Does it work in a self defense or combat situation?
Last edited:
“Best” Martial Art
- Thread starter auntlisa1103
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
And how do you determine that?
Go to your nearest MA school and sign up for a class.
Imo challenge matches/competitions aren't a great measuring stick for which art is "better". In karate competition, you aren't even allowed to use the majority of what karate has to offer. If all you're measuring is what system produces the best all around fighters then yes, mma demonstrably is superior. Other systems aren't geared towards producing the all around best fighters. Evidence? Evidence of what? That the system produces the best fighters, or the best at ending a threat with the least risk to yourself, or ending a threat most quickly? The goals aren't the same. I have play dates with my buddy who's been consistently training mma for a good ten years now. He goes for a takedown with the goal of following it up with something. I go for a takedown with goal of causing injury as the takedown happens. He can outfight me if I try to hang with him. My goal is specifically to not allow that to happen, hence the emphasis on causing injury on the way down. Which of our arts is superior? One produces a better fighter, the other produces someone able to end it quicker. The goals make a big difference. Our little competition isn't even realistic- neither of us can do to the other all we could do if we didn't care about maiming and killing each other. Arguing which art is best is like arguing which dog breed is best. There's a whole bunch of breeds that use violence as a tool to achieve their goals. And yet we still have different breeds working real world jobs because of sometimes very minor differences in goals. German shepherds, malinois and Dutch shepherds can all do the exact same things. They all excell at the same things. But each breed is just a little bit better than the others at doing those same things in different circumstances. No serious working dog person says one breed is all around superior over the others. And there's plenty of evidence out there to prove it. The martial arts are the same way. Which is superior if the goal is winning a fight? Ok, which is superior if the goal is geared towards assassination? I'll bet it won't be the one geared towards winning fights. The whole argument is silly. It's fun to think about but just the issue of goals makes it silly. You can't put an art that's not geared towards fighting it out with a hardened fighter in a match with an art that is geared specifically for that and then say the first art is inferior because it didn't do as well.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
People really confuse the issue in a bid to confuse the issue.
If your goal was to fight. Then the hardened fighter achieved that.
If your goal was to do something other than fighting being bad at fighting doesn't achieve your goal.
You can be bad at more than one thing.
This argument gets used a lot. And it moves the evidence away from what we can see. To what we can't see in a bid to no longer have to rely on evidence to make a case.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
From a technical standpoint your approach is high risk. Which is the issue in MMA. And in my personal opinion three times the issue in self defence.
Trying to force a quick finish opens you to be quickly finished as well. Where methodically securing the positions exposes you to less chance of a counter attack. The reason they do the takedown the way they do. Is because they are more likley to finish the takedown.
Here we go. The second fight is a good example as to how fighting like poker you loose the most with the best hand.
Being able to move safely through the space and in to a dominant position is more effective than being able to use all your tools. And again why MMA train in that manner.
This is why wrestlers will win fights with striking even though they may not be comparable strikers. Instead they get to a position that they are sitting on top of you and you can't strike back.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
What make you think this kind of throws will involve with high risk?
You don't ride them in to the ground. If they squirm out and get up. You are back to having to fight them to the ground again.
So a combative fireman's will look more like this.
It has more mechanical advantage to get you over because it is using gravity and not strength. It secures the guy on the deck and there are options to bail out and go for something else.
In fact for fighting and dealing with resisting guys. You will find most people don't do lifts.
And instead will use energy conserving throws.
Some do. But they are usually hellishly strong or come from that propper wrestling background. That has all this back of house training designed to make you tough.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing how it's any more high risk than what he's doing. We end up using the same takedowns a lot of the time, just small mechanical differences in how he and I do them. I don't have anything to lose that he doesn't. I have the option of riding them down as you say if I want. It's probably not my first choice. I don't like getting kicked in the head by the other guy.
What make you think this kind of throws will involve with high risk?
Most fights, if not all, start from standing.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
Lifting people is slower and harder. And so he has more opportunities to defend.
I mean it is pretty simple to test with your MMA friend. Just make the win condition that lift.
If you can get to there. You can probably throw him on his head.
If you can't and you get taken down and mounted. He can probably elbow your face off.
Either way will work if you want to actively cripple someone. You don't necessarily have to finish it in training.
Lol my back can't handle those lifting throws. I agree with what you've said here. He and I actually do test our methodologies against each other, its a big part of why I like playing with him. So many people now have at least a little mma/BJJ training I've made dealing with that a part of my at home training for awhile now. You and he actually have a good many talking points in common. He and I are able to sort things out through physical contact though. Moving safely to a position of advantage is something we go down rabbit holes with. You can't get the other person if they get you first
This made me think of my on again off again employee who spent some time in prison telling me about fighting a guy who was more skilled than him, he said he had to pull something out his @$$ to beat the guy. I thought about that after....the TMA are full of that sort of thing if you go looking for it. That's a lot of what I mean by being able to end the other guy quicker instead of fighting it out
The fireman's carry is the ACSCA 1st degree BB testing requirement. It requires one to throw his opponent while his both feet are
- straight, and
- touching together (or with shoulder width).
This way you guarantee that you can throw your opponent from the highest point.
Here is one good example that 2 different MA systems may train the same technique in different ways. It's interested to see the difference.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,492
- Reaction score
- 8,171
You need to be doing that in the right way.
sort of.
A lot of people advocate dirty moves to the detriment of their defence. Eye gouging from a bottom position. Downward elbows to stop takedowns. Death punching without using the fundamental concepts of striking that make striking work.
When you lift up your opponent with your fireman's carry, all his defense is gone. The reason is simple. Your opponent has no rooting.
When I create a throwing form, the fireman's carry is always my last move. because there is no follow up throw after that.
Many wrestling techniques have the same mechanics. Do you have a video of a fireman's carry in Shuai Chiao competition showing the difference? It would be interesting to see,The fireman's carry is the ACSCA 1st degree BB testing requirement. It requires one to throw his opponent while his both feet are
- straight, and
- touching together (or with shoulder width).
This way you guarantee that you can throw your opponent from the highest point.
Here is one good example that 2 different MA systems may train the same technique in different ways. It's interested to see the difference...
In tournament, you are not trying to hurt your opponent. The height is not important.
In the following throw, he can just drag his opponent down. He lifts his opponent up to reach to the maximum height instead.
Last edited:
Do you have an answer to my question?In tournament, you are not trying to hurt your opponent. The height is not important.
In the following throw, he can just drag his opponent down. He lifts his opponent up to reach to the maximum height instead.
I don't have such video. You always ask for tournament video. Tournament video is much harder to find than
- training video, or
- demo video, or
- BB testing video.
Fireman's carry is not a popular throw used in tournament. I don't try to find video online. I only try to find video through my personal collection which is limited.
Last edited:
