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

[Juany118]

I'll point this out again, because you seem to be getting very frustrated. Drop Bear is arguing the same position that has been argued by "self defense" proponents around here for years. It's been very interesting to watch.

So, if you're seeing changes in Drop Bear's position, I'm not surprised. He's specifically and intentionally (I believe) demonstrating how specious the arguments against MMA for self defense are by applying them in the other direction.

You guys, conversely, are making the same arguments I've made for years about other kinds of "self defense" training. While it's nice to see you all supporting what, in my opinion, makes the most sense, it's getting hard to watch.

And I know that instead of considering my post, you will tell me that this is different. But, if you think that, you're not far enough back to see that it is not.

Well here is the weird thing. I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses. MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword? The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.

From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.

Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible. At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument. That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.

 

[Juany118]

To further expand on the above, I remembered reading the below and this is how I look at Martial Arts....

. If there is one takeaway here it is this: no one martial art is perfect, but being proficient at any one of them will make you magnitudes more prepared should you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to fight for your life. Another important thing to notice is that where one martial art lacks a little, another may excel, meaning that training in combinations such as Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Boxing and Kali can make you a far more well-rounded fighter.

MMA is a well rounded art, but even a well rounded art will be imperfect somehow.

 

[Balrog]

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.

Now that I have to disagree with. If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.

 

[Steve]

Well here is the weird thing. I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses. MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword? The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.

From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.

Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible. At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument. That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.

Maybe it's not specific to you, but you've just happened to pick up the torch where it had fallen. The piece you're missing, I think, is to believe that the larger conversation going on is specific to you, where I believe that it is not. Think about this last several pages of interaction not as a conversation between you and Drop Bear (and GPSeymour), but more as a larger conversation about how all of these positions are created, what presumptions are being made as a group and the dynamics of these threads as people (in this case you, but if not, it would be someone else) take predictable positions and make predictable arguments for or against.

 

[Steve]

Now that I have to disagree with. If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.

That's true. But that's focusing once again on the sales side of the house. I could have a system that will truly work for anyone who trains consistently. I could make a self defense machine out of fat people or skinny, old or young, disabled, smart, not so smart, or even clumsy. However, if I am so poor a businessman that I cannot sell my system, it benefits no one.

But that is independent of whether it works or not. Faith alone is not a reliable measure for whether a system is worth beans.

 

[Juany118]

Now that I have to disagree with. If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.

I see the point @Steve is making. If isolated in a school, and if you don't have a lot of experience with other schools, styles or actually fighting, a decent, supportive teacher can give you a lot of confidence in what you are learning but that confidence only matters if what you are learning works practically. As an example a few years ago my Guro/Sifu was asked by a friend who was the head of a nearby TKD school to come with some students for the Black belts to spar with. He wanted them exposed to sparring against another style, in this case Wing Chun (WC). Clearly being there long enough to be Black Belts and having participated in tournaments and stuff these were confident guys. Thing is what happened that night is what happens when my Brother-in-Law who is a 3rd Dan and I first started sparring. Why I am mentioning my Brother-in-Law will come in later.

The TKD guys were so used to just sparring and competing against other TKD guys that they simply weren't prepared for someone to almost instantly want to get A) within trapping range (basically elbow range) and B) for the majority of the blows to be fast straight punches or fast low kicks. Now they didn't actually punch, they turned palm strikes essentially into slaps since it was a "friendly" but, yeah, the results weren't pretty for the TKD guys. A couple days later my Guro/Sifu called his friend back and asked "when can we do that again, my guys had fun." He was told it likely wouldn't happen again because the TKD guys didn't have fun.

I mentioned my Brother-in-Law for a specific reason. Since we have been sparring we are now almost on equal footing. I'll be honest and say he is better and more experienced at TKD (he is actually preparing for his next "promotion") than I am at WC and Kali so if we keep sparring he will likely start being the winner more often than I (unless I cheat and bring one of my training weapons ) The problem wasn't his confidence, he is one of the most all around confident guys I have ever met in my life, it wasn't TKD either. The problem was caused by a few things but here were the two biggies.
----First, he never sparred with people other than other TKD Folks and so he needed to adjust to a different mind set coming at him. The idea of me moving rapidly in and to his flank, close enough to be trapping his arm(s) at the elbow to open for a strike or take-down was alien to him. I had explained it to him in theory before but in practice he was VERY uncomfortable and that made him slow at first.
----Second the sparring at his school was always points sparring based on hits. In our early sparring matches I would purposefully go for takedowns whenever possible because I knew he would not be prepared for it.

Those two things would also be a major factor in a self defense situation which, imo, confidence can't get you through, only training for it will.

 

[Juany118]

Maybe it's not specific to you, but you've just happened to pick up the torch where it had fallen. The piece you're missing, I think, is to believe that the larger conversation going on is specific to you, where I believe that it is not. Think about this last several pages of interaction not as a conversation between you and Drop Bear (and GPSeymour), but more as a larger conversation about how all of these positions are created, what presumptions are being made as a group and the dynamics of these threads as people (in this case you, but if not, it would be someone else) take predictable positions and make predictable arguments for or against.

Okay I can see that point. I have only been part of these conversations for the last few months and tend to segregate myself, as you have seen, to Chinese, Filipino and Self Defense threads which likely limits my vision even further than simply my time here. It kinda makes me ask though, if there will always be this kind of immediate defensive reaction with no room for a constructive back and forth, due to the large history you note, is it even worth contributing?

It's all something to think about though, thanks for the insight into some of the dynamics at play here.

 

[Steve]

Okay I can see that point. I have only been part of these conversations for the last few months and tend to segregate myself, as you have seen, to Chinese, Filipino and Self Defense threads which likely limits my vision even further than simply my time here. It kinda makes me ask though, if there will always be this kind of immediate defensive reaction with no room for a constructive back and forth, due to the large history you note, is it even worth contributing?

It's all something to think about though, thanks for the insight into some of the dynamics at play here.

LOL. That's a million dollar question. Personally, the thing that I have learned over the years here is that people have predictable and deeply rooted but often unconscious biases, and that it's hard to break out of that.

I also think that, for the most part, everyone mostly agrees, but that where we don't, it's taken very personally.

Anyway, I've kind of started viewing threads on the board in a more meta way, and I think it's helped me better understand some different perspectives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand that you personally would not want to use a technique in competition which leads to immediately breaking your opponent's arm without giving him a chance to tap. However it is perfectly legal to do so in MMA and there are plenty of competitors who are willing to do so.

I am only aware of one occasion where a MMA competitor actually succeeded in doing such a thing with a standing armlock. Shinya Aoki broke Keith Wisniewski's arm with a really nasty Waki Gatame. (About 2 minutes into the video if you want to skip directly to it.) Wisniewski went on to have 16 more fights after that one, so apparently the damage wasn't all that permanent, even though it did end the fight.

Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

They are not training as diligently.

Why do you think that is?

I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.

The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they will, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.

In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.

Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now that I have to disagree with. If you don't feel confident that what you are doing will work, for whatever reason, you won't continue training in it.

I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.

The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they will, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.

In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.

Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.

Urgency often drives action.

 

[Steve]

Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.

But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique. You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence.

Think of it this way. "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root competō.

 

[Steve]

I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.

It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective. I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly. I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable. But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.

I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness. It's a terrific metric for marketability.

 

[Ironbear24]

It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective. I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly. I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable. But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.

I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness. It's a terrific metric for marketability.

Aside from the 5 of us we don't have many students who stick around in the adult course. Once we start hitting hard they leave.

 

[Buka]

Yes, the comment was my view of competition. I am not personally willing to even give someone a concussion for the sake of competition. Just my personal view.

I'm with you all the way, my brother. When I first competed in the early seventies everybody was trying to kill each other, so I did the same, and usually got my head handed to me. Then I got the swing of things and never wanted to actually injure anyone, just beat them. I had a rep as a gentleman who happened to win a lot, and was always proud of that. Same thing with ring fighting, I just wanted to win. I even felt bad if they were cut badly. And I've never tried to intentionally hurt anyone as a cop or a civilian.

But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique. You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence.

Think of it this way. "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root competō.

I love this post. So true. (Love Steve going all Latin, too) .

The best Martial Artists I've ever met were so calm while fighting, so relaxed, it's kind of spooky. Watched Rickson roll with a hundred people in a row over the course of several hours, big people, wrestlers, football players, Judo black belts, street guys, all who were trying to absolutely smoke him, and not being very gentle or polite about it. Although he was drenched in sweat, I don't think his pulse ever went above eighty. He treated them like they were lambs. It was fascinating.

 

[drop bear]

I would say that there actually is a very small percentage of people training for "self-defense" who do train as hard as serious fighters training for competition. You are of course correct that the vast majority do not.

The reason is simple. Fighters training for competition know that they will, at some point in the near future, be in a match against a tough, skilled opponent who is prepared to beat the crap out of them if they aren't better prepared themselves. Often the only a fighter can push himself through the pain and suffering of an intense fight camp is the knowledge of how much pain and suffering they will face in the cage/ring if they don't do so.

In contrast, most people training for self-defense are training for a potential assault that might or might not ever occur, might be years away if it ever does occur, might be against an easy opponent who requires very little preparation, or might occur with such overwhelming force that no amount of preparation would be sufficient.

Given the uncertainties involved it's rare to find a non-competitive fighter who is willing to put him/herself through that level of suffering in preparation for an event that may never happen. There's a reasonable argument that doing so would be a poor investment of the practitioner's available time and energy in life.

Yeah. it is a contradiction that is all. This build up of this idea of training for a life or death conflict.

And the actual training that goes towards it.

Those guys who do self defence with the seriousness would probably do allright in the ring. I mean you put a bare knuckle gypsy boxer in MMA. He at least probably wouldn't get outstruck.

The skills transfer.

 

[Juany118]

I think he was arguing that one can feel good about their training without it being effective for combat use. It's a valid point, and not fully the opposite of yours - more a point of clarification, IMO. If you are looking for combat effectiveness and you are certain you haven't found it, you won't feel good about your training. Feeling good isn't a complete protection against being in an ineffective (for combat) art, but it's one valid point of measure.

I never thought of it before but I think you hit it well. If you are learning anything difficult for a practical purpose the "good" feeling about your training comes with hindsight. During the initial training it can be both mentally and physically exhausting. You get an endorphin rush that briefly gives you a feel good but after the crash you sometimes think "oh crap I will have to do that again and again."

Then that day comes when the training is used for real, doesn't matter if it is Martial Arts or those incredibly long nights studying till you pass out in Medical School (that is from my cousin and her experience.) You either save your own butt on the street, the patient in the ER and then, in hind sight, you actually appreciate the "hard" bits and are thankful for them because its not about the skill really, it's about the toughness to use those skills under major pressure.

 

[drop bear]

Well here is the weird thing. I don't say MMA is bad for self-defense, I just say like all martial arts it has some weaknesses. MMA's is largely focused on the lack of training regarding weapons due to the lack of weapons in the competition, no different than the Wing Chun I study having no ground game, or how my Kali training could be more efficient (and thus faster) if they eliminated training in things like sword, staff and double stick because how often am I going to avail myself of a sword? The longer it takes to effectively use a martial art in self defense, imo, is a weakness in and of itself, along with the fact the unarmed training is almost singularly focused on dealing with a single opponent.

From all the stuff I have seen Drop post it seems more that he thinks that MMA is the BEST art for self defense and if he acknowledges even this one weakness, that belief is under threat.

Now maybe because I have not seen the years of conflict that you have so I am seeing things in a different context, I wouldn't say that is impossible. At the same time though, I have always been the guy to say that if I want to make an argument it needs to be logically consistent, otherwise I feel like I am metaphorically cutting my own throat and so undermines my argument. That I wouldn't mind so much though, if someone else wants to do it cool, I will admit however I got my back up just a tad when I was called a liar and further accusations after that tend to keep my back up. /Shrug.

The logic is bad.

A martial arts effectiveness has nothing to do with its military background. Krav from the IDF. can be functionally terrible.

You have one piece of evidence of this hundreds of years of effectiveness which is in reality about as legitimate as my one knife defence example. Or your one downward elbows example you used and defended to death. But then discounted when I did it.

And both get used to so commonly defend a system.

If you were trained by a guy who had been in knife fights then yeah. But otherwise there is just too much distance and ambiguity.

Otherewise. You just decided to start adding knives. But I can't add two or a hundred knives. You say you have unarmed defence against knives. And show no better success than any other method.

You say philipino systems were used in war. I say wrestling was used in war.

I say MMA has the sort of arm control you are looking to use for knife. You say it is not really arm control.

You have one method of dealing with a knife. And you can't have one method.

 

[drop bear]

You are still referring to grabbing the arm, as if we just try to magically pluck it out if the air. If that's what you think those techniques are about, then I can see why you don't like them.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

That is every knife defence I have ever done. He stabs you block the arm catch it attack the arm. attack the person somehow not die.

Akido is a perfect example because they do knife defence in competition.

And how does that work out?