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

[Hanzou]

And there are cases in which mma fighters have gone into the encounter and lost but your example and mine do not prove mma case either way as it is up to the individual however because MMA doesn't prepare against someone to deal with guns and knifes tie goes to the runner me

I would argue that no martial art prepares you to deal with guns and knives.

Unarmed opponents on the other hand.......

As for your takedown let me put it this way and this is coming from someone who fought in those friendly gang fights you never know what the other guy has and you never know how far he will go and a word about knives you learn about in prison the best knife attacks are the ones never seen so when you go to fight a guy you assume is empty handed side way stance and as you prepare to strike maybe go for a shoot that is when that knife does attack and that is what the UFC does not prepare you for.

And what traditional martial arts would you recommend that would appropriately combat that situation?

As for the jujutsu judo thread Ellis who is actually well known on classical koryu stuff states
Jonathan Zwicker, who has scoured newspapers and other 19th century documents, trying to find some reference to these famous matches.
Means there are people trying to find proof of the match.
Murata Naoki, the Kodokan's chief archivist, was interviewed about this earlier this year in a newspaper and said: "historical material is scarce and unknowns are many. So dreams and legends have spread."
So there is the Kodokan themselves saying there is not enough material proof of it. There if you read shows inconsistency in Kano's story and other stories Remember the Japanese are very good record keepers and this would have been most likely well recorded but as Ellis and others have pointed out there have been more hype on the match(if one took place)
Also have you read, the a lot of ideas Kano used were already in place in other koryu arts so the myth that Kano created randori does not exist and I have cited the sources that say so.

Uh, the Kodokan never said that. What he said was that the historical material is scarce and not all the information is known. That's a pretty far cry from saying that something NEVER happened, which appears to be the conclusion of the sour grapes over at e-budo. And yeah, the Japanese are great record keepers, but many records were also destroyed during the second World War where we firebombed and nuked Japan from one end of the country to another.

Again, simply look at the effects of the Jujutsu world before Kano and after Kano. You're talking about a major realignment of classical Japanese martial arts with Kano and the Kodokan at the center. If Kano and his students didn't show superiority over the classical systems, I would love to hear your alternative theory on how that realignment occurred.

 

[Juany118]

Why do you need a "better" test? No test of martial arts' street effectiveness will ever be complete if you include the concept of avoiding violence when you can. MMA is a good test, and incomplete in its own way.

I think this is a good example. That said I would say MMA, Lei Tai, Dog Brother's Gatherings, basically all full contact competitions are good testing but they all lack things. None of them have you training to avoid, sometimes Dog Brother's stuff will be outside so you get some environmental impact but it's not like dealing with the environment in a bar or an alley way etc.

To be genuinely better than any of the above you would have to do something like LOCKUP does with their instructor training. They will actually make you run, jump obstacles, fight on uneven and muddy terrain etc. However that is not cheap and it is LEO/Corrections only if I am not mistaken, forget about the fact it is also instructor only.

 

[Hanzou]

And again, you've proven your incorrect in your question. You require an unarmed participant.

Because there's no way to test if one or both people are dead or maimed.

You require a one-on-one.

If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.

You require an artificial environment.

For safety and legal purposes.

Which means your attempting to justify or compare one to another with no common basis, methodology or goal. Apples and golf balls.

We're simply creating a fair testing environment. If your martial art has an unarmed component that's supposed to be functional, what's the problem with it being utilized in that environment? If it fails in a controlled environment, why would it succeed in an uncontrolled environment?

Then I grab and twist the groin or I bite off and ear or nose or finger or I put a thumb in the eye or I pull my edged weapon (which I always have in a position for just such a need) or I draw my firearm and shoot him in the head or neck or whatever is available...multiple times.

Grabbing and twisting the groin, or going for biting ears, noses, and fingers while someone is on top raining blows down on your face?

Interesting......

 

[jks9199]

There are 6 pages for me to catch up on and I'm only up to page 2 or 3, so I may well repeat stuff that's been covered.

The question asked is really how do you test your training? I'd suggest rethinking that, and asking what aspect of your training do you want to test? If you're testing a car, you don't test the tires and the seats the same way, do you? Do you test a hammer and a screwdriver by the same standards? Of course not, and you don't test all aspects of your training with just one exercise.

MMA style sparring tests certain things -- like your ability to function while getting pounded, to actually deliver effective strikes to an opponent who isn't cooperating, and just plain how well you can hang in there. All good things to test, and assess. As one of my style's manuals puts it: Sparring is one way to test the learned techniques against an actual opponent. But there are still other things to assess in measuring whether your training is effective.

But it doesn't test some things, like knowing when to quit, whether to escape rather than fight, de-escalation techniques.... Scenario training lets you test some of those elements, if done well. With the right gear, you can go pretty close to full force even. But it's still a "laboratory" -- do the right thing, the role player gives the right response. So it's got (at least) a flaw, too.

Slow motion "One Step" drills allow you to move to targets that are hard to protect,with little risk of injury. They let you stop, back up, and reassess or try something different, too. But you're moving slow so there's no real impact or injury likely... (oopses do happen, people land badly, etc.)... and it's artificially slow.

So... rather than ask "is X a good test", ask yourself instead "what does X test --and does that test benefit my training?"

 

[Steve]

[/QUOTE]
Actually Steve having someone with a plastic knife try to cut me is as close to my real encounters with people with knives try to kill me so I can say if my training does not match anything from prison. gang fights, criminals, and finally what police have experienced as well then ya its not real. And again talking to you is like a war vet and a high school foot ball player comparing war and football. There is a lot of police foot ball leagues too doesn't mean it helps them prepare more for dealing with a knife attack from a guy on pcp[/QUOTE]
Wait. So, you're really saying that the defensive tactics instructors who train in mma are not learning anything useful when they do so? That's like playing football to them? Dude, you're heading over the edge.

 

[Steve]

Well, in regards to your question;



Then the answer is yes. Now, we don't get stupid with it. No one wants to be injured. But with some basic safety gear one can take a groin strike, bite, 'gouge' or weapon attack (safety weapon).

And this is the premise of why the OP question is not really applicable. MMA doesn't need defense inside of an elevator, on stairs or in a car. It doesn't need weapons (improvised or conventional). And SD MA doesn't need submission holds to make someone tap.

That's a fun exercise and seems like it could be very helpful. But those safety precautions sound a lot like rules to me. It's like competition, but without the points.

But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario. Regarding the premise of the OP, isn't it about what other tests are a better measure for martial arts. So, I think there's some room to interpret in a convenient manner, such as you're doing.

 

[drop bear]

Why can't you? Sure, you can't gouge out the eyes of your classmates, but there are many types of safety gear in use that allows for many such techniques. Gouging the eyes by-the-way is more about commitment than mastering. It is the ability to get into a position to do so and then committing to the act rather than the act itself.

This. Is the argument that negates most of your other arguments.

This is why effective training has rules a ref and a safeish environment.

 

[drop bear]

I think this is a good example. That said I would say MMA, Lei Tai, Dog Brother's Gatherings, basically all full contact competitions are good testing but they all lack things. None of them have you training to avoid, sometimes Dog Brother's stuff will be outside so you get some environmental impact but it's not like dealing with the environment in a bar or an alley way etc.

To be genuinely better than any of the above you would have to do something like LOCKUP does with their instructor training. They will actually make you run, jump obstacles, fight on uneven and muddy terrain etc. However that is not cheap and it is LEO/Corrections only if I am not mistaken, forget about the fact it is also instructor only.

Why is uneven ground obstacles and mud so expensive or exclusive?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's a fun exercise and seems like it could be very helpful. But those safety precautions sound a lot like rules to me. It's like competition, but without the points.

But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario. Regarding the premise of the OP, isn't it about what other tests are a better measure for martial arts. So, I think there's some room to interpret in a convenient manner, such as you're doing.

The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.

This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.

 

[Ironbear24]

The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.

This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.

I agree with you here, I myself find myself doing lots of fancy stuff and acting cocky when I spar against less experienced people. When it comes to more experienced people however all of the sudden the confidence goes way down. Certain things you can get away with while others will be more difficult.

That aside confidence I feel is very important in both self defense and competition and the only way to built any confidence is resistance training.

 

[drop bear]

The idea, to me at least, is to have multiple tests. The ones where you are in a competition setting going one-on-one with another person is important...it gives you an opportunity to practice what you're learning on an opponent actively resisting as much as possible. But scenario training is also important. It gives you the opportunity to take what you've learned through training and competition, and seeing which aspects of it apply to different scenarios so that hopefully if you are in those scenarios, they are the techniques that come most readily.

This is focusing purely on the fighting aspect obviously, rather than awareness/talking down, but as they are two entirely different aspects to it, there's no point in even comparing it.

Scenarios in theory are good. But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.

I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.

 

[Hanzou]

Scenarios in theory are good. But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.

I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.

Stuff like this immediately comes to mind;

 

[Kickboxer101]

Stuff like this immediately comes to mind;

Read the title. DEMO. Meaning that's not how they actually train it's a way to get people interested. People want to see cool looking throws and kicks and punches. If you put 2 guys on the floor and had them grapple for a few minutes for a demo it'd bore the hell out of anyone who doesn't know what they're looking at and would be very unlikely to get ah new students

 

[BigMotor]

It still asstounds me that nobody even attempts to answer the question.
I was expecting all sorts of cool ideas. I dont know. Mc Map style gauntlets. Chess boxing mabye.Animal day perhaps.

I will answer it directly, the best method to determine what is the best fighting style is to have an open match.
If you can put one together, or if you know someone who can, then do that. The rules should be very strict, such as: no breaking of the neck, no breaking of the knee, or elbow, in sum, no permanent damage or deadly moves.are allowed.
That will restrain any fools from signing up, or anyone without a conscience. Let it be known that any criminal acts will be dealt with, on the spot if needed, and in court as well.

You could begin an open competition with a yearly championship. Does that sound like what you may be interested in? And you would be in charge of the rule writing and the matches.
Make it contractual, have them sign a contract, and give references too,ie, have someone vouch for the fighter

You would answer any questions that you have, I can assure you of that.

 

[Langenschwert]

I don't think there's a "better" test. It's one of many. One should train in a resistant manner if you want to be able to deal with a chaotic situation like a fight. If you're doing Iaido, then this is all moot. If you're doing unarmed, MMA-style training is a great way to do this. How this is even a question is beyond me. My swordsmanship skill improved vastly when I devoted time to fighting in HEMA tournaments. It's as close as we can get to a real duel, so we train for it as a way to measure our progress. It's not a real duel though, and we recognize that. It tests range, timing and the use of techniques under pressure. It doesn't test adrenaline under lethal threat, how sharp blades behave, how one fights after being injured by a blade, etc. But it is very useful nonetheless.

If there are things you want to test, find something that tests that particular skill or group of skills. This isn't rocket science.

MMA teaches you to use a set of unarmed techniques against a resisting opponent within limited area to move in. That in itself makes it worth doing. Just learning what do to when you're pinned to a wall is useful, and getting yourself off the cage mimics that.

Note that I don't do MMA, but I do a fair amount of resistant unarmed training: modern combatives (the foundation of our curriculum is bare knuckle boxing) and Judo.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Fact is like it or not some people don't want to fight. They don't want to spar they don't want to get hit. That's why martial arts is for everyone of any age if it was all about fighting and getting hit only a certain age group would. That's why people do tai chi there's no fighting in that but it's a very popular martial art for that very reason. That's why cardio kickboxing classes are popular. Fact is you do what you like and everyone will do what they like and if people don't want to train hard its their choice and they don't need to justify themselves to anyone

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.

One training that I like very much is to ask your opponent to hold on a kicking shield and run toward you with full speed. You then try to use just 1 kick to stop him. If your kick can push him back, you win that round, otherwise you lose that round. Test this for 100 rounds and record the result. It's a very safe training. People from all MA styles should be able to do it.

If you have soft mat and your training partner knows how to fall, you can try "foot sweep" when he charges in toward you. Still test this for 100 rounds and record the result.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.

How would you know if you only train in an artificial environment?

Grabbing and twisting the groin, or going for biting ears, noses, and fingers while someone is on top raining blows down on your face?

Interesting......

More than interesting, it's effective. Better than trying some competition-focused technique that takes time and your attention on the one or two other threats in the vicinity. Besides, you're making quite the broad sweeping assumption that he'll be 'raining blows down on your face'. Perhaps with your training. Not the way I train. Likely he'll be too busy bleeding from the artery I cut or the multiple gun shots I put in him or trying to recover from his nose being bitten off to worry about 'raining blows down'. That's because I can do things in my training that you aren't allowed to do in yours.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

But that's really only training for one exceedingly unlikely scenario.

What happens more often; someone throws you on a soft, padded, dry, level surface in a well lit spot with a referee that enforces arbitrary rules or someone trying to rob, murder, rape someone in a parking lot?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Scenarios in theory are good.

No, scenarios in reality are good.

But can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. Which then becomes an issue.

Um, what issue does it become? That very statement demonstrates you don't have clue as to what reality based training is all about. You WANT to manipulate a situation for a desired result. Is it a shoot/don't shoot situation? Is it a situation that can be verbally de-escalated? Are there improved weapons available? By manipulating a scenario, one can achieve a multitude of realistic outcomes.

I don't think i have ever seen a video of good scenario training.

I think you spend too much time on youtube. You don't understand reality based training so you wouldn't know a good one from a bad one. You have no point of reference.