Well sure. But there's two explanations for that. 1) The fan base and practitioner base for MMA are growing exponentially, meaning that the percentage of boneheads is going up exponentially as well. So you're bound to have a certain (growing) percentage of voices spouting things that more experienced people (TMA or MMA) know to be rubbish.
2) They're using the same rationale that lots of other martial artists use all the time. Their example is just more immediate. Saying that Brandon Vera pulls off the high kick consistently, therefore it works in those parameters, is really no different from saying that style X was used on the battlefield hundreds of years ago and is therefore appropriate for current self-defense. It's still an appeal to vicarious experience.
1) I agree. And I don't want to sound like I'm picking on MMA, because those same boneheads can be found in pretty much every art.
2) True, but like I said, those folks (the boneheads) assume that because it works for 10 people, that its a given it'll work for them. Additionally, I tend to cringe when I see people with the, "Well, if my Master says it worked and he used it, and his teacher had success, and his teachers teacher...it must work!" line. Like I said, I don't care if it works for them, due to the fact that its not going to be them thats defending me, it'll be me. My Kenpo inst, my Arnis inst...they can both pull off moves that leave me in wide eyed, yet, those same moves may not be on my fav. list. I try not to run around saying that Kenpo is the best standup art. Its the best for me though. When I talk about the importance of learning ground defense, may people assume I'm talking about BJJ. Not the case, as I always give credit to the other grappling arts out there.
Again, there's a disparity between experienced MMA types who are making a technical point (and a good one in my view) and the slew of fanboys who then take that point and expand its logic beyond usefulness. For instance, the more experienced guys I've spoken to point out that the elbow drop to the back isn't a good defense against an experienced shootist because wrestling and similar arts teach you to bend at the knee when going for the single- or double-leg. Not at the waist. So the back isn't presenting itself if done properly.
Watch from 2:20 on. So basically what you're saying is, is that if he was lower, bending more with the knees, that wouldn't have happened? Personally, I don't think that Jim thought that the Kajukenbo guy would've had the defense that he did. As for
experience, I think a 5-1 record is a pretty good start.
I don't think anyone (credible) is suggesting that dropping the point of your elbow on some dude's spine won't get a reaction. Just that it's a tactic that doesn't address how those takedowns are supposed to be performed. So while it may work on someone, it's a low-percentage move on someone good.
Correct, because most of the people saying it isn't effective are most likely the fanboy, keyboard warriors, who probably spend more time talking smack behind the keyboard, than they do on the mat in a real school.
Two other things to bear in mind: 1) They could be wrong, and would likely happily admit it faced with enough evidence. 2) I think a lot of the objections aren't to the idea that it could work, but to the idea that it's a watertight and infallible solution to that problem. I've heard a lot of "anti-grapplers" say "I'd just do X" as if it weren't even an issue, because they have this clever move in their pocket.
Correct again.
Likewise, I also cringe when I hear certain moves referred to as watertight and infallible. While a poke to the eye is effective, if that is the only tool said person has to fall back on, then IMHO, they seriously need to re-eval. their training.
I suppose I could too. But, for me, it's got more to do with answering my own questions. And matching someone in a debate doesn't do much to quiet those questions.
True, and likewise, I'm more concerned with the same.
Agreed wholeheartedly. To be clear, I'm much more of a TMAist myself. I don't practice MMA. I've trained in some kickboxing, the odd BJJ class, the infrequent muay thai class. Never competed in anything other than a couple of point tournaments in my childhood and WEKAF stickfighting tournaments. So I'm not trying to further "my camp" here. I just think that MMA offers a useful "lab experience" for people looking to get a little more feedback.
Absolutely, and I preach the same thing brother.
I'm always saying that both can benefit from each other, and I too, am always looking for things that I can borrow from MMA to make my toolbox better.
Well, here's the thing: Out of any group with a specialized interest, much of the commentary is likely to come from people who have more enthusiasm than insight. And given the explosion in MMA lately, the explosion in martial arts in general, and the availability of soapboxes through the internet, it's no great surprise that much of the debate that goes on amounts to roughly sod all.
Stuart
I think you and I agree more than we disagree.
I get the same feeling...that many people, the ones who have the biggest mouths, are the falvor of the week chasers. I mean, I'm sure we had the followers of kickboxing, then in the 80s it was the Ninja craze, and now the MMA craze. They see it, they like it, and they think that whatever flavor is currently on the shelf is the end all be all of training. And like I said, I'd be willing to bet that the biggest talkers, are people who watch TUF with their friends, then run to the back yard, start 'rolling', and assume they know what they're doing, when in reality, they should spend their time doing something more productive, like joining a school.
