# Become a fighting machine



## moller18

Hey Guys! first off sorry for the silly topic name, and sorry if posted in wrong section!

Im just got started to MMA ( focus on striking, wrestling and jiu jitsu ) i do mma twice a week, and then im in the gym 4 for strength and look, for 45 -60 minutes only. I have some questions for you. The ONLY reason why i do workout beside keeping myself healthy is self defense. I have been attacked twice by a group, and stabbed one of the times. Not because of my attitude, once because i stood up for my girlfriend and the other, because i was at the wrong place at the wrong place. So now i have decide i wanna be able to defend myself, IF talking or running, aint the option. So do you guys think that mma is a good thing, together with strength training. For this purpose?

The otherside i know a important thing, of getting stronger, bigger and faster, is the diet. I eat a lot of beef and veggies, and water. Dont eat to many carbs, only around working out, im mostly eating to get my proteins.

Viking


----------



## hoshin1600

Your going to get a lot of different opinions on this.  You are going to be limited on your choices depending on what is near you.  MMA is good but what else is around? It might be your best choice if there is nothing else that is close to you.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Mma is better than nothing and absolutely will help you in a fight but it won't help you to defend against getting stabbed because mma is mainly a sport so it won't teach you how to defend against weapons. I'm not saying mma isn't good for self defence because it Is absolutely but it's also not a self defence tailored style mma fighters have rules. No groin kicks, no eye gouges, no hits to the back of the head, no biting etc but in a real street fight there's 0 rules and anything goes as I'm sure you're aware of.

Again I'm not saying you're training won't help you because it will help more than just sitting around doing nothing so I hope you don't see my comments as negative to your training. 

Also yeah being in good shape does help for a few reasons. 1: if you look big and strong people may not try it with you (not a guarantee though but some won't) second if you get into a long fight you don't want to be out of breath quick and unable to fight. Lastly if you're in good shape and have good fitness you can run away easier and get away faster. That may sound stupid but there is no shame in running away at all I'd much rather run than get into a brawl. 

Good luck with your training and welcome to martial talk


----------



## drop bear

MMA will do fine.

There really isn't a safe defence against getting stabbed by the way.


----------



## moller18

Hey guys! thanks for the feedback. My first thought was Krav Maga, but the gyms in my city, is only teaching in the commercial part of krav maga, and not the one like they use in places like Israel. So MMA was the second best. And i wil NEVER try to use MMA against and armed guy.


----------



## Kickboxer101

moller18 said:


> Hey guys! thanks for the feedback. My first thought was Krav Maga, but the gyms in my city, is only teaching in the commercial part of krav maga, and not the one like they use in places like Israel. So MMA was the second best. And i wil NEVER try to use MMA against and armed guy.


At the end of the day anything will work some will this styles better than that style or that's useless etc but everything has its value and anythings better than nothing. Hopefully you'll never have to use it and you can just enjoy the training because to me that's the main thing anyone should look for and that's fun. Sure you want to learn to defend yourself but if you're learning how to defend yourself but hate going there you're only making your own life miserable training should never be something you think I have to do this but something you think I want to do this


----------



## drop bear

Joseph Torrez who killed armed intruder in home invasion will not be charged | Daily Mail Online

MMA and self defence.


----------



## Tames D

drop bear said:


> here really isn't a safe defence against getting stabbed by the way.


Glock 27


----------



## Hanzou

Stick with MMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> MMA will do fine.
> 
> There really isn't a safe defence against getting stabbed by the way.


Correct, in knife defense the goal isn't focused on not being stabbed or being cut,  it's focused on that being critically stabbed and cut.  A person that defends against a knife without getting any cuts has had a remarkable day.

If I wanted to learn self-defense then I would take something that has a self-defense focus.  If the MMA that he takes doesn't have a self-defense focus then he's still not learning much.  I know I'm not the only one that gets tired of saying this but there's more to self-defense than fighting.

I was recently told that what we teach in Jow Ga is too brutal and overboard.  I simply smiled and said that it's self-defense and it's almost always overboard, but that's the point.  It's not meant to be a sport, sometimes it's a fight for one's life.


----------



## frank raud

Kickboxer101 said:


> Mma is better than nothing and absolutely will help you in a fight but it won't help you to defend against getting stabbed because mma is mainly a sport so it won't teach you how to defend against weapons. I'm not saying mma isn't good for self defence because it Is absolutely but it's also not a self defence tailored style mma fighters have rules. No groin kicks, no eye gouges, no hits to the back of the head, no biting etc but in a real street fight there's 0 rules and anything goes as I'm sure you're aware of
> 
> k


Organizations such as ISR Matrix, Straight Blast Gyms and Shivworks have no problem basing their self defense programs on MMA,  including weapons (gun and knives) and 
LEO only courses.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Correct, in knife defense the goal isn't focused on not being stabbed or being cut,  it's focused on that being critically stabbed and cut.  A person that defends against a knife without getting any cuts has had a remarkable day.
> 
> If I wanted to learn self-defense then I would take something that has a self-defense focus.  If the MMA that he takes doesn't have a self-defense focus then he's still not learning much.  I know I'm not the only one that gets tired of saying this but there's more to self-defense than fighting.
> 
> I was recently told that what we teach in Jow Ga is too brutal and overboard.  I simply smiled and said that it's self-defense and it's almost always overboard, but that's the point.  It's not meant to be a sport, sometimes it's a fight for one's life.



I bet i come up with more real life examples of mma working effectively in self defence than you can come up with excuses why it doesn't.

Which begs the question where does that line of reasoning come from?

MMA fighter Monique Bastos foils robbery again


----------



## drop bear

frank raud said:


> Organizations such as ISR Matrix, Straight Blast Gyms and Shivworks have no problem basing their self defense programs on MMA,  including weapons (gun and knives) and
> LEO only courses.



Infantry training.
Dog brothers.


----------



## jks9199

And, as we go spiraling down the rabbit hole again...

Look, there's no magic in any style or system to prepare you for self defense.  The "magic" (for lack of a better term) is in the approach to your training.  If you want to prepare for self defense, you need to shape your training that way.  Research self defense.  Learn about the types of attacks and violence that you'll likely encounter.  Use that information to structure your training.  The rest of it?  It's really just packaging.  You may find one package or another works better for you, but they can all get the job done.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I bet i come up with more real life examples of mma working effectively in self defence than you can come up with excuses why it doesn't.
> 
> Which begs the question where does that line of reasoning come from?
> 
> MMA fighter Monique Bastos foils robbery again


I never said that MMA isn't good enough for self defense.   But if someone is looking for something that helps them to better defend themselves then that's where the training needs to be. If the MMA training is only sports focused and sports related then it will fail in self-defense as it does not cover any of the non-physical concepts, methods, and techniques of self-defense. Just because one MMA successfully fights of a guy with a weapon doesn't mean that someone else who knows MMA will be just successful

I can show you articles of MMA fighters who were at the top of their game still get shot by criminals, stabbed or even beaten by non-fighters.  So if the MMA school doesn't have a self-defense focus that includes things like awareness, how to recognize dangers, how to de-escalate, etc.,  then that MMA training is going to fall short in terms of self-defense.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I never said that MMA isn't good enough for self defense.   But if someone is looking for something that helps them to better defend themselves then that's where the training needs to be. If the MMA training is only sports focused and sports related then it will fail in self-defense as it does not cover any of the non-physical concepts, methods, and techniques of self-defense. Just because one MMA successfully fights of a guy with a weapon doesn't mean that someone else who knows MMA will be just successful
> 
> I can show you articles of MMA fighters who were at the top of their game still get shot by criminals, stabbed or even beaten by non-fighters.  So if the MMA school doesn't have a self-defense focus that includes things like awareness, how to recognize dangers, how to de-escalate, etc. then that MMA training is going to fall short in terms of self-defense.




So you have another opinion. And that is fine. How are you supporting that?

Oh look.


----------



## JowGaWolf

MMA fighter fatally stabbed
Former MMA Fighter And Instructor Wyatt Lewis Fatally Stabbed In Calgary
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/9/4/3292391/mma-wyatt-lewis-stabbed-calgary-mma-news
Here's another who was stabbed outside a pub
Former UFC fighter Dan Lauzon stabbed outside pub in Massachusetts
http://www.mmamania.com/2011/2/17/1...n-lauzon-stabbed-outside-pub-in-massachusetts
I would never teach anyone physical self-defense and give them the assumption that their skills will protect them in such a way that it's not necessary to avoid danger in the first place.  There are many people who don't have MMA fighting skills who have stopped robbers and defended themselves against home invaders, attackers, and thugs.  I'm not sure why people parade MMA fighters around in this light when so many people before them with less skills have use their non-MMA self-defense skills to stay safe.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So you have another opinion. And that is fine. How are you supporting that?
> 
> Oh look.


Grandmother Fights off Attacker
Grandmother Fights off Purse Snatcher
Grandmother Fights off would be Kidnapper
Grandmother Fights off Intruder
Great Grandmother fights off home intruder

If you like I can find the articles about kids who have done similar feats.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Grandmother Fights off Attacker
> Grandmother Fights off Purse Snatcher
> Grandmother Fights off would be Kidnapper
> Grandmother Fights off Intruder
> Great Grandmother fights off home intruder
> 
> If you like I can find the articles about kids who have done similar feats.



Which is why you don't mess with grandmothers. You look at the methods applied and you will see what works. 
MMA fighter praised as Oregon shooting hero


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Which is why you don't mess with grandmothers. You look at the methods applied and you will see what works.
> MMA fighter praised as Oregon shooting hero


  So you are saying that MMA help prepare him to take 5 bullets?
Teacher stopped school shooting
School Office admin talks down gunman
Female teacher stops school shooting
Student takes gun from a university shooter

None of these people were MMA fighters and none of them had MMA fighting skills. 

Man in wheel chair stops robbery


----------



## Tames D




----------



## KangTsai

moller18 said:


> Hey guys! thanks for the feedback. My first thought was Krav Maga, but the gyms in my city, is only teaching in the commercial part of krav maga, and not the one like they use in places like Israel. So MMA was the second best. And i wil NEVER try to use MMA against and armed guy.


The only reliable option against an armed guy is etiquette and parkour.


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, bro. Sorry about all the bad things you've experienced, but you survived, maybe all that's behind you now.

Keep us posted as how you like what you're training. Sure can't hurt any. Best of luck.


----------



## moller18

Thanks guys, well my first thought were IDF krav maga, but i cant find a krav maga gym, in my city which only teach commercial style. So i gonna stick to mma, because i thought that were the most krav maga like. The gym i train at have focus on striking, wrestling, jiu jitsu. And then i have told my instructor, that i only train for self defense, so i dont wanna practice the sport aspect, and only fighting.


----------



## Tez3

moller18 said:


> so i dont wanna practice the sport aspect, and only fighting.



You know fighting and self defence isn't the same thing?


----------



## marques

moller18 said:


> Hey Guys! first off sorry for the silly topic name, and sorry if posted in wrong section!
> 
> Im just got started to MMA ( focus on striking, wrestling and jiu jitsu ) i do mma twice a week, and then im in the gym 4 for strength and look, for 45 -60 minutes only. I have some questions for you. The ONLY reason why i do workout beside keeping myself healthy is self defense. I have been attacked twice by a group, and stabbed one of the times. Not because of my attitude, once because i stood up for my girlfriend and the other, because i was at the wrong place at the wrong place. So now i have decide i wanna be able to defend myself, IF talking or running, aint the option. So do you guys think that mma is a good thing, together with strength training. For this purpose?
> 
> The otherside i know a important thing, of getting stronger, bigger and faster, is the diet. I eat a lot of beef and veggies, and water. Dont eat to many carbs, only around working out, im mostly eating to get my proteins.
> 
> Viking


I keep rephrasing myself, as the same questions come again and again.

You have two options:

1) You go for a competitive style, which the main end is the ring/cage... (even if most of us don't go until that end) and then you (need to) do yourself the link to the self-defence situations. You will gain, eventually, good technique but you need to adapt the strategy and mindset to your end (self-defence).

2) Or you go straightforward to a self-defence system (or SD oriented martial art). You may find exactly what you are looking for (and) the good mindset, the reasonable force, the SD scenarios... or just find rubbish. Even Muay Thai and BJJ have fancy things in the curriculum (perhaps just for some training purpose), but when it comes to the competition (or just competitive sparring) you are forced to use short and 'simple' movements. That is the good technique. (Or you are Saenchai and can even apply the cartwheel kick.  ) Without clear opposition (always for 'safety reasons') in an unpredictable environment, the technique will never be refined and ready for use (which is quite common in entitled SD stuff). When the technique is quite useful, you still need to add a good mindset (determination, stress management...)...

It is quite a choice between a good technique for a different purpose and the right purpose with the bad technique.  But it is not a fatality. Just my personal statistic. 

Anyway, try anything you can afford (price, distance...). And choose after.
My 50c.


----------



## Hanzou

Good luck defending yourself if you can't fight your way out of a paper bag.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Good luck defending yourself if you can't fight your way out of a paper bag.



I'm somewhat puzzled as to what he's actually training, if he's not using MMA ( because it's just a sport lol) yet trains other sports such as wrestling. I'm also not sure why he thinks 'commercial' KM is so bad also why he thinks MMA is KM like but won't use it for defence. As for thinking training wrestling is fighting that too is puzzling. Striking bags is fine when bags attack you you'll be well rehearsed.
I do get fed up with people who think that if you do MMA you cannot possible be able to defend yourself because there's no referee and corners in 'da street', very shortsighted thinking.


----------



## FireSnake

moller18 said:


> The otherside i know a important thing, of getting stronger, bigger and faster, is the diet. I eat a lot of beef and veggies, and water. Dont eat to many carbs, only around working out, im mostly eating to get my proteins.



First off, I am so sorry to hear that you have been attacked on a few occasions, and glad that you survived being stabbed. I can definitely understand your desire to learn self defence. You may find as you continue training that a martial art can be much more than fitness and fighting. 

I wanted to weigh in here on the diet part of your message. That's fantastic about eating the veggies! Get a lot of deep greens like spinach, kale, and broccoli. You mentioned beef, but let me sound a note of caution about red meat. If you can source more of your protein from fish and poultry, it might be better health-wise. Other people may disagree, but limiting beef intake to something moderate might be better for your heart. Protein supplements are also ok if you obtain good quality ones. Diets high in protein can be a bit tougher on the kidneys, so good on you for getting a lot of water. And if you are working as hard as you say, you'll definitely be chugging back a lot more water to keep hydrated! I'm not a nutritionist, so do what works for your body's requirements. Listen to it: your body has a way of telling you when what you eat is not satisfying its needs in terms of nutrients and energy levels. Welcome to MT.


----------



## Kickboxer101

moller18 said:


> Thanks guys, well my first thought were IDF krav maga, but i cant find a krav maga gym, in my city which only teach commercial style. So i gonna stick to mma, because i thought that were the most krav maga like. The gym i train at have focus on striking, wrestling, jiu jitsu. And then i have told my instructor, that i only train for self defense, so i dont wanna practice the sport aspect, and only fighting.




Mma is a sport though. You go to an mma class it's for sport. Same as when I go to kickboxing its for sport. They won't teach you what to do if someone attacks with a club or if more than 1 person attacks you because those factors aren't in the sport. Also no mma is not like Krav Maga. Krav Maga isn't like a sport. To me the closest I can think of is American kenpo. Kenpo teaches groin attacks, throat attacks, attacks to the eyes, wrist locks, grabs and chokes defence, teaches how to block takedowns and teaches takedowns and chokes and joint manipulations and teaches how to deal with weapons and multiple attacks. 

Now this isn't me promoting my own style because I haven't trained kenpo In years and by all means keep training mma but you have to realise the difference between them


----------



## Headhunter

Hanzou said:


> Good luck defending yourself if you can't fight your way out of a paper bag.


Wow great advice I'm sure the op really got a lot of help from you


----------



## wingchun100

moller18 said:


> Hey Guys! first off sorry for the silly topic name, and sorry if posted in wrong section!
> 
> Im just got started to MMA ( focus on striking, wrestling and jiu jitsu ) i do mma twice a week, and then im in the gym 4 for strength and look, for 45 -60 minutes only. I have some questions for you. The ONLY reason why i do workout beside keeping myself healthy is self defense. I have been attacked twice by a group, and stabbed one of the times. Not because of my attitude, once because i stood up for my girlfriend and the other, because i was at the wrong place at the wrong place. So now i have decide i wanna be able to defend myself, IF talking or running, aint the option. So do you guys think that mma is a good thing, together with strength training. For this purpose?
> 
> The otherside i know a important thing, of getting stronger, bigger and faster, is the diet. I eat a lot of beef and veggies, and water. Dont eat to many carbs, only around working out, im mostly eating to get my proteins.
> 
> Viking


 
Any chance you can go to MMA more than twice a week? You want to get as much sparring under your belt as you can because you need to get those reflexes engrained in your muscle memory. You need to learn how to read body language, so you can automatically pick up on what kind of attack is getting thrown. The only way to do that is to get in the ring/on the mat as much as you can.


----------



## moller18

Hey guys i think that i may have been giving you guys an wrong view on my opinion.

I do know that mma i a sport, and that for self defense, the best aspect would be a self defense sport/class whatever. BUT we only have one krav mage gym around, and to me it doesnt seem that serious, and i have been taking a look at the instructors ceritifications, and all of them is achieved over a weekend, which to me seems abit odd. So i thought in a self defense aspect, it would be good to learn to defend yourself in all angles, also on the ground if you should end up there. But the ground rules on self defense is 1: Talk 2: Run 3: run faster 4: Fight/defend 5: dont end up on the ground. And it seems some guys think im sitting here talking down on one sport over the others, i dont. I just thought i would take the second best to krav maga in my opinion. And sure i spar, i wouldnt go to a krav maga class, who doesnt spar either.


----------



## Tez3

moller18 said:


> a self defense sport/



Self defence isn't really a _sport_.



moller18 said:


> i have been taking a look at the instructors ceritifications, and all of them is achieved over a weekend, which to me seems abit odd



That can depend on what other qualifications the instructors have. A lot of people already have qualifications in other effective styles and take a KM one just to take the classes. We don't train KM per se but much of what they do is also done in other styles so we know a lot of what is done. The best way to actually tell how good they are is to take a class. They may be rubbish but they may well not be.

For self defence you need more than techniques you need a mindset, have a look at stuff from Geoff Thompson especially 'The Fence'. Peter Consterdine's work is good as is Kevin O'Hagan and Mo Teague.


----------



## moller18

Hey Tez3 you are right. I will take that you consideration.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's note:*

Folks, I'm going to ask y'all that things be kept civil here.  If you do not like someone, then feel free to use the "ignore" feature that is part of the Xenforo software.


----------



## Paul_D

duplicate post, nothing to see here


----------



## Paul_D

Whilst MMA will of course teach you to throw a good punch (and many other things of course) if your experiences have so far been of being atatcked by groups, then you will need to find some other way training that seperatly, as MMA doesn't generally teach you to deal with multiple attackers.


----------



## Paul_D

KangTsai said:


> The only reliable option against an armed guy is etiquette and parkour.


So you wouldn't consider Threat Awareness & Evaluation, and Target Hardening are of any use?


----------



## Kickboxer101

moller18 said:


> Hey Tez3 you are right. I will take that you consideration.


At the end of the day if you enjoy mma then keep doing mma simple as that


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> So you are saying that MMA help prepare him to take 5 bullets?
> Teacher stopped school shooting
> School Office admin talks down gunman
> Female teacher stops school shooting
> Student takes gun from a university shooter
> 
> None of these people were MMA fighters and none of them had MMA fighting skills.
> 
> Man in wheel chair stops robbery



Exept i am not really sure you evidence is invalidating mine.

Birds fly.

No you are wrong because planes fly?

And boop. 
Jon Jones catches a robber in Paterson N.J., before UFC 128 fight


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Whilst MMA will of course teach you to throw a good punch (and many other things of course) if your experiences have so far been of being atatcked by groups, then you will need to find some other way training that seperatly, as MMA doesn't generally teach you to deal with multiple attackers.



Not really. A martial art does not actually have to be that specific. It just has to be fundamentally well built.

And there is nothing stopping you from learning extra skill.  Like in OP, s case he is doing fitness on the side. 

I have mentioned that fox karamit before.  Specifically a self defence knife.  But as a basic design it is a dud.

OP will probably find the same issue with the krav.  He may train specifically for multiples or whatever but if the instructors are getting ranked up in two weeks. Then the basic design is a dud.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Exept i am not really sure you evidence is invalidating mine.
> 
> Birds fly.
> 
> No you are wrong because planes fly?
> 
> And boop.
> Jon Jones catches a robber in Paterson N.J., before UFC 128 fight


I'm not trying to invalidate what you post. 
It's just that you think only MMA fighters stop criminals

Please  See mark (7:00 and 7:56) or just watch the entire video because it's good. This is the point that those who are familiar with the the difference between self-defense and sports fighting are trying to get across to you.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not trying to invalidate what you post.
> It's just that you think only MMA fighters stop criminals
> 
> Please  See mark (7:00 and 7:56) or just watch the entire video because it's good. This is the point that those who are familiar with the the difference between self-defense and sports fighting are trying to get across to you.



Show me where i said only mma fighters stop criminals. I was going for mma is validated buy successful verifiable street experience.

Now there are not that many martial arts that can claim the same. 

MMA fighters subdue armed gunman in robbery attempt at Los Angeles hotel

How exactly are you familiar with the difference between self defence and sports?

Does sport jujitsu really reflect the same dynamics as sport mma?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not trying to invalidate what you post.
> It's just that you think only MMA fighters stop criminals
> 
> Please  See mark (7:00 and 7:56) or just watch the entire video because it's good. This is the point that those who are familiar with the the difference between self-defense and sports fighting are trying to get across to you.



The main difference between SD Bjj and Sport Bjj is the exclusion of striking.  The point Gracies are talking about here is that when you add striking to the equation, it changes how you grapple and sport Bjj guys should be prepared to deal with strikes if they're grappling with someone in a SD situation.

MMA doesn't really have that problem because striking is always part of the equation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Show me where i said only mma fighters stop criminals. I was going for mma is validated buy successful verifiable street experience.


 You are still missing the point.  



drop bear said:


> How exactly are you familiar with the difference between self defence and sports?


Where do you want me to start? The 2 separate occasions where I had a gun pointed at my head, people stalking me while cycling, or would like to hear the one about the car that tried to follow me home? I can repeat my story about my encounter with drug dealers who were literally recruiting their friends so they could jump me at night. Or would you like to hear some stories from my teen years where I fought someone who was a little more than 2 fee taller than I was and weighed double my weight. I could tell you the time about how I rescued a teen from an adult who was physically assaulting him.  Or maybe you would like to hear how I've avoid fights, shootouts, and robberies.  If that's not enough then maybe I can tell you what happened to 2 people who didn't listen to me. Maybe you would like to hear a story about me as child watching my mother getting sexually harassed.  I have plenty of stories about me standing up to bullies as a kid.  Tons of stories about me being in conflicts as an adult, but was able to prevent those conflicts from turning into fights.  Maybe the story about someone who tried to break into my house is good one. Or how a car followed my wife while she was walking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The main difference between SD Bjj and Sport Bjj is the exclusion of striking.  The point Gracies are talking about here is that when you add striking to the equation, it changes how you grapple and sport Bjj guys should be prepared to deal with strikes if they're grappling with someone in a SD situation.
> 
> MMA doesn't really have that problem because striking is always part of the equation.


 All systems have the problem of sports vs self-defense..  Once again you make the assumption that self-defense is only about striking.











1:40  See even he knows the difference


----------



## JowGaWolf




----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> All systems have the problem of sports vs self-defense..  Once again you make the assumption that self-defense is only about striking.



I didn't say that striking was the ONLY difference, I said that it was the MAIN difference. There's other differences as well, but they're fairly minor in comparison.




> 1:40  See even he knows the difference



With all due respect to Royce, he was full of crap in that video and came off like a hypocrite.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say that striking was the ONLY difference, I said that it was the MAIN difference. There's other differences as well, but they're fairly minor in comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Royce, he was full of crap in that video and came off like a hypocrite.



The true source of jujitsu stuff was a bit weird.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You are still missing the point.
> 
> Where do you want me to start? The 2 separate occasions where I had a gun pointed at my head, people stalking me while cycling, or would like to hear the one about the car that tried to follow me home? I can repeat my story about my encounter with drug dealers who were literally recruiting their friends so they could jump me at night. Or would you like to hear some stories from my teen years where I fought someone who was a little more than 2 fee taller than I was and weighed double my weight. I could tell you the time about how I rescued a teen from an adult who was physically assaulting him.  Or maybe you would like to hear how I've avoid fights, shootouts, and robberies.  If that's not enough then maybe I can tell you what happened to 2 people who didn't listen to me. Maybe you would like to hear a story about me as child watching my mother getting sexually harassed.  I have plenty of stories about me standing up to bullies as a kid.  Tons of stories about me being in conflicts as an adult, but was able to prevent those conflicts from turning into fights.  Maybe the story about someone who tried to break into my house is good one. Or how a car followed my wife while she was walking.



And you dealt with some of those using sports training and some using street training and compared the difference?

Or understand how the methods impact the results?

I mean the statement was how you were familiar with the difference between self defence and sport.  Not just being familiar with self defence.

Now i will have a watch of those videos when i get home.  But bear in mind that you are just posting people's opinions. I don't really have to tale their word for it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And you dealt with some of those using sports training and some using street training and compared the difference?


Yes, when I learned the hard way that sport fighting is not the same as self-defense.  That was in a fight that I almost lost.  The only thing that kept me from losing that fight wasn't my ability to fight but my ability to keep my distance and prevent him form getting with in range to strike me. (aka run away).

There is also an air of malice that comes with street fights that isn't present in a sports fight.  I can fight in 100's of professional UFC fights and never get the same fear and urgency that comes with being in a self-defense situation.  I don't care how bad ground in pound is in the ring it's never has the same malice and fear that it has when it's done in the street.

I've done sports fighting, just not on a professional level. With sports I don't get the same concern about my existence because I know there is a ref there. I know if I have had more than I can take, I can quit and the fight will be over.  I know at the end, the guy that I'm fighting with will probably say "Good fight." I haven't had one that didn't say it, win or lose.  I know that if I need medical attention that someone will be there to give it.  I know there are rules that have to be followed during a sports fighting. I know that there are no ambushes or dark corners in MMA. I know that the rules were put there for the safety of the fighters.  This means that even as brutal as professional MMA is, it can get worse, and on the streets it often does.

I didn't post the videos so that you would take their word.  I posted the videos so that you could see a different perspective from people who do sports fighting and how they felt about self-defense.

On a personal level I don't care if you accept any of what is being said or shown, because I know without a doubt that self-defense is one of the topics where people either understand or learn the hard way about self-defense.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> The true source of jujitsu stuff was a bit weird.



It's hard to take the man seriously when he says that competition isn't part of Bjj while he and his family used Bjj in competition to make tons of money.


----------



## Kickboxer101

At the end of the day with all this fighting is fighting a punch is a punch a kick is a kick. It doesn't matter if its a sport punch or a self defence punch its still a punch. Kickboxing is a sport and I've used it to defend myself numerous times. I know I have a kenpo background as well which I have used as well I've used a mix of the kenpo tecniques and my kickboxing training but absolutely kickboxing can be used for defence. Look at Bruce lee he wanted to train purely self defence and he took a lot of principles from boxing and put it into his style


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> It's hard to take the man seriously when he says that competition isn't part of Bjj while he and his family used Bjj in competition to make tons of money.



I don't think Royce has ever come off well in an interview, even considering the language barrier. He's the last Jits guy I ever want to hear from, no knock on him or his style, just on his interviews. That guy doing the interview - damn, he's even worse.

To the part of the family making money from competitions - if you think about it, when thy first brought BJJ to the attention of the American  public, there wasn't any way to make money from _anything_ concerning Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, I never knew anyone who had actually heard of it, and I was deeply entrenched in the Martial world at the time. They sure changed that. Man, did they change that.


----------



## moller18

Please guys keep focus! 

I have been in contact with Lior Offenbach, and talked about my situation with him. He told me that i could use mma instead of krav maga, when i dont have that opportunity. I just had to focus more on the striking, distance movement and strike and move etc. so until i find a krav maga gym that actually have some decend training, i will do this with my mma instructor.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes, when I learned the hard way that sport fighting is not the same as self-defense.  That was in a fight that I almost lost.  The only thing that kept me from losing that fight wasn't my ability to fight but my ability to keep my distance and prevent him form getting with in range to strike me. (aka run away).
> 
> There is also an air of malice that comes with street fights that isn't present in a sports fight.  I can fight in 100's of professional UFC fights and never get the same fear and urgency that comes with being in a self-defense situation.  I don't care how bad ground in pound is in the ring it's never has the same malice and fear that it has when it's done in the street.
> 
> I've done sports fighting, just not on a professional level. With sports I don't get the same concern about my existence because I know there is a ref there. I know if I have had more than I can take, I can quit and the fight will be over.  I know at the end, the guy that I'm fighting with will probably say "Good fight." I haven't had one that didn't say it, win or lose.  I know that if I need medical attention that someone will be there to give it.  I know there are rules that have to be followed during a sports fighting. I know that there are no ambushes or dark corners in MMA. I know that the rules were put there for the safety of the fighters.  This means that even as brutal as professional MMA is, it can get worse, and on the streets it often does.
> 
> I didn't post the videos so that you would take their word.  I posted the videos so that you could see a different perspective from people who do sports fighting and how they felt about self-defense.
> 
> On a personal level I don't care if you accept any of what is being said or shown, because I know without a doubt that self-defense is one of the topics where people either understand or learn the hard way about self-defense.




And so self defence training reflects the life and death nature of a street fight more accurately? 

You can use the tools learned in MMA. in dark corners, against ambushes and even against malicious people. (we have seen that every single post I have made) You can even add to those tools with other skills from outside MMA. But you need those basic tools first. There are very few illegal moves that cannot be trained using legal ones. Now this is important because the effectiveness of any move relyes on the individuals ability to apply it.

Competition places importance on the result of the training which you will struggle to get otherwise. You cant really learn to win if there is no cost to loosing. You also can't send people off into street fights as it defeats the purpose of self defence. So you get limited things you can do in a training setting.

Your mindset has to last the whole fight. For most people it does not go much past the first punch. MMA and sport in general use the method of pressure testing the person and the system to develop this. To do that you need rules because too much risk is detremental to creating a stronger willed person. You can't train effectively without rules. 

 If you can incapacitate a person using pads, using rules, and without malice. You will be better equiped to incapacitate someone when you dont use rules.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Tez3 said:


> I'm somewhat puzzled as to what he's actually training, if he's not using MMA ( because it's just a sport lol) yet trains other sports such as wrestling. I'm also not sure why he thinks 'commercial' KM is so bad also why he thinks MMA is KM like but won't use it for defence. As for thinking training wrestling is fighting that too is puzzling. Striking bags is fine when bags attack you you'll be well rehearsed.
> I do get fed up with people who think that if you do MMA you cannot possible be able to defend yourself because there's no referee and corners in 'da street', very shortsighted thinking.



MMA can of course help you in self defense but it's important to understand the limitations of it. Nobody is denying that a decent punch works just as well on the street as it does in the ring, but as you are well aware fighting on the street is so much more than that. I would say that when it comes to self-defense getting a base training in MMA is great but after that you will need to branch out and get more specialist self defense training which includes weapons defense and multiple threat fighting. 

One thing that I don't think has really been discussed so far is the mindset. Even though MMA ring fights have very few rules, they do have them and this can affect a fighter's mindset. Having that safety net of the referee allows you to do some things that would be very dangerous to do on the street. After all, if you make a mistake in an MMA fight, chances are you'll just lose the round or at worse get knocked out. On the street that same mistake could lead to your death. If you try and take the MMA mindset and exact fighting style into a street fight you could very well end up putting yourself at more risk.


----------



## Hanzou

Midnight-shadow said:


> MMA can of course help you in self defense but it's important to understand the limitations of it. Nobody is denying that a decent punch works just as well on the street as it does in the ring, but as you are well aware fighting on the street is so much more than that. I would say that when it comes to self-defense getting a base training in MMA is great but after that you will need to branch out and get more specialist self defense training which includes weapons defense and multiple threat fighting.
> 
> One thing that I don't think has really been discussed so far is the mindset. Even though MMA ring fights have very few rules, they do have them and this can affect a fighter's mindset. Having that safety net of the referee allows you to do some things that would be very dangerous to do on the street. After all, if you make a mistake in an MMA fight, chances are you'll just lose the round or at worse get knocked out. On the street that same mistake could lead to your death. If you try and take the MMA mindset and exact fighting style into a street fight you could very well end up putting yourself at more risk.



It's fair to say that MMA will get you better prepared for a bad situation than some martial art that was created in medieval Asia.


----------



## drop bear

Midnight-shadow said:


> MMA can of course help you in self defense but it's important to understand the limitations of it. Nobody is denying that a decent punch works just as well on the street as it does in the ring, but as you are well aware fighting on the street is so much more than that. I would say that when it comes to self-defense getting a base training in MMA is great but after that you will need to branch out and get more specialist self defense training which includes weapons defense and multiple threat fighting.
> 
> One thing that I don't think has really been discussed so far is the mindset. Even though MMA ring fights have very few rules, they do have them and this can affect a fighter's mindset. Having that safety net of the referee allows you to do some things that would be very dangerous to do on the street. After all, if you make a mistake in an MMA fight, chances are you'll just lose the round or at worse get knocked out. On the street that same mistake could lead to your death. If you try and take the MMA mindset and exact fighting style into a street fight you could very well end up putting yourself at more risk.



Ok. so how exactly are you training your mindset to win Self defencies.


----------



## JowGaWolf

moller18 said:


> Please guys keep focus!
> 
> I have been in contact with Lior Offenbach, and talked about my situation with him. He told me that i could use mma instead of krav maga, when i dont have that opportunity. I just had to focus more on the striking, distance movement and strike and move etc. so until i find a krav maga gym that actually have some decend training, i will do this with my mma instructor.


That's great. It seems as if you are getting some insight on how to focus your MMA training so that it will meet what you want to get out of self-defense.


drop bear said:


> And so self defence training reflects the life and death nature of a street fight more accurately?
> 
> You can use the tools learned in MMA. in dark corners, against ambushes and even against malicious people. (we have seen that every single post I have made) You can even add to those tools with other skills from outside MMA. But you need those basic tools first. There are very few illegal moves that cannot be trained using legal ones. Now this is important because the effectiveness of any move relyes on the individuals ability to apply it.
> 
> Competition places importance on the result of the training which you will struggle to get otherwise. You cant really learn to win if there is no cost to loosing. You also can't send people off into street fights as it defeats the purpose of self defence. So you get limited things you can do in a training setting.
> 
> Your mindset has to last the whole fight. For most people it does not go much past the first punch. MMA and sport in general use the method of pressure testing the person and the system to develop this. To do that you need rules because too much risk is detremental to creating a stronger willed person. You can't train effectively without rules.
> 
> If you can incapacitate a person using pads, using rules, and without malice. You will be better equiped to incapacitate someone when you dont use rules.


Self-defense would have stated not to engage the person physically if you don't have to.  What I saw here was an MMA fighter go after a person who was walking away.  While the guy person did push the boxes, he didn't push the guy in the black shirt. It was the guy in the black shirt that initiated the attack.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> That's great. It seems as if you are getting some insight on how to focus your MMA training so that it will meet what you want to get out of self-defense.
> 
> Self-defense would have stated not to engage the person physically if you don't have to.  What I saw here was an MMA fighter go after a person who was walking away.  While the guy person did push the boxes, he didn't push the guy in the black shirt. It was the guy in the black shirt that initiated the attack.



The bit you missed out to focus on the video is.

Does self defence training reflect the life and death nature of a street fight more accurately? Is self defence training restriced by rules and safety mesures?

We are talking about training for self defence and what can be reasonably achieved. You cant set up impossible goals for people. It is unmanageable.

As far as the video. When you train for self defence you need to consider potential threats as well as actual assults. If someone is attacking you every time your back is turned you need to address that threat.

You cant just leave the guy hanging around.






And of course. The MMA examples just keep on coming. All these people who understand how sports training actually relates to self defence. Wow there are just so many.
Burglar picks wrong house; MMA fighter beats him 'with mercy'


----------



## drop bear

The mental game has been mentioned regarding the stress of self defence. There is an equivalent stepping in to the ring as it can be quite a mental hurdle. Here are some common reactions and how to mitigate them somewhat.

5 Tips For Your First Muay Thai Fight


----------



## Buka

moller18 said:


> Please guys keep focus!
> 
> I have been in contact with Lior Offenbach, and talked about my situation with him. He told me that i could use mma instead of krav maga, when i dont have that opportunity. I just had to focus more on the striking, distance movement and strike and move etc. so until i find a krav maga gym that actually have some decend training, i will do this with my mma instructor.



You go, bro. It's all going to be good anyway. Have a ball, let us know how it goes.


----------



## JR 137

Hanzou said:


> It's fair to say that MMA will get you better prepared for a bad situation than some martial art that was created in medieval Asia.



I don't know why I'm bothering wasting my time with this post, but anyway...

The "medieval Asian arts" flaws aren't the arts themselves (for the most part), it's the current training methods in some places.  Not enough resistance during training and taking idiotic beliefs like "this is too dangerous to practice against an opponent" seriously.  Some things obviously shouldn't be done with much force to a training partner - knife hand to the throat or back of the neck, kicks to the knees, etc.

You shouldn't lump all "medieval Asian arts" into one McDojo crap sandwich.  Far too many full-contact/hard contact schools out there for that.  Far too many zero contact schools too though.

If you took some MMA schools and made them light contact with a point fighting aspect similar in scope to point fighting, MMA wouldn't be garbage, the schools that taught that nonsense would be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Joseph Torrez who killed armed intruder in home invasion will not be charged | Daily Mail Online
> 
> MMA and self defence.


Aren't you the one who dislikes anecdotal evidence? 

To the OP: MMA is certainly a reasonable approach to self-defense development. As others have noted, there are limitations (no training in weapon defenses). There are also advantages (you're working against folks who are pushing you as hard as possible part of the time). If MMA appeals to you, it's probably a good fit for your needs.


----------



## oaktree

What the sports Orient arts focus on is winning, and on an unconscious level one is condition under a rule set, because the focus is not killing your opponent which is the condition used in other arts.
What makes someone dangerous on the street is the potential to kill you and going into a fight you have to be in that context of mind to think any less is a foolish assumption. The problem with sport Orient arts is that despite all the sparring, cage fighting, condition cardio it doesn't mean anything against the guy who wants nothing but to kill you with the knife he is hiding behind his back and you fully charged in thinking you can tackle or him or strike him.
I'm talking about the guy who when you grappler with and your ear exposed he bites it off, the guy who shoves a pencil in your trachea and this is what fighting on the street in alley ways is throats slashed open with broken beer bottles, is your mind prepared for this does your art prepare you to deal with this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oaktree said:


> What the sports Orient arts focus on is winning, and on an unconscious level one is condition under a rule set, because the focus is not killing your opponent which is the condition used in other arts.
> What makes someone dangerous on the street is the potential to kill you and going into a fight you have to be in that context of mind to think any less is a foolish assumption. The problem with sport Orient arts is that despite all the sparring, cage fighting, condition cardio it doesn't mean anything against the guy who wants nothing but to kill you with the knife he is hiding behind his back and you fully charged in thinking you can tackle or him or strike him.
> I'm talking about the guy who when you grappler with and your ear exposed he bites it off, the guy who shoves a pencil in your trachea and this is what fighting on the street in alley ways is throats slashed open with broken beer bottles, is your mind prepared for this does your art prepare you to deal with this?


This is an over-stated case. Sport-oriented styles that train for hard contact actually do a decent job of preparing for defense. While they usually have some in-built limitations in the scope of their practice, they usually train with harder contact and get themselves in better shape. IMO, this is a good offset to the difference in focus.

Now, if we are talking point-sparring competitions, then that's a valid point. Unless, of course, you compare them to "self-defense" training that only moves slow, uses predictable, over-committed, and single- movement attacks, in which case the point-sparrer may actually have the advantage.

I prefer to train specifically for self-defense. There are those who train much harder than I do, who happen to be in sport styles, who are at least as well prepared.


----------



## oaktree

They prepare someone to go toe to toe with someone that's it. That is someone who agrees to go that way and square off, sure an mma fighter has a better chance.
But no one can predict what the other guy is going to do, what his mindset is, does he have weapons and mma prepares someone to go in to fight and square off as they do in sparring or cage fight.
Let me give you an example with someone I recently had visit me he was a bjj guy nice guy. So we were talking about Street fights and asked him so how would you approach a street fight initial move thought. He said he would assume a fighting stance, look for a way to close the gap, take him down and submit him, I said that's good here is how o assume it, I assume you have a weapon, I assume you want to kill me, I assume if I close the gap we grapple you pull out weapn and use it. I assume if we try to strike you use the weapon. My goal is to make him home alive I don't care who wins, if I have to bite your ear off stab you, tear your trachea out with my bare hands to get home that's what I do and that sir is the difference between sport Orient arts and realistic Street defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oaktree said:


> They prepare someone to go toe to toe with someone that's it. That is someone who agrees to go that way and square off, sure an mma fighter has a better chance.
> But no one can predict what the other guy is going to do, what his mindset is, does he have weapons and mma prepares someone to go in to fight and square off as they do in sparring or cage fight.
> Let me give you an example with someone I recently had visit me he was a bjj guy nice guy. So we were talking about Street fights and asked him so how would you approach a street fight initial move thought. He said he would assume a fighting stance, look for a way to close the gap, take him down and submit him, I said that's good here is how o assume it, I assume you have a weapon, I assume you want to kill me, I assume if I close the gap we grapple you pull out weapn and use it. I assume if we try to strike you use the weapon. My goal is to make him home alive I don't care who wins, if I have to bite your ear off stab you, tear your trachea out with my bare hands to get home that's what I do and that sir is the difference between sport Orient arts and realistic Street defense.


There are plenty of MMA-trained folks using that training to work doors (bouncers) and make arrests. Their training is not nearly so narrowly useful as your statements would suggest. Yes, they have some habits that are not well-suited to a defensive situation, but the question you put to that BJJ guy is not really a self-defense scenario, either. Because that BJJ guy is trained to keep his opponent's hands off him (assuming he's gi-trained, especially), he'll actually have some instincts and movements that will serve him reasonably if a weapon is involved.

As for the other guy drawing a weapon if you close, that's something that has been discussed in other threads. Once you close, he should have a really hard time getting to that weapon...or even thinking about it. If you are closing when he's not attacking and a weapon isn't already in evidence, I'm not sure why you're closing, at all.


----------



## oaktree

gpseymour said:


> There are plenty of MMA-trained folks using that training to work doors (bouncers) and make arrests. Their training is not nearly so narrowly useful as your statements would suggest. Yes, they have some habits that are not well-suited to a defensive situation, but the question you put to that BJJ guy is not really a self-defense scenario, either. Because that BJJ guy is trained to keep his opponent's hands off him (assuming he's gi-trained, especially), he'll actually have some instincts and movements that will serve him reasonably if a weapon is involved.
> 
> As for the other guy drawing a weapon if you close, that's something that has been discussed in other threads. Once you close, he should have a really hard time getting to that weapon...or even thinking about it. If you are closing when he's not attacking and a weapon isn't already in evidence, I'm not sure why you're closing, at all.


Well just agree to disagree I have said my piece personally, I find these discussions to be kicking a dead horse with different chess pieces best of luck to you


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Aren't you the one who dislikes anecdotal evidence?
> 
> To the OP: MMA is certainly a reasonable approach to self-defense development. As others have noted, there are limitations (no training in weapon defenses). There are also advantages (you're working against folks who are pushing you as hard as possible part of the time). If MMA appeals to you, it's probably a good fit for your needs.



I like evidence with a source.

There is a tactical shift from sport to self defence but the posts so far haven't really addressed the differences in any meaningful manner.

It instead has been this no rules fiction. Which in general is looking at the wrong things.

Or like oaktree just did where he suggested that mma cant address a knife attack.  Which makes sense because its a frigging knife.  You will get stabbed MMAing knife guys. But biting dudes ears of doesn't stop you getting stabbed either. 

In reality there are different guidelines.  And extra factors to consider.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I like evidence with a source.
> 
> There is a tactical shift from sport to self defence but the posts so far haven't really addressed the differences in any meaningful manner.
> 
> It instead has been this no rules fiction. Which in general is looking at the wrong things.
> 
> Or like oaktree just did where he suggested that mma cant address a knife attack.  Which makes sense because its a frigging knife.  You will get stabbed MMAing knife guys. But biting dudes ears of doesn't stop you getting stabbed either.
> 
> In reality there are different guidelines.  And extra factors to consider.


"Evidence with a source"  is evidence. Anecdotal evidence is "stories" with trustworthy sources. That was the point you seemed not to understand in that discussion.

That said, I agree. Hell, you're likely to get stabbed doing much of anything to someone with a knife. The odds can be shifted somewhat by having training around knife defenses, but a very good MMA fighter isn't exactly useless in that scenario.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "Evidence with a source"  is evidence. Anecdotal evidence is "stories" with trustworthy sources. That was the point you seemed not to understand in that discussion.
> 
> That said, I agree. Hell, you're likely to get stabbed doing much of anything to someone with a knife. The odds can be shifted somewhat by having training around knife defenses, but a very good MMA fighter isn't exactly useless in that scenario.



There is so much mythology regarding knife stuff that you pretty much need to be sceptical of all of it.

We just really dont know the risk reward aspect of unarmed vs knife. 

Especially the anecdotes.


----------



## Hanzou

JR 137 said:


> I don't know why I'm bothering wasting my time with this post, but anyway...
> 
> The "medieval Asian arts" flaws aren't the arts themselves (for the most part), it's the current training methods in some places.  Not enough resistance during training and taking idiotic beliefs like "this is too dangerous to practice against an opponent" seriously.  Some things obviously shouldn't be done with much force to a training partner - knife hand to the throat or back of the neck, kicks to the knees, etc.
> 
> You shouldn't lump all "medieval Asian arts" into one McDojo crap sandwich.  Far too many full-contact/hard contact schools out there for that.  Far too many zero contact schools too though.
> 
> If you took some MMA schools and made them light contact with a point fighting aspect similar in scope to point fighting, MMA wouldn't be garbage, the schools that taught that nonsense would be.



I was responding to the nonsense that TMAs are better for self defense than modern martial arts by default. Sorry, but I don't believe that a martial art designed for a samurai on horseback, or for a rebel in China is going to do much good against a threat in modern society. Which frankly is why many of those arts were modernized in the first place.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I was responding to the nonsense that TMAs are better for self defense than modern martial arts by default. Sorry, but I don't believe that a martial art designed for a samurai on horseback, or for a rebel in China is going to do much good against a threat in modern society. Which frankly is why many of those arts were modernized in the first place.



It is nether an endorsement or an obstacle. If we look at martial arts for their relevance to self defence.  Then the stories are mostly irrelevant. 

Whether they be samurai stories IDF stories or Gracie ones. 

It works insert evidence here. 

It doesn't work.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> It is nether an endorsement or an obstacle. If we look at martial arts for their relevance to self defence.  Then the stories are mostly irrelevant.
> 
> Whether they be samurai stories IDF stories or Gracie ones.
> 
> It works insert evidence here.
> 
> It doesn't work.



Thing is, we can verify the Gracie stories.

It's a bit harder to verify whether or not Yojimbo killed 50 ninjas with his bare hands. Heck, we don't know if we're even studying Yojimbo's actual martial art, and not something created by a charlatan in the 1950s.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is so much mythology regarding knife stuff that you pretty much need to be sceptical of all of it.
> 
> We just really dont know the risk reward aspect of unarmed vs knife.
> 
> Especially the anecdotes.



What we do know - from folks who've had to deal with knives more than once - is that it sucks. 

What else we do know - from reasonable interpolation - is that a knife should be treated somewhat differently from an empty hand. These are not huge, but the devil's in these details. For strikers, a knife isn't something you want to just throw up an arm and let it bounce off (like a boxer wading in with his hands and arms guarding his head). For grapplers, you don't want to pull that knife into you, as you might want to do with an empty hand.

We can take those things into consideration and build habits that avoid those, even when working against an empty hand. The differences aren't huge, but they're adaptations we can't expect ourselves to make in the moment.

As I said before, it's not a matter of one way meaning certain failure and the other meaning certain success. We can shift the percentages a bit, and reduce the chances of catastrophic injury. I'm not a fan of spending tons of time on anti-knife training. We do spend an occasional class on it, as well as sneaking in some applications between other bits. That is all built on a set of movements that are effective against either empty-hand or knife-hand. That latter is the more important, since many times the knife isn't seen until it's too late.

So, if I look at the movements found in MMA, some are actually well-suited to knife defense. Like the comment I made about the BJJ folks working to keep the opponent's hands off him, and the distancing work they do to keep a striker from having an easy punch. Some aren't so well-suited, like some of the BJJ movements where they pull the arm into their torso or neck. Most are neutral - they don't create much of an advantage against a knife, but then very little does.

I think the biggest advantage of training knife defense is simply getting used to the concept of being attacked with a knife. It's like that punch to the head you and I have talked about before. One more tool to help control the reactions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I was responding to the nonsense that TMAs are better for self defense than modern martial arts by default. Sorry, but I don't believe that a martial art designed for a samurai on horseback, or for a rebel in China is going to do much good against a threat in modern society. Which frankly is why many of those arts were modernized in the first place.


If the practitioners are true to the original intent of the art, they should never need to modernize it. It was correct to contemporary attacks and methods in its days, and should evolve constantly as those change. Somehow, some folks have decided their art was perfect at some arbitrary moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Thing is, we can verify the Gracie stories.
> 
> It's a bit harder to verify whether or not Yojimbo killed 50 ninjas with his bare hands. Heck, we don't know if we're even studying Yojimbo's actual martial art, and not something created by a charlatan in the 1950s.


The only issue I have with the Gracie story is that they mostly include exceptional individuals. We can't judge an art (or anything else) by exceptional proponents. The validation of the Gracie system is in the results we see from more "average" practitioners.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> The only issue I have with the Gracie story is that they mostly include exceptional individuals. We can't judge an art (or anything else) by exceptional proponents. The validation of the Gracie system is in the results we see from more "average" practitioners.



While they are exceptional, they have been beaten when other martial artists have adopted their fighting method. Bravo, Hughes, Sakuraba, and Barnett just to name a few. So clearly they weren't just exceptional fighters, they were also utilizing an exceptional fighting method.

On the other hand, we have disciples of medieval martial arts showing pretty poor fighting prowess. I mean, what does it say (for example) when Stephen Hayes can't escape the Guard properly? What does it say when Sherif Bey, a Hung Ga instructor with over 3 decades experience gets knocked out by some MMA chump off the street?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> While they are exceptional, they have been beaten when other martial artists have adopted their fighting method. Bravo, Hughes, Sakuraba, and Barnett just to name a few. So clearly they weren't just exceptional fighters, they were also utilizing an exceptional fighting method.


Those are also exceptional fighters. My point was that the best validation for GJJ isn't in those guys - that's validation of how well it works for (and against) exceptional fighters. The best validation, IMO, is when someone like me (lots of experience, but not an exceptional practitioner) can get on the mats with someone with GJJ training and experience the control the average practitioner has. I know that a blue belt can cause me trouble if I'm not careful, and that's a good testament to the style.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Thing is, we can verify the Gracie stories.
> 
> It's a bit harder to verify whether or not Yojimbo killed 50 ninjas with his bare hands. Heck, we don't know if we're even studying Yojimbo's actual martial art, and not something created by a charlatan in the 1950s.



Imi Lichtenfeld was legitimately a badass as well. Doesn't validate the Krav. 

Your instructor does not fight for you. Only you can do that.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Imi Lichtenfeld was legitimately a badass as well. Doesn't validate the Krav.
> 
> Your instructor does not fight for you. Only you can do that.



Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?

I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?
> 
> I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.


That people join because of some founders isn't the question. A badass can create crap. A badass who is good at systematizing can create a system that another badass can use. A badass who is good at systematizing, generalizing, and teaching can create a good system that works for others.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That people join because of some founders isn't the question. A badass can create crap. A badass who is good at systematizing can create a system that another badass can use. A badass who is good at systematizing, generalizing, and teaching can create a good system that works for others.



Sure it is, because who the founder was validates the art for some people. That's what Drop Bear was talking about, and whom I was responding to.

Just FYI, I don't think there are any "bad" systems out there. I'm simply saying that some arts are meant for fighting, and others are meant for cultural retention. The older and more traditional your martial art is, the more likely that it's fighting attributes have long since eroded in favor of other attributes. 

If your goal is self protection and learning how to fight, you're better off learning boxing than a martial art designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Sure it is, because who the founder was validates the art for some people. That's what Drop Bear was talking about, and whom I was responding to.
> 
> Just FYI, I don't think there are any "bad" systems out there. I'm simply saying that some arts are meant for fighting, and others are meant for cultural retention. The older and more traditional your martial art is, the more likely that it's fighting attributes have long since eroded in favor of other attributes.
> 
> If your goal is self protection and learning how to fight, you're better off learning boxing than a martial art designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago.


I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.

And I'll assert that there have been "bad" systems. They generally don't last, because they are confusing and frustrating. Sometimes a first generation will "get it" because they are exposed to the source, who may be a fantastic fighter but crap at systematization. That first generation may contain one or more people who manage to extract a reasonable system from the mess and pass that along, but the original system was crap.

I agree with the tendencies you talk about. Because so many martial artists get into what's "right", it's easy to miss opportunities to evolve the art. In fact, that mindset can cause precisely the stagnation you're talking about. The problem isn't that it was designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago. At that time, it was designed to be effective, and the founder created something that worked well for what that pirate was facing. If the art is to remain a valid fighting system, it should continue those concepts: following what works well withing some central principles. Western arts aren't immune to this, of course. Some arts become cultural hold-overs (fencing, Iaido, archery, etc. are easy examples), and some progress. Western boxing seems to have remained fairly valid for the last couple hundred years, though it has serious weaknesses for grappling. Many martial arts have weakened because they practice against attack types that aren't as common today. Heck, even an art as young as NGA (founded in the 1940's) has to guard against that, incorporating changes that account for how people tend to attack now.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.



If you don't view the system as useful to you, you wouldn't pick it up in the first place.

Take JKD or Wing Chun; Many practitioners in those systems started training in those systems because of Bruce Lee. They'll never have Lee's physique, or his skill level, but they train in those systems because Lee legitimized the system to them. What they'll find "useful" is a personal thing, but if they stick with it, they will find something that is useful to their goals, physique, etc.



> And I'll assert that there have been "bad" systems. They generally don't last, because they are confusing and frustrating. Sometimes a first generation will "get it" because they are exposed to the source, who may be a fantastic fighter but crap at systematization. That first generation may contain one or more people who manage to extract a reasonable system from the mess and pass that along, but the original system was crap.



Well yeah, that's my point. If a system has lasted for hundreds of years, then it can't really be a "bad" system with no benefits. Clearly it offers SOME benefits to its practitioners or it wouldn't have lasted this long. I think the problem is when someone picks up something like Tai Chi and believes that training in Tai Chi will make them a fighter like MMA or Bjj would. That's simply not the case because Tai Chi simply isn't designed for that purpose.

Perhaps in the murky past some guy used Tai Chi to kill 20 bandits on the road to Beijing, but there hasn't been any amazing Tai Chi fighters in recent years. So while I certainly wouldn't recommend Tai Chi to a woman looking to defend herself, I would certainly recommend Tai Chi to an elderly woman looking to stay active without injuring herself. There's nothing wrong with that.



> I agree with the tendencies you talk about. Because so many martial artists get into what's "right", it's easy to miss opportunities to evolve the art. In fact, that mindset can cause precisely the stagnation you're talking about. The problem isn't that it was designed for a Chinese pirate 500 years ago. At that time, it was designed to be effective, and the founder created something that worked well for what that pirate was facing. If the art is to remain a valid fighting system, it should continue those concepts: following what works well withing some central principles. Western arts aren't immune to this, of course. Some arts become cultural hold-overs (fencing, Iaido, archery, etc. are easy examples), and some progress. Western boxing seems to have remained fairly valid for the last couple hundred years, though it has serious weaknesses for grappling. Many martial arts have weakened because they practice against attack types that aren't as common today. Heck, even an art as young as NGA (founded in the 1940's) has to guard against that, incorporating changes that account for how people tend to attack now.



Well, actually that is the problem, because the only way for an art that old to evolve is for it to incorporate modern concepts and to become a hybrid style, losing its individual flavor. Thus, Chinese Pirate Kung Fu is probably not going to be willing to evolve their style because they don't want to lose their uniqueness. Again, in that case its less about fighting effectiveness and more about retaining the culture and tradition of the art, which is why its practitioners learn ancient kata and obsolete weapons in order to further whatever goal they're working towards. In the end, you see MMA hopefuls who practice CPKF hoping to be able to be competitive in a martial arts bout, and they're simply not. It isn't because the rules obliterated the effectiveness of their system, its because their system has become obsolete in the face of more modern methods.

It's like a model T getting beat in a race by a Nissan GTR and blaming the race track for the results instead of recognizing that you're simply driving an outdated machine for that purpose.

Western boxing is a sport, so its going to evolve mainly to coincide with whatever rules governs its sport. In some cases the rules don't really hurt the overall system (like Boxing), but in some cases (like Judo) it definitely hurts the overall system. However, the benefit of martial sports is that you have to get good relatively quickly in order to be competitive, so if your goal is to learn how to be an actual fighter, that's the route you're going to want to go instead of learning Chinese Pirate Kung Fu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> What does it say when Sherif Bey, a Hung Ga instructor with over 3 decades experience gets knocked out by some MMA chump off the street?


It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey.  I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out.  So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well yeah, that's my point. If a system has lasted for hundreds of years, then it can't really be a "bad" system with no benefits. Clearly it offers SOME benefits to its practitioners or it wouldn't have lasted this long. I think the problem is when someone picks up something like Tai Chi and believes that training in Tai Chi will make them a fighter like MMA or Bjj would. That's simply not the case because Tai Chi simply isn't designed for that purpose.


Agreed, on all points, Hanzou.



> Perhaps in the murky past some guy used Tai Chi to kill 20 bandits on the road to Beijing, but there hasn't been any amazing Tai Chi fighters in recent years. So while I certainly wouldn't recommend Tai Chi to a woman looking to defend herself, I would certainly recommend Tai Chi to an elderly woman looking to stay active without injuring herself. There's nothing wrong with that.


Again, agreed on all points.



> Well, actually that is the problem, because the only way for an art that old to evolve is for it to incorporate modern concepts and to become a hybrid style, losing its individual flavor. Thus, Chinese Pirate Kung Fu is probably not going to be willing to evolve their style because they don't want to lose their uniqueness. Again, in that case its less about fighting effectiveness and more about retaining the culture and tradition of the art, which is why its practitioners learn ancient kata and obsolete weapons in order to further whatever goal they're working towards. In the end, you see MMA hopefuls who practice CPKF hoping to be able to be competitive in a martial arts bout, and they're simply not. It isn't because the rules obliterated the effectiveness of their system, its because their system has become obsolete in the face of more modern methods.


This is where we disagree. If a system evolves over time, it never is a 500-year-old system. It's a system that started 500 years ago and has constantly evolved to meet the needs of the time. The core concepts would change minutely each time, and over 500 years that would produce a significant change - significant enough to meet the changes over that 500 years. It would never lose its individual flavor, because that flavor would also evolve over time. I think this is easier to discuss using either of our arts (NGA and BJJ being started within about 25-30 years of each other) than an older art. If our two arts evolve, changing slightly year over year as new instructors step up to teach, they need never get old.



> It's like a model T getting beat in a race by a Nissan GTR and blaming the race track for the results instead of recognizing that you're simply driving an outdated machine for that purpose.


That's what I mean. I'd liken it more to a Ford being beaten by a Nissan. Both brands have evolved (the Nissan being the newer brand), so they can compete.



> Western boxing is a sport, so its going to evolve mainly to coincide with whatever rules governs its sport. In some cases the rules don't really hurt the overall system (like Boxing), but in some cases (like Judo) it definitely hurts the overall system. However, the benefit of martial sports is that you have to get good relatively quickly in order to be competitive, so if your goal is to learn how to be an actual fighter, that's the route you're going to want to go instead of learning Chinese Pirate Kung Fu.


Agreed. I think our primary disagreement is over whether a style can effectively evolve to become modern if it currently isn't. I believe it can be done, though it would take a few years.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your points, Hanzou, except that what people think validates an art (the founder's skill) isn't necessarily valid. I can't do splits and extreme kicks like some folks (think Van Damme in his movies), so what that founder can do doesn't mean the system is useful to me. If he is really good at getting people flexible enough to do those, that's more useful, but I'll only be able to see that in his students, not in himself.



But then your students would reflect the capacity of your system to create bad asses.

So greg jackson isnt discussed in terms of his fighting ability but by his students.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Sure it does. In fact I would argue that many Martial Artists join a MA because of the exploits of the founder of the system. How many people practice JKD because of Bruce Lee for example?
> 
> I do agree that your instructor doesn't fight for you. My point is that we can verify the more recent examples, and evaluate the results of their art. The further back we go, the more murky it gets, and in many cases the stories are outright fabricated.



It is not one or the other. But someone should be able to fight somewhere in the mix that has influence on the system. 

The cultural examples have lost that in both the teachers and the students.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But then your students would reflect the capacity of your system to create bad asses.
> 
> So greg jackson isnt discussed in terms of his fighting ability but by his students.


That's the point. A system is better judged by the ability of the average students than by the ability of the founder.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey.  I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out.  So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?



Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.


So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?



Sherif Bey getting stomped by a MMA guy isn't anecdotal. There's video evidence of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Sherif Bey getting stomped by a MMA guy isn't anecdotal. There's video evidence of it.


It's still a single event. That's weak evidence, and JGW's reply was reasonable, though less documented.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> It's still a single event. That's weak evidence, and JGW's reply was reasonable, though less documented.



While a single event, it was still a powerful statement, because you got to see Sharif really fight, and based on his movements, you can tell that he really couldn't. Thus, its pretty easy to conclude that if he fought another MMA fighter, you'd get a similar result.

And JGW's reply isn't less documented, it's not documented at all. "Weak" evidence is better than zero evidence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, you present anecdotal evidence, then throw that out when he replies with the same?



I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.



Hmm, probably right about that. I suppose that makes JGW's account worse than anecdotal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.


Not sure what that has to do with you answering the question. The question can still be answered regardless of if you believe it or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> It's still a single event. That's weak evidence, and JGW's reply was reasonable, though less documented.


 Don't worry about Hanzou's nonsense. I used to show proof of the techniques that I claimed to be able to do by showing videos and Hanzou still talked nonsense after the videos. Even if I sparred with Hanzou and showed him personally, he would still be on the MMA band wagon. 

I'm not going to sit here waste my time arguing about an event where I was actually there as an active participant.  Hanzou doesn't validate my life nor reality so. The most that his arguments will do is make me less likely to share knowledge and information with him.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.


In this case the source is the person who was an active participant in the sparring.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure what that has to do with you answering the question. The question can still be answered regardless of if you believe it or not.



The point is that we have evidence of a Hung Gar practitioner with 30+ years experience losing badly to a MMA practitioner with far less experience. Further, we have evidence of said HG practitioner being unable to fight on a reasonable level.

We have zero evidence of you taking down a MMA fighter the way you described.

I'm sure there are several MMA/Bjj gyms you can head to in your area, and I'm sure you can find someone to record your exploits. Heck, I've heard that some MMA/Bjj gyms enjoy that sort of thing and will record you themselves. I'm willing to bet that there's plenty of MMA/Bjj gyms who would love to host you. They would love to spar against a Kung Fu practitioner who believes that he can stuff their takedowns with traditional Kung Fu.

What's stopping you? If I were in your place, I would certainly do it. Like I told you before, you could easily make yourself quite a lot of money.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> We have zero evidence of you taking down a MMA fighter the way you described.


 Where did I say i took down an MMA fighter?
From post #89
"It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey. I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out. So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?"

As for evidence. I don't need to have you validate what I've done. As for me going to gym to knock out an MMA fighter, just to prove a point to you? Really? Me going to a MMA gym for the purpose of knocking someone out simply because you don't think Hung Ga doesn't stands a chance against MMA?  That's the weakest thing I've ever heard.  Do you think I'm 12 years old or something. Damn dude. Your nonsense knows no limit.

You are now on my permanent  ignore list.  Right up there with the things in life that are insignificant and meaningless.  I swear stupid people.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Where did I say i took down an MMA fighter?
> From post #89
> "It's doesn't say anything about the system and a lot about Sherif Bey. I have no where near 30 years of experience, and I have sparred against an Amateur MMA fighter and I wasn't rattled nor was I knocked out. So what does that say about Hung Ga? That I didn't get knocked out?"




I was combining your past exploits and claims with the ones you made in this thread. You've claimed in the last that you can stop MMA and Bjj takedowns quite easily, and you've claimed that MMA fighters strike incorrectly. You've even claimed that you're quite adept at breaking people's knees with your kicks. I don't recall every claim you've made on this forum, but I'm fairly positive that if you're half as proficient as you claim to be, taking down a MMA hobbyist shouldn't be an issue.



> As for evidence. I don't need to have you validate what I've done. As for me going to gym to knock out an MMA fighter, just to prove a point to you? Really? Me going to a MMA gym for the purpose of knocking someone out simply because you don't think Hung Ga doesn't stands a chance against MMA?



Well  actually it would be to elevate Kung fu as a whole and make yourself a lot of money. Again, if you're as good as you say you are, pulling that off shouldn't be a problem for you. A traditional CMA guy handily beating a MMA fighter or a Bjj brown or black belt using traditional techniques would be pretty big stuff.

Again, you've always seemed rather confident in your skill set. Why waste your time bragging about them on here? Why not put them to the test and get some substantial gains from it?

Clearly I would enjoy watching the fight, but so would millions of other people, provided you win of course. If you ended up losing (badly) you'd just be another Kung Fu guy added to the pile.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> In this case the source is the person who was an active participant in the sparring.



Not really. You sparred some mma guy isn't really very good in terms of supporting an argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I thought even anecdotes were to have a source. That is what makes them not stories.


Every story has a source. The point I made previously about this is that we have to evaluate the source. If it's someone who commonly makes unsupported claims, the anecdotal evidence carries less weight. If it is someone (like JGW) who doesn't typically make unsupported claims and who we have seen videos of him doing something similar to what he describes (sparring with someone outside his style), then it carries more weight. If we have video to complement the anecdote (as we do for Hanzou's), then even better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. You sparred some mma guy isn't really very good in terms of supporting an argument.


Actually, it's a reasonable counter argument to a single-fight statistic. Hanzou pointed to a single instance and asked what that said about the art. JGW responded, essentially saying what I heard as "Not much, no more than me doing well against an MMA fighter does. It says more about the person in the fight." Not really an outrageous claim, rather pointing out that using a single individual isn't a good way to judge an art. It seems clear both are making a valid point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Not really. You sparred some mma guy isn't really very good in terms of supporting an argument.


why not?   Bey sparred some mma guy?  Why does his experience of who he spars counts but the experience of who I spar doesn't?


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's a reasonable counter argument to a single-fight statistic. Hanzou pointed to a single instance and asked what that said about the art. JGW responded, essentially saying what I heard as "Not much, no more than me doing well against an MMA fighter does. It says more about the person in the fight." Not really an outrageous claim, rather pointing out that using a single individual isn't a good way to judge an art. It seems clear both are making a valid point.


Every system has some guy with "30 years of experience" who hasn't learned how to apply his techniques in free sparring against another style.  This is a Jow Ga guy who claims 30 years of martial arts experience.    If we were to base the effectiveness of Jow Ga on his performance then my sparring videos would look like this.  For me personally,  I would have been more than happy to unleashed a wide range of Jow Ga techniques on this guy just for being a flashy sparring opponent.





In Jow Ga these are considered basic Jow Ga punches.  These are the punches people learn as beginners yet we didn't see any of these punches in his sparring (this is the same guy in the red)





The only thing his video showed was that he didn't use his Jow Ga and that the other guy trains to actually use his techniques during free sparring.  We can assume the Jow Ga guy doesn't train using Jow Ga against other systems due to the lack of techniques that were used.  But even that doesn't say much about the system itself.  It only says something about the fighter.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's a reasonable counter argument to a single-fight statistic. Hanzou pointed to a single instance and asked what that said about the art. JGW responded, essentially saying what I heard as "Not much, no more than me doing well against an MMA fighter does. It says more about the person in the fight." Not really an outrageous claim, rather pointing out that using a single individual isn't a good way to judge an art. It seems clear both are making a valid point.



Well the difference is that up until that point Bey was considered an authority on Hung Gar in the US, also we simply don't have a lot of examples of Hung Gar exponents participating in fights. It would be no different if Rickson Gracie got whopped on in a challenge match in the early 90s, or if Royce got beat down in the first match of the first UFC  and none of his brothers or anyone else stepped up to counter that rather public defeat. Those losses would paint their style in a rather unfavorable light, just like what happened with Bey and Hung Gar.

It doesn't help that Bey's video also supports a general narrative, so while it is a single video, that video is part of a pattern of various confrontations that has been occurring for the better part of two decades.

What happened to Bey is akin to what would happen if some random clown came in off the street and beat down Shawn Williams, a prominent black belt under Renzo Gracie, or Rener Gracie. Again, Bey has been prominent in NYC martial arts and Kung Fu circles for decades, and he has made a career out of supposedly making HG a practical form of fighting that can stand up to MMA. Those claims were obliterated by that video, because the MMA guy he fought against was an amateur fighter at best, and Bey is considered a master (if not grandmaster) of his style.

As for JGW, we don't even know if JGW is telling us the truth. That's the problem with his story, and it's a problem that he could fix rather easily.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well the difference is that up until that point Bey was considered an authority on Hung Gar in the US, also we simply don't have a lot of examples of Hung Gar exponents participating in fights. It would be no different if Rickson Gracie got whopped on in a challenge match in the early 90s, or if Royce got beat down in the first match of the first UFC  and none of his brothers or anyone else stepped up to counter that rather public defeat. Those losses would paint their style in a rather unfavorable light, just like what happened with Bey and Hung Gar.
> 
> It doesn't help that Bey's video also supports a general narrative, so while it is a single video, that video is part of a pattern of various confrontations that has been occurring for the better part of two decades.
> 
> What happened to Bey is akin to what would happen if some random clown came in off the street and beat down Shawn Williams, a prominent black belt under Renzo Gracie, or Rener Gracie. Again, Bey has been prominent in NYC martial arts and Kung Fu circles for decades, and he has made a career out of supposedly making HG a practical form of fighting that can stand up to MMA. Those claims were obliterated by that video, because the MMA guy he fought against was an amateur fighter at best, and Bey is considered a master (if not grandmaster) of his style.
> 
> As for JGW, we don't even know if JGW is telling us the truth. That's the problem with his story, and it's a problem that he could fix rather easily.


As I said, I think you have a valid point. The bigger issue is that there's not sufficient evidence of Hung Gar being used to be able to say Bey's performance isn't representative. If a Gracie black belt gets his *** handed to him in competition and looks weak in the process, we have other examples to see that this is not representative of GJJ, nor of BJJ in general. Unfortunately, we don't have sufficient evidence in either direction on Hung Gar to determine if it's a weakness in the system or not. It may well be.

As for JGW's assertion, it's in line with what we've seen in some of his videos. He didn't claim even to have won against the MMA guy (though he may have), just that he didn't get KO'd and I think he said he didn't get taken down, though I may be misremembering that part. That's a reasonable claim that seems in line with the level of control he shows in his videos.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The bigger issue is that there's not sufficient evidence of Hung Gar being used to be able to say Bey's performance isn't representative


There's enough you tube video evidence of Hung Ga practitioners sparring to show that Bey's performance isn't the representative of Hung Ga.  I'll put this way, we don't need to find an expert Hung Ga Sifu to show more Hung Ga skill than Bey showed in that match




If you know what Hung Ga is supposed to look like when fighting then you'll know if that person is representative of Hung Ga win or lose. Hung Ga always looks like Hung Ga no matter what system it's fighting against. The one thing that I promised myself was that I will never claim that I represent Jow Ga, then get in the ring and lose doing basic kick boxing.  If I lose then I'm going to lose while doing Jow Ga and while representing Jow Ga to the best of my ability.  I would never do what Bey did.  This is even more so for me now as the fight instructor at the school.  I don't only have to show the techniques, I have to get it right.



gpseymour said:


> just that he didn't get KO'd and I think he said he didn't get taken down, though I may be misremembering that part


There's an update to this one.  I haven't been KO'd yet that's priority #1 lol.  I did say that I haven't been taken down yet, but a few months ago that kind of changed.  I was working with the other instructor and helping him with his sparring and he got me with a sweep.  I'm not sure how to classify that since it was a light sparring situation where I was giving him opportunities to do techniques, but none the less that sweep got me and he did it with perfect timing for a close range sweep.  I didn't fly up in the air (I'm so glad of that), but I do remember my feet coming together and then it went blank and the next thing I was doing was laying on ground with my fists clinched screaming "Noooooooo." lol.  

If we count practice then that would be my first take down and it happened with my own favorite technique. 
So if I count takedowns in practice then the correct statement will have to be "I have never been taken down outside of school?" lol.  

I'm actually proud that he was able to do it, because it's a good reflection on my ability to train him, and a good reflection on his ability to train the technique until he can actually use it.  As a result of that one day, I'm more than alert not to give him those opportunities again. On the other hand there's a female student I need to watch out for.  She'll probably be the next one to get me.  I think she's already swept the other instructor twice and since then she's been really trying to make me victim #2.  I hope she succeeds. 

As for people outside of the school.. I'm going to do my best to keep them at a 0% success rate. lol


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> why not?   Bey sparred some mma guy?  Why does his experience of who he spars counts but the experience of who I spar doesn't?



We can challenge him to come up with evidence. We can legitimately suggest that a one off has its limitations.

But a story off gets pretty fanciful. I mean we could under this system of discussion come up with anything.

I beat up ten hung gar guys this morning. And six bjjers made one cry.  So therefore my argument is valid. 

This is the foundation of why crap martial arts is crap.  Because someone who is doing the real thing can't compete with someone who has a good sales pitch.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> We can challenge him to come up with evidence. We can legitimately suggest that a one off has its limitations.


Why would you need to challenge someone to come up with evidence?  No one challenge me to come up with evidence to prove that the Muay Thai practitioner that I sparred with was actually my brother.  No one here challenged me to come up with evidence that I'm the fight instructor at my school.  No one here challenged me to come up with evidence that I practice legitimate Jow Ga kung fu.  No one has challenged me about my experience in fighting.  No one has challenged me about if I ever did sparring with someone from Sanda or Taekwondo.  What's bigger than that is that no one has challenged me on the question if I can actually fight or not.

So out of all the things in which would have verified me being full of crap I haven't been challenged on.  In addition I've even shown videos of me doing bad in sparring and having bad days where the other instructor got the best of me.  But when I say that I sparred with an amateur MMA fighter and I didn't get knocked out, my statements all of a sudden becomes unbelievable and comparable " I beat up ten hung gar guys this morning and six bjjer made one cry."

If you can't match what I say with what I've shown and determine if I'm telling a tall tale then I can't help you.  That's a person problem.  If you doubt my skills then that's cool too because I can't help you there unless you spar with me then you'll see first hand.   



drop bear said:


> This is the foundation of why crap martial arts is crap. Because someone who is doing the real thing can't compete with someone who has a good sales pitch.


I don't even know what this means.  People who do the real thing don't bother with "show me evidence" because they have enough fight experience to and knowledge, to where they can watch a person sparring and get a  good idea what's that person is capable of and what they definitely aren't capable of.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Why would you need to challenge someone to come up with evidence?  No one challenge me to come up with evidence to prove that the Muay Thai practitioner that I sparred with was actually my brother.  No one here challenged me to come up with evidence that I'm the fight instructor at my school.  No one here challenged me to come up with evidence that I practice legitimate Jow Ga kung fu.  No one has challenged me about my experience in fighting.  No one has challenged me about if I ever did sparring with someone from Sanda or Taekwondo.  What's bigger than that is that no one has challenged me on the question if I can actually fight or not.
> 
> So out of all the things in which would have verified me being full of crap I haven't been challenged on.  In addition I've even shown videos of me doing bad in sparring and having bad days where the other instructor got the best of me.  But when I say that I sparred with an amateur MMA fighter and I didn't get knocked out, my statements all of a sudden becomes unbelievable and comparable " I beat up ten hung gar guys this morning and six bjjer made one cry."
> 
> If you can't match what I say with what I've shown and determine if I'm telling a tall tale then I can't help you.  That's a person problem.  If you doubt my skills then that's cool too because I can't help you there unless you spar with me then you'll see first hand.
> 
> I don't even know what this means.  People who do the real thing don't bother with "show me evidence" because they have enough fight experience to and knowledge, to where they can watch a person sparring and get a  good idea what's that person is capable of and what they definitely aren't capable of.



It can become unbelievable any time I want.  What am i supposed to believe without evidence?

That is the issue. You leave it in my hands.  Or worse the group just decides based on some sort of popularity contest. Or internal script. 

So my statement of fighting 10 hung gar people is as valid as yours.  True or not.  And that is the basic problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It can become unbelievable any time I want.  What am i supposed to believe without evidence?
> 
> That is the issue. You leave it in my hands.  Or worse the group just decides based on some sort of popularity contest. Or internal script.
> 
> So my statement of fighting 10 hung gar people is as valid as yours.  True or not.  And that is the basic problem.


One claim is consistent with past evidence. The other isn't.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> One claim is consistent with past evidence. The other isn't.



It should be noted that sparring and training with your classmates (JGW) isn't the same as fighting someone trying to take your head off (Bey vs MMA).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> One claim is consistent with past evidence. The other isn't.



So one fits your internal script?

Thats pretty dodgy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So one fits your internal script?
> 
> Thats pretty dodgy.


So what you are spewing doesn't fit your internal script?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> So what you are spewing doesn't fit your internal script?



If there was evidence i wouldn't get to apply one. 

See greysemors idea like a lot of things work both ways.  So my script could be due to evidence you are telling tall tails or spar substandard guys or even spar at a pace that nobody ever gets knocked out.

It opens a door that you may not want to go through.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So one fits your internal script?
> 
> Thats pretty dodgy.


"Internal script"? I spoke of existing evidence, not of what's in my head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It should be noted that sparring and training with your classmates (JGW) isn't the same as fighting someone trying to take your head off (Bey vs MMA).


Agreed. We have seen him spar people outside his school, though that's still sparring and not quite the same as a contest someone is trying to win by taking your head off. I'm just saying that JGW being able to spar successfully with someone outside his school is not an unreasonable statement. It is similar to situations we've seen video evidence of. The statement about 10 Hung Gar people isn't consistent with existing evidence, which makes it a more extreme claim. Attempting to make them equivalent is, I believe, a form of the strawman fallacy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If there was evidence i wouldn't get to apply one.
> 
> See greysemors idea like a lot of things work both ways.  So my script could be due to evidence you are telling tall tails or spar substandard guys or even spar at a pace that nobody ever gets knocked out.
> 
> It opens a door that you may not want to go through.


Wow.  So you have an internal script that's valid. But if someone else has one, it's dodgy.
If you tell a personal experience then it's valid, but if someone else gives their personal experience it's a tall tale.

Well I'm just going end this convo and take it that you get knocked out every time you spar.  Which is why you believe that someone else can't spar without getting knocked out. It's the only logic that makes sense to me of why someone doesn't think it's possible to spar with an amateur MMA fighter without being knocked out. In your Amateur MMA fighters always knock out the people who are sparring so anything different than that is a tall tale.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> though that's still sparring and not quite the same as a contest someone is trying to win by taking your head off.


Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "Internal script"? I spoke of existing evidence, not of what's in my head.



Same thing.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Wow. So you have an internal script that's valid. But if someone else has one, it's dodgy.
> If you tell a personal experience then it's valid, but if someone else gives their personal experience it's a tall tale.



That.  Pretty much. Not sure why you hsve an issue with it. 

It has been what you were defending for the last page and a half.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Same thing.


So now video evidence is an "internal script"?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So now video evidence is an "internal script"?



Yeah.  It falls under the same umbrella as "facts" and "physics" 

You know when you use a word like "evidence" and there is no actual evidence.

And that is a fact.  Because of physics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  It falls under the same umbrella as "facts" and "physics"
> 
> You know when you use a word like "evidence" and there is no actual evidence.
> 
> And that is a fact.  Because of physics.


Now you're just being deliberately obtuse again. I'll join you in another conversation when you're ready to talk something other than belligerent nonsense.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Now you're just being deliberately obtuse again. I'll join you in another conversation when you're ready to talk something other than belligerent nonsense.



Insults wont really work on me. I dont have a very fragile ego.


----------



## jks9199

Perhaps, just maybe, we can drop the crap and baiting each other and go back to actually discussing the original topic.  Before someone has to like go all moderator and issue points...

Yeah, that's a warning.  I'm involved in the thread, so I've kicked it to the other staff for review.


----------



## Kickboxer101

I've read the last 2 pages of this thread and honestly it's ridiculous certain people who are meant to be experts are dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage. Any real martial artist shouldn't be dismissing anyone or any style. This thread is a guy asking for help based on his training and now all he's getting is an argument.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> I've read the last 2 pages of this thread and honestly it's ridiculous certain people who are meant to be experts are dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage. Any real martial artist shouldn't be dismissing anyone or any style. This thread is a guy asking for help based on his training and now all he's getting is an argument.



No.

The last two pages.  (and the bulk of the thread).  Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.

 Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights.  There are no tests.  And the instructors performance is never put to task.  The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.

So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.

And there is no street.  There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.

There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.

Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help.  The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.

And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall.  Not in the fiction of the street.

And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> The last two pages.  (and the bulk of the thread).  Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.
> 
> Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights.  There are no tests.  And the instructors performance is never put to task.  The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.
> 
> So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.
> 
> And there is no street.  There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.
> 
> There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.
> 
> Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help.  The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.
> 
> And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall.  Not in the fiction of the street.
> 
> And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.


This is my point exactly I wasn't even saying anything about any style yet you still jump to your styles defence


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> The last two pages.  (and the bulk of the thread).  Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.
> 
> Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights.  There are no tests.  And the instructors performance is never put to task.  The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.
> 
> So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.
> 
> And there is no street.  There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.
> 
> There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.
> 
> Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help.  The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.
> 
> And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall.  Not in the fiction of the street.
> 
> And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.


Most of that is a strawman argument, DB. Let me present the counter to as many as I can without losing my train of thought:

We do our best to present realistic attacks, with reasonable intent (within the bounds of safety) to test the techniques and the students' ability to use them. My students challenge my approach on a regular basis. I encourage them to think for themselves and to ask both "why would you do that" and "why wouldn't you do this instead". And if they have a point, we experiment.

I have no idea what you mean by "a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability". That's a too-general statement to even reply to. If you give some specifics, I'll happily point out which I agree with (it happens) and which I disagree with, at least for my program and those I've been involved with.

There is, in fact, a street. It's a term used to refer to the world where real attacks may occur, as opposed to what goes on inside the training space or competitive space. And yes, some techniques won't be very devastating on mats, but will be on concrete - do you really want to take a fall on concrete? Or is there perhaps a reason why we train on mats? As for eye-gouging, it is an over-used argument, often by people trying to dismiss the skill involved in ground-fighting in arts like BJJ. That said, the chance of being attacked by a blue belt or higher in BJJ is pretty danged slim, so eye gouges might in fact solve some of the attacks by those less-trained. But I wouldn't count on it.

The idea that an attack will look anything like what happens in the ring, or in sparring in school, is a fallacy for the vast majority of attacks. That's what the video evidence shows us. We need that competitive bit - trying to take each other down - to hone skills needed for the street (yep, there's that word), but it's not the be-all and end-all of training or validation. To train for other types of attacks, we have to deliver those other types of attacks, including those we (being trained) wouldn't personally choose, because video evidence shows us that some attackers do choose them. And there are responses we can realistically expect NOT to see (flying triangles, BJJ grounded arm-bar are a couple that come to mind), because it's simply unlikely someone with the actual ability to pull those off will be attacking on the street. Those are largely fiction as far as street defense is concerned.

You're creating a false dichotomy between SD training and competition training. The only difference should be the context it's training for. If I were a seasoned MMA fighter and wanted to train folks for SD, I could review the available evidence, maybe take a few SD-oriented seminars to pick up some training ideas (both what looks useful and what looks sketchy), and then weed out a few techniques and defenses that are specific to competition. Then I'd simply make a few changes to how I train people and go about business. It's not nearly so big a difference as you imply, if you start from the same base.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> This is my point exactly I wasn't even saying anything about any style yet you still jump to your styles defence



Really? quote that bit for us please.

I can quote this.

"dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage."

Where you are getting style specific. and then direct you to the first page of the thread where everything I have referenced has been outside the cage.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We do our best to present realistic attacks, with reasonable intent (within the bounds of safety) to test the techniques and the students' ability to use them. My students challenge my approach on a regular basis. I encourage them to think for themselves and to ask both "why would you do that" and "why wouldn't you do this instead". And if they have a point, we experiment.



which is good.



gpseymour said:


> I have no idea what you mean by "a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability". That's a too-general statement to even reply to. If you give some specifics, I'll happily point out which I agree with (it happens) and which I disagree with, at least for my program and those I've been involved with.



Ok. specifically. You train sd techniques. But you cant really train them against people from the same club because they dont give the correct responses. So you have to train people to give pretend responses. which means you can only train resisted with guys who are only pretending to stop you. And all of that is based on some sort of assumption that is how a person will react in a different environment. Based on videos and mabye some anecdotal evidence.

add that to techniques you cant even train resisted because they cripple your partner.

And that becomes the lynch pin to your effective fighting.

And what you are left with is a system basde on a whole buch of guess work. Which is a whole bunch of baggaged compared to just two guys wreslting rolling or punching each other.



gpseymour said:


> There is, in fact, a street. It's a term used to refer to the world where real attacks may occur, as opposed to what goes on inside the training space or competitive space. And yes, some techniques won't be very devastating on mats, but will be on concrete - do you really want to take a fall on concrete? Or is there perhaps a reason why we train on mats? As for eye-gouging, it is an over-used argument, often by people trying to dismiss the skill involved in ground-fighting in arts like BJJ. That said, the chance of being attacked by a blue belt or higher in BJJ is pretty danged slim, so eye gouges might in fact solve some of the attacks by those less-trained. But I wouldn't count on it.



Your training ground is the real world. The concrete does not help you defend takedowns. Takedown defence helps you defend takedowns. 

You dont need training in eyegouging to successfully eye gouge. It is like saying you need to train to make a fist. (Ok sometimes you do but it 10% of your focus) Training in striking and grappling makes you good at eyegouging.



gpseymour said:


> The idea that an attack will look anything like what happens in the ring, or in sparring in school, is a fallacy for the vast majority of attacks. That's what the video evidence shows us. We need that competitive bit - trying to take each other down - to hone skills needed for the street (yep, there's that word), but it's not the be-all and end-all of training or validation. To train for other types of attacks, we have to deliver those other types of attacks, including those we (being trained) wouldn't personally choose, because video evidence shows us that some attackers do choose them. And there are responses we can realistically expect NOT to see (flying triangles, BJJ grounded arm-bar are a couple that come to mind), because it's simply unlikely someone with the actual ability to pull those off will be attacking on the street. Those are largely fiction as far as street defense is concerned.



So we start from an internal scrip. An attack wont look like a sparring match because of "video evidence" And there is no evidence that comes with this statement. I am pretty sure I was the only person who showed actual video evidence of real attacks.

Remeber about baggage and stories? 

You may not see BJJ flying triangles but. You will see. (And people forget the topic) MMA punching, kicking, takedowns and punching guys on the deck. The bulk of what someone should be training in self defence. It is a different sport. There are different emphasis on training time. 



gpseymour said:


> You're creating a false dichotomy between SD training and competition training. The only difference should be the context it's training for. If I were a seasoned MMA fighter and wanted to train folks for SD, I could review the available evidence, maybe take a few SD-oriented seminars to pick up some training ideas (both what looks useful and what looks sketchy), and then weed out a few techniques and defenses that are specific to competition. Then I'd simply make a few changes to how I train people and go about business. It's not nearly so big a difference as you imply, if you start from the same base.



Correct. But my argument is for the people who start from the same base. If you punched kicked and grappled well in that basic resisted manner and then applied that to self defence specific circumstances you would have a self defence system.

The training is different.


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> Really? quote that bit for us please.
> 
> I can quote this.
> 
> "dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage."
> 
> Where you are getting style specific. and then direct you to the first page of the thread where everything I have referenced has been outside the cage.


Who said I was talking about you


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. specifically. You train sd techniques. But you cant really train them against people from the same club because they dont give the correct responses. So you have to train people to give pretend responses. which means you can only train resisted with guys who are only pretending to stop you. And all of that is based on some sort of assumption that is how a person will react in a different environment. Based on videos and mabye some anecdotal evidence.
> 
> add that to techniques you cant even train resisted because they cripple your partner.
> 
> And that becomes the lynch pin to your effective fighting.


Again, you are ignoring that not everything we do is trained this way. Yes, we do simulate the kind of resistance/movement we expect (based upon evidence) from an untrained attacker. We ALSO practice against the resistance we (with our training) give each other. Two different practices, because there are two sets of responses. Simulation isn't something fake - its' a way to address specific situations and prepare for them. You do this too, by the way. When you train to do, let's say, a BJJ-style ground arm bar, do you just HOPE the person feeds you the motions and positions that make it available, or do you force it regardless of what they give you, or do you have them feed you a situation that makes that particular move a good idea? The answer, of course, is the latter. Later, you progress to actually finding it within the context of normal fight movement. That's the same progression we use, with the difference being that some of the attacks we are learning to defend are unlikely to happen in the context of a training area, because of the training of our opponents.

As for those techniques which cannot safely be trained against full resistance (notice the difference in terms?), that's a safety issue. I would love to be able to do them at full speed against full resistance, but it's simply unsafe. MMA and other competition doesn't deal with those - they typically get banned either from the start or after a few injuries.



> And what you are left with is a system basde on a whole buch of guess work. Which is a whole bunch of baggaged compared to just two guys wreslting rolling or punching each other.


Those two guys aren't doing something that looks like an attack on the street, though. And that's what we're training for. We do the two guys wrestling punching each other - a fact you're conveniently forgetting yet again to make a stab at fraud-busting against SD-oriented programs. Yes, we use some training techniques that are not used for competition. They frankly make no sense for competition. But we also use many of the same training techniques as competition does...because, as you firmly imply, they work well.



> Your training ground is the real world. The concrete does not help you defend takedowns. Takedown defence helps you defend takedowns.


Yes. Not sure I've ever said anything different. The concrete is an advantage when we are throwing, not in avoiding takedowns.



> You dont need training in eyegouging to successfully eye gouge. It is like saying you need to train to make a fist. (Ok sometimes you do but it 10% of your focus) Training in striking and grappling makes you good at eyegouging.



Actually, you do need to train to make a fist, unless you already know how. I have students come in whose fist is too weak, too open, or just all kinds of wrong. Otherwise, yes, you are correct. We don't spend time practicing eye-gouging. For the most part, I simply point out where it would be a good option. Then students can simulate (gasp!) eye gouges during some of their defense drills.



> So we start from an internal scrip. An attack wont look like a sparring match because of "video evidence"
> 
> And there is no evidence that comes with this statement. I am pretty sure I was the only person who showed actual video evidence of real attacks.



Ah! Now you're making some sense. Okay, I didn't realize you were unaware of attacks that didn't look like sparring/rolling. You never asked about that. I'll dig some up later today and post a few for you. For the record, I never said ALL attacks don't look like that; I'll actually include a few that do match the movements of the competition context. It's not an "internal script" if it's based upon evidence. You simply assume I don't have any because I didn't provide it without being asked.



> Remeber about baggage and stories?
> 
> You may not see BJJ flying triangles but. You will see. (And people forget the topic) MMA punching, kicking, takedowns and punching guys on the deck. The bulk of what someone should be training in self defence. It is a different sport. There are different emphasis on training time.



Yes. Those are all part of our training. However, organized attacks like that are not the bulk of what I see in the video evidence. They are a portion - an increasingly significant portion - but not the majority. Others I've found (all found in both video evidence and in reports from bouncers, LEO's, and others with reliable backgrounds) include "one and done" attacks, rushing tackles (rarer now), step-up stabbings, grab-and-throw (using clothing to sling the victim), hard shoves, slaps, kicks to the groin, hard foot stomps, and hair pulling (mostly between women, but not exclusively). Some of those have analogues in MMA. None are exactly represented there.



> Correct. But my argument is for the people who start from the same base. If you punched kicked and grappled well in that basic resisted manner and then applied that to self defence specific circumstances you would have a self defence system.


No argument there. That is a valid approach. It's not the only one, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Again, you are ignoring that not everything we do is trained this way. Yes, we do simulate the kind of resistance/movement we expect (based upon evidence) from an untrained attacker. We ALSO practice against the resistance we (with our training) give each other. Two different practices, because there are two sets of responses. Simulation isn't something fake - its' a way to address specific situations and prepare for them. You do this too, by the way. When you train to do, let's say, a BJJ-style ground arm bar, do you just HOPE the person feeds you the motions and positions that make it available, or do you force it regardless of what they give you, or do you have them feed you a situation that makes that particular move a good idea? The answer, of course, is the latter. Later, you progress to actually finding it within the context of normal fight movement. That's the same progression we use, with the difference being that some of the attacks we are learning to defend are unlikely to happen in the context of a training area, because of the training of our opponents



And this is the infamous good training that video cannot capture.

If you were to become a fighting machine the bulk of your training should be based around what you can actually do pretty much unfiltered.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. Those are all part of our training. However, organized attacks like that are not the bulk of what I see in the video evidence. They are a portion - an increasingly significant portion - but not the majority. Others I've found (all found in both video evidence and in reports from bouncers, LEO's, and others with reliable backgrounds) include "one and done" attacks, rushing tackles (rarer now), step-up stabbings, grab-and-throw (using clothing to sling the victim), hard shoves, slaps, kicks to the groin, hard foot stomps, and hair pulling (mostly between women, but not exclusively). Some of those have analogues in MMA. None are exactly represented there.



This leads in an interesting direction as good mma defends a lot of other styles without having to actively defend that style so much.  

Good head position defends hair grabs.  Good ground and pound defends guard.  There are these basic defences that structurally work against a lot of concepts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And this is the infamous good training that video cannot capture.


And where, ever, did I ever claim that it cannot be captured?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This leads in an interesting direction as good mma defends a lot of other styles without having to actively defend that style so much.
> 
> Good head position defends hair grabs.  Good ground and pound defends guard.  There are these basic defences that structurally work against a lot of concepts.


Agreed. This is where the generalized principles come into play. Defending against a rushing tackle draws on bits and pieces of defending against shooting, defending against 2-leg takedowns, etc. It's more a matter of improving ability in those specific areas and having responses for them that work for the students involved. Remember, we're not talking about the kind of people who are going to train for MMA competition. These folks will always start a bit softer, and won't spend as many hours per week, so they need a few different tools and a different approach to avoid injury. I was one of them when I started, then I wasn't because I often trained with high intensity and for many hours a week, and now I am again as Generally Crappy Knee Syndrome has begun to limit my options and the amount of time I can spend on some activities.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And where, ever, did I ever claim that it cannot be captured?



Man come on all that good training out there and none of it winds up on youtube. 

I suspect dark magic.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. This is where the generalized principles come into play. Defending against a rushing tackle draws on bits and pieces of defending against shooting, defending against 2-leg takedowns, etc. It's more a matter of improving ability in those specific areas and having responses for them that work for the students involved. Remember, we're not talking about the kind of people who are going to train for MMA competition. These folks will always start a bit softer, and won't spend as many hours per week, so they need a few different tools and a different approach to avoid injury. I was one of them when I started, then I wasn't because I often trained with high intensity and for many hours a week, and now I am again as Generally Crappy Knee Syndrome has begun to limit my options and the amount of time I can spend on some activities.



A lot of the defences against a rushing tacke.  Everything from the downward elbows to guillotine chokes are basically nullified by good basic tackling.

So learning that good tackle. Just trumps those less effective defences and because then you need higher percentage defences.  Like crossface sprawl or shucking the head if you have room. You effectively allready start with better basics.  

This is where people say it is the people not the systems. But there is a reason the systems exist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Man come on all that good training out there and none of it winds up on youtube.
> 
> I suspect dark magic.


I've never really taken the time to capture very much of my teaching. And what I have captured is in pictures and one very lousy one-angle video I haven't had a chance to review yet. I know a lot of instructors, and almost none of them video their classes (though a few do video portions of tests). And none of those, as far as I know, upload those videos to places like YouTube. What they upload are teaching videos, which demonstrate techniques and discuss the principles. You won't, of course, see any fully-resisted sparring in a video that's demonstrating a technique for teaching purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A lot of the defences against a rushing tacke.  Everything from the downward elbows to guillotine chokes are basically nullified by good basic tackling.
> 
> So learning that good tackle. Just trumps those less effective defences and because then you need higher percentage defences.  Like crossface sprawl or shucking the head if you have room. You effectively allready start with better basics.
> 
> This is where people say it is the people not the systems. But there is a reason the systems exist.


Agreed. This is why we practice against those kinds of attacks, which aren't likely to occur during just sparring and rolling. We get a chance to work on the kinds of movement (built into our system, and used within other techniques and defenses) that actually allows us to handle that kind of attack. For us, the primary movement is a combination of stepping back offline and redirecting the main force of the tackle. Those are movements built into and trained with multiple techniques - basics, but applied differently under that type of attack.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've never really taken the time to capture very much of my teaching. And what I have captured is in pictures and one very lousy one-angle video I haven't had a chance to review yet. I know a lot of instructors, and almost none of them video their classes (though a few do video portions of tests). And none of those, as far as I know, upload those videos to places like YouTube. What they upload are teaching videos, which demonstrate techniques and discuss the principles. You won't, of course, see any fully-resisted sparring in a video that's demonstrating a technique for teaching purposes.



So you are still trying to say that nobody is putting representative videos of the good training that they are doing. Just the small percentage of compliant training.

You realise that dosent seem very likley?

Otherwise even the compliant videos have serious issues. for example if you are getting wailed on just stand there with your hands down ready to flop over.

Even this training has all sorts of technical issues.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are still trying to say that nobody is putting representative videos of the good training that they are doing. Just the small percentage of compliant training.
> 
> You realise that dosent seem very likley?
> 
> Otherwise even the compliant videos have serious issues. for example if you are getting wailed on just stand there with your hands down ready to flop over.
> 
> Even this training has all sorts of technical issues.


I'm saying that the folks I know don't post much as far as video, period. Those that do, are posting instructional/informational videos, rather than recordings of training. I'm aware of the types of video you're referring to - and those problems (like "attackers" waiting out long series of responses) make me cringe, too. Some of them, I can see the purpose in the overly-compliant method being used, and my real problem is with the overly-complicated response being taught.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. This is why we practice against those kinds of attacks, which aren't likely to occur during just sparring and rolling. We get a chance to work on the kinds of movement (built into our system, and used within other techniques and defenses) that actually allows us to handle that kind of attack. For us, the primary movement is a combination of stepping back offline and redirecting the main force of the tackle. Those are movements built into and trained with multiple techniques - basics, but applied differently under that type of attack.



So for fighting. You practice a set of defences that would be used in the context of sparring. Then you practice another set of defences that would be used if the person was sloppy or has some sort of different style of fighting.

And you dont think that is a bit unwieldy?

I mean good technique works against sloppy fighters. Good technique works against other systems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So for fighting. You practice a set of defences that would be used in the context of sparring. Then you practice another set of defences that would be used if the person was sloppy or has some sort of different style of fighting.
> 
> And you dont think that is a bit unwieldy?
> 
> I mean good technique works against sloppy fighters. Good technique works against other systems.


It's not always different techniques. It's a different response, though. Remember that the style I teach varies response based upon the amount of physical energy committed by the attacker, so the response to a rushing attack may use the same technique as a shoving attack (assuming enough forward momentum is committed to the shove), but we'd move differently within the technique to accept that momentum in and redirect it. If we don't practice against that attack, we don't practice working with that rushing momentum in that way. The same goes for the difference between a one-handed shove, a straight punch, and a grab at the shirt. The initial movement is the same for both, but different amounts of forward momentum (energy) are committed to each, so the response has to vary with it.

We also train for those moments when our awareness fails us - when head movement doesn't avoid a hair grab, because we didn't see the attack coming. Not knowing an attack is coming doesn't happen in a competition unless someone decides to start before the ref starts the fight, and even then it just came earlier than expected rather than being wholly unexpected.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not always different techniques. It's a different response, though. Remember that the style I teach varies response based upon the amount of physical energy committed by the attacker, so the response to a rushing attack may use the same technique as a shoving attack (assuming enough forward momentum is committed to the shove), but we'd move differently within the technique to accept that momentum in and redirect it. If we don't practice against that attack, we don't practice working with that rushing momentum in that way. The same goes for the difference between a one-handed shove, a straight punch, and a grab at the shirt. The initial movement is the same for both, but different amounts of forward momentum (energy) are committed to each, so the response has to vary with it.
> 
> We also train for those moments when our awareness fails us - when head movement doesn't avoid a hair grab, because we didn't see the attack coming. Not knowing an attack is coming doesn't happen in a competition unless someone decides to start before the ref starts the fight, and even then it just came earlier than expected rather than being wholly unexpected.



Where mma does not. It is one system designed to cut through other systems in terms of simplicity. The same fight in the gym in the ring in the street for the most part.

At its core. And from there you get expression as relates to the individual.

This is why mma fighters can sit in a bjjers guard. not because they know bjj better than the other guy but because they know that bjj  needs to take position before they get submission. 

Not knowing an attack is coming happens every time someone suckers you into an attack. You spend plenty of time recovering from being off footed in mma. Same as if you have just been ambushed in the street.

This is the point. Ok so I am walking down the street and someone pops out of the shadows and punches me. Well I have been there before in the gym having to recover find my defence and counter.

So that punch sent me to the deck. Well I have been there befor and now have to work a basic get up. 

They are not specified environments they are themes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Where mma does not. It is one system designed to cut through other systems in terms of simplicity. The same fight in the gym in the ring in the street for the most part.
> 
> At its core. And from there you get expression as relates to the individual.
> 
> This is why mma fighters can sit in a bjjers guard. not because they know bjj better than the other guy but because they know that bjj  needs to take position before they get submission.
> 
> Not knowing an attack is coming happens every time someone suckers you into an attack. You spend plenty of time recovering from being off footed in mma. Same as if you have just been ambushed in the street.
> 
> This is the point. Ok so I am walking down the street and someone pops out of the shadows and punches me. Well I have been there before in the gym having to recover find my defence and counter.
> 
> So that punch sent me to the deck. Well I have been there befor and now have to work a basic get up.
> 
> They are not specified environments they are themes.


Being attacked while entirely unaware is not the same as being hit while standing facing an opponent - it's an entire change of mental state. The physical recovery can be the same, and dealing with getting surprised in the ring will definitely help with some of the state change.

I'm not here to debate the efficacy of MMA. You seem to REALLY want what I do (and, in fact all SD-oriented programs) to be really complicated. It's not so much, unless someone (like me) wants to keep digging deeper and deeper layers as a personal academic pursuit. The basics are fairly simple, though some of the techniques can be complex (like those arm bars are in BJJ). You speak of MMA as if it's something wholly separate from other areas of MA. It isn't - it's derived and distilled from other areas. Many of the principles overlap several different arts, as do many of the techniques.

I'm not sure why you have such a personal drive to try to tell me what _must be _wrong with what I do. It works for the people I know who've used it to defend themselves. It works for the people who study it. It even works for the cops and bouncers I know that use it on the job. 

What I do is a different approach than what you do. What I do wouldn't work well in a competition setting - we don't train for that. What you do does work well, so why has this become so personal for you?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> eing attacked while entirely unaware is not the same as being hit while standing facing an opponent - it's an entire change of mental state. The physical recovery can be the same, and dealing with getting surprised in the ring will definitely help with some of the state change.



What change of mental state?  I am not sure having the sucker punched in the street mental state and the eaten an uppercut in the gym mental state as two separate entities is at all helpful. Why would you bother?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not here to debate the efficacy of MMA. You seem to REALLY want what I do (and, in fact all SD-oriented programs) to be really complicated. It's not so much, unless someone (like me) wants to keep digging deeper and deeper layers as a personal academic pursuit. The basics are fairly simple, though some of the techniques can be complex (like those arm bars are in BJJ). You speak of MMA as if it's something wholly separate from other areas of MA. It isn't - it's derived and distilled from other areas. Many of the principles overlap several different arts, as do many of the techniques.



You have two responses to counter ether a street style attack or a trained attack. That is a lot to process in the few seconds an attack will take. That is complicated. 

I don't want sd to be complex.  It does that to itself.  And generally focused on areas that could be time spent to better use. 

I do speak of mma as a separate entity.  Because if you don,t understand where it differs from other systems you dont understand the arguments you should be making.

A lot of times you have pretty much suggested it is bjj with punching. It isn't. Understanding how mma uses unique concepts will help you understand how those concept fit into self defence. 

Or to put it another way.  Almost nobody does flying triangles or butt flops or a lot of other things that just incorrectly get atributed to mma.


----------



## Hyoho

moller18 said:


> Hey Guys! first off sorry for the silly topic name, and sorry if posted in wrong section!
> 
> Im just got started to MMA ( focus on striking, wrestling and jiu jitsu ) i do mma twice a week, and then im in the gym 4 for strength and look, for 45 -60 minutes only. I have some questions for you. The ONLY reason why i do workout beside keeping myself healthy is self defense. I have been attacked twice by a group, and stabbed one of the times. Not because of my attitude, once because i stood up for my girlfriend and the other, because i was at the wrong place at the wrong place. So now i have decide i wanna be able to defend myself, IF talking or running, aint the option. So do you guys think that mma is a good thing, together with strength training. For this purpose?
> 
> The otherside i know a important thing, of getting stronger, bigger and faster, is the diet. I eat a lot of beef and veggies, and water. Dont eat to many carbs, only around working out, im mostly eating to get my proteins.
> 
> Viking


 
Well if you cant fight none of this is going to work. People in this sort of situation use weapons. Its 2016. 

MMA has rules. No rules on the street. Get yourself a taser but most of all avoid confrontation if you can.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure why you have such a personal drive to try to tell me what _must be _wrong with what I do. It works for the people I know who've used it to defend themselves. It works for the people who study it. It even works for the cops and bouncers I know that use it on the job.



It is a discussion on concepts.

It is not so much wrong as a long way to go to gain a skill. Especially as a fighting machine in the case of this thread.

And i thought you couldn't spar because of the danger. How to people bounce using those techniques?

It is not personal it is basically a technical discussion.

You have to understand why something doesn't work in the ring.  Not the illegal stuff.  But the overlap. Generally there is a simple mechanical reason.


----------



## Hyoho

gpseymour said:


> What I do is a different approach than what you do. What I do wouldn't work well in a competition setting - we don't train for that. What you do does work well, so why has this become so personal for you?


I can only read you comments so I am guessing you are responding to the person who I blocked that always "Gets personal".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What change of mental state?  I am not sure having the sucker punched in the street mental state and the eaten an uppercut in the gym mental state as two separate entities is at all helpful. Why would you bother?


I'm not making it so - it simply is so. It's psychology (my background). Someone in a contest is expecting an attack, so even a surprise there isn't entirely unexpected. Someone walking down the street and getting clocked is in a different mental state - different areas of the brain doing different things. A much bigger difference between anticipated outcome and actual outcome in the moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have two responses to counter ether a street style attack or a trained attack. That is a lot to process in the few seconds an attack will take. That is complicated.



You're presuming the defender has to stop and select between them. They are two different attacks, so no selection needed. The type of attack flows into the response. Do you  find it difficult to select the right response to a jab to the face, versus a punch to the abdomen? Of course not - they are two different attacks.



> I don't want sd to be complex.  It does that to itself.  And generally focused on areas that could be time spent to better use.


That's your perception based upon your strawman concept of what you think SD training is. You keep presenting all these "you do this" situations, and nearly none of them bear any relationship to my training. Yet you keep pointing back at them to show how complicated things are. I agree that what you THINK we do is pretty complicated.



> I do speak of mma as a separate entity.  Because if you don,t understand where it differs from other systems you dont understand the arguments you should be making.


I do understand how it differs. And, other than the fact that its proponents are constantly working against different styles, it doesn't do that much different than any other competition style. The main benefits it has are that it deals with opponents from many different styles, it draws from different styles so isn't linked to a single set of techniques, and most of the proponents train at high intensity more often (this latter being true for folks who compete in other areas, as well, of course).



> A lot of times you have pretty much suggested it is bjj with punching. It isn't. Understanding how mma uses unique concepts will help you understand how those concept fit into self defence.


I've suggested no such thing. I use BJJ as a reference point most often when talking about MMA because it's clearly present and something I have a reasonable understanding of. It's also something that dominated MMA at one point, so is something MMA fighters must defend against.



> Or to put it another way.  Almost nobody does flying triangles or butt flops or a lot of other things that just incorrectly get atributed to mma.


I'm not sure what the "butt flop" is, but I accept that the flying triangle isn't common. I can't recall the last time I saw one when perusing footage of MMA matches. My point in mentioning it was that I would expect many MMA competitors would train on how to avoid/defend it, because it has been used successfully, not that many would be training to actually use it. That may be a misperception, but not one that can be corrected by a single person's experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a discussion on concepts.
> 
> It is not so much wrong as a long way to go to gain a skill. Especially as a fighting machine in the case of this thread.


I've addressed this in other threads (or was it this one) with Steve, I think. There are many ways of preparing for physical defense. MMA is certainly one, but there are a lot of people who aren't interested in that one. My program is one of the other ways. I'm not sure it's all that much longer as a path. I teach some very simple and direct pieces right up front, then just keep adding to build skill and add options. I accommodate a wider range of people (and commitment levels) so I move more gradually.



> And i thought you couldn't spar because of the danger. How to people bounce using those techniques?


How many times have I actually replied to you that we DO spar. We DO spar with resistance. We do striking sparring and randori (like rolling in BJJ), and even combined sparring/randori. There are some techniques we don't use in sparring/randori because they aren't safe with full resistance, so we leave them out. Those who bounce use what's appropriate to the situation, just like we would in self-defense. Just like the LEO's do.



> It is not personal it is basically a technical discussion.
> 
> You have to understand why something doesn't work in the ring.  Not the illegal stuff.  But the overlap. Generally there is a simple mechanical reason.


That's not the only reason. There are a great many things that will work quite well against someone who doesn't understand grappling very well, which will fail spectacularly when used against someone who grapples. An "okay" striker (reasonable power, form protects hands, speed is decent) will often be sufficient on the street, but will be easily outclassed by a faster or more powerful striker (who has trained harder) in competition.

You appear to want SD-oriented training to be awful. I say that because you keep presenting false dichotomies and strawmen. When I tell you we do things you say SD systems don't do, you keep coming back and ignoring that (reference your recent comments about not sparring, not training with resistance, etc.). You seem to be (and I'm using that specific phrase, because if that's not what you intend to be doing, I'd like you to be aware of my perception) trying really hard to prove something about the efficacy of MMA. As I've said to you and others, there's little argument to be made that MMA preparation doubles as SD preparation. It could be taken a step further to be more prepared for the street, but so could anything else, so that's not a mark against it. But MMA isn't for everyone, and other approaches have reasonable evidence that they are effective. There's no need to win here.


----------



## Kickboxer101

gpseymour said:


> I've addressed this in other threads (or was it this one) with Steve, I think. There are many ways of preparing for physical defense. MMA is certainly one, but there are a lot of people who aren't interested in that one. My program is one of the other ways. I'm not sure it's all that much longer as a path. I teach some very simple and direct pieces right up front, then just keep adding to build skill and add options. I accommodate a wider range of people (and commitment levels) so I move more gradually.
> 
> 
> How many times have I actually replied to you that we DO spar. We DO spar with resistance. We do striking sparring and randori (like rolling in BJJ), and even combined sparring/randori. There are some techniques we don't use in sparring/randori because they aren't safe with full resistance, so we leave them out. Those who bounce use what's appropriate to the situation, just like we would in self-defense. Just like the LEO's do.
> 
> 
> That's not the only reason. There are a great many things that will work quite well against someone who doesn't understand grappling very well, which will fail spectacularly when used against someone who grapples. An "okay" striker (reasonable power, form protects hands, speed is decent) will often be sufficient on the street, but will be easily outclassed by a faster or more powerful striker (who has trained harder) in competition.
> 
> You appear to want SD-oriented training to be awful. I say that because you keep presenting false dichotomies and strawmen. When I tell you we do things you say SD systems don't do, you keep coming back and ignoring that (reference your recent comments about not sparring, not training with resistance, etc.). You seem to be (and I'm using that specific phrase, because if that's not what you intend to be doing, I'd like you to be aware of my perception) trying really hard to prove something about the efficacy of MMA. As I've said to you and others, there's little argument to be made that MMA preparation doubles as SD preparation. It could be taken a step further to be more prepared for the street, but so could anything else, so that's not a mark against it. But MMA isn't for everyone, and other approaches have reasonable evidence that they are effective. There's no need to win here.


Mma is effective and I wouldn't want to fight Anderson silva in a back alley.but that doesn't mean it's the best thing ever. It's got it's strengths and its weaknesses anyone saying it doesn't have weaknesses is simply ignorant. Every style has a weakness but it doesn't make it wrong. There's always more than route to take to get to a certain destination. Same with martial arts there's many ways to be able to defend yourself no better or worse just your preference and what's the best and available for you simple as that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> How many times have I actually replied to you that we DO spar. We DO spar with resistance. We do striking sparring and randori (like rolling in BJJ), and even combined sparring/randori. There are some techniques we don't use in sparring/randori because they aren't safe with full resistance, so we leave them out. Those who bounce use what's appropriate to the situation, just like we would in self-defense. Just like the LEO's do.



Seeing that would help.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> Mma is effective and I wouldn't want to fight Anderson silva in a back alley.but that doesn't mean it's the best thing ever. It's got it's strengths and its weaknesses anyone saying it doesn't have weaknesses is simply ignorant. Every style has a weakness but it doesn't make it wrong. There's always more than route to take to get to a certain destination. Same with martial arts there's many ways to be able to defend yourself no better or worse just your preference and what's the best and available for you simple as that.



Nobody believes that.  Look at the thread on that Qi fight.  All the people who dismissed it.

Edit.

Oh.  One if them was you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not making it so - it simply is so. It's psychology (my background). Someone in a contest is expecting an attack, so even a surprise there isn't entirely unexpected. Someone walking down the street and getting clocked is in a different mental state - different areas of the brain doing different things. A much bigger difference between anticipated outcome and actual outcome in the moment.



I really don't think it is as big a difference as you make out. From punching dudes.  (my background)You switch mentally pretty quickly. You absolutely can be good to go from inbetween the first shot to the next. 

Competition is a pretty intense mental ride.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Seeing that would help.


Videoing that is in my plans. I have a very small program, and none of my students are highly experienced in the art, so I don't get to run those sorts of exercises a lot yet, and capturing video takes more of my time. Someday.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I really don't think it is as big a difference as you make out. From punching dudes.  (my background)You switch mentally pretty quickly. You absolutely can be good to go from inbetween the first shot to the next.
> 
> Competition is a pretty intense mental ride.


Competition is, indeed an intense ride. That's the point. When you walk into the ring (or whatever it is in a given competition), you are on that ride. Walking down the street carrying your coffee, you're not. That's the difference I'm talking about.

I do think those who compete - or at least those who spar hard - are better equipped to make that sudden shift. When they are surprised, it's as likely to be a reaction of "what the hell - when did I step into that ring??", switching on the competition mode, which serves nicely to get defenses up and start a reaction while your brain gets back on track.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Competition is, indeed an intense ride. That's the point. When you walk into the ring (or whatever it is in a given competition), you are on that ride. Walking down the street carrying your coffee, you're not. That's the difference I'm talking about.
> 
> I do think those who compete - or at least those who spar hard - are better equipped to make that sudden shift. When they are surprised, it's as likely to be a reaction of "what the hell - when did I step into that ring??", switching on the competition mode, which serves nicely to get defenses up and start a reaction while your brain gets back on track.



A lot of sports people have that quick shift. Go punch a football player and see how long it takes the whole team to react. They go straight into sports mode.






Otherwise I become sceptical when people discuss this extra mental state in self defence. As I think a lot of it is fear marketing. Which from a psychological point of view isnt very helpfull.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's not the only reason. There are a great many things that will work quite well against someone who doesn't understand grappling very well, which will fail spectacularly when used against someone who grapples. An "okay" striker (reasonable power, form protects hands, speed is decent) will often be sufficient on the street, but will be easily outclassed by a faster or more powerful striker (who has trained harder) in competition.
> 
> You appear to want SD-oriented training to be awful. I say that because you keep presenting false dichotomies and strawmen. When I tell you we do things you say SD systems don't do, you keep coming back and ignoring that (reference your recent comments about not sparring, not training with resistance, etc.). You seem to be (and I'm using that specific phrase, because if that's not what you intend to be doing, I'd like you to be aware of my perception) trying really hard to prove something about the efficacy of MMA. As I've said to you and others, there's little argument to be made that MMA preparation doubles as SD preparation. It could be taken a step further to be more prepared for the street, but so could anything else, so that's not a mark against it. But MMA isn't for everyone, and other approaches have reasonable evidence that they are effective. There's no need to win here.



There is a false dichotomy regarding self defence training. Especially compared to ring training.

On the one hand people treat self defence as this life or death scenario where one miss step leaves you crippled raped or killed.

And then half *** the training. Comparatively it is awful. I wouldnt put a one day a week training fat grampar in a ring fight. But he can train for self defence no dramas.

Now self defence should be open to everyone. But you are going to get the results comparative to the work you put in.

So when people say life or death fight. I treat that as ring training plus extra. Because I would not put a person in a life or death fight unless they have every possible chance.

(How to become a fighting machine)

Self defence is essentially martial arts lite. Enough skills to mabye get yourself out of danger in a manner that everyone can access. Stop that sloppy punch. But you pay for that in effectiveness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A lot of sports people have that quick shift. Go punch a football player and see how long it takes the whole team to react. They go straight into sports mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise I become sceptical when people discuss this extra mental state in self defence. As I think a lot of it is fear marketing. Which from a psychological point of view isnt very helpfull.


Actually, it's just psychology. Remember that that's my background.

I think you're right about pretty much any contact sport that rewards aggression. Partly, that's because it attracts a certain type of person. Studies showed that some people are predisposed to what's called an "orientation response" (turning toward a source) when surprised or startled, while others are more prone to flinching away. The former tend to be less averse to risk, so more likely to participate in MMA, football (both kinds, after a point), etc. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall they also tended to be more competitive. Put those traits together, and you get someone whose natural response adapts well to that transition.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's just psychology. Remember that that's my background.
> 
> I think you're right about pretty much any contact sport that rewards aggression. Partly, that's because it attracts a certain type of person. Studies showed that some people are predisposed to what's called an "orientation response" (turning toward a source) when surprised or startled, while others are more prone to flinching away. The former tend to be less averse to risk, so more likely to participate in MMA, football (both kinds, after a point), etc. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall they also tended to be more competitive. Put those traits together, and you get someone whose natural response adapts well to that transition.



I dont know if combat sports attracts a certain type of person. Football I can see. Not martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is a false dichotomy regarding self defence training. Especially compared to ring training.
> 
> On the one hand people treat self defence as this life or death scenario where one miss step leaves you crippled raped or killed.
> 
> And then half *** the training. Comparatively it is awful. I wouldnt put a one day a week training fat grampar in a ring fight. But he can train for self defence no dramas.
> 
> Now self defence should be open to everyone. But you are going to get the results comparative to the work you put in.
> 
> So when people say life or death fight. I treat that as ring training plus extra. Because I would not put a person in a life or death fight unless they have every possible chance.
> 
> (How to become a fighting machine)
> 
> Self defence is essentially martial arts lite. Enough skills to mabye get yourself out of danger in a manner that everyone can access. Stop that sloppy punch. But you pay for that in effectiveness.


Self defense isn't "martial arts lite" - it's something people do when they are attacked. Competition styles (those like MMA that are reasonably intense) make good preparation for self-defense. There are other methods that work, as well.

You seem to be stuck in a loop on this. Let's move along.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I dont know if combat sports attracts a certain type of person. Football I can see. Not martial arts.


You don't think it takes a certain kind of person to want to get into a cage and fight someone who's trying to knock them out?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I do understand how it differs. And, other than the fact that its proponents are constantly working against different styles, it doesn't do that much different than any other competition style. The main benefits it has are that it deals with opponents from many different styles, it draws from different styles so isn't linked to a single set of techniques, and most of the proponents train at high intensity more often (this latter being true for folks who compete in other areas, as well, of course).



By the way. I really think you dont here. The concepts are much more in line with mainstream self defence ideas. Than dedicated sports ideas.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You don't think it takes a certain kind of person to want to get into a cage and fight someone who's trying to knock them out?



Do you think it takes a certain kind of person to defend a street assault?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Self defense isn't "martial arts lite" - it's something people do when they are attacked. Competition styles (those like MMA that are reasonably intense) make good preparation for self-defense. There are other methods that work, as well.
> 
> You seem to be stuck in a loop on this. Let's move along.



You cant dissagree and then move along. 

Seriously who does that.

And self defence training is martial arts lite.


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> Nobody believes that.  Look at the thread on that Qi fight.  All the people who dismissed it.
> 
> Edit.
> 
> Oh.  One if them was you.


Umm yeah because that was proven in that video that that guy was a fraud so your telling me you believe in just touching a guy and they fall to the floor or are you just trying to cause an argument


----------



## Kickboxer101

gpseymour said:


> Self defense isn't "martial arts lite" - it's something people do when they are attacked. Competition styles (those like MMA that are reasonably intense) make good preparation for self-defense. There are other methods that work, as well.
> 
> You seem to be stuck in a loop on this. Let's move along.


I'm very confused what this argument is even about, I'd understand if you said mma doesn't work but you've said plenty of times it does so I don't see what drop bears arguing with you about


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> By the way. I really think you dont here. The concepts are much more in line with mainstream self defence ideas. Than dedicated sports ideas.


I'd be interested in hearing more about that, Drop Bear. That would be different than what I've experienced talking with folks who participate in MMA competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Do you think it takes a certain kind of person to defend a street assault?


No. Certain people do have a natural advantage to start with, but anyone can potentially defend against an assault.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You cant dissagree and then move along.
> 
> Seriously who does that.
> 
> And self defence training is martial arts lite.


You're stuck in a loop. I've addressed this so many different ways, and you keep coming back to similar concepts. Neither of us, nor anyone else, is gaining anything from this discussion. So, yes, I can move along.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kickboxer101 said:


> Umm yeah because that was proven in that video that that guy was a fraud so your telling me you believe in just touching a guy and they fall to the floor or are you just trying to cause an argument


I think his point is that there are, in fact, wrong ways. That was one of them, and there's a big grey area between that and what's obviously effective.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about that, Drop Bear. That would be different than what I've experienced talking with folks who participate in MMA competition.



What would you like to know?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is that there are, in fact, wrong ways. That was one of them, and there's a big grey area between that and what's obviously effective.



And it is very hard to have a discussion on practical method if there are no wrong ways. 

Or high percentage/low percentage as is generally the term we go for.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're stuck in a loop. I've addressed this so many different ways, and you keep coming back to similar concepts. Neither of us, nor anyone else, is gaining anything from this discussion. So, yes, I can move along.



It helps me redefine the concepts.

So to argue a competition is harder than self defence based on worst possible outcome doesn't really work. 

Tried it at you get a brick wall. 

Defining the idea by preparation has legs.  Because people who compete have generally spent much more time and effort than people who train for self defence. 

If self defence is worse.  And you are responsible for the outcome of these encounters it seems to me to be impossible to justify.

It shows something in that method is wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What would you like to know?


Talk to me about how your MMA training is more in line with mainstream SD than other competitions. I'm intrigued, as I've often thought it was possible for a program to bring some basic SD principles to competition-oriented training much better than programs I've seen do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It helps me redefine the concepts.
> 
> So to argue a competition is harder than self defence based on worst possible outcome doesn't really work.
> 
> Tried it at you get a brick wall.
> 
> Defining the idea by preparation has legs.  Because people who compete have generally spent much more time and effort than people who train for self defence.
> 
> If self defence is worse.  And you are responsible for the outcome of these encounters it seems to me to be impossible to justify.
> 
> It shows something in that method is wrong.



Okay, one last try, then. If I don't see us making progress here, I can't see any value in continuing this line of discussion.

The key piece is this one, IMO: "people who compete have generally spent much more time and effort than people who train for self defence".

Again, this is generally true where you're talking about someone whose focus is competition (rather than the martial artist who simply chooses to compete on occasion, where it may or may not be true). And being able to compete essentially requires this (since other competitors will be doing it). There are methods of self-defense that are effective without requiring the same level of fitness (though the higher levels of fitness are obviously of benefit there, as well).

You're assuming this is a problem with the program. What I'm asserting is that it's the point of the program. If I were running a full-time school, I could add a LOT more fitness into the program (higher intensity, training more hours per week, etc.). But that wouldn't serve the people who have made the decision to spend a few hours a week (usually 3-5) to improve their ability to defend themselves. That's who I help, mostly. They won't get much help from training for competition against people who spend 10 hours a week training (sort of a minimum for the competitive MMA folks I've talked with), because they'd be overwhelmed every time. I teach them methods that work, through training methods that have lower intensity most of the time (to help avoid injury - remember, less active people). Does it take longer to get to a strong defensive level? Probably. I've never measured it - that would take an enormous data collection effort - but I've assumed that an intense regimen and good competition could get people there faster.

On the other hand, I can give them starting points for defense very quickly. I teach them how to escape simple grips and do simple blocks and strikes, for instance, before I get into any of the technical material. I give them effective tools that take very little training, then graduate into other tools that take more training, all working with the level of time commitment they have.

It's not "worse". It's different, and suits a different audience. If they aren't going to commit the time and effort to get fit enough to do MMA properly, then training them for MMA with that kind of intensity is just going to get them hurt, slowing their progress and making them LESS able to defend themselves.

It's about the training fitting the needs of the person. "Optimal" training is only such if it actually fits the needs of the person training. Otherwise, it becomes "worse".


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Talk to me about how your MMA training is more in line with mainstream SD than other competitions. I'm intrigued, as I've often thought it was possible for a program to bring some basic SD principles to competition-oriented training much better than programs I've seen do.



So for example MMA is about being really hard to hold down. Due to the face punching which sucks. So they focus a lot more on stand up drills and specific methods that make that happen.






Which is basic grappling for self defence. Rather than a submissions competition where standing up is not rewarded.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, one last try, then. If I don't see us making progress here, I can't see any value in continuing this line of discussion.
> 
> The key piece is this one, IMO: "people who compete have generally spent much more time and effort than people who train for self defence".
> 
> Again, this is generally true where you're talking about someone whose focus is competition (rather than the martial artist who simply chooses to compete on occasion, where it may or may not be true). And being able to compete essentially requires this (since other competitors will be doing it). There are methods of self-defense that are effective without requiring the same level of fitness (though the higher levels of fitness are obviously of benefit there, as well).
> 
> You're assuming this is a problem with the program. What I'm asserting is that it's the point of the program. If I were running a full-time school, I could add a LOT more fitness into the program (higher intensity, training more hours per week, etc.). But that wouldn't serve the people who have made the decision to spend a few hours a week (usually 3-5) to improve their ability to defend themselves. That's who I help, mostly. They won't get much help from training for competition against people who spend 10 hours a week training (sort of a minimum for the competitive MMA folks I've talked with), because they'd be overwhelmed every time. I teach them methods that work, through training methods that have lower intensity most of the time (to help avoid injury - remember, less active people). Does it take longer to get to a strong defensive level? Probably. I've never measured it - that would take an enormous data collection effort - but I've assumed that an intense regimen and good competition could get people there faster.
> 
> On the other hand, I can give them starting points for defense very quickly. I teach them how to escape simple grips and do simple blocks and strikes, for instance, before I get into any of the technical material. I give them effective tools that take very little training, then graduate into other tools that take more training, all working with the level of time commitment they have.
> 
> It's not "worse". It's different, and suits a different audience. If they aren't going to commit the time and effort to get fit enough to do MMA properly, then training them for MMA with that kind of intensity is just going to get them hurt, slowing their progress and making them LESS able to defend themselves.
> 
> It's about the training fitting the needs of the person. "Optimal" training is only such if it actually fits the needs of the person training. Otherwise, it becomes "worse".



It is designed to allow more people to benifit from the training. But is is a compromise. As you make it easier for people they get less results. It isnt a short cut because there isnt a short cut.

When you tune a system around people who cant commit you have to get less development. So you need to be realistic about your goals. If you only want to get so good. (And I sit in this category) you only train to a certain level.

If you want to get better you train to a better level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So for example MMA is about being really hard to hold down. Due to the face punching which sucks. So they focus a lot more on stand up drills and specific methods that make that happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is basic grappling for self defence. Rather than a submissions competition where standing up is not rewarded.


That's a pretty straight line, indeed. I'd agree that's more in line with the needs of self-defense than training to get to the ground and grapple. I would assume that pretty much anyone competing in MMA has some sort of effective ground game, as well, so they have some tools to use against those who mistakenly take them there, even if it's only a few basic, effective tools to facilitate getting back up.

Looking back, it has been a while since I talked much with MMA folks, and last time I talked with them, there was a lot of emphasis on learning the ground game (that's what most needed the most). That point in time was a time of adjustment, so there was more emphasis on a fairly common gap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is designed to allow more people to benifit from the training. But is is a compromise. As you make it easier for people they get less results. It isnt a short cut because there isnt a short cut.
> 
> When you tune a system around people who cant commit you have to get less development. So you need to be realistic about your goals. If you only want to get so good. (And I sit in this category) you only train to a certain level.
> 
> If you want to get better you train to a better level.


That's a reasonable synopsis. Add to that the personality question. I'm not someone who would ever have chosen - at any age - to enter a striking competition. I'm not interested in hurting someone to see who's better, and competition that goes too lightly doesn't fit my goals, at all. So, MMA competition training really never would have been a home for me, even in my most intense days.

By turning up the intensity in a good SD-oriented program, you can get a lot of the same benefits as MMA (minus the obvious one of working against different styles, I'll get to that in a moment). In my early 30's, I had some training partners I trusted a lot, and we could go close to all-out. I had a couple of them who were good strikers, and one told me he would only ever bring his full-speed attacks at me, because he knew I'd handle them.

To get some (not all) of the cross-competition benefits of MMA, I dabble with other arts and with folks from those arts. It's not the same benefit, because it's not as consistent, nor usually as intense (again, I just am not interested in actually trying to hurt someone for training/testing), but it helps me find where I've developed habits around dealing with people from my own art.

And there's some benefit (again, probably not as much as those of us using these methods wish there was) in training to specific contexts - in getting used to seeing certain kinds of attacks, so they are less likely to kick in an exaggerated fear response. There's also some benefit in not needing to pay much attention to some attacks that are more likely from a highly-trained MMA opponent and are unlikely in an attack on the street. These latter two are more important in the context of this different type of training, and probably matter less within the intensity of MMA preparation.


----------



## Steve

I've enjoyed the blast 10 pages.  I just have a few comments.  To the OP, good on you for training.  I hope you enjoy yourself, and that it helps you avoid trouble in the future. 

My opinion is that mma plus some situational awareness and common sense and you'll be in pretty good shape.  

For the rest, I don't think mma in particular is better.   I think competition is healthy and constructive and any style that competes will have an advantage over any style that does not.  

Drop bear has articulated a lot of points I don't think are being fully understood and so people think he's an mma nuthugger.  he's actually been making a larger point.  

I think we can all agree that how you train matters.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I've enjoyed the blast 10 pages.  I just have a few comments.  To the OP, good on you for training.  I hope you enjoy yourself, and that it helps you avoid trouble in the future.
> 
> My opinion is that mma plus some situational awareness and common sense and you'll be in pretty good shape.
> 
> For the rest, I don't think mma in particular is better.   I think competition is healthy and constructive and any style that competes will have an advantage over any style that does not.
> 
> Drop bear has articulated a lot of points I don't think are being fully understood and so people think he's an mma nuthugger.  he's actually been making a larger point.
> 
> I think we can all agree that how you train matters.


ha ha ha.. I said this earlier on and you disagreed with me.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. I said this earlier on and you disagreed with me.


Did I?   I'm pretty sure this is the same record I've been spinning for years.  Can you help me by pointing to the post?  I suspect there is a contextual issue, at most here.

Is it possible you made several points and I disagreed with most of them, but not all?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Did I?   I'm pretty sure this is the same record I've been spinning for years.  Can you help me by pointing to the post?  I suspect there is a contextual issue, at most here.
> 
> But if you agree with me that competitive arts have an inherent advanta





JowGaWolf said:


> if someone is looking for something that helps them to better defend themselves then that's where the training needs to be. If the MMA training is only sports focused and sports related then it will fail in self-defense as it does not cover any of the non-physical concepts, methods, and techniques of self-defense.


 This is the comment that I made, "The part about MMA failing" is not an absolute, there are exceptions such as a person's existing self-defense skill sets such as situational awareness may have existed before their study of MMA.  If that is the case then that person would have both MMA and a valuable self-defense skill set.  This doesn't just apply to martial arts but all forms of physical fighting.

If I want to learn self-defense then I need to train self-defense. That include the non-physical side of it as well. . Police don't just learn how to shoot, they learn other non fighting /shooting skills that help manage a situation and increased their ability to stay safe. I think self-defense is the same way.  It can't just be limited to fighting because then the person is just going to fall back on fighting when safer options are available.  These statements are in line with your comment below.



Steve said:


> My opinion is that mma plus some situational awareness and common sense and you'll be in pretty good shape.





Steve said:


> But if you agree with me that competitive arts have an inherent advanta


 My belief that any training is an advantage of no training.  People who train fighting may have an advantage in a physical fight in the street.  The fact that they trained to fight is a benefit and places the person in a better position had then not been training to fight or training to defend themselves.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> This is the comment that I made, "The part about MMA failing" is not an absolute, there are exceptions such as a person's existing self-defense skill sets such as situational awareness may have existed before their study of MMA.  If that is the case then that person would have both MMA and a valuable self-defense skill set.  This doesn't just apply to martial arts but all forms of physical fighting.
> 
> If I want to learn self-defense then I need to train self-defense. That include the non-physical side of it as well. . Police don't just learn how to shoot, they learn other non fighting /shooting skills that help manage a situation and increased their ability to stay safe. I think self-defense is the same way.  It can't just be limited to fighting because then the person is just going to fall back on fighting when safer options are available.  These statements are in line with your comment below.
> 
> My belief that any training is an advantage of no training.  People who train fighting may have an advantage in a physical fight in the street.  The fact that they trained to fight is a benefit and places the person in a better position had then not been training to fight or training to defend themselves.


We're in the same ball park, but if you think that MMA failing is the rule, even if there are exceptions, I think you're crazy.  There is enough evidence to the contrary that I can't imagine how you think that.  It's like pointing to cars that are up on cinderblocks as evidence that most cars don't roll down the street. We have enough evidence to see that reality is that cars that don't roll down the street are the exception, not the other way around.

Adding to MMA training some additional context is helpful.  But to be clear, I'm thinking things like helping people identify high risk behaviors and avoid them, or having a conversation with someone about how getting drunk and picking fights is a bad idea.  For most people, that's all they need.

But because there is a competitive element, MMA training has an inherent integrity.  ANY competitive art will have an inherent advantage over ANY non-competitive art.   And along the same lines, some training will actually make you less capable.  Any art that lacks a competitive element is a crapshoot, because you think you know how to do things you may not be able to do.

I also think that the idea of needing to train "self defense" to learn self defense, is a little crazy, because "self defense" is an abstract.  You might as well be saying, "If you want to learn leadership, you need to train leadership."   Sounds fine in theory, but it's a functionally meaningless declaration.  This is why I firmly believe that any discussion of safety has to be statistically supported.  On an individual level, you might be lucky or unlucky.  But on a macro level, if you're addressing a statistical need and measuring it accordingly, you will be able to gauge the success or failure of your training program.   This is particularly true if you can go so far as to identify a control group.

Finally, I just flat out disagree that cops or anyone else who are professionally at risk are engaging in self defense.  Or at least, that their self defense is relevant to non-cops.  Don't get me wrong.  A cop is probably among the most qualified to teach self defense, because of their experience.  But what cops learn and what is helpful to a non-cop are not the same.  I understand that others disagree with me, but I just flat out believe that a cop does not engage in self defense in the course of being a cop.  They engage in risk as a function of their profession.   In other words, being a cop, a bouncer, a security guard, a professional MMA fighter or a whatever else is a grounding that can inform training for a regular joe, but they are all different pieces to the puzzle.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a pretty straight line, indeed. I'd agree that's more in line with the needs of self-defense than training to get to the ground and grapple. I would assume that pretty much anyone competing in MMA has some sort of effective ground game, as well, so they have some tools to use against those who mistakenly take them there, even if it's only a few basic, effective tools to facilitate getting back up.
> 
> Looking back, it has been a while since I talked much with MMA folks, and last time I talked with them, there was a lot of emphasis on learning the ground game (that's what most needed the most). That point in time was a time of adjustment, so there was more emphasis on a fairly common gap.



Seen a lot of people who train self defence to finish a guy with strikes on the deck.  And have no clue how to deal with an up kick.

The striking also leans more towards the reactionary gap.  The strikes themselves are a bit different including all the funky ear slaps,hammer fists,foot stomps and oblique kicking.

This then leads to small glove striking.  Which changes the game a bit again.

a video on one person's transition from bjj to mma.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ONGzegX7lJE


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I've enjoyed the blast 10 pages.  I just have a few comments.  To the OP, good on you for training.  I hope you enjoy yourself, and that it helps you avoid trouble in the future.
> 
> My opinion is that mma plus some situational awareness and common sense and you'll be in pretty good shape.
> 
> For the rest, I don't think mma in particular is better.   I think competition is healthy and constructive and any style that competes will have an advantage over any style that does not.
> 
> Drop bear has articulated a lot of points I don't think are being fully understood and so people think he's an mma nuthugger.  he's actually been making a larger point.
> 
> I think we can all agree that how you train matters.



You take the concepts. I dont care if it is akido.  So long as what you are training is working on the guy you are training with. So no pretending it is working. (sort of. There has to be a starting point of the move working.  Then when that is down go conceptually buck wild. )

And then build that guy up so he can defend your counters. 

Then defend that. 

It can take years to actually get usable moves to work on resisted partners. Dont short cut that.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> If I want to learn self-defense then I need to train self-defense. That include the non-physical side of it as well. . Police don't just learn how to shoot, they learn other non fighting /shooting skills that help manage a situation and increased their ability to stay safe. I think self-defense is the same way. It can't just be limited to fighting because then the person is just going to fall back on fighting when safer options are available. These statements are in line with your comment below.



Yes but not in the manner that the statement comes across.

Being well rounded does not mean you have to learn water safety in martial arts school.

You go to the people who have the capacity to teach those skills.

And absolutely one of those areas where you assume they don't untill evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> There is enough evidence to the contrary that I can't imagine how you think that.


The evidence that you see are people who fight competitively in a professional or amateur setting.  I cannot base their success and assume that I will have the same success.  Things like capability and skill level come into play when looking at the success that MMA fighters have done when confronted by a criminal.

To take on the assumption that just because I take MMA means I can beat up criminals is crazy.  If you can't guarantee that the OP will reach a high level in which he can successfully take on criminals, both arm and unarmed through fighting, then there's not need to present MMA or any other fighting system as a silver bullet.  Because when looking at a gun, a knife, or being surrounded by multiple attackers, it's going to be the OP that has to fight, not the Professional MMA fighter.



Steve said:


> I also think that the idea of needing to train "self defense" to learn self defense, is a little crazy, because "self defense" is an abstract.


Painting, music, dancing and other types of art can be abstract but people still practice it.  Self-defense is like anything else.  The more you train it, the better you get at it.  If you don't train self-defense then you are relying totally on natural ability to be greater than what is attacking you.  



Steve said:


> You might as well be saying, "If you want to learn leadership, you need to train leadership." Sounds fine in theory, but it's a functionally meaningless declaration.


 People actually train leadership and develop their abilities to become better leaders.  Some of the worlds greatest leaders will tell you that they train their ability to lead and they learn from other great leaders.  Me coming from both a business environment, a recreation environment, a youth development environment and a martial arts environment.  Leadership in all environments is trained and developed. Some may have a natural ability to lead, but even that natural ability is trained and developed. 



Steve said:


> This is why I firmly believe that any discussion of safety has to be statistically supported.


 Ok in that case.  The lets look at the statistics.  Those who have used MMA to stop crimes.  How many were highly skilled professional or amateur fighters and how many were people who were just normal everyday MMA fighters who don't spar at the same skill level of those who were using MMA to stop crimes?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Finally, I just flat out disagree that cops or anyone else who are professionally at risk are engaging in self defense. Or at least, that their self defense is relevant to non-cops.


Police officers learn de-escalation skills so I guess that skill would be useless for non-cops


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Police officers learn de-escalation skills so I guess that skill would be useless for non-cops


If you think that's what I was suggesting, you are mistaken.  The very next statement was, "Don't get me wrong. A cop is probably among the most qualified to teach self defense, because of their experience."  And then I finished with, "In other words, being a cop, a bouncer, a security guard, a professional MMA fighter or a whatever else is a grounding that can inform training for a regular joe, but they are all different pieces to the puzzle."

I think you're trying to be clever, and it's coming across to me as snotty and a little petulant. 

Going back to some of your other statements, you don't learn art.  You can learn to play the flute.  One is abstract.  The other is concrete.  Does that help clarify the point?  How much experience do you have training leaders?  It doesn't sound like you have any.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> A cop is probably among the most qualified to teach self defense, because of their experience. But what cops learn and what is helpful to a non-cop are not the same.


 This is what you said which is why I brought up de-escalation techniques.



Steve said:


> I think you're trying to be clever, and it's coming across to me as snotty and a little petulant.


I'm sorry that I come across as that as it's not my intent to.

These are the definition of Art that I'm referring to: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation,an occupation requiring knowledge or skill, A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.

This is my understanding of abstract - Not based on a particular instance; theoretical

Both of these apply to martial arts and self defense.



Steve said:


> How much experience do you have training leaders?


 More than 20 years


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> We're in the same ball park, but if you think that MMA failing is the rule, even if there are exceptions, I think you're crazy.  There is enough evidence to the contrary that I can't imagine how you think that.  It's like pointing to cars that are up on cinderblocks as evidence that most cars don't roll down the street. We have enough evidence to see that reality is that cars that don't roll down the street are the exception, not the other way around.
> 
> Adding to MMA training some additional context is helpful.  But to be clear, I'm thinking things like helping people identify high risk behaviors and avoid them, or having a conversation with someone about how getting drunk and picking fights is a bad idea.  For most people, that's all they need.
> 
> But because there is a competitive element, MMA training has an inherent integrity.  ANY competitive art will have an inherent advantage over ANY non-competitive art.   And along the same lines, some training will actually make you less capable.  Any art that lacks a competitive element is a crapshoot, because you think you know how to do things you may not be able to do.
> 
> I also think that the idea of needing to train "self defense" to learn self defense, is a little crazy, because "self defense" is an abstract.  You might as well be saying, "If you want to learn leadership, you need to train leadership."   Sounds fine in theory, but it's a functionally meaningless declaration.  This is why I firmly believe that any discussion of safety has to be statistically supported.  On an individual level, you might be lucky or unlucky.  But on a macro level, if you're addressing a statistical need and measuring it accordingly, you will be able to gauge the success or failure of your training program.   This is particularly true if you can go so far as to identify a control group.
> 
> Finally, I just flat out disagree that cops or anyone else who are professionally at risk are engaging in self defense.  Or at least, that their self defense is relevant to non-cops.  Don't get me wrong.  A cop is probably among the most qualified to teach self defense, because of their experience.  But what cops learn and what is helpful to a non-cop are not the same.  I understand that others disagree with me, but I just flat out believe that a cop does not engage in self defense in the course of being a cop.  They engage in risk as a function of their profession.   In other words, being a cop, a bouncer, a security guard, a professional MMA fighter or a whatever else is a grounding that can inform training for a regular joe, but they are all different pieces to the puzzle.


You and I agree on much of this Steve, but I will take a contrary position on one very fine point. There are competition styles that do not have an inherent advantage over non-competition schools. I'm speaking of the competitions where the strikes are delivered without any intent. These competitions can train too-weak attacks and poor defenses. With this exception, yes, competition builds an advantage into training. It's not the techniques or style, obviously, but the - as you put it - "inherent integrity". It's really difficult to get away with crappy technique when the guy coming at you is at cross-purposes with you.

Actually, I really like the leadership analogy. I often teach classes my clients label "leadership". But what I teach in there isn't the generic concept of leadership (though we do talk about that concept), but the techniques, information, and skills that are necessary for effective leadership. I think this is analogous to my "self-defense" classes. I'm not teaching the general concept of self-defense (though we do talk about that concept), but the techniques, information, and skills that are necessary for effective self-defense. There are other ways to learn those leadership skills and practices, just like there are other ways to learn self-defense skills and practices. And just like crappy self-defense approaches, there are crappy approaches to learning leadership.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Seen a lot of people who train self defence to finish a guy with strikes on the deck.  And have no clue how to deal with an up kick.


A good indicator that they don't practice defending from down there, nor do they practice taking each other to the ground with resistance (where the thrown guy would keep defending after the fall - something you and I just talked about on some thread or other).



> The striking also leans more towards the reactionary gap.  The strikes themselves are a bit different including all the funky ear slaps,hammer fists,foot stomps and oblique kicking.


The ear slaps I'm okay with (those hurt if done with force). The hammerfist is okay in selective circumstances - I'd rather just use a punch or an elbow. Foot stomps are pretty limited in their range. I've pulled them off in a resisted attack more than once, but as I recall I was off-balance each time and used it to recover. Oblique kicks look interesting to me, but don't line up with our movement, so I'm not sure I'll ever even have an excuse to work on them much - can't really speak to them.



> This then leads to small glove striking.  Which changes the game a bit again.


I don't follow this sentence, and I'm not at all certain that's your fault.
I'll try to remember to watch the video later - my wife's watching TV in here right now, and I'm too lazy to go looking for headphones.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You take the concepts. I dont care if it is akido.  So long as what you are training is working on the guy you are training with. So no pretending it is working. (sort of. There has to be a starting point of the move working.  Then when that is down go conceptually buck wild. )
> 
> And then build that guy up so he can defend your counters.
> 
> Then defend that.
> 
> It can take years to actually get usable moves to work on resisted partners. Dont short cut that.


Agreed. As long as you're starting from a working/workable technique (and set of principles), you should be able to introduce resistance into training. As the students progress, they all learn to counter what they learned to do, so your more advanced students can practice working against those counters, and so on.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what you said which is why I brought up de-escalation ttechniques.
> I'm sorry that I come across as that as it's not my intent to.
> 
> These are the definition of Art that I'm referring to: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation,an occupation requiring knowledge or skill, A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
> 
> This is my understanding of abstract - Not based on a particular instance; theoretical
> 
> Both of these apply to martial arts and self defense.
> 
> More than 20 years


there is no skill, self defense.  You can practice the skill of punching someone or kicking someone.  But you can't practice the skill of self defense, because it's not a skill.  Just as you can't practice the skill of "art."  You can practice playing the flute.  I can take 100 people and ask them to describe self defense.  What it means.  What skills are involved.  What o learn, and they will all give me a different definition.  People who tsell self defense will define it in a way that maximizes what they sell.  People who are smart about it will determine what they need to know and then set about learning that. 

Leadership is the same thing.  You can't get 100 people in a room and teach leadership.  It's an abstract.  It's so big and so broad that it is unhelpful on an individual level.

And, after all of that, once you have actually landed on a concrete skill to learn and practice, how you learn it and how you practice it matters.  This is what I mean when I say that a competitive art has an advantage.  Because, like every other skill (except "self defense" training), you can actually apply what you're learning in context.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You and I agree on much of this Steve, but I will take a contrary position on one very fine point. There are competition styles that do not have an inherent advantage over non-competition schools. I'm speaking of the competitions where the strikes are delivered without any intent. These competitions can train too-weak attacks and poor defenses. With this exception, yes, competition builds an advantage into training. It's not the techniques or style, obviously, but the - as you put it - "inherent integrity". It's really difficult to get away with crappy technique when the guy coming at you is at cross-purposes with you.
> 
> Actually, I really like the leadership analogy. I often teach classes my clients label "leadership". But what I teach in there isn't the generic concept of leadership (though we do talk about that concept), but the techniques, information, and skills that are necessary for effective leadership. I think this is analogous to my "self-defense" classes. I'm not teaching the general concept of self-defense (though we do talk about that concept), but the techniques, information, and skills that are necessary for effective self-defense. There are other ways to learn those leadership skills and practices, just like there are other ways to learn self-defense skills and practices. And just like crappy self-defense approaches, there are crappy approaches to learning leadership.


Exactly.  Even in training like Covey's "Speed of Trust" the content is concrete.  Trust is an abstract, but the model is concrete and distilled into 13 behaviors, and what you are learning is the model.  You're not learning "trust" but are actually learning behaviors that, if practiced and used consistently, will help you establish strong, professional relationships that are grounded in trust.  The big difference, once again, is that in a situation like the Speed of Trust training, the expectation is that you will apply the behaviors in your real life interactions.  You will be expected to demonstrate respect, right wrongs, talk straight, etc.

In self defense training, there is no application.  Like someone who attends the Speed of Trust training but doesn't apply the techniques, they may as well not have attended.  They will know the behaviors on an academic, superficial level, but won't be able to execute them because they haven't practiced them.

Another example that I run into every time I teach feedback and coaching is in the role play.  Every single time, most of the class thinks they've got it, so I get a few volunteers to demonstrate how simple it is to deliver specific, non-judgmental feedback.  And they always start by telling me what they'd say.  I hold their feet to the fire, "Don't tell me what you'd say.  Say it to me."  And they struggle, because doing something is much harder than talking about it.

So, when I talk about competition, to be clear, I'm sure there are exceptions.  The competition is application, and it is surely important that the application reflects the skills being learned.  So, if you're learning to punch someone, punching them needs to be part of the competition.

A big part of my job is triage and consulting for our managers.  We'll talk things over and try to figure out what's going on and what will help.  I'm not teaching "leadership" but I am coaching managers to help them become stronger leaders by teaching them specific skills that are relevant to their specific situations and individual needs.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't follow this sentence, and I'm not at all certain that's your fault.
> I'll try to remember to watch the video later - my wife's watching TV in here right now, and I'm too lazy to go looking for headphones.



There are things you can do with a pair of boxing gloves on that you won't want to do with a pair of mma gloves.

A lot less people can fight from the pocket for example because there is a greater danger of being knocked out.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The ear slaps I'm okay with (those hurt if done with force). The hammerfist is okay in selective circumstances - I'd rather just use a punch or an elbow. Foot stomps are pretty limited in their range. I've pulled them off in a resisted attack more than once, but as I recall I was off-balance each time and used it to recover. Oblique kicks look interesting to me, but don't line up with our movement, so I'm not sure I'll ever even have an excuse to work on them much - can't really speak to them.



The hammerfist works because it fires off from different positions. Which if you grapple and strike you can create these special circumstances.

So ground and pound in guard is one example. In theory the guy on the bottom starts moving out of the way of your punches and fight from an off line position. So you throw the overhand to slip through his guard and then as he moves he runs out of places to go so then you throw the hammer fist. 

It also means you only chamber once every two punches giving less opportunity to triangle you.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> there is no skill, self defense.  You can practice the skill of punching someone or kicking someone.  But you can't practice the skill of self defense, because it's not a skill.  Just as you can't practice the skill of "art."  You can practice playing the flute.  I can take 100 people and ask them to describe self defense.  What it means.  What skills are involved.  What o learn, and they will all give me a different definition.  People who tsell self defense will define it in a way that maximizes what they sell.  People who are smart about it will determine what they need to know and then set about learning that.
> 
> Leadership is the same thing.  You can't get 100 people in a room and teach leadership.  It's an abstract.  It's so big and so broad that it is unhelpful on an individual level.
> 
> And, after all of that, once you have actually landed on a concrete skill to learn and practice, how you learn it and how you practice it matters.  This is what I mean when I say that a competitive art has an advantage.  Because, like every other skill (except "self defense" training), you can actually apply what you're learning in context.


I can and have applied my self defense skills in real life and these are skill sets that learn through training self defense.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I can and have applied my self defense skills in real life and these are skill sets that learn through training self defense.


youre not understanding the point, and I don't have the energy to explain it differently,


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> youre not understanding the point, and I don't have the energy to explain it differently,


don't worry about it.  Maybe someone else will shed some light on it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> don't worry about it.  Maybe someone else will shed some light on it.


Maybe so.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I can and have applied my self defense skills in real life and these are skill sets that learn through training self defense.



so has everyone who ever locked a door at night.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Exactly.  Even in training like Covey's "Speed of Trust" the content is concrete.  Trust is an abstract, but the model is concrete and distilled into 13 behaviors, and what you are learning is the model.  You're not learning "trust" but are actually learning behaviors that, if practiced and used consistently, will help you establish strong, professional relationships that are grounded in trust.  The big difference, once again, is that in a situation like the Speed of Trust training, the expectation is that you will apply the behaviors in your real life interactions.  You will be expected to demonstrate respect, right wrongs, talk straight, etc.
> 
> In self defense training, there is no application.  Like someone who attends the Speed of Trust training but doesn't apply the techniques, they may as well not have attended.  They will know the behaviors on an academic, superficial level, but won't be able to execute them because they haven't practiced them.
> 
> Another example that I run into every time I teach feedback and coaching is in the role play.  Every single time, most of the class thinks they've got it, so I get a few volunteers to demonstrate how simple it is to deliver specific, non-judgmental feedback.  And they always start by telling me what they'd say.  I hold their feet to the fire, "Don't tell me what you'd say.  Say it to me."  And they struggle, because doing something is much harder than talking about it.
> 
> So, when I talk about competition, to be clear, I'm sure there are exceptions.  The competition is application, and it is surely important that the application reflects the skills being learned.  So, if you're learning to punch someone, punching them needs to be part of the competition.
> 
> A big part of my job is triage and consulting for our managers.  We'll talk things over and try to figure out what's going on and what will help.  I'm not teaching "leadership" but I am coaching managers to help them become stronger leaders by teaching them specific skills that are relevant to their specific situations and individual needs.


That's it, precisely. The difference you and I are presenting about SD training is, I think, semantics. If the SD training is grounded in reasonable, effective techniques and includes some resistive training (application), then it doesn't suffer so much from not having competition involved. The programs that participate in competition have that "inherent advantage" of knowing that resistive component is built into the competition, and that someone outside the school will let them know (via a shellacking) if they aren't applying the skills well. That latter point is important. Those of us who don't use external competition have to do extra work to make sure the resistance inside the program doesn't get predictable and repetitive. One of the most valuable people in my program currently is a student with good experience in a striking art, who is actually fond of that art. His approach (and willingness to challenge ideas and concepts) helps keep me vigilant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are things you can do with a pair of boxing gloves on that you won't want to do with a pair of mma gloves.
> 
> A lot less people can fight from the pocket for example because there is a greater danger of being knocked out.


Ah! That makes sense. And, yes, I'm not a fan of folks training with the big gloves when self-defense is an objective. MMA gloves (and even my kempo gloves, which are a bit heavier/softer) are much closer to what you'll have "on the street".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The hammerfist works because it fires off from different positions. Which if you grapple and strike you can create these special circumstances.
> 
> So ground and pound in guard is one example. In theory the guy on the bottom starts moving out of the way of your punches and fight from an off line position. So you throw the overhand to slip through his guard and then as he moves he runs out of places to go so then you throw the hammer fist.
> 
> It also means you only chamber once every two punches giving less opportunity to triangle you.


That's a good example of the use of the hammerfist. I think you'e just pointed out somewhere I'm not leveraging some of my early teaching. I need to go back and look at where I should be reminding them of that strike in some of the later material. Thanks!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I can and have applied my self defense skills in real life and these are skill sets that learn through training self defense.


I think the point is that you have applied self-defense component skills, but those skills are not self-defense. The self-defense is what happens when you defend yourself in real life. The skills were punching, kicking, blocking, etc., and that's what you learned. First you learned them simply, then you learned to apply them in wider circumstances, then you learned to apply them in more advanced ways (often, actually simpler ways), then you used them to defend yourself. That latter part is self-defense.

This would be like me going to art school to study the art of drawing. I'd learn component skills of drawing - how to draw shapes, how to use shadow and light, how to use different media, and later how to express through those techniques. At no point along the way am I actually learning art - I'm learning the component skills that allow me to create a work of art, but the art only happens when I apply those skills appropriately.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah! That makes sense. And, yes, I'm not a fan of folks training with the big gloves when self-defense is an objective. MMA gloves (and even my kempo gloves, which are a bit heavier/softer) are much closer to what you'll have "on the street".



There are different things you will get out of different gloves. You can spar harder with big gloves unless you are staunch. And you are basically safer. You get a better feel for fighting if you spar with little gloves.

Every time i spar with little gloves it tends to tear my face to bits. So I am not keen to do it all the time.

So if i didnt really know the guy and wanted to introduce them to the idea of striking and grappling I would do big gloves because if you both start throwing bombs you will still probably both be able to walk out.

If you are considering self defence both factors need to be taken into account.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are different things you will get out of different gloves. You can spar harder with big gloves unless you are staunch. And you are basicallu safer. You get a better feel for fighting if you sparr with little gloves.
> 
> Every time i spar with little gloves it tends to tear my face to bits. So I am not keen to do it all the time.


Part of the problem for us is that the big gloves completely remove much of our arsenal - no feel, and less ability to move "softly" because of that reduced feel and increased weight. Plus, no fingers. I'm trying out the kempo gloves because they have more padding than "small gloves" without so much weight and still allow finger control. I'd personally rather use the foam things than boxing gloves. I've also picked up some cheap fabric gloves (using that term very loosely now) that are very soft when used for lighter contact, though they'd be crappy at best for harder contact.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a good example of the use of the hammerfist. I think you'e just pointed out somewhere I'm not leveraging some of my early teaching. I need to go back and look at where I should be reminding them of that strike in some of the later material. Thanks!



Yeah no dramas. what we do is a lot of that sort of nuance on a very basic theme. That I have not seen people do in other systems sort of.

Ok they do it. Boxing has tremendous nuance in punching. bjj has tremendous nuance in grappling. But the nuance is lost in the transtition.
That nuance in transition is going to be an increadable benifit to the self defence people who are able to take advantage of it. Because you will get this base of really slick working methodology that you can then build the rest of the system on.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Part of the problem for us is that the big gloves completely remove much of our arsenal - no feel, and less ability to move "softly" because of that reduced feel and increased weight. Plus, no fingers. I'm trying out the kempo gloves because they have more padding than "small gloves" without so much weight and still allow finger control. I'd personally rather use the foam things than boxing gloves. I've also picked up some cheap fabric gloves (using that term very loosely now) that are very soft when used for lighter contact, though they'd be crappy at best for harder contact.



If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a dogeball.

If you can take a guy down with 16s on you are more effective if you have fingers.

or alternatively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a dogeball.
> 
> If you can take a guy down with 16s on you are more effective if you have fingers.
> 
> or alternatively.


That picture is what I'm referring to as "kempo gloves". Not as heavy as the 16's, and reasonable access to fingers.

The problem with takedowns with the 16's is mostly one of "feel". The hands are so isolated from what's around them that we can't feel where we are, so we have to manufacture the situations for our throws/takedowns. That's contrary to our approach (and not a good use of some of our techniques). We follow the situation and use what shows up, and this requires we be able to recognize the situation, and feel is part of it.

There is one good use for heavier gloves like the 16's, though. Since feel is reduced somewhat under threat responses ("fight/flight/freeze"), working without the feel part of the time can help fill the gap between the very sensitive feel we develop (and can come to depend upon in the dojo) and the reality of reduced sense of touch. It's not nearly as dull as the 16's produce, but it makes a good training point.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That picture is what I'm referring to as "kempo gloves". Not as heavy as the 16's, and reasonable access to fingers.
> 
> The problem with takedowns with the 16's is mostly one of "feel". The hands are so isolated from what's around them that we can't feel where we are, so we have to manufacture the situations for our throws/takedowns. That's contrary to our approach (and not a good use of some of our techniques). We follow the situation and use what shows up, and this requires we be able to recognize the situation, and feel is part of it.
> 
> There is one good use for heavier gloves like the 16's, though. Since feel is reduced somewhat under threat responses ("fight/flight/freeze"), working without the feel part of the time can help fill the gap between the very sensitive feel we develop (and can come to depend upon in the dojo) and the reality of reduced sense of touch. It's not nearly as dull as the 16's produce, but it makes a good training point.



You start really pegging into someone with 16s you will get a threat response.

Otherwise yeah fair enough.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's it, precisely. The difference you and I are presenting about SD training is, I think, semantics. If the SD training is grounded in reasonable, effective techniques and includes some resistive training (application), then it doesn't suffer so much from not having competition involved. The programs that participate in competition have that "inherent advantage" of knowing that resistive component is built into the competition, and that someone outside the school will let them know (via a shellacking) if they aren't applying the skills well. That latter point is important. Those of us who don't use external competition have to do extra work to make sure the resistance inside the program doesn't get predictable and repetitive. One of the most valuable people in my program currently is a student with good experience in a striking art, who is actually fond of that art. His approach (and willingness to challenge ideas and concepts) helps keep me vigilant.


Up to a point, I think we're on the same page.  Was thinking about this last night and want to be sure I'm speaking plainly here. 

I appreciate that you make an effort to incorporate resistance inside the program that is not predictable.  However, and I believe this is a point that drop bear made earlier, it's inherently artificial.  If I'm working with a new supervisor on some specific leadership competencies, that person will need to apply the skills and techniques with real people and in real relationships.  This is equivalent to taking jiu jitsu techniques and applying them in a competition.

In a style that has no competitive outlet, the equivalent is a manager who never manages, or a leader who never leads.  It's the cadet who gets to the last day of training in West Point only to be told to repeat the final year over and over. 

I would also like to highlight that the stakes of the above are not high, because the likelihood of being forced to deliver on the "self defense" skills you're learning are very low.   The low crime rates are a great thing, even if it creates this dilemma where self defense experts often have little or no actual experience doing what they're teaching.   This goes back to some of the posts in the other thread on what people actually need. 

Do people need to know how to defend against a knife?  I don't know.  I've had two knives pulled on me in my life (both over 30 years ago) and in neither case would "knife defense" skills have helped me.   In one case, I ran into traffic and put a metro bus in between me and the bad guy.  That worked.  In the other case, staying calm and being ready to run helped me.  At the time of these events I had no martial arts training at all, but managed to survive both encounters.


----------



## jks9199

A couple of thoughts...

Something to think about in self defense is that the techniques have to work, even for people who aren't fit, competitive athletes, who may have been injured, and who are facing someone who is significantly larger, and significantly stronger.  (We'll ignore, for the moment complications caused by ambushes.)  Maybe along the lines of a lightweight fighter facing a heavyweight...   A lot of techniques practiced and trained in an MMA gym work great -- against a similarly sized fighter, when used by someone who is fit and relatively uninjured.  While there aren't tons of folks much stronger than me... for a woman, or even a smaller man?  Yeah, lots of bigger and stronger people out there, and odds are good that someone planning violence isn't going to pick a target who might provide a "challenge."   I use my wife, my sister-in-law, my niece, and my mother as a guideline when I evaluate a proposed "self defense" move.  If I don't think they could reasonably pull it off -- it doesn't pass muster, without qualifications and perhaps redesigning it.  That's not to say that a person in an MMA gym can't train for self defense.  They just need to look at what they're doing, and make appropriate adjustments.  Like I said way back at the start -- if self defense is the goal, you need to do the research and work, and figure that out.

Ambushes and the nature of a violent attack is something else to consider.  Sparring, drills, even a "real" fight all has one element in common:  you know when it will happen.  A real violent attack?  Not so much.  And that goes the same way for "regular" martial arts training, too...  Again -- not an insurmountable problem (no, I'm not suggesting random attacks in the gym -- just that you have to design techniques and tactics and strategies that work with that problem -- whether that jumps over the OODA Loop through conditioned responses, or that somehow lets the defender get to the good side of the action/reaction gap.

MMA has some great aspects for training for self defense.  It's very openness to new approaches, to combining and mixing techniques is a tremendous asset to finding good self defense techniques.  So is training with real resistance and pressure testing of the techniques.  It all comes down to training for the goal in mind.


----------



## Steve

I think your logic is a little haywire, jks.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

MMA will do fine


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Something to think about in self defense is that the techniques have to work, even for people who aren't fit, competitive athletes, who may have been injured, and who are facing someone who is significantly larger, and significantly stronger.



No it doesn't. This is a misconception. It has to work in a realistic manner. If the odds are stacked against you then nothing may work.

 You have to train against bigger fitter and better guys.
But your your self defence will work less and less.


That is why I like the back grab as an example as it does people's heads in.  The advantage is to the guy with back control.  But self defence says you can escape. So you either look like an idiot a lot of the time. Or at some point you change the rules of reality into a pleasant fiction.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Ambushes and the nature of a violent attack is something else to consider. Sparring, drills, even a "real" fight all has one element in common: you know when it will happen. A real violent attack? Not so much. And that goes the same way for "regular" martial arts training, too... Again -- not an insurmountable problem (no, I'm not suggesting random attacks in the gym -- just that you have to design techniques and tactics and strategies that work with that problem --



We have a thread on realistic tactical considerations and nobody yet has been able to produce anything decent yet on countering an ambush.

If like me you have done close personal protection and cash in transit.(who are the guys who deal mostly with ambush attacks )Then an ambush is generally countered by good route planning. And not displaying yourself as a target.

That ronin tunnel scene i keep posting as the example.

Martial arts almost doesn't factor in.

Unless you are ambushed. At which point you will probably want to know how to fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No it doesn't. This is a misconception. It has to work in a realistic manner. If the odds are stacked against you then nothing may work.
> 
> You have to train against bigger fitter and better guys.
> But your your self defence will work less and less.
> 
> 
> That is why I like the back grab as an example as it does people's heads in.  The advantage is to the guy with back control.  But self defence says you can escape. So you either look like an idiot a lot of the time. Or at some point you change the rules of reality into a pleasant fiction.


Not sure which attack you're calling a "back grab", but pretty much anything that puts the attacker behind you is a bit of a nightmare. Rarely un-recoverable, but you have to get everything right and probably need a bit of luck.

As for the other part, there are techniques that are more/less useful against larger, more fit opponents/attackers, and there are techniques that are more/less useful by less mobile, weaker defenders. Size, strength, and fitness all matter, of course - no way to negate that entirely - but there are techniques which don't fit certain mixes, especially with less-experienced people (think relatively new students). And there are some techniques and applications to techniques which, when they are available, actually require basically no strength. 

In selecting for SD use, two groups should be included (from among the stuff that works): solid basics, and stuff that can be used by weaker/less mobile defenders and/or against larger/more fit attackers. These will cover most areas, and gaps can be filled with other techniques left in the "what works" pile.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We have a thread on realistic tactical considerations and nobody yet has been able to produce anything decent yet on countering an ambush.
> 
> If like me you have done close personal protection and cash in transit.(who are the guys who deal mostly with ambush attacks )Then an ambush is generally countered by good route planning. And not displaying yourself as a target.
> 
> That ronin tunnel scene i keep posting as the example.
> 
> Martial arts almost doesn't factor in.
> 
> Unless you are ambushed. At which point you will probably want to know how to fight.


Precisely. There are reactions we can train in that might help in that split second when the ambush happens, but it depends upon the attack. If they swing a baseball bat out of the inky shadows, aiming for your head, nothing will help except awareness. If they run up and grab (purse, briefcase, arm) then a learned reaction can save you from being tumbled, or at least help you respond quickly if you are. If the ambush is just cornering you then attacking, then the same techniques apply as with any attack ("you will probably want to know how to fight"), except that you have more limited room to work.

As you said, the best way to counter an ambush is to recognize a likely location and not go there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not sure which attack you're calling a "back grab", but pretty much anything that puts the attacker behind you is a bit of a nightmare. Rarely un-recoverable, but you have to get everything right and probably need a bit of luck.
> 
> As for the other part, there are techniques that are more/less useful against larger, more fit opponents/attackers, and there are techniques that are more/less useful by less mobile, weaker defenders. Size, strength, and fitness all matter, of course - no way to negate that entirely - but there are techniques which don't fit certain mixes, especially with less-experienced people (think relatively new students). And there are some techniques and applications to techniques which, when they are available, actually require basically no strength.
> 
> In selecting for SD use, two groups should be included (from among the stuff that works): solid basics, and stuff that can be used by weaker/less mobile defenders and/or against larger/more fit attackers. These will cover most areas, and gaps can be filled with other techniques left in the "what works" pile.



Possibly happens but in General I would say that was the exception.

Would you have an example of a solid basic that should be substituted for another technique due to sise ans weight or ability.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> A couple of thoughts...
> 
> Something to think about in self defense is that the techniques have to work, even for people who aren't fit, competitive athletes, who may have been injured, and who are facing someone who is significantly larger, and significantly stronger.  (We'll ignore, for the moment complications caused by ambushes.)  Maybe along the lines of a lightweight fighter facing a heavyweight...   A lot of techniques practiced and trained in an MMA gym work great -- against a similarly sized fighter, when used by someone who is fit and relatively uninjured.  While there aren't tons of folks much stronger than me... for a woman, or even a smaller man?  Yeah, lots of bigger and stronger people out there, and odds are good that someone planning violence isn't going to pick a target who might provide a "challenge."   I use my wife, my sister-in-law, my niece, and my mother as a guideline when I evaluate a proposed "self defense" move.  If I don't think they could reasonably pull it off -- it doesn't pass muster, without qualifications and perhaps redesigning it.  That's not to say that a person in an MMA gym can't train for self defense.  They just need to look at what they're doing, and make appropriate adjustments.  Like I said way back at the start -- if self defense is the goal, you need to do the research and work, and figure that out.
> 
> Ambushes and the nature of a violent attack is something else to consider.  Sparring, drills, even a "real" fight all has one element in common:  you know when it will happen.  A real violent attack?  Not so much.  And that goes the same way for "regular" martial arts training, too...  Again -- not an insurmountable problem (no, I'm not suggesting random attacks in the gym -- just that you have to design techniques and tactics and strategies that work with that problem -- whether that jumps over the OODA Loop through conditioned responses, or that somehow lets the defender get to the good side of the action/reaction gap.
> 
> MMA has some great aspects for training for self defense.  It's very openness to new approaches, to combining and mixing techniques is a tremendous asset to finding good self defense techniques.  So is training with real resistance and pressure testing of the techniques.  It all comes down to training for the goal in mind.



The very fact that MMA includes Jiujitsu indicates that someone of smaller stature can use it to defend against someone larger than themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Possibly happens but in General I would say that was the exception.
> 
> Would you have an example of a solid basic that should be substituted for another technique due to sise ans weight or ability.


An easy example is punch vs. elbow. They're different ranges, so not entirely interchangeable, but I always start out teaching elbows and knees. Later, most people will prefer punches (better range and speed), but at first we go for the strike that has a lower risk of self-injury (you might or might not be surprised at how badly some people naturally punch) and is easier to deliver power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> The very fact that MMA includes Jiujitsu indicates that someone of smaller stature can use it to defend against someone larger than themselves.


That aspect of MMA is definitely well-suited to dealing with a larger, stronger attacker (plenty of videos on that one). The only significant risk there is that a lighter defender loses some effective tools (bodyweight techniques don't have as much effect, especially on a strong attacker), and the most natural defense to a significant segment of BJJ is the competition-illegal slam, which would be scary on concrete.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That aspect of MMA is definitely well-suited to dealing with a larger, stronger attacker (plenty of videos on that one). The only significant risk there is that a lighter defender loses some effective tools (bodyweight techniques don't have as much effect, especially on a strong attacker), and the most natural defense to a significant segment of BJJ is the competition-illegal slam, which would be scary on concrete.



Unless of course your bjj is for mma in which case you can slam away.  Have a videos of a mate doing it somewhere on you tube.  Ended the fight right there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> An easy example is punch vs. elbow. They're different ranges, so not entirely interchangeable, but I always start out teaching elbows and knees. Later, most people will prefer punches (better range and speed), but at first we go for the strike that has a lower risk of self-injury (you might or might not be surprised at how badly some people naturally punch) and is easier to deliver power.



See i would have called them both solid basics. And both definitely effected by size and weight.

There is this suggestion that mma takes more fitness, strength and so on to perform. And it is not really the case. It just shows more in the training. Because a lot of mma training revolves around the other guy stopping you.

Otherwise there are all these energy  management issues you may face from style to style that kind of give a false positive. So comparing bjj to mma again.  If you were not such a physical specimen then bjj guard could be a place you can take a little time and consolidate. But there is no punching. You can't rest in those places in mma.  So you have to be more physical there in mma than in bjj. 

But that is not because either system relies on physicality more.  If i punched a guy in bjj from there he would have to work as well.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That aspect of MMA is definitely well-suited to dealing with a larger, stronger attacker (plenty of videos on that one). The only significant risk there is that a lighter defender loses some effective tools (bodyweight techniques don't have as much effect, especially on a strong attacker), and the most natural defense to a significant segment of BJJ is the competition-illegal slam, which would be scary on concrete.



Well there is always significant risk when dealing with a larger person attacking you. Thing is, anyone doing any type of Bjj should be well versed in grappling with someone larger than themselves and making those adjustments. I've been the recipient of enough triangle chokes to know that it doesn't take much to put a bigger person to sleep.

Additionally, I have yet to run across a Bjj school that doesn't teach a counter to the guard slam. While it is illegal in Bjj competition, it's legal in MMA, and is a pretty integral part of self defense based Jiujitsu.


----------



## Hanzou

I will also note that it really isn't that hard to convert from sport Bjj to self defense or MMA style Bjj, or vice versa. Getting punched in the face has a way of accelerating your learning curve.


----------



## Buka

No two self defense situations are the same. Many are vastly different. Ambushes, crimes against a person, random acts of violence, group attacks, muggings, robberies, whatever. I don't think a person realizes what it's like until they've experience any of it. Or how they'll react. Or how they'll utilize their training skills....or not. Or how they'll utilize their awareness and observations skills....or not. We all just do the best we can.

IMO, good martial training should do more than teach you, it should tax you, push you, pressure you, it should change who you are and how you face challenges. Every kind of challenge. And if there's a person(s) in your school that you don't want to spar with, train with, partner with - that's who you should do all those things with. And do them every single day. Fight with your teacher every chance you get, too. Get him to kick your ***. (don't worry, he'll gladly oblige.)

If you compete (yes, I realize it's a sport) and there's a person in your division you really don't want to face - you should figure out how to line up next to him, turn your card in with his, do whatever you can to face him. Heck, anyone can win in an easy random straight. Go find the beast - and have at him. Every single time.

You still won't know how you'll naturally react, or be proactive, in any given self defense situation, but you'll be better prepared in so many ways. Why?  Because you train. Righteous and hard. And if you've never left the dojo so sore, tired and shaking you can't even pee straight - maybe you should.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Unless of course your bjj is for mma in which case you can slam away.  Have a videos of a mate doing it somewhere on you tube.  Ended the fight right there.


Yes. Harder to do when the person is at your same weight, and folks who train without that restriction will be less likely to commit in a way that makes it available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See i would have called them both solid basics. And both definitely effected by size and weight.
> 
> There is this suggestion that mma takes more fitness, strength and so on to perform. And it is not really the case. It just shows more in the training. Because a lot of mma training revolves around the other guy stopping you.
> 
> Otherwise there are all these energy  management issues you may face from style to style that kind of give a false positive. So comparing bjj to mma again.  If you were not such a physical specimen then bjj guard could be a place you can take a little time and consolidate. But there is no punching. You can't rest in those places in mma.  So you have to be more physical there in mma than in bjj.
> 
> But that is not because either system relies on physicality more.  If i punched a guy in bjj from there he would have to work as well.


MMA, as a competition, does take more fitness, etc., because that's one of the tools your opponent is bringing. MMA as a style (and, yeah, I believe it's largely evolving into a recognizable style, rather than competing arts) doesn't necessarily.

As for the elbow and punch, that was my point. Both are solid basics, and one is favorable to the other early in training because it's easier to make it effective right away. There are solid basics that aren't as useful until a person has a certain level of something (it could be speed, flexibility, strength, stamina, form, whatever). A good example is a simple front kick or instep kick. Quite basic, but someone with poor balance shouldn't be using it. Nor should someone with poor speed. Nor with poor form, for that matter. Could they use it? Yes. But the risk/reward is too skewed until some of those deficiencies are fixed. And if their flexibility is poor (fairly common for folks coming into my program), they may not be able to kick above hip-height, removing some of the "reward" opportunities. So, for some folks, I don't encourage them to use the front kick for a long time. If I was teaching someone starting in their mid-60's (wouldn't happen in my program - too much falling to attract late-life starters), I might decide the reward would never be there for them if they are not flexible, because I won't be able to get them that flexibility in the time I have.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> MMA, as a competition, does take more fitness, etc., because that's one of the tools your opponent is bringing. MMA as a style (and, yeah, I believe it's largely evolving into a recognizable style, rather than competing arts) doesn't necessarily.
> 
> As for the elbow and punch, that was my point. Both are solid basics, and one is favorable to the other early in training because it's easier to make it effective right away. There are solid basics that aren't as useful until a person has a certain level of something (it could be speed, flexibility, strength, stamina, form, whatever). A good example is a simple front kick or instep kick. Quite basic, but someone with poor balance shouldn't be using it. Nor should someone with poor speed. Nor with poor form, for that matter. Could they use it? Yes. But the risk/reward is too skewed until some of those deficiencies are fixed. And if their flexibility is poor (fairly common for folks coming into my program), they may not be able to kick above hip-height, removing some of the "reward" opportunities. So, for some folks, I don't encourage them to use the front kick for a long time. If I was teaching someone starting in their mid-60's (wouldn't happen in my program - too much falling to attract late-life starters), I might decide the reward would never be there for them if they are not flexible, because I won't be able to get them that flexibility in the time I have.



Re read what we are discussing.

*"Something to think about in self defense is that the techniques have to work, even for people who aren't fit, competitive athletes, who may have been injured, and who are facing someone who is significantly larger, and significantly stronger. (We'll ignore, for the moment complications caused by ambushes.) Maybe along the lines of a lightweight fighter facing a heavyweight... A lot of techniques practiced and trained in an MMA gym work great -- against a similarly sized fighter, when used by someone who is fit and relatively uninjured. While there aren't tons of folks much stronger than me... for a woman, or even a smaller man? Yeah, lots of bigger and stronger people out there, and odds are good that someone planning violence isn't going to pick a target who might provide a "challenge." I use my wife, my sister-in-law, my niece, and my mother as a guideline when I evaluate a proposed "self defense" move. If I don't think they could reasonably pull it off -- it doesn't pass muster, without qualifications and perhaps redesigning it. That's not to say that a person in an MMA gym can't train for self defense. They just need to look at what they're doing, and make appropriate adjustments. Like I said way back at the start -- if self defense is the goal, you need to do the research and work, and figure that out."*

The suggestion isnt about making compromises for people who are not athletic. It is about designing a system where those who are not as athletic have the same chance as those who are.

And that does not happen if both people are training. Which is the assumption in mma.

In self defence we can make the assumption that the other guy doesn't train. But that does not then make any kind of distinction between mma or any other art.

We can see videos of trained fighters man handling bigger guys who have no idea how to fight.


----------



## drop bear

Ok and just as a side note here is scars. Note it ticks pretty much every box in the streetz argument rule book.

And why I dont trust most of those arguments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok and just as a side note here is scars. Note it ticks pretty much every box in the streetz argument rule book.
> 
> And why I dont trust most of those arguments.


What they showed in the video is too flashy, too complicated, and too much expectation of a given response within the moves shown. Of course, they may have shown the flashiest and most complex moves because those impress people, and showed the most compliant responses because they make them look badass. I can't tell from what they showed whether they actually produce useful defensive techniques and responses.


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> I think your logic is a little haywire, jks.



Maybe you can use more than a blank statement to explain what you disagree with?



drop bear said:


> Re read what we are discussing.
> 
> *"Something to think about in self defense is that the techniques have to work, even for people who aren't fit, competitive athletes, who may have been injured, and who are facing someone who is significantly larger, and significantly stronger. (We'll ignore, for the moment complications caused by ambushes.) Maybe along the lines of a lightweight fighter facing a heavyweight... A lot of techniques practiced and trained in an MMA gym work great -- against a similarly sized fighter, when used by someone who is fit and relatively uninjured. While there aren't tons of folks much stronger than me... for a woman, or even a smaller man? Yeah, lots of bigger and stronger people out there, and odds are good that someone planning violence isn't going to pick a target who might provide a "challenge." I use my wife, my sister-in-law, my niece, and my mother as a guideline when I evaluate a proposed "self defense" move. If I don't think they could reasonably pull it off -- it doesn't pass muster, without qualifications and perhaps redesigning it. That's not to say that a person in an MMA gym can't train for self defense. They just need to look at what they're doing, and make appropriate adjustments. Like I said way back at the start -- if self defense is the goal, you need to do the research and work, and figure that out."*
> 
> The suggestion isnt about making compromises for people who are not athletic. It is about designing a system where those who are not as athletic have the same chance as those who are.
> 
> And that does not happen if both people are training. Which is the assumption in mma.
> 
> In self defence we can make the assumption that the other guy doesn't train. But that does not then make any kind of distinction between mma or any other art.
> 
> We can see videos of trained fighters man handling bigger guys who have no idea how to fight.



I think you're getting my point.  I've never said that MMA training was bad for self-defense, in and of itself.  Nor have I said that more traditional training is ideal for self defense, in and of itself.  You have to train for your goal and purpose.  MMA training has a lot of good things for self defense training -- but it's got flaws, too.  Traditional training has good things -- and flaws.  ANY training has to have flaws, unless you're routinely sending training partners to the hospital!

So... if I'm teaching Defensive Tactics to cops, I'm teaching towards a double goal -- first and foremost, that the officer survives a violent encounter, and secondly, that the officer contain, control, and arrest a violent offender in a way that is as reasonably safe as practical for both the officer and the offender.  I can make some assumptions about gear and fitness (though I have to be realistic about both...) and even back-up.  But, teaching self defense to a "average" citizen... Now, the goal is survival and escape -- not containing and controlling.  I still need to teach them responsible and reasonable use of force.  I have to take into account the student's fitness,  and physical limitations, as well as potential size differences.  (Cops don't get to think about size differences the same way; we still have to handle the bad guy, whether they're the size of Dolph Lundgren or Paul Reubens.  But we can use teamwork and tools...)  And if I'm teaching my more traditional martial arts class, I'm teaching the principles and techniques and strategies and tactics of that art in a way that is faithful to the instruction I received.  Each time -- I have to shape my instruction, and by reflection, my students training to the purpose and goal.  So... the same student, training with me in each setting may well see different answers or approaches in each setting.

But, of course, even with the best designed, most thoughtfully conceived program, I'm never going to give a person with significant disadvantages in a given encounter more than tools to even the odds.  I'm not going to make my mother who we'll simply say is closer to 100 than 20 the physical equal of a 20 year old street thug -- but I might give her enough tools to have a fighting chance at getting away.  

And, meandering my way back to the original poster's question -- he can certainly find good things for self defense in an MMA club.  He just has to take an approach to training that recognizes the demands and realities of self defense, and how it is different than training for a competition.


----------



## frank raud

jks9199 said:


> MMA has some great aspects for training for self defense.  It's very openness to new approaches, to combining and mixing techniques is a tremendous asset to finding good self defense techniques.  So is training with real resistance and pressure testing of the techniques.  It all comes down to training for the goal in mind.



Taa Daa! You have encapsulated the important aspects of MMA as a PLATFORM on which to base a self defense program on. I started training martial arts in the early 80's, 98% of "self defense" techniques I have been taught, from instructors from Canada, USA, Britain, France, Israel, Russia, Hungary, Japan and many other countries start with"So, you have been grabbed by the....". The prelude, the situational awareness, the dialogue arate all ignored, and the physical technique, the release or escape is what is taught. This from Aikido, jiu jitsu, karate, Systema, judo, kali, combatives, whatever. The advantage of MMA as a platform is the openness to new techniques and the willingness to try them out against a resisting opponent. Judo is an excellent art for self defense, but the lack of punches(and the inherent lack of defense specifically against a punch ) is a limitation. Can it be adapted to counter a punch? Of course! Karate can be an excellent form of self defense, but the lack of ground fighting and throwing makes countering such a challenge. Can it be added in? Yes! As punching, kicking, throwing, clinching and grappling are all part and parcel of MMA, it is not a question of necessarily adding in new techniques(which may or may not fit in with the particular style one starts out with).
We all talk self defense, and admit that there is more than the physical component, but how many actually train extensively in situational awareness, how to speak with an unknown person(potential bad guy), how criminals operate and the ruses they use, verbal de-escalation, etc? If you do, has that been part of your arts traditional take on self defense, or is it something you or your instructor has incorporated? If it wasn't there, saying MMA is missing these elements is disingenuous, as they are not a regular part of most curriculum.


----------



## Steve

You have to learn a skill,and apply it before you can adapt it to a new context.   I've mentioned blooms taxonomy in the past: knowledge, comprehension, application.  That's the basic progression for developing any skill.  You lean it, you understand it and then up you do it.   Most MA training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  

Jks, when you say you have to train for the purpose, that's true, but you first have to develop the skills.  The rest of bloom's taxonomy involves the development of expertise: analysis, synthesis and evaluation.   These stages are where you can start to identify trends and apply skills to various contexts.  

Simply put, you have to learn a skill to applications in one context before you can successfully Move beyond.   Self defense training, for anyone who never gets to application, stalls well before this.   It's smoke and mirrors.  It's the difference between talking about calculus and actually doing calculus.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Jks, when you say you have to train for the purpose, that's true, but you first have to develop the skills.


Skill development and Application development would still hold true for what Jks is saying. 

"You have to train for your goal and purpose." As JKS stated.  If your goal and purpose is to use the martial arts as a self defense then your training should reflect the requirements. 

Most MA training stops somewhere between comprehension and application simply for the fact that self-defense is not the goal or purpose of that Martial Art school.  A school may use self-defense as a marketing term and claiming that as goal, but their training says otherwise.

Here's an example.  A random school that I found. Atlanta's Best Martial Arts Studio
Right away they let you know what their focus and goals are "_We pride ourselves on not being just another sport but, a character development school that gives students the tools to be successful in life, mentally and physically._ "

Here's a testimonial from one of their customers "_Karate Atlanta had an immediate impact on both of our children.They became more respectful, more disciplined, more confident, more self controlled,  learned stranger awareness, and many other valuable side effects from their classes at Karate Atlanta_."

Notice how the testimonial reflects what the school finds pride in.  Stranger awareness was the high point of this parents self-defense demands, and as it was written , Self-defense is a valuable side effect.

This is the #2 search result Atlanta's Traditional Okinawan Karate-do Dojo | Celebrating 25 Years
Again right away, the school states their focus "_We do not teach sport karate._"  On their classes page they have this statement "_The emphasis is on self-development and cooperation rather than on competition._"

Schools are fairly clear about their focus if not by their words then by their training.  Some schools will claim self-defense, but will have philosophy, that has nothing to do with self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You have to learn a skill,and apply it before you can adapt it to a new context.   I've mentioned blooms taxonomy in the past: knowledge, comprehension, application.  That's the basic progression for developing any skill.  You lean it, you understand it and then up you do it.   Most MA training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.
> 
> Jks, when you say you have to train for the purpose, that's true, but you first have to develop the skills.  The rest of bloom's taxonomy involves the development of expertise: analysis, synthesis and evaluation.   These stages are where you can start to identify trends and apply skills to various contexts.
> 
> Simply put, you have to learn a skill to applications in one context before you can successfully Move beyond.   Self defense training, for anyone who never gets to application, stalls well before this.   It's smoke and mirrors.  It's the difference between talking about calculus and actually doing calculus.



That last sentence is a key. I have seen (I think maybe we all have) programs that claim to teach self-defense, but which are actually teaching techniques that are very far from application. I remember watching a demonstration (and remember, those should be showing the art/program in its best light) that showcased a school's training against multiple attackers. The demonstration involved people who were more polite in taking turns to attack than the unnamed hordes of attackers in a Bruce Lee movie. They closed in on the "defender" menacingly and then waited until she faced each one to be dispatched after putting up some facade of an attack (like a grab to a sleeve, then standing there).

There are principles that can be taught for multiple attackers. They change the odds a bit (how much is arguable), and none of them were present. More pointedly, however, none of the defenses looked like they could be executed against a single attacker bringing any level of intent.

And that was the best they had. That's a school that isn't transitioning from technique to application, IMO. I'm not entirely sure they're getting the technique into "comprehension", even.


----------



## Buka

Bloom's Taxonomy - I think I can explain it in simpler, easy to understand, Martial Arts terminology. I'll use BJJ, because I happen to like BJJ and was just thinking about it a few minutes ago.

You go to class and learn, you constantly grapple, learning how to apply what you've learned against resisting opponents. You progress with even more detailed learning, always using fundamentals as a base, but expanding with complexities, always grappling. 
Rinse, repeat a whole bunch. In fact, rinse and repeat your brains out.

As far as it applies to the world outside the dojo, it's simple. You learned math. You buy something and count your change, you use math. A little different because actual money is changing hands, but it's still basic math.

I think if old Benjy Bloom had been a Martial Artist his theories on learning would have been a whole lot shorter.


----------



## Kickboxer101

JowGaWolf said:


> Skill development and Application development would still hold true for what Jks is saying.
> 
> "You have to train for your goal and purpose." As JKS stated.  If your goal and purpose is to use the martial arts as a self defense then your training should reflect the requirements.
> 
> Most MA training stops somewhere between comprehension and application simply for the fact that self-defense is not the goal or purpose of that Martial Art school.  A school may use self-defense as a marketing term and claiming that as goal, but their training says otherwise.
> 
> Here's an example.  A random school that I found. Atlanta's Best Martial Arts Studio
> Right away they let you know what their focus and goals are "_We pride ourselves on not being just another sport but, a character development school that gives students the tools to be successful in life, mentally and physically._ "
> 
> Here's a testimonial from one of their customers "_Karate Atlanta had an immediate impact on both of our children.They became more respectful, more disciplined, more confident, more self controlled,  learned stranger awareness, and many other valuable side effects from their classes at Karate Atlanta_."
> 
> Notice how the testimonial reflects what the school finds pride in.  Stranger awareness was the high point of this parents self-defense demands, and as it was written , Self-defense is a valuable side effect.
> 
> This is the #2 search result Atlanta's Traditional Okinawan Karate-do Dojo | Celebrating 25 Years
> Again right away, the school states their focus "_We do not teach sport karate._"  On their classes page they have this statement "_The emphasis is on self-development and cooperation rather than on competition._"
> 
> Schools are fairly clear about their focus if not by their words then by their training.  Some schools will claim self-defense, but will have philosophy, that has nothing to do with self-defense.


To be fair though parents who put their kids in martial arts would probably prefer to here something like that saying how it developed their child and taught cooperation etc rather than we teach your kids to fight. For example a 40 something mother who knows 0 about martial arts will think that's great and exactly what they need but if they mention the word fight or even self defence it might put them off. I'm not saying anything about the schools because I don't know them but maybe those words are just to sound impressive and more PC to get more business and maybe it really does teach proper self defence you just don't knowknow


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> I have to take into account



And that is a major point. And it underlies some self defence methodology that a person needs to be aware of. 

If you are not fit dont have good skills cant commit to a lifestyle or just dont need that level of ability because the threat isn't that high.  Then you dont jump into the pro fighters class at the gym. 

You would also not jump into the self defence equivalent. (i dont know.  Animal day or something)

If you wanted to be a fighting machine you train with other fighting machines who are there for a pretty singular purpose. And you dont take into account.

And as i have said you adopt the ring mentality. You train with the knowledge the other guy will not take into account. But will be training with the pretty singular purpose of in the ring, beating you unconscious in font of your family and friends, and in the street possibly worse. 

Now you could train tactical differences. But that methodology does not really change.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Skill development and Application development would still hold true for what Jks is saying.
> 
> "You have to train for your goal and purpose." As JKS stated.  If your goal and purpose is to use the martial arts as a self defense then your training should reflect the requirements.
> 
> Most MA training stops somewhere between comprehension and application simply for the fact that self-defense is not the goal or purpose of that Martial Art school.  A school may use self-defense as a marketing term and claiming that as goal, but their training says otherwise.
> 
> Here's an example.  A random school that I found. Atlanta's Best Martial Arts Studio
> Right away they let you know what their focus and goals are "_We pride ourselves on not being just another sport but, a character development school that gives students the tools to be successful in life, mentally and physically._ "
> 
> Here's a testimonial from one of their customers "_Karate Atlanta had an immediate impact on both of our children.They became more respectful, more disciplined, more confident, more self controlled,  learned stranger awareness, and many other valuable side effects from their classes at Karate Atlanta_."
> 
> Notice how the testimonial reflects what the school finds pride in.  Stranger awareness was the high point of this parents self-defense demands, and as it was written , Self-defense is a valuable side effect.
> 
> This is the #2 search result Atlanta's Traditional Okinawan Karate-do Dojo | Celebrating 25 Years
> Again right away, the school states their focus "_We do not teach sport karate._"  On their classes page they have this statement "_The emphasis is on self-development and cooperation rather than on competition._"
> 
> Schools are fairly clear about their focus if not by their words then by their training.  Some schools will claim self-defense, but will have philosophy, that has nothing to do with self-defense.



Look up the scars testimonies. Their goal is to create people who can defeat any other martial artist. Eradicate fear and basically clean house.

SCARS - Military Combat Training, Law Enforcement Tactics & Redefining Public Self Defense! Learn to Survive All Attacks!

I mean I want to be 50% faster using science. I want to destroy any active shooter psycopath or terrorist without having to bother with fitness.

So that should be the best art to train right?

Self Defense and Combat Fighting Skills From the Worlds Most Dangerous Men

Now at this point of course we can say thank god for you tube because we can compare the "evidence" of the testomonies. with the video evidence of their training.

Which looks fabulous by the way. Because of course we dont style bash and all systems are as valid as each other and everybody wins a prize.


----------

