MMA would never work in a real fight.

[TFP]

Hmm.... honestly, no... the only way technique is important is to make sure you don't use a face-block or similar...!

Well my friend you have completely jumped the shark with this one! I was going to go thru and reply to each reply you gave and whatnot, But between your latest revelation that technique has no importance what so ever, coupled with your "nothing is nothing because it can't be proven and all that it proves is in one moment in time, something was something, but it doesn't prove anything" line of thought has me second guessing that idea.


Is that your specialty or nitch? That moment of getting to the right spot?

 

[TFP]

I picked the MMA guy for the reasons that have already been mentioned. Of course, this isn't to say that someone who doesn't train MMA, is worthless or that I wouldn't pick them to have my back. I know many people that do not train MMA, but are more than capable of fighting and defending themselves. It's not always the art, but the way the person trains.

Thanks for the answer, I agree for sure.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I actually found an ACTUAL training video from a local TMA school:

I've seen worse.

 

[Chris Parker]

They need to be a bit more than just mechanically sound, they need to be fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable. I've had many cars that were mechanically sound that I wouldn't exactly call good, fast or powerful.

Actually, no they don't. It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.

I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.

The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.

You mean apart from the technique being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable?

No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.

The right cross or rear naked choke still have to be performed properly to work properly so when it's all said and done, yes it does matter and, yes it is important. You could throw out a right cross with no power and your thumb on the inside of your fist and it will be virtually useless so yeah it matters. TMA practitioners would not spend lots of time on basics, line work, step sparring and patterns etc, if technique wasn't important.

Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.

Well my friend you have completely jumped the shark with this one! I was going to go thru and reply to each reply you gave and whatnot, But between your latest revelation that technique has no importance what so ever, coupled with your "nothing is nothing because it can't be proven and all that it proves is in one moment in time, something was something, but it doesn't prove anything" line of thought has me second guessing that idea.

Read again. You've missed what was actually said.

Is that your specialty or nitch? That moment of getting to the right spot?

More than you realize....

 

[MJS]

They need to be a bit more than just mechanically sound, they need to be fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable. I've had many cars that were mechanically sound that I wouldn't exactly call good, fast or powerful.



You mean apart from the technique being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable?



The right cross or rear naked choke still have to be performed properly to work properly so when it's all said and done, yes it does matter and, yes it is important. You could throw out a right cross with no power and your thumb on the inside of your fist and it will be virtually useless so yeah it matters. TMA practitioners would not spend lots of time on basics, line work, step sparring and patterns etc, if technique wasn't important.

Actually, no they don't. It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.

I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.

The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.



No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.



Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.



Read again. You've missed what was actually said.



More than you realize....

Hmm...maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but Chris, even if a technique doesn't need speed, or power, the technique itself still needs to be mechanically sound, no? Sloppy techs were also mentioned. Now, even when I'd drill techs, and I wouldn't know what was coming, no, was my tech a perfect looking, textbook move? Of course not. But OTOH, I wasn't just swinging and blocking half hearted either.

 

[Chris Parker]

Sloppy doesn't mean half-hearted... in fact, it's more likely to be over-commited than half-hearted. And I was saying that a technique needs to be mechanically sound in the first place (in order for it to be worth training and practicing)... but a complete focus on it being the defining factor, or even being the difference between "effective, or working" or not, simply isn't necessary. This is, of course, from a self defence perspective, not a martial arts perspective... the two really shouldn't be confused....

 

[RTKDCMB]

Actually, no they don't.

Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.

It's a good idea that they are (in the main... some don't need speed, for instance, nor power....), but (and I know this isn't a common thought) they really don't "need" that.

Its a good idea but somehow not important?

I mean, I'd ideally have all my techniques precise, clean, accurate, deliberate, controlled, safe, and so on, but you can get away without all of that.. and having them be "fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable" without having the surrounding tactical application, strategic methodology, awareness, timing, adrenaline-response-conditioning, and far more is completely pointless. You'd be hit/stabbed/whatever before you even got anywhere near your great technique.

Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it. Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.

The other thing is that sloppy technique wins all the damn time. Lucky shots end lots of fights. Sucker punches aren't technical, they're just a very successful application of a technique (the punch). Having great technique is wonderful, and as martial artists, I'd expect everyone is working on making their technique as good as they can... but, in reality, they're just not that important. Most really good, successful street fighters (for want of a better term) don't have lots of techniques... and they don't work on technique. They work on successful strategies. Or, more realistically, they find one (or two) that work, and rely on them 95%+ of the time.

Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.

No, I don't. Look, I get that this is not a common thing to hear when dealing with martial arts... but it's also the reality when it comes to actual violence.

Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.

Yeah... you've really missed the points I was making. All you've described there is what I was saying that, up to a point, technique is important (making sure you don't break your hand or thumb when you hit, for instance, or try choking by wrapping your arm around the chin instead of the neck), but, in order to get to the place where you can hit or choke in the first place is the actual important part. What you do after that is pretty well arbitrary, and will come down to experience, preference (yours and your trainings), and opportunity.

I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good.

Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006

 

[TFP]

Couple "technical" street fights.

first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler. (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU

this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard. The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career. (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY

Would like people's thoughts on these tho.

in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here. Mind set and awareness. My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar. He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.

 

[TFP]

Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006

Nice, I will hop over there and put my 2 cents in.

 

[MJS]

Sloppy doesn't mean half-hearted... in fact, it's more likely to be over-commited than half-hearted. And I was saying that a technique needs to be mechanically sound in the first place (in order for it to be worth training and practicing)... but a complete focus on it being the defining factor, or even being the difference between "effective, or working" or not, simply isn't necessary. This is, of course, from a self defence perspective, not a martial arts perspective... the two really shouldn't be confused....

I would still say that the more you focus on not being sloppy, the better off everything will be.

 

[MJS]

Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.



Its a good idea but somehow not important?



Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it. Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.



Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.




Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.



I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good.

Agreed with the above!!!

Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.

LOL! I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I watched that. What would help them? Starting over at white belt?

 

[KydeX]

Omg....

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

Couple "technical" street fights.

first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler. (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU

this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard. The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career. (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY

Would like people's thoughts on these tho.

in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here. Mind set and awareness. My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar. He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.

In the first clip, we clearly see who the better fighter is. While I don't think that's the goal of a security officer, all that aside, he was a more technical fighter.

The 2nd clip...it reminded me of watching Tank Abbott fight. No formal MA training, other than wrestling, I believe, yet the guy was a hell of a fighter. IMO, it was easy to see who was the more technical fighter, yet in the end, look what happened.

 

[TFP]

In the first clip, we clearly see who the better fighter is. While I don't think that's the goal of a security officer, all that aside, he was a more technical fighter.

The 2nd clip...it reminded me of watching Tank Abbott fight. No formal MA training, other than wrestling, I believe, yet the guy was a hell of a fighter. IMO, it was easy to see who was the more technical fighter, yet in the end, look what happened.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/jennycraig/Slide4.jpg

 

[MJS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/jennycraig/Slide4.jpg

Well, that's interesting. Out of curiosity, what is his MA background? AFAIK, he never claimed any formal MA training, just listing wrestling and boxing.

 

[K-man]

Couple "technical" street fights.

first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler. (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU

And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.

This is good technique ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
:asian:

 

[TFP]

Well, that's interesting. Out of curiosity, what is his MA background? AFAIK, he never claimed any formal MA training, just listing wrestling and boxing.

Lol, I'm not even sure. Just a funny pic. I would guess Karate as a kid!?

 

[TFP]

And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.

This is good technique ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
:asian:

This would be you thinking the only good technique is offensive technique. No mention of all the defense displayed as he stood toe-to-toe with an aggressive attacker and came away safe.

 

[K-man]

This would be you thinking the only good technique is offensive technique. No mention of all the defense displayed as he stood toe-to-toe with an aggressive attacker and came away safe.

Your words, not mine!
:asian: