MMA vs. TMA Training Methods: Is One Better Than The Other?

[sgtmac_46]

Because the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take me to the ground and graple his way to a joint lock or mount position. That scenario is a result of the ruleset of BJJ / MMA.

The above statement does not pertain to fighting 1 person, but to fight 1 person who is going to do something that basically amounts to a suicide move in a majority of realistic scenarios.

In that light it is perfectly valid to worry more about 1 / many attacker scenarios where the attacker is not doing that, and not worry about the 1 person who does.

If the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take them to the ground and grapple them in to being choked unconscious, I submit they are worrying about the wrong things.........that's not the result of the ruleset of BJJ/MMA it's the result of the way human beings are built.......hell, it's the way Chimpanzees are built and fit.........they knock each other to the ground, pound on each other, and bite each other's face and throat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgurbo_4bqg&feature=related (apparently the chimps been watching too much MMA.......he thinks it's natural to tackle an opponent to the ground, and fight from there......silly MMA rule based monkey.....should have been working on something more 'realistic'.......

[/quote]

So tell me about the 'majority' of realistic attack scenarios? Do people grab ahold of each other, tumble to the ground, and then punch and kick from there?

Or do we see mass-attack situations where 5 bad guys come at the good guy one at a time, in a very orderly standup situation, ala an episode of Kung-fu?


Gracie's valid point is that if you can't out grapple and defeat one person, you're dead in the water against more than one...........because how does one avoid grappling if one doesn't know how to grapple? The best defenders against grappling and takedowns are those who are well versed in grappling and takedowns.

When faced with multiple opponents you probably better have a weapon.

 

[MattJ]

K831 -

Are you saying here that they will rely on congnitive function during potential life/death attack or altercation? It would seem your references to most MMA guys having a "good head on their shoulders" is inferring just that. So they will consciously choose to employ a technique they haven't trained during a fight because they have a good head on their shoulders?

I think this is something of a fallacious starting point - many MMA/BJJ folk have trained in TMA/RBSD before, so they do know about these techniques. And they have had the mental pressure of someone actually trying to submit or hit them in sparring. Not a real fight, but certainly close.

I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

I don't think it is, anymore than a TMA/RBSD person claiming that they *will* be able to do a "foul" technique with proper timing and distancing, when it is impossible to practice that way.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Personally I think you need balance. Meaning in your training you need contact to desensitize yourself you also need technique training. You need extensive physical conditioning and weight bearing plus you need to focus on developing a strong mind or will. In regards to ring/cage vs. self defense on the street. Yet again if you have balance in your training then you should be in a good position to defend yourself but as always there will be no guarantees. If you are practicing the martial sciences with the goal of protecting yourself then you need balance in practice. You need to have work with weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping hands & joint manipulation and of course extensive grappling. Now if you are only planning on stepping into the cage then you pair down what you need. Someone who is trained in MMA probably should be able to defend themselves on the street and someone who is trained hard in TMA should also be able to defend themselves. Of course that defense will boil down to their skill sets and their ability to apply them. In the end balance and hard training will take you a long way in whatever your chosen endeavor is!

 

[MJS]

I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

I think the days of the 1 on 1, empty handed fights are a thing of the past. On a side note, its sad that things like this happen, (the officer and his wife) especially when it involves kids so young.

 

[MJS]

You and I have posted in several of these types of threads in the past. Sometimes, my observations about MMA are taken to assume I lack the appropriate respect for them as athletes, competitors and martial artists. That isn’t the case, as many of my other posts will show. Having said that, I do see some glaring weaknesses regarding SD and MMA training. There are some important strengths too. I also recognize weaknesses in much of TMA, however, that isn’t inherent in TMA's; it is teacher and school dependant. I think that is less the case for MMA.

Regarding MMA training methods (IMHO):

Pro’s –

-Conditioning/Fitness

-Simplicity

-Hard contact

Those things are all positives of MMA. Most of the guys I know who are at an MMA gym are pretty fit and they get a lot of sparring and some decent hard contact. The striking they are working is pretty simple, typically basic kickboxing punches and kicks and their ground work, whatever it may be. They work the mitts, and the heavy bag and run a lot of interactive drills. That allows a fairly fast progression to a decent level of proficiency. All of these things are helpful in any fight and many TMA schools could add a lot more of this in.

Con’s –

-While the opponents are resisting, they resist within a pretty narrow set of counter-options.

-Simplicity. Many benefits here, but the lack of even a modicum of attention to many realistic SD situations is a huge weakness from my point of view. Of course we have discussed things like multiple attackers and weapons. But even more simple, just the idea that SD situations do not often start with both individuals putting up their dukes and squaring off. People get attacked from various obscure angles. It is very difficult to strike from these angles (without resetting) unless you have trained it. This seems lost on most MMA guys at our club until we have them try.

-Mindset. I see both sides of this coin. I recognize that there are many, many TMA schools out there with a failed mindset. With a worse mindset than MMA clubs. However, I have seen countless MMA guys push for takedowns, underhooks, submissions, wrist control, etc despite the fact that it put them in a very dangerous position. They don’t see it as a dangerous position, because in MMA competition, it isn’t. They don’t recognize it is flat out stupid outside of that context, and it’s an auto-response. Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.

I have long said that if TMA (whose tactics and techniques, in my opinion, are far superior for SD than the Kickboxing/BJJ blend that makes up most of MMA) would barrow the conditioning practices of MMA, the intensity, and the level of contact (all of which are typically superior to most TMA schools) without buying into the competition mindset and the formulaic approach that competition breeds, they would be far better off.

I hear constantly about how hard MMA guys fight in their training and how no sparing etc in a TMA school is the same as competing. I’m just not sure what other schools are like I guess. We absolutely kick the dog ***** out of each other repeatedly.When we run multi-attacker drills we run them hard. When we "spar" it is hard contact and often without protection. I've been laid out and dropped in a heap, and given the same back. The AKKI is the roughest group I have been with, but when I did Tracy's Kenpo and when I worked with Skip's group, high levels of contact in sparing was very common. This aspect is likely more regular of an MMA gym, but I think that is teacher/school dependent. I wouldn't even stay for an entire class at any TMA school that didn't really bang.

Just as we consider differences between TMA schools, there is a difference between training at an MMA club (which many do) and competing (which fewer do) choosing to go another round when your covered in your own blood or injured does a lot for your psychology and is invaluable in a "real fight."

I truly believe that an individuals psychology, and the mindest they maintain, is the most important factor. How training methods affect this is a fascinating discussions.

Agreed. I find myself going back to the same reference point, but IMO, I think its a good one. As we saw in the Fight Quest shows, we had 2 MMA guys, who had to adapt to the TMA mindset, and more times than not, we saw that it was hard, as Jim and Doug often commented that they were having a hard time breaking out of the MMA mindset.

 

[MJS]

I am going to preface my lengthy post with this comment: I do not honestly hold to the idea that traditional martial arts are somehow inherently different than MMA. All of the techniques found in MMA are found in some traditional martial art, be it western boxing and wrestling or eastern karate and judo, or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. And the whole competition vs. the deadly street thing is just silly. Shotokan karateka, Kyoshukin karateka, tangsudoin, taekwondoin, kendoka, etc., all these folks have their own tournaments that they are training for. The folks that are considered to be the tops are often the folks with (surprise surprise) lots of trophies. Many so-called traditional martial arts are just as sport driven as MMA is. Taekwondo most certainly is.

In short, I see them both as essentially equal.

I agree, and as I've said in the past, the application is different, but things are pretty much the same, as far as the punches, kicks, etc. go.

The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.

Agreed.

The only major difference that I see in terms of quality is that MMA focuses on a smaller skill set and the those who actually compete train for competition, which usually means harder training than the average MA hobbyist. The smaller skill set means greater quality of training for each technique and greater repetitions of each technique, while many TMA schools (certainly not all) seem to feel that if they don't teach everything but the kitchen sink, then there is some huge gaping hole.

Broader skill sets make for a more well rounded fighter, but a focused skill set is nearly always more effective.

The other observation is that MMA means live training with a resisting partner, whereas TMA, because TMA is really a few hundred different arts and training philosophies, will not always guarantee that.

A TMA with a narrow, functional skill set, effective weapon defense training (meaning that the guy or gal teaching it actually knows what they're doing), hard training and training with resisting partners is, in my opinion, the best option for the average person who will never compete.

An MMA program with the same weapons defenses would be equally good.

Frankly, a good hardcore TMA school is going to train like a good hardcore MMA gym, so really it is just a question of what flavor you want.

As far as the whole eye poking, throat crushing, too deadly for competition stuff, as a practitioner of three traditional martial arts, I don't want to hear it. If your basics are lousy teh deadly will not help you. If you do not keep yourself in fit-to-fight condition, teh deadly will not help you. The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on. When your students are top notch with the core curriculum, then show them some of the other stuff to keep them around after black belt. But having out of shape students that cannot block, kick, punch, or move effectively and trying to say that because they can eye gouge that they are somehow more prepared for "the deadly street" is ridiculous. And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

Good instruction couple with correct practice, hard training, and working with resisting partners is much more important than what label you slap on your door.

My apologies for the long post.

Daniel

I agree, there are TMA schools out there, that do train just as hard as the typical MMA gym. As for the 'deadly shots'...well, I hate hearing about that too, because as I said, while those are good tools, if thats all the person doing them, has to fall back on in their toolbox, then IMO, they need to re-eval. their training.

As far as it not being rocket science...I agree to a point, however, I still feel that your training habits will come back to haunt you, for lack of better words. Again going back to FQ, how often did we see those guys go to the ground, only to find that it was a mistake, and then openly admit that because of past training, it was hard for them to get out of that mold.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Don't think Bruce Lee belongs in the defenders of traditional arts categories........much of what he was advocating was hybridized arts of the same sort that evolved in to MMA.

I agree with you to an extent (though not entirely), though I have seen him held up by enough practitioners of one TMA or another over the years that I included him. One could just as easily substitute Chuck Norris, as he would be more appropriate.

Daniel

 

[MJS]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

Of course, that depends on whether or not the MMA guy trains in a TMA in addition. As another member pointed out, many MMA guys that I've talked to and read posts of theirs on forums, frown upon the TMAs. Then again, let me clarify....they frown upon most, but there are a few that are liked, ie: Kyokushin (sp) mainly due to its full contact fighting. I think alot would depend on focus. If you're heavy into competing, I'd think your focus will be on that, not working with/against weapons.

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better?

 

[MJS]

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'

Perhaps this is said, because deep down, and because they dont want to admit it, they know that they themselves can't fight more than 1.

The only way you're going to get an advantage over multiple attackers is with a weapon.......if anyone thinks they are training in a system that is uniquely designed to deal with multiple attackers hand to hand, they are delusional. It can be done, but only with superior speed, skill, and shear tenacity, not with some special training versus any other kind of training.

Agreed. Interestingly enough, this past weekend, I was working with a group of multi man attacks. No weapons were used on either side, ie: the attackers or defenders, but the skill and tenacity was most definately there.

 

[MJS]

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

As K831 stated, we're talking about the best case example. Is every 20 yo MMA fanboy on the same level as the above mentioned? Of course, I'd also say that it would depend on the situation. IIRC, wasn't there a kickboxer, who was gunned down, quite a while back, in the middle of the street?

Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

Well, I would say yes....of course, again, also saying that its important to find the person whos best suited for the goal you're trying to reach. In other words, if I want to improve my ground game, I'll look at BJJ/MMA, etc. If I want to improve my weapons game, the MMA gym will be the last place I'd go.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

Sure, anyone can reason out how to poke someone in the eye while standing around. That isn't really what we are training for, is it? Personally, I am training for an automatic response. A response so ingrained that it happens without my knowing it even under stress. This is outside cognitive function. It doesn't have anything to do with "figuring out" or "rocket science" or a "good head on your shoulders". It is a result of how you repeatedly drill both physically and mentally.

It's why we run our firearms course with gloves on. Do all of our drills (FTF/FTE/draw/point shooting etc) with the gloves on and under as much stress as possible. To simulate that nervous system dump.

It's no different than anything practicing and training for anything else dangerous. It "isn't rocket science" to know that if you come into a corner too fast on a street bike, that grabbing a handful of breaks will stand the bike up. Anyone with a "head on their shoulders" can remember that, right? And yet, even riders with years of experience, blow through corners and die because at 80 mph and a reducing radius corner, THEY GRAB THE BREAKS because they didn't train it... they thought "surely I can figure this out when it happens for real." There are millions of sports and activities that know this. Why the martial arts world wants to ignore it is lost on me.

A fallacious argument? No.

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform eye gouges, eye pokes, and other "banned from MMA techniques." People have been doing eye pokes, eye gouges, and scratching at people's faces since people began deciding disputes with physical force.

Saying that you need to special training to poke a guy in the eye is like needing special training to kick someone in the crotch or bite them. And comparing it to cornering a two wheeled motor vehicle at 80 miles an hour is off base.

Plenty of kids in my school days poked at or gouged at other kids' eyes, kicked other kids in the crotch, boxed the ears, etc. all with no formal training. Not one girl in my elementary school seemed to need any training to do either one. And I seriously doubt that Mike Tyson trained to do that ear bite, yet he managed to pull it off on the fly against an opponent who was most definitely resisting and was most definitely no pushover.

Most banned techniques are banned because they strike easily injured soft tissue areas and are considered unsportsmanlike, not because they are any kind of equalizer, which is how they are often pitched in these discussions.

Daniel

 

[MattJ]

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better?

Because people have opinions.

And certainly many people have claimed TMA to be superior, too, yes? It doesn't make it a fact, either way. I think a balanced approach is best, IMHO.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What basics are you referring to?

I agree to a point. There are some universal basics to be sure. However, there are some "basics" that get lost between sport fighting and SD, and I think they are very important. There are some "basics" regarding SD that I have yet to ever see addressed in the MMA training methodology.

Well, basics such as effective blocking, striking, basic locks, throws, sweeps and take-downs (depending upon the art, the mix of these will be different).

The meat and potatoes stuff, as opposed to flying side kicks, spinning hook kicks, 360's, 540's, spinning back fists, spear hands, ridge hands, knife hands, pressure points, elaborate submissions, etc.

Not that specialized or advanced techniques should be ignored, but too often, people with poor basics progress through the curriculum and assume that because they have learned the specialized techniques, such as eye gouges or spear hands, or advanced techniques, such as spinning back hook kicks or flying side kicks, weapon defenses, etc. that they have this magical means of self defense.

Students with poor basics who move through the curriculum to learn the advanced/specialized stuff are generally poor at that as well. If you cannot do the basics of an art, whatever it is, then you have no chance of pulling off the advanced stuff in anything resembling a practical scenario.

I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

I don't believe there is such a thing as MMA or TMA training. To me it's about the way the coach/instructor teaches. We train both TMA and MMA the same way.
I'm gald Daniel brought up the subject of basics because to us that's the most important thing in any martial art, basics, basics, basics and more basics. Drill everything until it's in your bones and head.

Our classes are all basically the same, a emphasis on fitness, strong basics in whatever we are doing and loads of practice. When we are doing MMA our instructor will point out moves that can be used in self defence with slight variations and vice versa. He will say 'you've seen this move in the cage, now if you do it this way it's also effective in a 'real' fight'. We have a great emphasis on Bunkai and surprisingly a lot of that can be used for MMA. The way we teach means that MMA and TMA is much the same thing, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference frankly.

I think what people are doing is taking the 'professional' MMA fighter and comparing him/her to a martial artist who doesn't fight for a living which is unfair. You don't compare pro boxers with amateurs even though the amateurs may be equally skilled.

My instructor has had various fights in his life, still does. His daytime job is serving warrants and his night time job is as a doorman in a very rough city. His part time job is as a close protection officer a job he did in the army. He's taught the Kiwi spec forces as well as the Dutch and ours of course. Street fights and attacks aren't unknown to him and he passes on what he knows, no 'secrets'.

when fighting for survival you don't abide by rules, your mind isn't set up like that and as Daniel rightly points out you will go for anything that works. Those who train MMA aren't stupid enough to look for a ref and cornermen when attacked and will fight back doing much the same things as anyone including a non martial artist. The survival instinct takes over.

So, to me the way you train and the way you are taught is the important thing not the label some like to put on it. In our club we are old school martial artists not MMA or TMA but fighters, even the kids.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Tez, I would love your input on this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84564

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

Tez, I would love your input on this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84564

Daniel

I will post a bit later have to get ready for classes now but will read first and cogitate during class!

 

[geezer]

Well this was one of the few threads that was worth reading from the start to fin... well at least to this point. A lot of good points have been made. Some repeatedly. Like the point Tez just reiterated that a lot of people are comparing the elite MMA pro-fighters to TMA hobbyists. It is more sensible to compare elite to elite, and hobbyist to hobbyist. One system I've trained is Wing Chun which has deservedly come under fire for making exaggerated claims, On the other hand the elite WC/WT fighters like Emin Boztepe and Victor Gutierrez do "pressure test" their system (check the clips on youtube). The same is true for most TMA. And, most of the hard-core "fighter" types I've met have trained at least bit of MMA... and respect the intensity of competitive bouts. Taking this into account, there really isn't a lot to argue about.

One thing that hasn't been dealt with too much is that really heavy contact isn't apropriate for everybody. How many folks in there 50s, 60s and beyond can physically take the punishment of MMA or Boxing? Relatively few, I'd wager. But people of all ages and physiques can benefit to some degree from toned-down training. As somebody said earlier, the martial art that you stick with the longest will do you the most good.

Now, to get better rounded-out, I guess I need to start looking around for a BJJ gym athat can teach an old geezer without breaking him up too bad.

 

[Tez3]

Well this was one of the few threads that was worth reading from the start to fin... well at least to this point. A lot of good points have been made. Some repeatedly. Like the point Tez just reiterated that a lot of people are comparing the elite MMA pro-fighters to TMA hobbyists. It is more sensible to compare elite to elite, and hobbyist to hobbyist. One system I've trained is Wing Chun which has deservedly come under fire for making exaggerated claims, On the other hand the elite WC/WT fighters like Emin Boztepe and Victor Gutierrez do "pressure test" their system (check the clips on youtube). The same is true for most TMA. And, most of the hard-core "fighter" types I've met have trained at least bit of MMA... and respect the intensity of competitve bouts. Taking this into account, there really isn't a lot to argue about.

One thing that hasn't been dealt with too much is that really heavy contact isn't approppriate for everybody. How many folks in there 50s, 60s and beyond can physically take the punishment of MMA or Boxing? Relatively few, I'd wager. But people of all ages and physiques can benefit to some degree from toned-down training. As somebody said earlier, the martial art that you stick with the longest will do you the most good.

Now, to get better rounded-out, I guess I need to start looking around for a BJJ gym athat can teach an old geezer without breaking him up too bad.

Nice post!
Speaking as one who is in their fifties (argh!) MMA training is a lot easier than many think, full contact is reserved for the actual competition and techniques are put on in training only until one can feel them not to the point of injury. What I find is that I'm slower than the young guys and less supple so you have to adapt techniques to make them work and leave some out altogether but that actually goes for everyone, if your legs are long/short for example there's things that won't work as well etc. That's part of the fun adapting techniques (I have to do this in TMA as well, can't kick to the head etc) to make them work and that is what you'd do for SD anyway isn't it!

 

[K831]

You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.

While a fight in the cage is certainly closer that having done nothing, it still isn’t really all that close. Particularly psychologically. Yes, I have done both. In fact, I’ll have to ask my wife to dig out the tape of some of my MMA bouts from the late 90’s early 2000’s. Couple are actually pretty good.
In every city I have lived, the number of assaults reported vs convicted etc is pretty high, not to mention the many that go unreported. I find it hard to believe that you really feel that slugging it out in a street fight will put you in jail immediately. Having spent (I’m not proud of this) too much of junior high, HS and college doing too much fighting I can think of only 2 times the cops showed up before it was over and everyone had dispersed.

How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?

I have never trained with an instructor as an adult who doesn’t have very real experience. That is my personal preference.
However, I take your point and I am sure there are too many who are talking out there butt.

A safer bet for what? Being shot at conditions you to keep your head under fire, which is important, as mindset is of TREMENDOUS importance.........at the same time, the skills themselves, aren't necessarily superior. A USPSA competitor very likely has superior weapons handling skills.........it is only the mindset that is in question. If his mindset is solid he'll take the fight. If not, the veteran will.

A safer bet for combat, isn’t that what we are really talking about and training for? So, were I to be going into “combat” I would choose the combat veteran whose psych./mindset were proven, over the competitor with the faster tac. reload who may crap his pants and freeze when it gets real. Same thing for MMA. I have seen guys with lots of competition under their belts melt down when it was real, where did all his bravado from the ring go?

Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday.

I addressed this, but you seem to have missed it. I am not discussing tested in a controlled environment vs untested theory, and why you would even try to compare them as either – or, mutually exclusive options is baffling. Proof tested in real SD situations TRUMPS proof tested in a controlled environment every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory.

Yes I have, in both. And I agree, a fighter who tests himself in a competitive situation gains something on one who doesn’t. What I still don’t understand is why you assume that if someone hasn’t competed in MMA then by default they have only theory and have never tested anything? That just isn’t so.

No, you're trying to specify a narrow definition that fits your argument........but the reality is that even the Modern Method of firearms shooting that we all depend on, developed by Col. Jeff Cooper and others, came from shooting competitions they had to develop it........again, this entirely REFUTES your notion that competition under rules is inferior to untested theory that claims itself about 'real combat'.

No, I am trying to keep the conversation in context, and away from these huge generalities, like all competition acts as a “proof” and no one can test anything anywhere else so it must just be theory.
You citing Col. Jeff Cooper does nothing to refute my argument. Col. Jeff Cooper served as a Marine in both WWII and the Korean war. Weren’t most of his thoughts were born of combat, including his color code? I hardly think that degree of situational awareness and understanding came from gamming and race guns. Regardless, that is exactly why the IDPA was formed, USPSA was too “competition oriented” and they saw the fault in that for anyone who wanted their skills to more adequately cross over from competition to real shooting. That is the whole premise of the organization, and it speaks to my point.

aimpoints and eotechs aren't just on a 'few' M4's, they, along with ACOGS, are on nearly all police carbines, and most military carbines in combat units that allow them. That came DIRECTLY from the kind of competition you were referring to.

C’mon stgmac… why cherry pick? No one ever said that nothing from MMA could carry over into SD and combative situations. Hardly. What has been said by myself and others is that there are also many things that should not carry over and are glaring weaknesses in a SD situations. The same is the case with shooting competitions. You are for some reason choosing to only look at red dots. Awesome, they work great in many SD situations. Flaws were found though, and the idea of BUIS and co-witness applications came about. If were are going to do this comparison, why don’t you mention all race gun aspects and not just cherry pick the one that works in some combat applications?
What about "skeletonizing" and reduced-weight recoil springs that allow the use of "squib loads". Now that would be flat out suicide on the battlefield, and yet, it is “proof tested” in the competitions to achieve faster follow up shots. By your logic, we should get squib loads into the hands of all marines. Same as taking a proven MMA tactic (take a striker to the ground ASAP) and applying it to the street. It’s suicide.

TMA is untested theory when it's untested.

Sure, by I am not operating from an untested paradigm. Why everyone assumes that people in a TMA are untested is beyond me. Whatever the reason is, it isn’t true. I am as hard on TMA’ists who fit that category as I am on MMA’ist who can’t see the dangers in taking many ideas that work in the rings and just assuming because they work there they work in the street. Both are silly and fooling themselves.
I have not allowed my TMA/combatives training to go untested. As I said before, the level of conditioning and contact is typically superior in MMA. The methodologies of TMA in terms of tactics are superior for SD. Those in a system like Krav, who actually train for SD and all its considerations while maintain a high level fitness and heavy contact, force on force etc are far better suited for SD than a competitor. The same applies to any TMA in that context.

As always stgmac, I appreciate the discussion.

 

[K831]

A fallacious argument? No.

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform eye gouges, eye pokes, and other "banned from MMA techniques." People have been doing eye pokes, eye gouges, and scratching at people's faces since people began deciding disputes with physical force.


Daniel

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform jabs, crosses, takedowns, mounts, chokes, round kicks, bobs and weaves, knife slashes, stabs etc.

I suppose then, since someone with zero trainging can do it, since a six year old can do it, I should not only drop my practice of faster, more accurate, un-telegraphed eye strikes, I should drop all my boxing work, kicks, my excrima knife work and my wrestling, since school yard kids and the un-trained can and have executed everything we see in MMA and TMA, to one degree or another.

If you really someone with zero formal training can perform an eye strike or any other "banned from MMA technique" with the efficiency, speed, accuracy, consistency as someone who trains it every day, then I just don't know how to move forward in a discussion with you.

I don't think you believe that, which is why I find your citing it a bit disingenuous.

I have a rising handsword to the throat that is faster by far than any boxer I have ever worked with. His jab may well be better. Why? Because of the strikes we each spend time working. Which is better outside the ring? Open handed strike to the throat, or a closed fist jab to the throat?

I guess I find nuance to be more important that most.