Actually there is no generalization, because it comes down to fighting ability.
And my point is that fighting ability, while certainly important, is not all there is to self defense, nor is it a singular, one dimensional scale.
As I showed with the example of the boxer, fighting ability can take many forms in different situations and against different kinds of opponents. The reason I specifically chose the example of the boxer, is that boxing are known to produce great fighting ability(hell, it's still my own go-to standup form of fighting, even though it's more than six years since I last entered a boxing gym), but good, pure boxers still fail miserably against even mediocre grapplers in an MMA-setting. What do that tell you about the generalizability of that arena for assessing every other kind of fighting ability, or even more further distanced, self defense. Or are we operating with different rules for boxers and other traditional martial artists?
If you can fight, you're more capable of defending yourself.
Yes, well, at least if the self defense situation escalate into fighting. Yet, as I stated above, most skilled
pure boxers, which you clearly don't question the fighting ability of, have great trouble executing their techniques in the controlled environment of MMA, despite having great fighting ability. But somehow MMA is still the ultimate measure of any kind of fighting ability, and also of self defense?
I simply don't buy the notion that a martial artist who can't execute their techniques in a controlled environment is somehow a self defense dynamo in an uncontrolled environment.
And that notion is put forth by whom, exactly? My point the whole time, is that the degree on which one can generalize from the results of testing a few variables in a controlled environment to the real world, depends on which variables are included in the controlled environment, and the degree of
ecological validity. My point is not that MMA-fighters doesn't have great fighting ability, which they certainly do, or that most traditional martial artists are great fighters, which they are most likely not, but that MMA-fighting is a very non-typical environment, populated by non-typical individuals, which make it not very representative for the kind of environment most self defense situations occur in, nor the people most likely to be involved in it.
Most good systems that claim to teach self defence, includes instruction on awareness in order to avoid dangerous situations in the first place, including verbal tactics and the use of diversions. This is completely absent in MMA. Many systems also use various tactics of diversion in order to land the first strike(or what is usually called a sucker punch), something that is quite hard to accomplish in a setting where both opponents start in a fighting stance with their hands up. Also, many systems encourage the use of improvised weapons as a first choice, also something that is impossible to assess the validity of from pure MMA. Groin strikes is another tactic that is completely removed from MMA, but which I have seen used to great effect in real life, especially when combined with diversion tactics. And I have not even mentioned weapons or the environment used against you, or even multiple opponents, which boxers can handle quite well despite having trouble in an MMA-setting.
There is also other stages of lower intensity happening in many self defence situations that have not escalated into a full on fight, but which are past just words being exchanged. This stage usually involves various kinds of grabbing of arms and clothes, something many styles have quick and effective standing locks as a response to, again usually executed after various forms of diversion. This is also something that one cannot assess in an environment where this stage is completely removed, and where both people have grappling experience, and are in a highly alert fighting state of mind. Executing wrist locks is in my experience incredible difficult when just rolling against somewhat experienced grapplers, and if strikes are included, it is probably even harder to pull off. Yet, I have used various standing locks, including wrist locks, several times when I worked with high security psychiatric patients, in situations with high levels of aggression and tension. The reason they worked were simply that said patients were not expecting that kind of response from me when grabbing me, and that they were in a completely different mindset than what someone with grappling experience would be in a sparring or fighting situation. I don't believe I would have much chance of executing any kind of standing arm or wrist locks in a MMA-setting, but as I have used them in real life several times, I know they are not useless in all situations. But if one should judge all techniques strictly from their applicability in MMA, wrist locks would be some of the first to be thrown into the garbage.
There is also the important notion that the overall goal in a self defense situation is getting out of the situation with the least amount of injury to yourself, something many traditional martial arts have various strategies for. In an MMA-fight, this strategy is also removed completely from the equation, and if you are not trying to escape in a street encounter, what you are doing isn't self defense, but street fighting, something that increases your risk of injury significantly.
But still, MMA-fighting is assessing all that is important for self defense, or what?
Which actually makes my point; Boxers are skilled fighters, and that allows them to defend themselves in street encounters against multiple opponents. Now clearly, if a boxer goes up against a skilled grappler, they're going to be in trouble. If a boxer is also a skilled grappler, than they have the advantage. In either case, we have "sport" stylists who are very capable of defending themselves because of their ability to fight in a controlled environment.
And as I pointed out above, even pure boxers, who we both agree are skilled fighters, generally have trouble in an MMA-setting. If MMA is the best way to assess general fighting and self defense ability in all situations, why do boxers have trouble? My answer is still that it is because MMA only tests a certain kind of fighting ability, in a certain artificial setting, and that you cannot generalize from this to every other kind of fighting and self defense situations.
I find it interesting that you somehow think I'm proclaiming that Bjj is the ultimate MA or something. That isn't what I'm saying.
And I find it interesting that you think that I think that, as that is not what I have been saying either.
With the popularity of wrestling and football in America, I wouldn't say very slim.
Further, if we expand the spectrum to non-grappling pursuits like boxing, which is readily available in many urban areas around the country for free, your chances of running into a skilled fighter increases exponentially.
My impression after training martial arts for over 20 years, including boxing, kickboxing, judo and other kinds of grappling, is that skilled fighters are the kind of people that are least likely to start the kind of trouble out on the street that you in turn would need to defend yourself against. Or are we confusing self defense with fighting on the street again?
And then we run into the situation I described earlier, which you've interpreted as some sort of love letter to the Gracie clan.
No, I did not. What is happening is that you keep throwing out strawmen.
No, what I'm saying is that if you have a kid doing karate, and he spars against a wrestler, and has no tools to stop that wrestler, then he has a deficiency in his toolkit that needs to be filled.
Yes, and I have no problems with that statement. but my point is that the same would be true if the kid was training boxing only, which proves my point about the difficulty of generalizing from one aspect of fighting to another. And as I'm of the opinion that fighting and self defense is not the same thing, as they have very different objectives, I am also of the opinion that one cannot use a single type of fighting as the primary measure of effectiveness in self defense.
That by the way is what the Gracies argued throughout their challenges. They never proclaimed that Bjj was the greatest art ever.
Actually, several of them have done exactly that, including Helio, Rorion and
Royce.
On the back cover of Helio Gracie's book
Gracie Jiu Jitsu: The master text, one can read about how the UFC
"established the undeniable superiority of one style - Gracie Jiu Jitsu."
From the
Gracie Academy Website:
"
1980- The Gracie ChallengeRorion invites anyone of any size or discipline to fight him to prove his superiority of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu over all other martial arts."
And a bit further down, in reference to the UFC:
"Royceās victory, as had Helioās victories before him, proved that Gracie Jiu-Jitsu was not only the most reliable system of self-defense, but also the only system that gives the average person a realistic chance against a larger, more athletic opponent."
What they said plainly was that you need to compliment your stand-up training with Bjj or grappling.
Yes, they said that too, and I have no beef with that statement. I have trained and competed in grappling since 2006 myself exactly for that reason and even trained with two of the Gracies in seminars, and I think BJJ is great. Period. My point is only that, while undeniably very important for the artificial setting of one-on-one, unarmed duels, grappling prowess may not be the single, most important factor for real life self defense. And since it was a lack of grappling ability and ignorance of the strategy employed by the Gracies and other grapplers that was the primary(but of course not the only) reason why many of the traditional martial artists in the Gracie challenge matches and early MMA did so horribly bad, using the results of these events as "proof" that TMA is useless for self defense, is in my opinion to stretch things quite a bit.
