Wing Chun vs MMA

[Phobius]

Self defence and getting into "real fights" are two different things. If you get in to a fight you are not defending yourself, you are breaking the law.

I know, but I believe the discussion was that if he robbed a Judo champion... that means he is breaking the law and getting himself into a real fight.

And you can be in a real fight as part of self defense. You are not breaking the law if someone tries to hit you. Not all real fights means you want or need to hit your opponent(s). In some cases you just need to get away unharmed.

 

[lklawson]

You're ignoring the fact that I am equally capable of making them fall, and I practice looking for ways to make those falls worse on hard surfaces. And I, probably (though not certainly) unlike them, have practiced movement on uneven surfaces, broken surfaces, etc., to improve my chances when the mats aren't there.

<pssst> [looks around] Judoka do too.

I also practice strikes, which most (again not all) Judoka don't.

More than you seem to think.

Your'e simply declaring that a Judoka at my same level is better and would win if we had a street confrontation, because they compete. That's an assumption, based on nothing but opinion.

As a Judoka, I'd agree with this.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

A practitioner studies a martial art, no matter whether they compete or not.

Problem could be that a contender may put some effort in learning tools that are not usable for street/self defense but very viable for competition under rules. (Sort of like seeing some grapplers have head forward and low arms while standing)
Now if you practise the same amount of time as someone else, and you spend 20% of that time on teaching your body to automatically do stuff you should never do when in a real fight, that still means you train 80% on doing stuff correctly.

Now imagine if this guy trains twice as hard as anyone else just to get an edge in competition, then yes he will control his opponent without much worries.

Now if the table is turned and one guy trains twice as hard but never competes, facing an opponent that does compete and trains quite a bit less. Imagine who would win most likely.

Competition has nothing to do with being used to fighting with resistance or having an opponent. Sparring is not a training tool for competitions. It is a training tool period.

The point about competition is you get a guage of ability. You get the same with sparring.

What happens is that people separate this from self defence and suggest competition is no guage of ability. And will push that to sparring is no guage of ability.

It then almost comes down to whether or not the martial artist fits this script that is made to suggest what happens in self defence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is nonsense. Competitors do get frustrated, enraged, desperate, etc. Heck, that can happen when your sparring/rolling while training. All of that alters their fighting ability, and there's no reason to believe that a sport martial artist wouldn't be able to handle an enraged assailant as well (if not better) than a traditional martial artist can.

Again, not a response to my statement. I never said a competitor couldn't handle enraged people. I said that they are unlikely to train for techniques and approaches specifically designed for those. And, again, I never said folks don't get angry when competing - I said that those folks who do won't rise as high, because they are a bit easier to handle when they do that.

Further, unless you're some kind of street fighter who gets into altercations constantly, a sport martial artist is more likely to experience those emotional shifts than a traditional martial artist, and be better able to handle that situation.

Perhaps true, and still not relevant to any specific comment I made. You're still trying to defend competition, which I'm not attacking.

Knee on belly is useful for multiple opponents and competition. Cain Velasquez used that exact technique to win the UFC HW championship.

That's one example of many.

And, again, I never said nothing used in competition is useful for multiple-attacker scenarios. What I said was that training for competition ONLY wouldn't include anything specifically designed for multiple attackers. To be clearer, there is NO REASON for someone competing in one-on-one fights to study how to manage movement against 2 or more attackers if his ONLY reason for training is competition. If he studies that, he has stepped into self-defense training. Neither better nor worse than competition, just a different area than pure competition training.

Now can you please stop defending competition from attacks I'm not making?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which bit was snarky out of interests sakes?

Anyway we were judging the merits of the practitioner by their specific skill set. So a person who competes at judo is good but only for competition. So the fact he is a judo champion does not really factor in. Technically this judo champion is of equal or lesser skill on the uneven pavement depending if he trained for the street or not.

You're choosing to ignore my entire reply to that, so I'm going to choose not to repeat it.

Now if the above does not sound all that realistic. Then maybe we need to consider sports fighters as martial artists in their own right and not just suited to competition.

More of the same. If you were replying to something I actually said, I'd reply.

"Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor."

The point?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defence and getting into "real fights" are two different things. If you get in to a fight you are not defending yourself, you are breaking the law.

You're arguing the definition of "fight". I think he was referring to the physical confrontation that would happen if you were physically attacked. In that case, if we call that a fight (and I often do), then that is part of self-defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

<pssst> [looks around] Judoka do too.

Precisely. Those who are preparing for something outside competition. Perhaps I should have been clearer that my reply was using a theoretical competition-trained-only judoka as an example, since the original comment was about the value of competition training. As someone who has used Judo in self-defense, I know its value for that. As someone who trains for self-defense, I know that value rises when you train to use it that way. At that point, we're not just talking about someone who competes.

More than you seem to think.

Actually, most of the Judoka I know are cross-trained in one style or another of Karate (as was my instructor). I don't have ton of Judo training, but the few schools I was in didn't include that in Judo training. They were competition-oriented, so trained just for that. Again, any adaptation blurs the line between that theoretical Judoka first brought up and my own training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point about competition is you get a guage of ability. You get the same with sparring.

What happens is that people separate this from self defence and suggest competition is no guage of ability. And will push that to sparring is no guage of ability.

It then almost comes down to whether or not the martial artist fits this script that is made to suggest what happens in self defence.

I don't know any serious SD martial artists who don't think there's value in sparring. Without sparring, there's nothing unexpected (well not as much - there are other ways to train that, as well), and no chance to try finding a way to work against someone who knows how to stop you. I think sparring - in its various forms and levels - is a valuable tool for training.

 

[lklawson]

Actually, most of the Judoka I know are cross-trained in one style or another of Karate (as was my instructor). I don't have ton of Judo training, but the few schools I was in didn't include that in Judo training. They were competition-oriented, so trained just for that. Again, any adaptation blurs the line between that theoretical Judoka first brought up and my own training.

OK. I will readily conceded that there are a vast number of Judo Dojo with heavy competition orientations. But even within "pure" Judo, Atemi Waza is part of the "official" curriculum. Heck, everyone has heard of the classic "Judo Chop!"

"Judo consists primarily of nage-waza (throws), along with katame-waza (grappling), which includes osaekomi-waza (pins), shime-waza (chokes), and kansetsu-waza (joint locks). Additional techniques, including atemi-waza (striking), various joint locks, self defense and weapons are found in the Judo katas. Judo is generally compared to wrestling, but it retains its unique combat forms. As a daughter to Jujutsu these techniques are also often taught in Judo classes."
- Kodokan Judo
by Neil Ohlenkamp
​

Classification of Techniques in Kodokan Judo
http://judoinfo.com/pdf/MyMethodofSelfDefense.pdf

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Paul_D]

Firstly as it is difficult to portray intent in writing, so I shall attempt to avoid the problems which have plagued other threads and state that this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, so if my writing style infers confrontation, that is due to my poor writing, rather than my actual intent.

I
And you can be in a real fight as part of self defense.

No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point. . Fighting is illegal, self defence is not. How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate. They are different and one cannot be the other.

You are not breaking the law if someone tries to hit you. Not all real fights means you want or need to hit your opponent(s).

No you're are not breaking the law, but that is becasue someone trying to hit you is called assault not a fight, and defending yourself form assault is called self defence, not fighting.

Fighting is when you willingly agree to take your argument outside and settle it in a "square go". Self defence is when one or more people involved are unwilling.

It may sound pedantic but it is not, the distinction is important. Talking about "fighting" when what you really mean is self defence gives people the mistaken impression that a) agreeing to take part in street fights or bar brawls is legal self defence and b) that the skills and tactics needed for success in a consensual fight are the same as the skills and tactics needed for success in self defence.

Furthermore is the consideration that in the when people are convicted by the courts when legally defending themselves, it was not because of what they did, but rather what they said. In Dead or Alive: The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thomspon discusses this very issue:-

Many people are convicted not for what they have done but for what they have said. You are judged on your statement as opposed to the incident itself. So, what does this mean in English? Basically you could defend yourself within the law and yet still be convicted and sent to jail because you did not quote the law correctly when giving a statement. Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law.

Telling the Police someone tried to assault you is a very different thing (to them and to the jury) to telling them you got into a fight.

 

[Hanzou]

So if a woman is pinned down by her attacker, and she begins to kick, punch, and grapple to escape him, she's not defending herself via fighting?

 

[drop bear]

No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point. . Fighting is illegal, self defence is not. How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate. They are different and one cannot be the other.

Forrest griffin will explain it to you.

 

[drop bear]

Defence against assault. Neatly put into an acronym for easy reference.

The defences to assault are
CAMELS Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence.

Assault flashcards | Quizlet

Why people get this massive semantic tizz over the explaination of concepts like self defence. And then only explain half of it I have no idea.

Self defence is the wrong term. Use of force is the correct term. Because it covers a more comprehensive use of the skills learned in martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Firstly as it is difficult to portray intent in writing, so I shall attempt to avoid the problems which have plagued other threads and state that this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, so if my writing style infers confrontation, that is due to my poor writing, rather than my actual intent.


No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point. . Fighting is illegal, self defence is not. How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate. They are different and one cannot be the other.


No you're are not breaking the law, but that is becasue someone trying to hit you is called assault not a fight, and defending yourself form assault is called self defence, not fighting.

Fighting is when you willingly agree to take your argument outside and settle it in a "square go". Self defence is when one or more people involved are unwilling.

It may sound pedantic but it is not, the distinction is important. Talking about "fighting" when what you really mean is self defence gives people the mistaken impression that a) agreeing to take part in street fights or bar brawls is legal self defence and b) that the skills and tactics needed for success in a consensual fight are the same as the skills and tactics needed for success in self defence.

Furthermore is the consideration that in the when people are convicted by the courts when legally defending themselves, it was not because of what they did, but rather what they said. In Dead or Alive: The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thomspon discusses this very issue:-

Many people are convicted not for what they have done but for what they have said. You are judged on your statement as opposed to the incident itself. So, what does this mean in English? Basically you could defend yourself within the law and yet still be convicted and sent to jail because you did not quote the law correctly when giving a statement. Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law.

Telling the Police someone tried to assault you is a very different thing (to them and to the jury) to telling them you got into a fight.

As I said before, you're arguing from your own definition of "fight". For me (and pretty much everyone I've ever trained with), the word can be used to indicate an arranged contest (what you're talking about) or any other physical confrontation that involves similar actions (punches, kicks, tackles, grabs, etc. - what I'm talking about). If you continue to use your definition to reply to my comments, we can never agree. If you don't like my definition, give me another term that works for those other things I'm calling "fights" that don't fit your definition. Otherwise, we're just going to waste our time arguing in circles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OK. I will readily conceded that there are a vast number of Judo Dojo with heavy competition orientations. But even within "pure" Judo, Atemi Waza is part of the "official" curriculum. Heck, everyone has heard of the classic "Judo Chop!"

"Judo consists primarily of nage-waza (throws), along with katame-waza (grappling), which includes osaekomi-waza (pins), shime-waza (chokes), and kansetsu-waza (joint locks). Additional techniques, including atemi-waza (striking), various joint locks, self defense and weapons are found in the Judo katas. Judo is generally compared to wrestling, but it retains its unique combat forms. As a daughter to Jujutsu these techniques are also often taught in Judo classes."
- Kodokan Judo
by Neil Ohlenkamp
​

Classification of Techniques in Kodokan Judo
http://judoinfo.com/pdf/MyMethodofSelfDefense.pdf

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Point well-made, Kirk. I suspect I either didn't get the atemi portion of the curriculum (not sure when it would have come in) or I just don't recall it, since I studied Shotokan Karate with the same instructor.

In either case, strikes are certainly out-of-scope for Judo competition training (though useful if training for MMA, of course).

Oh, and I'd forgotten "Judo chop"!

 

[drop bear]

I don't know any serious SD martial artists who don't think there's value in sparring. Without sparring, there's nothing unexpected (well not as much - there are other ways to train that, as well), and no chance to try finding a way to work against someone who knows how to stop you. I think sparring - in its various forms and levels - is a valuable tool for training.

Well. You will eventually meet them here. And they are very serious.

So i understand the point you are making. But it is a different point to the one i am trying to get across.

My argument has been the same as yours. Sparring refines a core skill which you really need if you want to go out and self defence. Even if you are mad keen to streetafy your training you need that ability to start from.

The counter argument is that it dosent refine a core skill but that it refines a competition skill. And that you need different core principles to create a base for self defence.

I have never found that argument consistent in anything else i have done.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'll have to dust off all of your posts about how the ring isn't self defense, but change it from cage to cop. The distinctions are the same.

There is only one thing like self defense and that's self defense. Other things can have elements in common but there is nothing like the real thing.

 

[RTKDCMB]

not two people swinging wildly as if they've had no training whatsoever.

Something that is seen in MMA often.

 

[Paul_D]

My argument has been the same as yours. Sparring refines a core skill which you really need if you want to go out and self defence. Even if you are mad keen to streetafy your training you need that ability to start from.

So if you want to teach self defence to the elderly, you are going to tell them they can't do so it without sparring?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yeah, but the idea that every single participant in a given style is not interested in NHB competition is a little hard to believe.

Not when you consider that people who have no interest in NHB competition tend to gravitate towards martial arts that do not compete in NHB competitions.