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

[Gerry Seymour]

They are not training as diligently.

Why do you think that is?

Priorities

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I mean it is even on the sig I have in the bottom of every post I write. You have to believe people are capable of more.

The issue is that they have other priorities. And for some (I'd count me among this group unless and until my knees improve) can only work at high intensity for short periods, and not very often. If I go hard for 30 minutes, I can expect my knees to be crappy for at least two days. That's a reality, and I see students come in with analogous limitations (so far, minimum age for my students has been in their 40's).

I get a lot more out of most students than they think I will. They overcome fears, they perform physically in ways they didn't think they could, and they develop skills they didn't have. What part of that isn't believing they are capable of more?

There are training methods that work well with high intensity, and I know some of those and use them at times. I also know gentler methods of training that combine well with intermittent high-intensity training to get people some effective defensive skills. Why should I abandon those techniques and serve only those who are willing to commit to the higher intensity levels? What would be the point? I have a training method that works for those folks. You know one that works for a different group. Good. They both need to be served.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept. And here is the cool part of the analogy. They still drive to the race track.

Now this idea came to me when we were all telling war stories in the gym. That regardless if you train for the ring. You are still going to have as much access to real street experience as anybody else.

Just like the racing car guy.

Nope. That's changing the analogy. Training for the racetrack doesn't actually require driving there. Someone else could do that. For street-driving, they'd need to learn to drive on the street, too, and that can't be effectively learned on the track. That's why I say the analogy misses, because track training isn't nearly as effective for the street as, say, competition MMA training is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Statistically speaking, even if someone assaults you, mugs you, rapes you or whatever else, they are not trying to kill you.

Of course, if you are a drug addict, drug dealer, gang member or engage in any other behavior, your chances can go up.

Agreed. The better statement in the post you quoted might have been, "Neither the cars on the track nor the cars on the street are actually trying to hurt you."

 

[Steve]

Agreed. The better statement in the post you quoted might have been, "Neither the cars on the track nor the cars on the street are actually trying to hurt you."

Cars don't kill people; people kill people.

 

[Mephisto]

The issue is that they have other priorities. And for some (I'd count me among this group unless and until my knees improve) can only work at high intensity for short periods, and not very often. If I go hard for 30 minutes, I can expect my knees to be crappy for at least two days. That's a reality, and I see students come in with analogous limitations (so far, minimum age for my students has been in their 40's).

I get a lot more out of most students than they think I will. They overcome fears, they perform physically in ways they didn't think they could, and they develop skills they didn't have. What part of that isn't believing they are capable of more?

There are training methods that work well with high intensity, and I know some of those and use them at times. I also know gentler methods of training that combine well with intermittent high-intensity training to get people some effective defensive skills. Why should I abandon those techniques and serve only those who are willing to commit to the higher intensity levels? What would be the point? I have a training method that works for those folks. You know one that works for a different group. Good. They both need to be served.

Slow day at work here. I'm haven't kept up. With the entirety of this thread but I'm gonna comment anyways. The problem with the above quote and people that disagree with the op is that they can't justify that what they do is not the best. I don't train mma don't care about it but I can see it's value and I realize that it's an effective and quite possibly the best way to test empty hand fighting in all ranges. It's the best test, but I don't care I don't fight people and have little need to test how I'd do fighting people in all ranges. I box, I really like it and realize it has its limits. GPSeymore has guys with physical limits, that's fine you don't have to train for an mma fight, you don't have test yourself in the best way. Obviously mma is not the best way for your guys with physical limits but that doesn't change that it's the best overall method to test empty hand fighting ability in all ranges relatively safely. I'm open to other suggestions. There are other ways to test specific skills, I can accept that. I'm with op though in that mma is the best relatively standardized approach to test one's ability to handle an aggressive striking and grappling resisting opponent. I just simply don't care that I don't train that way.

 

[drop bear]

Priorities

And thats fine.

It is the tragic ego bolsetering excuses that get me.

If you dont train as hard you basically wont be as good a martial artist.

If you dont train with quality proffesionals you wont be as good a martial artist.

This is a pretty basic rule which is generally correct.

Now I do train with quality martial artists. But I dont train as hard as I could due to priorities. That is why the guys that do are better martial artists than me.

I do not have to rationalise that.

Yet that seems to be the argument at the moment.

This idea that self defense is somehow a harder pursuit and so therefore raises your martial arts status to a higher level falls apart when you look at work rate and level of proficiency.

 

[drop bear]

Slow day at work here. I'm haven't kept up. With the entirety of this thread but I'm gonna comment anyways. The problem with the above quote and people that disagree with the op is that they can't justify that what they do is not the best. I don't train mma don't care about it but I can see it's value and I realize that it's an effective and quite possibly the best way to test empty hand fighting in all ranges. It's the best test, but I don't care I don't fight people and have little need to test how I'd do fighting people in all ranges. I box, I really like it and realize it has its limits. GPSeymore has guys with physical limits, that's fine you don't have to train for an mma fight, you don't have test yourself in the best way. Obviously mma is not the best way for your guys with physical limits but that doesn't change that it's the best overall method to test empty hand fighting ability in all ranges relatively safely. I'm open to other suggestions. There are other ways to test specific skills, I can accept that. I'm with op though in that mma is the best relatively standardized approach to test one's ability to handle an aggressive striking and grappling resisting opponent. I just simply don't care that I don't train that way.

The difference is you dont have to make excuses.

 

[drop bear]

Nope. That's changing the analogy. Training for the racetrack doesn't actually require driving there. Someone else could do that. For street-driving, they'd need to learn to drive on the street, too, and that can't be effectively learned on the track. That's why I say the analogy misses, because track training isn't nearly as effective for the street as, say, competition MMA training is.

yes but my analogy is closer to the actual case and it is a point people miss quite often.

There is no more access to real life self defence experience in a self defence school than in a sport fighting school.

Basically what I mean here is you are getting your self defence knowledge from the experiences of the people you train with. (Driving to the race track)

I have basically the same access to that knowlege and experience in my school.

Now if you were someone with an expertise in street. That dynamic would change.

eg. Paul cale.

But as it stands it kind of equals itself out in that department. And where I think self defence goes a bit wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And thats fine.

It is the tragic ego bolsetering excuses that get me.

If you dont train as hard you basically wont be as good a martial artist.

If you dont train with quality proffesionals you wont be as good a martial artist.

This is a pretty basic rule which is generally correct.

Now I do train with quality martial artists. But I dont train as hard as I could due to priorities. That is why the guys that do are better martial artists than me.

I do not have to rationalise that.

Yet that seems to be the argument at the moment.

This idea that self defense is somehow a harder pursuit and so therefore raises your martial arts status to a higher level falls apart when you look at work rate and level of proficiency.

It's a different pursuit, with some different things to focus on, but not a better pursuit by any means. It can be pursued with the same vigor and intensity as prepping for MMA competition, for instance. I'd say I was approaching about that same intensity for a time in my late 20's and early 30's. Not the same level of martial artists to mix it up with, even then, but a decent group. Most schools (including mine) don't hit that level consistently, to fit the needs of the students.

But, yeah, the intensity of your training and the level of your partners (especially sparring partners) are pretty good predictors of outcome. Time can make up for both to an extent (10 years at lower intensity produces results that can come faster with higher intensity).

 

[drop bear]

It's a different pursuit, with some different things to focus on, but not a better pursuit by any means. It can be pursued with the same vigor and intensity as prepping for MMA competition, for instance. I'd say I was approaching about that same intensity for a time in my late 20's and early 30's. Not the same level of martial artists to mix it up with, even then, but a decent group. Most schools (including mine) don't hit that level consistently, to fit the needs of the students.

But, yeah, the intensity of your training and the level of your partners (especially sparring partners) are pretty good predictors of outcome. Time can make up for both to an extent (10 years at lower intensity produces results that can come faster with higher intensity).

Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.

You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.

And that is a big factor at full noise.

 

[drop bear]

Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.

You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.

And that is a big factor at full noise.

Acually more importantly you dont get to defend against tough. Which is a different level of technical skill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes but my analogy is closer to the actual case and it is a point people miss quite often.

There is no more access to real life self defence experience in a self defence school than in a sport fighting school.

Basically what I mean here is you are getting your self defence knowledge from the experiences of the people you train with. (Driving to the race track)

I have basically the same access to that knowlege and experience in my school.

Now if you were someone with an expertise in street. That dynamic would change.

eg. Paul cale.

But as it stands it kind of equals itself out in that department. And where I think self defence goes a bit wrong.

A reasonable point, analogies aside.

I'd say there's a bit more to the experience part than a general equality (everyone getting the same real-world experience), but the value of the differing experiences is hard to quantify. The only significant difference is in working on real-world simulations versus competition. I believe there's value to be had in both sides (intensity and level of opponent on one side, preparation for more varied specific situations on the other), but there's room for debate on that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your last paragraph moves into the discussion between being a martial artist and a fighter.

You can develop technical skill in 10 years to the same proficiency. But you dont get toughness.

And that is a big factor at full noise.

You can still develop toughness, even on the slower route - just less frequent exposure to the toughening extremes. Of course, there are approaches that don't include a full range toughness development, and that is a gap in those. Sometimes an appropriate gap, but a gap nonetheless. How much of an issue it is depends upon the situation you end up dealing with, and what your natural response was to start with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Acually more importantly you dont get to defend against tough. Which is a different level of technical skill.

Actually, even in slow and easy classes, I've run into a lot of folks who already had their tough. I've had a lot more opportunity to train against tough than to work on my own toughness, so that's less of an issue, in my experience.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I keep hearing that MMA isn't the best test for the effectiveness of MA styles. So what's a better test outside of putting on a costume and becoming a vigilante with a death wish? Just curious.

And btw, there's varying rulesets for MMA, so if you feel that some of the UFC rules are restrictive, there are other fight circuits where they have even less rules.

The best test? Going out in the streets and getting into fights, although that can get you thrown in jail or shot.

 

[Juany118]

You can still develop toughness, even on the slower route - just less frequent exposure to the toughening extremes. Of course, there are approaches that don't include a full range toughness development, and that is a gap in those. Sometimes an appropriate gap, but a gap nonetheless. How much of an issue it is depends upon the situation you end up dealing with, and what your natural response was to start with.

There are also multiple ways to achieve toughness. My first way of "getting" tough that served me well was Ft. Knox KY in the early 90's training to be a Cav Scout. Sleep deprivation, PT to muscle failure, road marches with full pack. The last one was the most telling. It turned out I had a stress fracture in my right foot, I thought I just sprained something. The mental toughness created though made it so I completed 3/4 of that road march before my foot was physically incapable of supporting my weight.

That translated later into my cycling obsession. There were riders who were physically stronger than me who I would chase up steep climbs, sometimes vomiting on myself during the following descent because I pushed myself to a heart rate if over 200 bpm.

The point being you can create the toughness needed for a fight without fighting, hell without training martial arts period, you just need to push past limits consistently. I know some people who can do that on their own. I will be honest and say I never would have believed I could do it without those Drill Sgts barking in my ear. But even if you take the "slow road" in the Dojo there are ways to find a "fast road" outside.

I think a good example is a crossfit gym near me. I know the coach there and he has a gift to find what is needed to push each student individually. He turned a half marathoner into someone who did one of those crazy "endurance" runs through Death Valley because he made her realize what she thought were her limits were self imposed blocks, that she could go deeper.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

Actually, even in slow and easy classes, I've run into a lot of folks who already had their tough. I've had a lot more opportunity to train against tough than to work on my own toughness, so that's less of an issue, in my experience.

That was my biggest issue moving from SD to MMA. Was people no longer just buckled. They fought back hard. I had to redevelop my technique considerably.

 

[drop bear]

There are also multiple ways to achieve toughness. My first way of "getting" tough that served me well was Ft. Knox KY in the early 90's training to be a Cav Scout. Sleep deprivation, PT to muscle failure, road marches with full pack. The last one was the most telling. It turned out I had a stress fracture in my right foot, I thought I just sprained something. The mental toughness created though made it so I completed 3/4 of that road march before my foot was physically incapable of supporting my weight.

That translated later into my cycling obsession. There were riders who were physically stronger than me who I would chase up steep climbs, sometimes vomiting on myself during the following descent because I pushed myself to a heart rate if over 200 bpm.

The point being you can create the toughness needed for a fight without fighting, hell without training martial arts period, you just need to push last limits consistently. I know some people who can do that on their own. I will be honest and say I never would have believed I could do it without those Drill Sgts barking in my ear. But even if you take the "slow road" in the Dojo there are ways to find a "fast road" outside. I think a good example is a crossfit gym near me. I know the coach there and he has a gift to find what is needed to push each student individually. He turned a half marathoner into someone who did one of those crazy "endurance" runs through Death Valley because he made her realize what she thought were her limits were self imposed blocks, that she could go deeper.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You kind of need to engage in something tough though.

Which is the point.

 

[drop bear]

A reasonable point, analogies aside.

I'd say there's a bit more to the experience part than a general equality (everyone getting the same real-world experience), but the value of the differing experiences is hard to quantify. The only significant difference is in working on real-world simulations versus competition. I believe there's value to be had in both sides (intensity and level of opponent on one side, preparation for more varied specific situations on the other), but there's room for debate on that.

Depends on what the training consists of. And the quality of the guy running it.

Here we move into the concept of self taught. So where you may have a legitimate back ground in fighting or martial arts. Do you have the same legitimate background in these seld defense concepts?

And so does this specific training achieve what we are trying to achieve?

And the issue is we just dont know.