Actually, I don't think any discussion is bogus. I was just kind of funnin' with Hanzou, who beside being a great poster, is one hell of a fisherman.
OK, I thought that you were being humorous.
So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?
- Thread starter Hanzou
- Start date
OK, I thought that you were being humorous.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
The thing with ian Abernathy is that people can disagree with his opinion.
He seems to get quoted as a definitive authority on self defence.
And I still dont see it.
Ok. I mentioned this to greysemor I will mention it again.
I train a fighting system. we put people in the ring and they bash each other for money or trophies.
Nobody really struggles defending themselves when they are attacked on the street.(There was this one guy who fought a whole football team but that was his mistake)
Nobody really struggles to avoid danger,ambushes or attacks.
Nobod really struggles de-escalating potentual conflicts.
There may be a few rough edges to iron out if they really wanted to be shmick at that sort of thing. But to suggest that you would have to focus your training to a specific environment ue to some major risk that you will fail because of that means that the training you are doing now does not equip you with the mental tools to ajust to new environments.
Ironbear24
Senior Master
People aren't saying that. The point is if you wish to compete then you must train for competitions. If you are not then you will not do well regardless of whatever your style is. Are you aware that many mma gyms don't compete outside of their own gym?
Does this make them bad? I don't think so, if they don't want to compete that's fine, maybe competitions are the last thing on their minds, maybe they just want to defend themselves and have no concern for chasing medals and trophies.
Sure they can.
Not really. He is often quoted as AN authority, which isn't the same thing at all.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Self defence is competition lite. Upsets people as well though.
Ironbear24
Senior Master
There is nothing to be upset about and it isn't something complicated. People will argue about the best arts and best styles ect but in the end it comes down to the training methods.
Then it comes down to the individual and that individuals goals. If Joe shmoe is not interested in being a world championship fighter why should he be so concerned about how he will do in a competition?
If he wishes to do it for self defense only or just simply for something fun and athletic to do, then competing for points medals and trophies under a rule set will be the last thing on his mind.
Here is another example, a boxer loves boxing, he wishes to compete because he joys it. He would have to train for competitions, what kind of competitions though? Boxing of course. People would say his style is incomplete because it has no kicks or grappling but why should he care? He is a boxer who's goals are only related to boxing.
Joe shmoe from earliers goals are for simply self defence and having fun.
I'd say it's the other way around. Competition is self-defense lite.
After all, there are rules in place in any competition to minimize or at least control the level of risk, nobody in a competition should be actually trying to kill or cripple you (although risks exist, that isn't the GOAL...) and weapons (designed or improvised) are not a factor.
Ironbear24
Senior Master
Agreed. At first I didn't know what the statement "lite" meant, but yeah competitions are far from self defense. I doubt anyone seriously feels like their life is danger when they enter a ring. If they do then they don't belong there in the first place.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
This might be dependant on the relative skill of your opponent. For a pro MMA fighter, the average yotz in a bar thowing a telegraphed haymaker might be competition lite. For a no-contact practitioner from John Doe's mcdojo, it's certainly more than that.
If you want to talk about specific cases, then fine. But the comment was "competition vs defense" which is a generality.
Competition is defense-lite.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Yeah. People say that.But you don't often see it in the training. I wouldn't put some guy who trains 3 nights a week and is unfit in a competition.
They would get bashed.
A competition fight camp is serious business. And that is to prepare a guy for a fight that he will probably walk away from.
ematch Ready: Chris Weidman's Fight Camp Training
A Day in the Life of a Muay Thai Fighter
For self defence I have never seen a training requirement anywhere near that. But everyone seems happy to suggest that they are prepared to defend themselves.
What is the fighting prep for these life and death encounters consist of?
Last edited:
That would be because competition isn't defense. I'm glad you agree with me.
Competition, for one thing, is generally a fairly long thing, while most defensive encounters are finished in a few seconds.
And yet, here I am, a worn out tired old fat man who is assaulted on a far too regular basis, almost always by people who are much younger and fitter than me. And somehow I manage to defend myself. I've been in this "arena" since 1979. I've had my nose broken once (sucker punched, which nobody is going to stop - but it was the only hit he landed). I've had a couple very minor bruises. My glasses fell off once when I ducked a punch and got stepped on. But that's it. And while I can't provide an accurate number, I'd say during that time I've been assaulted at least twice a month, on average.
Why aren't I getting bashed?
Maybe... because competition (while worthwhile) isn't defense.
We did talk about this before, and I've actually agreed with you on a lot of points.
There's nothing wrong with the type of training you do - it is effective preparation for self-defense in most cases. It leaves some things out, but so does everything else. It doesn't train specifically for some circumstances, but that's a marginal issue not a major one. Someone who's good will be good mostly regardless of the environment. Training to some of those other environments is about becoming more adaptable, not about having to train to that specific environment. One of the advantages you have in your training is that you're probably sparring/training with some folks who get pretty intense. Most folks at a casual martial arts school aren't going to be that intense.
Meanwhile, schools that train specifically for self-defense train some stuff you don't, and that probably gives them some advantage (perhaps only slight) over someone not trained for that stuff. And they miss some of the intensity you get in your training for competition. It's a trade-off, and if they don't focus it right, it can get off-track and end up not being as effective as it should be. There are training methods that help avoid that issue. These schools will usually have students who mostly commit fewer hours and sometimes less energy to their training. That's the larger difference, in my opinion, and the reason self-defense systems have to take a different approach to training.
There is more to self-defense than just the fighting skills you mention you train. Fortunately, a lot of that other stuff comes as a result of being confident, which is a side-effect of the fighting ability. There's more that can be learned beyond those side effects. Nobody has to learn them, but those of us who focus on self-defense are looking for those marginal advantages in things like de-escalation. It's a choice in how we train.
Actually, not if they're being logical about it. This is EXACTLY part of the argument I make about not needing to compete to be competent for self-defense. Competition trains you to defend against a highly skilled opponent. The chances of an attacker on the street being anywhere near that skilled are vanishingly low, so self-defense training doesn't try to get to the point of fending off a Gracie. Instead, we get to work on things like weapon defense, weapon use, multiple attacker evasion and defense, etc. to gain some percent improvement of our chances in those situations.
The way I look at it, both are limited versions of the other, with some stuff added in. Competition has a more limited attack set and (hopefully) lower risk than self-defense. Self-defense deals with less-skilled attackers and shorter confrontations.
If you look at self-defense training through the paradigm of prep for competition, you'll think self-defense is lacking.
If you look at competition training through the paradigm of self-defense training, you'll think it's leaving out stuff.
In both cases, you'd be wrong. Ironbear's comment about the boxer is spot-on for this. It's only lacking if it fails to meet the objectives of the person training.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
So you don't have to train as hard. You don't have to be in your prime but are able to be successful at self defence.
Maybe because self defence (while worthwhile ) is competition lite.
There, again, you're equating the student's commitment level with the training. That's not the same thing. If people going for competition were committing 2-3 hours a week and not committing to exercise outside those hours, competition training wouldn't be effective as it is currently laid out. Competition training works precisely because of the commitment the person makes to that training. Most of us teaching self-defense don't get that level of commitment. That's not a negative about the students - just a reality of their priorities. So we use different training methods, better suited to the students we serve.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Ok. Here is a different element to the conversation. Not about specificity but But that self defence people also tend not to train at the same level of intensity either.
So if you were training a specific skill set that was applicable to SD. And believed that you were training for a life or death fight. Then a lot of these discussions would change.
How many people do you think would recommend, train what makes you happy, or only commit the time you can spare if there legitimately was a guy at the end of that training waiting to beat you to death?
