In what way? We do light contact sparring with no strikes to the head or below the belt (i.e things that would be effective in a real fight). In what way is my instructor lying to me by saying that's a sport version of fighting? It's a game. It helps develop timing speed and an understanding of distance, but it's still just a game. Certainly in a real fight I'd strike to the lower body or the head.
So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?
- Thread starter Hanzou
- Start date
In what way? We do light contact sparring with no strikes to the head or below the belt (i.e things that would be effective in a real fight). In what way is my instructor lying to me by saying that's a sport version of fighting? It's a game. It helps develop timing speed and an understanding of distance, but it's still just a game. Certainly in a real fight I'd strike to the lower body or the head.
Kickboxer101
Master Black Belt
Ignore him he hates any type of traditional martial arts and is completely biased towards mma which is basically what this thread is showing. Your instructor is absolutely right. My kickboxing coach says the same thing that sparring is used to get speed timing distance and cardio and not necessary to learn to fight and he's trained British champions in kickboxing and from him I've won 4 fights so its obviously right. Like I've said before if you enjoy your training then that's the most important thing
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
you know how people keep mentioning the Kobayashi Maru. That is the reality of multiple attackers.
That is why bouncers work in teams.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Kickboxer101
Master Black Belt
I'm not going to name names online. That can just cause to much hassle when more and more information is given out especially if someone sees something I say on here they don't like it could end up just going in all sorts of bad directions and I don't need that bs lol
Wait. Were you asking in the OP about a test for a style? I had read it as a question about testing a person's ability.
MMA is certainly not a useful test for some styles. Those styles that include things that aren't useful in that context (whether they are useful elsewhere or not) and those styles that lack things that are necessary in that context (but may or may not be necessary in other contexts).
What about my point that none of those are "better" or "worse" unless we know specifically what we're testing for? They each test different things.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
My coach is a guy called anton zafir. my striking coach is a guy called dan Zealand and my bjj coach is a guy called bruno something.
I dont exactly think it is the end of the world if people know who I train with. I mean what is someone going to do ring them up and accuse e of being mean on the internet?
So otherwise you do enjoyable fight camps? Because that would be a trick. Ours are screaming crying crap fests.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
I am not stopping people being specific.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
See when it is non specific it becomes a non answer
OP
OP
Hanzou
Grandmaster
I'm talking specifically about this quote;
Plenty of people have defended themselves utilizing techniques they perform in sparring or competition. To say that "real" fighting is made up entirely of illegal (read: deadly) techniques is nonsense that deserves to be repudiated.
OP
OP
Hanzou
Grandmaster
So I ask again; Why wouldn't some styles work in the MMA context? Also what particular styles have that handicap?
I'd assume you're talking about an advantage in combat effectiveness, in which case I'd tend to agree in general. I only raise that point because an Aikidoka who is interested in developing the most flow and aiki will probably not do that by preparing for competition, and competition will not provide any noticeable advantage for that goal.
Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Yeah, if two identical twin aikidoka, both trained the same in all ways, but one also competes. If those two were jumped by a couple of bad guys (also identical twins), the one who competes will be more capable of applying his or her technique effectively.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Regarding small joint manipulation, I think that has more to do with unnecessary injury than it being a tactical advantage. I've broken my toes many times, and my finger once. It doesn't stop things in the moment, necessarily, but hurts like hell later on.
And for pain time, knee bars and heel hooks are legal, but if you feel pain, you are already injured.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Depends if aki is related to combat effectivness i suppose.
Or can be gained along the way to combat effectivness. So say discipline could be gained through competition due to the training required.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
And also shouldnt be recommended for things like police work either. Because you can't just snap a guys arms off. And the stylist would be disadvantaged in that arena as well. For the same reasons.
Which is one of the stranger things i have picked up from these discussions. Is that it is unsuitable for tasks that have been commonly associated with akido.
Juany118
Senior Master
I agree but I would change "compete" to "fight". I only say that because their are people who due to occupation (Law Enforcement, Corrections, Bouncers, etc.) who get similar experiences on a fairly regular basis. The thing is you have to face someone who is completely resisting and that only happens in a fight and fights happen to people who don't compete, on a regular basis, if their occupation demands, as well as to those who chose to compete.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Sure a body kick that lands to the liver could be really effective in a real fight, but in a real fight I would also strike the face and I would strike below the belt (the "everything" I was talking about in my original post). Those two things I don't do in my particular brand of sparring. Therefore sparring (for my classes) is just the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective of a real fight. Which is both what I meant and my instructor meant when he made the statement to class. To be honest I think you took what I said word for word too literally. I'm not sure if it's an honest misunderstanding or you're were being purposely obtuse. I can't imagine why you would think that I believe no legal move is ever effective. But all sparring has rules, so I would say that no sparring is fully representative of a real fight (some styles are closer than others to a real fight) and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but that is the truth.
You're question was what's a better test for martial arts than MMA and my answer is why do I have to test my style by your rules when it's not what I want to do? As I said I'm never going to be able to go toe to toe with someone who is just as trained and usually (because I'm a woman) bigger than me, so why would I want to test whether I can? Especially in an enclosed environment where I couldn't escape? I don't claim to know any super secrete death blows, nor does my instructor claim to be able to teach them. He does teach joint locks and Judo throws, both of which I think would work in a practical self defense situation. But as I said in my earlier post, I really mostly practice martial arts for fun and exercise with self defense as a bonus.
