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

[drop bear]

Yes, they often call that getting lucky or as I said a "bad guy" who was posing with the knife and not serious about using it. But if you are facing a sober person who has no qualms about stabbing/cutting you trying to get inside their guard is at a minimum going to result in a hospital trip for stitches far more often than not.

Also one incident doesn't prove something works on its own. To actually prove something takes multiple experiments/incidents.

And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.

 

[drop bear]

There is a difference. If something is already proven using it yourself is simply a confirmation/proof of concept.

It is already proven that trying to get inside someone's guard to take them down, to when armed with a knife, is a bad idea. If it wasn't grappling arts like Jujutsu wouldn't have specific techniques to address the knife because there would be no point. So in short you are trying to say in one incident you have disproved a few centuries of martial arts and battlefield experience.

Proven by the same method i am proving mine though. They done it in a fight. I done it in a fight.

Waiting a century makes that proof less reliable not more.

I mean there is battle field proof that suggests getting buck naked and painting yourself blue gives you the advantage because the gods can see you.

 

[Dirty Dog]

And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.

Most of them were. Because most of the world has no real idea how to fight effectively.
The Real World (tm) counts. It has to.
Even though I've never competed in an MMA (not the way I believe you define it, at least) I know that my training is effective. Because I've used it, repeatedly, in the Real World (tm). That doesn't mean I think it's perfect, nor that I think it will always be effective in every imaginable circumstance. Because people are imperfect, and all it takes is one little slip. Nor does it mean that I think the way I've trained is the only or the best way to train. Anyone who thinks that, regardless of the details of their training, is an idiot.
It means only that the way I've trained and the things I've trained have been effective for me.
It means that MMA can certainly be viewed as one valid method of testing your skills. But not the only one.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I mean there is battle field proof that suggests getting buck naked and painting yourself blue gives you the advantage because the gods can see you.

Now you're delving into my family history...

The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...

 

[Juany118]

And maby every one dirty dog subdued was incompetent. But we still all use it as bone fides.

You are missing what I am trying to say. When you use already tested and proven techniques all you are doing is confirming it works.

Moving to get past the bladed guard of a determined attacker to take them down and then beat them until you can take the knife is actually counter to what has been tested and proven to work not just via centuries of "martial arts" but centuries of full on warfare. Even today it's what is taught to Military forces.

If you are going to claim you have disproved what centuries has said is virtually necessary it takes more than a single incident.

 

[drop bear]

Now you're delving into my family history...

The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...

I do have an official "i am not tackling the naked guy" At work. So you may have a point.

 

[Juany118]

Now you're delving into my family history...

The pics were not "buck naked" although they did not wear any armor. Under-dressed for the Scottish weather, certainly, but not naked.
Painting oneself blue was less about the Gods and more about scaring the crap out of your opponent. Because nobody wants to fight with a crazy guy. Or a guy in a thong, for that matter...

Exactly, just another version of a battle cry/warfare... But did you have to go with the thong? /Shudder.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I do have an official "i am not tackling the naked guy" At work. So you may have a point.

I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.

 

[drop bear]

Again though you are missing the point. When you use already tested and proven techniques all you are doing is confirming it works.

Moving to get past the bladed guard of a determined attacker to take them down and then beat them until you can take the knife is actually counter to what has been tested and proven to work not just via centuries of "martial arts" but centuries of full on warfare. Even today it's what is taught to Military forces.

If you are going to claim you have disproved what centuries has said is virtually necessary it takes more than a single incident.

No i have said my method is proven by the same standards of proof.

And wrestling is older. And more battlefieldy.

 

[Juany118]

I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.

We had that, regrettably, more than a few times over a period of time when we had a major issue with people smoking wet. Now they are all doing heroin so they are unconscious when we show up.

 

[drop bear]

I have had to tackle the naked guy. More than once. I think I may have PTSD from it.

By the way. I do like how that guy was about to get shot.

 

[Juany118]

No i have said my method is proven by the same standards of proof.

And wrestling is older. And more battlefieldy.

If you can show me a system, history, etc that says it is a proven and accepted method to disarm a blade wielding opponent by getting past the blade, taking them down and beating it from them THEN your single incident confirms something proven. A single incident however proves nothing empirical however on its own, that is one of the key portions of the scientific method.

The thing is you won't. There is a reason that grappling arts, whether historic Pankration, Jujutsu, HEMA grappling etc had specific methods for dealing with a blade. It's because they are needed. You are right, wrestling is older BUT wrestling evolved into these other arts because people began to realize "hey if they have a weapon and I don't have one, I need a way to deal with that first otherwise I am probably going to end up on the short end of it."

Let's look at it another way. First let's say all I did was study Wing Chun, and thus had no bonafide ground game. However I got out of a ground game simply by striking my way out of it (which I have seen people do). If I used your logic I would be able to say that I don't need to study arts with ground fighting to deal with a BJJ guy or wrestler because my one incident proved it was unnecessary. You upon reading that would call BS, and rightly so imo. The same logic applies here.

 

[drop bear]

If you can show me a system, history, etc that says it is a proven and accepted method to disarm a blade wielding opponent by getting past the blade, taking them down and beating it from them THEN your single incident confirms something proven. A single incident however proves nothing empirical however on its own, that is one of the key portions of the scientific method.

Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.

Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.

Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.

Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing

 

[Ironbear24]

But i didn't get stabbed. So it is a proven method.

Whole self defense systems are built on this idea.

No they aren't. You are once again being obtuse. They are built on effectiveness. Dead men do not live to spread technique.

 

[drop bear]

No they aren't. You are once again being obtuse. They are built on effectiveness. Dead men do not live to spread technique.

And how is this effectivness proven?

 

[Ironbear24]

Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.

Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.

Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.

Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing

Judo's has blade disarms. You don't simply grab them and hit them until they 'give up" the knife in Judo.

 

[Juany118]

Kidding right. That is basically the accepted method now.

Anyway you would be amazed at how many wwe sites I just has to wade through.

Lets not forget that wrestling and all its cultural variants. Judo and other throw heavy martial arts have been used historically in battle. Getting past the blade taking them down and beating a guy is possibly the most proven method.

Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing

First I agree that grappling arts are used heavily in warfare. Where you thought I didn't is beyond me. I kept mentioning Jujutsu and specifically mentioned HEMA grappling already. I am talking technique as you described it. As an example Judo is actually born of Jujutsu (created by Kanō Jigorō) and retains techniques that can be used to address the knife. You do indeed use grappling to address the knife but the accepted method isn't to try and get inside the guys guard, take him down and beat him. It can involve taking him down but it involves doing so by taking control of the limb controlling the knife and you don't start beating him until you have stripped him of the weapon. This includes the training in the most modern combative systems such as Krav Maga, MCMAP, SOCP etc, not just older arts like Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, HEMA and FMA (which has a lot of grappling, especially in terms of disarming techniques),etc.

I actually mentioned HEMA grappling earlier, because while I don't technically study it I regularly discuss and am going to start sparring with a friend of mine who does compete in HEMA with the Longpoint. We think it will be interesting to see how HEMA and FMA mesh on the floor. In particular we have spent a lot of time talking about grappling and disarms and while specific techniques are different the concept, control the limb controlling the weapon and strip, is the same. This became a specific point of conversation because when we started talking about it neither of us were aware how much grappling was involved in the other's system.

Now maybe you meant this (control then strip), but the way you described it makes it sound like you are trying to get inside his guard, without controlling the weapon limb, taking him down and beating him, again without controlling the weapon limb. If my read was accurate then that is simply a bad idea all around and all the other systems seem to agree, including the Gracies.

If I didn't read correctly please explain the technique you used to take the subject down and why you think it's a good idea to not strip the knife and just beat him?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ironbear24]

First I agree that grappling arts are used heavily in warfare. Where you thought I didn't is beyond me. I kept mentioning Jujutsu and specifically mentioned HEMA grappling already. I am talking technique as you described it. As an example Judo is actually born of Jujutsu (created by Kanō Jigorō) and retains techniques that can be used to address the knife. You do indeed use grappling to address the knife but the accepted method isn't to try and get inside the guys guard, take him down and beat him. It can involve taking him down but it involves doing so by taking control of the limb controlling the knife and you don't start beating him until you have stripped him of the weapon. This includes the training in the most modern combative systems such as Krav Maga, MCMAP, SOCP etc, not just older arts like Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, HEMA and FMA (which has a lot of grappling, especially in terms of disarming techniques),etc.

I actually mentioned HEMA grappling earlier, because while I don't technically study it I regularly discuss and am going to start sparring with a friend of mine who does compete in HEMA with the Longpoint. We think it will be interesting to see how HEMA and FMA mesh on the floor. In particular we have spent a lot of time talking about grappling and disarms and while specific techniques are different the concept, control the limb controlling the weapon and strip, is the same. This became a specific point of conversation because when we started talking about it neither of us were aware how much grappling was involved in the other's system.

Now maybe you meant this (control then strip), but the way you described it makes it sound like you are trying to get inside his guard, without controlling the weapon limb, taking him down and beating him, again without controlling the weapon limb. If my read was accurate then that is simply a bad idea all around and all the other systems seem to agree, including the Gracies.

If I didn't read correctly please explain the technique you used to take the subject down and why you think it's a good idea to not strip the knife and just beat him?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

And that is one of the many excellent ways to disarm a knife. Thanks for posting that vid.

 

[Juany118]

And that is one of the many excellent ways to disarm a knife. Thanks for posting that vid.

No worries. One of the techniques we use in Kali involves a bit more control to the wrist but also invloves bring the opponent's arm behind. The reason for the extra wrist control is because you actually try to use the body of the opponent to strip the knife as you move the arm behind. If they get cut or stabbed by their own knife it's all good because they are the one who initiated a deadly force encounter but even a blunt aluminum trainer can hurt if you get stabbed with it so we try to make sure the flat of the blade gets pushed against their body.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ironbear24]

No worries. One of the techniques we use in Kali involves a bit more control to the wrist but also invloves bring the opponent's arm behind. The reason for the extra wrist control is because you actually try to use the body of the opponent to strip the knife as you move the arm behind. If they get cut or stabbed by their own knife it's all good because they are the one who initiated a deadly force encounter but even a blunt aluminum trainer can hurt if you get stabbed with it so we try to make sure the flat of the blade gets pushed against their body.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I do more stuff like this, lots of wrist and armlocks into takedowns.