Become a fighting machine

[drop bear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I think your logic is a little haywire, jks.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.