Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[drop bear]

i would have to go back and watch the video again but my original impression was that he was pointing out the dogmatic fallacy that MMA practitioners believe that MMA training and competition equals street defense. his point from my perspective was that the ring (or octagon as the case may be) prepares you for competition and that street defense is most often an unfair and weaponized combative event. the street doesnt care about rules and fair play, was the message i got from the video. if your takeway was that MMA has no benefit for street defense , that is not the way i interpreted it.

So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?

Look at what you are looking at.

We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation. We do know that that one situation is not the whole street.

Eg. Scooters are safer than BMX because video of BMX falling off a roof.

That is dogmatic argument because it is anecdotal.

And is used religiously all the time.

Joey is a homosexual joey got cancer homosexuality causes cancer.

Barry got cancer. Barry prayed to Jesus Barry got better. Jesus cures cancer.

So Fabio does MMA. Fabio lost a street fight MMA is not good for street fighting.

Tim Larkin does self defence Tim Larkin did not loose a street fight because we have never seen him fight anyone. Self defence works in a street fight.

Look I am happy for people to come up with a real argument for self defence. But these arguments are shams.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not sure what you mean there.

Let's take the range from, say, MMA to light-touch point sparring that favors kicks. There's a huge difference between those, and one of them clearly (to me) develops skills that are useful for self-defense. The other, I'm far from convinced. I mean, it probably improves defense some, but it's defense against light-touch, often end-of-range strikes. And the strategies that work in that context are pretty far in most cases from what's useful for self-defense. Can a school teach to that competition and still build useful SD skills? I assume that's possible. I also assume it's harder than either just building skills for that competition, or building skills for MMA and SD at the same time.

MMA is just the point farthest from the comparison. I could also use boxing, Judo, kickboxing there. Probably BJJ and wrestling, too, though I'm not familiar enough with the rules of those competitions to speak to that.

 

[hoshin1600]

So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?

i dont know who TIm Larken is from a rat in a hole i have no idea what if anything he prescribes for this incident.

We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation.

exactly but it does show that MMA is not bullet proof (or in this case 2x4 proof).

i think i understand your view it is similar to John Lennon talking about his "bed in" for peace....."look if anyone thinks what we are doing is stupid and naive, well then come up with your own idea and if its good we will join in, " in essence dont criticize if you got no other answers.

i just dont see it as a critique on MMA methods as much as a critique on peoples beliefs. if you feel you are training for 4 guys with a 2x4 when you do MMA your making a mistake.

 

[hoshin1600]

A bow is considered worship?

it is worship. depending on the bow. Japanese society in general bows as a greeting. that is a standing bow. however at the beginning of a martial arts class there is a solokneeling bow then a group kneeling bow often combined with a clapping of hands. these kneeling bows are a direct form of worship to the Shinto religion gods called KAMI. in Japanese dojos there is a KamiDana which is a little house where the "spirit's" reside.

to try to separate martial arts and Shinto is like trying to separate the moo from the cow.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you are bringing up the BJJ inverted guard stuff that wins competitions but is not self defencey?

Um, I didn't bring up anything about an inverted guard. Not really sure what that is.

Does that lessen though when schools do multiple competition styles?

The BJJer who does MMA.

I think it does, especially if the competition rules are distinctly different - like BJJ and MMA, though there's an offset in the students becoming more adaptable by working in multiple contexts. So, there's an advantage to training specifically for BJJ competition. There's a different advantage to training for both BJJ and MMA. With equally good instructors and training methods, I'd expect (on average) the BJJ competition school to do better in BJJ competitions than the BJJ/MMA school. If that wasn't the case, I'd want to know why - it'd be something to learn from.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A bow is considered worship?



Edit: it'd be down to the intent behind the bow. Just because I put my hands together it doesn't mean I'm praying...

If they have a problem with it, tough. Why does everything have to be changed all the time to account for pathetic insecurities and overly delicate sensibilities...

I've run into folks in the Southeastern US who sees the perfunctory bowing we do as worship. I agree with your stance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it is worship. depending on the bow. Japanese society in general bows as a greeting. that is a standing bow. however at the beginning of a martial arts class there is a solokneeling bow then a group kneeling bow often combined with a clapping of hands. these kneeling bows are a direct form of worship to the Shinto religion gods called KAMI. in Japanese dojos there is a KamiDana which is a little house where the "spirit's" reside.

to try to separate martial arts and Shinto is like trying to separate the moo from the cow.

I disagree with that last statement. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in our culture left over from superstitions and such. We still do them, without the meaning they once had. When I bow, there's no worship involved (even though as a student I bow to the kamiza - where the kamidana (or its analog) resides. It's just a show of respect. Why? Because that's what the intent is - it's what I was taught to do it for. Whether that was the original intent of the practice or not is immaterial.

And I know people who teach the same base art with different bows. Likely there are some who teach it with no bows, at all. It doesn't change the art in any way.

 

[hoshin1600]

How is distracting?

Distraction: a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else. Via Google.

there are many reasons why people choose to study martial arts. one reason is that people choose to do martial arts for the unique ability to immerse oneself into a cultural activity. people also choose to do Shodo, Kyudo, Ikebana to name a few. if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.
however if your purpose and focus is strictly self defense then these things do not hold a supporting function to self defense. they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy. it would be a better option to train in street clothes and shoes to know what it is like and how your choice of clothing will effect your performance. speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system. it makes more sense to speak directly to get the student to understand without the added complexity of unknown words.

 

[hoshin1600]

I disagree with that last statement. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in our culture left over from superstitions and such. We still do them, without the meaning they once had. When I bow, there's no worship involved (even though as a student I bow to the kamiza - where the kamidana (or its analog) resides. It's just a show of respect. Why? Because that's what the intent is - it's what I was taught to do it for. Whether that was the original intent of the practice or not is immaterial.

And I know people who teach the same base art with different bows. Likely there are some who teach it with no bows, at all. It doesn't change the art in any way.

well i was meaning the moo from the cow when training in Japan not the US. but the rest of your comment was what i was saying earlier. that people do things as an empty gesture because it is what is expected. there is no intent behind it. therefore it has no actual meaning or purpose in the dojo that cannot be replaced with a more westernized gesture.

 

[hoshin1600]

A bow is considered worship?


Edit: it'd be down to the intent behind the bow. Just because I put my hands together it doesn't mean I'm praying...

If they have a problem with it, tough. Why does everything have to be changed all the time to account for pathetic insecurities and overly delicate sensibilities...

i am not saying it needs to be changed. i am Zen Buddhist and my wife is Thai Buddhist. i have no problem with bowing its normal for me. but my point was that it holds no actual function in self defense.

EDIT: as i was typing this, my wife was teasing my 7yo and 3 yo sons to "kop kun klap" (palms together bow) for 5 dollars. she gives them money sometimes when she gets home from work and she wanted them to be polite about receiving it. i thought it was synchronistic.

 

[hoshin1600]

I would also add people tend to say that bowing is about respect. This tends to be empty retoric. Rei is translated to respect and they are just parroting the sentiment. For me it's not respect it's gratitude. A heart felt gratitude. For having a place to practice. For a lineage that has been passed down to me. For a training partner who is willing to place themselves in jeopardy for my training benefit.

 

[Anarax]

its been my observation that people bow in class because they are told they have to. people will bow due to the requirements and expectations of the class which is far different than having a feeling of sincere gratitude or respect in your heart and having that express itself as a bow. by this i mean people will bow as an empty gesture.

Judging one's sincerity from a bow is a very difficult thing to do. Regardless, that's a failing of character, not the act of bowing.

wouldnt it be more appropriate to shake hands or bump gloves like in boxing. why is it that we bow and not shake hands?

What's appropriate is relative. If I took a boxing class and there was a gesture to show respect and they didn't understand what a bow meant then I would learn their gesture. However; if they did know what a bow meant then I would bow. For example; the training facility I'm at teaches multiple styles and we spar different classes sometimes. Each style has their own gesture, but each person uses the gesture of their style. We do so because each person knows the gesture of each class and understands what is meant by the gesture, respect. Its what's conveyed, not how it's conveyed.

i could point out that for a long time in America and still continues that bowing is a religious problem for many people. i actually know of one American 8th Dan master of Okinawan Goju ryu that had to give up his karate and dojo when he married a born again Christian women and converted to her church and religion. many Christian, Jehovah and i think Muslim people find it a sin and intolerable to bow or meditate.

I'm not criticizing how literally and closely some may follow their beliefs, but if they are that devout they might find other conflicts in training as well. For the sake of argument let's say there were some that devout with their beliefs, they would be an extremely small minority. FYI, there are quite a few "Christian Martial Arts" schools and I've personally known Muslims that study traditional MA without issue.

i also understand many styles other than Judo and karate do this. i just felt that it would be "understood" that i dont need to make a list of every art and that those two would be representative of the general concept.

The point is that many MA schools of varying styles throughout the world still refer to the techniques in foreign terms, yet they still generate students that are capable of defending themselves.

Please refer to your comments below

i never said it was invented as a marketing tool. you are reading into things that were never said or implied. i am well aware of the origins of the Gi probably much more so that you are.

its called cultural appropriation and was used as a marketing gimmick.

it is a superfluous distraction and the only reason why it is there was because back in the 1950's and 60's when Judo and karate became popular it was seen as exotic and something mysterious and special and that special feeling helped its marketing and kept the students and money rolling in.

You're directly stating it was used as a marketing gimmick, which isn't true. They simply taught it the way they were taught(GIs and foreign terms). If people were attracted to the GIs and use of foreign terms, that doesn't mean they were used as marketing gimmicks. They were already existing components of the style that some people were drawn towards.

it would be a little odd for someone to travel to France to learn to be a chef and upon their return insist that the restaurant staff use French names like cuillere and couteau, for all the utensils and kitchen tools when they reside in Ohio.

That's a great example for my point. Wouldn't they still refer to the French entrees(French word) in French? It wouldn't "detract" from his culinary skills by remembering french entree terms.

people also choose to do Shodo, Kyudo, Ikebana to name a few.

Great example, let's use Kyudo. You've said that Foreign terms are "distracting" and "detract" from training. Are you saying if I studied Kyudo under the more traditional style(Japanese terms, Traditional Uniform) that will make me less accurate as a marksman?

if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.

Here is the central problem with your premise. You think the more traditional style of training somehow equates to less emphasis on self-defense. The priority of self-defense isn't diminished because I'm taught the importance of bowing, some foreign terms and wear a GI.

they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy.

Basic things like bowing are usually taught in the first class, foreign terms are gradually thrown in throughout training. People don't have a harder time learning Mawashi Geri(round house kick) because of the name taught to them. The quality of my roundhouse kick isn't diminished by being taught the meaning of Mawashi Geri. Bowing doesn't detract from SD component of MA either. Unless you consider the 1 second it takes to bow to a new training partner, the 3 seconds to bow to the instructors at the beginning of class and the 3 seconds at the end is "detracting" from the SD emphasis? I can take your premise and say the same about stretching, if it's not "SD training" then it's a waste of time.

it would be a better option to train in street clothes and shoes to know what it is like and how your choice of clothing will effect your performance.

The same can be said for SD courses as well. People usually wear "loose fitting" clothes to SD courses and not the usual clothes they might wear out and about. For example; people up North don't usually wear thick winter clothes when they train SD, nor do doctors train in Scrubs.

speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system.

No it doesn't. Learning the foreign terms for the style won't slow down comprehension. Practicing, drilling and executing the techniques are one thing, knowing the foreign term won't diminish it. Meaning, I won't hesitate to execute techniques simply because I know the foreign term for it. In summary, learning foreign terms will not diminish the SD component of MA.

 

[hoshin1600]

The point is that many MA schools of varying styles throughout the world still refer to the techniques in foreign terms, yet they still generate students that are capable of defending themselves.

your putting words in my mouth. i never said nor implied there is a correlation between cultural influence like bowing and counting and the effectiveness of a style. i only said some people prefer.....

Here is the central problem with your premise. You think the more traditional style of training somehow equates to less emphasis on self-defense. The priority of self-defense isn't diminished because I'm taught the importance of bowing, some foreign terms and wear a GI.

i will repeat ...your putting words in my mouth. i only said some people prefer, i never said there is a correlation that makes traditional less self defense applicable.


your strawmaning. your arguing opinions i do not hold and did not say or imply. i had said for various reasons some people will prefer a system without the cultural influence. you asked what do i mean various. i gave an example.
your reading meaning into my posts that are not there. i have asked you pointed questions in an attempt to help clarify and think about your view and opinion and you consistently ignored my questions.
you have failed to formulate a cohesive view and argument substantiated by anything other than your own opinion. (opinions are fine but you have not explained your reasoning for holding your view)
if you come to the table with a debate, you really should understand your own view and listen to the counter argument. your not listening or in this case reading with a level of comprehension.
its difficult for me to debate when your not countering the view i presented.

 

[pdg]

I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)

Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)

Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about

That is the advantage of using the original-language terms, assuming they are pronounced closely enough (the pronunciation seems to vary a lot among countries, as you'd expect). As you said, less of a benefit in the US (larger area of coverage by a single dominant language, fewer options for easy access to other-language areas). For me, it's almost not a factor, at all, since NGA no longer exists outside the US (not even in Japan) so far as I know. It can still be helpful discussing between arts (kote gaeshi means something at least similar in many different arts), though I think a lot of students don't start out caring about that (and maybe most never do).

 

[Martial D]

So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?

Look at what you are looking at.

We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation. We do know that that one situation is not the whole street.

Eg. Scooters are safer than BMX because video of BMX falling off a roof.

That is dogmatic argument because it is anecdotal.

And is used religiously all the time.

Joey is a homosexual joey got cancer homosexuality causes cancer.

Barry got cancer. Barry prayed to Jesus Barry got better. Jesus cures cancer.

So Fabio does MMA. Fabio lost a street fight MMA is not good for street fighting.

Tim Larkin does self defence Tim Larkin did not loose a street fight because we have never seen him fight anyone. Self defence works in a street fight.

Look I am happy for people to come up with a real argument for self defence. But these arguments are shams.

What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me.

Self defense pressure test=Successful.

 

[pdg]

What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me.

Self defense pressure test=Successful.

There's some incontrovertible and conclusive evidence right there.

You should start a class

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me.

Self defense pressure test=Successful.

This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem. It's not one we create, but it's one we have to understand. See, we don't know what would have happened if you hadn't had SD training in that situation. As @Steve can reference more easily than me, there are some studies that show specific things that seem to have a significant effect on specific crime rates (I think the one he references most often was college sexual assault).

But we can't really tell the outcome one way or the other from individual interactions. It might be that those punks just give people the eye and laugh later about how they react (so anything or nothing would have worked). It might be they pick one target a day to beat the crap out of, and you were meant to be it, but they decided the math wasn't good. We just don't know.

The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions. So, if someone doesn't get attacked, we can't use that single incident. If students in general tend to be attacked less than the general population they belong to (by a significant margin), then we can start to ask why. If someone uses something we taught in a physical confrontation and it works, we then know the technique was effective in that situation, though we don't know if it changed that person's outcome (perhaps they'd have been able to survive without that technique).

We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.

 

[pdg]

This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem. It's not one we create, but it's one we have to understand. See, we don't know what would have happened if you hadn't had SD training in that situation. As @Steve can reference more easily than me, there are some studies that show specific things that seem to have a significant effect on specific crime rates (I think the one he references most often was college sexual assault).

But we can't really tell the outcome one way or the other from individual interactions. It might be that those punks just give people the eye and laugh later about how they react (so anything or nothing would have worked). It might be they pick one target a day to beat the crap out of, and you were meant to be it, but they decided the math wasn't good. We just don't know.

The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions. So, if someone doesn't get attacked, we can't use that single incident. If students in general tend to be attacked less than the general population they belong to (by a significant margin), then we can start to ask why. If someone uses something we taught in a physical confrontation and it works, we then know the technique was effective in that situation, though we don't know if it changed that person's outcome (perhaps they'd have been able to survive without that technique).

We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.

Kind of back to my tiger repellent trousers...

 

[hoshin1600]

I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)

Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about

there is a benefit for organizations to use the original language. it helps keep things constant and uniform. but i was leaving that aside since the entire argument was not my intention. i was pointing out there is no self defense function for such things only a cultural component. but people seem to latch onto things and run with them