The world of mma

[Andrew Green]

Question: Do you feel its possible to defend something with no knowledge of it? For example: the MMAist, AFAIK, does not train weapons. That being said, how do you train something you're unfamiliar with? If a TMAist, who has no knowledge of the ground ends up there...well, we've seen what happened to those one dimensional fighters in the early UFCs.

Too a limited extent. And it goes both ways. Fighting against weapons is hard enough with training, without it will be even harder. But, most stick fighters aren't familliar with MMA fighting. And in the case of a stick, I think it would be a matter of whether or not the MMA fighter could clinch or even go to the ground. A knife would be a whole other issue.

The thing that happened in those early fights, and is often "overlooked" is that while the Gracies and others where not great strikers, they did train it, and more specifically they trained to use there game against someone trying to hit them. Where the people they fought had less knowledge of grappling then they did of standup striking, and did not train to counter it.

Take, for example, the Hackney vs Yarbourough fight I posted. I imagine part of Hackney's training did not involve "How to fight a 600lbs Sumo wrestler", but he managed. And Yarbourough on the other hand probably didn't devote much time to "How to fight someone that is punching you in the nose"...

So if a MMA fighter faced a stick fighter that trained to keep range, counter and break out of the clinch, avoid takedowns... well, the betting odds just got a much bigger gap.

 

[Ybot]

Question: Do you feel its possible to defend something with no knowledge of it? For example: the MMAist, AFAIK, does not train weapons. That being said, how do you train something you're unfamiliar with? If a TMAist, who has no knowledge of the ground ends up there...well, we've seen what happened to those one dimensional fighters in the early UFCs.



Is there a tape of that?

LOL, just kidding!

No, no tape, but I bet he has pictures of the stetches in his head.

Okay, as far as your question... Well, yes and no. Most believe running your *** off is the best self defense against weapons, multiple attackers, etc. MMA competitors learn to fight hand to hand. This is fighting, not defence. I think most will acknowlage this. What I find is that most don't believe that there is any evidence to support that self defence training agaist weapons will increase your odds of survival any more then running your *** off.

Me personally? I don't know if it will or not. I don't train for self defence, and believe that learning not to put yourself into situations where you have to deal with that is the best defence. Odds are it probably wont happen to me, but should it happen my mind set is that I will do what ever it takes to get out of the situation. If that includes running, you bet I will.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Yes , the self defense art of Nike-Do is not one to be overlooked...

 

[MJS]

No, no tape, but I bet he has pictures of the stetches in his head.

Hey, at least he's ok.

Okay, as far as your question... Well, yes and no. Most believe running your *** off is the best self defense against weapons, multiple attackers, etc. MMA competitors learn to fight hand to hand. This is fighting, not defence. I think most will acknowlage this. What I find is that most don't believe that there is any evidence to support that self defence training agaist weapons will increase your odds of survival any more then running your *** off.

I agree. Getting the hell out of the situation is certainly going to be my first option. However, what if that is not an option? What if the person being attacked does not have the stamina to keep going? If the odds are stacked against me, I'm certainly going to look for something to use. Don't you think its good to be well rounded?

Me personally? I don't know if it will or not. I don't train for self defence, and believe that learning not to put yourself into situations where you have to deal with that is the best defence. Odds are it probably wont happen to me, but should it happen my mind set is that I will do what ever it takes to get out of the situation. If that includes running, you bet I will.

Agreed again. I do my best to stay out of potential problem places, such as bars and clubs. I always do my best to be aware of my surroundings. So...in the unlikely event that something did happen to you, how do you feel that you'd best defend yourself if faced with a blade, or a weapon that you normally don't train against?

BTW, thanks for a great discussion!:ultracool

Mike

 

[Ybot]

So...in the unlikely event that something did happen to you, how do you feel that you'd best defend yourself if faced with a blade, or a weapon that you normally don't train against?

BTW, thanks for a great discussion!:ultracool

Mike

What would I do? Honestly I don't really know how I'd react, it's only a guess. If I was being attacked by someone with a bladed weapon and was cornered, or otherwise couldn't run I'd guess I'd do the following (again just a guess, don't know how I'd react):

First, I'd look for anything that could help even the odds. Fighting bare handed against an armed opponent is just plain stupid... but then again in this situation I may have no choice.

Second, I realize that in a situation when dealing with a bladed weapon the chances of getting away completely unharmed are very low. Knowing that I most likely will be cut I'll look for a way to minimize the damage. I would probably sacrafice my left forearm for blocking. If time permits maybe wrap it with my jacket, sweatshirt, etc.

Third, being a grappler, I'd look to clinch with the objective of controling the weapon.

From there I will either try to disarm, or force the opponent out of the way to open up my escape rout. Depends on the situation.

Anyway, just speculating. Hard to say what would really happen, but I do tend to believe that my chances of surviving this situation are probably higher than if I didn't train like I do. Mostly because I have a strong feeling for leverage, reasonable conditioning, and strong Kenistetic awareness.

Oh, and a side note. I did take karate for many many years as a kid, and did train self defence situations with the rubber knives. In these cases I knew what attack was comming, and what to do not to get touched, and yet the number of times in practice I would have be cut had it been a real knife is scarey to think about. I shutter to think what would have happened had the attacker free range to attack as they pleased, and to continue attacking until I had control.

I enjoy the discussion too, BTW. I think sometimes I value opposing (or maybe I should say different) oppinions more, because they force me to evaluate my own beliefs.

 

[zDom]

Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:

a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)

b) that all evidence presented is unreliable because "those guys weren't skilled fighters" (and apparently YOU are the World Authority on who is a skilled fighter or not?).

Once again you pick and choose among my comments to trot out these same old arguments.

::

Having spent plenty of time in the Real World (in addition to watching UFC and Pride matches on TV), I can tell you with absolute certainty:

Those who you consider not to be "skilled fighters" are quite capable of putting someone without martial art training in the hospital or even beating them to death. It happens all the time.

There are a lot of thugs, rednecks and otherwise unpleasant people who CAN and WILL do harm to your average citizen.

TMAs are quite effective at dealing with these types of people. Even groups of them.

On the other hand, your "skilled fighters" aren't very likely to initiate assaults on people outside of the ring, and if they do, they will soon find themselves in prison.

Therefore your point is moot.

"Ineffective vs skilled fighters" does not equal "ineffective."

Without conceding that I agree that TMA are ineffective against those you deem are "skilled fighters," even if TMAs DON'T work against these presumed "skilled fighters" it just doesn't matter: it isn't a scenario worth training for. There aren't that many out there, and those that ARE out there aren't likely to attack a TMAist.

My goal is to stay in shape and avoid bodily harm from attackers.

The TMAs I have selected here perfectly fit this bill.


As for you, you are STILL avoiding the following questions completely:

In the meantime, Kevin, let me repeat some questions you've dodged in the past along with a couple new ones:

a) How long have you been training, in what arts, and to what level have you successfully tested?

b) Are you training MMA under any particular camp or system?

c) How many times have you defended yourself against assaults?

d) How many NHB matches have you fought?

e) How many other combat sports have you participated in?

Looking forward to learning more about your background!

Any particular reason you are avoiding these questions?

 

[Rook]

Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:

a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)

Without evidence, we only have the word of people on the internet - and all that will follow is a sucession of the most fantastic stories in an attempt to impress - without proof, its just an exercise in creative writing.

b) that all evidence presented is unreliable because "those guys weren't skilled fighters" (and apparently YOU are the World Authority on who is a skilled fighter or not?).

Thats the beauty of proven records and videotape - we get a black-and-white who won and who lost and by what means all right there. When the video tape is public, we can get the comments of people who analyze the sport for a living as journalists, coaches and professional fighters. We can compare impressions based on our training and discuss implications of each movement in the fight. When we only have a description, we can't tell how good the people were - or even if the fight happened at all.

Once again you pick and choose among my comments to trot out these same old arguments.

I have responded to just about everything you said - I have not taken small comments out of context while ignoring the rest of the post.

::

Having spent plenty of time in the Real World (in addition to watching UFC and Pride matches on TV), I can tell you with absolute certainty:

Those who you consider not to be "skilled fighters" are quite capable of putting someone without martial art training in the hospital or even beating them to death. It happens all the time.

Duh.

There are a lot of thugs, rednecks and otherwise unpleasant people who CAN and WILL do harm to your average citizen.

TMAs are quite effective at dealing with these types of people. Even groups of them.

Would another method be more effective?

On the other hand, your "skilled fighters" aren't very likely to initiate assaults on people outside of the ring, and if they do, they will soon find themselves in prison.

Therefore your point is moot.

No. People who can beat unskilled fighters exist in droves - any major city has thousands of streetfighter types who haven't lost nearly as many fights as they have won. The likelyhood of getting seriously assaulted by a skilled fighter, street, sport or traditional is rather low. Many people go through life without ever being in a serious fight, and most streetfighter types rarely clash with the capable fighters... you can get by without much in the way of fighting skill.

"Ineffective vs skilled fighters" does not equal "ineffective."

Without conceding that I agree that TMA are ineffective against those you deem are "skilled fighters," even if TMAs DON'T work against these presumed "skilled fighters" it just doesn't matter: it isn't a scenario worth training for. There aren't that many out there, and those that ARE out there aren't likely to attack a TMAist.

It should matter. Your whole arguement is that you can fight as well as they can. I don't see how you someone could concede that they would lose to a skilled fighter and still go on to say that they are just as good a fighter.

My goal is to stay in shape and avoid bodily harm from attackers.

Pretty common to everyone.

The TMAs I have selected here perfectly fit this bill.

Ok...

 

[MJS]

What would I do? Honestly I don't really know how I'd react, it's only a guess. If I was being attacked by someone with a bladed weapon and was cornered, or otherwise couldn't run I'd guess I'd do the following (again just a guess, don't know how I'd react):

First, I'd look for anything that could help even the odds. Fighting bare handed against an armed opponent is just plain stupid... but then again in this situation I may have no choice.

Agreed. Even if it was something to simply throw as a distraction, its worth a shot IMO.

Second, I realize that in a situation when dealing with a bladed weapon the chances of getting away completely unharmed are very low. Knowing that I most likely will be cut I'll look for a way to minimize the damage. I would probably sacrafice my left forearm for blocking. If time permits maybe wrap it with my jacket, sweatshirt, etc.

Yes, chances are we will get cut.

Third, being a grappler, I'd look to clinch with the objective of controling the weapon.

I'm assuming that you'd also work on controlling the arm here?

From there I will either try to disarm, or force the opponent out of the way to open up my escape rout. Depends on the situation.

Anyway, just speculating. Hard to say what would really happen, but I do tend to believe that my chances of surviving this situation are probably higher than if I didn't train like I do. Mostly because I have a strong feeling for leverage, reasonable conditioning, and strong Kenistetic awareness.

Oh, and a side note. I did take karate for many many years as a kid, and did train self defence situations with the rubber knives. In these cases I knew what attack was comming, and what to do not to get touched, and yet the number of times in practice I would have be cut had it been a real knife is scarey to think about. I shutter to think what would have happened had the attacker free range to attack as they pleased, and to continue attacking until I had control.

Adding in random attacks, etc., is one way that I train. Keeps ya on your toes! I also have the 'attacker' use his free hand as well. Many times, people tend to forget that the attacker could be punching us as well as using the knife. If we get too focused on just the blade, we're opening ourselves for something else.

I enjoy the discussion too, BTW. I think sometimes I value opposing (or maybe I should say different) oppinions more, because they force me to evaluate my own beliefs.

Likewise. I think that we all have our beliefs, training principles, etc., but while I try to stand firm with mine, I also stay open to other things, ideas, etc.

Mike

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:

a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)

Actually, considered from a psychological point of view, eye witness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable forms of evidence there is, due to how damn subjective human minds are. All too often people will see either what they want to see, or are afraid to see, instead of whats really there. Likewise after an event has occured, the human mind will then filter it to fit their preconceptions, consequently altering the memory.
When you look at how memory functions, you can see how easy that is to happen.
Genes make new proteins in order to store information, and they make new proteins again to bring that information back as a memory. The process is called "reconsolidation" because as Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist, put it
"the brain that does the remembering is not the brain that formed the initial memory. In order for the old memory to make sense to the current brain, the memory has to be updated"

Now Im not saying we should simply discard personal testimony altogether. But when its being presented as any form of evidence, it has to be factored in with what we know of the person.
If we do not know the individual, or any verifiable details about the person, we do not know how much weight to attach to their comments.
Over the internet therefore, while we may be able to accept someones comments as "good enough" for us, we can't present them as evidence.
The only things that can be presented as proof are:
Things that we can prove logically
Verifiable information.

For example, while I might respect your opinions and be willing to accept your word, Im not able to decide that anyone else has to accept it.

Sorry for my nerd rant, but I like stuff like this.

 

[zDom]

Kevin, I'm not willing to discuss anything with you or dignify any of your arguments with responses until you directly answer the following:

As for you, you are STILL avoiding the following questions completely:

In the meantime, Kevin, let me repeat some questions you've dodged in the past along with a couple new ones:

a) How long have you been training, in what arts, and to what level have you successfully tested?

b) Are you training MMA under any particular camp or system?

c) How many times have you defended yourself against assaults?

d) How many NHB matches have you fought?

e) How many other combat sports have you participated in?

Looking forward to learning more about your background!


Any particular reason you are avoiding these questions?

Until you do so, I would prefer you let other MMA-enthusiasts who are more forthcoming with their backgrounds discuss these issues with me.

 

[Andrew Green]

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, about that topic...

 

[zDom]

Actually, considered from a psychological point of view, eye witness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable forms of evidence there is, due to how damn subjective human minds are...Now Im not saying we should simply discard personal testimony altogether. But when its being presented as any form of evidence, it has to be factored in with what we know of the person.

Good points, SB, but this presents quite a problem when it comes to this particular argument.

If a martial artist's purpose is to avoid physical confrontations, it is highly unlikely that self-defense situations will be captured on tape. It is, and SHOULD BE, a very rare occurance.

Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.

FWIW, I always factor in what I know of people when I hear anecdotal evidence.

As a reputable newspaper reporter with nearly 10 years of experience, I have a critical ear for facts as well as embellishments and outright fabrications.

When it comes to traditional martial arts, anecodotes are going to have to suffice as evidence of efficiency.

If my instructor went around encouraging people to attack him while a camera man documented the fights, I would seriously question his character.

And yes, I do question the character of BJJ and UFC participants who engage in this activity.

Beating people up for money and entertainment is not my idea of contributing to society.

What's worse, society as a whole is starting to judge martial artists based on what they see on the UFC.

Do you really want your kids to grow up idolizing people like Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock? Reminds me of junior high kids with something to prove.

But then that is what this is all about isn't it? People with something to prove at the cost of causing injury to others. At least in this case, they are all willing participants.

 

[zDom]

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, about that topic...

Not an ad hominem attack, Andrew.

I just want some context for his opinions.

 

[Warrior-Scholar]

Restrictions prevent the use of their techniques. Nothing is prohibited in no-rules matches - which is why I tend to favor them as proof.
quote]

Verification, as you stated, should be a guiding light for our training.

You are not allowed to quote my statement Rook. You have reached your quote quota! Just kidding.

Not that I disagree with anything you have said, but let's throw in some simple clubs, knives, or multiple attackers into the mix and verify that. It would be great!

 

[matt.m]

I find it amazing that everyone wants video proofs. My question is invariably this.....When Choi adapted TKD to the Korean military was everyone running around asking for proof that such things worked.

Now before anyone goes nuts and says "Challenge matches were a big thing back then" well yeah they were. However arts like Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, and Hapkido have a proven background of success.

Fights should not be staged, if a camera is being brought then it is more or less staged.

Let me pose this question: If people train for Olympic style Tae Kwon Do or Judo do they not train to be successful in that event? I would say that MMA/ UFC fights are in the same category. The reasoning behind this is simple.

The move sets that everyone uses is basically the same. The triangle, mount, punch, round kick to the knee or thigh. No matter who is fighting it is all the same stuff.

 

[Andrew Green]

Video proof, nah. Proof in anything that has the word "self-defence" in it is automatically nonsense. But, if the claim is that it can work in a no rules / limited rules fight, despite all the evidence that is commonly available saying otherwise, and there is a lot of it, and when the people that do that sort of training say it won't work, and there are a lot of them, yes, something to back up the claim is required for it to be taken seriously.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Good points, SB, but this presents quite a problem when it comes to this particular argument.

If a martial artist's purpose is to avoid physical confrontations, it is highly unlikely that self-defense situations will be captured on tape. It is, and SHOULD BE, a very rare occurance.

Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.

FWIW, I always factor in what I know of people when I hear anecdotal evidence.

As a reputable newspaper reporter with nearly 10 years of experience, I have a critical ear for facts as well as embellishments and outright fabrications.

When it comes to traditional martial arts, anecodotes are going to have to suffice as evidence of efficiency.

If my instructor went around encouraging people to attack him while a camera man documented the fights, I would seriously question his character.

And yes, I do question the character of BJJ and UFC participants who engage in this activity.

Beating people up for money and entertainment is not my idea of contributing to society.

What's worse, society as a whole is starting to judge martial artists based on what they see on the UFC.

Do you really want your kids to grow up idolizing people like Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock? Reminds me of junior high kids with something to prove.

But then that is what this is all about isn't it? People with something to prove at the cost of causing injury to others. At least in this case, they are all willing participants.

Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless.
You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose.
For example, I am doing MMA.
Does this therefore make me an unprincipled thug as you have implied?
I train for the fun of it, for the discipline, for having a useful skill, and because the actual science of martial arts fascinates me.
So how exactly is this a negative thing?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless.
You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose.

He's not generalizing, the import clause is "who engage in this activity." He's talking specifically about the practice of going arond and picking fights for the sake of getting a victory recorded on video. I didn't get the impression he was applying that as an accusation to all MMA pactiioners.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless.
You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose.

He's not generalizing, the import clause is "who engage in this activity." He's talking specifically about the practice of going arond and picking fights for the sake of getting a victory recorded on video. I didn't get the impression he was applying that as an accusation to all MMA pactiioners.

Really?

Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.

That's a pretty heavy slight against everyone involved in UFC, as it compares it to the idiots who go round picking fights.
And it also is a sweeping generalisation against BJJ, insulting a style and all its practioners, by claiming that it exists for nothing more than "bragging rights"

 

[Warrior-Scholar]

While there are stories on the fantastical side in many traditional systems, how do we think they even came up with their strategies? I am sure a good portion (not all) of such systems developed from actual encounters/battles. If this were not so, then why use them? The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness. Let's be honest with ourselves: without TMA, there would be no MMA. Show me an MMA concept that doesn't have roots in some traditional concept! I think the argument here is really pointless. Many so-called TMAs have evolved over long periods of time, so are they traditional because they are old or because they aren't a particular style favored by sport fighters of the modern age?