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

[BigMotor]

Where Is Delete?

 

[BigMotor]

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

OK, that is true, but you have a tone of sanctimony in your post. And they don't need to justify themselves to me.
But it is not your job to say it for them, let them speak for themselves, if they can. Because I suspect that a lot of them are spineless.
Note: If you question my hard tone, I have my reasons. And I will gladly communicate them in PM's. to anyone.

 

[Steve]

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?

I think it's a toss up, frankly. Kind of a silly question, isn't it? I mean, at some point, if you're distinguishing between two things that are exceedingly unlikely, the real question is, does it matter?

 

[Kickboxer101]

OK, that is true, but you have a tone of sanctimony in your post. And they don't need to justify themselves to me.
But it is not your job to say it for them, let them speak for themselves, if they can. Because I suspect that a lot of them are spineless.
Note: If you question my hard tone, I have my reasons. And I will gladly communicate them in PM's. to anyone.

I'm simply saying people will do whatever they want to do whether or not its good in the eyes of the op

 

[KangTsai]

I think it's the best concept for a martial test: A fight between two fighters of similar skills, with rules designed to let the fighters live to fight again, mostly.

 

[Juany118]

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

On the "why only LEO", in the US there is a growing industry of "LE only" Combative training. I think there are a few reasons. First, especially with "train the trainer" courses, there is an assumption the people sent have been vetted by their agencies and so the chances of dead weight or the "tough guy" or wants to prove how tough they are has been weeded out. They teach things related to weapon retention and other LE specific concerns and there may be a fear, real or imagined, that people would apply for the training with the intent to learn the techniques to defeat the technique. There are actually videos from inside prison showing inmates practicing how to defeat cuffing and weapon retention techniques so this fear is not entirely unfounded. Also saying LEO only gives an air of exclusivity I suppose.

As for the cost, the instructors tend to have rather extensive resumes. Example I would with a guy who has a side job working for one of the main companies that trains SWAT team members, executive protection etc. He can point to being a Marine sent on "interesting" duties, assigned to the White House Protection Detail, SWAT Team member and Gang Investigator for a major California Police Department and now the SWAT Team tactical commander for my PD. That kind of resume commands a good salary, THEN then company itself needs its cut. Many of these companies, so long as the people maintain certification, and show proof they followed the "rules" so to speak, will also supply an expert for court in the event of a law suit.

Also, these trainings often come to you, so if you can't supply an obstacle course, they can bring one with them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Hanzou]

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

Actually that is how they train, considering that they have to create scenarios for their black belt tests.

 

[Juany118]

No, scenarios in reality are good.



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 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.

I think when drop is saying "manipulate the scenario" he means the "planner" manipulating it to get a desired result such as "see my way is best. If you would have done it the other way you would be dead."

Thing is I have never been in that kind of reality based training. Well that isn't actually true. Sometimes to prove a point I have been in scenarios that are all but Kobayashi Maru tests to wake you up and ram a point home so you can focus on the training ahead.

I think part of the problem is this. "Reality based Martial Arts" have become "a thing". The ones marketed to civilians do, imo, raise some concerns similar to what Drop is saying because, being new, and the fact people see them as an alternative to more "formal" training, I can see the people running these programs as allowing marketing to influence the curriculum.

That said, when I speak about reality based training I am talking about adding scenarios to an already existing curriculum. In short they already know X and you are simply putting them in scenarios to put them A) under pressure and B) to let people know what does and doesn't work in particular scenarios.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Hanzou]

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

So you're saying if you beat a guy in the gym, dojo, or a ring you're not actually beating them?

That makes zero sense.

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.

Going for someone's groin from the bottom of mount is pretty damn stupid. Trying to bite someone from the bottom of mount is also pretty damn stupid.

You mean competition focused techniques that have been proven to work when someone is actually punching you in the face?

You do understand that the root of that "competition focused technique" isn't competition right?

Also if you can't get the one guy off of you who is blasting you in the face, it doesn't matter how many people are in the vicinity, you're going to get knocked out or killed by the single guy on top hitting you in the head.

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.

And what if he isn't bleeding from a cut artery or a gunshot wound because you can't reach your gun, or your knife got knocked away? What if he takes your gun away from you and starts pistol whipping you with it while he's on top of you? See how silly this becomes? There's too many variables at play and when you add weapons to the mix anything can happen.

I can assure you that it's next to impossible to bite someone's nose off from the bottom of the mount. I hope you guys figure that out during your scenario training.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Actually that is how they train, considering that they have to create scenarios for their black belt tests.

Yeah okay

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So you're saying if you beat a guy in the gym, dojo, or a ring you're not actually beating them?

That makes zero sense.

That's not what I said, and you don't understand the premise of my position.

Going for someone's groin from the bottom of mount is pretty damn stupid. Trying to bite someone from the bottom of mount is also pretty damn stupid.

Maybe in you're artificial world. In the real world it's been used effectively many times. Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding. That's real world. It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it. I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box. That is pretty damn stupid. You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.

 

[Hanzou]

Yeah okay

 

[Hanzou]

Maybe in you're artificial world. In the real world it's been used effectively many times. Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding. That's real world. It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it. I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box. That is pretty damn stupid. You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.

Alright I'll bite; How exactly would you break the posture of someone on top, and control their head and arms enough to bite their nose from the bottom of mount?

 

[jks9199]

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.

So, of course, it doesn't happen... Except it does, but lots of the scenario training videos simply aren't released to YouTube, etc.

I'll try to dig up my thread later that goes into scenario training in depth -- but a quick summary is that good scenario training is a lot of work. They need to be structured, with an objective or purpose to the exercise. They need to be debriefed and discussed, and repeated if necessary until the goal is successfully achieved, and the failings understood.

Again -- I would ask instead of "Is MMA training a good test of self defense" or "Is scenario a good test of self defense?" instead "Does this training/exercise/test test what I want to test? What is it testing?"

 

[drop bear]

So, of course, it doesn't happen... Except it does, but lots of the scenario training videos simply aren't released to YouTube, etc.

I'll try to dig up my thread later that goes into scenario training in depth -- but a quick summary is that good scenario training is a lot of work. They need to be structured, with an objective or purpose to the exercise. They need to be debriefed and discussed, and repeated if necessary until the goal is successfully achieved, and the failings understood.

Again -- I would ask instead of "Is MMA training a good test of self defense" or "Is scenario a good test of self defense?" instead "Does this training/exercise/test test what I want to test? What is it testing?"

And just because there is no evidence of my lazer eyes being used doesn't mean i am not frying people to a crisp every day either.

I mean come on.

The objective is simple. you pick two win points. say one team has to rob a guy. one team has to prevent it. And then they go head to head and see what happens.

Testing is not defined by a script. that is movies.

 

[drop bear]

double post.

 

[drop bear]

That's not what I said, and you don't understand the premise of my position.



Maybe in you're artificial world. In the real world it's been used effectively many times. Once was an elderly woman that prevented a rapist from succeeding. That's real world. It is quite apparent you aren't familiar with it. I've said this to you in other threads yet you still refuse to see outside your self imposed box. That is pretty damn stupid. You should refrain from speaking on things in which you have no foundational knowledge.

So you have moved off positional dominance protective gear rules. And the ability to do moves like groin grabs. To having to rely on groin grabs. Which nobody trains for real anyway.

 

[drop bear]

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

Thats fine. In general for me I am suggesting objectively better. Some people like pizza but they are not going to loose weight eating it.

So with training I am happy for people to train at any level they want. I dont want people to be sold the idea that any training will achieve the same results.

It is as unfair on that person as selling them a pizza diet.

I dont compete. I dont want to put in the work rate. That is fine. If i did want to compete I would have to change my training habits or I will get bashed. Because there are training methods that consistantly work to keep a person safe in that environment

It would be unfair if I was sold this only train the way I want or I can do what I like and then thrown under a bus when it comes time to use that training.

It is an immoral stance to take when preparing people for a competition. It should be more immoral if you are preparing someone for self defence.

It is about an honest assesment of work put in to result you get out.

 

[drop bear]

On the "why only LEO", in the US there is a growing industry of "LE only" Combative training. I think there are a few reasons. First, especially with "train the trainer" courses, there is an assumption the people sent have been vetted by their agencies and so the chances of dead weight or the "tough guy" or wants to prove how tough they are has been weeded out. They teach things related to weapon retention and other LE specific concerns and there may be a fear, real or imagined, that people would apply for the training with the intent to learn the techniques to defeat the technique. There are actually videos from inside prison showing inmates practicing how to defeat cuffing and weapon retention techniques so this fear is not entirely unfounded. Also saying LEO only gives an air of exclusivity I suppose.

As for the cost, the instructors tend to have rather extensive resumes. Example I would with a guy who has a side job working for one of the main companies that trains SWAT team members, executive protection etc. He can point to being a Marine sent on "interesting" duties, assigned to the White House Protection Detail, SWAT Team member and Gang Investigator for a major California Police Department and now the SWAT Team tactical commander for my PD. That kind of resume commands a good salary, THEN then company itself needs its cut. Many of these companies, so long as the people maintain certification, and show proof they followed the "rules" so to speak, will also supply an expert for court in the event of a law suit.

Also, these trainings often come to you, so if you can't supply an obstacle course, they can bring one with them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

So how much are you paying for this stuff?

 

[drop bear]

No, scenarios in reality are good.

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 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.

So you are creating a script?

You want people to participate in a story of your design that appears to be a test.

You can manipulate any outcome you want. A scenario shouldnt be about that. because stories are not reality.

I understand honest training. And you are not giving a description of that.