Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question

[drop bear]

But the testing does fight multiples and singles who are tapping out or debilitation. Decades (centuries?) equaling tens of thousands practitioners and witnesses who bring this to bear. Are there tons of Youtube videos? Apparently not to a degree that satisfies you. Do they exist at all? Yes, I believe they do. Change your search parameters and I am sure you can find them.

Not being a dxxk but I have seen and been a part of too much in my lifetime to buy what you are selling. I love MMA. It has been a boon to the martial arts industry. It is Not the only valid game in town however.

Ok. Then show this evidence.

 

[drop bear]

Agree. But it is also true that many of the techniques taught in TMA that have been proven to work cannot be practiced with full intent all the time. It would become more of a Mortal art rather than a Martial art.

So far nothing has been proven to work. Like literally none of the concepts you are suggesting have been proven to work.

I mean if I suggested I could take a guys back, suplex him and jump on his head until he dies.

At least we know some of that is possible. Because we have seen some of it work.

We literally have a whole thread supporting a system with no real basis to believe it works at all.

Some story about a battlefield we never saw isn't proof.

 

[skribs]

So far nothing has been proven to work. Like literally none of the concepts you are suggesting have been proven to work.

I mean if I suggested I could take a guys back, suplex him and jump on his head until he dies.

At least we know some of that is possible. Because we have seen some of it work.

We literally have a whole thread supporting a system with no real basis to believe it works at all.

Some story about a battlefield we never saw isn't proof.

The only way to get the results that would satisfy you would be unethical.

I'd rather you think I'm wrong than injure a bunch of people.

 

[drop bear]

The only way to get the results that would satisfy you would be unethical.

I'd rather you think I'm wrong than injure a bunch of people.

Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.

Because it is too deadly.

This squirming around refusing to show any sort of evidence for a system is exactly why the. Does it work in MMA? Test is so important.

It is a very easy BS detector for people who potentially don't want to spend ten years training to defend themselves only to find that nothing they have trained really works very well.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I think you are looking at a different post from me. Nothing to do with training, doing drills and all to do with this......

Going to the other comment as a reply. I am still adamantly on the view you would have at least on average a better time if you were used to the sight of blood or at least lawfully killed soemthing beforehand. There is a reason why butchering and/or killing animals is included in survival courses, you sort of need to know how to do it and it aclumitises you to the idea and process of it. Hell the entire course sort of exists to aclumatise you to the condtions and give you a skill set so you can survive if you ever need to and arent just dropped off into a foreign enviroment in its entirery.

Like you might be able to bring yourself to do it, but you wouldnt have had any experience or means to devolope a coping mechnism while doing it if you go in blind.

Look for example at the phalanx (I think there is a more accurate term) Which was a Roman superweapon.

I would techncially call that a martial art by my own usage of it. The art of warfare is very much martial and a art. Granted i will side with anyone who proposes it being diffrent nowdays and the term meaning soemthing diffrent now days rather than its literal meaning. Because when you say martial art or tradtional martial art, most people go to either CMA or Karate/JMA Doing kata in gi's etc. Rather than what contemporary systems do, like what is done in the military and police so fourth.

1. In battle much important than individual skills are: weapon, tactic, cooperation with other combatants. Please show me single TMA school which learns people how to behave in combat bigger than 1:1 or how to repeal cavalry charge. All today learned traditional martial arts are designed for single person not for group/unit melee
2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives

I would say SOME FMA styles have a battlefield undertone to them. But i would largely agree, more goes into fighting militarily than individual vs individual and the amount fo training you have to give people varies with weapon(s). Spearmen didnt require a lot of training to be effective historically.

And to the second point, pet peeve of mine as firearms were taught and used EVERYWHERE after they were introduced, yet i dont see many if any what you think of when you say Martial arts schools teach them. Its more or less either seperate firearm training or part of a contemporary system

 

[skribs]

Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.

Because it is too deadly.

This squirming around refusing to show any sort of evidence for a system is exactly why the. Does it work in MMA? Test is so important.

It is a very easy BS detector for people who potentially don't want to spend ten years training to defend themselves only to find that nothing they have trained really works very well.

First off, we've established that it doesn't work in MMA. If that is the only evidence you use for what techniques work and don't, then you're artificially narrowing the scope of what works and doesn't. That may be fine for you, but others are capable of weighing other evidence.

What are the best forms of self-defense?

• De-escalation
• Run
• Prevention (awareness, buddy system)
• Carry a weapon

None of those can be tested in MMA. According to your logic, none of those must work.

Second, since we've established that it doesn't work in MMA, the only way to prove it works is to show it's effectiveness. If I stop before I injure someone, you'll just say I didn't prove it worked.

What you've created is a circular logic, in which the only way for me to prove to you that it works is to actually hurt someone. Because you are so narrow-minded as to only see what works in one test environment, and throw out all other evidence, you are being purposefully ignorant as to what works and what doesn't.

 

[dvcochran]

Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.

Because it is too deadly.

This squirming around refusing to show any sort of evidence for a system is exactly why the. Does it work in MMA? Test is so important.

It is a very easy BS detector for people who potentially don't want to spend ten years training to defend themselves only to find that nothing they have trained really works very well.

Like I said in a previous post, it is out there. You just need to spend Your time surfing Youtube or whatever to find it.
I understand your position; you are passionate about MMA. That is a very good thing. The mindset has been drilled into your or was possibly already there. You spend a lot of time finding video 'evidence' to support your opinion. Not a bad thing. I really enjoy some of the photos I have seen of you at various events and whatnot. Your active in what you do. Another good thing. I get it, I have been there. Hell, I only missed going to the Olympics by two matches.
Some of it may be a generational thing but most people do not need overt confirmation to know whether how they workout is working for them. There is a good amount of cultural bias as well. Western styles like MMA are culturally more overt than most TMA styles. That said, I am certain there are videos out there if that is what you need.

Another food for thought idea. It is very true that there is a good amount of compliance in how a MMA match goes. That is true in any style of martial art competition. Much of what "works" as you put it that is in TMA is for non compliant situations.

I know none of this will change you mind. Just know you are in the minority with your opinion.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

This is absolutely false. Boxing started in 1681. The origins of wrestling go back 15,000 years. HEMA is from the time period of 1300-1800 AD. Fencing is from the 1600s. Karate can be traced back to the 1300s, when it was introduced to the Japanese from Chinese Kung Fu masters (which the art existed long before that).

Boxing is quite old. It more than likely preadates records of it, even if its not "boxing" but just brawling with no rules. The evolution of it came in stages which would be denoted as rulesets etc. There are people who can go back a while and cite all the rulesets in boxing, fights before the rulesets, in which ever rulesets, founders of rulesets etc. I am not one of them, just know its quite old, and modenr boxings foundations were from when brawling was just civilised into a sport. I only know of prise fighting days, queensberries rules and modern as boxing peroids. At least this is english boxing. (might vary by region, but you didnt prefix a region)

HEMA is not from any time peroid, HEMA is a collective term for all european martial arts before X point. I know of a English/British isles system that had a treatise written in 1200AD so it probbly predated that time. Cant remmeber its name, but at time of reading thats the oldest one found to be a weapon system or a complete system for the region.* By definition for HEMA, it goes back as far as europeans (as occupants of the contintent) go back. I would call it at around WW1-2ish the term stops and it becomes modern combatives.

Karate i am not touching with a stick, all i know is modern karate started around 1900. Might be wrong, might not, i am not of the view it hasnt changed at all since its inception.


* I am enthisising, it is a proper system and can be called a system of martial arts/fighting.

 

[skribs]

@dvcochran see, you and I can agree on some things!

 

[dvcochran]

@dvcochran see, you and I can agree on some things!

It happens more than you think.

 

[drop bear]

First off, we've established that it doesn't work in MMA. If that is the only evidence you use for what techniques work and don't, then you're artificially narrowing the scope of what works and doesn't. That may be fine for you, but others are capable of weighing other evidence.

What are the best forms of self-defense?

• De-escalation
• Run
• Prevention (awareness, buddy system)
• Carry a weapon

None of those can be tested in MMA. According to your logic, none of those must work.

Second, since we've established that it doesn't work in MMA, the only way to prove it works is to show it's effectiveness. If I stop before I injure someone, you'll just say I didn't prove it worked.

What you've created is a circular logic, in which the only way for me to prove to you that it works is to actually hurt someone. Because you are so narrow-minded as to only see what works in one test environment, and throw out all other evidence, you are being purposefully ignorant as to what works and what doesn't.

So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works.

So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.

You haven't seen if your system creates the skills neccecary to achieve your objectives.

You can't test techniques that are so vital to your success that the whole system is compromised by their removal.

And you are hoping that because these techniques might have been used on a battlefield somewhere that they will work for you under the stress of attack.

And you think that me asking for a single kernel of truth that supports your theorys is somehow willfully ignorant.

This is a mindset that has no place in self defense.

 

[drop bear]

Like I said in a previous post, it is out there. You just need to spend Your time surfing Youtube or whatever to find it.
I understand your position; you are passionate about MMA. That is a very good thing. The mindset has been drilled into your or was possibly already there. You spend a lot of time finding video 'evidence' to support your opinion. Not a bad thing. I really enjoy some of the photos I have seen of you at various events and whatnot. Your active in what you do. Another good thing. I get it, I have been there. Hell, I only missed going to the Olympics by two matches.
Some of it may be a generational thing but most people do not need overt confirmation to know whether how they workout is working for them. There is a good amount of cultural bias as well. Western styles like MMA are culturally more overt than most TMA styles. That said, I am certain there are videos out there if that is what you need.

Another food for thought idea. It is very true that there is a good amount of compliance in how a MMA match goes. That is true in any style of martial art competition. Much of what "works" as you put it that is in TMA is for non compliant situations.

I know none of this will change you mind. Just know you are in the minority with your opinion.

You can't just say it is out there. What if it isn't out there? What if it is just half truths and stories?

I can show you MMA works. On the street in the ring, I can show you police and soldiers and civilians using MMA or MMA principles effectively. That is not opinion you can see it working.

You can't show me what you suggest works working anywhere.

That isn't a passion for MMA.

That is a passion for the truth.

And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system.

 

[skribs]

So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works.

I do know. Your opinion is irrelevant to my knowledge.

So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.

I have even admitted they won't. You keep bringing this up like a "gotcha", but we agree they won't. Stop trying to convince me they won't, because I already agree with you on that. Competitive setting is not the place for these techniques.

You haven't seen if your system creates the skills neccecary to achieve your objectives.

Yes I have. I'll go back to my point above. Your opinion is irrelevant to my confidence in my abilities.

You can't test techniques that are so vital to your success that the whole system is compromised by their removal.

I don't even know what you mean here, so...no comment.

And you are hoping that because these techniques might have been used on a battlefield somewhere that they will work for you under the stress of attack.

No. I know how these techniques work based on my own drills and sparring, and knowing what would happen if I cranked the arm instead of stopping my motion.

And you think that me asking for a single kernel of truth that supports your theorys is somehow willfully ignorant.

A single kernel of truth? You've been given buckets and reject it. You don't want a single kernel.

This is a mindset that has no place in self defense.

And yours has no place in discussion. You reject everything that's thrown at you and then say "you've given me nothing."

 

[skribs]

You can't just say it is out there. What if it isn't out there? What if it is just half truths and stories?

I can show you MMA works. On the street in the ring, I can show you police and soldiers and civilians using MMA or MMA principles effectively. That is not opinion you can see it working.

You can't show me what you suggest works working anywhere.

That isn't a passion for MMA.

That is a passion for the truth.

And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system.

Why do you now accept "police and soldiers and civilians using..." as proof? When we were discussing wrist locks a while back, we pointed to use by police and civilians in making arrests or in self-defense, and the attitude was that since it wasn't in the ring, it doesn't matter.

You have a huge double standard here. If it's MMA, everything that works is proof that it works. If it's not MMA, then everything that works is anecdotal and wouldn't work if the opponent knew what they were doing.

 

[dvcochran]

So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works.

So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.

You haven't seen if your system creates the skills neccecary to achieve your objectives.

You can't test techniques that are so vital to your success that the whole system is compromised by their removal.

And you are hoping that because these techniques might have been used on a battlefield somewhere that they will work for you under the stress of attack.

And you think that me asking for a single kernel of truth that supports your theorys is somehow willfully ignorant.

This is a mindset that has no place in self defense.

Ok, so if I spend a bunch of time on Youtube and find events that are TMA to me, whether it is standing or on the ground, what is going to keep you from just claiming it is MMA? Are only standing punches and kicks TMA in your opinion? That is just not true. That immediately unbalances the equation because of bias.
I suspect much of what You see as MMA is seen as TMA by many others so, again, it is out there.
Most people who practice a TMA are tested under resistance. I for one know I have been about as high as you can go in the realm of competition both in TKD and a fair amount of PKA.
It don't have a ton of video and it is all on thumb drives converted from VHS so it is hard to see anyway. I have a ton of pictures. For me, that is good enough.

By the way; "And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system." This is a Great quote.

 

[drop bear]

Why do you now accept "police and soldiers and civilians using..." as proof? When we were discussing wrist locks a while back, we pointed to use by police and civilians in making arrests or in self-defense, and the attitude was that since it wasn't in the ring, it doesn't matter.

You have a huge double standard here. If it's MMA, everything that works is proof that it works. If it's not MMA, then everything that works is anecdotal and wouldn't work if the opponent knew what they were doing.

Yeah. Used by police is probably the flagship for anecdotal nonsense and use of weasel words.

I mean I don't think you could create a conclusion from a more vague and inconsistent source.

It wasn't even a police officer consistently wrist locking people. It was just "police"

And from there we jumped to wrist locks work without any idea how to make them work. Because you can't seem to train anything without killing your partner.

 

[drop bear]

Ok, so if I spend a bunch of time on Youtube and find events that are TMA to me, whether it is standing or on the ground, what is going to keep you from just claiming it is MMA? Are only standing punches and kicks TMA in your opinion? That is just not true. That immediately unbalances the equation because of bias.
I suspect much of what You see as MMA is seen as TMA by many others so, again, it is out there.
Most people who practice a TMA are tested under resistance. I for one know I have been about as high as you can go in the realm of competition both in TKD and a fair amount of PKA.
It don't have a ton of video and it is all on thumb drives converted from VHS so it is hard to see anyway. I have a ton of pictures. For me, that is good enough.

By the way; "And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system." This is a Great quote.

MMA is a competitive setting that allows striking grappling and ground work.

Rather than it really being a MMA vs TMA thing that you guys are trying to set up.

I just use the distinction because otherwise we get in to a 20 page semantic argument.

But I could just as easily say it has to work consistently under a bunch of conditions.

With fighting or self defence. Striking, grappling and ground work is pretty good.

If we say added weapons. It would be better. And we can, there are hema, dog brothers and gun games. And when we do. We don't suddenly see wrist locks and arm bars.

We see MMA with additional situational elements. So the order of priorities changes.

But not only do we have consistency within MMA we get consistency across platforms.

And from there we have a framework that is based in evidence that we can work with if we wanted results based self defense.

Half the arguments here are hoodoo nonscence.

 

[jobo]

MMA is a competitive setting that allows striking grappling and ground work.

Rather than it really being a MMA vs TMA thing that you guys are trying to set up.

I just use the distinction because otherwise we get in to a 20 page semantic argument.

But I could just as easily say it has to work consistently under a bunch of conditions.

With fighting or self defence. Striking, grappling and ground work is pretty good.

If we say added weapons. It would be better. And we can, there are hema, dog brothers and gun games. And when we do. We don't suddenly see wrist locks and arm bars.

We see MMA with additional situational elements. So the order of priorities changes.

But not only do we have consistency within MMA we get consistency across platforms.

And from there we have a framework that is based in evidence that we can work with if we wanted results based self defense.

Half the arguments here are hoodoo nonscence.

welll yes, mma works consistantly50% of the time

from an indevidual basis there are some, a very few who make it work a 100% of the time, its therefore a logical conclusion that there are others who can make it work 0% of the time. thats probebly much the same as any fighting style

 

[skribs]

@drop bear Nobody is saying MMA is bad (or if they are, it's a small voice). Just that it's not an infallible test for what happens outside of MMA.

 

[drop bear]

@drop bear Nobody is saying MMA is bad (or if they are, it's a small voice). Just that it's not an infallible test for what happens outside of MMA.

What is this test you are comparing it too?