Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[drop bear]

I don't have any issue with that. I have always acknowledged the skill of MMA competitors. Obviously the techniques will be equally effective on the street. All I am trying to say is that the techniques that I teach which are specifically for the street and worse are at least as effective. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously write off every martial art that doesn't have competitors in the ring.
:asian:

You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.

 

[K-man]

Why can you still not believe that? They've been doing it consistently for 40+ pages now.

Apparently I'm a bit slow, but it's obvious I'm not alone!

 

[K-man]

You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.

Mate, I am 66 years old. What would it prove if I went in the ring? I finished with that years back. I'm more concerned with teaching people who want to develop some personal protection skills and learn an authentic and effective martial art along the way.

If someone came to me wanting to fight in the ring, I have a number of friends who will train them and two mates who could promote them. What I teach is not designed for the ring so I don't attract students who want to fight in the ring.
:asian:

Just as an aside. When I do demonstrate a technique against a resisting opponent I usually pick the biggest, strongest guy to demonstrate on. That way the guys can see that it is effective.

 

[jezr74]

You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.

Is this really true? I think it's more to being marketable, has really has no bearing on their knowledge or ability. It's just about selling yourself. If you in a professional service, you might might wear a suit and tie but it doesn't make you smarter or give you knowledge you didn't have before.

Using a move in a fight is statistically insignificant to assessing it's ability. Using it in 1000's of fights and tracking it's effectiveness might serve better. Or sparring can give a good insight since it's not practical to fabricate a live fight for that purpose.

 

[Steve]

Let's have closer look at this full resistance thing you keep talking about shall we.
Is it really full resistance , you are not training against people trying to trap your hands and punch you , you are not training against people trying to kick you , you are not training against people trying to knee strike you or elbow strike you.

You are basically training against people trying to grapple with you , basically people playing the same game as you are.

Stop it. I'm trying to pull out of this endless loop here, but statements like this are killing me.You've already said you never train at full resistance, and acknowledged that it would kill or maim your partners. If you are asserting that Hanzou does not train against full resistance, You are also not training against people who are trying to kick you. You are training against people who are simulating a kick, elbow strike or knee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K-man]

Stop it. I'm trying to pull out of this endless loop here, but statements like this are killing me.You've already said you never train at full resistance, and acknowledged that it would kill or maim your partners. If you are asserting that Hanzou does not train against full resistance, You are also not training against people who are trying to kick you. You are training against people who are simulating a kick, elbow strike or knee.

I agree with your sentiment. Perhaps it is a matter of terminology to some extent. When I talk of full resistance I mean someone is trying as hard as they can to stop you performing a technique. That could be a choke, a takedown, a joint lock etc. If I was thinking of full intensity I would be thinking of a street fight. So sparring at training would be possibly at full resistance but low intensity. Professional competition would be high intensity but still not really trying to cause permanent harm. When it comes to people trying to hit you it depends on the level of training. Only at reasonably high levels of training can you work at that high level of intensity unless you are wearing protective gear and even then you still can't necessarily use full power in your strikes. There is too much black and white in this thread. In reality it is somewhere in between.
:asian:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When I talk of full resistance I mean someone is trying as hard as they can to stop you performing a technique. That could be a ... a takedown, ...

I'm always interested in the definition of "full resistance". If you try to use "hip throw" to throw your opponent forward, his "full resistance" should be to sink his body down so it will be harder for you to apply your "hip throw" on him.

If you

- borrow his sinking force,
- sink with him, and
- take him down backward,

his "full resistance" can be used to against your 1st throw, but it can help you to execute your 2nd throw, will you still call that "full resistance"? When you pull your opponent, your opponent's "full resistance" should be to resist against your pulling. That means his body will go backward. It will definitely help you to push him back after that.

The term "fully resistance" should not be just "trying as hard as you can to stop your opponent from performing his technique". This kind of thinking may be too "conservative". Your "full resistance" should also include

- yield into your opponent's force,
- borrow his force, and
- add your force on top of it to against him.

IMO, "resistance" does not equal to "force against force". It should also include "yield" as shown in the following clip - you opponent spins, you spin with him (not resist against him).

 

[Hanzou]

I have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike while they were holding a pad no, I would be doing a very lousy job at doing pad work if I did.

Sometimes the pads are moving and no one in any of our classes would be stupid enough to hold a pad to their neck during striking practice, that would be an accident waiting to happen. When you are doing pad work the pad holder would not be blocking as that would defeat the purpose of doing pad work, they are however moving, blocking, striking back and resisting in sparring.

Back to my point; You have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike, and I'm willing to bet that you've never actually hit someone on the side of the neck at full force without pads. Would that assumption be correct?

So how do you figure that your ability to do something that you've never actually done exceeds or equals my ability to do something I've done many, many times?

 

[Hanzou]

I actually copied and pasted two vital targets for you to comment on. I was referring to the other targets which were on the page I linked to see if you disagreed. I couldn't watch the videos on an ipad so can't comment.

The link took me to their homepage. Care to relink?

Or maybe as they say on the site they are just sharing the location. It's not always a conspiracy.

Fair point.....

Maybe. :rpo:

Oh please! So at least you are now acknowledging that the techniques are legitimate. So I suppose we are now back to ensuring effective training to make them work. Cool ... that's a start.

Where did I say that they weren't legitimate? I said that they're very low percentage moves, and that low percentage is compounded by the fact that you guys aren't actually hitting people in their necks and killing people, or knocking them out.

True. I can get quite argumentative when people feed me BS. Just stop rubbishing every other style and every other martial artist and we might even get to be friends.

I don't know why you think I'm trashing/rubbishing every other style. I'm simply pointing out that saying you're counter against a trained grappler is a strike to the neck (that you actually have never done in a live environment against a fully resisting opponent) is a pretty hilarious statement.

Hmm! You really don't read things do you? I said we don't spar in the conventional sense, ie like tournament sparring. I told you we trained against full resistance but you didn't accept that as valid. So no, we don't have any one step drills as such.

Could you post an example of a MA school doing something similar to what you guys do? That information would be very helpful.

As to RNC. I teach how to apply it first, but in training you have to be able to achieve the position to apply it. I would think it was a bit like your training really in that respect but obviously not as effective as yours because we don't want to fight in the ring.

If you guys are training under a Bjj BB, I'm sure you're doing just fine.

We do both different nights or you might like to check out how effective Aikido can be. We teach all three in the one location. Anyone is welcome to attend classes. I would certainly join the Aikido class if you were going to be there.

If I'm ever on that side of the world I'll definitely stop by.

 

[drop bear]

Is this really true? I think it's more to being marketable, has really has no bearing on their knowledge or ability. It's just about selling yourself. If you in a professional service, you might might wear a suit and tie but it doesn't make you smarter or give you knowledge you didn't have before.

Using a move in a fight is statistically insignificant to assessing it's ability. Using it in 1000's of fights and tracking it's effectiveness might serve better. Or sparring can give a good insight since it's not practical to fabricate a live fight for that purpose.

But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.

 

[drop bear]

Mate, I am 66 years old. What would it prove if I went in the ring? I finished with that years back. I'm more concerned with teaching people who want to develop some personal protection skills and learn an authentic and effective martial art along the way.

If someone came to me wanting to fight in the ring, I have a number of friends who will train them and two mates who could promote them. What I teach is not designed for the ring so I don't attract students who want to fight in the ring.
:asian:

Just as an aside. When I do demonstrate a technique against a resisting opponent I usually pick the biggest, strongest guy to demonstrate on. That way the guys can see that it is effective.

Then you would have considerable personal protection experience?

Used this stuff refined it somewhere? Chopped a bunch of guys in the neck. Knocked a few of them out. Compared that to the RNC to see which one is better for which situation.

 

[Hanzou]

But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.

Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.

The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.

 

[drop bear]

I'm always interested in the definition of "full resistance". If you try to use "hip throw" to throw your opponent forward, his "full resistance" should be to sink his body down so it will be harder for you to apply your "hip throw" on him.

If you

- borrow his sinking force,
- sink with him, and
- take him down backward,

his "full resistance" can be used to against your 1st throw, but it can help you to execute your 2nd throw, will you still call that "full resistance"? When you pull your opponent, your opponent's "full resistance" should be to resist against your pulling. That means his body will go backward. It will definitely help you to push him back after that.

The term "fully resistance" should not be just "trying as hard as you can to stop your opponent from performing his technique". This kind of thinking may be too "conservative". Your "full resistance" should also include

- yield into your opponent's force,
- borrow his force, and
- add your force on top of it to against him.

IMO, "resistance" does not equal to "force against force". It should also include "yield" as shown in the following clip - you opponent spins, you spin with him (not resist against him).

Non compliant. So they try to throw you try to counter. Not they throw you flop over like a fish.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gFzNkA9-BwU

 

[drop bear]

Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.

The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.

Well it is the bulk of information that is the boon. The thousands of fights that we can look up and test ideas from. That we can take ideas from martial arts and play with them to see if they work. Or see how to make them not work. MMA may not be the perfect method for this. But it is the best method so far.

I think people forget mma is made up mostly from other styles.

 

[jezr74]

The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.

That would be a false dichotomy, there are other alternative experience. Maybe a LEO, Bouncer, Military, text book study the body, psychology etc. skill levels will vary.

 

[jezr74]

Well it is the bulk of information that is the boon. The thousands of fights that we can look up and test ideas from. That we can take ideas from martial arts and play with them to see if they work. Or see how to make them not work. MMA may not be the perfect method for this. But it is the best method so far.

I think people forget mma is made up mostly from other styles.

I think it's one of many tools to test and work out what works best for an individual within the environment. If it can work outside, it is still based on experience and speculation. Even in this thread people are talking probability. You don't do that normally with facts, what might work once in RL may not work a second time. So it goes' back to statistics and probability (speculation), your right though it's good to have a fair amount of data accumulating from these fights, even if just to help make good decisions.

 

[Hanzou]

That would be a false dichotomy, there are other alternative experience. Maybe a LEO, Bouncer, Military, text book study the body, psychology etc. skill levels will vary.

The key word is consistent. Those avenues aren't very consistent, because oftentimes they don't involve martial arts or even unarmed combat.

 

[jezr74]

But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.

Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.

The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.

The key word is consistent. Those avenues aren't very consistent, because oftentimes they don't involve martial arts or even unarmed combat.

I would have thought most of those professions are trained. And trained to respond to certain situations in a precise manner consistently, a bouncer would use methods to de-escalate and constraint. That would be fairly consistent with their door policy. So within the policy they would have certain moves and technique that work well for that situation. Arm control etc.. anecdotal most bouncers I know are MAists, or naturally big and strong

I see law enforcement apprehending criminals all the time (news, on the street, outside bars etc), and I'd even go as far to say it's very consistent manner they use, in some cases almost to script. They are fine examples of RL situations in my opinion.

 

[drop bear]

I would have thought most of those professions are trained. And trained to respond to certain situations in a precise manner consistently, a bouncer would use methods to de-escalate and constraint. That would be fairly consistent with their door policy. So within the policy they would have certain moves and technique that work well for that situation. Arm control etc.. anecdotal most bouncers I know are MAists, or naturally big and strong

I see law enforcement apprehending criminals all the time (news, on the street, outside bars etc), and I'd even go as far to say it's very consistent manner they use, in some cases almost to script. They are fine examples of RL situations in my opinion.

And from there we say. OK. Let's see these real life examples so we can get a gist of what will work within context. Then take that to the lab and try to re create that effect consistently. See if we can refine that Take it back out to real life and test it out there.

But are we actually doing that?

Ask a bouncer what their industry training is like? Generally it is pretty unrealistic.

 

[drop bear]

I think it's one of many tools to test and work out what works best for an individual within the environment. If it can work outside, it is still based on experience and speculation. Even in this thread people are talking probability. You don't do that normally with facts, what might work once in RL may not work a second time. So it goes' back to statistics and probability (speculation), your right though it's good to have a fair amount of data accumulating from these fights, even if just to help make good decisions.

Yeah but you are suggesting going off the data. And I don't think people do that. I did a thread here once about flying kicks for the street. I found five examples on YouTube of them working to at least achieve a result. The consensus is flying kicks wont work because of a whole bunch of preconceived ideas. Not the data.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/114032-flying-kicks-streets.html

There is a consensus that instep or oblique kicking works in the street. I cannot find a street example of this kick working. The only example I could find was John Jones which is discounted because the ring is not a street. The one guy who can actually make that kick work is not the guy anybody looks at to how to set this kick up.



There is a lot of false data running around in martial arts and there are not that many people going out there and testing it.

Mma has a habit of being test monkies. Does ninja move xyz have validity? Let's get a guy try it a few times with the intent of stopping it. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

And as to why some elements of tmas can not represent well in mma. They fail in the testing stage. And mma testing is ruthless. It upsets people.