Become a fighting machine

[Gerry Seymour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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.