How do you test your MA skill without using the sport format?

[MetalBoar]

Would pro's tend to be better martial artists generally?

Sure, but how many of them can efficiently deploy various configurations of Linux in a virtualized environment? Or effectively teach some subject, even PE, in the public school system? They're professionals, I'd hope they were good at what they're doing for a living.

It's not that I disagree with your point, I expect that pretty much anyone who really qualifies as a pro MMA fighter, boxer, etc. is a vastly better martial artist than I've ever been, or will ever be at this stage in my life. That's great and good for them. When I was in my 20's I could have been putting all my efforts into being a professional fighter, instead I was putting most of my efforts into being an IT professional and what time I had left into Hapkido (well, that and wine, women, and song). I was never as good a fighter as a pro boxer in their 20's would be, and that would still be true if I had been doing boxing (or BJJ, or MMA) instead of Hapkido. So, you're not wrong, but it feels like you're continuously harping about something that is both irrelevant and obvious to most of your audience, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Steve]

When I said, "Sport is the path, combat is the goal". Some people may not agree that "Sport is the path". What's the other option besides using the sport format to test you MA skill?

Your thought?

Get a job. When you train for a purpose you get pretty good. And if you do that purpose long enough you my might even become an expert.

 

[drop bear]

Sure, but how many of them can efficiently deploy various configurations of Linux in a virtualized environment? Or effectively teach some subject, even PE, in the public school system? They're professionals, I'd hope they were good at what they're doing for a living.

It's not that I disagree with your point, I expect that pretty much anyone who really qualifies as a pro MMA fighter, boxer, etc. is a vastly better martial artist than I've ever been, or will ever be at this stage in my life. That's great and good for them. When I was in my 20's I could have been putting all my efforts into being a professional fighter, instead I was putting most of my efforts into being an IT professional and what time I had left into Hapkido (well, that and wine, women, and song). I was never as good a fighter as a pro boxer in their 20's would be, and that would still be true if I had been doing boxing (or BJJ, or MMA) instead of Hapkido. So, you're not wrong, but it feels like you're continuously harping about something that is both irrelevant and obvious to most of your audience, unless I'm missing something.

If pro's are generally better martial artists. Then competition is a better vehicle for getting good at martial arts.

 

[MetalBoar]

If pro's are generally better martial artists. Then competition is a better vehicle for getting good at martial arts.

That's questionable logic and certainly doesn't automatically follow. Competition may or may not be the better vehicle for getting good at martial arts based on this fact but it's indeterminate. I'll agree that competition has benefits, but saying pro fighters are better at fighting because they compete, rather than because they're dedicated to it enough to make it a profession seems questionable. There's also survivor bias. You don't get to be a professional if you don't have the characteristics to be a skilled martial artist. Those who don't have what it takes to be good don't get to be professionals, whether they compete or not.

 

[MetalBoar]

I think the sport format is an easy way to test your fighting skills with relative safety. I think there's real value to being able to participate in something like MMA, Sanda, and similar arts in order to practice against fighters that don't necessarily train the same way you do. While in the past I've been lucky enough to be part of a group that got together to train, spar and exchange techniques, it's been my experience that it's generally hard to arrange for sparring/meetups with people outside of your own school, so access to some sort of open tournament format that's got limited restrictions on techniques has real utility for the purpose of validating your techniques.

I don't think many people would disagree up to this point. I think the disconnect happens when people feel they are being told that they have to train in a sport context to meet their goals. They may feel that the sport model has little relevance if their goals are strictly self protection, or fitness, or doing really cool looking forms or preserving a traditional art, etc. or if they practice an art that is disadvantaged by the prevailing rule sets, and depending on what qualifies as the "sport format".

Obviously there's been debate in this thread as to whether or not all sparring is strictly within the domain of "sport" or not. Personally, I don't think of sparring as being "sport" or "not sport" without context and even with context I'm not sure how much it matters, it just seems like a more advanced or freeform or complicated two (or more) person drill to me. If all drills are part of the "sport format" then I'm not sure what's left of martial arts that are not "sports format arts". Just forms?

There's also a trade off that people rarely seem to discuss; if you really optimize for one thing it can be detrimental to other aspects of your martial art. I'll use foil fencing as an example. Sport bouts take place on a strip that's 14 meters long and a couple of meters wide. For all practical purposes it's an entirely linear activity. By my second year in fencing I was just about the best fencer in my class and I was head and shoulders better than all but maybe 2 others. That's fencing on that 14 meter straight strip, where I'd put absolutely all of my focus because I wanted to be good at the sport of fencing. We would occasionally do fencing in the round for fun and education. When we did this I was middle of the class at best because it was very different than what I had spent my time optimizing. Fencing in the round is also much closer to what actual self defense with a sword would be like so my "sport" optimizations were detrimental to purposes outside the sport.

I don't have nearly as much experience with BJJ, but I've seen people who are completely unconcerned about protecting their groin because they have a cup and even if they didn't it's not valid to knee someone in the junk. That's ingrained in their reflexes because of the context in which they roll and it's detrimental to their grappling game to worry about it too much, but it's bad for personal protection. I watched a highly skilled TKD practitioner get leg swept and face punched repeatedly in a sparring match with a much less experienced Muay Thai-ist because he was habituated to a different rule set. I know a skilled FMA practitioner who did very hard contact sparring including with groups like the Dog Brothers here in the US. When he went to Cebu City to train by the end of the first day he couldn't hold his sticks anymore because of how many times he'd been hit in the hands. He fixed his technique but he felt that all the training with lacrosse gloves had made him oblivious to the risks. When he came back to the states he felt that most people he trained with had no idea how little they were protecting their hands.

This isn't to say that I think a "sport format" is bad, but if your ultimate goal is self defense then you'll have to choose whether you want to optimize for that or for competition. I'm not saying that someone who is great at the sport of MMA is poor at self defense, simply that there are compromises that one should know about and areas where sport and other applications may conflict.

There are real risks with not competing or utilizing a sport format too and they require awareness and work to overcome. They are potentially worse if they are not tested because it’s easy to think you’ve got the answer if no one is challenging it.

 

[Steve]

I think the sport format is an easy way to test your fighting skills with relative safety. I think there's real value to being able to participate in something like MMA, Sanda, and similar arts in order to practice against fighters that don't necessarily train the same way you do. While in the past I've been lucky enough to be part of a group that got together to train, spar and exchange techniques, it's been my experience that it's generally hard to arrange for sparring/meetups with people outside of your own school, so access to some sort of open tournament format that's got limited restrictions on techniques has real utility for the purpose of validating your techniques.

I don't think many people would disagree up to this point. I think the disconnect happens when people feel they are being told that they have to train in a sport context to meet their goals. They may feel that the sport model has little relevance if their goals are strictly self protection, or fitness, or doing really cool looking forms or preserving a traditional art, etc. or if they practice an art that is disadvantaged by the prevailing rule sets, and depending on what qualifies as the "sport format".

Obviously there's been debate in this thread as to whether or not all sparring is strictly within the domain of "sport" or not. Personally, I don't think of sparring as being "sport" or "not sport" without context and even with context I'm not sure how much it matters, it just seems like a more advanced or freeform or complicated two (or more) person drill to me. If all drills are part of the "sport format" then I'm not sure what's left of martial arts that are not "sports format arts". Just forms?

There's also a trade off that people rarely seem to discuss; if you really optimize for one thing it can be detrimental to other aspects of your martial art. I'll use foil fencing as an example. Sport bouts take place on a strip that's 14 meters long and a couple of meters wide. For all practical purposes it's an entirely linear activity. By my second year in fencing I was just about the best fencer in my class and I was head and shoulders better than all but maybe 2 others. That's fencing on that 14 meter straight strip, where I'd put absolutely all of my focus because I wanted to be good at the sport of fencing. We would occasionally do fencing in the round for fun and education. When we did this I was middle of the class at best because it was very different than what I had spent my time optimizing. Fencing in the round is also much closer to what actual self defense with a sword would be like so my "sport" optimizations were detrimental to purposes outside the sport.

I don't have nearly as much experience with BJJ, but I've seen people who are completely unconcerned about protecting their groin because they have a cup and even if they didn't it's not valid to knee someone in the junk. That's ingrained in their reflexes because of the context in which they roll and it's detrimental to their grappling game to worry about it too much, but it's bad for personal protection. I watched a highly skilled TKD practitioner get leg swept and face punched repeatedly in a sparring match with a much less experienced Muay Thai-ist because he was habituated to a different rule set. I know a skilled FMA practitioner who did very hard contact sparring including with groups like the Dog Brothers here in the US. When he went to Cebu City to train by the end of the first day he couldn't hold his sticks anymore because of how many times he'd been hit in the hands. He fixed his technique but he felt that all the training with lacrosse gloves had made him oblivious to the risks. When he came back to the states he felt that most people he trained with had no idea how little they were protecting their hands.

This isn't to say that I think a "sport format" is bad, but if your ultimate goal is self defense then you'll have to choose whether you want to optimize for that or for competition. I'm not saying that someone who is great at the sport of MMA is poor at self defense, simply that there are compromises that one should know about and areas where sport and other applications may conflict.

There are real risks with not competing or utilizing a sport format too and they require awareness and work to overcome. They are potentially worse if they are not tested because it’s easy to think you’ve got the answer if no one is challenging it.

Cups are illegal in most BJJ competitions. Just sharing as an fyi.

 

[MetalBoar]

Cups are illegal in most BJJ competitions. Just sharing as an fyi.

OK, didn't know that. Thanks!

I've only done some minimal BJJ in a self defense context so I'm not familiar with the rules for BJJ tournaments. Still stands though, people don't worry about their crotch, nor do they take advantage of opportunities to strike their opponent's groin because it's against the rules. I first started paying attention to it after watching a couple of MMA pros doing a self defense demo many years ago and I see with some frequency. I wish I could remember who did the video so I could find it and post it as an example. Regardless, after demoing a technique they asked everyone if they had any questions and one of the participants asked why, when one of the instructors had his thigh between the other guy's legs, neither of them had done anything about it (on offense or defense) and after reviewing the technique and realizing that indeed, the defender was wide open to have his balls busted, his answer was, "Well, it's not a valid target in MMA and I'm always wearing a cup so it just wasn't on my radar." I'm not saying it's the end of the world to train this way, just an aspect in which being habituated to the sport rule context can be sub-optimal.

EDIT TO ADD: And, just on a personal note, after a good friend of mine had a testicle ruptured during a wrestling tournament in high school I have little interest in doing anything but very technical, slow and controlled groundwork without a cup.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Class is class. There is only so much that can be done in this setting. Mostly, I find class to be where the physical skills are refined and fitness increased to prepare as much as possible.

Outside that, the only true preparation is 'adrenal inoculation'. A smaller, safe amount of adrenaline to teach you how to handle it's effects. Hard contact and scenario training comes close to approximating this... but still only gets so far. For those who have been there, we know, only exposure to real violence prepares you for real violence. It sucks, but it's true. Only the fear that comes from real stakes, and learning to work through that fear to come out the other side.

Obviously (as an earlier post set out) seeking out confrontation is a very foolish way to go about this. So we do our best to prepare our bodies in class, and work on mental preparedness (learning about the effects of adrenaline on your system so you know what to expect should the real thing happen).

I think this is a good thing. To go full on violence probably won't prepare a person as much as they think. Mentally it would probably destroy them. Sort of how we have soldiers who experience war come back messed up emotionally and mentally. I never heard a soldier talk about how they enjoyed the violence of war. Like athletes enjoy the violence of sports.

If someone gave me the opportunity to train all out in a real fight. I probably wouldn't. I would be afraid that it would make me dysfunctional and hyper aggressive. I was naturally aggressive as a child, so I would be afraid that would send me to a place I don't want to go. So I'm glad I'm not exposed to "real violence" on the regular.

 

[drop bear]

That's questionable logic and certainly doesn't automatically follow. Competition may or may not be the better vehicle for getting good at martial arts based on this fact but it's indeterminate. I'll agree that competition has benefits, but saying pro fighters are better at fighting because they compete, rather than because they're dedicated to it enough to make it a profession seems questionable. There's also survivor bias. You don't get to be a professional if you don't have the characteristics to be a skilled martial artist. Those who don't have what it takes to be good don't get to be professionals, whether they compete or not.

But to do well in competition generally takes dedication. Which then makes a person a better martial artists.

This is what I mean when I think of a path. All the things you should be doing if you want to get good.

 

[drop bear]

This isn't to say that I think a "sport format" is bad, but if your ultimate goal is self defense then you'll have to choose whether you want to optimize for that or for competition. I'm not saying that someone who is great at the sport of MMA is poor at self defense, simply that there are compromises that one should know about and areas where sport and other applications may conflict.

I don't think groin strikes are the fight ending super move people might think they are.

And this is the issue when say people start using them as escapes from terrible positions.

If you are talking about a single leg a groin shot is a huge risk as a defense.

But you would have to understand the mechanics of the situation.

 

[paitingman]

I don't think groin strikes are the fight ending super move people might think they are.

And this is the issue when say people start using them as escapes from terrible positions.

If you are talking about a single leg a groin shot is a huge risk as a defense.

But you would have to understand the mechanics of the situation.

In my experience, groin shots are often not fight ending. But they can change the dynamics of the battle for position significantly for many positions.

Clinching and dirty boxing I can do two quick, consecutive uppercuts to the groin just as I would to the body.
This forces most people to move their hips or at least flinch and then immediately follow up with knees to the body, or strikes to the head upon their retreat. Punctuated with a HARD leg kick.

Or I've caught someone's kick and I've got it good; I could throw punches to the body, head, or groin with my free hand and make them or their guard around, and go for the sweep at any time. This is much easier when they are fatigued or wearing pants.
It's extremely distracting and distressing to have groin strikes in the mix sometimes.
Regardless of if it has one-hit KO power, it is a powerful tool.

I only know this because our gang of cousins and friends (who also did martial arts for cultural/community reasons) played rough from an early age

 

[jobo]

But to do well in competition generally takes dedication. Which then makes a person a better martial artists.

This is what I mean when I think of a path. All the things you should be doing if you want to get good.

I'm with you for once, all the people coming up with idea of why it's bad to compete are running through a list of excuses as a process of self justification for not competing,

my competition is only spirited sparring with real punches, that's drops short of being real compitiction, but is the best I can manage, and seems to serve me well unl4ss I run into someone who does compete, then I'm probably toast

I was talking with some skinny little guy who does regional MT competitions, I'm quite certain he would destroy me in seconds, but the was a really nice guy, so not going to happen, fortunately

 

[JerryL]

but sports fighting does ..''fully'' prepare you, as far as any preparation is actually possible.

This would require that "sports fighting" is, in every single regard, closer to the actual fight than any other thing.

That requirement is not met in actuality. There are many ways in which, say, an MMA match is closer to reality than any other non-reality; but there are ways it is not. You can practice with more realistic clothing, on a more realistic flooring (and walls and other furnishings), with more realistic weapons, with a more realistic number of opponents, etc.

Even within "sports fighting", you spend *far* more time in friendly sparring than in a match. Matches are damaging and having more practice time (training in the school) is more valuable than just jumping from competition to competition. That's why there's a cadence between the two.

punching pads does not come close to replicating the physicality, danger or fitness of an encounter.

An attack you prepared for, in a fighting outfit, without shoes, without weapons, on a soft (suspended wood) floor with soft walls and a ref does?

I'm a big fan of the importance of fighting with resisting opponents... of exactly the sorts of things you are advocating; but let's be honest about it.

 

[jobo]

This would require that "sports fighting" is, in every single regard, closer to the actual fight than any other thing.

That requirement is not met in actuality. There are many ways in which, say, an MMA match is closer to reality than any other non-reality; but there are ways it is not. You can practice with more realistic clothing, on a more realistic flooring (and walls and other furnishings), with more realistic weapons, with a more realistic number of opponents, etc.

Even within "sports fighting", you spend *far* more time in friendly sparring than in a match. Matches are damaging and having more practice time (training in the school) is more valuable than just jumping from competition to competition. That's why there's a cadence between the two.


An attack you prepared for, in a fighting outfit, without shoes, without weapons, on a soft (suspended wood) floor with soft walls and a ref does?

I'm a big fan of the importance of fighting with resisting opponents... of exactly the sorts of things you are advocating; but let's be honest about it.

yes, there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting, it's not the hardest thing to adapt to the situation on the fly,

its closest in the most 8important regard, someone is trying to hurt you,




, far easier than trying to go from non threatning situations to being subject to an all out attack, that most probebly isnt going to work at all well,

that's aside from the issue that the fitness demands or competition will probebly mean your 8n much better shape any way and that alone may be a deciding factor

really all you need to do is take the FRIENDLY out of friendly sparring and your half way there, mistakes should have consequences, people learn quickly that way

 

[JerryL]

yes, there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting, it's not the hardest thing to adapt to the situation on the fly,

That's a different statement from your one before, but it's still not true.

By that logic, street brawlers would be better combatants than MMA players and gang members would be better with a firearm than, say, Army snipers.

its closest in the most 8important regard, someone is trying to hurt you,

That's another different claim from the one you made earlier, (that it '"'fully'' prepare you")

It's also begging the question (several actually).

Am I correct in hearing you say "the single most important thing that must happen for you to improve at a combat skill is that someone must be trying to hurt you while you are attempting to improve at it"?

Because if it is, you are disagreeing with the combat sports you are lauding.

And how are you even trying to justify that. If I want to learn fencing (or at least unarmed defense against someone with a sword); an MMA match is the ideal way to do that? Or are swords an exception. If they are, what else is? Why are shoes irrelevant entirely but swords not? Where in-between is the actual line?

, far easier than trying to go from non threatning situations to being subject to an all out attack, that most probebly isnt going to work at all well,

that's aside from the issue that the fitness demands or competition will probebly mean your 8n much better shape any way and that alone may be a deciding factor

really all you need to do is take the FRIENDLY out of friendly sparring and your half way there, mistakes should have consequences, people learn quickly that way

MMA competitors spend most of their hours on conditioning, drills, and "friendly" sparring. Actual competition is almost a rounding error.

Did you mean "cooperative" sparring? because I can tell you that that, and drills, are also part of basically every combat sport gym too.

 

[jobo]

That's a different statement from your one before, but it's still not true.

By that logic, street brawlers would be better combatants than MMA players and gang members would be better with a firearm than, say, Army snipers.


That's another different claim from the one you made earlier, (that it '"'fully'' prepare you")

It's also begging the question (several actually).

Am I correct in hearing you say "the single most important thing that must happen for you to improve at a combat skill is that someone must be trying to hurt you while you are attempting to improve at it"?

Because if it is, you are disagreeing with the combat sports you are lauding.

And how are you even trying to justify that. If I want to learn fencing (or at least unarmed defense against someone with a sword); an MMA match is the ideal way to do that? Or are swords an exception. If they are, what else is? Why are shoes irrelevant entirely but swords not? Where in-between is the actual line?


MMA competitors spend most of their hours on conditioning, drills, and "friendly" sparring. Actual competition is almost a rounding error.

Did you mean "cooperative" sparring? because I can tell you that that, and drills, are also part of basically every combat sport gym too.

why does my logic make street brawlers better than mma fighters, that doesnt follow at all from what I said, it quite l9kely makes street brawlers better than a lot of martial artist that dont fight, which is then a significant problem if you get to fight one

 

[JerryL]

why does my logic make street brawlers better than mma fighters, that doesnt follow at all from what I said,

You said "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"

So people who actually fight would be better fighters (fighters) than people who don't (athletes).

Of course, this isn't actually true and the reason is because of *training* to fight. MMA competitors aren't better than random schoolyard fighters because they fight more, but because they have better training. Army snipers aren't better fighters than Somali insurgents because they have more battlefield experience, but because they are trained better.

it quite l9kely makes street brawlers better than a lot of martial artist that dont fight, which is then a significant problem if you get to fight one

trollolol

 

[jobo]

You said "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"

So people who actually fight would be better fighters (fighters) than people who don't (athletes).

Of course, this isn't actually true and the reason is because of *training* to fight. MMA competitors aren't better than random schoolyard fighters because they fight more, but because they have better training. Army snipers aren't better fighters than Somali insurgents because they have more battlefield experience, but because they are trained better.

trollolol

but both street brawlers and mma fighters fight, so there no reason to favour one other the other 8n this regard, it certainly doesnt follow that I suggested the brawler would be better

 

[MetalBoar]

I don't think groin strikes are the fight ending super move people might think they are.

And this is the issue when say people start using them as escapes from terrible positions.

If you are talking about a single leg a groin shot is a huge risk as a defense.

But you would have to understand the mechanics of the situation.

So, I feel like you're having a discussion with someone else here. I've not said anywhere that groin shots were super effective. I've said that if you focus on a sport rule set and specialize to a point that you are oblivious to threats to your nuts that this may be somewhat detrimental to the health and safety of said nuts if you get in a fight outside of that rule set. I guess my example also stated that this specialized sport focus also made you oblivious to opportunities to attack your opponent's groin as well but that wasn't really my point.

 

[Steve]

That's questionable logic and certainly doesn't automatically follow. Competition may or may not be the better vehicle for getting good at martial arts based on this fact but it's indeterminate. I'll agree that competition has benefits, but saying pro fighters are better at fighting because they compete, rather than because they're dedicated to it enough to make it a profession seems questionable. There's also survivor bias. You don't get to be a professional if you don't have the characteristics to be a skilled martial artist. Those who don't have what it takes to be good don't get to be professionals, whether they compete or not.

How is it a non sequitur? A person who trains and competes in any sport always gets better at that sport. Sure, their objective progress depends on many factors, such as their own effort, the quality of their coaching and training, and perhaps their personal aptitude. But in every case, where someone competes in a sport, they get better at that sport. So, to say pro fighters are better because they complete is 100% true. in fact, one can say that ALL fighters are better fighters if they compete than if they do not. Not just the pros.

Now, I will say that getting better at one thing CAN make you worse at something else. So, for example, it could be argued that competing at chi sau competitions will always make you better at chi sau, but being better at chi sau might make you a less effective fighter. Not the same thing, though. The way to mitigate this and increase the odds of reliably transferring the skills to a different context is to vary the rule sets and get as close to the other context as possible.