Fighting and Self Defence are two different things.

[drop bear]

I agree that there is some validity to this. However, the primary issue I have with competition is that it's among people who TRAIN for competition. I'm not talking about the skill set, but about the amount of training. The people I'd face in competition will often be folks who train A LOT for those events, because they want to beat the guy who trains one hour less than them. That's unrelated/uncorrellated to the common attacks on the street.
Someone mentioned in another thread (currently locked) that everyone has access to martial arts info (Youtube, etc.), but access is not the same as training. The common attack will come from one of two sources: someone who is out of control (drunk and/or angry beyond the point of emotional hijacking) or someone who is there to take you down on a calculated attack with no warning (probably someone who wants something you have, and doesn't like the odds of a fight).

So, if you put me - a fit 45-year-old with bad knees and a gimpy toe - into the ring/octagon with someone who's in prime physical condition, I will probably lose if he has any reasonable training. Part of this is simply that he can take more punishment than I, and has options I don't (pushing hard off the balls of the feet from the ground, deep squatting, etc. are simply impossible for me), and that some of the things I'd do facing that attacker in the street simply aren't going to come out of me in a competition. I won't take knees out to test my skills (some will in competition, I won't), and I obviously won't punch to the throat or poke eyes.

Now, give me someone in similar physical condition, and then we're in business. But then, he's not competing, either. Yes, competition is useful. Maybe even the best test we have available. But competition becomes a young man's (relatively speaking) game in the end. And those competitions fall back on techniques that work against similarly well-conditioned people AND which provide the fewest openings for that same training.

I miss competing, and still spar some to get what I can of it. And I practice with resisting partners. I do what I can to test my techniques and skills, but I won't be entering any MMA competitions. I'm past that ability in my life.

That is not an issue. But it is like saying you can't train full time because of work. If you cant you can't. Nobody says you have to.

But someone who does train harder will become better than someone who dosent.

The interesting thing here is the rationalisations some people then make to place them on par with the better martial artists.

"I just can't deal with the work rate" is rarely brought up in these debates in favor of "I train such deadly techniques that it really wouldn't be fair"

 

[drop bear]

You can train hard without entering competitions

Against who?

You are comparing being the best of 10 guys to being the best of 1000 guys.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.

Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.

The domains of fighting and self-defense do overlap somewhat (although less than some people think). Fighting in self-defense is a thing that happens. That area of overlap is where we hope our martial arts training will help us if we find ourselves there.

Until we invent holodecks, we're never going to be able to scientifically and systematically test all our ideas about self-defense training. There are just too many practical and ethical obstacles to do it properly. However, I don't think that means we have to just throw up our hands and profess complete ignorance (or complete certitude either).

The trick is to realize that although all our forms of learning about self-defense and violence and training and testing our training are inevitably flawed, they are flawed in different ways. We can learn something from all of them as long as we also study their flaws and try to find other ways of training to balance out those flaws.

MMA competition (and MMA-style sparring) is not self-defense. It's missing important features of a real self-defense encounter and it can encourage certain tactical behaviors which could be detrimental in self-defense. At the same time, it contains a myriad of useful lessons for a variety of forms of violence, including fighting in self-defense.

Scenario training is a simulation of a self-defense encounter and has many useful lessons, but it has it's own set of flaws. Fortunately, the majority (not all) of those flaws are distinct from the flaws inherent in MMA training.

LEO work experiences are different from civilian self-defense, but they can have useful lessons for someone wanting to understand the realities of self-defense.

Watching fights on YouTube has major limitations in understanding the varieties of self-defense encounters, but it can provide some valuable lessons.

Any other form of martial arts training you can think of has flaws - whether it's kata, bag training, live drills, solo drills, whatever. The question is not "which method is least flawed." It's "do I know exactly what the flaws (and strengths) of this method are."

Honestly, I think the best approach for a martial artist is not to try proving "my way of training is best." I think it's better to explore the flaws and limitations in whatever art we practice, whatever form of training we prefer, and whatever we think we understand about violence.

 

[ballen0351]

Against who?

other martial artists

You are comparing being the best of 10 guys to being the best of 1000 guys.

im not comparing anyhing and have no desire to be better then anyone else

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.

Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.

The domains of fighting and self-defense do overlap somewhat (although less than some people think). Fighting in self-defense is a thing that happens. That area of overlap is where we hope our martial arts training will help us if we find ourselves there.

Until we invent holodecks, we're never going to be able to scientifically and systematically test all our ideas about self-defense training. There are just too many practical and ethical obstacles to do it properly. However, I don't think that means we have to just throw up our hands and profess complete ignorance (or complete certitude either).

The trick is to realize that although all our forms of learning about self-defense and violence and training and testing our training are inevitably flawed, they are flawed in different ways. We can learn something from all of them as long as we also study their flaws and try to find other ways of training to balance out those flaws.

MMA competition (and MMA-style sparring) is not self-defense. It's missing important features of a real self-defense encounter and it can encourage certain tactical behaviors which could be detrimental in self-defense. At the same time, it contains a myriad of useful lessons for a variety of forms of violence, including fighting in self-defense.

Scenario training is a simulation of a self-defense encounter and has many useful lessons, but it has it's own set of flaws. Fortunately, the majority (not all) of those flaws are distinct from the flaws inherent in MMA training.

LEO work experiences are different from civilian self-defense, but they can have useful lessons for someone wanting to understand the realities of self-defense.

Watching fights on YouTube has major limitations in understanding the varieties of self-defense encounters, but it can provide some valuable lessons.

Any other form of martial arts training you can think of has flaws - whether it's kata, bag training, live drills, solo drills, whatever. The question is not "which method is least flawed." It's "do I know exactly what the flaws (and strengths) of this method are."

Honestly, I think the best approach for a martial artist is not to try proving "my way of training is best." I think it's better to explore the flaws and limitations in whatever art we practice, whatever form of training we prefer, and whatever we think we understand about violence.

This is a great post Tony. I have not come across any system that doesn't have flaws. As we train in the martial sciences we should explore and experiment and improve. Never think you know it all or have figured it all out and you will always be learning and improving!

 

[drop bear]

Fighting is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one fighting scenario may not work in another.

Self-defense is a vast domain, with many variations. What works in one self-defense scenario may not work in another.

The domains of fighting and self-defense do overlap somewhat (although less than some people think). Fighting in self-defense is a thing that happens. That area of overlap is where we hope our martial arts training will help us if we find ourselves there.

Until we invent holodecks, we're never going to be able to scientifically and systematically test all our ideas about self-defense training. There are just too many practical and ethical obstacles to do it properly. However, I don't think that means we have to just throw up our hands and profess complete ignorance (or complete certitude either).

The trick is to realize that although all our forms of learning about self-defense and violence and training and testing our training are inevitably flawed, they are flawed in different ways. We can learn something from all of them as long as we also study their flaws and try to find other ways of training to balance out those flaws.

MMA competition (and MMA-style sparring) is not self-defense. It's missing important features of a real self-defense encounter and it can encourage certain tactical behaviors which could be detrimental in self-defense. At the same time, it contains a myriad of useful lessons for a variety of forms of violence, including fighting in self-defense.

Scenario training is a simulation of a self-defense encounter and has many useful lessons, but it has it's own set of flaws. Fortunately, the majority (not all) of those flaws are distinct from the flaws inherent in MMA training.

LEO work experiences are different from civilian self-defense, but they can have useful lessons for someone wanting to understand the realities of self-defense.

Watching fights on YouTube has major limitations in understanding the varieties of self-defense encounters, but it can provide some valuable lessons.

Any other form of martial arts training you can think of has flaws - whether it's kata, bag training, live drills, solo drills, whatever. The question is not "which method is least flawed." It's "do I know exactly what the flaws (and strengths) of this method are."

Honestly, I think the best approach for a martial artist is not to try proving "my way of training is best." I think it's better to explore the flaws and limitations in whatever art we practice, whatever form of training we prefer, and whatever we think we understand about violence.

So all of it is self defence?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So all of it is self defence?

Nope. There's lots of fighting which is not self-defense and there is a lot of self-defense which is not fighting. It's a Venn diagram with areas of overlap.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is not an issue. But it is like saying you can't train full time because of work. If you cant you can't. Nobody says you have to.

But someone who does train harder will become better than someone who dosent.

The interesting thing here is the rationalisations some people then make to place them on par with the better martial artists.

"I just can't deal with the work rate" is rarely brought up in these debates in favor of "I train such deadly techniques that it really wouldn't be fair"

Agreed, 100%. There can be little (rational) argument that more good training doesn't make someone better. Even if we supposed that pure-SD training is somewhat better than training for competition (my position, but by no means an uncontested one), it would be folly to assume that one of my students who trains once a week (all the class time I can offer around my professional life) is EVER going to be as competent (assuming that's their only training time, and their only relevant experience) as someone who trains in some full-contact competition school.

More training is better. Harder training (absent injuries) is better. Training for SD is better (in my opinion). Practicing part of the time against someone who is trying to stop you from doing what you want is better. Then life shows up and limits some or all of those.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed, 100%. There can be little (rational) argument that more good training doesn't make someone better. Even if we supposed that pure-SD training is somewhat better than training for competition (my position, but by no means an uncontested one), it would be folly to assume that one of my students who trains once a week (all the class time I can offer around my professional life) is EVER going to be as competent (assuming that's their only training time, and their only relevant experience) as someone who trains in some full-contact competition school.

More training is better. Harder training (absent injuries) is better. Training for SD is better (in my opinion). Practicing part of the time against someone who is trying to stop you from doing what you want is better. Then life shows up and limits some or all of those.

Additions vs subtractions.

We go into concepts like pure SD training and we hit a wall. For self defence we essentially want additions not subtractions. So we benifit by being a boxer. The boxer benifits by being a wrestler as well. Then he benifits by understanding weapons,deescalation route planning home hardening and so on.

The idea of pure self defence dosent really work like this. It subtracts. You don't need to become a boxer because the rules fight. Instead you become some sort of illegal moves guy. Wrestling becomes anti grapple. You create preconceptions to accomodate a limited skill set rather than admit you have a limited skill set.

Self defence is as much skills as you can pack in. It has to be because the task is so complex. And that is tough because it means you are always under prepared.

 

[Steve]

Additions vs subtractions.

We go into concepts like pure SD training and we hit a wall. For self defence we essentially want additions not subtractions. So we benifit by being a boxer. The boxer benifits by being a wrestler as well. Then he benifits by understanding weapons,deescalation route planning home hardening and so on.

The idea of pure self defence dosent really work like this. It subtracts. You don't need to become a boxer because the rules fight. Instead you become some sort of illegal moves guy. Wrestling becomes anti grapple. You create preconceptions to accomodate a limited skill set rather than admit you have a limited skill set.

Self defence is as much skills as you can pack in. It has to be because the task is so complex. And that is tough because it means you are always under prepared.

Excellent post, drop bear. Very well said.

 

[ballen0351]

The idea of pure self defence dosent really work like this. It subtracts.

No it doesnt

You don't need to become a boxer because the rules fight. Instead you become some sort of illegal moves guy. Wrestling becomes anti grapple. You create preconceptions to accomodate a limited skill set rather than admit you have a limited skill set.

Nobody has argued anything even remotely close to this so Im not sure where your getting it

Self defence is as much skills as you can pack in.

No, skills are a small portion

It has to be because the task is so complex. And that is tough because it means you are always under prepared.

Then how do people with no training do it every day

 

[Buka]

Holodecks and Venn diagrams be damned, I hate homework!

Except for.......you know, like now, when I learn something.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Train hard fight easy. If you can win with the watered down version. Imagine what you can do at full strength.

Why IMAGINE your art at full strength when you can just not water it down?

 

[RTKDCMB]

I would say that after the first UFC, grappling was proven to be a pretty important range of fighting that shouldn't be neglected.

I would say that after the first UFC grappling was 'proven' to be a pretty important range of fighting for
competitive
competitive striking styles that shouldn't be neglected by competitive striking styles

The self defense oriented martial arts already knew this and incorporated grappling techniques in their arts from the beginning.

I don't know about you but I can't name a single fighter in the early UFC that was not a practitioner of a competitive style before they entered the cage.

Also after the first UFC it was proven that striking was an important range of fighting that grappling styles should not neglect. Just ask the two biggest fighters who were stopped by pure striking.

 

[Hanzou]

I would say that after the first UFC grappling was 'proven' to be a pretty important range of fighting for
competitive
competitive striking styles that shouldn't be neglected by competitive striking styles

The self defense oriented martial arts already knew this and incorporated grappling techniques in their arts from the beginning.

Gracie's in action series, and non competitive styles like Wing Chun, Hapkido, and Ninjutsu coming up with "anti-grappling" or actively incorporating ground grappling techniques into their systems say otherwise.

I don't know about you but I can't name a single fighter in the early UFC that was not a practitioner of a competitive style before they entered the cage.

Off the top of my head, Scott Morris practiced Ninjutsu and he fought in an early UFC. Asbel Cancino practiced Wing Chun and he also fought in a early UFC.

Also after the first UFC it was proven that striking was an important range of fighting that grappling styles should not neglect. Just ask the two biggest fighters who were stopped by pure striking.

Except no one has ever questioned the importance of striking as a range of fighting. The reason the Gracie win at UFC was such a sea change was because most people at the time believed that you could simply punch and kick a grappler into submission.

 

[FriedRice]

The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women, old folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.

 

[Hanzou]

The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women, old folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.

Hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to that.

 

[Buka]

The best way to find out if what hocus pocus that you're training, works, is to spar it out. Just buy a groupon or a block of classes at some Krav Maga school, Tactical Camou Fighter, Inc. or whatever, and spar them. A decent amateur Boxer can usually just use ONLY their jab and footwork to destroy most of them. If you can't get pass a Boxer's jab, how will you ever do your death strikes on them w/o getting KTFO? There's a good reason why it's usually only women, old folks, and weaker dudes, that usually trains SD only. The good news is, there are some good looking women there.

Yeah, but that argument works both ways. As someone who's trained a lot of boxing, and trained in an old school boxing gym as a full contact Karate fighter and boxer and kickboxer, by my boxing trainers, boxers are easy if they're only boxers and we're using Martial rules. (The reason we trained there is they had a ring we didn't.)

Boxers really don't like nor understand getting swept, thrown, kicked hard in the legs or getting into a clinch with someone familiar with boxing clinches, Muay Thai plums, double underhooks or getting your head to the same side as your underhook when you have one underhook and one over.

It sure is fun when you show them, though.

 

[FriedRice]

Yeah, but that argument works both ways. As someone who's trained a lot of boxing, and trained in an old school boxing gym as a full contact Karate fighter and boxer and kickboxer, by my boxing trainers, boxers are easy if they're only boxers and we're using Martial rules. (The reason we trained there is they had a ring we didn't.)
.

You misunderstood my comment, which wasn't about Boxers being the final litmus test. It was more about how a trained fighter can just use only their jab and footwork to demonstrate and destroy most Self Defense people, who never spar hard, let alone fought before. It's just, USUALLY, really easy to light up people who only train against this guy:

 

[FriedRice]

Except complete classical styles don't fit with in the rules. If I have to leave out 40% of my style to make it fit the rules well its no longer that style anymore.so why bother?

Early UFC's had no disqualifying rules. You can literally do whatever you wanted in the fight, and win the $60,000 grand prize at then end of the night. And $60,000 was a hell of a lot of money in 1993, especially for classical Martial Artists whatever, who probably made like $10,000-20,000/year, mostly from peddling instructional VHS tapes at seminars where less than 10 people usually attends. Unfortunately, Royce Gracie mopped the floor with most of them, despite their trying anti-rape moves, such as trying to eye gouge Royce.