Don't Overlook "Competitive" Martial Arts

[drop bear]

It's not the techniques that are the difference.



Hmm… really? Perhaps you need to broaden your understanding, then.



Er… what? Training is training, what it's designed for doesn't matter, as it's all just training? Great news! We'll get the police trained in tennis, then, as all training is just training…

Seriously, no.



That's not the distinction. If done just for a change of venue, it's just a change of venue.



Who said it was? If you're training sports outside, you're still training sports.



Unless the drill is specifically for that, of course…



Sure, in some cases… but the drills are differently structured to sports drills… which is what you're not getting.



Yeah, I saw it… quite a few issues there, honestly… mainly that most of what he was saying as the reasons for grappling could also be used for not grappling… but he was looking for grappling applications, and if you're good at it, then it should be part of your "go-to" toolbox, no issue with that. As for the rest, techniques aren't the answer… or the problem.



No, if you're in guard the biggest threat is the guy on top pulling a blade on you… or his girlfriend pulling one (one of the most common situations involving stabbings in Australia is guys being stabbed by the girlfriend of the guy they're fighting&#8230.



Uh… maybe. Pretty convoluted for street application, of course… I can see it being a good method in sports application, but it's really not a good go-to outside of that.



Really? I don't think so… at least, if it's there, it's to a far lower degree than you seem to have when looking at anything not MMA/BJJ…



Except you've shown no actual grasp of what combat scenario training actually is, so… hmm…



The context of "need" was "needed for self defence"… and it's not. Boxing can be great for self defence, it doesn't "need" ground fighting…



Ha, cool.



Which is exactly how any decent self defence instructor should be structuring their training methodology.

Still not street because you can't really show a street context.

Drills are basically sport.

By the way just as a side note. Can you show evidence that one of the most common stabbings being the girlfriend stabbing to protect her boyfriend?

That just seems untrue.

 

[K-man]

Still not street because you can't really show a street context.

Drills are basically sport.

By the way just as a side note. Can you show evidence that one of the most common stabbings being the girlfriend stabbing to protect her boyfriend?

That just seems untrue.

Why do you keep bagging other people's training? If you are happy with your MMA training great, stick with it, but please stop ctriticising other people's training. It is getting tiresome. If our training is substandard by your reckoning then so be it. It is substandard, I agree.
:asian:

 

[jks9199]

Somehow, I'm feeling a need for this:

Context:

2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
​

Application:

1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose: the application of common sense to a problem.

2. the special use or purpose to which something is put: a technology having numerous applications never thought of by its inventors.

3. the quality of being usable for a particular purpose or in a special way; relevance: This has no application to the case.
​

Moving back to the original topic...

Lots of the competitive arts have useful aspects and some relevance for use in self defense. They have even more application in a Monkey Dance style encounter, where the two participants are more likely to "fight." But there are dangers in trying to hard to use sporting applications in self defense, too. Of course, I'm feeling a real strong sense of deja vu as I swear I've said this before. More than once...

 

[drop bear]

Somehow, I'm feeling a need for this:

Context:

2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
​

Application:

1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose: the application of common sense to a problem.

2. the special use or purpose to which something is put: a technology having numerous applications never thought of by its inventors.

3. the quality of being usable for a particular purpose or in a special way; relevance: This has no application to the case.
​

Moving back to the original topic...

Lots of the competitive arts have useful aspects and some relevance for use in self defense. They have even more application in a Monkey Dance style encounter, where the two participants are more likely to "fight." But there are dangers in trying to hard to use sporting applications in self defense, too. Of course, I'm feeling a real strong sense of deja vu as I swear I've said this before. More than once...

Yeah that pretty much makes sense for context how I am asking for it.

Show me how your technique works in the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

So if it works in a drill that is the context.

If it works in the street then that is the context.


When I asked for a technique working in context I got what I asked for.

So the counter argument is that many sport systems are provable in the context of an unscripted and resisted attack. And I have said that before. That saying only applicable in sport does not work unless you have street.

 

[drop bear]

Why do you keep bagging other people's training? If you are happy with your MMA training great, stick with it, but please stop ctriticising other people's training. It is getting tiresome. If our training is substandard by your reckoning then so be it. It is substandard, I agree.
:asian:

Is this in response to me asking for evidence?

That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about. That statement needs evidence. People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.

I did not think that is the sort of question that is out of line.

I am not bagging anyone's system. Drills are drills.

 

[K-man]

Is this in response to me asking for evidence?

That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about. That statement needs evidence. People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.

I did not think that is the sort of question that is out of line.

I am not bagging anyone's system. Drills are drills.

What are you talking about? What has training against stabbing got to do with a girlfriend?

What you have done your entire time on MT is say that MMA training is real because you spar and all other training is just drills with a compliant partner and not unscripted. You refuse to acknowledge that other training is relevant and expect us to post video of martial artists fighting on the street to prove that our training works.

So I am sorry, to me that is bagging other training styles and I am sick of reading it, not to mention it is against forum rules.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

What are you talking about? What has training against stabbing got to do with a girlfriend?

What you have done your entire time on MT is say that MMA training is real because you spar and all other training is just drills with a compliant partner and not unscripted. You refuse to acknowledge that other training is relevant and expect us to post video of martial artists fighting on the street to prove that our training works.

So I am sorry, to me that is bagging other training styles and I am sick of reading it, not to mention it is against forum rules.
:asian:

So asking for evidence is bagging a style?

I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.

I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.

I do not keep raising the street. If you raise the street why not have a street reference? And that is not bagging styles either.

And all of this is just so I can work from a point of reference. So that we understand each other.

I am sorry but this is not about you and me. We are better off keeping our level of upset removed from the points we post.

 

[K-man]

So asking for evidence is bagging a style?

I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.

I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.

I do not keep raising the street. If you raise the street why not have a street reference? And that is not bagging styles either.

And all of this is just so I can work from a point of reference. So that we understand each other.

And I say my training is also unscripted and resisted. When I post an example of what we do you bag it as just a drill because it is not delivered with full force.

As to reference to the street and that you don't keep raising it ...

So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?

Training on real environments like parking lots becomes a trade off. If I train on concrete I either have to dial down the pace and the resistance or restrict the skill set. If I am aiming for reality I have already shot myself in the foot a bit because I have to reduce the reality to train in the environment.

So I am not sure why I would bother that much with it in the first place.


But a gym is the real world. There is often no getting around that. There are other people occupying space things to avoid mats that get slippery and so on.

I am not even sure there is a street training. Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.

If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.


But none of that is street.


Show an example of street training and what you get is a drill.

Still not street because you can't really show a street context.

and from another thread ...

I would expect krav to make sense from a sports perspective and then have modifications that make it street viable. Not things like keeping a fight upright which can be tactically viable. but just really strange ideas at a basic level that there seems to be no need for.

Having discussion about street vs sport I think the concept mostly does not apply.

people say street but do drills.

The context of the training and the application is drills regardless of what people claim.


The context of mma is resisted and unscripted attacks. And training for that.


I can show application of resisted and unscripted attacks.


I am less able to show street context or application in any martial art.

If people want to hide behind the street sport distinction then they really need to come to the party with a street example and not a drill. Especially not in a dojo with a compliant partner.

So, if you didn't make those comments, who did? The tooth fairy? :angel:

 

[drop bear]

And I say my training is also unscripted and resisted. When I post an example of what we do you bag it as just a drill because it is not delivered with full force.

As to reference to the street and that you don't keep raising it ...









and from another thread ...









So, if you didn't make those comments, who did? The tooth fairy? :angel:

Half of those were about there not really being a street sport debate. Which took me a little while to work out. Considering people saying street sport debate.

That is why I have changed my terminology to resisted unresisted. Unless I actually mean the street.

See when people said street I thought they were actually referencing street. I have made street comments but I actually mentioned the street.

Mostly anyway.

And I have even mentioned street sport here but in response to your post.

Have you shown me unscripted and resisted?

Maybe that one group fighting guy in the middle drill.

And they were not really going all that hard.

 

[Chris Parker]

Still not street because you can't really show a street context.

Er… where do you get that idea from?

Drills are basically sport.

No, drills are a training method, and are used in all martial arts (and other pursuits).

By the way just as a side note. Can you show evidence that one of the most common stabbings being the girlfriend stabbing to protect her boyfriend?

That just seems untrue.

Sure. Discussions with both LEOs and medical professionals (ER surgeons and so on).

Yeah that pretty much makes sense for context how I am asking for it.

No it doesn't. You're asking for (the situation that gives the) application, not the context.

Show me how your technique works in the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

That's application within context, not context itself. You're not understanding it.

So if it works in a drill that is the context.

No, a drill is a training method to develop a particular skill. That's not a context.

If it works in the street then that is the context.

No, that's the application.

When I asked for a technique working in context I got what I asked for.

What did you get?

So the counter argument is that many sport systems are provable in the context of an unscripted and resisted attack. And I have said that before. That saying only applicable in sport does not work unless you have street.

No, the only thing you can say is that sporting systems are provable to work in the situation they're designed for. And no-one is saying that that is the only situation that they're applicable for, just that that's what they're designed for, and best suited for.

Is this in response to me asking for evidence?

I feel that it's in response to your constant rhetoric of "only works in drills… MMA trains for unscripted and resisted (with the inference that nothing else does)…" and so on.

That idea that you do not practice a technique because the most common stabbing is a girlfriend etc is possibly the best example of what I am on about.

What? There was nothing about not training a technique, but there was a correction for what you thought the biggest danger was (in a real encounter). The fact that you can't see this is just another indication that you're really completely out of your depth in this conversation. To be clear, I'm not doubting your experience or understanding of MMA… but you don't seem to have much of an idea of anything beyond that… and are rather happy to tell others how bad what they're doing is… despite not understanding the first thing about what they do, or why.

That statement needs evidence.

Your misunderstanding of a comment needs evidence? Perhaps you need to understand it first.

People are basing a training method on something not experienced and not proven.

Uh, again… where are you getting that from?

I did not think that is the sort of question that is out of line.

Hmm. The manner matters… and the fact that you're basing your questions on a deep lack of understanding, despite being constantly corrected, is a big part of why you're getting the responses you are.

I am not bagging anyone's system. Drills are drills.

Sure… of course, I'm not sure you understand exactly what the methodology of drills can entail…

So asking for evidence is bagging a style?

No, the constant inference that nothing other than MMA is training "for real", everything else is fantasy and delusion, and so on is a big part of why you're being seen as bagging a style (or styles, really).

I asked for examples of other training styles. So I could get an idea of when you say street what exactly you mean. I got compliant drills. I am not even bagging compliant drills. I do them they are what they are.

Yeah… you didn't really follow what you were being shown. And I'm not sure that repeating would do much good.

I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.

Do you really, really think that what you do is unique? Do you think that other systems don't do such things as well?

I do not keep raising the street. If you raise the street why not have a street reference? And that is not bagging styles either.

Actually, you do. And each time, you seem to say that it can't be trained for, or that what training there is is the same as sports training… and each time you're wrong.

And all of this is just so I can work from a point of reference. So that we understand each other.

If you don't understand it by now, I'm not sure that you will.

I am sorry but this is not about you and me. We are better off keeping our level of upset removed from the points we post.

He's not upset… believe me.

 

[K-man]

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.

I am saying that the training i do is unscripted and resisted. That is not bagging styles.

One thing that comes up time after time in your posts is that your training is 'unscripted and resisted'. In an MMA sense, and believe me, I have very little knowledge of MMA, I am thinking that you mean in MMA sparring or competition you don't know what your opponent is going to do and when he does do it he is trying to take you down or whatever and you are either resisting that with full strength or trying to reverse the situation so you in turn are using as much power as you can. So to your mind this is the only honest way of training and that type of training doesn't exist anywhere else.

Can I say IMHO that this is only, and I repeat only applicable in sport. I don't teach that way at all and I never will. It could get people killed in a life or death situation. Sure I teach unscripted and I teach against total resistance. But I also teach scripted and against minimal resistance. In a reality based scenario it is unlikely a technique will encounter total resistance. If there is total resistance then you are using the wrong technique or the right technique at the wrong time. Either way it is likely to fail.

Once techniques are learned they are always going to be tested in unscripted situations but it is unlikely in that situation they will be tested against total resistance. You see, what you are promoting with the total resistance thing is a physical clash where the guy with the hairiest chest wins. In reality that is not the way it normally works. The person picking a fight rarely picks on a bigger stronger person unless they know that that person can't fight for some reason or other. If you are the smaller person you have to know how to fight to your strengths, and here I'm not talking of physical strength.

In competition there are weight divisions, for a very good reason. It makes for fair competition. You are not going to find a 55 kg woman competing in the ring against a 100 kg man but that could well be the situation on the street. So the training methodology of training against total resistance in this type of situation is totally wrong and I would say that, apart from a sporting context, it is almost always wrong.

When I teach a technique I teach it until it is second nature. Until that time, where it just happens automatically in the right situation, it is unlikely to be really successful in an unscripted scenario. Once the student has learned the technique it will be tested against increasing resistance. (I'm not really including kicks and strikes here.) Depending on numerous factors, at some stage that technique will fail. That might be because of physical strength difference or it might be because of difference in the level of relative experience. An important part of our training is recognising when a technique is failing so that you can move to a follow up technique. Now, in competition you see techniques failing but the competitors keep muscling on. That is normally not the situation in RB training. (The exception may be where you have trapped a weapon but can't wrestle it away. Certainly you need to keep control of the weapon arm but in this situation you need to add a technique.)

I don't have a problem in acknowledging that 'competitive' martial arts can be used for self defence, most of my training was in a competitive MA. But I do have a major problem with the blinkered approach of, "my training is real, if you can't show me video of your training working in a real street fight, then your training is not real". That is bagging all other styles that don't have your type of training.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

One thing that comes up time after time in your posts is that your training is 'unscripted and resisted'. In an MMA sense, and believe me, I have very little knowledge of MMA, I am thinking that you mean in MMA sparring or competition you don't know what your opponent is going to do and when he does do it he is trying to take you down or whatever and you are either resisting that with full strength or trying to reverse the situation so you in turn are using as much power as you can. So to your mind this is the only honest way of training and that type of training doesn't exist anywhere else.

Can I say IMHO that this is only, and I repeat only applicable in sport. I don't teach that way at all and I never will. It could get people killed in a life or death situation. Sure I teach unscripted and I teach against total resistance. But I also teach scripted and against minimal resistance. In a reality based scenario it is unlikely a technique will encounter total resistance. If there is total resistance then you are using the wrong technique or the right technique at the wrong time. Either way it is likely to fail.

Once techniques are learned they are always going to be tested in unscripted situations but it is unlikely in that situation they will be tested against total resistance. You see, what you are promoting with the total resistance thing is a physical clash where the guy with the hairiest chest wins. In reality that is not the way it normally works. The person picking a fight rarely picks on a bigger stronger person unless they know that that person can't fight for some reason or other. If you are the smaller person you have to know how to fight to your strengths, and here I'm not talking of physical strength.

In competition there are weight divisions, for a very good reason. It makes for fair competition. You are not going to find a 55 kg woman competing in the ring against a 100 kg man but that could well be the situation on the street. So the training methodology of training against total resistance in this type of situation is totally wrong and I would say that, apart from a sporting context, it is almost always wrong.

When I teach a technique I teach it until it is second nature. Until that time, where it just happens automatically in the right situation, it is unlikely to be really successful in an unscripted scenario. Once the student has learned the technique it will be tested against increasing resistance. (I'm not really including kicks and strikes here.) Depending on numerous factors, at some stage that technique will fail. That might be because of physical strength difference or it might be because of difference in the level of relative experience. An important part of our training is recognising when a technique is failing so that you can move to a follow up technique. Now, in competition you see techniques failing but the competitors keep muscling on. That is normally not the situation in RB training. (The exception may be where you have trapped a weapon but can't wrestle it away. Certainly you need to keep control of the weapon arm but in this situation you need to add a technique.)

I don't have a problem in acknowledging that 'competitive' martial arts can be used for self defence, most of my training was in a competitive MA. But I do have a major problem with the blinkered approach of, "my training is real, if you can't show me video of your training working in a real street fight, then your training is not real". That is bagging all other styles that don't have your type of training.
:asian:

Lol only applicable in sport. And that is not style bashing any more than only applicable in drills?

See you start your sentence with "in a real fight this will happen. And in a mma fight that will happen." And you are putting the kart before the horse.

I just find a guy wack some gloves on and find out for myself. So does my method work against a heavier person? I go find out with a heavier person.

So as an example of a drill. We may do one like this stand up drill. That is contested.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PDK3To42PdU

 

[K-man]

Lol only applicable in sport. And that is not style bashing any more than only applicable in drills?

There are many things applicable to sport, many things not applicable to sport and things that apply to all MA training. So if I say that something is only applicable to sport I am not denigrating sport. The example I said applies only to sport was one on one totally resisted application of technique, the one that you keep telling us is the only way to train. In a competition with equally weighted competitors that's fine but with a small vs large opponent, male vs female, old vs young that is not the way it works. In my training if I am applying an arm bar and my partner is at the stage where he/she is starting to resist strongly I will stop at that stage. I have enough strength to make the technique work but I risk hurting my partner. The lesson here is that in reality my technique failed. Now I can do the ego thing and ratchet up the power and finish the technique and show everyone how good I am, or I can demonstrate that techniques can fail and that we need to be able to move from one technique to the next. In my training I want techniques to work with minimal force. I want realistic resistance but it doesn't often need total resistance.

An example of training that isn't applicable to sport would be weapon training, weapon disarms and many of the potentially destructive techniques that we train for emergency situations that aren't allowed in sport anyway. So that is not style bashing. Anyone is free to train the extra things we train.

See you start your sentence with "in a real fight this will happen. And in a mma fight that will happen." And you are putting the kart before the horse.

And I didn't say it in this post. If I was to say it it would be in the context of the statement or discussion.

I just find a guy wack some gloves on and find out for myself. So does my method work against a heavier person? I go find out with a heavier person.

You just don't get it do you? For you martial art training is only for young fit people who want to fight each other. How do you cater for say a 65 year old guy who is interested in a martial art or a woman of similar age?

And just out of interest, why the gloves?

So as an example of a drill. We may do one like this stand up drill. That is contested.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PDK3To42PdU

And that's good training, so what? If you are calling that contested then almost all our training is contested. We do heaps of things like that but from what you have said, my training is no good. Even if I was doing the same drill you would find reason to say it was no good. Go figure. When I did post an example of the training we do you dismissed it as just a drill and because I don't have video of it being used in a street fight it isn't real training.

Let me ask a simple question. What are the main three reasons for you training MMA?
:asian: