So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[Juany118]

How do I explain this. They are not really boxes but ideas.

You can fight a guy without going mental on them. If you train for what is presence of mind during a fight rather than just reacting.

Let me first explain the idea of "boxes". It is simply a metaphor. At each level of resistance I am limited to specific techniques so I picture myself as having a series of boxes labeled "passive resistance", "defensive resistance", "active aggression", "aggravated active aggression" and finally "lethal force."

When I hit "active aggression" that means the suspect is not fighting to get away but is actively assaulting me in a manner that can cause serious bodily injury. At that point I am all in, period. So on the one hand you are right, I don't have to go mental on them, but then again I never go mental. When I say "11" or "all in" I mean I am using techniques to end that assault ASAP because that suspect has the capability of seriously injuring me.

I suppose it is my mind set/experience coloring the idea as well. 95% of the time I am dealing with Defensive Resistance. In that scenario the person is simply trying to get away thus when they cross the line to active aggression it means something. They either A) knowingly want to put a serious beat down on me or due to intoxicants or mental defect are completely out of control so in an unreasoning rage want to put a serious beat down on me.

As for "general" self defense there are so many ways to avoid an assault to begin with and someone who is serious about self defense should also train these skills, that way if you have to go hands on you are in a situation similar to the one I note above.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Juany118]

The training by rote issue.

sorry been misspelling that.

The entire point of training though, "train how you fight" is so that when you decide on the goal the actions are reflex built on muscle memory. The problem I experienced is that one specific technique was very similar to another I trained for years. Never had the issue with gum sau at the elbow, only at the wrist (as an example.). If you aren't allowing muscle memory to do the work, you are more apt to make mistakes in my experience.

Note I mentioned "once deciding on a goal". I am not talking about fighting mindlessly like a robot, rather I decide on a course of action... am I looking to prone out a suspect so they can be cuffed? Am I trying to stop an active physical assault? What are my best target areas under the circumstances? Decide on the goal then act.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

No argument there. It would take a rather drastic difference in environment to offset an advantage in skill and preparation.

And so i choose to try to be the better fighter rather than relying on having a set of stairs handy.

 

[drop bear]

Except that you seem to be suggesting that competition is the only path. My point is that there are other methods that don't have the costs presented by competition. For those of us not otherwise inclined to competition, the other ways are a better fit.

Exept you engage in competition with rules.

Unless there is some dramatic difference in formalised competition that I am missing.

(the only differences i can think of by the way is that it is more intense. Performed at a greater skill level. And with more riding on the outcome. Which are not exactly road blocks)

 

[drop bear]

The entire point of training though, "train how you fight" is so that when you decide on the goal the actions are reflex built on muscle memory. The problem I experienced is that one specific technique was very similar to another I trained for years. Never had the issue with gum sau at the elbow, only at the wrist (as an example.). If you aren't allowing muscle memory to do the work, you are more apt to make mistakes in my experience.

Note I mentioned "once deciding on a goal". I am not talking about fighting mindlessly like a robot, rather I decide on a course of action... am I looking to prone out a suspect so they can be cuffed? Am I trying to stop an active physical assault? What are my best target areas under the circumstances? Decide on the goal then act.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.

Your training really should reflect that.

So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings. Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent. And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.

If their level of threat increases. I shut down the threat. Not raise my own level of threat.

And I do that with better basics. The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby. Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.

Part of that is incidental training. So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.

 

[JP3]

You guys all missed my joke triple stack, I'm disappointed.

Jerry, having been the bouncer at both the top and bottom of the staris denying someone entry, I can tell you for experience that fighting uphill is definitely NOT where you want to be. You take them down or out and they fall into you and they always, I repeat, always, have friends. At the top of the stairs, they become each others problem or problems.

Drop, I thought you'd like Adrienne Barbeau, c'mon man.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept you engage in competition with rules.

Unless there is some dramatic difference in formalised competition that I am missing.

(the only differences i can think of by the way is that it is more intense. Performed at a greater skill level. And with more riding on the outcome. Which are not exactly road blocks)

Except I don't engage in formalized competition, so I'm not sure what the point of saying that is.

For me, there's not so much riding on competition. I'd be the one to back off in a competition, rather than KO somebody. It's just not worth the "win" to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.

Your training really should reflect that.

So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings. Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent. And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.

If their level of threat increases. I shut down the threat. Not raise my own level of threat.

And I do that with better basics. The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby. Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.

Part of that is incidental training. So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.

Nothing about muscle memory (technically, engraining of neural pathways) precludes adjustment. Muscle memory is what all athletes use to avoid having to think about their movements. And yes, they are all adjusting constantly. But they've done so many variations that the movement is learned with a broad amount of generalization, so the neural pathways serve even when you do something that's only similar.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You guys all missed my joke triple stack, I'm disappointed.

Jerry, having been the bouncer at both the top and bottom of the staris denying someone entry, I can tell you for experience that fighting uphill is definitely NOT where you want to be. You take them down or out and they fall into you and they always, I repeat, always, have friends. At the top of the stairs, they become each others problem or problems.

Drop, I thought you'd like Adrienne Barbeau, c'mon man.

I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.

Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Juany118]

You need to ajust every movement all the time to a new movement because if you are fighting he is ajusting his movement all the time.

Your training really should reflect that.

So each move is a hybrid of what I have trained with what I am creating. When I fight I am looking for opportunities and openings. Not refecting a prearranged sequence. So when I restrain someone I am looking for the change in pace or the escalation of intent. And countering that before it gets to the level of threat that forces me to go to 11.

If their level of threat increases. I shut down the threat. Not raise my own level of threat.

And I do that with better basics. The BJJers almost turn that into a hobby. Which is why when you wrestle a black belt he doesn't just grind you to bits.

Part of that is incidental training. So when i spar with rules and protection. I don't know when the pace will shift from friendly to fight.

Yes but with proper training those movements, even the adjustments, should be largely instinctive. I don't think "bil sau" to address one attack or gan sau to address another. It simply happens.

As far as the "I shut down the threat" that is exactly what I am doing and either we are having a battle of semantics or I didn't explain my particular requirement well. By law and policy I can only use X techniques for Y level of threat. Literally it says "passive resistance permits soft empty hand control techniques, defensive resistance=hard empty hand control techniques, active aggression=empty hand striking..." Etc. So I must ensure that my use of force is objectively appropriate for the level of force I am encountering. If I use strikes on someone engaged in defensive resistance I will get disciplined and if I do injury to the person can be successfully sued.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

I wasn't referring to bouncing, since you didn't refer to it in your post. You referred to fighting on the stairs. If I have my choice and it's a single person, I'd rather be below them, where I have access to more of their targets than they have of mine, and I'm in a good position to take their balance. I can probably control them to fall backwards (so not toward me) by the way I control their legs. If they fall toward me, I can use that, too - it's part of the training.

Mind you, I've never trained fighting on stairs, and I'm actually wondering if I could work out a safe way to do so, with staggered stacks of mats. It would be an interesting experiment.

Sideways. so you both dont go love up down the stairs.

 

[drop bear]

Yes but with proper training those movements, even the adjustments, should be largely instinctive. I don't think "bil sau" to address one attack or gan sau to address another. It simply happens. It might be how I have taught. Here are two basic defenses, bong sau and gan sau. Bongs address, largely, straight and round punches, a gan addresses low attacks. However the way I am taught they are variations on a theme a focus on the elbow and how it connects shoulder to wrist. So I don't think about the adjustments, I don't think "here comes a low strike time to gan", I just gan.

As far as the "I shut down the threat" that is exactly what I am doing and either we are having a battle of semantics or I didn't explain my particular requirement well. By law and policy I can only use X techniques for Y level of threat. Literally it says "passive resistance permits soft empty hand control techniques, defensive resistance=hard empty hand control techniques, active aggression=empty hand striking..." Etc. So I must ensure that my use of force is objectively appropriate for the level of force I am encountering. If I use strikes on someone engaged in defensive resistance I will get disciplined and if I do injury to the person can be successfully sued.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

No I think we are discussing completely different approaches.

 

[Juany118]

No I think we are discussing completely different approaches.

Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Read this passage today and thought of this thread.

I had been practicing weapon-craft when Beocca sought me out. We practiced every day, using stakes instead of swords, and some men grumbled that they did not need to play at fighting, and those I opposed myself and, when they had been beaten down to the mud, I told them they needed to play more and complain less.

its from one of Bernard Cromwell's books.

 

[drop bear]

Nothing about muscle memory (technically, engraining of neural pathways) precludes adjustment. Muscle memory is what all athletes use to avoid having to think about their movements. And yes, they are all adjusting constantly. But they've done so many variations that the movement is learned with a broad amount of generalization, so the neural pathways serve even when you do something that's only similar.

And yet the difference between arm locks and arm breaking confounds.

 

[Buka]

An aside to the stair thing - when I was a kid (maybe eight) my dad was building something in the cellar. I went to see what he was doing, and promptly fell face first down the stairs. I was crying and seeing stars.
He told me "unlike falling on your way upstairs, when you're headed down and fall - at least you accomplish your objective, which was to get down the stairs."

That always stuck with me, especially while training on stairs. But I still sucked at it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sideways. so you both dont go love up down the stairs.

If the stairs are wide enough, that might be interesting, too. Probably preferable (for me) to being on the uphill side. As I think about it more, there are some advantages on the uphill side, but they bother me. A knee to the head is much easier there, but I'd have to take a foot off the ground...on stairs. Not my preference. I'd rather have full use of my arms and lots of targets for them, so at the same level (as you said, sideways) or below them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Read this passage today and thought of this thread.

its from one of Bernard Cromwell's books.

Yes, and that wasn't a competition. Interesting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And yet the difference between arm locks and arm breaking confounds.

No, it doesn't. You're missing what I described. There are breaks (destructions) that are done from a point where there is no base for holding the lock. Imagine an arm bar where I'm standing under your arm, breaking upwards. There are too many ways to escape and even counter that application if it's used as a standing lock, but it works well as a break. There's no way to adapt that position to a submission - as soon as someone tries to pause at the lock to submit me, I can counter easily. There are many other examples of these. They aren't likely to be included in the training of someone preparing for competition, because they'd be worse than useless there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

An aside to the stair thing - when I was a kid (maybe eight) my dad was building something in the cellar. I went to see what he was doing, and promptly fell face first down the stairs. I was crying and seeing stars.
He told me "unlike falling on your way upstairs, when you're headed down and fall - at least you accomplish your objective, which was to get down the stairs."

That always stuck with me, especially while training on stairs. But I still sucked at it.

"Philosophical, dad, but my face hurts!"