Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.
Honestly, I don't think what I'm saying is being understood. That's not really a problem, but it is leading to people trying to argue against something that isn't actually being said. I'll try to put it together as succinctly as I can.
The original argument is whether or not MMA would "work" for a "real fight"... and the contention is that MMA's limitations aren't anything to do with techniques working or not, it's to do with the context and tactics found within MMA training (constantly seeking to engage an opponent, focusing on one person only, lack of weapon defence, rule sets, having fights start from a distance, and so on). An example brought up later to demonstrate MMA's applicability focused on the techniques... to which I replied that the techniques aren't the important thing. Because, well, they're not.
Now, that doesn't mean that the techniques aren't important at all... as I said, they need to be mechanically sound.... however, the techniques themselves aren't what actually "works". They're simply the medium used to apply what actually matters (which is the tactical expression and methodology)... without that aspect, no matter how good a technique is, it's pointless. And with it, there's no real need to look at specific techniques as an "answer".... which makes the technique itself, in the end, not important. It doesn't matter if it's an armbar, a rear naked choke, a throw from Judo, a kick from muay Thai, or anything else. The technique itself is nothing... the application is what's important.
Its a good idea but somehow not important?
Now, what I said was that the elements you mentioned aren't needed, not that they aren't 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.
Yeah, that's kinda been what I've been saying. The specific technique, though, isn't the important thing. I mean, the strikes in my system are different to the strikes in yours... same with the blocks, kicks, throws etc. And they're all equally valid (depending on the tactic), which means that the technique itself isn't the important part.
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.
Tactics, not strategies, to be correct. But again, yes, it can certainly help, but that's not the same as the techniques being the important aspect.
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.
Sure, lucky shots are lucky shots, and yes, sucker punches require a sucker... not sure who you think was throwing them (it's not the trained martial artist with the good technique was my point... they're more likely to get caught out by it due to a very different sense of distance, timing, and more). Oh, and tactics can absolutely be trained solo as well... in fact, they need to be. What do you think kata really are?
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.
That's the thing.... there isn't just one form. And that's a big part of what I was talking about. But, to clarify, I'm not talking about highly trained martial artists or professional fighters, as they're simply not realistic opponents outside of their specific environments (sports competition etc)... and the topic of the thread is a "real fight". See what you can make from that.
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.
Yeah, it really is arbitrary, after a point. You get in a position to throw, does it really matter that much which throw? You're at a distance to kick, does it matter that much which kick?
I'll put it this way. In Judo, you get a large number of people who get known as specific waza specialists... they might be an Osoto Gari specialist... or a Tai Otoshi specialist.... or Seio Nage.... or anything, really. And what makes them so good at each isn't what throw they've chosen, it's how they approach it... they learn how to apply it from any position, counter it no matter how it's applied against them, use it to counter everything they come up against. Is Osoto Nage the superior technique, or is Tai Otoshi? Or are neither "better"? And, if neither are better, is it important which is chosen? Honestly, the answer is no. It's not important. How it's trained is, but the technique itself is arbitrary, provided the approach is suited.
Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.
Realistic training. And a more honest appraisal of their current methods.
I'll visit over there as well.
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
First off, you can drop the passive-aggressive tone... you're not that good at it. Secondly, while the guard had a more technical form, he was swinging wildly, and missed the vast majority of his shots. Question, though... what was this supposed to prove?
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.
Again, watch the passive-aggressive. All you're showing me is that you don't understand what I've been saying... which, frankly, isn't a real surprise. But I'm still not sure what you're thinking these clips show, or prove... there's really nothing one way or the other here (but, for the record, this isn't a "street fight", it's a match fight... your lack of ability to grasp what the distinction is tells me you really don't have the requisite knowledge to discuss real violence and self defence with me here).
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.
Which just speaks to training methodologies and limitations of one form or another... which is what's been said since, well, the second post of this thread (from myself).
I would still say that the more you focus on not being sloppy, the better off everything will be.
Sure. And I haven't argued against that... I have just argued as to what has the greatest importance.
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:
Ha, see now, to me, that's pretty damn poor technique, honestly... he's not centered, his weight rises up, there not a lot of follow-through.... but it worked (in that instance).
Good to see that not much has changed around these parts.
Anyway, MMA guys should be pretty solid in self defense and fighting if they went to a decent school.
And.... that's different from other arts how?
