It's easy to do on some throws. On others, it would be difficult, at best. I've done it for my instructor a few times when he wanted students to see what a jumping fall looked like (when some would ask about the "high throws" they see in movies and demos).
They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.
Agreed. This is why I say the style does matter. I'm slow to judge styles, even if they don't meet my needs, but there is definitely a fitness to context for styles, if nothing else. BJJ won't be good training for a kickboxing competition, boxing won't be good training for a Judo competition, etc.
The thing to remember about this example is that Penn is not just a representative of BJJ and Rodriguez is not just a representative of TKD. They are both MMA practitioners. Penn's original background may be jiu-jitsu, but he is also a solid striker who has won more matches by KO than by submission. Rodriguez's original background may be TKD, but he also trains jiu-jitsu and has won a couple of his matches by submission. In this case, it really is individual vs individual rather than art vs art, because they are both fighting with the same arts, more or less.
I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.
It's the spirit that develop from MA style that will make a difference. In Chinese wrestling, it encourages to play offense and lose than to play defense and win. Some Karate system emphasizes "one punch to kill". Some MA system emphasizes "push opponent away". Different MA style do develop different MA spirit and strategy.
I don't think we are too far apart. I would say, in your example, it's how you trained. Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition. And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective. I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I. It just makes sense. Your training model lends itself to application. [/quote]
I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative. It can be useful, if used judiciously. Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka. Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist. As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group. He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground. It's perfectly legitimate to critique his grappling relative to others in the sport, provided we remember the context of the critique. Sure, he's not a Damian Maia, but even the worst grappler in the UFC is better than most grapplers, and certainly able to dominate any non-grappler.
I've posted at length on this many times. This is central to why I think self defense training often misses the point entirely. On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class. I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do. Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.
"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.
I interpret that phrase to mean "If you were to be attacked on the street, these are the forms the attack would be most likely to take" as opposed to "One of these attacks is likely to come at you on any given day when you walk out on the street." The first is a reasonable statement. The second one is not so much (for most people).
It's the kind of statement that leads to unreasonable conversations about one martial art being more applicable for self defense than another. There is only anecdotal evidence one way or the other, and anecdotally, there are examples of pretty much every martial art both succeeding and failing in real life encounters, and also plenty of examples of non-martial arts training succeeding and failing. It's essentially, "Look. My attack bears a superficial resemblance to something that feels more realistic. Ergo, it is more realistic training."
I have no problem with any of that, other than to say I don't see it being an either/or choice. You can live your life in as safe a way as possible to minimize the chances of encountering violence and train an art with a "sport/competition" component in order to build attributes/reliable skills and practice methods for breaking the "sport" rules when the situation calls for it and study common forms of real-world violence which you aren't likely to encounter in competition so you can train ways of applying your "sport" skills to that context and practice scenario training to optimize your chances of appropriate tactical response under pressure (which may or may not involve physical fighting techniques).
I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.
Yes. I've said this many times that all of those are great. Let's discuss omission. removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense. What is the biggest bang for your buck? Opinions vary. I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor. And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.
True, but who are you to tell someone else that they arent learning what they say they are learning? Have you attended their training sessions? You know with certainty what they are doing and what they are not doing?
Yes, opinions vary.
I'd agree with your order of priority, in general, given a broad enough interpretation of "sport."
Let's be clear. If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out. I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade.
Totally agree, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish, given the real world circumstances of sexual assault. It can be the "stranger danger" kind of assault, but isn't usually.
Sure it does. And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method. Does that make sense?
