The rule sets of combat

[Martial D]

Not necessarily just anything. There are things I can pull off quite easily on new folks that I wouldn't expect to pull off on anyone with any reasonable level of grappling. On those folks, everything needs more set-up, and they have the knowledge to just flat-out counter some moves. And they simply don't usually make the mistakes that make other things available.

All of that gets more significant the more training the opponent has. So there are going to be things that could be used at the lowest level of MMA competition (if done with enough skill), for instance, that would fail miserably at even the mid-level.

Yes to all of that. You get it.

 

[skribs]

You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars.

Me: You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
You:

• "The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example." (Page 2 of the thread)
• "Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline." (Page 5 of the thread)
• Sure, the matches ended. (Page 5)
• Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry. (Page 5)
  
• I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight' (Page 6)
  
• This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting. (Page 6). And in my example, no he's not. For a few seconds he is not. The reason these fights are stopped by the ref is because the victim of the poke is NOT able to defend himself. If it were a legal strike, then the point at which someone can no longer defend themselves is either a KO or a TKO. The only reason the fight continues afterwards is because it was not a legal strike that stopped the fight.

Me: You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight. I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
You:

• And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules. (Page 5. I showed this to be inaccurate in my reply to it).
• None of the guys in that video were unable to continue. (Page 5)

Me: You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work. Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.
You:

• So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic. (Page 5 of the thread)
• But even if I were to concede that eye pokes end fights(which I'm not), that still wouldn't really help your argument. If you can land an eyepoke, you can land a jab. Do you really think Joe beerbelly that can't even see his toes past his gi is going to land eyepokes with a greater proficiency than a trained fighter that knows how to land jabs on a resisting opponent? It really makes no difference. (Page 5)
• What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.

I'll also add some hypocrisy from you:

• "Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me." Which I am proving in this post that I am responding to points you made. You also failed to follow through on not responding to me.
• I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite. Please re-read all of your responses I posted in the first list above. You've outright said they aren't useful. "Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry", "it doesn't work in the cage so it doesn't work in a fight", "it only stops a fight if the ref stops it." You are clearly saying they aren't useful.
• "Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said." I think I've made it clear in this thread that I have.
• "You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars." I've been thinking this from you since you saw people get poked in the eye and do a standing fetal position, and thought they were still actively fighting.

You're fine to have your opinions. I think they're wrong, but you're fine to have them. But you have been saying everything I've been calling you out on. To say you didn't say it is just as dishonest as saying that someone with their eyes closed, back turned, and attention completely off you is actively fighting you.

 

[Martial D]

Me: You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
You:

• "The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example." (Page 2 of the thread)
• "Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline." (Page 5 of the thread)
• Sure, the matches ended. (Page 5)
• Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry. (Page 5)
  
• I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight' (Page 6)
  
• This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting. (Page 6). And in my example, no he's not. For a few seconds he is not. The reason these fights are stopped by the ref is because the victim of the poke is NOT able to defend himself. If it were a legal strike, then the point at which someone can no longer defend themselves is either a KO or a TKO. The only reason the fight continues afterwards is because it was not a legal strike that stopped the fight.

Me: You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight. I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
You:

• And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules. (Page 5. I showed this to be inaccurate in my reply to it).
• None of the guys in that video were unable to continue. (Page 5)

Me: You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work. Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.
You:

• So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic. (Page 5 of the thread)
• But even if I were to concede that eye pokes end fights(which I'm not), that still wouldn't really help your argument. If you can land an eyepoke, you can land a jab. Do you really think Joe beerbelly that can't even see his toes past his gi is going to land eyepokes with a greater proficiency than a trained fighter that knows how to land jabs on a resisting opponent? It really makes no difference. (Page 5)
• What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.

I'll also add some hypocrisy from you:

• "Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me." Which I am proving in this post that I am responding to points you made. You also failed to follow through on not responding to me.
• I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite. Please re-read all of your responses I posted in the first list above. You've outright said they aren't useful. "Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry", "it doesn't work in the cage so it doesn't work in a fight", "it only stops a fight if the ref stops it." You are clearly saying they aren't useful.
• "Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said." I think I've made it clear in this thread that I have.
• "You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars." I've been thinking this from you since you saw people get poked in the eye and do a standing fetal position, and thought they were still actively fighting.

You're fine to have your opinions. I think they're wrong, but you're fine to have them. But you have been saying everything I've been calling you out on. To say you didn't say it is just as dishonest as saying that someone with their eyes closed, back turned, and attention completely off you is actively fighting you.

LOL

Your quite the jack Russell aren't you?

You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them. I'll try one last time, and I'll keep it simple. There are two issues here, one leading into the other

1) eyepokes do not stop you from being able to fight. Every single fighter in that video you keep going back to was able to continue fighting. None of them were unconscious or rocked or physically incapacitated.

Which leads to

2) Saying you can't test your skills in MMA because you simply can't win without eyepokes, or that eyepokes significantly change the game is ridiculous. The things that actually do end fights are all perfectly legal within unified MMA rules.

That's it.

 

[jobo]

Ya, I realize not everyone is a pro cage fighter. That applies to people that train in MMA as well, or train anything. It's a spectrum, everyone has x amount of training, from 0 to pro. Ideally, you want what you do to be as effective as possible as far up the scale as possible, as you never know how good the other guy might be.

But that's really neither here nor there.

Yes. I do realise that, but very very few people fall under the class of trained fighter at all, even fewer MMA fighters,

It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being beaten to a pulp, by an athletic MMA fighter. Maybe aT worse once in a life time, us to .subject myself to being beaten to a pulp by an athletic MMA fighter 3 times a week, there's really no logic in that . If I was your age I may have a different perspective , .but I'm not I'm 60, I can't. Go up against young fit men in their prime and expect a good outcome, poking them in the eye and l legging it sounds like a good strategy

 

[Martial D]

Yes. I do realise that, but very very few people fall under the class of trained fighter at all, even fewer MMA fighters,

It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being beaten to a pulp, by an athletic MMA fighter. Maybe aT worse once in a life time, us to .subject myself to being beaten to a pulp by an athletic MMA fighter 3 times a week, there's really no logic in that . If I was your age I may have a different perspective , .but I'm not I'm 60, I can't. Go up against young fit men in their prime and expect a good outcome, poking them in the eye and l legging it sounds like a good strategy

Ya, I can't argue against that. I certainly don't think squaring off is the best solution in most cases, and despite what words some others in this thread might be trying to put in my mouth, I'm actually a big fan of finger jabs to the eyes. I am a WC guy after all.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being beaten to a pulp, by an athletic MMA fighter

Weapons spring to mind and is the main reason people carry them. a pistol will kill you just the same no matter your build to theirs or atheltic makeup, same with a knife, OC spray tasers etc.

Other than the other mentioned ambush techniques. Obviously not everyone can carry such weapons which is why the unarmed arena exists without being weapon centric, by that i mean techniques more about getting to your weapon to use on someone aren't the focus but stand alone ones.

 

[skribs]

LOL

Your quite the jack Russell aren't you?

You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them. I'll try one last time, and I'll keep it simple. There are two issues here, one leading into the other

1) eyepokes do not stop you from being able to fight. Every single fighter in that video you keep going back to was able to continue fighting. None of them were unconscious or rocked or physically incapacitated.

Which leads to

2) Saying you can't test your skills in MMA because you simply can't win without eyepokes, or that eyepokes significantly change the game is ridiculous. The things that actually do end fights are all perfectly legal within unified MMA rules.

That's it.

1. Almost all of them were unable to continue for a short time, and afforded a huge window of opportunity for the coup de grace. I don't know if you are lying to me or lying to yourself when you say they were able to continue fighting. There was definitely a recovery period for the majority of the pokes in that video, during which a finishing blow would be easy.
2. I am not saying you can't test your skills in MMA. I am saying that just because some skills are not tested in MMA, does not mean they aren't effective. You have two categories in your mind - things that work in MMA and in other fights, and things that don't work in MMA or other fights. I'm saying there are three categories - that which you can test in MMA and works, that which you can't test in MMA but will work in other places, and techniques that don't work. You are ignoring that middle possibility when you make MMA the arbiter of success.

 

[skribs]

You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them. I'll try one last time, and I'll keep it simple. There are two issues here, one leading into the other

I've thought similar of you, but refrained from doing so, because I specifically want to focus on what you say.

 

[jobo]

Weapons spring to mind and is the main reason people carry them. a pistol will kill you just the same no matter your build to theirs or atheltic makeup, same with a knife, OC spray tasers etc.

Other than the other mentioned ambush techniques. Obviously not everyone can carry such weapons which is why the unarmed arena exists without being weapon centric, by that i mean techniques more about getting to your weapon to use on someone aren't the focus but stand alone ones.

But we can build an imaginary world full of threats and danger, there an awful lot of inconsiderate , agresive knob heads round here , but I can generally choose if I get into a confrontation with them or just wander off, and mostly I can't be bothered. When I can be .bothered it's generally not a 28 yo, body builder with a 28' neck, I played that game when I was 28 , I've nothing to prove, for the rest, when I transform in to an agresive knob head , they generally go off the idea

 

[Buka]

Care to elaborate?

What do people think they mean, and why are they wrong?

Elaborate, sure.

I'm not saying the techniques aren't useful, or that they can't work. I just don't consider them fight enders, at least not in most self defense situations.

We are kind of conditioned and taught growing up that taking a shot to the groin is one of the worst things in the world. Think about that for a minute, not the "worst thing in the world" part, but the way we are taught part. And don't get me wrong, I sure as heck don't want to take any more shots to the groin. But we're taught that from the beginning, and it's reinforced in Martial Training. I've been caught there far too many times to even guesstimate, and I'm not any tougher than anyone else.

As for the eye shot - these discussions usually are thought of as the old rip your eyeball out, but that's not usually the case. And, man, getting something in your eye is just awful. Heck this morning over coffee I read about a guy who had a deer tick attached to his eyeball. That gave me a feeling of eeeeewww! But eye shots rarely stop anyone who's fighting outside of a competition.

A couple years ago, a guy I used to work with called me. He was about to go through pepper spray training and wanted to know how he could wade through it. I told him "You know it's not going to kill you or permanently blind you, right?" He knew. I told him to think about that for a bit, how it's a temporary discomfort that sucks, but it's just temporary.

And I said to him "You know you're going to cough and choke your brains out and not be able to breathe for a bit, but that's only temporary too and you know that, right?" He knew. Then I told him to charge the instructor as your being sprayed, take him down as he's back peddling, rub your face onto his, then flip him over and cuff him.They hate when you do that. And then I told him to RUN to the shower right after because the after is when it really sucks, not the during.

It has been my experience that a poke in the eye doesn't stop you, just makes you flinch your head to the side. And when you poke somebody, that's the thing you should take advantage of, that little head turn flinch. But man, getting eye poked really makes you want to make the guy pay for it.

As for the self defense part, I'll get to that later. Right now I'm headed to the ball field to meet some fellas to do pushups and beat the crap out of each other. Hopefully I won't get poked in the eye.

 

[skribs]

And I said to him "You know you're going to cough and choke your brains out and not be able to breathe for a bit, but that's only temporary too and you know that, right?" He knew. Then I told him to charge the instructor as your being sprayed, take him down as he's back peddling, rub your face onto his, then flip him over and cuff him.They hate when you do that. And then I told him to RUN to the shower right after because the after is when it really sucks, not the during.

It has been my experience that a poke in the eye doesn't stop you, just makes you flinch your head to the side. And when you poke somebody, that's the thing you should take advantage of, that little head turn flinch. But man, getting eye poked really makes you want to make the guy pay for it.

This flinch is what I'm talking about. In a lot of the cases here that flinch was really bad. When you flinch in class, people tend to back off. When you flinch in the ring, the ref steps in. If you flinch in a real situation, you're done.

In the case of your friend - I think there's a difference between seeing pepper spray and knowing what's coming (especially ahead of time like him), compared with suddenly having a finger in your eye in the middle of a fight.

 

[Martial D]

I've thought similar of you, but refrained from doing so, because I specifically want to focus on what you say.

That would certainly make this discussion more productive.

 

[drop bear]

1. Almost all of them were unable to continue for a short time, and afforded a huge window of opportunity for the coup de grace. I don't know if you are lying to me or lying to yourself when you say they were able to continue fighting. There was definitely a recovery period for the majority of the pokes in that video, during which a finishing blow would be easy.
2. I am not saying you can't test your skills in MMA. I am saying that just because some skills are not tested in MMA, does not mean they aren't effective. You have two categories in your mind - things that work in MMA and in other fights, and things that don't work in MMA or other fights. I'm saying there are three categories - that which you can test in MMA and works, that which you can't test in MMA but will work in other places, and techniques that don't work. You are ignoring that middle possibility when you make MMA the arbiter of success.

Yeah. The point is it doesn't change the dynamic enough to discount MMA as the arbiter of success. In that you will be more likely to have experienced and worked through what what will happen in a self defense fight.

Eye gouging isn't a high percentage fight finisher in the street either.

Punching is.

This is called being a boring percentage fighter. Where you basically just perfect the most common and most effective move set without going to left field.

For self defence this is what I advise when I say fight conservatively. Because against an unknown assailant where the risk of loosing is pretty high.

So when I look at self defense I will look at at multiple things.

Is the move high percentage?

Can I do the move at speed with good timing?

Will that move place me in an advantageous position?. Will the move risk me being put in a disadvantaged position?

 

[skribs]

That would certainly make this discussion more productive.

...I assume this is a passive-aggressive rehash of the claim that I'm putting words in your mouth?

Let's come back to this: "You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them"

I've read your words, as they are written. I've understood your words, based on what they mean if I read them. If you meant something other than what you wrote, you can't blame me for putting words into your mouth. I am responding based on the words that you wrote.

If you don't mean what you wrote, then you need to clarify what you are talking about. You need to help me understand your position, not from the position of being argumentative, but from finding another way to state what you are saying that makes your position more clear.

 

[skribs]

Yeah. The point is it doesn't change the dynamic enough to discount MMA as the arbiter of success.

Eye gouging isn't a high percentage fight finisher in the street either.

Punching is.

This is called being a boring percentage fighter. Where you basically just perfect the most common and most effective move set without going to left field.

For self defence this is what I advise when I say fight conservatively. Because against an unknown assailant where the risk of loosing is pretty high.

So when I look at self defense I will look at at multiple things.

Is the move high percentage?

Can I do the move at speed with good timing?

Will that move place me in an advantageous position?. Will the move risk me being put in a disadvantaged position?

I'll rehash my list you quoted:

1. Stuff that work in MMA
2. Stuff that to does not work in MMA, but would work in a real fight
3. Stuff that does not work in a real fight

For the most part, MMA can sort techniques into Group 1, or (Group 2 and Group 3), but it cannot sort past there. If you claim MMA can sort between Groups 2 and Groups 3, you are attempting to solve for variables that are not accounted for in the test. To make such claims is scientifically inaccurate.

To be clear, if I am defending myself, I am going to conduct myself much different than if I were in a ring. My strategy would be to use my footwork to gain enough distance to draw my S&W. It's not something you can test in the ring, though, so I don't know if MMA fighters would find that strategy viable.

 

[drop bear]

I'll rehash my list you quoted:

1. Stuff that work in MMA
2. Stuff that to does not work in MMA, but would work in a real fight
3. Stuff that does not work in a real fight

For the most part, MMA can sort techniques into Group 1, or (Group 2 and Group 3), but it cannot sort past there. If you claim MMA can sort between Groups 2 and Groups 3, you are attempting to solve for variables that are not accounted for in the test. To make such claims is scientifically inaccurate.

To be clear, if I am defending myself, I am going to conduct myself much different than if I were in a ring. My strategy would be to use my footwork to gain enough distance to draw my S&W. It's not something you can test in the ring, though, so I don't know if MMA fighters would find that strategy viable.

If you are committed to that as a self defense strategy you should test that under MMA conditions.

And of course you can test that in the ring.

 

[skribs]

If you are committed to that as a self defense strategy you should test that under MMA conditions.

And of course you can test that in the ring.

You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.

 

[drop bear]

You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.

Why would that factor in?

 

[drop bear]

You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.

I mean here is the scenario. You are scrambling with a guy. You get to your gun but because fake rounds don't kill people you continue to scramble shoot and escape.

But in this instance he for some reason just drops dead.

Are you disadvantaged by continuing as if he hadn't?

Or he shoots you and again you are used to fake rounds and keep fighting.

But in this instance you just drop dead.

 

[jobo]

I mean here is the scenario. You are scrambling with a guy. You get to your gun but because fake rounds don't kill people you continue to scramble shoot and escape.

But in this instance he for some reason just drops dead.

Are you disadvantaged by continuing as if he hadn't?

Or he shoots you and again you are used to fake rounds and keep fighting.

But in this instance you just drop dead.

I'd suggest continuing to fight a dead guy is at best inconvenient, and therefore a disadvantage, plus it may mKe you look like an out of control phyco, and that's definitely a disadvantage if it goes to court