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

[MadMartigan]

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.

I have to (qualifiedly) agree with Jobo here. Experience often trumps training. Not always, but often.

I'd rather get medical advice from a 20 year nurse than a 20 minute new doctor. The training is on the doctor's side, but until some experience kicks in, there's a disparity.

It's like the technique vs size/strength argument. When size/strength is equal between 2 fighters, technique (training) wins... but when training/technique is equal, size wins.

And it's not a 1to1 ratio. Technique has to be miles ahead to make up for any significant size/strength disadvantage. (To your sniper analogy... when talking about distance shooting. Hand to hand, I'd bet on the insurgent).

When someone gets in brawls every friday night for a long time, that's a lot of experience (the size strength side of the analogy). I might have all the physical skills in the world, but with no experience I loose that match up 9/10 times.

Of course, GOOD training provides an element of experience. Thats why the mma fighter comes out ahead generally in that setup. Training with contact and resistance is imperative. If there are no stakes in training (even if just that you'll get your bell rung); you're at a disadvantage from anyone with real experience.

 

[MetalBoar]

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.

My disagreement with Drop Bear was his proposition that pro's are better than others at martial arts primarily because they compete and what I took to be his strong implication that competition rather than effort, dedication, quality of instruction, or genetics is the most determining factor in what separates a pro from other martial artists. Well, competition may well be a benefit but lots of people compete and are not pros and never will be. There are plenty of people who do MMA or BJJ and compete who are completely mediocre and will continue to be far less skilled than a professional even if they continue to train and compete because they only put in 1-2 hours a week. Pro's by definition are doing this for money and probably with the goal (at least) of making it their career, otherwise they would be called amateurs or hobbyists. That's a whole different level of dedication and work than the vast majority of martial artists, whether they compete or not. Anyone who puts in similar amounts of time and effort and trains with resistance against a variety of people outside of formal competition will also be much better than the average martial artist.

I also didn't say that getting better at competition would make you worse at fighting, I said that if you optimized for competition you might not be optimizing for self defense (or aesthetics, or traditional orthodoxy, or whatever else someone might wish to focus on) and I would also say that you might not be taking the most efficient path to your goal if your goal isn't competition. This could be true and the benefits of competition might still outweigh the drawbacks, we don't have any metrics for this and they would be fairly individual anyway. I just think that it's worth acknowledging that the "sport format" will likely ingrain certain responses that aren't ideal for other formats and giving that some thought and taking it into consideration for one's training might yield benefits in those other formats even if one chooses to focus primarily on competition.

The other point I find interesting is, if professionals are inherently better fighters then why doesn't everyone just box? I mean, they are the most professional of the professional combat sports athletes. Top boxers make orders of magnitude more money than top UFC champions who make like an order of magnitude more than BJJ champions. So, obviously, if you want to be the best of the best of the best you should just box, right?

 

[JerryL]

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

Ahh. A no true scottsman fallacy where you define "fighting" however fits your conclusion at the moment.

UFC Champion Francis Ngannou has been in 19 mma fights. I have no idea how many school-yard fights he was in, but that's not the point.

Your statement is "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"

This means that the people with the most actual fighting experience will, on average, be the best; and that boxers and MMA fighters are wasting their time with all that "training" as they would be learning better if they spent that time fighting.

Tell you what. You tell me. Who wins, a guy with no training who has gotten in 50 playground fights or Francis Ngannou with a few thousand hours of training and 19 fights? If you say the MMA guy, back up your position in a way that makes actually fighting the best training since he has fewer actual fights.

5 year Somali irregular or Delta Sniper 6 months into tour, same question. Support your position in a way that makes actually fighting the best training since the Somali has more fighting experience. Note that you'll be graded on the results of when this actually happened.

 

[Hanzou]

The other point I find interesting is, if professionals are inherently better fighters then why doesn't everyone just box? I mean, they are the most professional of the professional combat sports athletes. Top boxers make orders of magnitude more money than top UFC champions who make like an order of magnitude more than BJJ champions. So, obviously, if you want to be the best of the best of the best you should just box, right?

Some guys don't like boxing, some guys don't like MMA, and some guys don't like BJJ. It's all about what you fall in love with. If someone wants to make a lot of money, but hate boxing but excels at BJJ, they're going to shoot to become a high end BJJ practitioner. If someone just likes punching people and doesn't want to deal with grappling or wrestling, and is a talented boxer, they're going to go for boxing.

If you're not deeply in love with the sport you're doing, you're not going to excel at it, regardless of the levels of money possible.

 

[JerryL]

I have to (qualifiedly) agree with Jobo here. Experience often trumps training. Not always, but often.

I'm not pigeon-holing anyone into absolutes. We aren't talking about "always".

So you would say, on average, a Somali insurgent is a better combatant than a Delta Sniper who has been in fewer actual battles?

I'd rather get medical advice from a 20 year nurse than a 20 minute new doctor. The training is on the doctor's side, but until some experience kicks in, there's a disparity.

Depending on the advice, that would be a mistake... but it's also not a great analogy as you are comparing two people with extensive and ongoing training that's not practice.

Let's make a different one: 1850s surgeon with 100 surgeries under his belt or 2021 surgeon on his 5th surgery. Which one do you want?

Because his statement is "there is no better way of learning <surgery> than actually <performing surgery>". Do you actually want a surgeon that was never taught and never studied and never did the work to improve but rather just kept cutting into more and more people? Is he the best surgeon because he's so experienced? Or is experience a vital *part* of getting good at something?

This is where Jobo and I differ. I suspect he's actually making a disingenuous argument. I suspect he actually believes as I do. But he can't say that (or if he does say that, he'll immediately walk it back with some new language that repeats his "no better way" assertion; because (I suspect) there's an emotional reason for his statement. He has a desire, whether conscious or unconscious, to argue the uselessness of non-MMA arts and he's not prone to nuance; so he makes an absolute statement like the one above.

Because of coaching and exercise and drills and cooperative sparring are a part of becoming a good fighter, he can't just blanket dismiss all training that doesn't focus on fights. He'll have to nuance and he doesn't seem willing / able.

We see this in one of (I believe it was him) his other statements projecting that onto others... saying that they differ from his position specifically because they want to defend whatever they do which doesn't include that. It's an ad homenim fallacy regardless, and I'm not about to say "he's wrong because of his motivation" and commit the same fallacy; but he is still wrong.

It's like the technique vs size/strength argument. When size/strength is equal between 2 fighters, technique (training) wins... but when training/technique is equal, size wins.

You are countering an assertion I'm not making. Size matters. Luck matters. Endurance / strength matters (though that's actually against what Jobo said as weightlifting and cardio are not "actual fights", and therefore are not as useful as actual fighting.

When someone gets in brawls every friday night for a long time, that's a lot of experience (the size strength side of the analogy). I might have all the physical skills in the world, but with no experience I loose that match up 9/10 times.

But what if you have some? What if you are a UFC champ with 19 professional fights under your belt going up against that guy that's been in 200 bar brawls with drunk yokles?

He's got more fighting experience than you and "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"

Of course, GOOD training provides an element of experience. Thats why the mma fighter comes out ahead generally in that setup. Training with contact and resistance is imperative. If there are no stakes in training (even if just that you'll get your bell rung); you're at a disadvantage from anyone with real experience.

It sounds like you an I agree. Sparring with a resisting opponent, preferrably sometimes at intensities that approach an actual fight is an important *part* of training. The best way to learn to fight is a combination of exercises, coaching, drills, cooperative sparring, resistive sparring, and attempts to imitate the various aspects of the combat your are concerned with, likely including "fights".

Training + experience > training
I'll even agree training + experience > training + training.
but experience + experience > training + experience? No, I don't think so.

There is no better way of learning to fight then to be trained, to train hard, and to make sure that training has solid exposure to as high a realism as possible in regards to the factor that tend to decide win-vs-loss.

"Live fire" training in the military is a good example. It's distinctly not fighting (that's simulated other ways), but it gets you practice with live rounds being shot by you and around you and over you because that will happen in a real firefight and it's important.

It's not that you don't do red-vs-blue combat with simunition or the like... that's important too... as is all of the drilling... as is the mental and physical conditioning.

 

[drop bear]

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.

And I don't think that dynamic is really a game changer.

As there are other opportunities that they can take advantage of.

And there is a lot of timing, movement and strategy that is fundamental to any attack. So if say you got a sports fighter and challenged him to a groin kick off. You might be surprised how quickly he can grasp the concept.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Training + experience > training
I'll even agree training + experience > training + training.
but experience + experience > training + experience? No, I don't think so.

Combat involves many factors. To be successful they have to be balanced as you note here. Conditioning, strategy, will power/mind set also come into the equation. My opinion is that realistic dedicated training and mind set are the two most important ones. Of all the factors, mind set for many is the most elusive to master as we, ourselves, are always the hardest obstacle to overcome.

 

[MetalBoar]

And I don't think that dynamic is really a game changer.

As there are other opportunities that they can take advantage of.

And there is a lot of timing, movement and strategy that is fundamental to any attack. So if say you got a sports fighter and challenged him to a groin kick off. You might be surprised how quickly he can grasp the concept.

This is the exact opposite of my point.

 

[Ivan]

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?

Karate practitioners in Japan and Okinawa used to practice their techniques by picking fights with gangsters and delinquents. That’s always an option, albeit, a difficult one.

 

[drop bear]

This is the exact opposite of my point.

Yes. Which is my point.

The better groin kicker will be the better kicker. Not someone who has specialised in attacking the groin.

 

[jobo]

Ahh. A no true scottsman fallacy where you define "fighting" however fits your conclusion at the moment.

UFC Champion Francis Ngannou has been in 19 mma fights. I have no idea how many school-yard fights he was in, but that's not the point.

Your statement is "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"

This means that the people with the most actual fighting experience will, on average, be the best; and that boxers and MMA fighters are wasting their time with all that "training" as they would be learning better if they spent that time fighting.

Tell you what. You tell me. Who wins, a guy with no training who has gotten in 50 playground fights or Francis Ngannou with a few thousand hours of training and 19 fights? If you say the MMA guy, back up your position in a way that makes actually fighting the best training since he has fewer actual fights.

5 year Somali irregular or Delta Sniper 6 months into tour, same question. Support your position in a way that makes actually fighting the best training since the Somali has more fighting experience. Note that you'll be graded on the results of when this actually happened.

it's you that putting arbitrary definitions on things

its clear that training fights in the gym counts as fights at least as far as my statements go

and as it's my statement I get to pick what I mean by my statement

nb sniping is cowardice not fighting, anyone who is killing whilst staying well out of range is not fighting, they are executing, its little different to making them kneel and shooting them in the back of the head, it just requires a better shot

the uneven weaponry when fighting the wars america keeps invoking its self in, make and comparison of fighting ability very difficult, but as they have a bad habit of loosing wars against ill trained but war experienced goat herders you've answered your own question

 

[jayoliver00]

The highest level of martial arts training is MMA Fighter's training.

The highest level of martial arts achievement is a UFC title.

Combat training of H2H, which usually includes illegal technique in sports fighting, are only LARP'ed and never at full power. You are only pretending to eye poke someone; it's basically just Larping.

 

[jayoliver00]

I agree with your distinction between tournament and dojo sparring - but like you say, it's still sport format. That's OK for developing certain skills, but there is another path to combat. The path with few/no rules and controls, where the goal is not to learn how to score and win, but to overcome someone out to do you real harm. In this case, you do not want to be over-conditioned to abide by rules or pull your strikes. You want to practice incapacitating and crushing your opponent. Blow out a knee, grab and elbow smash/knee strike, crush the larynx, smother and throw him down, then stomp on him. This is especially true against an armed attacker.

Combat is full power and not so pretty, unlike most sparring or kata/forms. The emphasis is not on posture, or even application, but rather on the effect of the application when taken to its full potential. This means practicing with pads and shields, full power, against resistance. It is a hard workout, especially for the one holding the pads and getting stomped. Vicious intent and execution is the goal. Today we practiced over an hour like this after doing an hour of basics. Sensei took most of the punishment and broke his toe, but finished class without pause. Needless to say, we did not complain about expending our effort.

Of course, this type of "wild" training by itself is not desirable. Basic form and execution is important to maintain structure, balance, and efficiency. Half of one's form disappears in combat, so it must be excellent to start with. Real MA training requires a varied approach; soft and hard, learning and executing, controlling and letting go, kicking/punching air and using heavy bags/makiwara, doing forms as well as smacking a padded attacking partner with full power.

TMA has many types of practitioners, seeking a variety of benefits and goals - a true MA school should insure effectively defending oneself is one of them.

Throwing full power at your training partner to try to drop or KO him, is as real as it gets. This is real proof that that not only the martial artist is legit but also his style and his gym, are legit also.

 

[jayoliver00]

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.

It depends on the sports rule.

Speaking for MMA and specifically Muay Thai, we are always conscious of getting kicked in the nuts, knee, etc. by accident as the inside leg kick usually lands inches from either. I can see a pure Boxer being oblivious & super surprised at a nutshot but not MMA as kicks landing inches from there are common & are addressed frequently.

I throw this kick almost as much as I jab b/c that's what it virtually is. If I hit his nuts repeatedly, I can get DQ'ed so I'd have to be very precise; despite throwing at full power, full speed & under duress. I can throw 100 of these w/o even needing to look down & not hit the nuts....maybe once a year I'd nutshot someone. So imagine if I wanted to target his nuts; how easy it would be, "in da streetz" & "to the deathz".

 

[jergar]

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.

Your right what ever you train for your going to get good at it. Back in the day we trained for what ever was out there we sparred with karate, kick boxers, boxers, grapplers etc. I had a friend who was a ninjitsu black belt we found that our technique were very similar so that was fun . Do mix your training partners if you can, you will learn a lot.

 

[AIKIKENJITSU]

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?

I have been teaching adults and training in American Kenpo for fifty years. I test my skill against my students and against my imaginary opponent. My goal is self-defense and a strong body. I have used my skills for defense six times in my life, easily. One move and it was over with. I practice with students and myself. My goal is to use Kenpo to keep me limber and fast. I know I can use it for self-defense, and that is enough. Training alone is a worthwhile goal.
Sifu

 

[Flying Crane]

The highest level of martial arts training is MMA Fighter's training.

The highest level of martial arts achievement is a UFC title.

Combat training of H2H, which usually includes illegal technique in sports fighting, are only LARP'ed and never at full power. You are only pretending to eye poke someone; it's basically just Larping.

Can’t say that I would agree with any of this. But that’s just me. One’s mileage may vary.

 

[Hanshi]

A lot of good responses and comparisons in this thread. Isshinryuronin brought up some valid points in my opinion. When fighting in the real world the dirtier the better; niceties have no place there nor does "honorable or fair". In a real fight one MUST become absolutely brutal which can't be precisely practiced in the ring or dojo. In my 60 years of martial arts training I've always avoided any physical conflict unless absolutely necessary. The closest I've come to "fighting" as a training practice is in boxing. Many years ago I served as a sparring partner for a boxer/ring fighter. He liked sparring with me because I was equally adept at orthodox and southpaw. I liked it because I could really hit and use my power unlike dojo sparring.

Any training is beneficial even if only very slightly or tremendously so. I've trained with high ranking black belts who could do excellent kata and never forget anything they were taught. But when I set up scenarios by grabbing them from behind, choking them, grabbing a hand or arm or pushing them backwards they froze up and wasted critical long moments. This is self-destruction on the street. The Boy Scouts said it best: Be Prepared!

 

[JowGaWolf]

Non-sports Fighting as a teaching tool is unsustainable. You will quickly get to the point where you will either hate it or will be unable to continue due to injuries. Boxers tend to have longer fighting careers than MMA fighters. The closer it gets to fighting without rules the less desirable it would be. Image if there was no ref to stop the fight. How many broken bones and destroyed joints will you accept before you say it's not worth it.

 

[MetalBoar]

Yes. Which is my point.

The better groin kicker will be the better kicker. Not someone who has specialised in attacking the groin.

Again, the exact opposite of my point. You're having some imaginary argument with some guy who told you that his art is better than yours because he's a nut smacking wizard or something. That's not what I said and I don't care how how many people you've won that argument with, that's still not my point.

What I've said is that if you train exclusively for a rule set where you aren't allowed to sweep your opponent's feet, or you wear gloves that are so protective that there's no reason to worry about your hands getting injured, or both (you wear a cup AND your groin isn't valid target area*) and you fail to acknowledge the implications and take it into consideration in your training you may very well be more likely to get swept, or your hands busted up, or your nuts kicked, if you go about business as usual, without your armor, and your opponent isn't playing by the same rules.

Telling someone in advance that you're going to kick them in the nuts or sweep their feet is exactly not the situation I'm talking about because then their brain can be engaged rather than simply their habits and muscle memory.

But hey, I've not done much MMA nor BJJ training, maybe it makes every one of you guys kinesthetic geniuses with perfect situational awareness who never fall into the trap of reacting reflexively the way you've trained for thousands of hours even when it's the wrong response. It could also be that since you are or were a bouncer that you've got another set of training under a different rule set that keeps you from the kind of nearsightedness I'm describing. Maybe I'm just completely full of it or it's something you feel is of such negligible impact that it's not worth considering. If so, that's great, but please address what I'm saying and not that imaginary nut smacking wizard guy you've been arguing with.

*yes, I know, cups aren't perfect protection and neither are lacrosse gloves.