Martial Sport VS Self Defense

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
MMA should be the most suitable though as it offers the most rulesets.
Agreed. My point was only that there are a lot more MA places (including MMA) than MAA places. Most other MA places don't seem to offer open-mat, so that limits the number of places. I think MMA is more inviting to outsiders (in general, there are exceptions) than most other groups, but those of us outside that group tend to either not know or to forget that.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
Okay, so competition is also a simulated fight. See, I don't really have a problem with calling sparring a simulation of a fight, but I fail to see the stark line you appear to see between training and competition (which I see as a training tool).
There is still a difference. An important one. The competitor spars to prepare for competition. You spar to... what again?

So, if the competitor is trying to be a self defense expert, sure, the competition is a training tool. Doesn’t change the nature of the competition any more than LEO training changes the nature of working as a cop.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
The fourth isn’t sparring, rolling or randori. It’s the application of the skills and techniques practiced while sparring. In the same way, arresting a bad guy is the application of skills learned in the police academy. Or Managing employee performance is the application of the skills learned in a new supervisor training.
See, here's where you lose me, Steve. How is competition (a controlled fight with rules and safety) not a simulation of fighting? Perhaps it's all about perspective. Since my primary focus has always been SD, I see competition as a simulation, and don't see how it can NOT be one but other, nearly identical, situations still are.

To me, competition is part of the training. I think that's the real disconnect for us.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
There is still a difference. An important one. The competitor spars to prepare for competition. You spar to... what again?

So, if the competitor is trying to be a self defense expert, sure, the competition is a training tool. Doesn’t change the nature of the competition any more than LEO training changes the nature of working as a cop.
Okay, I think we're actually on the same page now. Our disconnect is that we're each arguing from our point of view. From my point of view, competition is training, so not a distinct difference from some of the other sparring/rolling/randori options. You're looking at competition as the end point, which makes it not training. In that context, I mostly agree with you, though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,034
I do think the boxing/wrestling/BJJ gym (clearly MMA gym) I've looked at has open mat time. I keep meaning to drop by and see what goes on then, to see if it looks inviting to folks outside those styles or if it's just boxing (which I somehow took it to be from the website). Stupid stuff like life and work keep interfering with that plan.

If it's MMA and BJJ as well, it's likely to have a broader range than the boxing one near me.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against boxing - it just doesn't appeal to me much.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
See, here's where you lose me, Steve. How is competition (a controlled fight with rules and safety) not a simulation of fighting? Perhaps it's all about perspective. Since my primary focus has always been SD, I see competition as a simulation, and don't see how it can NOT be one but other, nearly identical, situations still are.

To me, competition is part of the training. I think that's the real disconnect for us.
I truly believe someday you’ll just get it. It often occurs when a person realizes that they can’t do what they always thought. Like the unfortunate kids on American idol who were always told they sang like angels.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,034
though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.

I seem to be between these viewpoints...

These two people in a class or sparring session environment are probably less motivated to win than the same people meeting on the mat in front of an audience with a title of some sort at stake.

I see a potentially large difference, but not a stark delineation.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,920
Reaction score
7,475
Location
Covington, WA
Okay, I think we're actually on the same page now. Our disconnect is that we're each arguing from our point of view. From my point of view, competition is training, so not a distinct difference from some of the other sparring/rolling/randori options. You're looking at competition as the end point, which makes it not training. In that context, I mostly agree with you, though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.
The difference is that one has some consequence for losing and represents a culmination of training. The other isn’t.

Why is this important? There’s a reason. You’ve said it yourself . You are training for self defense. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter. If you want to do what you do in class, great. If you want to do what you do outside of class, you need to apply the skills outside of class.
 

Anarax

Master Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
377
Location
New Mexico
I lump all of those in with stuff like pressure points. They work, when they work. They are only dependable when you can get to them (to DB's point about a good striker), and some folks are taught to depend upon them MUCH too much.

In fact, when I show using a groin shot, I usually am using it to get them to move a leg to block me. Most men are pretty good at doing that, and do it without thought. Similar concept with eye pokes.
Agreed. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think there are those that are taught "just do this and it'll end the fight".
 

Anarax

Master Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
377
Location
New Mexico
What's the distinction between those?

A Martial Art style that is taught with more emphasis on an already existing component, for example SD. However; it's still a style that has many other components to teach. For example; in Kali we have our SD component that is based on Kali concepts, but Kali has a lot more than just SD. Opposed to SD courses and classes, that are only SD and isn't a particular style.
 

Anarax

Master Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
377
Location
New Mexico
i dont really need to build a case, i wasnt aware i was on trial.
It's not about being on trial. However; when you repeatedly state how you're a different kind of SD instructor and how your course is better, some will naturally inquire on how you are. When you dictate how someone should word their posts you also open yourself up to criticism, as with any other forum.
often traditional martial arts also have absolutely no standards as well. so that is not a valid point.
The lack of standards in MA is a deviation from what it came from though. I agree that a lot of MA schools are watered down and have problems. However; I know the watered down nature of some MA styles taught in some schools isn't how the Samurai, Okinawans warriors, Lapu Lapu, etc trained in them. What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism. There's no traceable history with SD, not only lineage, but history. I have faith that the Filipino's needed their Kali to be top notch given their lives depended on it, and they still do considering more than 80% of murders in the Philippines are done with blades. Same goes for other historical groups that had to develop effective fighting styles for survival. That doesn't guarantee every MA school is going to be great, but the doesn't mean the source material is the problem, it's usually the school culture.
now if you or anyone has a specific critique about SD and want my opinion on how i deal with the issue i would be glad to address it but in general im not writing a dissertation for someones amusement.
It's not for amusement, when you involve yourself into a thread people are bound to ask questions about your credentials. It's not always out of disrespect.
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
Staff member
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
12,952
Reaction score
10,444
Location
Maui
In a lot of ways, competing is a whole lot easier than training. And, many times, especially as to how it relates to this thread, the self defense aspects of your training get put aside in competitions. I'm not talking about eye gouges and what not, I mean the very approach, strategies, techniques etc.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
I truly believe someday you’ll just get it. It often occurs when a person realizes that they can’t do what they always thought. Like the unfortunate kids on American idol who were always told they sang like angels.
You are assuming, though, that I can't. My skills have held up reasonably well working with people from different disciplines - as well as you might expect for a hobbyist (as Tony puts it). I try to be pretty honest with myself about my limitations, and from time to time I seek out someone who can show up some of my weaknesses. I do those things because I knew some folks who did them and were surprised by some of their weaknesses - I took that as a cautionary tale for myself.

Competition is a training tool for SD in my eyes (because SD is the underlying purpose of my training). It can't be the end point unless it's the point of your training.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
I seem to be between these viewpoints...

These two people in a class or sparring session environment are probably less motivated to win than the same people meeting on the mat in front of an audience with a title of some sort at stake.

I see a potentially large difference, but not a stark delineation.
I can certainly see that. I do think (as DB pointed out) that most people are more affected by loss in front of a group than in private (though that doesn't compute for me - I'd be more interested in not losing in front of a few people who know me than 1,000 strangers). That probably means the opponent is likely to be fighting harder. I agree there's a potentially large difference, but not a clear delineation. If I didn't make that clear, that's on me. I see them as potentially (not necessarily) variations of the same thing.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Agreed. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think there are those that are taught "just do this and it'll end the fight".
I have definitely heard people say that. I give some of those people a pass, since I heard them say it before YouTube. There's really no excuse for saying it now - there's too much evidence that they sometimes have little positive effect. They sometimes work spectacularly, but training should center around the contingency.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
The difference is that one has some consequence for losing and represents a culmination of training. The other isn’t.

Why is this important? There’s a reason. You’ve said it yourself . You are training for self defense. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter. If you want to do what you do in class, great. If you want to do what you do outside of class, you need to apply the skills outside of class.
What is the consequence for losing in a competition that doesn't exist in an unofficial sparring session? As for representing "a culmination of training", that's only if you trained specifically for the competition and with the competition as the point. If the competition is just seen as a training tool, then it's no more a culmination than the sparring session. Whether a point is a culmination depends how one sees it. I just don't see it that way. Maybe a really big competition, after a long series of competitions and preparing for each, but that really just goes back to my point that it depends whether that competition is the point of your training.
 

Gerry Seymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
29,973
Reaction score
10,532
Location
Hendersonville, NC
A Martial Art style that is taught with more emphasis on an already existing component, for example SD. However; it's still a style that has many other components to teach. For example; in Kali we have our SD component that is based on Kali concepts, but Kali has a lot more than just SD. Opposed to SD courses and classes, that are only SD and isn't a particular style.
Okay, so what I teach is a SD course, by that calculation, unless you include some of the self-development that occurs (which will occur to some extent in any focused endeavor). My teaching is centered around SD. I use NGA as a primary tool toward that, and the style itself is focused on SD. I've blended in other techniques and approaches from other sources to improve the SD focus. I evaluate every technique (and teach my students to do so) for its strengths and weaknesses as a SD tool, or as a tool for learning principles useful in SD.

All of the personal development focus I bring to classes (the purposeful stuff) is designed to prevent the need for SD.

I'm not sure how much more SD oriented a SD course can be.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
1,644
when you repeatedly state how you're a different kind of SD instructor and how your course is better, some will naturally inquire on how you are. When you dictate how someone should word their posts you also open yourself up to criticism, as with any other forum.

as far as dictating how people should word their posts, it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight. so yeah you were making generalized comments. based on your own experiences and thats fine but that is not everyones experiences. and its not about me, i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding. you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.

you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.

What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism. There's no traceable history with SD, not only lineage, but history.
no traceable history??? so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??

does this look familiar??

almost everything in SD training and combatives comes from traditional martial arts. there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
1,644
I agree that a lot of MA schools are watered down and have problems. However; I know the watered down nature of some MA styles taught in some schools isn't how the Samurai, Okinawans warriors, Lapu Lapu, etc trained in them. What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism.
so let me rephrase your words to see if i understand your view point.
that a degradation in martial arts is a result of being watered down over time and that this only happens on a school to school basis and does not reflect the style as a whole because there is a history in a style that maintains its integrity ..

do i have that right???
do you wish to correct me before i respond to this?
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
as far as dictating how people should word their posts, it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight. so yeah you were making generalized comments. based on your own experiences and thats fine but that is not everyones experiences. and its not about me, i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding. you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.

you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.


no traceable history??? so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??

does this look familiar??

almost everything in SD training and combatives comes from traditional martial arts. there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.

Where as backing up a statement with evidence has never been an issue here.

Look. Self defence training makes no difference if it is good bad or indifferent. A terrible self defence instructor can still be successful.

So the main complaint of self defence is the lack of verification that any of it works at all.

That aspect in itself is what makes self defence training terrible.

So without any verification that what you do works. Lumping what you do as terrible with what everyone else does as terrible is a valid observation.
 

Latest Discussions

Top