Sounds like I interpreted Royce's viewpoint accurately then.
I'd say so, yeah.
It's funny, though. According to Royce's statement, everyone in the world (including him) must really suck at what they do. After all no one out there (including Royce) can succeed at the top levels of modern MMA without cross-training. I'm sure that if you pressed him on that he'd say that it's because of time limits - never mind that in his only fight with a high-level representative of modern well-rounded MMA (Matt Hughes), Royce didn't make it to the end of the first round.
I think the thing is, Royce isn't interested in what MMA has become… it's no longer "which is the 'best' system/art", it's more a personal achievement thing. His focus is on the benefits of BJJ, it's dominance over other systems, not someone learning lots of bits of things, but never any one thing in any real depth… at least, that's how I read him. It's more a case of "well, if you have to do all that just to beat what I do…" or, more likely, "so you know what I do works, and because you can't do it anywhere near as well, you want to add things and patch it up with other stuff, rather than learn it properly?"
None of that is to bag on Royce's accomplishments. He's a great martial artist and an MMA pioneer. It's just a bit rich for him to deride modern MMA practitioners when he made his name fighting practitioners of single styles, most of whom wouldn't make it out of the minor leagues of modern MMA competition, let alone qualify for the UFC. Hopefully he's moderated his rhetoric in the years since he made that statement.
I'm not sure that he has… or would even be able to. But that's getting into a whole other area… Again, MMA itself just doesn't interest him… I don't think he either envisioned, or intended for the UFC to spawn the modern MMA approach it has… and I don't think he's particularly pleased with it.
Before we get too far, you do know you can separate out a quote to show exactly what you're responding to, yeah? Similar to the way I've done it here… there are a couple of ways. One is to hit the "Quote" button in the top of the reply box (the one on the far right)… but what I do is to simply highlight the first part of the quote link (it looks like this without the spaces - [ QUOTE = {user name};{number of post/quote}]/[ QUOTE = Chris Parker;1628361]), copy it, and paste it in front of the section I want to separate out. At the end, use the "end quote" link (again, without the spaces - [ /QUOTE ]). It'll just make communicating a lot easier.
Sports training does not require you to be in every environment you may have to fight. It trains decision making. If another method requires you to train for every circumstance you may face that is the issued with the other method.
Sports training certainly does require you to train for each environment you're likely to fight in… whether an open matted "ring", a ring with ropes, or anything else. Not all of your training is going to be "in the ring" itself, of course, but without training in the ring, you're not really training for the sport itself. As far as sport training "decision making" (as if that's any different to non-sports systems training methods), no, it doesn't. At least, not in any way removed from, better than, or more effectively than other training methods. Sports training is centred on context-specific skill application, not decision making.
Let's take an experiment to look at that, though. In your sports training, how much time is dedicated to understanding tactical approaches and strategies? And how are such things understood (in other words, what is a strategy, and what is a tactic, how do you recognise them, how do you develop them, how do you choose which to apply, and how much depth do you have in your training of such)?
Your final comment there about certain training methods requiring you to train for "every circumstance" being an "issue" with such methods, well, all I can say is that it's not an issue at all… especially when you understand exactly what it means.
As far as I can tell you would need a gym method then a concrete method then a grass method different methods for day and night and so on for all of that you would need to hold them in your head and then try to sort them out. Which would seem a very complicated.
Not really (on both counts… needing "different methods", and on it being "very complicated")… in fact, quite the opposite. A big part of training in such different environments is about acclimatisation, rather than looking at different approaches or methods. There might need to be some adjustment, sure, and the training is designed to highlight that, so you know both when it's needed (and when it's not), and what is needed. It also serves to highlight any methods that rely on a specific context or environment for their success… so you know what to drop from your training, making it less complicated when all's said and done.
I certainly don't train like that. And I don't think I would gain advantage from it.
You train sports. You don't need to train like that. If you want to train for reality and real life, though, there are a large number of benefits and advantages, if you could allow yourself to see them.
I have never heard of the odaa loop but I am sure it is lovely.
OODA… Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It's a sequence for decision making (you know, what you think sports training is all about… the fact that such things aren't really part of sports is a big indication of why you're not correct when you think that).
Hard surface falling. Feel free to show the difference. I just break fall and roll. Which works as well as anything else.
Hard surface rolling allows far less margin of error, for one thing… but the exact methods can vary quite a lot. I mean, are you familiar with how Judo and Aikido differ in their ukemi? Are you aware of the difference between ukemi and nigemi? Do you know where you would use each? How much do you know of more traditional ukemi methods, as opposed to modern methods? Do you know why their different (most traditional methods don't look much like break falling at all… especially when compared with, say, Judo or Aikido methods)? But if you want some more definite differences, look to the use of the legs, the angle of the body hitting the ground (as well as the height from which you fall), the usage of the legs, and so on.
Oh, and there's really no such thing as "just break fall and roll"… the sheer number of different approaches means there isn't any single form. Attending Aikido classes, my break falling and rolling is "wrong"… but bring them into my context and environment, and it all changes.
I am saying falling on concrete does not speed the learning process from personal experience.
If it doesn't, it's pretty damn painful… and, if you don't learn faster with that impetus, I don't what might help you.
If there is a trade of then it is not reality training.
Honestly, that closed minded attitude of "well, if you can't make it exactly, perfectly real, it's not reality, therefore any other training that's unrealistic is just as good" is not doing you any favours. You do understand that there are scales and levels of reality in training, yeah? And that "Reality Based Training" isn't claiming to be training reality, but training with the basis of understanding and gearing itself towards reality… bit of a difference there…
Regardless of what people do. So the argument that it is reality training is wrong.
Only if you insist on an unrealistic set of requirements for it to be reality training (hmm… kinda ironic, really).
Now if you go out in a dangerous environment. And then can't actually train on it I am not sure why they go out in the first place.
What environment can't be trained on? I really don't think you've understood what you've been told.
Accepting that none of it is reality training means you can just train where it is easier to get the technique right. Which is more beneficial.
Yeah… you haven't gotten why the other environments are used… or when they're used.
I do not understand why I need to go between 2 parked cars to do a walk though of technique. I can't actually bust heads through windows or slam doors on people to get a feel for it. It is just theory driven. Just train the concepts of moving people around and hurting them efficiently and the parked car realism will work itself out.
Actually, no, it won't. You're actually arguing against the way your brain works here… and while you can't really smash your training partners heads through car windows (just what scenario are you thinking of here?!?), should a training drill both allow and require such methods, they can be trained with quite a degree of realism without damage… if you don't get that, then you don't get realistic training or scenario training… which I believe has been mentioned before.
Sorry gyms really are real places. They are part of the real world. Over the last two nights. I slipped over, one guy got caught in the nuts, one guy got thrown into a roller door, I threw a guy over the top of two bystanders, someone head butted a wall.
You're not really getting the distinction. Gyms/dojo/dojang/kwoon are real (physical) places… they have a real physical reality to them, they have walls, they have certain physical properties, and so on. And those physical properties can change from location to location (I train in one place with fantastically soft matting, another with solid, unsprung, hardwood floors… one has open walls without anything on them, another is covered with weapon racks and framed pictures… one old location had columns through the room, a low ceiling with frames for lights, and all walls were either glass or mirrors… some had equipment I could use, others didn't… and so on). That's all "real", sure… but it's not what we're talking about.
The difference is myriad, and include the fact that it's a "known" place… there is rarely anything unexpected as an obstacle… lighting is consistent and there to allow you to see what's going on… you're in a "safe" place (psychologically, even more than physically)… you're emotionally and mentally prepared for the experiences of fighting/training/physical discomfort/close physical presence of others etc… what's happening is "known", and fits within an expected framework… and more. All of these aspects (including the unwritten ones) remove the environment from being "real" in the sense of self defence training… it doesn't mean that the gym/dojo/whatever is a bad place, or what you learn/train there isn't "real/effective/whatever", it just means that you need to understand the limitations.
You still have to negotiate real physical obsticals during training.
Known ones. And not anywhere near as many as simply walking through your house during the day.
I train to make choices so if I am in a situation where my sports training and the situation conflicts I will adapt to meet the situation. As in the top part of my post.
No, you won't. Sorry, but that's simply not the way that either training, nor your brain works. You will respond with what you personally (unconsciously) feel/believe is the most powerful… which will most likely be what you've experience the most consistent success (or simply the most "important" success… a bit different, but not to be discounted) previously… commonly something you've trained a lot. But here's the thing… the way you've trained it is vitally important. If you train it as "fun", it'll be catalogued (internally) as part of your "fun" responses… if you train it as "win/sports", it'll be catalogued there… only if you train it as "self defence/serious" will you actually have anything there to fall back on… and, unless you've actually trained to handle adapting, you won't. You'll just respond with the same thing.
I don't see why the martial arts instructor has to be burdened with the teaching of all things self defence. In mma especially they are not even burdened with being all things in sports fighting. Quite often there is a striking grappling and fitness specialist within the same gym.
A martial arts instructor isn't burdened with teaching "all things self defence"… but a self defence instructor is. I mean, my Iai instructor doesn't discuss such things as legal repercussions to cutting down a retreating enemy (yeah, we do that… with his back turned and everything…
, as he has no reason to. And while awareness is a huge part of the Iai training, it's quite different to "self defence" awareness. In MMA, while one instructor might not be expected to deal with all aspects of MMA training, the gym is expected to… and each "specialist" instructor is expected to know their field and all it's relevant aspects.
Most instructors are not really capable of providing that training on there own to the standard that specialists would.
Sure… but you're failing to see what the self defence instructors specialisation is. It ain't sports.
Awareness is one I would be very hesitant to learn in a martial arts school.
Pity… of course, it would depend greatly on the school, but really… pity.
The problem these days is that people who are good at mma are really good at the individual parts. That is because the other guy is good at the individual parts and like an arm race you get forced to keep up.
Being good at the individual parts is rather useless, though. What's more important is to be able to take those individual parts and put it together in a congruent method… and the most successful MMA competitors do that in a way that is particular to them.
There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.
If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.
Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.
Again, why and when such training is embarked on isn't being understood here.
No, none of that is needed, however, IMHO, what is needed, is an understanding of how things work. I've always been a believer in that if you're doing to teach a defense to something, then you better know how that something works.
Nah, not even that. It's highly advised, and a very good idea… but it's honestly not "needed". I do agree that if you're going to teach it, you need to know it, of course… but that wasn't the context of "need" here.
How is any of that stuff, complex?
By themselves, they're not. What I was saying was that the entire list (as a whole) was too complex for the stated requirement (which was to have a new student come along and ask to be taught some self defence that they could use quickly). The list supplied was overly complex and too broad to suit such a need… to get that done in a way that was passable in all areas you'd need about 18 months to 2 years… not exactly "quickly" in this context. Given a more realistic time frame of, say, 3 months, I'd keep it down to maybe two strikes that could be done multiple ways, two kicks, two gross-motor takedowns or throws, and one or two basic defensive actions. Which I would choose would be determined by the student themselves… but, for preference, I'd give an open palm strike, and either an elbow or a straight fist (elbow preferred), a straight shin kick and a knee strike, a tackle (single/double leg) and a trip (osoto gake, as a base-form), a cover and a jam. That's it. They'd then be trained in multiple applications (pre-emptive, reactive, defensive, evasive, multiple hits, hits to remove grips, and so on)… which is a far more effective training methodology than just a list of specific techniques… it's a more "skill-based" method, rather than a "technique-based" one. Oh, and for the record, "full contact" there isn't really that important either… other aspects have far greater precedence.
IMO, I think a lot of the time, when people use certain words, it tends to get misunderstood. As I've said many times, intentionally prolonging the fight on the ground or even standing, is just foolish. So yeah, taking someone down to the ground, just because that's your strong point, and rolling around, looking for a sub. But, IMO, I feel that having enough knowledge in all ranges, is a huge part of self defense. Enough skill/knowledge to survive the intial assault, and get back to your feet, is important.
That's certainly one approach. The problem with it is that you can't cover everything… which has you always looking for what gaps you might have.
I'm with you on this one Chris.
Ha, thought you might be!
