Sports relation to Self Defence.

[ralphmcpherson]

I have to agree with stevebjj, that people should 'train how they like'. It is so hard to compare the way it was done hundreds of years ago to now because these days people have a life. I would love to have the time to climb to the top of a hill and live up there training kata all day long and fighting bad guys at night in fights to the death. Unfortunately these days people have jobs, work long hours and have other interests. I, for instance, run a business and its simply not realistic for me to show up to work covered in bruises, scratches and blood. Sure, I could explain to my clients that I was off fighting to the death last night and they'll have to excuse my appearance but I dont think it would go down that well. The bottom line is that some people want to learn some self defence, get fit and get some confidence or whatever else they get out of it, and best of luck to them. And for people who want to do it "the old way" their are clubs that cater for that also, I fail to see the problem. I know some people will say that without the old fashioned training its 'useless', but I think reading many of the stories of everyday people who have used what they've been taught to fend off attackers (thanks bill mattocks), proves that any form of training is an advantage over no training.

 

[Tez3]

I think your first paragraph sums up nicely why people dont train like that today. Also, I train in a tkd club where when we spar my opponents are trying their hardest to knock me out and vice versa. When I was younger i trained in a karate club where people were also trying to knock your head off, so I can assure you its not just MMA where your opponent is trying to knock you out. You really should visit more dojos before insinuating that its only MMA where you spar to knock your opponent out.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm sorry but you have misread me. Karateka trying to knock each others heads off isn't training for self defence! In the street you won't be fighting someone who will give and take the same way as you do in sparring. I heard sparring decribed the other day as a two way conversation which is fine, great fun in fact but if you are attacked outside the dojo it's not a conversation, you should not be giving the other guy a chance to speak even. Sparring is different from fighting and you are getting peevish because you are missing my point.
As to how many dojos and dojangs I've been to....an awful lot actually.

 

[Tez3]

I have to agree with stevebjj, that people should 'train how they like'. It is so hard to compare the way it was done hundreds of years ago to now because these days people have a life. I would love to have the time to climb to the top of a hill and live up there training kata all day long and fighting bad guys at night in fights to the death. Unfortunately these days people have jobs, work long hours and have other interests. I, for instance, run a business and its simply not realistic for me to show up to work covered in bruises, scratches and blood. Sure, I could explain to my clients that I was off fighting to the death last night and they'll have to excuse my appearance but I dont think it would go down that well. The bottom line is that some people want to learn some self defence, get fit and get some confidence or whatever else they get out of it, and best of luck to them. And for people who want to do it "the old way" their are clubs that cater for that also, I fail to see the problem. I know some people will say that without the old fashioned training its 'useless', but I think reading many of the stories of everyday people who have used what they've been taught to fend off attackers (thanks bill mattocks), proves that any form of training is an advantage over no training.

You think these people all those years ago learning kata and to fight had nothing else to do? They had livings to earn just as now, they were farmers, labourers, servants etc so course they didn't have a lot of time either. If they'd been rich they would have had swords and weapons for crying out loud or could have afforded protection. These were people like us who had to learn to defend themselves because no one else would defend them, they didn't have the luxury of being able to train whenever they wanted, it would have been after working in the fields or for their bosses all day. We have it a darn sight better than they ever did.

The thing is there is no problem with how anyone wants to train unless they start saying that what they do is best or that what they do is the way the old masters did it because yo can bet neither are right.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

You think these people all those years ago learning kata and to fight had nothing else to do? They had livings to earn just as now, they were farmers, labourers, servants etc so course they didn't have a lot of time either. If they'd been rich they would have had swords and weapons for crying out loud or could have afforded protection. These were people like us who had to learn to defend themselves because no one else would defend them, they didn't have the luxury of being able to train whenever they wanted, it would have been after working in the fields or for their bosses all day. We have it a darn sight better than they ever did.

The thing is there is no problem with how anyone wants to train unless they start saying that what they do is best or that what they do is the way the old masters did it because yo can bet neither are right.

Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.

 

[Tez3]

Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.

I can see you don't get my points about karate and have little interest in it's beginnings or what it's for.... which is actually very relevant for self defence today so best I leave it there. I've not heard people talk about 'old school' and most of the people I train with have been training since the sixties and seventies as we were all younger then but not children.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.

Oh i've seen plenty of 'we are the best' among TMA's over the years.......one of the huge issues many TMA practioners have with combat sports, particularly MMA, is that it exposed many of the weaknesses and flaws within their systems.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm sorry but you have misread me. Karateka trying to knock each others heads off isn't training for self defence! In the street you won't be fighting someone who will give and take the same way as you do in sparring. I heard sparring decribed the other day as a two way conversation which is fine, great fun in fact but if you are attacked outside the dojo it's not a conversation, you should not be giving the other guy a chance to speak even. Sparring is different from fighting and you are getting peevish because you are missing my point.
As to how many dojos and dojangs I've been to....an awful lot actually.

Ehh.....see, but that's the problem.........hard sparring is realistic in the sense it's a give in take when folks of the same level. Many folks who disagree with sparring believe their skills are so lethal that they would simply take the other person.

The reality that hard sparring exposes the misconceptions and flat erroneous beliefs because many times those techniques which we perceive as being so effective are difficult to pull off against someone who isn't cooperating.

Sparring IS somewhat different from fighting......but the harder the sparring the more like fighting it becomes. The reality is that i've been in real fights and i've been in quite a few matches and hard sparring sessions. Most of the guys i've sparred with put up a greater fight than most of the guys i've fought for real in the street, and quite frankly, the street fights often felt like disorganized sparring sessions with opponents who often weren't that skilled, but were at varying degrees of motivation.

I think folks sometimes make far too much of 'the street'........which, certainly, can be unpredictable, and as a result, dangerous..........but it's not that mysterious.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Oh i've seen plenty of 'we are the best' among TMA's over the years.......one of the huge issues many TMA practioners have with combat sports, particularly MMA, is that it exposed many of the weaknesses and flaws within their systems.

I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.

Actually, the UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept.

As for the UFC it began as a competition of various TMA backgrounds. There was absolutely nothing stopping 'anyone of note' from entering the UFC except the ego's desire to avoid being beaten.

Hard competition risks the ego, and many folks have built their entire being on their reputations.......that's why 'no one of note' entered the UFC........but it's not a defense of them, it's a statement of their lack of desire to test their art against any real competition. I certainly understand their reasons, but I don't respect them for it.

I've made it clear my views are that if someone claims to know how to fight, then asking them to prove it is perfectly acceptable. If they only claim to know how to dance in a very impressive fashion, then that's another story.

And the fact is that their 'footwork' was 'disgraceful' because they had learned a system of footwork that they couldn't apply when someone was punching them in the face or taking them off their fight.

I find it quite humorous, though, that many other systems seemed to flourish within the MMA framework........such as Muay Thai, Boxing and Wrestling, despite the fact that the folks who were coming in from those areas weren't any more accomplished in their given art than the TMA's folks.

The problem comes with this fixed idea of what MUST work being taught as dogma........once it becomes ingrained, folks begin defending that dogma against all evidence to the contrary.......their mental constructs become more real than reality to them.

To reiterate........UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept......a buffet of techniques from a vast variety of disciplines that enable greater freedom of action. MMA is, in essence, the same thing Bruce Lee was doing with JKD.........take what is useful, leave the dogma. Now, the sport, with it's rules, creates a certain measure of dogma, but that doesn't diminish the concept, which was to take useful components of various martial arts, and 'MIX' them, creating a 'Mixed Martial Art' that is unique to the individual fighter, based on his own strengths and weaknesses............as opposed to the dogmatic teaching of a fixed martial art that is what some MASTER has determined is a one size fits all system.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Actually, the UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept.

As for the UFC it began as a competition of various TMA backgrounds. There was absolutely nothing stopping 'anyone of note' from entering the UFC except the ego's desire to avoid being beaten.

Hard competition risks the ego, and many folks have built their entire being on their reputations.......that's why 'no one of note' entered the UFC........but it's not a defense of them, it's a statement of their lack of desire to test their art against any real competition. I certainly understand their reasons, but I don't respect them for it.

I've made it clear my views are that if someone claims to know how to fight, then asking them to prove it is perfectly acceptable. If they only claim to know how to dance in a very impressive fashion, then that's another story.

And the fact is that their 'footwork' was 'disgraceful' because they had learned a system of footwork that they couldn't apply when someone was punching them in the face or taking them off their fight.

I find it quite humorous, though, that many other systems seemed to flourish within the MMA framework........such as Muay Thai, Boxing and Wrestling, despite the fact that the folks who were coming in from those areas weren't any more accomplished in their given art than the TMA's folks.

The problem comes with this fixed idea of what MUST work being taught as dogma........once it becomes ingrained, folks begin defending that dogma against all evidence to the contrary.......their mental constructs become more real than reality to them.

To reiterate........UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept......a buffet of techniques from a vast variety of disciplines that enable greater freedom of action. MMA is, in essence, the same thing Bruce Lee was doing with JKD.........take what is useful, leave the dogma. Now, the sport, with it's rules, creates a certain measure of dogma, but that doesn't diminish the concept, which was to take useful components of various martial arts, and 'MIX' them, creating a 'Mixed Martial Art' that is unique to the individual fighter, based on his own strengths and weaknesses............as opposed to the dogmatic teaching of a fixed martial art that is what some MASTER has determined is a one size fits all system.

I totally disagree with your line that "the only thing stopping them was their ego". You are obviously of the assumption that all people feel the need to prove a point to others. There are many factors preventing people from entering ranging from simply not caring what others think through to not living in america where the ufc was held or injury or age or having no interest whatsoever in competitive fighting or not having the necessary time to take off work to train for such an event. As stated many times before, why would a successful TMA fighter who has sponsors, coaches and a successful career (some earning good money), throw all that away to go and train for an event they have no interest in. I suppose you will say they should do it to 'prove a point', but most people are not of that mentality, they are happy doing what they are doing and couldnt care less what someone else thinks of their art. Sure, you'll get the odd dodgy guy who will enter to try and make a name for themselves but you only have to google their name to see that no one has ever heard of them, probably because their achievments in their given art are nil.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I totally disagree with your line that "the only thing stopping them was their ego". You are obviously of the assumption that all people feel the need to prove a point to others. There are many factors preventing people from entering ranging from simply not caring what others think through to not living in america where the ufc was held or injury or age or having no interest whatsoever in competitive fighting or not having the necessary time to take off work to train for such an event. As stated many times before, why would a successful TMA fighter who has sponsors, coaches and a successful career (some earning good money), throw all that away to go and train for an event they have no interest in. I suppose you will say they should do it to 'prove a point', but most people are not of that mentality, they are happy doing what they are doing and couldnt care less what someone else thinks of their art. Sure, you'll get the odd dodgy guy who will enter to try and make a name for themselves but you only have to google their name to see that no one has ever heard of them, probably because their achievments in their given art are nil.

If you're going to make a claim, back it up. Otherwise don't make the claim. It's that simple. Fighting is the only topic of argument that a fight can prove who is actually right.

I put zero stock in the statements of people who say 'Well, I COULD do X if I wanted to......but I don't....' The only reason for saying it to begin with is to prove the point that they claim they don't care about.......but it usually means the person who is making the claim doesn't actually even believe what they are saying.

As I said, you're wrong in saying they 'have no interest in it'........what they have is no interest in losing their reputations by losing such a match. It's a lot easier to stick to their own limited pond, and make claims that being the master of their own pond somehow means they are effective at fighting.


That's not to say that everyone really does have to prove it.........but if they're not prepared to prove it, don't make the claim that they could......if they only wanted to. Talk is cheap.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

If you're going to make a claim, back it up. Otherwise don't make the claim. It's that simple. Fighting is the only topic of argument that a fight can prove who is actually right.

I think you have just summed up in a nutshell why people will continue to disagree on this topic for years to come. People dont always live their life having to 'prove' things to others, I certainly dont, not just with martial arts but with most things in life in general. If Ive found something works for me then I know it works, I dont need to go and 'back up my claim', why would I? I know it works. Other people feel the constant need to 'prove' their beliefs to others, and good on them but for me life is too short to care about what others think and Im sure many people live their life the same way, so when I hear about 'backing up claims' it really makes no sense to me at all. People back their claims up on the street when they are in an unavoidable altercation and are forced to use what they've learnt. When they win they know it works, they dont need to join the UFC to drive their point home.

 

[Tez3]

I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.

Bas Rutten
Georges Saint Pierre
Michael Bisping
Dan Hardy
Chuck Liddell
Lyota Machida
Neil Grove
Fedor Emelianko
Anderson Silva
Crocop etc etc

I don't think I need to go on. I could of course, I could take a few pages but hopefully I've made my point.
Take Bas Rutten 2nd Dan TKD and 5th Kyokushin karate, no, he's no good is he, oh and he does that funny SD stuff too.

The UFC is a company, a promotion it's never a style nor a martial art, just a business the same as McDonalds and Hoover. No one needs it in particular.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think you have just summed up in a nutshell why people will continue to disagree on this topic for years to come. People dont always live their life having to 'prove' things to others, I certainly dont, not just with martial arts but with most things in life in general. If Ive found something works for me then I know it works, I dont need to go and 'back up my claim', why would I? I know it works. Other people feel the constant need to 'prove' their beliefs to others, and good on them but for me life is too short to care about what others think and Im sure many people live their life the same way, so when I hear about 'backing up claims' it really makes no sense to me at all. People back their claims up on the street when they are in an unavoidable altercation and are forced to use what they've learnt. When they win they know it works, they dont need to join the UFC to drive their point home.

Martial Arts is not life in general.......at it's core it's the training of martial skill, and effective versus ineffective is perfectly legitimate debate, and challenging other styles is a perfectly legitimate pursuit in the quest of determining the strengths and weaknesses of particular styles.

As for 'knowing it works', how do you 'know it works'? Evidence or faith? If it's evidence, that's what i'm demanding. If it's faith, it's not even worth discussing.

Me, I don't live on faith.......martial skill, for me, is a piece of equipment........and I stress test all my equipment. If it breaks I want to know why, and if it's inferior and needs to be replaced, or if it simply needs to be modified.

 

[Steve]

I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.

One of the things that early UFCs exposed is that good technique looks bad in an uncontrolled environment against another skilled opponent. Had Royce lost, it might be recognized now that he wasn't the best in his style. I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but Royce was picked because he was young and looked unassuming. Had Rickson or one of the other more experienced Gracies competed, the effect would have been much less dramatic.

Gerard Gordeau was a world Savate champion and a notorious dirty fighter. Fred Ettish was like, 3rd or 4th dan in Kenpo, IIRC. I can't remember all of the guys in the early UFCs, but if necessary, I can go back and rewatch them to catch everyone's credentials. I remember a couple of high ranking karate guys from various styles, as well as at least a few kung fu.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Martial Arts is not life in general.......at it's core it's the training of martial skill, and effective versus ineffective is perfectly legitimate debate, and challenging other styles is a perfectly legitimate pursuit in the quest of determining the strengths and weaknesses of particular styles.

As for 'knowing it works', how do you 'know it works'? Evidence or faith? If it's evidence, that's what i'm demanding. If it's faith, it's not even worth discussing.

Me, I don't live on faith.......martial skill, for me, is a piece of equipment........and I stress test all my equipment. If it breaks I want to know why, and if it's inferior and needs to be replaced, or if it simply needs to be modified.

I would like to think that if someone got attacked on the street and got their *** kicked they would realise that what they've trained doesnt work and would persue something else or try training differently. Anyone I train with who had to protect themselves found that what we have been taught worked, I train with police officers and others who use their skills on a daily basis. I know it works, Im not about to join the UFC to prove it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would like to think that if someone got attacked on the street and got their *** kicked they would realise that what they've trained doesnt work and would persue something else or try training differently. Anyone I train with who had to protect themselves found that what we have been taught worked, I train with police officers and others who use their skills on a daily basis. I know it works, Im not about to join the UFC to prove it.

How often do you test it on the streets? Here's the reality....most opponents on the street are unskilled and unmotivated. The fact that someone manages to pull off a given technique against some half drunk thug isn't really evidence that it's a superior technique.

I made a point in another thread that the heavy sparring i've had have been tougher and better tests than the several street encounters i've had.

 

[sgtmac_46]

One of the things that early UFCs exposed is that good technique looks bad in an uncontrolled environment against another skilled opponent. Had Royce lost, it might be recognized now that he wasn't the best in his style. I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but Royce was picked because he was young and looked unassuming. Had Rickson or one of the other more experienced Gracies competed, the effect would have been much less dramatic.

Gerard Gordeau was a world Savate champion and a notorious dirty fighter. Fred Ettish was like, 3rd or 4th dan in Kenpo, IIRC. I can't remember all of the guys in the early UFCs, but if necessary, I can go back and rewatch them to catch everyone's credentials. I remember a couple of high ranking karate guys from various styles, as well as at least a few kung fu.

Yeah, but they didn't win, so they weren't very good, because if they had been good in those systems, they would have won.......it's a circular kind of logic.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

How often do you test it on the streets? Here's the reality....most opponents on the street are unskilled and unmotivated. The fact that someone manages to pull off a given technique against some half drunk thug isn't really evidence that it's a superior technique.

I made a point in another thread that the heavy sparring i've had have been tougher and better tests than the several street encounters i've had.

Many of the people I train with 'test' it regularly, most because of their line of work. They train to defend themselves in 'real life' situations and most real life situations involve unskilled and unmotivated people. Its rare that a super fit full time proffessional fighter is going to start a fight with you. Also, I dont really care whats 'best', there is no 'best', it depends on the individual and if you enjoy what you train and it works on the street then who really cares about aligning each martial art in order of how 'effective' they are as that is of no consequence. I think it was determined years ago that there is no 'best' martial art and as people have said over and over again, its the artist not the art, so if its worked for you on the 'street' then keep training and enjoy it I say.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Many of the people I train with 'test' it regularly, most because of their line of work. They train to defend themselves in 'real life' situations and most real life situations involve unskilled and unmotivated people. Its rare that a super fit full time proffessional fighter is going to start a fight with you. Also, I dont really care whats 'best', there is no 'best', it depends on the individual and if you enjoy what you train and it works on the street then who really cares about aligning each martial art in order of how 'effective' they are as that is of no consequence. I think it was determined years ago that there is no 'best' martial art and as people have said over and over again, its the artist not the art, so if its worked for you on the 'street' then keep training and enjoy it I say.

Lets just hope some super fit fighter doesn't start a fight with you, then. So long as the opponents are geriatric drunks things work out ok.

My perspective, as one who, because of his 'line of work' trains for 'real life situations' is a firm believer that if what I do will work on the super fit and super tough, it will work on geriatric drunks.......the reverse, however, is not true, and THAT is the real point here.