Fighting and Self Defence are two different things.

[drop bear]

This falls into the same category of assumptions as the ones made by strikers that say they don't have to worry about grappling. Although MMA fanboys like to ridicule the "I won't let him grab me" argument, when asked about shots to the groin/eyes/throat they say "I won't let him hit me there". Well, it can work if you have good instincts (and you're better than your opponent) but it's still pretty unsafe to think that you'll be able to defend against something you never encounter in your training. In a competition you can be surprised by a hit coming from an unusual angle, I think that a fortiori you can be caught off-guard by an unusual strike to a prohibited target (like someone clawing at your eyes). Moreover, one might say that you can develop bad habits that might leave "holes" for those prohibited moves since they are never used in competition (it's along the same lines as why grappling supposedly isn't suited for armed encounters or multiple opponents), even though I'll leave this point to someone who has better knowledge of MMA.

No. Wrong way of looking at it. If you can strike more effectively than the other guy. You have a better chance of delivering eye strikes and groin shots and resisting theirs than if you can't strike effectively.

So it is not the case of a fighter being immune to those shots. But more the idea that they re doing everything they can to prevent it anyway.

For example say I was deeply concerned about being eye pokes while trying to punch a guy. What exactly would I do differently?

 

[drop bear]

Ok so what is "self-defense" what are we testing?

Mechanics of fighting basically. Resisting violence on me and forcing it on the other guy.

 

[drop bear]

Double post.

 

[ballen0351]

Mechanics of fighting basically. Resisting violence on me and forcing it on the other guy.

Great how about you get a little more specific

 

[drop bear]

Now we're talking about a professional MMA fighter with a respectable fight record (possibly two, as his friend looked like he was trained too), who's supposed to have "tested his skills against full resistance", yet none of his aggressors were neutralized. The Pitbull wannabe that gets punched repeatedly seems fine when he exits the store, by contrast look at Falcao's state at the end of the encounter. That's pretty weird for someone who practices what "the best fighters tend to gravitate towards". Where was the almighty BJJ? Also, where were the dangerous hits that are prohibited in MMA but that "any MMA practicioner could do in a SD situation"? No groin kick, no eye gouge, not even a

So we re back to mma doesn't work against elephants

Some fights you loose. Nobody can fix that.

 

[drop bear]

Great how about you get a little more specific

Unlike your "history" comment?

OK. Say I want to know if a throw I have just learnt actually makes a guy fall over. I will find a guy and try to throw him to see how often it works vs how easy it is to defend.

Then I can make a hypothesis on whether it works on gravel or in shoes against knives multiple oponants or elephants. But at least I can start with the idea that I can actually pull that throw off.

 

[Hanzou]

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,

I didn't say "do it", I said "successfully doing the technique".

Yeah, I can do a takedown on someone, doesn't mean I'll be successful at pulling it off. That's when it helps to have practiced said takedown on someone resisting you as safely as possible because it reduces my chances of screwing up.

 

[drop bear]

So just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean the technique won't work. The question was how do we prove a technique works if we dont test it under controlled environment. My answer was history. The question wasn't how do we know if you personally can pull the technique off. That's where class time and repetition come in.

How far back in history would you go. For me if I haven't seen it work I will consider that it s a move that doesn't work. Remember high percentage low percentage? That move becomes low percentage.

 

[ballen0351]

Unlike your "history" comment?

OK. Say I want to know if a throw I have just learnt actually makes a guy fall over. I will find a guy and try to throw him to see how often it works vs how easy it is to defend.

Then I can make a hypothesis on whether it works on gravel or in shoes against knives multiple oponants or elephants. But at least I can start with the idea that I can actually pull that throw off.

Testing individual techniques isnt "self defense"

 

[ballen0351]

How far back in history would you go. For me if I haven't seen it work I will consider that it s a move that doesn't work. Remember high percentage low percentage? That move becomes low percentage.

If it worked it worked I don't care of it was yesterday or 1952. Low percentages doesn't mean it wont work

 

[drop bear]

Testing individual techniques isnt "self defense"

Well it is as the parts make a whole.

 

[drop bear]

If it worked it worked I don't care of it was yesterday or 1952. Low percentages doesn't mean it wont work

If you focus on more reliable techniques you will be able to resist an attack more effectively.

A move from 1952 may not be suitable. I won't know until I have tested it.

 

[ballen0351]

I didn't say "do it", I said "successfully doing the technique".

Yeah, I can do a takedown on someone, doesn't mean I'll be successful at pulling it off. That's when it helps to have practiced said takedown on someone resisting you as safely as possible because it reduces my chances of screwing up.

And? You don't know if you can "Successfully do a technique" in real life until you do it. Doing it 1000 times in a safe controlled environment means little when the SHTF. Perhaps you can and hopefully you do but nobody knows how they will react until it happens

 

[ballen0351]

If you focus on more reliable techniques you will be able to resist an attack more effectively.

A move from 1952 may not be suitable. I won't know until I have tested it.

And?

 

[ballen0351]

Well it is as the parts make a whole.

Except the technique is the smallest part of Self-defense

 

[drop bear]

And?

There is no and.

Why would there be an and?

 

[drop bear]

Except the technique is the smallest part of Self-defense

No. Good self defence is about good technique. Not just fighting. But everything. And you should subject all of it to testing if you can.

 

[Hanzou]

And? You don't know if you can "Successfully do a technique" in real life until you do it. Doing it 1000 times in a safe controlled environment means little when the SHTF. Perhaps you can and hopefully you do but nobody knows how they will react until it happens

But again, who has the higher chance of successfully pulling off the technique? Someone who has done it repeatedly against a variety of resisting opponents, or someone who hasn't?

 

[ballen0351]

But again, who has the higher chance of successfully pulling off the technique? Someone who has done it repeatedly against a variety of resisting opponents, or someone who hasn't?

The one that doesn't freak out and freeze

 

[ballen0351]

No. Good self defence is about good technique.

NO good self-defense is never needing to use a technique at all