Become a fighting machine

[drop bear]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

How much experience do you have training leaders?

More than 20 years

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Maybe so.

 

[drop bear]

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]

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]

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]

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!