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

[Gerry Seymour]

speaking of creating tough and survival or fighting mentality. This is a method the army uses.

Taking a lot of falls takes some tough. And that looks like a lot of fun, too. I love it when "fun" and "tough" come together.

(A side story: A shodan I trained with brought some of our art to the Marines (the DT instructor requested it after he handed a couple of larger Marines their *** in training). He'd have loved it if there was some BJJ there at the time, too.)

 

[Balrog]

Would you use that for any other training?

Martial arts training in some ways is much like insurance. You hope you never need to use it, but you train for the 1% occurrence when you do. If you don't feel good about your training, you won't stay with it and you'll train somewhere else, just like changing insurance companies.

 

[Balrog]

That's crazy. Of ciurse the Millennials I supervise would love it if I appraised them based on how they feel. Lol.

You misunderstood what I said, and I guess I didn't express it clearly. If you don't feel like your training is doing you any good, you will go train somewhere else and/or in something else. That's what I meant by how you feel about the training. My apologies for phrasing it poorly.

 

[Steve]

You misunderstood what I said, and I guess I didn't express it clearly. If you don't feel like your training is doing you any good, you will go train somewhere else and/or in something else. That's what I meant by how you feel about the training. My apologies for phrasing it poorly.

I agree, but ultimately, how you feel about it is completely disconnected from whether it works or not. How you feel about your training will have a lot more to do with customer service skills and effective marketing than anything related to martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree, but ultimately, how you feel about it is completely disconnected from whether it works or not. How you feel about your training will have a lot more to do with customer service skills and effective marketing than anything related to martial arts.

It can be disconnected, but isn't always. For me, my evaluation of the effectiveness of what's taught has always been part of how I feel about it.

I do like Balrog's test, as it fits individual needs. If someone is in MA for fun, and they are having fun (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it for competition, and are getting good results in competition (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it to learn to defend themselves, and find that they are learning effective defensive skills (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished.

It's certainly not the whole test, but probably a necessary part of the evaluation. So long as we are honest in how we come to that conclusion, it serves us pretty well.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm surprised by all the mental acrobatics some of you guys perform to justify what you do as the best possible test of fighting skill, which is what this thread is all about. We're getting into individual feelings and personal arguments about this and that, it's ridiculous. A test is meant to assess how an individual performs and meets a given standard. I guess this is like when very intelligent doctors are able to believe the world is only five thousand or so years old. The smarter you are the more able you are to convince yourself that your worldview is correct.

 

[Steve]

It can be disconnected, but isn't always. For me, my evaluation of the effectiveness of what's taught has always been part of how I feel about it.

I do like Balrog's test, as it fits individual needs. If someone is in MA for fun, and they are having fun (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it for competition, and are getting good results in competition (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished. If they are in it to learn to defend themselves, and find that they are learning effective defensive skills (and would be feeling good about it), mission accomplished.

It's certainly not the whole test, but probably a necessary part of the evaluation. So long as we are honest in how we come to that conclusion, it serves us pretty well.

I disagree. Or, well, maybe it's more correct to say that I see this way of thinking as fraught with danger. It's great, until you are confronted by an external, objective measure of it's effectiveness.

For example, I'm soccer dad Bob and I want to get my kid, Billy Joe, into some real self defense training. He's unruly and has a lot of energy, and he's also been having some trouble with bullies at school. Just to be very clear, I'm looking for effective self defense training for little Billy Joe.

So, I do some research and sign him up at the Starfleet Ambujitsu School down the road. They are SUPER nice, and there are lots of kids there. They talk a lot about self defense, have a lot of statistics about self defense and do a really nice job of answering all of my questions and addressing my concerns. They even have an anti-bully program that sound perfect for little Billy Joe. Billy Joe loves it because he gets to go and run around, kicking and yelling, and he's on track to be a black belt in just a few years. The school is clean and professional looking, and the cost is what I would consider to be reasonable.

All of those things above have NOTHING to do with whether the art is effective or not, but as a consumer, I would have no way to know that. All of those things would contribute to making me FEEL really good about the training. But the only way I might ever know that it's actually about as effective as day camp is if my kid gets into a fight and gets the **** beat out of him.

And truly? Even then, I would probably FEEL so good about the training that I would rationalize the event. I might say to myself, "Bob. Good thing Billy Joe is a black belt in Ambujitsu. If he didn't have that high quality self defense training, he probably would have been killed."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. Or, well, maybe it's more correct to say that I see this way of thinking as fraught with danger. It's great, until you are confronted by an external, objective measure of it's effectiveness.

For example, I'm soccer dad Bob and I want to get my kid, Billy Joe, into some real self defense training. He's unruly and has a lot of energy, and he's also been having some trouble with bullies at school. Just to be very clear, I'm looking for effective self defense training for little Billy Joe.

So, I do some research and sign him up at the Starfleet Ambujitsu School down the road. They are SUPER nice, and there are lots of kids there. They talk a lot about self defense, have a lot of statistics about self defense and do a really nice job of answering all of my questions and addressing my concerns. They even have an anti-bully program that sound perfect for little Billy Joe. Billy Joe loves it because he gets to go and run around, kicking and yelling, and he's on track to be a black belt in just a few years. The school is clean and professional looking, and the cost is what I would consider to be reasonable.

All of those things above have NOTHING to do with whether the art is effective or not, but as a consumer, I would have no way to know that. All of those things would contribute to making me FEEL really good about the training. But the only way I might ever know that it's actually about as effective as day camp is if my kid gets into a fight and gets the **** beat out of him.

And truly? Even then, I would probably FEEL so good about the training that I would rationalize the event. I might say to myself, "Bob. Good thing Billy Joe is a black belt in Ambujitsu. If he didn't have that high quality self defense training, he probably would have been killed."

Actually, some of those things do contribute to the effectiveness of the school for what you're looking for (though not necessarily for the stated purpose). In that situation, a parent will likely say they're looking for the techniques for fending off an attacker (and that's obviously part of it), but they're more concerned about the child's safety, and all the things that keep him from being bullied and keep him out of a fight will help with that. The parent will feel good about the result because it fits an unspoken need.

Now, as to the stated need (which is still part of the objective), sending the kid to competition might clarify that, especially if it's an open competition with relatively loose rules. That, however, is unlikely for kids (we obviously protect them more than adults), so what he's competing in is less heavily tied to defense than an adult analog would be. If, on the other hand, the school includes some realistic attack simulations with reasonable speed, we can add some additional verification. Best test maybe is a combination of the two (competition and realistic simulations). If the school is using either, and the results are poor, the parent will not feel good about the program - which was part of my point. If some decent validation points are present, then the "feel" test will include those results.

And we realistically know that even good training can still leave someone getting their butt kicked, if they are blindsided, attacked by someone more skilled, or just happen to trip over a curb during the altercation. This is where the "feel" test can let us down - just as it can let us down if the attacker is crappy and does the tripping, and so crappy MA appears to be effective.

It's not an infallible test. I do think it's a useful test.

 

[Steve]

Actually, some of those things do contribute to the effectiveness of the school for what you're looking for (though not necessarily for the stated purpose).

Noooooo... nooooooo. Come on. Features and benefits. It's like buying a house that doesn't have a roof, but saying, "Hey, it's got a basketball hoop already installed."

In that situation, a parent will likely say they're looking for the techniques for fending off an attacker (and that's obviously part of it), but they're more concerned about the child's safety, and all the things that keep him from being bullied and keep him out of a fight will help with that. The parent will feel good about the result because it fits an unspoken need.

BS. Come on, man. You know this is BS. It's salesmanship. And the thing is, sure, the parent will feel good. That's my entire point. They'll feel good as long as there is no external feedback.

I'm pointing out that what makes a person feel good about their training can, and often does, have nothing to do with whether the training is effective.

And so, you need external feedback. The nature, frequency and diversity of that feedback will depend upon the nature, frequency and diversity of context for which you are training. If you're training for self defense, this ambiguous thing, I would expect you're going to look for frequent and diverse means of gaining feedback. Eschewing any means for feedback is shortsighted, IMO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Noooooo... nooooooo. Come on. Features and benefits. It's like buying a house that doesn't have a roof, but saying, "Hey, it's got a basketball hoop already installed." BS. Come on, man. You know this is BS. It's salesmanship. And the thing is, sure, the parent will feel good. That's my entire point. They'll feel good as long as there is no external feedback.

I'm pointing out that what makes a person feel good about their training can, and often does, have nothing to do with whether the training is effective.

And so, you need external feedback. The nature, frequency and diversity of that feedback will depend upon the nature, frequency and diversity of context for which you are training. If you're training for self defense, this ambiguous thing, I would expect you're going to look for frequent and diverse means of gaining feedback. Eschewing any means for feedback is shortsighted, IMO.

We're not as far apart on this as you think, Steve. My point was that there are often other needs that get met that we don't even realize go into our "feeling good" about our training (in my case, that included a sense of community, a sense of challenge, and some other stuff). That part admittedly doesn't have much to do with the overall effectiveness of the art for combat, but it does have to do with whether the art meets our needs.

As for the external validation, I still maintain that internal validation is useful. For those of us who aren't interested in MMA-style competition, we have to be more vigilant. We don't have that automatic check-and-balance system that outside competition provides. I've been thinking about this a bit because of this thread, and the same applies for every technique anyone trains that they don't get to use in competition (either because of rules, or simple lack of opportunity). They have to make a judgment about the effectiveness of that technique for its intended purpose. This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.

 

[Steve]

We're not as far apart on this as you think, Steve. My point was that there are often other needs that get met that we don't even realize go into our "feeling good" about our training (in my case, that included a sense of community, a sense of challenge, and some other stuff). That part admittedly doesn't have much to do with the overall effectiveness of the art for combat, but it does have to do with whether the art meets our needs.

As for the external validation, I still maintain that internal validation is useful. For those of us who aren't interested in MMA-style competition, we have to be more vigilant. We don't have that automatic check-and-balance system that outside competition provides. I've been thinking about this a bit because of this thread, and the same applies for every technique anyone trains that they don't get to use in competition (either because of rules, or simple lack of opportunity). They have to make a judgment about the effectiveness of that technique for its intended purpose. This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.

That's all fine and good, my friend. But it's a red herring as my post was in response to Balrog's declaration that how one feels about their training is all that matters. If you're training for self defense, that can be a very misleading and potentially dangerous position to take.

Regarding the rest, making people feel good is good business. But it's not necessarily good martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's all fine and good, my friend. But it's a red herring as my post was in response to Balrog's declaration that how one feels about their training is all that matters. If you're training for self defense, that can be a very misleading and potentially dangerous position to take.

Regarding the rest, making people feel good is good business. But it's not necessarily good martial arts.

Again, I don't think we're all that far apart. I'm good with this.

 

[drop bear]

This is true of every dislocation/destruction technique anyone practices that they don't actually use to dislocate a joint. They have to depend upon alternative validation, and make sure they're skeptical when viewing the results.

This bit not really.

In the gym i can hold a person down and make them go "Ow that really hurts"

Now i have done that in self defence.
Exactly to the level that i have trained it. That alone has been enough to quell an attack.

So whether or not it dislocates a limb is not vital to proove.

And the reason is here that in training you did stop the threat. You may not have mangled the guy in the process as you may consider in a real fight. But you do shut your training partner down.

If for some reason i want to walk the mean streets of bad lands with 16 ounce sparring gloves. And dedicated myself to only the tools i have used in the gym. Exactly in the manner i have trained them. Same force everything.

I still have the tools to defend myself.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This bit not really.

In the gym i can hold a person down and make them go "Ow that really hurts"

Now i have done that in self defence.
Exactly to the level that i have trained it. That alone has been enough to quell an attack.

So whether or not it dislocates a limb is not vital to proove.

And the reason is here that in training you did stop the threat. You may not have mangled the guy in the process as you may consider in a real fight. But you do shut your training partner down.

If for some reason i want to walk the mean streets of bad lands with 16 ounce sparring gloves. And dedicated myself to only the tools i have used in the gym. Exactly in the manner i have trained them. Same force everything.

I still have the tools to defend myself.

That's evidence it hurts. It's not really evidence of its ability to break, and that was my point when I mentioned destructions. I can practice any of the destructions to a point of pain, but I can't really verify the break (well, except by accident). There are times a painful lock is sufficient, and there are times it's not. A brown belt I trained with many years ago was a bouncer at a local bar. He came in one Monday and told us about a guy who stood up through a shoulder lock, ignoring the pain. It dislocated the guy's shoulder, as it should. He kept fighting, but the arm wasn't much use. Police suspected drugs were involved.

That lock is intended to be useful for both locking and destruction. We could verify the lock and the pain. In class (and in competition), there is no safe way to verify the destruction. We have to accept that what we're feeling could go far enough to destroy, unless and until someone has a chance to actually use it as a destruction.

 

[Ironbear24]

I'm surprised by all the mental acrobatics some of you guys perform to justify what you do as the best possible test of fighting skill, which is what this thread is all about. We're getting into individual feelings and personal arguments about this and that, it's ridiculous. A test is meant to assess how an individual performs and meets a given standard. I guess this is like when very intelligent doctors are able to believe the world is only five thousand or so years old. The smarter you are the more able you are to convince yourself that your worldview is correct.

Actually everyone here agrees the best way to find out is to actually have to use it in a life or death fight. Since we can't actually do that though legally the next best thing is sparring.

The rest of the thread devolved into semantics to be honest.

 

[Ironbear24]

I still have the tools to defend myself.

So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So if someone attacks you with a knife you know how to disarm them?

Sure. He hasn't practiced specific techniques for that, I think, but if he hits them hard enough or gets their arm in an appropriate lock, he'll be able to disarm them. Would he be more effective if he also had some specific techniques developed for that? Probably. By how much? Hard to say. It's a matter of percentages, rather than can/can't, IMO.

 

[Ironbear24]

Sure. He hasn't practiced specific techniques for that, I think, but if he hits them hard enough or gets their arm in an appropriate lock, he'll be able to disarm them. Would he be more effective if he also had some specific techniques developed for that? Probably. By how much? Hard to say. It's a matter of percentages, rather than can/can't, IMO.

and you are more likely to know how to do it if you train for it specifically, this is why self defense training is better for self defense than sports training.

 

[Buka]

Maybe there's something to be said for both sides. I SO fell in love with Martial Arts when I first started training, oh, man, it was just the best thing ever. I felt so good about my training, which I knew was the real deal awesome. Except it wasn't. It was really poor Martial Arts.

But the way it made me feel was something I had not experienced before. The way I felt is what kept me in Martial Arts. When I started training in what I consider quality Martial Arts, I felt the same way - fricken' awesome.

Even though how I first felt had nothing to do with if what I was doing was any good - how I felt was directly responsible for me being around the following week....and the one after that.

 

[Mephisto]

Actually everyone here agrees the best way to find out is to actually have to use it in a life or death fight. Since we can't actually do that though legally the next best thing is sparring.

The rest of the thread devolved into semantics to be honest.

I realize most of us agree the best test of fighting ability is to actually fight someone. I'm referring to mma competition and various rule sets as the best mode of testing empty hand fighting ability and it seems that view gets a lot of push back. You guys keep bringing up physical limitations of practitioners, weapons, deadly joint destructions, situational awareness, feeling, and things that either can't be reasonably tested or don't pertain to fighting ability. We are talking about a reproduceable method to test fighting ability. Right now mma is the best we have. I realize fighting ability is only one component of self defense but I think it is important for those that choose to be able to test their fighting ability and those that claim proficiency in fighting should be able to prove this in some manner. Some schools and friends I know have different alive drills that are more removed from mma competition that still assess the same skills mma does but these are isolated instances and not widely available. What we need are standardized methods (like mma competitive ruleset) that test fighting ability from entry level to high level.