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

[drop bear]

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.

If self defence really is the serious business that is now being claimed. Then that is a negative on the instruction.

If self defence is not as serious as being claimed then fine. Train how you want. Have fun,take days off.

It is a contradictory stance that people take.

 

[Dirty Dog]

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?

I don't believe anybody has ever said that defensive encounters are all about life or death.

What has been said is that the potential exists, whereas in competition the entire ruleset is intended to prevent such things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

What I would recommend about intensity is irrelevant. People want to learn to defend themselves, and this is their commitment level. I could ramp things up to a high intensity that would require more fitness, and most of them would leave. My goal is to help them improve their chances. I can make small improvements quickly, then large improvements over longer time periods.

If I had my magic wand, I'd have students who want to train at higher intensity, like I did in my late 20's. I'd then change out some of my teaching and training methods to fit that higher level of intensity. But that's not the reality. I teach for reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If self defence really is the serious business that is now being claimed. Then that is a negative on the instruction.

If self defence is not as serious as being claimed then fine. Train how you want. Have fun,take days off.

It is a contradictory stance that people take.

It's not an issue with the instruction. The instruction fits the students. What's so difficult to understand about that?

 

[drop bear]

It's not an issue with the instruction. The instruction fits the students. What's so difficult to understand about that?

The instruction fits the task.

And personally i would like the students to raise to the level of the instruction. Not the instruction to Lower to the level of the student.

But that is just me.

 

[drop bear]

I don't believe anybody has ever said that defensive encounters are all about life or death.

What has been said is that the potential exists, whereas in competition the entire ruleset is intended to prevent such things.

Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.

Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things. Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.

 

[drop bear]

What I would recommend about intensity is irrelevant. People want to learn to defend themselves, and this is their commitment level. I could ramp things up to a high intensity that would require more fitness, and most of them would leave. My goal is to help them improve their chances. I can make small improvements quickly, then large improvements over longer time periods.

If I had my magic wand, I'd have students who want to train at higher intensity, like I did in my late 20's. I'd then change out some of my teaching and training methods to fit that higher level of intensity. But that's not the reality. I teach for reality.

The reality is that all the external factors in self defence work in your favor as much as it works against you and so near enough is generally good enough.

 

[Ironbear24]

Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.

Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things. Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.

That's still a fallacy, a poor example. There is much danger in racing as well as normally driving. Competitions have tons of rules and a referee to minimize any risk of death as small as possible.

Plus neither example of racing or driving have people going out of their way to harm you.

 

[Steve]

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.

Maybe you've been lucky never to have only been assaulted by incompetents. That's playing the odds, but isn't necessarily an endorsement of your training,

 

[Steve]

There's more to self defense than fighting only when it's convenient to say so.

 

[Ironbear24]

Maybe you've been lucky never to have only been assaulted by incompetents. That's playing the odds, but isn't necessarily an endorsement of your training,

So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?

 

[Steve]

So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?

Who knws? He works in an ER in Colorado?

 

[drop bear]

So out of all the people who attacked them all of them were incompetent?

Most people are pretty bad at fighting. That is why some people train.

 

[drop bear]

That's still a fallacy, a poor example. There is much danger in racing as well as normally driving. Competitions have tons of rules and a referee to minimize any risk of death as small as possible.

Plus neither example of racing or driving have people going out of their way to harm you.

Racing has tons of rules and a referee.

Otherwise i am not sure what intentions have to do with risk. Plenty of activities can have risk without bad intentions. And vica versa i suppose.

 

[drop bear]

There's more to self defense than fighting only when it's convenient to say so.

And the circumstances are always against you. For some reason us poor SD guys never get the numbers,weapons or ambushes.

 

[RTKDCMB]

For a no-contact practitioner from John Doe's mcdojo, it's certainly more than that.

From a mcdojo perhaps.

 

[RTKDCMB]

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.

That is because self defence people are training for self defence not competition.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.

Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things. Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.

There are many things a race car driver does not have to worry about that someone on the road has to: The possibility that the driver next to you is drunk, that the driver on the cross street is not going to run a red light whilst you are trying to cross, that a pedestrian is not going to run in front of you, etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The instruction fits the task.

And personally i would like the students to raise to the level of the instruction. Not the instruction to Lower to the level of the student.

But that is just me.

What you would like is irrelevant. I teach for reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah so imagine it is like learning to drive a car vs learning to race a car.

Where technically the potential risk on the road is greater than on the track. Because the rule set is intended to prevent such things. Your skill set for the track has to be more advanced. Because it is harder.

I think this is a decent analogy in concept. It does get to the idea that competition training requires some things that defense training doesn't (higher speeds, sneaky passing, etc.), and vice-versa (intersections, speed limits, red lights, etc.).

The analogy does miss in some areas. If someone were only trained for track racing, they'd completely suck on the streets (no understanding of red lights, can't park, speeding everywhere, etc.). We wouldn't expect deficiencies of that magnitude from competition training (assuming it's hard training like MMA). And race driving is inherently more dangerous than driving on the street. There are fewer dangers numerically (fewer cars, no intersections, etc), but the magnitude of risk is so much higher. That's probably reversed from the competition vs. defense side, where there are more frequent dangers in competition (every moment you're in an MMA match, someone's trying to hit you, etc.) and more significant dangers on the street (someone might try to kill you, which they probably won't in the ring).