Flashy, Stylized and Useless

[Steve]

In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal: fighting proficiency. And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't. For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.

Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements. That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.

In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities: if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me. Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.

I hope it's clear from my posts that I agree with this. I've said repeatedly in this thread and in others that if the process is what's important, than more power to you. If training efficiency is the goal, I don't think *kata is the best way to it. *kata meaning how everyone on this board but Chris Parker define the term, meaning the forms/poomsae/kata/solo patterns performed in many different martial arts.

Getting back to the question at hand, though... are they outdated? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading your thoughts in this post.

 

[Archangel M]

So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?

Do you even semi-regularly try to punch someone who is REALLY trying to punch you?

If you "fake" punch people in sparring and thats the only experience you have with fighting you are going to be in for a BIG shock....

 

[Carol]

So you regularly just punch the **** out your training partners in the face with no gloves, and they do the same to you?

It happens, when you spar without pads. Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)

If you're hitting hard enough for some bruising to occur, you're going to get socked in the face, even if you're avoiding one another's head. Your opponent makes a high attack (perhaps targeting the brachial plexus), he zigs while you duck and you get unintentionally smacked in the face. You think you taste blood, it hurts like hell, disorients the **** out of you, and makes you wonder why you actually pay for this crap. It sucks. But it was still important.

My own lesson? I decided to move towards training with weapons after getting clocked in the face and seeing a slight off-color bruise well up to the surface the next day. That frigging hurt. The sting that didn't go away for several days. But it was a painful lesson in how easily I could be overcome...even dudes with no training could do far worse to me if they wanted.

 

[Chris Parker]

What do you base this "realistic reaction" on....who decided that "this is a realistic reaction"? The most realistic reaction to getting punched in the face is when I punched a guy in the face. BTW-The sensation was totally different from any bag, scenario or training device I ever used.

Hi Archangel M,

Well, the "realistic responses" are based on a number of things... in part, experience (both first-hand, and from other instructors/seniors, as well as listening to people who have "been there and done that"), observation (and things such as youtube have been quite informative once you can sift the wheat from the chaff), simple understanding of human reactions (which in a fight, due to different adrenaline kicking off a different part of the brain as well as other factors, can be very different to the reaction you get from accidentally clocking a training partner), and just plain common sense. When you hit someone, they do not just stand there waiting for your next strike (as in a large number of demos I see still), they move, ususally either aggressively (as you seem to, Archangel), or defensively (ranging from stepping back, removing a grabbing hand, attempting to retain a weapon, covering up, or cowering).

This does not mean we go around hitting people to see what happens, but as mature martial arts instructors, we feel that it is our duty to understand the realities of a violent encounter, and that is part of what I am addressing above. Hope that helps.

Oh, and Stevebjj, thanks for singling me out there. Just giving a wider definition of the term there, for what it's worth, BJJ uses a kata method too, they just don't call it that... Oh, and I agree that that is the common version of kata that most people are thinking of, I just wanted to add a bit to increase the thought patterns...

 

[MJS]

I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.

That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it. You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.

This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real. But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it. That's more of a mental thing, I think. I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous. You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.

I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.

I agree with both of you here. On one hand, as FC said, we can't beat the **** out of our training partners every time, otherwise we're going to run out of people to train with. Then again, if you don't condition yourself to some hard contact, you're probably going to be in for a rude awakening. But there is still that fine line, due to the fact that even with gear, its not going to be the same as a barehanded strike. I can get hit in the face and head, and I have, with headgear on, and its rocked me, to the point where the 'lights' started dimming a bit. The headgear saved me a little I'm sure, but I still had the effects of a hard hit.

IMO, I think this is where alot of people get confused...they do flashy, point sparring type moves all the time, never really mixing it up with harder contact. Personally I'd rather train for what I'm more likely to encounter, but then again, to each his own.

 

[MJS]

In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal: fighting proficiency. And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't. For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.

Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements. That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.

In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities: if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me. Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.

Good points, and if I havent hinted at this in this particular thread, I know I've mentioned it in others, the fact that everyone trains for a different reason. Of course, in a way, this may take away, slightly, from those that are more serious about their training. In other words, say I'm partnered up with someone who is just training for weight loss and something to do after work. Are they going to understand my needs and give me a realistic feel to my training, or will they be stuck in their mindset? This is why I often find myself saying that those who're not into serious SD, should seek another activity, but that wouldn't be anymore fair to them, than if I said that someone who goes to a gym should be serious about exercise instead of meeting new people. Then again, most people who workout at a gym are there for the purpose of working out, losing weight, etc., not tea time, so flip that back around to martial arts training, and my point becomes easier to understand.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

*kata meaning how everyone on this board but Chris Parker define the term, meaning the forms/poomsae/kata/solo patterns performed in many different martial arts.

Here you go:型 here it is in Hiragana:かた. Christ is correct concerning what the word means. It means Shape,Model,Mold,Form. It does not mean solo pattern. It is like taking clay and forming it into a bowl.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks, Jadecloud, I feel that is understood, but the use of the term by most here is the more common interpretation... but we know the truth, right?

And it's not necessarily a bad thing that that is the (dominantly) only way it is used by most here. It keeps a common understanding amongst people. I was simply attempting to show a deeper aspect to the word. That's all.

 

[Stac3y]

It happens, when you spar without pads. Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)
quote]

We spar with pads, but I've still had my nose flattened a couple of times (once with boxing gloves by a very large man--my nose doubled in size within minutes), have blacked someone's eye, kicked someone's contact lens into pieces, have knocked people down and been knocked down, have been kicked in the chin with RingStar shoes....I've got half a dozen nasty bruises right now, in fact. I've also been randomly punched in the face while in a crowd and had my hair yanked back by a stranger hard enough to knock me down. Have been threatened with a knife (I knocked the guy down with a punch to the throat) and grabbed unexpectedly from behind (turned out to be a friend who did that, but I did significant damage to him before I realized it.)

I was thinking about this topic last night, and I wonder what the rest of you think about this: the couple of times I have used aggressive self defense techniques (the two mentioned above, and one or two others), they have worked very well, and I didn't have to think about them; I just did them--wasn't even conscious of deciding to do them. My body just took over. But I had never practiced them at full speed or with seriously resisting attackers before. It was like the adrenaline focused me, rather than paralyzing me. Have any of you had a similar experience?

The other thing I've observed is that most people I've seen get in fights are just lousy fighters. They don't have good aim or power. Most of the fights I've seen involve one guy (it's almost always a guy) either grabbing the other guy's shirt or pushing him, then a couple of poorly aimed punches, maybe they fall down and roll around some....not a lot of damage done to anything but someone's pride. Once in a while you'll see a really good punch thrown, but not that often. Of course, my experience of this is mainly at high schools and bars, or in crowds at public events--these aren't diabolical criminals out to murder somebody.

 

[Flying Crane]

The other thing I've observed is that most people I've seen get in fights are just lousy fighters. They don't have good aim or power. Most of the fights I've seen involve one guy (it's almost always a guy) either grabbing the other guy's shirt or pushing him, then a couple of poorly aimed punches, maybe they fall down and roll around some....not a lot of damage done to anything but someone's pride. Once in a while you'll see a really good punch thrown, but not that often. Of course, my experience of this is mainly at high schools and bars, or in crowds at public events--these aren't diabolical criminals out to murder somebody.

I don't tend to hang around in places where I get into fights, and when trouble is brewin' I am usually able to talk around it or otherwise make myself absent. So in some 25 years of martial arts training, I've never really needed to use it on anyone for real.

But what you say here certainly has the ring of truth. I think a lot of fights are a lot of bluff, and people don't really know what they are doing. Just the other day a coworker of mine told me about an encounter that she witnessed, right outside our office building. Seems a jogger and a bicylist had some sort of altercation, they were throwing punches, rolling around on the ground, and finally they got up and the jogger jogged on his way and the other guy got on his bike and rode away. Nobody really got hurt.

There are dangerous people out there. But I think there's a lot of bluff out there too and the streets aren't so dangerous as perhaps we want to believe.

 

[Flying Crane]

I was thinking about this topic last night, and I wonder what the rest of you think about this: the couple of times I have used aggressive self defense techniques (the two mentioned above, and one or two others), they have worked very well, and I didn't have to think about them; I just did them--wasn't even conscious of deciding to do them. My body just took over. But I had never practiced them at full speed or with seriously resisting attackers before. It was like the adrenaline focused me, rather than paralyzing me.

Personally, I think this is an example of how other training methods can also be effective. You don't need to mimick a MMA gym to be able to effectively defend yourself.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I've read through most of the responses here. But I'm going to try and take a step back from them and reply in a more general sense.

What allows unrealistic and "flashy" technique to insinuate itself into a system is the fact that the system loses its reality check. And the room left over for flash is directly related to the quality of the style's reality check.

People often say that "style X" must be good because it was used on the battlefield hundreds of years ago. But the logic of that idea is predicated on one of three ideas:

1) It's still being used on the battlefield, and therefore still subject to constant realism testing.

2) Despite the fact that it's no longer being used on the battlefield, NOTHING has changed in the way the style is taught, trained, or tested.

3) The system, as taught for the battlefield, worked equally well for all individuals. A hundred soldiers went out, all using the same system, and they all came back. Owing to the system.

In reality, it seems far more likely that people lived and died based on where they were standing, what they were wearing, blind luck, etc. Battles seldom come down to the prowess of one lone soldier.

Fast forward a few centuries. Look at modern boxing. There's relatively little flash in modern boxing (though not NONE; plenty of showboating in the ring). Because the ring will very quickly sort out who's got solid technique and who doesn't.

Does that make boxing automatically better? Not necessarily (though I'm a fan of it as a martial art). Because the reality check is limited to a particular ruleset. And it can only serve to check those realities included in that ruleset. Same is true regardless of how inclusive your ruleset is (e.g., MMA). Some things will fall inside the reality check. Other things won't.

As an example, we don't really have any better reason to believe that the current UFC champ would be able to survive multiple knife-wielding attackers than we do to believe that anyone else would. His reality check doesn't really allow for that possibility.

Does that mean that Chuck Liddell wouldn't stand a chance? Not really. As someone else wisely mentioned, there's always a gap between reality and training. Training is ALWAYS an abstraction. You can try different training methods emphasizing different qualities. But at the end of the day, you're still "triangulating" the truth. Not looking right at it.

Besides, the broadest reality checks (e.g., real fights) usually encompass so many variables that they're difficult to reproduce with any confidence anyway. Disarming one drunken assailant swinging a broken beer bottle around doesn't necessarily mean you're "all set" for next time.



Stuart

 

[blindsage]

Do you even semi-regularly try to punch someone who is REALLY trying to punch you?

If you "fake" punch people in sparring and thats the only experience you have with fighting you are going to be in for a BIG shock....

Soooo....yes or no?

As to your question, yes. I never said anything about "fake" punching. My background is in Kyokushin training, I've been hit hard plenty of times and hit back hard plenty of times. And despite the no-head-shot-punching in Kyokushin training it still happens, both to me and by me, and with some boxing and Muay Thai as well, yes.

And with that training I'm of the firm opinion that you cannot go full out (and hard contact fighters rarely do) in training 99% of the time. It's not practical. Injuries occur way to frequently (as per the point of hitting full out). IMHO, you need realistic drills with resistance relative to the skill level of the student, plus sparring with medium to heavy contact, and other non-contact skill development practice. And you can get this in any style, if you find an instructor that teaches that way.

 

[blindsage]

It happens, when you spar without pads. Personally I loathe sparring gear (other than a mouthpiece)

If you're hitting hard enough for some bruising to occur, you're going to get socked in the face, even if you're avoiding one another's head. Your opponent makes a high attack (perhaps targeting the brachial plexus), he zigs while you duck and you get unintentionally smacked in the face. You think you taste blood, it hurts like hell, disorients the **** out of you, and makes you wonder why you actually pay for this crap. It sucks. But it was still important.

My own lesson? I decided to move towards training with weapons after getting clocked in the face and seeing a slight off-color bruise well up to the surface the next day. That frigging hurt. The sting that didn't go away for several days. But it was a painful lesson in how easily I could be overcome...even dudes with no training could do far worse to me if they wanted.

Sure, of course this happens, but what your talking about is not regurlarly just decking the hell out of each other full contact in the face with no pads.

 

[bowser666]

Good question and the answer is yes. There are solo drills and body weight exercises that also teach muscle memory. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Last time I checked isn't a kata/form, a solo drill ? LOL, you guys keep talking in circles and basically keep trying to hammer your argument into each other's heads. Just give up already. People train in all different kind of ways. Go with whatever works best for you I say. There doesn't have to be one better way or the other. Do what is best for YOU !!!

Steve - It seems like you are more anti-form/kata , because the art you study requires a partner to practice things on. in fact it relies heavily on that. A student can practice tons of applications, and utilize forms for much more which si why I feel they are advantageous. Let's face it , trying to train BJJ with no partner is like training Kendo with no sword ever.

Other arts do not have to completely rely on having a training partner for all the training. Yes a training partner is a MUST in order to apply what you learn and practice for effectiveness but there is alot of training that can be done solo.


To get back on the point of the O.P. I do feel that forms/katas are a leave behind from a historical/cultural background. From my limited understanding forms were designed as tools for memorization, excercise/conditioning, and also to be disguised as non-combat. Its just another way to remember things. It is also a good way to help preserve a style. Same way you pass along stories, this is how you pass along your art. Forms/kata, provide the foundation, and with proper instruction can be applied. None of this is new to any of us on the forums here.

If you train a different way that is your right. People should just simply say, Hi my name is X , and I train this way , it works for me, but may not work for others, i wanted to share my training methods in case it helps any of you in your MA journey. Take it or leave it. These mine is better than your posts need to stop. MT is supposed to be above that, and this place is turning more and more into YouTube style debates.

 

[bowser666]

Yes, there is always a difference between actual fight conditions and training. The question is how well your training is preparing you for that transition.

For my money, the schools that are training their stuff more along the lines of MMA methodology are more apt to be ready that what is normally thought of as TMA. Look at how fights actually go down in the street, then take a look at the movements conditioned by each and see which looks closer.

Notice I'm not saying you have to be training MMA for good SD. There are a lot of good tactics they don't and can't address. What I'm saying is about the way they train. If schools focus on SD, then their training methods and skill set work should look more like MMA methods than TMA. It's just a matter of brining a fighter closer to fight conditions. Those are conditions I often don't see mimiced or prepared for in a TMA school.

This post makes no sense to me ? Um MMA is sport fighting , where is the SD application aside from , SD for the sake of countering and escaping techniques that are allowed in the ring. Notice there are tons of things that are NOT allowed. Do they train for those as well ? My guess would be no ? Every fight interview I have ever seen , they typically train against their expected opponent, and have a working knowledge of their skillset. Not so in a street "real life" SD situation.

 

[bowser666]

Flying Crane, most of my experience at ending up in confrontation is professionally as a LEO. So, I've seen and/or been part of my share. From a couple of idiots at a softball game as you mention, to highly physical and emotionally charged domestics, to multi-person bar altercations, to gang related activity and just about everything in between.

The big thing you have right is the highly individual nature of each conflict, even between people with similar motivations and settings. That's part of the big problem I have with TMA's as I see them, they just; in many cases, don't address the spontaneity of combat to any degree.

That's where I make my assertion of MMA training methods looking closer to reality than TMA training methods. And I've seen plenty of both, as well as the view from the acutal side of fights.

I must ask another question , what TMA are you referring to you, from where are you getting this basis ? Did you train in various TMA and this is what you directly saw ? I have noticed that alot of bias people are quick to bash something that they don't really know about, and only think that what they do is the best. I do understand that there are alot of bad schools out there McDojo's that basically train you to regurgitate material and thats it, no application taught etc........ There are however alot of TMA schools that do it right as well.

I just wanted to see what your personal experience was in your training, what you have tried, what worked, what didnt etc..... If all you have ever done is train in a MMA gym, then its pretty wrong to make presumptive statements about other MA styles that you may not know anything about.

I also wanted to add that your assertion to MMA methods looking closer to reality ? Since when is reality a octagon cage, with a referee watching to stop the fight at any moment, with friends/trainer in your corner shouting pointers? Unless you go everywhere with this entourage how is that training for reality ? Last time I was in a realistic self defense situation ( defending myself from a drunken moron at a bar) I did not see anyone shouting pointers from my corner, nor was there a referee to break it up if it got out of hand. Sorry but i found that statement quite amusing.

 

[tallgeese]

I was referring to the actual nature of the conflict. People get so caught up in the trappings of different things they forget to actually consider what fights look like. And, again, based solely on my experience, fights tend to look more like ugly MMA bouts than they do any sort of TMA exercises.

For instance: me and mope all tied on one another, up against the wall of his living room striking and looking for advantage is way closer to what you'll see in an MMA bout than a typical karate sparring match. Just sayin.

Someone above made a good point, despite the trappings and posturing that goes with the ring, it definatly showcases skills once people step in.

I've earned BB rank in a couple of kempo based systems. However, I can't say they were "traditional" in the sense most people thing of. No kata, big focus on SD, ect. During that time, I've come across plenty of trad trained individual. Yes, I've met some good ones, I've never said I didn't. I'm just pointing out how people might come to assign the OP's descriptors.

 

[ap Oweyn]

This post makes no sense to me ? Um MMA is sport fighting , where is the SD application aside from , SD for the sake of countering and escaping techniques that are allowed in the ring. Notice there are tons of things that are NOT allowed. Do they train for those as well ? My guess would be no ? Every fight interview I have ever seen , they typically train against their expected opponent, and have a working knowledge of their skillset. Not so in a street "real life" SD situation.

I think there was a baby in that bathwater, mate.

Where's the SD application? People don't punch in fights anymore?

MMA is clearly not an accurate model of all the things that can happen in a fight. But fights can and do include punching, kicking, knees, elbows, throws, and grappling. So being good at MMA is as reasonable a preparation as any for tackling those possibilities.

Here's why I'm so adamant about the "all training is an abstraction" idea: Everyone has rules. You may not call them rules. You may not have a ref. But the fact is that, spoken or no, everyone trains with a common understanding of what's on and what's not. Which is precisely why, regardless of how permissive our style of choice is, very few of us have actually gouged anyone in the eye or elbowed anyone in the throat. We've pulled strikes to those targets, sure. But how is that any less an abstraction than sport martial arts' limitations on targets? Why is it any easier for us to bridge the void in terms of use of force than it is for the boxer to aim a few inches lower and land his jab right on someone's adam's apple?

To me, the MMA =/= SD argument is inherently flawed. Nothing is SD but SD. And we're fooling ourselves if we say that tossing controlled shots at vital targets is comparable to the actual act of crushing those targets.

None of it's real. It's all approximate. And it's appropriately humbling to keep that in the forefront of our consciousness.


Stuart

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, we've managed to get from "Do some martial art systems have flashy methods which are not useful, and is that a fair criticism?" to "Is kata really useful?" now through to "Is MMA realistic?". Hmm. Okay, I've tackled the others, I'll have a go at this latest aspect as well.

The way I see it, MMA is a very different approach to street defence. That is not to say that it cannot, or will not help you should you find yourself in a bad situation, just that that is not what it's purpose is, and that should be recognised (a few of the more insightful here are already more than aware from the looks of things here, so I ask you to bear with me as we go through this once more).

To give an idea of the difference in what the two ideas train for, here is me from another thread:

Remember that anything that starts with a referee in a ring, no matter how "no-holds-barred" it is, is not real fighting as you would encounter on the street. It is simply competition, and that is a very different environment with very different needs.

"The timeline between a real fight and a MMA bout is very different, and if you are training for one, then you are not training fof the other. In an MMA bout, you have any number of years of general preparation (your regular training), usually between 4-6 weeks specific preparation (training for a known upcoming fight, typically a known opponent who you can study form their tapes and records, and train for the expected techniques and excapes/defences), a pre-fight experience (getting to the ring, the ref's anouncements etc, usually getting a hit of adrenaline here already as your body prepares), the fight itself lasts in most cases for up to 15 minutes, broken into 3 x 5 minute rounds, with 2 minute breaks inbetween (this gives you an adrenaline rush, five minutes of very intensive activity, then a break in which you get an endorphine release, then a second adrenaline hit and repeat), finally followed by a very managed post-fight experience (with the trainers and physios to manage any physical injuries, as well as the come-down from the multiple adrenaline hits).

To compare that with a real violent encounter, the tmeline is usually something like this: Any amount of time in general preparation (like the general prep of an MMA fighter, except that the MMA fighter can limit his general prep to techniques and tactics that are within the defined parameters of his competition, whereas the street defence student cannot know exactly what they may encounter, so the general prep needs to cover as many different conditions as possible; striking, grappling, weapons, multiple opponents, ambush, intuition, talk-down [de-escalation], and much more), 0-60 seconds specific preparation (let's face it, the first warning most people are aware of that they are in a fight is "why does my nose hurt, and why am I bleeding?", so if you are aware enough to realise that someone is about to launch an attack [hit them first, for crying out loud!], you get very limited time to prepare for their attack [which is still unknown], their body type, and any other piece of information you may glean), 0 seconds - a few minutes of pre-fight (yelling, puching, or even your opponent feigning a lack of aggression to open you to a sucker-punch), the fight itself (which is typically from 3 to 10 seconds, sometimes longer, but typically not, and during which you will get a HUGE adrenaline rush, so it'll help if you've experienced adrenaline training as well), and then the post-fight (diring which you need to manage any injuries, the surrounding environment [does he have friends that are about to start something as well?], the security and police, any legal repercussions, and the endorphin release after the adrenaline burst, as well as getting home safely... just a note on this post-fight, after one encounter, I had to ask someone if they knew the number for the police. In Australia it is 000, I couldn't remember that at all. My mind simply shut down), which could last up to years, particularly the legal and emotional aspects."

Now, as I said, I am not suggesting that MMA training will not help, I do believe it will to a fair degree, but it is certainly not the be-all end-all that some proponents make it out to be. And, along with all other visual competitive mediums, there will still be a degree of "flash" here (although not quite as much as in a typical WWE bout... ), and it's usefulness is only relative to it's purpose. If they are flashy to get the crowd onside, then it could be incredibly useful. But if it is to attempt an overly complicated combination which results in the competitor telegraphing every movement and getting knocked out with a simple counter, then maybe no. Hey, what do you know, back on topic!