Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Steve]

No, I'm not muddying the waters. It's both a motivation for the school and something that helps the school stay open, which increases the likelihood that - among schools that compete - the ones that do the best job preparing for competition are most likely to survive. That's a dynamic that helps sport-oriented schools.

As for which school prepares folks better for competition, if it's not the one that's trying to prepare folks for competition, they are doing something wrong. It's the context they are training for, so should be well focused on the rules and strategies most likely to succeed in that context.

I'm not sure what your point was in asking if a BJJ school prepared studnts for TKD competition, etc.

I'm truly not sure why you're trying to introduce marketing and sales into this discussion. Yes, it's muddying the waters. Not that it's a bad discussion to have. It's just really off topic and irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Regarding the hypothetical BJJ schools I mentioned, do you really not get it? give it some more thought, and if you would like an explanation, let me know. Think about it relative to how you describe teaching self defense.

This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem.

I've never met a management trainer who doesn't have both extensive experience as a manager and experience as a trainer. In fact, if I had to select one or the other, I'd go with the person with only management experience over a person with only training experience, because the trainer must be credible first. How would a trainer with no management experience credibly coach a new supervisor who is dealing with a grievance? Or an EEO complaint, or even just a difficult performance discussion?

The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions....

We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.

You just don't come across to me as someone who is sufficiently skeptical. In this discussion, I think there are just a few actual skeptics, and you ain't one of them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm truly not sure why you're trying to introduce marketing and sales into this discussion. Yes, it's muddying the waters. Not that it's a bad discussion to have. It's just really off topic and irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll drop the whole thing.

 

[Steve]

Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll drop the whole thing.

Have you ever managed people, Gerry? IIRC, you are a training consultant. Right? You train leadership skills and such. Have you ever actually supervised a group of employees? I presume that you have. How is teaching self defense different?

 

[drop bear]

Um, I didn't bring up anything about an inverted guard. Not really sure what that is.


I think it does, especially if the competition rules are distinctly different - like BJJ and MMA, though there's an offset in the students becoming more adaptable by working in multiple contexts. So, there's an advantage to training specifically for BJJ competition. There's a different advantage to training for both BJJ and MMA. With equally good instructors and training methods, I'd expect (on average) the BJJ competition school to do better in BJJ competitions than the BJJ/MMA school. If that wasn't the case, I'd want to know why - it'd be something to learn from.

Bare in mind here. MMA fighters don't really train just MMA. they train multiple styles. So that strange disconnect happens.

I have mentioned my theory on why this works on any cross training thread that comes up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Have you ever managed people, Gerry? IIRC, you are a training consultant. Right? You train leadership skills and such. Have you ever actually supervised a group of employees? I presume that you have. How is teaching self defense different?

Your attitude in this discussion has made it impossible to continue discussing it, Steve. Rather than even trying to follow a point, you decide it doesn't fit whatever point you want to make, so it is muddying the water.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bare in mind here. MMA fighters don't really train just MMA. they train multiple styles. So that strange disconnect happens.

I have mentioned my theory on why this works on any cross training thread that comes up.

They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.

And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.

But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.

Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).

 

[Buka]

This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.

 

[Steve]

Your attitude in this discussion has made it impossible to continue discussing it, Steve. Rather than even trying to follow a point, you decide it doesn't fit whatever point you want to make, so it is muddying the water.

In a discussion about martial sport vs self defense, you're talking about which schools are going to be financially successful. Seems off topic to me.

But I'm not sure how your response above relates to the post you quoted. I am genuinely puzzled by your perspectives on training. I presume that your training consultants are experienced managers, if management training is what you do. Why do you believe self defense training would be different? Would you hire an executive training consultant for your training outfit who has zero management experience? I wouldn't.

They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.

And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.

But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.

Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).

You are really off base here. Every MMA guy I know trains BJJ... like the entire style. They also train boxing... like the complete style. And wrestling... like the entire thing. MMA guys go back and forth literally all the time in all kinds of different competitions.

Where's @Tez3? You really need to hear the MMA-ists are usually also traditional martial artists speech! I particularly like her version of it. She delivers it with aplomb.

 

[Steve]

This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.

You and me both. I'm trying to keep it on topic.

 

[Tames D]

This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.

Just call me the Confused Drifter

 

[drop bear]

They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.

And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.

But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.

Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).

I think you will find they train entire styles.

 

[Anarax]

The goal of your argument was the following

i keep trying to break you of your bias

Yet when you are questioned on how your SD course is different you say

i dont really need to build a case, i wasnt aware i was on trial.

So you want to change people's mind, but you don't want to build a case to convince them?

your putting words in my mouth. i never said nor implied there is a correlation between cultural influence like bowing and counting and the effectiveness of a style. i only said some people prefer.....

Not according to your comments below

if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.
however if your purpose and focus is strictly self defense then these things do not hold a supporting function to self defense. they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy.

Detract means to diminish or reduce. Thus according to your comment it's diminishing the self defense focus/component of MA training.
Please also refer to your other comments below

a regular karate class would be a 2D flat puzzle

but real self defense is a like a ShengShou megaminx

speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system

Your comments seem to state much more than people's preferences.

now if you or anyone has a specific critique about SD and want my opinion on how i deal with the issue i would be glad to address it but in general im not writing a dissertation for someones amusement.

You seem to think clearly explaining yourself and telling us your experience is "amusement". This is of course after you stated we're wrong and you are different.

you have failed to formulate a cohesive view and argument substantiated by anything other than your own opinion. (opinions are fine but you have not explained your reasoning for holding your view)

I clearly explained my reasoning on why I place MA above both long-term and short-term SD courses. They are in my replies to GP, feel free to go back and read them. I replied to GP because I think at that point you left the argument and GP was engaging in the discussion at the time.

if you come to the table with a debate, you really should understand your own view and listen to the counter argument. your not listening or in this case reading with a level of comprehension.
its difficult for me to debate when your not countering the view i presented.

I took almost each of you statements and addressed them. When you debate and make claims, some may ask you to explain the how behind those claims. For example; if you say "you're wrong" and "don't say that", you open yourself up to questions. When you then say "I'm not on trial" and all you essentially say is SD courses are better just because, again you open yourself up to the why. I didn't make claims I couldn't support nor explain. However; you refused to explain how bowing and foreign term "detracts" from SD training, but you may not have to now given you're now saying it's just a preference.

I understood what you typed, but you keep changing your point. Backpedaling makes it difficult to have a good debate.

 

[hoshin1600]

. I replied to GP because I think at that point you left the argument and GP was engaging in the discussion at the time.

This exchange has really turned into a friken train wreck. My original post to you was intended to point out that your first post was worded as a blanket statement and that absolutes are usually incorrect. You fought me at every step and by this comment it is clear you have zero interest in the exchange and don't care what I say or think.....so there is no reason for me to continue. If you have a specific question or comment for me you can send a PM.

 

[Buka]

I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.

Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.

Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are really off base here. Every MMA guy I know trains BJJ... like the entire style. They also train boxing... like the complete style. And wrestling... like the entire thing. MMA guys go back and forth literally all the time in all kinds of different competitions.

A recent boxing bout between a top-level boxer and a top-level MMA fighter didn't seem to reflect this.

If an MMA fighter is also a boxer (meaning they actually compete in both), then that's not the example I'm using. If they also compete in BJJ competition, that's also a different thing. I doubt (but can't assert) that every MMA fighter competes in non-MMA competitions.

As for training the entire system, do they (MMA fighters who don't compete in BJJ competition) train the strategies that are used in BJJ competition, like pulling guard early? That seems a bad strategy when the other guy is allowed to hit you while you're down, so I have difficulty understanding why they'd practice that. Or do they train (usually) an adapted version of BJJ, specific to their context. Now, this might be a difference in semantics, since BJJ doesn't really have a specific curriculum like many TMA, so it may be that I'm just drawing a distinction that doesn't really make sense from a BJJ perspective. Since you know the group better than I, I'll go with that.

As for boxing, a similar dynamic likely exists. There are tactics that are not terribly useful when the other guy is allowed to throw you down (and is trained to do so), can elbow you in the head, or can tie you into a clinch for a few knees, but which would be a normal part of boxing competition. If you're not competing in boxing competition, and are training boxing at an MMA gym, for MMA fighting, why would you train those?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.

Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.

Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.

I agree with this sentiment, entirely. I'm okay at dojos more formal than I'm used to (say, an Aikikai school). I go back and forth between kneeling bow and standing bow as my mood dictates (the former is more mind-clearing to me). And when I'm someplace with no bow, I just bow internally to jack that round, because it's very much that to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you will find they train entire styles.

See my comment to Steve about that. Perhaps that will make it clear what I'm talking about. It's not so much about leaving out techniques, as leaving out approaches that aren't relevant to the MMA competition. If they still include those, I'm curious as to why.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.

Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.

Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.

To bow or not to bow.
That is the question.

 

[drop bear]

See my comment to Steve about that. Perhaps that will make it clear what I'm talking about. It's not so much about leaving out techniques, as leaving out approaches that aren't relevant to the MMA competition. If they still include those, I'm curious as to why.

They don't leave out approaches than aren't relevant to MMA.

BJJ for example. They grade just like everyone else.

Here is robert whitaker. Now I could be wrong but I am not sure he has competed wrestling ever before. (sorry I was wrong. he has competerd in wrestling)

Ok so he is a legit wrestler who trains all of wrestling. Good enough for the commonwealth games.

Ok. he is also a BJJ brown belt. Gi, belts gradings the whole shebang.

He is training whole styles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They don't leave out approaches than aren't relevant to MMA.

BJJ for example. They grade just like everyone else.

Here is robert whitaker. Now I could be wrong but I am not sure he has competed wrestling ever before. (sorry I was wrong. he has competerd in wrestling)

Okay, I can see that. Would you say that's likely true (that they train the system, rather than training for MMA competition) at most/all MMA gyms? The descriptions I've heard in the past led me to believe that at least some gyms (I had thought it was common, but that may have been my misunderstanding) had "groundwork days" where they'd practice a subset of either BJJ or wrestling, or perhaps a blend of the two. Then they'd have "standup days" where they worked whatever standup style they were using. I'm having trouble imagining them practicing the floor starting position used in collegiate wrestling, for instance, even if the techniques are the basis of their ground game.

If MMA fighters do typically practice those approaches that don't apply to MMA when they are training at an MMA gym specifically for MMA, I'm curious as to why.