K.i.s.s.

[K-man]

And by self defence you mean drills.

You would not suffer an adrenaline dump fighting mayweather?

Street sport is a non argument in this case.

No, by Self Defence I mean Self Defence on the street where someone is attacking you, which is what the OP was implying.

As to fighting Mayweather, no I wouldn't have adrenaline dump because:
a) I am not into sport MA any more.
b) I am no longer boxing.
c) I never experienced any incapacitating adrenalin dump when I was competing in tournaments.
c) I don't get myself into street fights.
d) If I was 40 years younger and in the ring with Mayweather I would have prepared for the fight.

Take your pick!

FYI ... the OP was ...

We must realize that under stress fine motor skills decrease a lot and our brain/body enters to a mindset of survival where fine and cordinate movements are not easy to perform.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?
:asian:

 

[Rumy73]

Which doesn't change the bottom line, which is that if a technique is "low percentage" or "complicated" all that you really know is that it means you haven't trained it enough to be able to execute it properly when under pressure.

You again could not be more wrong. While execution certainly depends on training, all and every externality cannot be practiced, yet even anticipated to practice. External pressures have a direct relationship to execution of a technique. Under duress and/or stress, performance declines as the former increases. All my training recognizes that reality and minimizes the steps needed to execute. While you may be the Steven Seagal of some suburban ER and a storefront dojo, elsewhere not so much. First off, you are terribly out of shape. Often when subduing someone, it takes a bit of a tussle before any lock or grab can even happen. Being unfit, how do you even propose to accomplish that?

 

[bluewaveschool]

Wow, what a dick move. You don't have to be in UFC fighter physical condition to take care of yourself in a confrontation. If that was true, half the cops I see would never be able to arrest anyone.

 

[Rumy73]

Wow, what a dick move. You don't have to be in UFC fighter physical condition to take care of yourself in a confrontation. If that was true, half the cops I see would never be able to arrest anyone.

An overweight cop is a pathetic thing.

 

[Rumy73]

Wow, what a dick move. You don't have to be in UFC fighter physical condition to take care of yourself in a confrontation. If that was true, half the cops I see would never be able to arrest anyone.

I guess being real amounts to being a (expletive deleted). Further, I never said one has to be a ufc fighter; however, talking about preparation for fighting without acknowledging fitness is part of game is a hollow argument.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You again could not be more wrong.

 

[Thousand Kicks]

You again could not be more wrong. While execution certainly depends on training, all and every externality cannot be practiced, yet even anticipated to practice. External pressures have a direct relationship to execution of a technique. Under duress and/or stress, performance declines as the former increases. All my training recognizes that reality and minimizes the steps needed to execute. While you may be the Steven Seagal of some suburban ER and a storefront dojo, elsewhere not so much. First off, you are terribly out of shape. Often when subduing someone, it takes a bit of a tussle before any lock or grab can even happen. Being unfit, how do you even propose to accomplish that?

I'm not sure why we are degenerating into personal attacks.

Let me ask this to help clear some of the air. At what level do you consider a technique complicated?

We all seem to agree that as a defender, we should stick to bread and butter, or simple, techniques for defense. From what I read, I am seeing two arguments on what "simple" means. Some (Rumy73) are saying that there are just a techniques that are simple and techniques that are complex and you should stick to the set of techniques that are inherently simple. Others (Dirty Dog and myself) are saying that while there may be simple and complex techniques; with enough training you can move techniques from complex to simple even under duress.

I would also add the point that in the course of an altercation an opponent may unknowingly put themselves in a position for a wrist lock or a throw that requires little effort on your part. From the outside it may appear flashy, but to you it was just a case of being in the right position where the technique will work.

 

[drop bear]

No, by Self Defence I mean Self Defence on the street where someone is attacking you, which is what the OP was implying.

As to fighting Mayweather, no I wouldn't have adrenaline dump because:
a) I am not into sport MA any more.
b) I am no longer boxing.
c) I never experienced any incapacitating adrenalin dump when I was competing in tournaments.
c) I don't get myself into street fights.
d) If I was 40 years younger and in the ring with Mayweather I would have prepared for the fight.

Take your pick!

FYI ... the OP was ...



What part of that are you disagreeing with?
:asian:

You don't fight on the street. Why are you making the distinction?


Pretty much all of it.

That is a pretty vague statement that is not supported.

Where is the evidence that actually occurs? And how is that defined?

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure why we are degenerating into personal attacks.

Let me ask this to help clear some of the air. At what level do you consider a technique complicated?

We all seem to agree that as a defender, we should stick to bread and butter, or simple, techniques for defense. From what I read, I am seeing two arguments on what "simple" means. Some (Rumy73) are saying that there are just a techniques that are simple and techniques that are complex and you should stick to the set of techniques that are inherently simple. Others (Dirty Dog and myself) are saying that while there may be simple and complex techniques; with enough training you can move techniques from complex to simple even under duress.

I would also add the point that in the course of an altercation an opponent may unknowingly put themselves in a position for a wrist lock or a throw that requires little effort on your part. From the outside it may appear flashy, but to you it was just a case of being in the right position where the technique will work.

To go into that we would start a new concept of position before submission. Attacks from dominant positions are higher percentage (simpler?)

Sort of.

 

[wingchun100]

I'm not sure why we are degenerating into personal attacks.

Let me ask this to help clear some of the air. At what level do you consider a technique complicated?

We all seem to agree that as a defender, we should stick to bread and butter, or simple, techniques for defense. From what I read, I am seeing two arguments on what "simple" means. Some (Rumy73) are saying that there are just a techniques that are simple and techniques that are complex and you should stick to the set of techniques that are inherently simple. Others (Dirty Dog and myself) are saying that while there may be simple and complex techniques; with enough training you can move techniques from complex to simple even under duress.

I would also add the point that in the course of an altercation an opponent may unknowingly put themselves in a position for a wrist lock or a throw that requires little effort on your part. From the outside it may appear flashy, but to you it was just a case of being in the right position where the technique will work.

While I agree that techniques that are complex when you are a beginner will be "simple" (AKA "easier") when you get more experienced, I'm thinking more about what is better for the new martial arts student to know. In my opinion, they should learn "simple" techniques first. For example, you may be able to successfully pull off a straight blast to an opponent's face MUCH sooner than you can deliver a roundhouse kick to their head. The latter requires a lot more time with developing speed, balance and flexibility while the former involves knowing how to punch properly but, since your feet never leave the ground, the balance and flexibility issues aren't there (or aren't as much of a concern anyway).

 

[Dirty Dog]

While I agree that techniques that are complex when you are a beginner will be "simple" (AKA "easier") when you get more experienced, I'm thinking more about what is better for the new martial arts student to know. In my opinion, they should learn "simple" techniques first. For example, you may be able to successfully pull off a straight blast to an opponent's face MUCH sooner than you can deliver a roundhouse kick to their head. The latter requires a lot more time with developing speed, balance and flexibility while the former involves knowing how to punch properly but, since your feet never leave the ground, the balance and flexibility issues aren't there (or aren't as much of a concern anyway).

This falls into the category of a "Well DUH" statement. Do you know of any system that doesn't start with simple basics and then build from there? I do not.
Of course, this thread was started by an experienced BB and (as far as I can tell) it wasn't intended to debate the structure of the curriculum, but was a question about the utility of "complicated" techniques by those who have advanced enough in their training as to be taught such techniques.

I don't think anybody has advocated trying to get a white belt to throw a 720 kick with a back flip while mixing a martini.

 

[wingchun100]

Maybe we could start a thread on how some people refuse to let this site live up to its subtitle of "a friendly place to discuss martial arts." Seems to me some people would like to replace "friendly" with "insulting."

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep this conversation civil.

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator