Fighting and Self Defence are two different things.

[drop bear]

Cute and all but I never made any of those statements.

Nobody really makes the statement that if I can fight in the safety of the gym I will be OK in the street either.

That is your statement.

 

[ballen0351]

Nobody really makes the statement that if I can fight in the safety of the gym I will be OK in the street either.

That is your statement.

Sure they do Ive seen it here often. "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street" or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"

 

[drop bear]

Paul your spot on.
for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience.
i will never try to change the minds of people. its a fools errand. all i can do is profess what i believe to be true, at that moment and teach to those that are willing.
i like to say MMA is not real fighting. it is however, a real application of skills. two dudes at a bar who get into a fight is not self defense. its a "monkey dance" of two willing idiots.
the argument over what works is a matter of perception.
"the turtle in the well, will never know the vastness of the ocean"
every ones life experience is different. this experience will condition the vision and narrative in ones head on what real violence looks like. people will never agree on what true violence is and what works under those conditions unless we all share the same vision and narrative.
it is not MMA VS traditional, not techniques not training that determines success. , It is determined by what your internal narrative is and how that matches up with the circumstance you find yourself in at the moment that the SHTF.

Mabye this will be my theme for the thread.

From a little presumption grows a lie.

"for those who disagree, i hope you never have to learn how wrong you might be thru direct experience."

Even though there are more news articles of sports fighters fighting muggers and rapists and robbers than anybody else. The presumption is that sports fighters have no direct experience with self defence.

 

[ballen0351]

Even though there are more news articles of sports fighters fighting muggers and rapists and robbers than anybody else. The presumption is that sports fighters have no direct experience with self defence.

More articles huh? Well case closed. Do you have any idea how many attempted robberies/ rapes etc. dont make the news where a common untrained person fights off an attacker?

 

[Hanzou]

Sure they do Ive seen it here often. "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street" or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"

That's really two different sets of arguments.

The second argument;

"if your style can't come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"

Is a fair conclusion to reach, because there's really no reason any style can't work in a MMA/NHB context. If we can't reproduce results in a fair and balanced environment where the safety of both fighters are ensured, then people (rightfully) believe that something funny is going on.

 

[ballen0351]

That's really two different sets of arguments.

The second argument;



Is a fair conclusion to reach, because there's really no reason any style can't work in a MMA/NHB context. If we can't reproduce results in a fair and balanced environment where the safety of both fighters are ensured, then people (rightfully) believe that something funny is going on.

See I can always count on him

 

[ballen0351]

If we can't reproduce results in a fair and balanced environment where the safety of both fighters are ensured, then people (rightfully) believe that something funny is going on.

Self defense should never be fair. If it is you already lost

 

[drop bear]

Sure they do Ive seen it here often. "If I can win in the gym against trained fighters I can win in the street" or I"if your style cant come into an MMA gym and prove it works then it doesn't"

They are not the same statements. They are also not to be taken as dogmatically as you take them.

 

[ballen0351]

They are also not to be taken as dogmatically as you take them.

LOL So how should they be taken

 

[drop bear]

Self defense should never be fair. If it is you already lost

Scientific method should be tested objectively though. Otherwise it is conformation bias. Which is the bane of self defence trainers.

 

[Hanzou]

Self defense should never be fair. If it is you already lost

I'm not talking about self defense. I'm talking about testing out the effectiveness of techniques in a safe manner. If we can't do that then we don't know if they're effective.

See Jigaro Kano and Judo.

 

[ballen0351]

Scientific method should be tested objectively though. Otherwise it is conformation bias. Which is the bane of self defence trainers.

You cant test "self defense" scientifically its impossible there are too many variables that can never be accounted for

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not talking about self defense. I'm talking about testing out the effectiveness of techniques in a safe manner. If we can't do that then we don't know if they're effective.

See Jigaro Kano and Judo.

Sure we do when someone successfully uses the technique in the real world guess what it was effective

 

[Hanzou]

Sure we do when someone successfully uses the technique in the real world guess what it was effective

How can someone successfully do the technique when they've never actually done it before?

 

[ballen0351]

How can someone successfully do the technique when they've never actually done it before?

How can you do anything for the first time that's silly. How can I drive a car if I've never driven before, How can I shoot a gun if Ive never done it before,

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Are you drinking?

 

[drop bear]

LOL So how should they be taken

There are no absolutes with self defence. If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.

There are methods that will lean towards greater success than others. These methods can be tested in an environment that has saftey features.

The reason for this is because to have a propper idea of what works we have to repeat these tests and come up with a trend. This is how Resisted training works. We call these ideas percentages.

So although this method is flawed it is the least flawed. And the best method to teach skills.

 

[ballen0351]

There are no absolutes with self defence.

True

If I get attacked by an elephant my method will not work and I will get trunk slapped.

Enough with the elephant nonsense

There are methods that will lean towards greater success than others. These methods can be tested in an environment that has saftey features.
The reason for this is because to have a propper idea of what works

You have a proper idea what works with in the rules you set up

we have to repeat these tests and come up with a trend. Resisted training. We call these ideas percentages.

There are other ways to do this that dont involve trying to win pretty trophies

So although this method is flawed it is the least flawed. And the best method to teach skills.

in your opinion

 

[drop bear]

You cant test "self defense" scientifically its impossible there are too many variables that can never be accounted for

Nothing is proven until it has be tested an infinite amount of times.

Look while true. It is not practical. Otherwise you remove the variables people do that all the time.

 

[drop bear]

True

Enough with the elephant nonsense

You have a proper idea what works with in the rules you set up

There are other ways to do this that dont involve trying to win pretty trophies

in your opinion

And see this is the last massive logic leap that I mentioned in my post about dogma.

By what merits do you support these other methods?