Sport Fighter

[Deleted member 34973]

The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat.



Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training

Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.

But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.

Soldiers also train in a Martial Art of some sort. Surely that wouldn't make all martial artist, soldier's.

But I am sure that is not where you are going with this information.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

@TonyDismukes for some reason my response didn't attach. But, in short...

There is no other argument, I am trying to understand the difference in perception of reality, from one sport, over another.

And your comment about the fighters, I understand and agree with. But a logical conclusion was not an immediate desire.

Just wanting to understand the various individual definitions.

 

[jobo]

Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.

But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.

Soldiers also train in a Martial Art of some sort. Surely that wouldn't make all martial artist, soldier's.

But I am sure that is not where you are going with this information.

what's your definition of a soldier?

in a many countries it's any one with a ak47 they are blasting indesciminently in the aproxamete direction of some enemy soldiers who are similarly randomly returning fire.

in such countries any ma could be a soldier as could any 12 year old, if you give them an ak47 and point out the direction of the enemy

 

[Mitlov]

I get you, but wouldn't the concept of sparring and not sparring, be included with that statement and if not, what is the distinction?

Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.

But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.

Soldiers also train in a Martial Art of some sort. Surely that wouldn't make all martial artist, soldier's.

But I am sure that is not where you are going with this information.

At this point, I'm not tracking what you're trying to say.

I've trained in "traditional karate" and dabbled in other martial arts where there's no structured competition (from taiji to Krav). I've also trained in martial arts with a substantial sport component (taekwondo, tang soo do). I'm also a civilian who works closely with law enforcement and I'm aware how BOTH of these hobbies deviate from actual life-and-death real life confrontations.

I have no problem with a "traditional karate" talking about sport fighters in a non-judgmental, factual distinction, like when I explain that I'm Oregonian, not Canadian.

It's patronizing and inaccurate when a "traditional karate" person tells me that they're learning "real combat" and I'm not because of how they visualize things when they do Bassai, and all I'm doing is getting punched in the face every time I practice. Both types of karate are different than fighting with a felon in an alleyway, and in my experience, traditional karate isn't any closer to what LEOs do on the street than sport karate is, although certain practitioners like to argue at length that it is.

What part of that do you disagree with?

 

[skribs]

To me, a "sport fighter" is a guy who doesn't worry about

- take down in the striking game (for example, use very narrow stance).
- striking in the wrestling game (for example, extend head in front of hands).

The sport rule set can help someone to develop bad habit.

So that takes out Muay Thai and MMA from the "sport" category.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not a good analogy. I wouldn't call paintballers "real soldiers" or "combat veterans", but I wouldn't call non-competitive historical-recreation hobbyists "real soldiers" or "combat veterans" either.

What's annoying is when the historical-recreation hobbyist turns to the paintball hobbyist and says, "your hobby isn't real life-and-death combat," like somehow theirs is closer to it.

Hey, those paintballs can STING!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To me, a "sport fighter" is a guy who doesn't worry about

- take down in the striking game (for example, use very narrow stance).
- striking in the wrestling game (for example, extend head in front of hands).

The sport rule set can help someone to develop bad habit.

I take your point, and I agree that there are some habits that can develop from ignoring things outside the competition rules. But it's only a bad habit outside that competition. If they are really a sport fighter, then they aren't really worrying about outside that context.

In my experience, those habits are fairly easy to offset. Give me a good sport-focused Judo player (what my Judo instructor called us), and they won't need a lot of work to add some reasonable defense against striking. If they're really good at their sport Judo, some of what they're doing already makes it dangerous to try to punch them. Same goes in the other direction for a boxer. A good tool set can be adapted.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So that takes out Muay Thai and MMA from the "sport" category.

This guy is a "sport fighter".

 

[skribs]

This guy is a "sport fighter".

So?

 

[Martial D]

A sport fighter..hmm

Someone that participates in some form of organized match or matches. Perhaps those that train exclusively to one ruleset but haven't fought yet.

It doesn't really matter what the style is.

It seems to me that only styles that teach useful skills have sport versions, otherwise the competitors would have nothing to compete with. I'm wary of styles that do not have competitive versions.

But here's the thing. All of those styles that have competition also have situational 'sd' stuff too, same as the ones that don't compete...they are just able to test it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat.



Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training

To my mind, paintball is like sparring. With the right rules, and against people who know what they're doing, it is a decent way to safely practice with resistance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In my experience, those habits are fairly easy to offset.

Some technique may give you a winning on the mat, but may get yourself killed in the street.

In SC, if you are on top when both fall, you win that round. This throw will give your opponent a chance to choke you to death. If you keep training this throw without worrying about the choking, there is something wrong in your sport training.

 

[skribs]

But here's the thing. All of those styles that have competition also have situational 'sd' stuff too, same as the ones that don't compete...they are just able to test it.

I was thinking about this today. I was thinking about some of the submissions we use in Hapkido. For example, the arm bar we typically use is where our opponent is on their back, we put our foot under their shoulder and pull their arm straight against our knee. Compare this with the sitting arm bar done in BJJ or Judo, where you are on the ground, pinning your opponent with your legs, while you pull the arm back against your hips.

The biggest difference in the BJJ method is the amount of control you have. You have a lot more control over your opponent, they have less movement options, and are basically trapped while you can set the armbar at the point where they tap.

The Hapkido position still has some control (especially over a layman), but you don't have as much control as the sitting position. If I were to do a standing armbar against a completely resisting opponent, at a safe speed which allows him to tap, there's going to be an opening he can take. If I go at full speed, the arm will break before he can tap.

To be clear - I'm not saying if I were to try this in MMA, that I would break everyone's arm. However, if I were to do this move in MMA, one of two things would happen:

• I set it and hope they tap, but 50/50 they can escape
• I apply it in such a way that they can't tap before I destroy their elbow

It would be possible for me to test this against someone in sparring, but not in a match.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some technique may give you a winning on the mat, but may get yourself killed in the street.

In SC, if you are on top when both fall, you win that round. This throw will give your opponent a chance to choke you to death. If you keep training this throw without worrying about the choking, there is something wrong in your sport training.

Agreed (assuming by "something wrong", you mean something not good for fighting outside SC). And it wouldn't be hard to fix that habit. A bit of training time with a BJJ or Judo person (or anyone who's adept at chokes and strangles) would probably suffice.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So?

To be able to move like that on the ground will not help you in real combat.

Sport is the path. Combat is the goal. IMO, the path should not conflict with the goal,

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Agreed (assuming by "something wrong", you mean something not good for fighting outside SC). And it wouldn't be hard to fix that habit. A bit of training time with a BJJ or Judo person (or anyone who's adept at chokes and strangles) would probably suffice.

The first time when I wrapped my right arm around my opponent's waist and intended to execute a hip throw, my opponent's left hand punched on my head. Since that day, I truly understood the difference between sport and combat. To disable my opponent's arms and legs is my highest priority.

 

[Martial D]

I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.

 

[skribs]

To be able to move like that on the ground will not help you in real combat.

Sport is the path. Combat is the goal. IMO, the path should not conflict with the goal,

So you would use the term "sport fighter" as an insult.

I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.

Actually, the technique doesn't work at half speed is my point.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

One nice thing about the "sport training" is to collect useful data.

For example, I let you to throw punches at me for 5 minutes. I then try to block all your punches. Whether you can hit me on your 1st punch, 2nd punch, …, nth punch, it means how good or how bad that my defense is.

The data will never lie.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.

In many cases, they are simply extensions of techniques that are tested in sport. We know the workings of arm bars, because there are several variations that get used regularly in sport. We can use those to figure out what makes them work, including what makes them work slow. We even have evidence from sport of what happens if you go too fast, or the person tries to escape hard at the wrong moment. Submissions are typically (I can't think of an exception, but I feel like there are some) completed at a low speed, to give time to tap out.

The issue with some techniques is that they actually don't work slow, if the other person resists. Standing arm bars are a good example of this - they lack a base to prevent escape. That makes them more likely to be escaped at any speed (so you need a "what's next", as you have for many techniques), but really useless as a submission, so not useful for sport.