Ring vs battlefield versions of MAs

[Cyriacus]

This was a while ago when this head slamming into the concrete wall happened. I really can't remember exactly how many times he did it, even right after it happened as it really rocked my head and made things very cloudy right afterward. It may have been 2 consecutive times, but it was definitely him yanking my head towards him and then flinging it back into the concrete....while we were both swimming for the MT plum. It also probably contributed to my very serious concussion later, that kept me from training for over a month + 3 months more of not sparring.

So, he put your head into it about two times. You got a serious concussion and couldnt train for 3 months further. So you would agree with my original statement that bouncing someones head off a solid surface is effective?
And would you also consider that you dont need to be trained in the arm of grabbing someones head and ramming it into something?

So you want me to fight against someone who may have a knife with only my MMA H2H yet having my own knife on my side and a concealed 9mm under my shirt? This is crazy.

I want you to be aware that you may not have a choice in the matter. But thats the difference between a fight and an assault.

Ok, but you're the guy who implied that I needed some of your fancy SD training otherwise an experienced MMA fighter won't have a chance in the street nor battlefield. I'm just arguing what you said.

I did no such thing. Ive been trying to say that technical training isnt good for much. I can quote myself saying it if need be.
No matter how much training you have, it may not do you any good. And if thats implying you need fancy SD moves, then that isnt the implication i intended. I intended that the aggressor has the advantage, no matter how good you are.

What's the point of this comment when it applies to any type of training?

Everything.

Well this Brazilian gorilla in question that I was sparring in Boxing class last week, I've also sparred with in BJJ class before. So more than likely, yes, because I can submit him on the ground about once every 30 seconds if I really wanted to embarrass him. I don't though, because I'm not a penis... and do give him a chance as he's only a White belt in BJJ. While standing up, for four rounds,....I couldn't KO him. I was busting him up & hurting him and certainly won on points, but he was no beginner in Boxing. If it were a fight to the death, I would definitely take it to the ground and not chance standing with him.

And in a real fight, are you going to ensure hes unarmed, before you take him to the ground? If so, how?
I did say real fight, after all.
Furthermore, in a real fight, how would you have known he was a boxer?

Being fit is good, but SOME of these active military guys who just joined our MMA gyms are also panting and wheezing during the warmup exercises just like most other noobs too sometimes. But even with being in excellent shape, it doesn't mean that they can fight. They get beat just like any other noobs. It's funny because a lot of these ACTIVE military guys, especially those in the Marines, special forces, Rangers, etc...usually tries to hide their military affiliations until at least a year or so later of training. Why? Because there's so much public misconceptions about how badass they're supposed to be, that they feel somehow that they must live up to such expectations....but deep down inside, they know that they can't fight much better than the average bar brawler. Or that if they do make known that they're a Marine, it would put targets on their backs and attract people who wants a chance to beat on Marines.
Now the Marines who are trained and/or experience MMA fighters, they have nothing to hide.

And we also agree on that.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm always arguing against you. A lot of times, I do agree with you and just adding on to it.

I get that impression. I know that it can be difficult to have this kind of discussion without cutting back and forth.

The reason that I think sparring hard for KO's is a decisive factor is because it routinely tests what you're made of. The fear, nervousness, exhaustion, pain, KO's, etc.... all contribute to becoming more proficient at fighting/SD. We don't do it all the time, but quite frequently. Without a doubt, it was terrifying the very first time and many times after that for many months. After many years of this, I can certainly say that it does indeed build, REAL confidence. I'm a lot more relaxed now going into such sparring matches and ring/cage fights. There's still nerves and fear, especially going against Pro's whom I know will whoop me. I don't even fight in the ring that much, just lots of sparring and a good amount of full sparring for KO's. I really am, someone who's more geared towards preparing for the streets....which is why I have guns & knives in my EDC bag.

Weapons are indeed an advantage, but you dont need to be trained to stab someone.
And the 'context' of my entire point, is that the other guy does not need to be trained in order to successfully stab you. And your technique and skill and experience may prove useless if youre busy bleeding out and in pain because you may not have even seen the weapon until it was stuck in you, let alone known you were under attack.

Which comes back to my original point: Quality of Training > Technique, and Sports and Combatives are only as good as the people using them. And even excellent users shouldnt think that they cant be beaten by someone whos never been to a gym in their lives.

 

[chrispillertkd]

But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?

Don't you think there is a difference between someone training for months or years in a sport-focused martial art and then having to adapt quickly during a high stress situation to defend themselves and a person who has a background in the military joining a MMA (or other martial arts school and receiving training in that style? In the first case, the person needs to adapt on the fly for something that they may not have trained specifically to deal with while dealing with the physical and mental stress of the situation. In the second case you have a person taking the time specifically to study a style, its competition rules, techniques, etc. so they begin to transition from whatever they learned in the military to the sport style martial art.

In other words, of course veterans are going to adapt to MMA training because that's what they're focused on doing. It's the reason for their training. On the other hand, it is possible that a MMA practitioner will be able to adapt to a self defense* situation, and indeed all sport focused martial arts can instill skills that can come in handy during a fight, but the focus of the training in your example is different both in intent and time period.

*I dislike the term "self defense" here because the title of this thread specifies "battlefield" versions of a martial art. That, to me, implies something specifically geared to military combat. There are few modern martial arts that are specifically designed to be used by members of the military while in combat. And if they don't have the use of firearms (including things like heavy artillery) I'd personally be hesitent to use the term "battlefield" in reference to them. But that's just me. YMMV

Pax,

Chris

 

[Mz1]

You misread what I wrote again.

How exactly am i misreading or taking out of context " Beating your training partner down and watching him cower in fear and respecting you....feels soooooo good."
There was nothing in the sentences before or after it that relate to that sentence, so it was by itself to begin with..no context to be taken out of. And how have I misread it? If you're good enough to beat them down and make them cower in fear (and respect), then maybe they're the person you should go a bit easier on, not make them scared of the ring, or at least the ring with you in it. (If they're being an a-hole before hand and you want to teach them a lesson, thats one thing and ill accept that, but not as a general way of going about sparring people worse than you when sparring hard).[/QUOTE]

You didn't read it in context and need to read my post in its entirety to understand the context.

 

[Mz1]

So, he put your head into it about two times. You got a serious concussion and couldnt train for 3 months further.

It probably contributed to my getting that bad concussion, but I'm still not certain. We were all training for a coming tournament so hard sparring for KO's was 2-3 days per week during that period. I also trained w/o my headgear a few days too, which was not a mistake.

So you would agree with my original statement that bouncing someones head off a solid surface is effective?

I never disagreed with this. I was the one who said that in a life or death situation, ie. on the battlefield, I would certainly stomp on someone's head and/or soccer kick it until their head caves in and brains oozes out all over the place. There's nothing to stop me, as an MMA fighter, from doing any of this in a war, was the point.

And would you also consider that you dont need to be trained in the arm of grabbing someones head and ramming it into something?

Of course not. I never implied that such brute, animal instinctive methods doesn't work. But the main reason that this guy was able to surprise me like this with the head slamming during hard sparring was because he was also a trained fighter. We were both in the clinch and fighting for the plum control. If this was some untrained slob on the street or even many other types of TMA'ist, I would have already secured the dominant position of the MT plum and simultaneously throw knees to their body and face, drive, more knees, repeat. The Muay Thai clinch in itself is a standalone science almost.

I want you to be aware that you may not have a choice in the matter. But thats the difference between a fight and an assault.

Well obviously, instinct and muscle memory would kick in. An experienced sports fighter would have way better chances than someone who only trains by pretend-fighting.

I did no such thing. Ive been trying to say that technical training isnt good for much. I can quote myself saying it if need be.
No matter how much training you have, it may not do you any good. And if thats implying you need fancy SD moves, then that isnt the implication i intended. I intended that the aggressor has the advantage, no matter how good you are.

Which still goes back to the crux of my argument, which is an experienced sports fighter will still be better equipped due to having been pressure tested regularly under real conditions of duress (as possible) through sparring for full KO's.

Everything.

Nothing.

And in a real fight, are you going to ensure hes unarmed, before you take him to the ground? If so, how?
I did say real fight, after all.
Furthermore, in a real fight, how would you have known he was a boxer?

Now you're just going into fantasy LARPING mode. There are many strategies as a fighter. There's no exact mapping out and crap. You questioned my strategy vs. this SPECIFIC Brazilian guy that I train with. I answered you, but now you're changing the scenario by implying that you meant all along that it was a fight between me and a complete stranger, to the death and crap. C'mon, haha....give it a rest.

But to answer your role playing, online martial art scenario LARPING question, my general fight strategy is to do what I'm best at first...which is to try to knock him out standing up....and if that's not working out and especially if I'm getting my *** kicked....I would take it to the ground and try to choke him or at least break a limb. Then we go from there.

And on the street, I'm definitely not going to start out by grappling anyone, that's just crazy.

Weapons are indeed an advantage, but you dont need to be trained to stab someone.
And the 'context' of my entire point, is that the other guy does not need to be trained in order to successfully stab you. And your technique and skill and experience may prove useless if youre busy bleeding out and in pain because you may not have even seen the weapon until it was stuck in you, let alone known you were under attack.

Yea, a sniper can also blow my head off from 3 football fields away, rendering all chopsocky, ninja training useless....what's your point again?

Which comes back to my original point: Quality of Training > Technique, and Sports and Combatives are only as good as the people using them. And even excellent users shouldnt think that they cant be beaten by someone whos never been to a gym in their lives.

I never argued against any of these points. Especially against the last one, which is an all or nothing, definitive one. My point has always been that training and fighting in MMA will better equip a person for H2H combat situations over most other styles, especially the TMA ones. But always carry at least a knife and a gun, whenever possible/legal.

I'm all for cross training. That's why I shadowbox with my knives. I go to the range to get better at shooting. I'll even train the SD wrist grabbing and finger locking TMA stuff once in a while. I have about a year's worth of such dedicated training in a traditional Jujutsu joint that was mostly all about SD. They just got ridiculous when they keep boasting about how "real life" they were compared to MMA yet won't allow me to punch my sparring partner in the face hard (repeatedly) while he's trying to grab my wrist to pull a ninja-move during sparring. And I'd rather not waste my time doing lots of fluffy TMA kata and tap sparring when it's a lot more effective (and fun) to actually try to KO someone out for real.

 

[Mz1]

Don't you think there is a difference between someone training for months or years in a sport-focused martial art and then having to adapt quickly during a high stress situation to defend themselves and a person who has a background in the military joining a MMA (or other martial arts school and receiving training in that style? In the first case, the person needs to adapt on the fly for something that they may not have trained specifically to deal with while dealing with the physical and mental stress of the situation. In the second case you have a person taking the time specifically to study a style, its competition rules, techniques, etc. so they begin to transition from whatever they learned in the military to the sport style martial art.

How do you think soldiers are trained before they go to war? They stab dummies or pretend stab with rubber knives. They pretend eye gouge, pretend nut-strike, etc. Then when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, do they even use any of these deadly chopsocky skills? Hell no, they just blast the enemies with their M4's and call in for air support. We are not living in single-shot musket times anymore, when it was highly likely that a battle will turn into an all out bloodlust, bayonet stabfest where both sides charges each other like in Braveheart. Soldiers nowadays just pulls the trigger, which explains why they suck at H2H fighting when come to our gym.

In other words, of course veterans are going to adapt to MMA training because that's what they're focused on doing. It's the reason for their training. On the other hand, it is possible that a MMA practitioner will be able to adapt to a self defense* situation, and indeed all sport focused martial arts can instill skills that can come in handy during a fight, but the focus of the training in your example is different both in intent and time period.

I guess you've never served nor trained with many vets. Many joined the military because the brightest thing in their future was a career in fast foods. The military pays their way, sends them off to an adventure.....women and young boys tingles when they see them in uniform and people who never fought before, thinks that being a Marine automatically makes them a badass fighter. A lot of them are just a bunch of 18-25 year old numbnuts .....like any other garden variety, 18-25 year numbnuts (before and after their service). The reason that they adapt so well into whatever MMA gym they're getting their butts whooped at is because most of them never actually fought H2H on the battlefield before, EVER. They've only pretend fight. And they don't even train H2H that much...because why? They have M4's, 200+ rounds of ammo each, grenades and a radio to call in air strike. My cousin is a Marine LT. who signed up for 3 tours in Iraq, because he loved shooting people. And he did a lot of house to house, urban combat too. But on the MMA mat, he's just another noob. The US military is even starting to bring in MMA....because punching and kicking your opponent in the face has always worked, anywhere.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...net-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13619825

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-90168/SAS-heroes-win-VCs.html

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/20...y-in-hand-to-hand-combat-receives-navy-cross/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/640573/posts

Of course 'nobody fights hand to hand these days', roflmao. Of course they do. Always nice to see such respect for the Armed Forces though, yeah that was sarcastic.

 

[chrispillertkd]

How do you think soldiers are trained before they go to war? They stab dummies or pretend stab with rubber knives. They pretend eye gouge, pretend nut-strike, etc. Then when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, do they even use any of these deadly chopsocky skills? Hell no, they just blast the enemies with their M4's and call in for air support. We are not living in single-shot musket times anymore, when it was highly likely that a battle will turn into an all out bloodlust, bayonet stabfest where both sides charges each other like in Braveheart. Soldiers nowadays just pulls the trigger, which explains why they suck at H2H fighting when come to our gym.

I think you kind of missed my point.

I guess you've never served nor trained with many vets.

Actually, I have trained with a number of servicemen, some vets and some who are currently in the military.

Many joined the military because the brightest thing in their future was a career in fast foods. The military pays their way, sends them off to an adventure.....women and young boys tingles when they see them in uniform and people who never fought before, thinks that being a Marine automatically makes them a badass fighter. A lot of them are just a bunch of 18-25 year old numbnuts .....like any other garden variety, 18-25 year numbnuts (before and after their service). The reason that they adapt so well into whatever MMA gym they're getting their butts whooped at is because most of them never actually fought H2H on the battlefield before, EVER. They've only pretend fight. And they don't even train H2H that much...because why? They have M4's, 200+ rounds of ammo each, grenades and a radio to call in air strike. My cousin is a Marine LT. who signed up for 3 tours in Iraq, because he loved shooting people. And he did a lot of house to house, urban combat too. But on the MMA mat, he's just another noob. The US military is even starting to bring in MMA....because punching and kicking your opponent in the face has always worked, anywhere.

Again, I think you didn't really pay attention to what I posted because the part of your post I highlighted basically agrees with me. As I said before, the difference between a member of the military joining a MMA school and a MMA practitioner defending themselves on the "battlefield" is that the military man joining the MMA school is going to have a lot of time to adjust to the situation. They will start out a novice and gradually progress in experience and develop skills for what they will likely encounter during a MMA match. A MMA fighter, on the other hand, will not go through the same kind of training to deal with a self-defense situation and have to adjust on the fly. That doesn't mean they will be unable to defned themselves (as I already pointed out), just that there will be a difference between the two situations.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Mz1]

I think you kind of missed my point.

Again, I think you didn't really pay attention to what I posted because the part of your post I highlighted basically agrees with me.

Your post was pretty confusing. But thanks for clearing it up, I understand it better now.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Your post was pretty confusing. But thanks for clearing it up, I understand it better now.

Well, I basically repeated two points twice in different ways so I apologize if that was hard for you to follow.

Pax,

Chris

 

[rainesr]

In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only had H2H training through his military system.

This quote sums up my opinion. If you take away all the deadly tools available to the battlefield trained soldier and play my sport I will win. Not exactly surprising. Now take a fully armed military unit and have a similar sized group of experienced MMA fighters go at it in an actual battlefield and see who lives.
Bye bye experienced MMA fighters. I think this would stand for most any era or culture unless soldiers were still at the rock throwing stage.

I don't think there are many, if any, arts being taught in a way that would qualify them as battlefield (for any era) arts outside the military.

I have kickboxed, been attacked, and have been shot at in the field. Not one of those situations are the same. MMA does not prepare you for the latter two, MMA is designed to prepare you to participate in a consensual match, certainly not war. Nearly zero TMA schools deal with them either, if they do the instructor probably has acquired some knowledge from somewhere other than a TMA school.

I have found that the fitter and more experienced person will generally win a fight. In a premeditated attack the better prepared for that encounter generally wins, this is almost always the attacker. It has much less to do with what MA you take.

~Rob

 

[Cyriacus]

It probably contributed to my getting that bad concussion, but I'm still not certain. We were all training for a coming tournament so hard sparring for KO's was 2-3 days per week during that period. I also trained w/o my headgear a few days too, which was not a mistake.

*nods*

I never disagreed with this. I was the one who said that in a life or death situation, ie. on the battlefield, I would certainly stomp on someone's head and/or soccer kick it until their head caves in and brains oozes out all over the place. There's nothing to stop me, as an MMA fighter, from doing any of this in a war, was the point.

And theres nothing stopping someone whos never trained a day in their life from doing it, because its very simple and requires no skill is mine.

Of course not. I never implied that such brute, animal instinctive methods doesn't work. But the main reason that this guy was able to surprise me like this with the head slamming during hard sparring was because he was also a trained fighter. We were both in the clinch and fighting for the plum control. If this was some untrained slob on the street or even many other types of TMA'ist, I would have already secured the dominant position of the MT plum and simultaneously throw knees to their body and face, drive, more knees, repeat. The Muay Thai clinch in itself is a standalone science almost.

Its a standalone science if studied. But where we seem to be disagreeing seems to come down to technique. Youre under the impression that because youre trained, you can dominate in the situations youre trained for. Im under the impression that training isnt as helpful as you do.
We may have to agree to disagree if thats the case.

Well obviously, instinct and muscle memory would kick in. An experienced sports fighter would have way better chances than someone who only trains by pretend-fighting.

So, instinct would kick after he hits you from behind?

Which still goes back to the crux of my argument, which is an experienced sports fighter will still be better equipped due to having been pressure tested regularly under real conditions of duress (as possible) through sparring for full KO's.

I didnt disagree with that.

Nothing.

I dont think youre getting the context of my message.

Now you're just going into fantasy LARPING mode. There are many strategies as a fighter. There's no exact mapping out and crap. You questioned my strategy vs. this SPECIFIC Brazilian guy that I train with. I answered you, but now you're changing the scenario by implying that you meant all along that it was a fight between me and a complete stranger, to the death and crap. C'mon, haha....give it a rest.

But to answer your role playing, online martial art scenario LARPING question, my general fight strategy is to do what I'm best at first...which is to try to knock him out standing up....and if that's not working out and especially if I'm getting my *** kicked....I would take it to the ground and try to choke him or at least break a limb. Then we go from there.

And on the street, I'm definitely not going to start out by grappling anyone, that's just crazy.

I genuinely cant tell if that was meant to be insulting or not.
My point is, youre trained in grappling. That doesnt mean you automatically win a grappling match with someone less experienced.

Yea, a sniper can also blow my head off from 3 football fields away, rendering all chopsocky, ninja training useless....what's your point again?

My point is, as ive said, that youre placing too high a value on technique.
You also seem to place a good value on experience, which is fine.

I never argued against any of these points. Especially against the last one, which is an all or nothing, definitive one. My point has always been that training and fighting in MMA will better equip a person for H2H combat situations over most other styles, especially the TMA ones. But always carry at least a knife and a gun, whenever possible/legal.

I'm all for cross training. That's why I shadowbox with my knives. I go to the range to get better at shooting. I'll even train the SD wrist grabbing and finger locking TMA stuff once in a while. I have about a year's worth of such dedicated training in a traditional Jujutsu joint that was mostly all about SD. They just got ridiculous when they keep boasting about how "real life" they were compared to MMA yet won't allow me to punch my sparring partner in the face hard (repeatedly) while he's trying to grab my wrist to pull a ninja-move during sparring. And I'd rather not waste my time doing lots of fluffy TMA kata and tap sparring when it's a lot more effective (and fun) to actually try to KO someone out for real.

And as seems to be weirdly regular, we disagree on almost everything except the conclusion.
If you think what i said above was martial arts larping, why on earth does it completely support everything you just said?

 

[Mz1]

This quote sums up my opinion. If you take away all the deadly tools available to the battlefield trained soldier and play my sport I will win.

This is absurd, or did you know of any venue where they will legally allow 2 people fight to the death with weapons to prove who's better. Well do you?

Not exactly surprising. Now take a fully armed military unit and have a similar sized group of experienced MMA fighters go at it in an actual battlefield and see who lives.
Bye bye experienced MMA fighters. I think this would stand for most any era or culture unless soldiers were still at the rock throwing stage.

Uh no kidding, no one is disputing that a trained soldier is more capable in a firefight.

I don't think there are many, if any, arts being taught in a way that would qualify them as battlefield (for any era) arts outside the military.

Then why does the military contracts out to martial artists and now, MMA schools to come in and teach their soldiers?

I have kickboxed, been attacked, and have been shot at in the field. Not one of those situations are the same. MMA does not prepare you for the latter two, MMA is designed to prepare you to participate in a consensual match, certainly not war. Nearly zero TMA schools deal with them either, if they do the instructor probably has acquired some knowledge from somewhere other than a TMA school.

You have a rifle, that's what the military focus most of your training on, not H2H. This explains why you guys aren't very good H2H fighters unless you have other training.

I have found that the fitter and more experienced person will generally win a fight. In a premeditated attack the better prepared for that encounter generally wins, this is almost always the attacker. It has much less to do with what MA you take.

~Rob

There are way too many variables for you to make such blanket assumptions.

 

[Tez3]

How on earth did we get to the point in this thread of compararing MMA fighters to soldiers on a flipping battlefield? I shouldn't think any type of martial artist will survive on a 'battlefield'. Btw are we talking medieval, Napoleonic or First/Second World war or is the OP being overly melodramatic and actually means an assault or mugging on a modern street?
MMA is a sport, it's what it says on the tin ...a mixture of martial arts styles. It's been going longer than people think and now in our modern time has rules for competition. MMA people are competitors, some are amateur, some pursue it as a career/job. It's still a competition, get higher up in the organisations that promote fights and it's something that give you a good living, for the rest it's a hobby, a sport, a way of enjoying their martial arts. Many amateurs ie those not being paid loads of money just a purse and expenses fight pro rules, they however maintain a professinal and sportsmanlike attitude both in the cage and out. Saying that you like to see people cowering in fear after you knock them down is either empty boasts or bad sportsmanship, most fighters know it could just as easily have been the other way round unless of course you are deliberately fighting people who are well below you in weight and experience which of course is bullying.
MMA is one part of MA, this thread got to the point it has by someone thinking MMA fighers can survive on a 'battlefield', they can't, no more than any other unarmed 'combatant' can. In fact the proposition that any martial artist can survive on one is more than silly.
Now to the military, here bayonet practice is a mandatory part of the infantry soldiers training for a number of reasons, it's an aggression drill, you can here them start off quietly running and stabbing the dummy as they get in to it they are screaming and stabbing the dummy repeatedly. There's similiar drills in MA to get people to summon up aggression quickly. the ability to fight with a bayonet is a useful one as events in Afghanistan have shown. Hand to hand fighting is taught in infantry training, it's basic ofc ourse but iis taught to show recruits they may have to fight this way. 'Milling' is done in the Para Regt training here, where recruits box each other, the way they box doesn't matter, it's the not backing down and the bravery shown that lets them pass the infamous P company.
soldiers if they have to fight hand to hand will do what is in all of us when our lives or those of our loved ones are in danger, they will fight literally tooth and nail, it's inside us to do this, it's not stifled by rules of competition or martial arts stylistic requirements. Those with martial arts skills will have techniques in their muscle memory but they will enhanced by the 'will to live' part that in us. A Judo player who's used to throwing will throw but carry through with strikes his style doesn't have, he will do this because he want's to be the one to survive. As surely we all do. No one is these situation is cool headed and calm the way fighters are in the films. Something primeval takes over, the instinct for survival.
In the UK MMA and all other martial arts are sports, no one is employed by the military to teach martial arts.Boxing has always been very populart here with regimental teams competeting against each other regularly. We started our martial arts club on the Garrison nearly 13 years ago, the army have giving us accomodation which saves a lot of money and we've had grants for equpment but we aren't paid to teach MMA to soldiers, it's a sport and we have martial arts studetns just like anywhere else. It's not a military club in that we take civilians as well including some pro fighters. The military value sports for what it teaches and engenders...teamwork,leadership values, fitness and in martial arts controlled aggression along with good sportsmanship. Its an outlet when boredom could set in as in Afghan and the Falklands. Genghis Khan who's soldiers fought on horseback had his troops wrestle as part of their training for all the reasons the modern military use martial arts, rugby, football etc now.
I love MMA but really all this boasting about it being the only effective style is nonsense, think what it's made up from, full contact fighers can be found in other styles, there's still full contact karate comps around. You cannot or should not at any rate take one person's boastful writing as being the sum of MMA, we are trying to get away from the portrayal of MMA as the thug in the Tapout vest, those who truly love MMA want it to be seen on the level with bozing, not replace it btw, for it to be seen as a respectable sport that people both want to watch and train in. It's not ineffective for self defence purposes, it's not a tippy tappy style but it is great fun and great training for whatever you want...which frankly a lot of styles are, it's finding the right style for you and forgetting these ridiculous arguments for what is best on the 'battlefield' something that the sheer horror of is a situation I hope none of us ever have to face.

 

[Tez3]

When the OP used the word 'battlefield' did you imagine this?

Can anyone actually imagine a martial art using his art here, really?

 

[Danny T]

How on earth did we get to the point in this thread of compararing MMA fighters to soldiers on a flipping battlefield? I shouldn't think any type of martial artist will survive on a 'battlefield'. Btw are we talking medieval, Napoleonic or First/Second World war or is the OP being overly melodramatic and actually means an assault or mugging on a modern street?
MMA is a sport, it's what it says on the tin ...a mixture of martial arts styles. It's been going longer than people think and now in our modern time has rules for competition. MMA people are competitors, some are amateur, some pursue it as a career/job. It's still a competition, get higher up in the organisations that promote fights and it's something that give you a good living, for the rest it's a hobby, a sport, a way of enjoying their martial arts. Many amateurs ie those not being paid loads of money just a purse and expenses fight pro rules, they however maintain a professinal and sportsmanlike attitude both in the cage and out. Saying that you like to see people cowering in fear after you knock them down is either empty boasts or bad sportsmanship, most fighters know it could just as easily have been the other way round unless of course you are deliberately fighting people who are well below you in weight and experience which of course is bullying.
MMA is one part of MA, this thread got to the point it has by someone thinking MMA fighers can survive on a 'battlefield', they can't, no more than any other unarmed 'combatant' can. In fact the proposition that any martial artist can survive on one is more than silly.
Now to the military, here bayonet practice is a mandatory part of the infantry soldiers training for a number of reasons, it's an aggression drill, you can here them start off quietly running and stabbing the dummy as they get in to it they are screaming and stabbing the dummy repeatedly. There's similiar drills in MA to get people to summon up aggression quickly. the ability to fight with a bayonet is a useful one as events in Afghanistan have shown. Hand to hand fighting is taught in infantry training, it's basic ofc ourse but iis taught to show recruits they may have to fight this way. 'Milling' is done in the Para Regt training here, where recruits box each other, the way they box doesn't matter, it's the not backing down and the bravery shown that lets them pass the infamous P company.
soldiers if they have to fight hand to hand will do what is in all of us when our lives or those of our loved ones are in danger, they will fight literally tooth and nail, it's inside us to do this, it's not stifled by rules of competition or martial arts stylistic requirements. Those with martial arts skills will have techniques in their muscle memory but they will enhanced by the 'will to live' part that in us. A Judo player who's used to throwing will throw but carry through with strikes his style doesn't have, he will do this because he want's to be the one to survive. As surely we all do. No one is these situation is cool headed and calm the way fighters are in the films. Something primeval takes over, the instinct for survival.
In the UK MMA and all other martial arts are sports, no one is employed by the military to teach martial arts.Boxing has always been very populart here with regimental teams competeting against each other regularly. We started our martial arts club on the Garrison nearly 13 years ago, the army have giving us accomodation which saves a lot of money and we've had grants for equpment but we aren't paid to teach MMA to soldiers, it's a sport and we have martial arts studetns just like anywhere else. It's not a military club in that we take civilians as well including some pro fighters. The military value sports for what it teaches and engenders...teamwork,leadership values, fitness and in martial arts controlled aggression along with good sportsmanship. Its an outlet when boredom could set in as in Afghan and the Falklands. Genghis Khan who's soldiers fought on horseback had his troops wrestle as part of their training for all the reasons the modern military use martial arts, rugby, football etc now.
I love MMA but really all this boasting about it being the only effective style is nonsense, think what it's made up from, full contact fighers can be found in other styles, there's still full contact karate comps around. You cannot or should not at any rate take one person's boastful writing as being the sum of MMA, we are trying to get away from the portrayal of MMA as the thug in the Tapout vest, those who truly love MMA want it to be seen on the level with bozing, not replace it btw, for it to be seen as a respectable sport that people both want to watch and train in. It's not ineffective for self defence purposes, it's not a tippy tappy style but it is great fun and great training for whatever you want...which frankly a lot of styles are, it's finding the right style for you and forgetting these ridiculous arguments for what is best on the 'battlefield' something that the sheer horror of is a situation I hope none of us ever have to face.

Thank you Tez.

How did we get to the comparing? From the original questions?

What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?

Tez, yours was an excellent post.
As I stated I have been in both environments (battlefield and ring) It can not be compared. One can only question themselves as to how they would act.

 

[Tez3]

Thank you Danny.

The OP mentioned 'certain martial arts' which have a battlefield version which I take to mean arts which involve specific weapons such as swords and the various staffs not the 'empty hand' martial arts which weren't designed for the battlefield but rather civil self defence. Any style that now uses gloves, mats etc would have had no place then in any training for war.
There is no style of martial art that doesn't involve weapons that would have actually been used specifically on the 'battlefield'. Any martial arts training would have been incidental not specific for going to war.
MMA wasn't designed for military fighting nor were it's component parts. The conversation here then should have been confined to arts which do actually have a history of being used in a battle. Few places these days used such weapons in war, though I was disturbed a bit when my Gurkha shift partner informed me that in the very isolated parts of Nepal some villages still attack and fight each other using swords and kukris. As we've seen hand to hand fighting while thankfully rare still can happen in places like Afghanistan, officers do have swords in the British military but they aren't carried to war, well apart from Jack Churchill in World War Two but he was exceptional in many ways

So how would those who do arts that have had a battlefield use be compared to the 'old days'?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And an experienced fighter will clobber the average, other soldier, if all he's got is some basic H2H training.

Okay, and an experienced soldier will clobber the average fighter. It's apples and oranges because the evironmental factors are vastly different. The original question is whether sport training is good for the battlefield. It isn't. It can be detrimental.

But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?

You're being argumentative and silly. Under stress, people will react to the level of their training. That is a fact that is well know in both sport and non-sport venues. As the saying goes, people don't rise to the occassion, they sink to the level of their training. That can be a positve or a negative. And again, that is verified with quite a bit of research, particularly in the military and law enforcement community. A simple search on the internet will provide a plethora of examples of training succeeding and failing in the real world. Just one example, Royce Gracie use to teach at our regional training center (SEPSI). The high liability coordinator was enamored with UF. Royce began traing BJJ just as he would to any competitor. Officers began complaining because hardly any of the material was usable. He then switched material. It was more usable, but again, not much. He was simply out of his depth. He didn't know the requirements of the job. I haven't seen him in years now. That HL coordinator is gone and now we have had over a decade of people like Tony Blauer, Ken Good, Peter Boatman (RIP), Tony Lambria, Hunan Yadin etc teaching combatives that work.

Doesn't mean Royce's material sucks or he's a bad instructor. Far from it. But it simply was the wrong venue for this material. Conversely, material like SPEAR, PCR etc is the wrong material for competition. You'd be DQ'd in a heart beat because it doesn't conform to a rule set.

Then there are the MANY, MANY, MANY soldiers, special forces, cops, etc. in the MMA gyms. Many are champion title holders in MMA, etc. yet have been in combat training and in actual combat. Do you think they can't differentiate the two?

Absolutely yes! No sane officer goes to the ground with the intention of going for the arm bar or cross-body mount. No sane officer tries to spin kick a guy in the head. No sane officer keeps his hands down during an altercation. No sane officer relys on time outs, tap outs, water breaks etc during an altercation. Two different venues with two very different requirements in training.

Obviously a weapon is going to give someone the advantage over their opponent w/o one. What's the point in arguing this?

Because it demonstrates the difference in the venues as well as the requirements needed.

A fight is a fight is a fight, to me

And this is the point to understand, it isn't. Different venues, different requirements, different objectives.

 

[Mz1]

Okay, and an experienced soldier will clobber the average fighter. It's apples and oranges because the evironmental factors are vastly different.

The average, experienced solider....say a vet from Iraq or Afghanistan, never even fought hand to hand on the battlefield, nor did they even swung their rifles nor stab someone with their bayonets. They shoot their rifles, not go around chopsockying. This is why they are just like any other White belts when they join our MMA gym.

The original question is whether sport training is good for the battlefield. It isn't. It can be detrimental.

Sports training in MMA is more rigorous than what the military teaches for H2H. The military doesn't even spend that much time focusing on H2H because the rifle is the primary weapon. Soldiers just go through some basic H2H training and stabbing at dummies. How is this even close to MMA training?

You're being argumentative and silly. Under stress, people will react to the level of their training. That is a fact that is well know in both sport and non-sport venues.

You're the one who's silly because you've obviously never fought to know what it's like when someone is beating the crap out of you and you can't run anywhere. The average soldier doesn't go through any of this on the battlefield. They shoot it out.

There are plenty of soldiers in our gym can't fight worth a squat and some are scared to death of getting hit hard in the face. Many don't even dare come into Boxing class because it's usually sparring for KO's in there.

 

[Mz1]

I never even implied such. Training helps, it's better than nothing. Like pretend-fighting in SD class, certainly is better than nothing. Training and being experienced in fighting is much better. Trying to really KO someone on a regular basis as part of training, is such experience. But it's not guaranteed to prevail in every situation....just gives you a much better chance of winning.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Sports training in MMA is more rigorous than what the military teaches for H2H. The military doesn't even spend that much time focusing on H2H because the rifle is the primary weapon. Soldiers just go through some basic H2H training and stabbing at dummies. How is this even close to MMA training?

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about one training methodology being used for a different venue. Has nothing to do with how rigorous the training is or isn't. You're proving my point every time you mention the weapons that are used and the environments they are used in and during. MMA sport training doesn't cover this because that isn't part of the MMA venue or training methodology. I don't know any other way to explain it. MMA training isn't sufficient for a soldier, officer or private citizen if and when the goal is killing the enemy or self-defense.

You're the one who's silly because you've obviously never fought to know what it's like when someone is beating the crap out of you and you can't run anywhere.

You're making this comment to someone you've never met, nor know their qualifications or level of experience. If you did you'd know how 'silly' your statement is. :uhohh: