs.5 person MMA, 2 vs. 2 MMA in a multi-level playground sort of environment with obstacles and raised platforms, SCA field battles with hundreds of armored fighters on each side, SWAT Team scenario drills, and so on. It is worth noting that the more open ended you allow the rules to be in these sort of contests, the more difficult it is to maintain safety since there's so much going on that a referee or other safety official will have a harder time keeping track of what's going on than in a one on one match.
> 
> There are plenty more possibilities, depending on what you want to test and how much risk you are willing to take. Use your creativity.
> 
> One note - some of these tests can be asymmetrical, meaning that one side is more likely to fail even if they are more skilled or more athletic. This means they are less likely to attract people wanting competition. It doesn't make them any less valid as tests, though. If anything it makes them more realistic tests. Sometimes (as I noted in a previous comment), the best you can do is die less often.


what a great post.  The one thing that jumps out, though, is that some (not all) of the varying contexts you mention presume some degree of ability as a fighter.  For example, training for weapons defense builds upon a presumed foundation of being able to fight without weapons.  If you jump straight to weapons defense without building these foundational skills, your tests will not be reflective of your actual ability.

It reminds me of when someone (can't remember who) mentioned that aikido was like an advanced degree.  In order to really get out of aikido what is intended, you must first have a strong foundation in some other style such as Judo or Jiu Jitsu.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> The one thing that jumps out, though, is that some (not all) of the varying contexts you mention presume some degree of ability as a fighter



Well, yeah - since the original question was how to test the effectiveness of an art. No point in having a test for someone who hasn't developed any ability yet. Developmental exercises for beginners would be another topic.



Steve said:


> For example, training for weapons defense builds upon a presumed foundation of being able to fight without weapons.



Actually I would suggest that the best foundation for weapons defense is learning to use the weapon first. I mentioned that learning unarmed defense against weapons is a matter of "dying less often." I've seen a lot of knife defenses from instructors of unarmed arts that I would put in the category of "die just as often" or "die even more often", because those instructors have no clue of how a knife works.

There's no inherent need to learn unarmed skills before armed skills and in many arts and cultures the weapon systems would be taught first. (I do agree that for optimizing your chances fighting unarmed against an armed opponent that it is best to have both significant armed and unarmed skills.)


----------



## Juany118

.


Tony Dismukes said:


> This is why Marc Denny and Gabe Suarez have a video series out on knife defense titled "Die Less Often." They have considerable experience in weapons sparring (Denny) and law enforcement (Suarez) and they don't claim to have any techniques which will ensure your safety in a knife assault. Rather the idea is just to improve your chances. In a 100 alternate universes where you are attacked with a knife, perhaps you normally die in 90% of them. (Random number inserted there. I have no idea what the actual survival rate is for real world knife attacks.) By training the highest percentage defenses, perhaps you improve those odds so you only die in 65% of those alternate universes. (Once again, number pulled out of a hat. The point is that improving your odds does not mean you have a high probability of success.
> 
> I've sparred unarmed against (trainer) knives. Sometimes I win when doing so. Nevertheless, the experience is enough to convince me that I never want to face a real knife attack, even from an unskilled assailant.



Yeah the way I tend to explain is this...

If you train in the proper techniques acknowledge you will ALWAYS get cut if the opponent has even only half a clue.  The point of training proper defenses isn't to completely avoid getting injured some how the way training a proper punch defense is about, it's about training so you can simply survive and keep on fighting.  However just like a punch defense it is not going to work 100% of the time.  Does this mean the chance of death is still there with a knife, the same as the chance of a KO is still there with a punch?  Yep but simply because a punch defense is not 100% successful doesn't mean that we don't train to stop punches and just run in swinging blindly so why do that with knife defense?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Plenty of people who have no training at all successfully defend themselves.  The question is whether people who train in martial arts are MORE successful at defending themselves.  And if so, which arts perform best?   Anyone have ideas about how to get this information?
> 
> My bet is that training that involves competition, whether formal or informal, will impart usable skills more consistently than those that don't.



I think "which art is best" is largely unanswerable.  If you look at what the local MMA gym teaches and compare it to many (but not all) traditional martial arts there are more things in common than different in terms of practical execution.  The difference is in how they may be taught.  

There are instructors out there for many TMA's that I would say are more about teaching their students a martial art as performance art, picture perfect dance steps for lack of a better term.  Then their are instructors out there who actually teach their students how to fight.  

This is the dynamic that is important imo.  Teaching method/attitude and then the synergy of teacher with student then how the teaching is validated.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> I think "which art is best" is largely unanswerable.  If you look at what the local MMA gym teaches and compare it to many (but not all) traditional martial arts there are more things in common than different in terms of practical execution.  The difference is in how they may be taught.
> 
> There are instructors out there for many TMA's that I would say are more about teaching their students a martial art as performance art, picture perfect dance steps for lack of a better term.  Then their are instructors out there who actually teach their students how to fight.
> 
> This is the dynamic that is important imo.  Teaching method/attitude and then the synergy of teacher with student then how the teaching is validated.


Which arts are best is subjective.  But, you can certainly put an end to the idea that all training methodologies are equal.  They are not, I believe, and if the right questions were asked and stats were kept, we'd have a way to know for sure.

Once again, it would be very interesting to me to see violent crime data that includes some additional information:  whether the person trained in martial arts or not, and if so, what style or styles.  Heck, I think it would be very informative if the question included information about related activities that aren't actually martial arts, such as parkour training, tae bo, cardio-kickboxing, crossfit or what have you.  My belief is that we would find that most martial arts training has no more of an effect on whether a person successfully or unsuccessfully defends him/herself than any other routine fitness.   I wouldn't be surprised if it is less, given that many martial arts schools de-emphasize fitness as a part of their instruction.    And I think some styles, related by training methodology, would rise to the top.   Of course, if the study is objective, I might be surprised at the results, and would welcome that, too.

To be clear, if you think this is TMA vs anything, you're off  base.  I have said many times I think any style will work if it's trained well.  It's the training methodologies, including (and maybe particularly) an openness to testing in a variety of ways, which makes people successful.  Some styles welcome this.  Some styles discourage it. 

I would be very interested in this study, and am open to any ideas about how we could make it happen.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Which arts are best is subjective.  But, you can certainly put an end to the idea that all training methodologies are equal.  They are not, I believe, and if the right questions were asked and stats were kept, we'd have a way to know for sure.
> 
> Once again, it would be very interesting to me to see violent crime data that includes some additional information:  whether the person trained in martial arts or not, and if so, what style or styles.  Heck, I think it would be very informative if the question included information about related activities that aren't actually martial arts, such as parkour training, tae bo, cardio-kickboxing, crossfit or what have you.  My belief is that we would find that most martial arts training has no more of an effect on whether a person successfully or unsuccessfully defends him/herself than any other routine fitness.   I wouldn't be surprised if it is less, given that many martial arts schools de-emphasize fitness as a part of their instruction.    And I think some styles, related by training methodology, would rise to the top.   Of course, if the study is objective, I might be surprised at the results, and would welcome that, too.
> 
> I would be very interested in this study, and am open to any ideas about how we could make it happen.



It would be interesting indeed but I don't know if you could make it happen.  Here are the issues I see.

1. The FBI UCR based statistics have some flaws for such a study that they only address aggravated assaults and up and they classify an aggravated assault as one that used some sort of weapon if I recall correctly.  There are other issues but that is the biggie, it automatically excludes any assault that didn't involve a weapon.

2. Because the FBI stats rely on voluntarily submitted data and on crimes actually reported the BJS does a survey of a few hundred thousand people every year and then uses a formula to determine the "real" number of violent victimizations each year.  They don't ask about training though.

3. Police reports, afaik, if they contain martial arts training as part of the evidence, will only do so if it is relevant to the suspect, so they can further demonstrate intent and/or an aggravating circumstance.

So without either a butt ton of manpower and access to the BJS survey list, to have a chance of a large enough data set to be relevant, that would mean some sort of "opt-in" survey and those are always problematic in terms of accuracy.

About the best chance you would have, I think, is to do some serious data mining of assaults/fights in general.  See how many times the aggressor was fought off period or where the "victim" at least held their own until LE arrived.  Then get a really good statistician to use data like the percentage of US Citizens that actually regularly study martial arts, are military veterans etc along with other data to try and extrapolate how many may have had some sort or training and what effect, if any, said training is likely to have.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I'm not sure they had streets back then.



i think egypt and those places did.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, yeah - since the original question was how to test the effectiveness of an art. No point in having a test for someone who hasn't developed any ability yet. Developmental exercises for beginners would be another topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would suggest that the best foundation for weapons defense is learning to use the weapon first. I mentioned that learning unarmed defense against weapons is a matter of "dying less often." I've seen a lot of knife defenses from instructors of unarmed arts that I would put in the category of "die just as often" or "die even more often", because those instructors have no clue of how a knife works.
> 
> There's no inherent need to learn unarmed skills before armed skills and in many arts and cultures the weapon systems would be taught first. (I do agree that for optimizing your chances fighting unarmed against an armed opponent that it is best to have both significant armed and unarmed skills.)



Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique.  You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence.
> 
> Think of it this way.  "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root _competō.
> 
> _



Etymology aside, I've covered before that I simply have never had any interest in that type of competition. Let's face it, winning at something like MMA pretty much requires being willing to beat someone up to win. Winning without that requires you entirely outclass your opponent, which would require training to the competition. Seems a rather sideways approach, when competition isn't my goal. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective.  I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly.  I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable.  But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.
> 
> I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness.  It's a terrific metric for marketability.



I disagree with the distinction, but I don't think it's worth dragging the discussion out further over this point. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.



It all depends on what you consider sparring...






At my school we go all out like the above, the only difference is we use sticks similar to these  Padded Stick during the stick sparring so we only bruise and don't break skin but we use rigid plastic knives with the edges covered in chalk to confirm hits after a round...none of that rubber stuff.  If you somehow lose your weapon the fight doesn't stop, you are expected to continue.  That doesn't mean trying to pick up your weapon as that leaves you open to attack, that means going after your opponent's and going for control so they can't continue to use it against you.

It really seems a lot of your views of knife/weapons training is based on not really training with them properly in the first place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is every knife defence I have ever done. He stabs you block the arm catch it attack the arm. attack the person somehow not die.
> 
> Akido is a perfect example because they do knife defence in competition.
> 
> And how does that work out?



That description isn't the same as the way I read your previous comments (either about grabbing the arm or your defense).  If that's what you're talking about, I'm not sure where the disagreement is. You now seem to be talking about attacking the arm, which is our approach. We don't grab it out of the air. 

As for the video, I can't watch it on this connection,but your comment tells me what it's likely to show. I'm not fond of what I see in those competitions. I don't know what the rules are, but they seem to stop controlling the attacker well in that portion. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Unarmed vs knife training is designed to make people feel good. If they are happy then the training is worthwhile.
> 
> That is why it is designed towards the success of the defender. An actual unarmed vs knife is desighed towards the success of the attacker.
> 
> So We go back to MMA as the test. People think mount defence looks like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in reality it looks like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knife defence in real life is notheing like knife defence in the gym.



You're making assumptions, again. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Absolutely true.  Here's a picture of Conor McGregor in one of his early fights.  He did pretty well without any formal training at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.   I can't let you get away with this one.  "Then that day comes when the training is used for real."  Unless you're actively and routinely engaging in high risk behaviors, which I would say includes being a cop, bouncer, security guard or other professional risk taker, the chances of "that day... when the training is used for real," is likely never to come.  It's like saying, "I wear rubber soled shoes for that day when I'm struck by lightning."  When???
> 
> The reality is more like, "that day... when the training is passed on by me to someone else as I learned it in the hopes that because it worked for my teacher's teacher, it will work for you in the unlikely chance you ever need it."
> 
> I've spent a lot of time posting on this topic, and yet there are a few guys around here who still seem to think that experience is optional.



I've used mine twice, in spite of no such risky behavior. I know several others with similar records. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I agree with you on the definition of aiki, but I think I disagree on the best way to get there. Working with a compliant uke can be a good way to get an idea of what executing a technique with aiki will ultimately feel like, but I don't think it will get you to the point of actually being able to use aiki on a non-compliant opponent. For that I think you need the years of working with non-compliant opponents. That non-compliant experience feels like a major step away from aiki (especially at the beginner levels), but it's necessary to build the necessary sensitivity to the constant shifts in pressure, balance, and structure that a real opponent will make as he tries to overcome your defense.
> 
> I'm not against having compliant aiki/energy capturing drills as part of training, if only to remind the student of the ultimate goal, but I don't think it should be the primary focus if you want to be able to apply that  kind of movement in real life. Admittedly I'm not a practitioner of an official "aiki" art, but I've noticed that I personally started getting a lot more of those "aiki" moments after some years of non-compliant training than I did during years spent doing compliant drills in an art which promoted the idea of capturing an opponent's energy.
> 
> There is an understandable argument to be made that the aiki arts are more designed for use against an untrained assailant who is likely to feed fully committed, off-balance attacks than against a skilled competitor who will stay more on-balance and use feints to set up precisely timed  combinations and counters. Nevertheless, my experience suggests that working against the skilled competitor is actually the quicker road to being able to capture the energy of an untrained, overcommitted attacker.*
> 
> *(This only applies if you keep that ideal of effortlessly using the opponent's energy in mind while you are training against skilled, non-compliant opponent's. It's also possible to develop a style built around crushing your opponent with relentless pressure, if that's what you're into. Such an approach would probably not lead to much application of aiki.)



That was kind of my point, Tony. To perfect absolute aiki requires a focus on aiki, rather than combat effectiveness. Some aiki arts have gone this way, and that path takes a long time to effectiveness against a non-compliant attacker. To learn aiki, a certain amount of compliant training is necessary (moreso, perhaps, than other styles), but there has to be non-compliant training to translate the techniques, and there should also be non-aiki versions of the techniques wherever possible. I use a blend of the two sides - including plenty of striking. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> i think egypt and those places did.


2000 years ago, pretty much every place had streets.  Most of the ones in Europe were built by the Romans.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I've used mine twice, in spite of no such risky behavior. I know several others with similar records.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


I think part of the problem is that people don't realize sometimes how diverse our country is, let alone the world and part of that diversity is varying levels of risk.  The number of victims of violent crimes in the US are about equal to the total number of accidents.  The thing is depending on where you live you may be insulated to a greater degree from such violence than someone who lives someplace else.  The same can apply to where you work.  If you commute to the suburban Corporate park by car you are more insulated than the person who takes the train then walks from the Station to the Office Building in the inner city and so on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Which arts are best is subjective.  But, you can certainly put an end to the idea that all training methodologies are equal.  They are not, I believe, and if the right questions were asked and stats were kept, we'd have a way to know for sure.
> 
> Once again, it would be very interesting to me to see violent crime data that includes some additional information:  whether the person trained in martial arts or not, and if so, what style or styles.  Heck, I think it would be very informative if the question included information about related activities that aren't actually martial arts, such as parkour training, tae bo, cardio-kickboxing, crossfit or what have you.  My belief is that we would find that most martial arts training has no more of an effect on whether a person successfully or unsuccessfully defends him/herself than any other routine fitness.   I wouldn't be surprised if it is less, given that many martial arts schools de-emphasize fitness as a part of their instruction.    And I think some styles, related by training methodology, would rise to the top.   Of course, if the study is objective, I might be surprised at the results, and would welcome that, too.
> 
> To be clear, if you think this is TMA vs anything, you're off  base.  I have said many times I think any style will work if it's trained well.  It's the training methodologies, including (and maybe particularly) an openness to testing in a variety of ways, which makes people successful.  Some styles welcome this.  Some styles discourage it.
> 
> I would be very interested in this study, and am open to any ideas about how we could make it happen.



Unfortunately, I suspect the statistics wouldn't reach a reliable level of significance, given the relatively small overlap in the populations. If we could get unreported incidents, we'd have more info - maybe even enough for significance. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.



Sparring can be full-speed. I suspect the higher reliability in the dojo is at least as much due to the lower risk and lack of surprise attacks during calm moments. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think part of the problem is that people don't realize sometimes how diverse our country is, let alone the world and part of that diversity is varying levels of risk.  The number of victims of violent crimes in the US are about equal to the total number of accidents.  The thing is depending on where you live you may be insulated to a greater degree from such violence than someone who lives someplace else.  The same can apply to where you work.  If you commute to the suburban Corporate park by car you are more insulated than the person who takes the train then walks from the Station to the Office Building in the inner city and so on.



And many incidents will go unreported. Those that are successful defenses likely won't show as assaults/violent crimes even if reported, unless they were particularly violent. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> And many incidents will go unreported. Those that are successful defenses likely won't show as assaults/violent crimes even if reported, unless they were particularly violent.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Just for clarification the number I was using is actually based on an annual Beurau Of Justice Statistics study that accounts for under and unreported violent victimizations.  The FBI stats only address reported aggravated assaults and robberies with weapons (as an example).  I suspect though, that as you say, successful defense is one of many factors for unreported violence though


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.





Juany118 said:


> It all depends on what you consider sparring...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At my school we go all out like the above, the only difference is we use sticks similar to these  Padded Stick during the stick sparring so we only bruise and don't break skin but we use rigid plastic knives with the edges covered in chalk to confirm hits after a round...none of that rubber stuff.  If you somehow lose your weapon the fight doesn't stop, you are expected to continue.  That doesn't mean trying to pick up your weapon as that leaves you open to attack, that means going after your opponent's and going for control so they can't continue to use it against you.
> 
> It really seems a lot of your views of knife/weapons training is based on not really training with them properly in the first place.





gpseymour said:


> Sparring can be full-speed. I suspect the higher reliability in the dojo is at least as much due to the lower risk and lack of surprise attacks during calm moments.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Drop bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what he's talking about re: "speed" is pre-emptive tactics executed at close quarters while the knife wielder is still deploying or brandishing the weapon and has not made the mental transition from "don't mess with me or I'll cut you" to "I'm going to kill you now." In the context of the scenarios in which drop bear has likely encountered knives and the sorts of tactics he has described, this would seem likely.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Sparring can be full-speed. I suspect the higher reliability in the dojo is at least as much due to the lower risk and lack of surprise attacks during calm moments.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



I also suspect it's because of "protection".  As an example our sparring is sometimes a bit more aggressive than a Dog Brother's Gathering because we know a plastic core foam padded stick is far less likely to actually break skin or bone and controlled aggression is key to defense.  You still want to "win" so you defend but you can actually be defending against more aggressive attacks, since you are less concerned about injuring a partner, and so (imo at least) some of your defenses are actually tested more and thus improved.


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> Drop bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what he's talking about re: "speed" is pre-emptive tactics executed at close quarters while the knife wielder is still deploying or brandishing the weapon and has not made the mental transition from "don't mess with me or I'll cut you" to "I'm going to kill you now." In the context of the scenarios in which drop bear has likely encountered knives and the sorts of tactics he has described, this would seem likely.


The only problem I have with that though is that in the encounters you will have in that kind of environment you can't tell the difference from that transition and one where a person was only posing/threatening to begin with.  Since he had one such encounter it is quite possible the person never actually intended to use the weapon in the first place.  So was it "speed" that made the difference or lack of intent on the part of the attacker?  

This is why I am a huge fan of training to lock up the arm as the suspect attempts to deploy.  If the weapon is deployed then I address it as if the person has already made the transition to "I kill you." This way I avoid the fuzziness. /Shrug


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Drop bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what he's talking about re: "speed" is pre-emptive tactics executed at close quarters while the knife wielder is still deploying or brandishing the weapon and has not made the mental transition from "don't mess with me or I'll cut you" to "I'm going to kill you now." In the context of the scenarios in which drop bear has likely encountered knives and the sorts of tactics he has described, this would seem likely.



Ah, I may have read it backwards, then. I thought he was saying speed made the defense work too well in the dojo. Your read would play the other way - defending before the attack materializes to improve the odds. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sparring can be full-speed. I suspect the higher reliability in the dojo is at least as much due to the lower risk and lack of surprise attacks during calm moments.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Sparring flat knacker changes the game in that you cant react as much as you need to preempt. Someone puts a rush on you and you have eaten four shots before you can get a simple defence like hands up. Let alone a complicated one.

Supprise adds even more to that reaction time. 

This is one of the usable differences between street and sport.

So here is a takedown that does  not work. One handed arms free. you can do anything and everything to defend it.






Exept it was done quickly. 

This kind of gells with my experiences. Where i have seen guys dumped and done little more than flail in the 2 seconds it takes to gain a dominant position.

Now imagine that was a knife. the police officer is at risk for 2 seconds. And then at less risk.

If I grab the arm I may be at risk for 3 seconds which is more time for me to get stabbed.

Now there are of course circumstances where one works and one doesn't. But those who suggest that one always works and one doesn't do not understand the mechanics of real world fighting. 

This is one way of testing the grounding someone has in real world fighting.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I may have read it backwards, then. I thought he was saying speed made the defense work too well in the dojo. Your read would play the other way - defending before the attack materializes to improve the odds.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Well in my particular case he was occupied by stabbing someone else. but i have seen a dude push a guy over who had a knife.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Drop bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what he's talking about re: "speed" is pre-emptive tactics executed at close quarters while the knife wielder is still deploying or brandishing the weapon and has not made the mental transition from "don't mess with me or I'll cut you" to "I'm going to kill you now." In the context of the scenarios in which drop bear has likely encountered knives and the sorts of tactics he has described, this would seem likely.



Even from I am going to cut you. To cutting. Is a transition.

Think how many times a punch has landed during a double leg in a street fight.

Mike tyson with the flurry finish. It is a lot of information to process in an incredibly short time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've used mine twice, in spite of no such risky behavior. I know several others with similar records.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



Sorry not a large enough sample.

Was akido invented for the battlefield? 

Apparently that counts towards something.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The only problem I have with that though is that in the encounters you will have in that kind of environment you can't tell the difference from that transition and one where a person was only posing/threatening to begin with.  Since he had one such encounter it is quite possible the person never actually intended to use the weapon in the first place.  So was it "speed" that made the difference or lack of intent on the part of the attacker?
> 
> This is why I am a huge fan of training to lock up the arm as the suspect attempts to deploy.  If the weapon is deployed then I address it as if the person has already made the transition to "I kill you." This way I avoid the fuzziness. /Shrug



So now your method is control of the limbs during a fight before there is a weapon involved. Unarmed vs unarmed? I mean that works. But it is hardly removed from the sporting arena.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sparring flat knacker changes the game in that you cant react as much as you need to preempt. Someone puts a rush on you and you have eaten four shots before you can get a simple defence like hands up. Let alone a complicated one.
> 
> Supprise adds even more to that reaction time.
> 
> This is one of the usable differences between street and sport.
> 
> So here is a takedown that does  not work. One handed arms free. you can do anything and everything to defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exept it was done quickly.
> 
> This kind of gells with my experiences. Where i have seen guys dumped and done little more than flail in the 2 seconds it takes to gain a dominant position.
> 
> Now imagine that was a knife. the police officer is at risk for 2 seconds. And then at less risk.
> 
> If I grab the arm I may be at risk for 3 seconds which is more time for me to get stabbed.
> 
> Now there are of course circumstances where one works and one doesn't. But those who suggest that one always works and one doesn't do not understand the mechanics of real world fighting.
> 
> This is one way of testing the grounding someone has in real world fighting.


I'll have to look at the video later - apparently this hotel's WiFi just doesn't like your video postings. I'll try to remember to come back and look at it - your post will make more sense with the video.

In the meantime, I'll weigh in with my opinion on the principles of defense against a blade. I work from a couple of principles. The most important one is that a defender may fixate on the knife, and so we practice most of our knife defenses around keeping the arm once we have it. The second is that we may not see the blade, at all, so we practice most of our "empty hand" defense with the idea of keeping a knife away, as well.

The first principle can be met by any techniques that control the arm and allow you to finish without letting go of the arm, and MMA certainly has enough options there. Of course, if you don't fixate, all kinds of other options open up, though I still prefer to keep the arm if I have reasonable control of it. The second principle is where specific knife defense really pays off. If I am realistic about punches, there are many I can allow to get through, at least partially. A weak punch could reasonably be ignored unless it's coming to the face or groin, but if there was a knife in it, we can't let that punch in. Since we can't be sure we'll see the knife, the principle (obviously not always practicable) is to never let a punch get in, even if it's weak.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sorry not a large enough sample.
> 
> Was akido invented for the battlefield?
> 
> Apparently that counts towards something.


Not a large enough sample for what, precisely?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'll have to look at the video later - apparently this hotel's WiFi just doesn't like your video postings. I'll try to remember to come back and look at it - your post will make more sense with the video.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll weigh in with my opinion on the principles of defense against a blade. I work from a couple of principles. The most important one is that a defender may fixate on the knife, and so we practice most of our knife defenses around keeping the arm once we have it. The second is that we may not see the blade, at all, so we practice most of our "empty hand" defense with the idea of keeping a knife away, as well.
> 
> The first principle can be met by any techniques that control the arm and allow you to finish without letting go of the arm, and MMA certainly has enough options there. Of course, if you don't fixate, all kinds of other options open up, though I still prefer to keep the arm if I have reasonable control of it. The second principle is where specific knife defense really pays off. If I am realistic about punches, there are many I can allow to get through, at least partially. A weak punch could reasonably be ignored unless it's coming to the face or groin, but if there was a knife in it, we can't let that punch in. Since we can't be sure we'll see the knife, the principle (obviously not always practicable) is to never let a punch get in, even if it's weak.



If you enter into a premis that they will fixate on the knife. Then you have to operate on concepts that make them fixate on that knife.

How do you go about making that strategy work?


----------



## Juany118

@Ironbear24 if your dislike was my comment about performance art I was talking, mainly, about certain Kung Fu schools I know of.  Some of them spend a lot of time training people on various strikes that require serious building up of the muscle, bone and ligaments.  As an example...






Go to the 45 second mark and you will see what I mean.  My Sifu's Master did that toughening for bil sau.  He can thrust his fingers into his head repeatedly and you will hear an audible "thunk" with each impact from across the room. I just started doing similar training for bil sau and phoenix eye fist but am only up to a canvas bag full of rice.  Thing is how many people do that kind of training if it is not "required"?

As such some schools, or students in the schools chose to train mainly for things like this.






Which are choreographed and this






Its not to say they can't use it for self defense, only that they have a different focus in training and/or study than a school and student teaching with a focus on self-defense/combat.

PS, the bottom two videos are from Kuo Shu, if you live on the east coast it's worth the trip to Maryland for the weekend.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Sorry not a large enough sample.
> 
> Was akido invented for the battlefield?
> 
> Apparently that counts towards something.



First in his case, the sample size is actually simply a proof of concept so sample size is not relevant.  If you already have a proven track record for techniques used for their intended purpose via extensive testing in the ring, on the battlefield etc. then an individual being successful is simply confirming the results already known.

With that out of the way Aikido is like Judo in that both are born of Jujitsu which in turn was born of the battlefield.  Sensei Ueshiba had studied Daito-Ryu Aiki-jujutsu, Yagyū Shingan-ryū and Tenjin Shinyo-ryu, though admittedly Aikido is most heavily influenced by the first.

As for the sarcastic statement about "counting for something" if I was to say "well MMA was born of competition..." in the same manner you would be having a meltdown about now.  As I have said before, BOTH are completely valid paths for development and validation and that to say that MMA has a relative weakness is not to say it is a flawed or ineffective martial art.  All martial arts have some relative weakness.  MMA's just happens to be dealing with weapons.

This all brings me to a specific question in two parts.  

1.  Are you arguing this point, as Steve stated, because you believe anytime someone may make a critique about MMA that they are attacking the art as a whole and inferring that it is ineffective for real world self defense or
2. You honestly believe that MMA has no relative weaknesses and is by far the best self defense system in the world?

If you are arguing point 1 I am not one of those people you have to worry about, nor is @gpseymour


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'll have to look at the video later - apparently this hotel's WiFi just doesn't like your video postings. I'll try to remember to come back and look at it - your post will make more sense with the video.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll weigh in with my opinion on the principles of defense against a blade. I work from a couple of principles. The most important one is that a defender may fixate on the knife, and so we practice most of our knife defenses around keeping the arm once we have it. The second is that we may not see the blade, at all, so we practice most of our "empty hand" defense with the idea of keeping a knife away, as well.
> 
> The first principle can be met by any techniques that control the arm and allow you to finish without letting go of the arm, and MMA certainly has enough options there. Of course, if you don't fixate, all kinds of other options open up, though I still prefer to keep the arm if I have reasonable control of it. The second principle is where specific knife defense really pays off. If I am realistic about punches, there are many I can allow to get through, at least partially. A weak punch could reasonably be ignored unless it's coming to the face or groin, but if there was a knife in it, we can't let that punch in. Since we can't be sure we'll see the knife, the principle (obviously not always practicable) is to never let a punch get in, even if it's weak.



I think another principle is to NOT panic.  You can get stabbed a couple times, even slashed a number of times and remain alive a function, especially when faced with what you will typically face when you are dealing with the most common knife on the street, the pocket folder.  There are exceptions of course, if major blood vessels get ruptured you can bleed out quite quickly, but chances are in a real fight with your average folder you may not even be initially aware you were stabbed and/or cut until you see the blood so unless one of those major blood vessels or organs is hit keep on fighting, because you can for a time.


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> @Ironbear24 if your dislike was my comment about performance art I was talking, mainly, about certain Kung Fu schools I know of.  Some of them spend a lot of time training people on various strikes that require serious building up of the muscle, bone and ligaments.  As an example...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the 45 second mark and you will see what I mean.  My Sifu's Master did that toughening for bil sau.  He can thrust his fingers into his head repeatedly and you will hear an audible "thunk" with each impact from across the room. I just started doing similar training for bil sau and phoenix eye fist but am only up to a canvas bag full of rice.  Thing is how many people do that kind of training if it is not "required"?
> 
> As such some schools, or students in the schools chose to train mainly for things like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which are choreographed and this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not to say they can't use it for self defense, only that they have a different focus in training and/or study than a school and student teaching with a focus on self-defense/combat.
> 
> PS, the bottom two videos are from Kuo Shu, if you live on the east coast it's worth the trip to Maryland for the weekend.



Kata and bunkai are methods of training. I doubt that is all they do but hey, if they are then that's their choice. Me personally I think martial arts should focus on fighting above all else but everyone has different goals. Even the kata I do has fighting application being the #1 goal.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> Kata and bunkai are methods of training. I doubt that is all they do but hey, if they are then that's their choice. Me personally I think martial arts should focus on fighting above all else but everyone has different goals. Even the kata I do has fighting application being the #1 goal.



Oh I get that and I train for the same reason, I am just acknowledging that not all TMA students train for "real" fighting or think they are but are being trained in such a way where they really develop the skills to do so via focusing on the more practical methods, training against other styles and adequate pressure testing.  I think this is one of the reasons TMAs sometimes get a bad rap.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Sparring flat knacker changes the game in that you cant react as much as you need to preempt. Someone puts a rush on you and you have eaten four shots before you can get a simple defence like hands up. Let alone a complicated one.
> 
> Supprise adds even more to that reaction time.
> 
> This is one of the usable differences between street and sport.
> 
> So here is a takedown that does  not work. One handed arms free. you can do anything and everything to defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exept it was done quickly.
> 
> This kind of gells with my experiences. Where i have seen guys dumped and done little more than flail in the 2 seconds it takes to gain a dominant position.
> 
> Now imagine that was a knife. the police officer is at risk for 2 seconds. And then at less risk.
> 
> If I grab the arm I may be at risk for 3 seconds which is more time for me to get stabbed.
> 
> Now there are of course circumstances where one works and one doesn't. But those who suggest that one always works and one doesn't do not understand the mechanics of real world fighting.
> 
> This is one way of testing the grounding someone has in real world fighting.


That's what I thought you were getting at. I'd say it's not so much a matter of speed as it is of timing. If you can attack pre-emptively someone who isn't yet in full fight mode or who isn't aware of you, then you have a huge advantage, especially if you get to start at close range. (This is why Llap Goch is the deadliest of the martial arts.) This option is more likely to be available for people in certain professions (bouncer, LEO, criminal) than it is for the average civilian in a self-defense situation.

This does raise a relevant point for the original question. If pre-emptive attacks/sucker punches are the preferred tactic for the smart fighter, how do you test that in a martial arts context? MMA doesn't work, because the participants already know they are in a fight when they step into the cage.


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's what I thought you were getting at. I'd say it's not so much a matter of speed as it is of timing. If you can attack pre-emptively someone who isn't yet in full fight mode or who isn't aware of you, then you have a huge advantage, especially if you get to start at close range. (This is why Llap Goch is the deadliest of the martial arts.) This option is more likely to be available for people in certain professions (bouncer, LEO, criminal) than it is for the average civilian in a self-defense situation.
> 
> This does raise a relevant point for the original question. If pre-emptive attacks/sucker punches are the preferred tactic for the smart fighter, how do you test that in a martial arts context? MMA doesn't work, because the participants already know they are in a fight when they step into the cage.



Llap Goch lol

The only way I can think is to a have solid scenario training worked into the curriculum.  Thing is to really work you would need to have scenarios where no attack gets launched.  Even then though it would be only an approximation because if you know you are in a training scenario you know you are likely to be attacked and so you are hyper vigilant out of the gate.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's what I thought you were getting at. I'd say it's not so much a matter of speed as it is of timing. If you can attack pre-emptively someone who isn't yet in full fight mode or who isn't aware of you, then you have a huge advantage, especially if you get to start at close range. (This is why Llap Goch is the deadliest of the martial arts.) This option is more likely to be available for people in certain professions (bouncer, LEO, criminal) than it is for the average civilian in a self-defense situation.
> 
> This does raise a relevant point for the original question. If pre-emptive attacks/sucker punches are the preferred tactic for the smart fighter, how do you test that in a martial arts context? MMA doesn't work, because the participants already know they are in a fight when they step into the cage.



It is less obvious in a cage. But if you spar a fast good guy at high speed. The effect is still there. This is why you dont fight in the pocket unless you have a steel jaw. The counter mesures are the same. You create distance and time.

If you are suggesting there is a test for defending from a position you can be sucker punched.
You messed up a long time ago.

Try this with a wrestler. wonder why you can get taken down from across the room Whith a shot that is technically too far away.

It happens to me boxing but that is less pleasant.


Otherwise there are tricks to setting your range so you dont get popped.





And tricks so you do.





Mechanically You are not that good at judging distance. So a fist moving in a straight line coming towards you is hard to pick up on. So you use those lessons learned in sparring and apply them to self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you enter into a premis that they will fixate on the knife. Then you have to operate on concepts that make them fixate on that knife.
> 
> How do you go about making that strategy work?


Why would I need to operate on concepts that make them fixate on the knife? I just work with techniques that will work if they fixate on the knife.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think another principle is to NOT panic.  You can get stabbed a couple times, even slashed a number of times and remain alive a function, especially when faced with what you will typically face when you are dealing with the most common knife on the street, the pocket folder.  There are exceptions of course, if major blood vessels get ruptured you can bleed out quite quickly, but chances are in a real fight with your average folder you may not even be initially aware you were stabbed and/or cut until you see the blood so unless one of those major blood vessels or organs is hit keep on fighting, because you can for a time.


Good point. I work hard to teach students they are never allowed to stop simply because something didn't work. They have to find a finish, unless their "attacker" finishes them completely. We do what we can to add in some of the visual and auditory cues that will be present (not a private enough location to actually do what I'd like with yelling during "attacks"), so they are less of a difference. They are small things, but they help reduce the likelihood of a panic reaction by a small percentage. It's all about the percentages.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Llap Goch lol
> 
> The only way I can think is to a have solid scenario training worked into the curriculum.  Thing is to really work you would need to have scenarios where no attack gets launched.  Even then though it would be only an approximation because if you know you are in a training scenario you know you are likely to be attacked and so you are hyper vigilant out of the gate.


Yeah, this is tough to integrate. We have to be cognizant of the legal risk (if you strike pre-emptively, witness accounts can place you as the "attacker"). We have a few techniques that work well specifically for pre-emptive responses. They get us out of the main line of attack and give us a shot at early control.


----------



## Buka

Tony Dismukes said:


> This does raise a relevant point for the original question. If pre-emptive attacks/sucker punches are the preferred tactic for the smart fighter, how do you test that in a martial arts context? MMA doesn't work, because the participants already know they are in a fight when they step into the cage.



I'm not sure this applies to the part of your post I quoted, But it reminded me of something we used to do.

We used to sometimes do "The Whatever Drill". Everyone is paired off, out of stance, facing each other. You're chatting with your partner, music is on, everything is chill. At any given time, either you or your partner slaps the other across the face. How hard depends on the participants. The person getting slapped immediately rushes and shoves saying "whatever" as he does so. 

I'm not saying a slap is anything like a punch, but often a sucker punch is more a matter of shock and surprise than of actual movement stopping injury. "The utterance of "whatever" is a matter of fostering attitude and learning to engage when surprised.

Since there is no set order of who slaps, sometimes a slap is blocked or evaded, and that's okay to. Sometimes the order _is_ set, and each takes turns throwing the slap, but it's done when they want, not on a count.

I know "a shove" isn't what you necessarily want to counter a sucker shot with (but it might be) but it's less injurious in training than a hard counter and it's meant to learn to_ just move in_. 
(No gloves involved, no headgear. Sometimes there were really hard slaps, though. You know how black belts can get)

Lot of ways to do the drill. Kind of fun, too. Worked pretty good for us.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> It is less obvious in a cage. But if you spar a fast good guy at high speed. The effect is still there. This is why you dont fight in the pocket unless you have a steel jaw. The counter mesures are the same. You create distance and time.
> 
> ...
> 
> Try this with a wrestler. wonder why you can get taken down from across the room Whith a shot that is technically too far away.



That's something different, though. That's actual speed rather than pre-emptively hitting someone who isn't yet in fight mode. In the case of the wrestler it's also a matter of a mismatch in the relevant skill set. You don't see too many successful shots from out of range in the UFC any more because now all the fighters at that level have solid takedown defense.



drop bear said:


> If you are suggesting there is a test for defending from a position you can be sucker punched.
> You messed up a long time ago.



I'm not talking about _defending_ against the sucker punch (although that's a topic in itself). I'm talking about _using_ it. You're advocating for a certain tactic versus a knife wielder based on the idea that you get to pre-emptively hit him before he is actually trying to stab you. You posted a video of a cop taking down a suspect with a pre-emptive attack before the suspect was prepared for a physical confrontation. Neither of these scenarios would play out that way in competition. If we grant that this is an advantageous approach to take, what is the best test for how well and individual or a martial system has developed those tactics? Is there one, aside from the personal experiences of individuals in professions which offer the opportunity for these sorts of pre-emptive tactics?


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's something different, though. That's actual speed rather than pre-emptively hitting someone who isn't yet in fight mode. In the case of the wrestler it's also a matter of a mismatch in the relevant skill set. You don't see too many successful shots from out of range in the UFC any more because now all the fighters at that level have solid takedown defense.



Sort of my point though. You have to process a lot of information in a short time. And can get ambushed mid fight if you are not preemptively defending.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> m not talking about _defending_ against the sucker punch (although that's a topic in itself). I'm talking about _using_ it. You're advocating for a certain tactic versus a knife wielder based on the idea that you get to pre-emptively hit him before he is actually trying to stab you. You posted a video of a cop taking down a suspect with a pre-emptive attack before the suspect was prepared for a physical confrontation. Neither of these scenarios would play out that way in competition. If we grant that this is an advantageous approach to take, what is the best test for how well and individual or a martial system has developed those tactics? Is there one, aside from the personal experiences of individuals in professions which offer the opportunity for these sorts of pre-emptive tactics?



Put rushes on people when they dont expect it. dont do it all the time.

I mean you could kato your training partners but I am not sure how safe that would be.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> I mean you could kato your training partners but I am not sure how safe that would be.


C'mon, what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Put rushes on people when they dont expect it. dont do it all the time.
> 
> I mean you could kato your training partners but I am not sure how safe that would be.


Yeah, I've been working on adding some surprise attacks during training. It's dicey, and so far I'm the only one allowed to deliver the surprise. It's not a great test, but it's certainly better than not having a training tool to evaluate responses to surprise contact.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> C'mon, what could possibly go wrong?



We used to do that quite a bit at a work site at one point.  Mate of mine tried to ambush another in a construction site.  Almost ate a steel pole.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> The AAA Foundation did a study I found, just last year.  There is a distinction to be made between aggressive driving and road rage incidents.  I think that the latter is a result of the former.  But the picture that emerges is that most people denounce aggressive driving in others, but drive aggressively themselves.  They invite reciprocal violence through their behaviors, and often feel empowered to retaliate.  In other words, the biggest difference between a dangerously aggressive driver and a "mugger" is in the perception that one is a criminal and the other isn't.  But that has no bearing on the relative danger of one or the other.  The more serious threat to one's personal safety is not the mugger.  It's the otherwise great guy who drives like a maniac and uses his car as a weapon.  (Interesting note, I saw on an infographic that guys driving blue BMWs are the most likely to engage in aggressive driving and road rage... that seems pretty specific.. not sure if it's true, but it was funny).
> 
> They say that aggressive driving is a factor in over half of all traffic fatalities (lower than the NHTSA number of over 65%, but still very high).  They also say that over 90% of drivers believe that aggressive driving and road rage are a "somewhat" or "very serious" threat to their personal safety.



Steve, been meaning to post this, just had to find your old post first.

Last Saturday night, working the airport, I get a call from the boss. He's usually inside but happened to be curbside talking to someone. Apparently two guys in a car gave a really hard time to one of the traffic security guys. Then started screaming in a threatening manner, saying they would be back. (We step in when the security guys have a problem.)

I ask the boss for a description of the vehicle. He says, "Blue BMW, newer model." I thought to myself - "Steve just mentioned this. How incredibly odd."  Just a coincidence, I'm sure.(?) But I thought it just nuts.

They never did come back. But I sure have my eye peeled for them if they do.


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> C'mon, what could possibly go wrong?



When I see this I wonder if that of Jackie's stuff is funnier physical comedy...


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Steve, been meaning to post this, just had to find your old post first.
> 
> Last Saturday night, working the airport, I get a call from the boss. He's usually inside but happened to be curbside talking to someone. Apparently two guys in a car gave a really hard time to one of the traffic security guys. Then started screaming in a threatening manner, saying they would be back. (We step in when the security guys have a problem.)
> 
> I ask the boss for a description of the vehicle. He says, "Blue BMW, newer model." I thought to myself - "Steve just mentioned this. How incredibly odd."  Just a coincidence, I'm sure.(?) But I thought it just nuts.
> 
> They never did come back. But I sure have my eye peeled for them if they do.



Yeah. Quite often criminals are easier to deal with because at least they know they are doing the wrong thing.

The angry assault crowd are all really good guys when they are not drunk or upset about something.


----------

