So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[Hanzou]

Sure a body kick that lands to the liver could be really effective in a real fight, but in a real fight I would also strike the face and I would strike below the belt (the "everything" I was talking about in my original post). Those two things I don't do in my particular brand of sparring. Therefore sparring (for my classes) is just the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective of a real fight. Which is both what I meant and my instructor meant when he made the statement to class. To be honest I think you took what I said word for word too literally. I'm not sure if it's an honest misunderstanding or you're were being purposely obtuse. I can't imagine why you would think that I believe no legal move is ever effective. But all sparring has rules, so I would say that no sparring is fully representative of a real fight (some styles are closer than others to a real fight) and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but that is the truth.

Didn't you say that you guys do light sparring in class where you don't hit the face or do any kind of serious striking? If that's the case, how do you know you can take or give a punch? Have you actually ever fought someone larger than you in class where they were really trying to hurt you or beat you into submission? If not, I'd be very careful believing your personal prowess in a confrontation. My main concern with your post was your notion that sparring only represents the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective or a real fight. The thing is, sparring is supposed to be reflective of a real fight.

As for sparring having rules, it certainly does. Those rules keep you safe from doing permanent damage when you're training. However, it is a failure in instruction to believe that because it has rules it is not beneficial in preparing you for a real-life conflict where your life may be on the line. Take my style Bjj for example. Our sparring certainly has rules, but those rules allow us to go full power and full speed. Since we go full speed and full power, a person experiences what its like for someone larger and more powerful imposing their will upon them. The smaller/weaker person must then use their skills to truly escape and overcome their handicap. In the end, the benefits of that hard sparring overrides the limitation of the rules. Further, once you get to a certain point, you can start peeling back the rules and increase your effectiveness.

You're question was what's a better test for martial arts than MMA and my answer is why do I have to test my style by your rules when it's not what I want to do? As I said I'm never going to be able to go toe to toe with someone who is just as trained and usually (because I'm a woman) bigger than me, so why would I want to test whether I can? Especially in an enclosed environment where I couldn't escape? I don't claim to know any super secrete death blows, nor does my instructor claim to be able to teach them. He does teach joint locks and Judo throws, both of which I think would work in a practical self defense situation. But as I said in my earlier post, I really mostly practice martial arts for fun and exercise with self defense as a bonus.

You don't have to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that a woman is perfectly capable of taking someone down larger than themselves, or capable of going toe-to-toe with someone equally trained if they have the right training. When I first started Bjj, a female purple belt choked me out in a matter of seconds despite me being literally twice her size. Meanwhile I easily took down a female black belt when I first started karate many years ago.

It all comes down to training.

While you may view self defense as a secondary issue, I'm sure there are people in your class who view it as a primary concern, and "light contact sparring", kata, etc. simply isn't going to get it done.

 

[Hanzou]

Styles that lack a grappling game will be less successful in MMA - a natural disadvantage. Styles that have moves that are easy to predict if you know the person's style (this is a general statement - I'd assume that to be true of some styles). Styles that use joint attacks that are only useful for destructions (no base against which to hold it long enough for submission) would have to either ditch those moves or the practitioners would have to self-edit during the match. The same for styles that use locks that don't have enough "pain time" before damage occurs, which is why most competitions don't allow small-joint manipulation.

Wouldn't styles that lack a grappling game also be less successful in an actual confrontation? I've seen plenty of situations where someone is tackled or slammed, and women especially are vulnerable to someone being on top of them and imposing their will upon them.

As Steve said, Bjj and MMA grappling has plenty of joint locks that are only useful for destructions, and many of those moves are perfectly legal in MMA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Regarding small joint manipulation, I think that has more to do with unnecessary injury than it being a tactical advantage. I've broken my toes many times, and my finger once. It doesn't stop things in the moment, necessarily, but hurts like hell later on.


And for pain time, knee bars and heel hooks are legal, but if you feel pain, you are already injured.

I wasn't referring to them as a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are additional options. They become a tactical disadvantage if you are used to using them in your training, but have to avoid them in competition.

I'm not familiar with leg bars and heel hooks in use, so I can't speak to how they operate. The technique I have in mind is a wrist lock that actually binds on the smallest metacarpal about half the time. If done slowly (meaning your partner stops when you get near it so you can apply some pressure), it can be done safely, but there is very little distance between where the discomfort first starts and that small bone breaks. I'm personally familiar with two instances of a break in that bone even at fairly slow speeds, one with a too-patient partner. There's no way that kind of technique would be useful in competition - if done with resistance, there's simply no time to submit before the break. It either works (break, if it binds on that bone), or it fails (wrist rotates into a different position - time for a different technique).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends if aki is related to combat effectivness i suppose.

Or can be gained along the way to combat effectivness. So say discipline could be gained through competition due to the training required.

Aiki is only related to combat effectiveness when it is used properly, meaning that attempting to create aiki moments actually reduces combat effectiveness. Meh, that's probably too long a discussion for this thread - too much of a sidetrack.

My point was that someone working for maximum aiki needs to work without resistance with a very compliant uke for many years. This, IMO, is what we see in a lot of aiki arts. Adding in realistic resistance makes the path to aiki much longer, so if someone is seeking the fastest path to pure aiki, they don't want resistance. If they want a faster path to combat effectiveness, then resistance is necessary, and that's where competition can help.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And also shouldnt be recommended for things like police work either. Because you can't just snap a guys arms off. And the stylist would be disadvantaged in that arena as well. For the same reasons.

Which is one of the stranger things i have picked up from these discussions. Is that it is unsuitable for tasks that have been commonly associated with akido.

Agreed. Those techniques are not ideal for police work, either. When I've trained people with that sort of responsibility, I do teach the techniques, but encourage them to de-emphasize them and/or to use them as transitions instead of going for the lock in them. There's plenty left they can work with and other ways to use those movements, but those wouldn't be ideal for them.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yeah, if two identical twin aikidoka, both trained the same in all ways, but one also competes. If those two were jumped by a couple of bad guys (also identical twins), the one who competes will be more capable of applying his or her technique effectively.

Not necessarily.

 

[RTKDCMB]

No offense, but your instructor is blowing smoke up your behind.

That used to be an actual resuscitation technique. I don't know how effective it was though.

 

[Druid11]

Didn't you say that you guys do light sparring in class where you don't hit the face or do any kind of serious striking? If that's the case, how do you know you can take or give a punch? Have you actually ever fought someone larger than you in class where they were really trying to hurt you or beat you into submission? If not, I'd be very careful believing your personal prowess in a confrontation. My main concern with your post was your notion that sparring only represents the sport aspect of martial arts and not reflective or a real fight. The thing is, sparring is supposed to be reflective of a real fight.

As for sparring having rules, it certainly does. Those rules keep you safe from doing permanent damage when you're training. However, it is a failure in instruction to believe that because it has rules it is not beneficial in preparing you for a real-life conflict where your life may be on the line. Take my style Bjj for example. Our sparring certainly has rules, but those rules allow us to go full power and full speed. Since we go full speed and full power, a person experiences what its like for someone larger and more powerful imposing their will upon them. The smaller/weaker person must then use their skills to truly escape and overcome their handicap. In the end, the benefits of that hard sparring overrides the limitation of the rules. Further, once you get to a certain point, you can start peeling back the rules and increase your effectiveness.



You don't have to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that a woman is perfectly capable of taking someone down larger than themselves, or capable of going toe-to-toe with someone equally trained if they have the right training. When I first started Bjj, a female purple belt choked me out in a matter of seconds despite me being literally twice her size. Meanwhile I easily took down a female black belt when I first started karate many years ago.

It all comes down to training.

While you may view self defense as a secondary issue, I'm sure there are people in your class who view it as a primary concern, and "light contact sparring", kata, etc. simply isn't going to get it done.

I know exactly what kind of punishment I can take because I've sparred full contact in both western boxing and Mauy Thai and a little bit in BJJ. I said in my OP (and I think other posts) I used to train MMA. And as I said, while some sparring (full contact with strikes to the head and below the belt ect) is closer to being reflective of a real fight, no sparring is completely reflective because it has rules and real fights don't have rules. I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting. And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.

I imagine you were a white belt when you first started BJJ. One would assume a purple belt is better trained than a white belt therefore her better skill helped negate your size. If it was reversed, she the white belt and you the purple belt, do you think that same thing might have happened? Maybe? You could be having an off day and made a mistake, but I don't think it would 9 time out of 10.

I don't know exactly what you mean you say that you took down a female black belt in karate? Did you win a point sparring match? Maybe she let you. Most of our black belts will let lower belts get some hits in while sparring. Or she was having an off day or maybe she was a sucky black belt (I am under no illusions that they don't exist). If you mean you knocked her out in a full contact bout, then you are kind of making my point. Standing and trading blows with someone much bigger than you in the end is probably not going to work out well (this especially applies to the purely striking arts). You're eventually going to get hit (it's almost impossible to to block every strike ever) and you're going to get hurt. There is a reason there are things called weight classes, and it's because the bigger person has the advantage.

I'm not saying that woman shouldn't train in full contact fighting arts if they want to (I did and I liked it, but I can't afford to get hurt). I just don't think that they should delude themselves into thinking that they could go toe to toe with a huge guy with training and expect not to get hurt especially outside the relative safety of the gym or dojo.

As for people at my dojo, I think the majority are like me and there for fun and exercise. As I said we do learn joint locks and Judo throws which would be effective in a real life situation (and yes we train them against a resisting opponent). But honestly if self-defense was someone's number one priority in training they probably shouldn't have picked a traditional dojo that teaches kata (though my instructor pulls several moves from the katas and teaches them as self defense moves) and does point sparring. They should have picked a reality based self defense system.

 

[Hanzou]

I know exactly what kind of punishment I can take because I've sparred full contact in both western boxing and Mauy Thai and a little bit in BJJ. I said in my OP (and I think other posts) I used to train MMA. And as I said, while some sparring (full contact with strikes to the head and below the belt ect) is closer to being reflective of a real fight, no sparring is completely reflective because it has rules and real fights don't have rules. I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting. And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.

My point is that that type of sparring is far more reflective of a real fight than light contact sparring, kata, or one step drilling. Thus your instructor (or you) saying that sparring is merely for the "sport side" is nonsense.

I don't know exactly what you mean you say that you took down a female black belt in karate? Did you win a point sparring match? Maybe she let you. Most of our black belts will let lower belts get some hits in while sparring. Or she was having an off day or maybe she was a sucky black belt (I am under no illusions that they don't exist). If you mean you knocked her out in a full contact bout, then you are kind of making my point. Standing and trading blows with someone much bigger than you in the end is probably not going to work out well (this especially applies to the purely striking arts). You're eventually going to get hit (it's almost impossible to to block every strike ever) and you're going to get hurt. There is a reason there are things called weight classes, and it's because the bigger person has the advantage.

I mean that I completely dominated her physically, to the point that she doubled over after I kicked her in her stomach. I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.

I'm not saying that woman shouldn't train in full contact fighting arts if they want to (I did and I liked it, but I can't afford to get hurt). I just don't think that they should delude themselves into thinking that they could go toe to toe with a huge guy with training and expect not to get hurt especially outside the relative safety of the gym or dojo.

I don't think any woman who does full contact martial arts deludes themselves in that way. I think that women in more traditional styles DO delude themselves into thinking that they can stop a larger person from beating them down and imposing their will upon them. I also believe that many traditional MA instructors reinforce that delusion by creating ridiculous notions that they disseminate to their students.

As for people at my dojo, I think the majority are like me and there for fun and exercise. As I said we do learn joint locks and Judo throws which would be effective in a real life situation (and yes we train them against a resisting opponent).

If you're doing light contact sparring, how are you practicing Judo throws and joint locks against resisting opponents?

But honestly if self-defense was someone's number one priority in training they probably shouldn't have picked a traditional dojo that teaches kata (though my instructor pulls several moves from the katas and teaches them as self defense moves) and does point sparring. They should have picked a reality based self defense system.

No argument there.

 

[Druid11]

My point is that that type of sparring is far more reflective of a real fight than light contact sparring, kata, or one step drilling. Thus your instructor (or you) saying that sparring is merely for the "sport side" is nonsense.



I mean that I completely dominated her physically, to the point that she doubled over after I kicked her in her stomach. I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.



I don't think any woman who does full contact martial arts deludes themselves in that way. I think that women in more traditional styles DO delude themselves into thinking that they can stop a larger person from beating them down and imposing their will upon them. I also believe that many traditional MA instructors reinforce that delusion by creating ridiculous notions that they disseminate to their students.



If you're doing light contact sparring, how are you practicing Judo throws and joint locks against resisting opponents?



No argument there.

Yes, certain types of sparring are more reflective of a real fight then others, which I've said, so I don't really get your point. They are still part of the sport aspect of martial arts because they have rules (sports have rules) and real fights don't. You can use techniques you use in sparring in a real fight, but there are some techniques you might use in a real fight you would never use in sparring. I never said that sparring was completely unrelated to a real fight however. And my instructor was talking about point sparring not all sparring. My original point was we spar for sport and nothing wrong with it as long as you know it's not reflective of a real fight. So I've yet to understand how my instructor is blowing smoke up my *** by telling me the truth. I have no desire to spar full contact and see no reason why I should have to, just to prove myself to you or anyone else.

Though I do think one step sparring is useful if you do it at speed (or at least work on getting up to speed). You work on blocking a blow and countering it. It's useful as a drill. And point sparring is useful to work on timing and distance. They have there purpose. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't helpful.

I took Taekwondo as kid, as well as karate now. I've never had an instructor tell me I would be able to take on much bigger opponents that were just as well trained as me. I've been told skill can help you defeat a larger opponent who is untrained (or not as well trained) and that is true, skill can help to negate size. Nor was I ever taught to stand there and take punishment for no reason. If anything traditional martial arts teach more get in use a technique and get away then MMA did, at least in my experience. I see a lot less eat a kick to land a punch in my karate classes then I did in my Muay Thai ones. Honestly I think you've maybe just experienced really bad traditional teachers.

And I'm not sure how hard is to understand how we do joint locks and Judo throws with a resisting opponent. Person A grabs person B, person B tries to perform a technique. Person A resists them, either Person B is successful and Person A taps or is thrown or Person B is not and the instructor points out how they might have done it better. We don't incorporate joint locks or throws in sparring. It's done as drill, but we're not expected to limply grab or passively allow the lock or throw, at least not after each person has the basic technique down. It's not wildly different from how techniques were taught or drilled in BJJ from my experience.

 

[drop bear]

Aiki is only related to combat effectiveness when it is used properly, meaning that attempting to create aiki moments actually reduces combat effectiveness. Meh, that's probably too long a discussion for this thread - too much of a sidetrack.

My point was that someone working for maximum aiki needs to work without resistance with a very compliant uke for many years. This, IMO, is what we see in a lot of aiki arts. Adding in realistic resistance makes the path to aiki much longer, so if someone is seeking the fastest path to pure aiki, they don't want resistance. If they want a faster path to combat effectiveness, then resistance is necessary, and that's where competition can help.

Not sure. I still dont get the difference between aki. And being good.

Otherwise then you just train with a compliant uke and then test those skills real time. I mean it takes years to be a top level fighter anyway.

Pad work for example is compliant. It is not like that ever gets thrown out.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. Those techniques are not ideal for police work, either. When I've trained people with that sort of responsibility, I do teach the techniques, but encourage them to de-emphasize them and/or to use them as transitions instead of going for the lock in them. There's plenty left they can work with and other ways to use those movements, but those wouldn't be ideal for them.

So you can or can't fight in a manner that leaves people crippled?

I am lost here. I mean if you can fight mma or spar then there should be some element of control over what you do and what you dont do.

I can certainly do it. And I don't consider myself any sort of martial arts genius.

You could still reasonably test Akido in a live manner. Now this may not specifically be mma. But i am pretty sure it also won't involve breaking arms every time either.

 

[drop bear]

I wasn't referring to them as a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are additional options. They become a tactical disadvantage if you are used to using them in your training, but have to avoid them in competition.

I'm not familiar with leg bars and heel hooks in use, so I can't speak to how they operate. The technique I have in mind is a wrist lock that actually binds on the smallest metacarpal about half the time. If done slowly (meaning your partner stops when you get near it so you can apply some pressure), it can be done safely, but there is very little distance between where the discomfort first starts and that small bone breaks. I'm personally familiar with two instances of a break in that bone even at fairly slow speeds, one with a too-patient partner. There's no way that kind of technique would be useful in competition - if done with resistance, there's simply no time to submit before the break. It either works (break, if it binds on that bone), or it fails (wrist rotates into a different position - time for a different technique).

Yeah. But you are comparing a very small chance of ever getting that lock to getting punched in the head.

I mean how often do you think you will be in that sort of dilemma in say a MMA style match?

It becomes a bit like the danger of getting your knee kicked out in a fight.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not saying sparring isn't good to do, I'm just saying it's not reflective of a real fight no matter how you do it unless you allow groin strikes, eye gouging and biting. And that's fine, because sparring needs rules to protect people, but in a real fight I can tell you I'm going to go super dirty because I want to end it a quickly as possible.

I have taken down real dirty fighters due to training in better basics though. A lot of better basics actually automatically counter dirty fighting.

Exept for biting pretty much. In which case I nose gouge them.

Now where i am happy to go all schoolyard in a fight. There is enough hurt within the rule set to finish an attacker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Wouldn't styles that lack a grappling game also be less successful in an actual confrontation? I've seen plenty of situations where someone is tackled or slammed, and women especially are vulnerable to someone being on top of them and imposing their will upon them.

As Steve said, Bjj and MMA grappling has plenty of joint locks that are only useful for destructions, and many of those moves are perfectly legal in MMA.

They would have fewer options. They wouldn't necessarily be "less successful". There are many instances of people successfully defending themselves using only strikes. This is part of the difference between MMA and a self-defense encounter. In any competition (or even in sparring), we can discuss "less successful", because we can compare the results over several matches. In self-defense, you are either successful, or you are not. The only variability between those points is level of injury and the like. So, we could say a style without grappling has a lower absolute probability of success in self-defense, but we'd probably be playing semantics on that, since we couldn't come up with any real evidence to support there being a statistically significant difference in effectiveness. Someone recently (on another thread) said that all someone would need is some boxing, and that's a reasonable approach. Adding a few more tools probably increases odds a bit, especially if those added tools include resistance to takedowns and some techniques for getting back up if you end up on the ground. But just being able to hit someone hard, accurately, while protecting yourself from the attack, should be sufficient to most encounters.

I don't know how any move that is only useful for destruction would be useful in MMA - legal or not. If I use a standing arm bar (we have a few), there's simply no way to use that to hold someone in place. I have only two choices: transition immediately to another technique, or go ahead and try to break the arm. There's no lock available other than complete commitment to the break. Trying to hold it in place leaves too many openings for either escape or counter.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. But you are comparing a very small chance of ever getting that lock to getting punched in the head.

I mean how often do you think you will be in that sort of dilemma in say a MMA style match?

It becomes a bit like the danger of getting your knee kicked out in a fight.

I'm not sure what you're asking, DB. I haven't claimed those are a tactical advantage, except insofar as they are another option (any additional options create a marginal tactical advantage - nothing unique to those techniques). The issue is a matter of the pattern recognition we train (that's really what we are all doing as we become better at whatever martial skills we train). If you train yourself to recognize openings for techniques and to smoothly move into them without thought (to remove the decision delay), and have a number of techniques that aren't useful for competition (illegal, unsafe, or simply unusable in competition), then you're likely to have some moments when you find yourself moving toward those techniques and having to bail to something else. That actually wouldn't be much of an issue against an untrained or outmatched attacker, but against a similarly skilled opponent it would create openings that could cost you the match.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was much larger than she was and yes as you say she was trading blows with someone much larger than herself. I think we can both agree that that's a very bad idea, but that's the philosophy of many traditional martial arts.

I've never met a martial art that taught "trading blows with someone much larger" as their philosophy of self-defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not sure. I still dont get the difference between aki. And being good.

In some ways, it's the same thing. Maybe Tony can step in and clarify if he's reading this. Every competitor who uses throws/locks/takedowns will occasionally get that one where it feels like the other guy didn't exist. Like the guy almost threw himself down for you, though you know he was trying to stay up. That feeling is where the "aiki" is, by my definition. In the aiki arts, we train to feel the point where that's possible, and to use that as often as possible. The "pure aiki" arts train only to use that - not realistic in my experience for self-defense unless you are spectacularly skilled. In NGA, for instance, we train a lot around finding that feel, how to expose that moment in common attacks and movement, but if it's not there, we'll hit them (which often opens up a new opportunity for "aiki"). I see a lot of aiki principles in some of the BJJ I've looked at. I keep wanting to roll with a BJJ black belt to see if I'm seeing what I think I see. So, someone who is really good at almost any grappling will be using some aiki principles, even if they don't use the term.

Otherwise then you just train with a compliant uke and then test those skills real time. I mean it takes years to be a top level fighter anyway.

Pad work for example is compliant. It is not like that ever gets thrown out.

The difference with "pure aiki" training, is that if you ever add resistance by an opponent who knows as much as you do, things stagnate quickly. If both are only willing to look for purely aiki movements and techniques, both will be attacking very softly (gentle pushes, etc.) and "feeling" for the moment when their opponent responds with a small, significant gap that allows that pure aiki response. It turns into a dance. That dance can be a useful training technique at times, but too much of it removes the training from the realities of an attacker.

If the opponent knows as much, and is willing to go non-aiki, they have an advantage. There are open moments when a takedown/throw/lock will work, but will take some moderate force (which means it's not purely aiki). The one who is going purely aiki will pass up that opportunity, while his opponent will take it...and win. The self-defense approach within an aiki art, obviously, is to train both aiki and non-aiki applications of techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you can or can't fight in a manner that leaves people crippled?

I am lost here. I mean if you can fight mma or spar then there should be some element of control over what you do and what you dont do.

I can certainly do it. And I don't consider myself any sort of martial arts genius.

You could still reasonably test Akido in a live manner. Now this may not specifically be mma. But i am pretty sure it also won't involve breaking arms every time either.

I can - just not with those techniques at speed. We practice those much slower, or move fast to the point of application and release the technique before completion. Both are approximations that keep the uke safe.

And, yes, we can test it live - we do it often enough. So, for a standing arm bar, for instance, if I'm going at speed and with resistance with someone of reasonable skill, I'll go for that technique and release the arm as I apply it. My partner will know what just happened and will stop to reset our grappling/sparring. If I didn't have control of his body and it was unlikely I'd have had good control of his arm and body, he won't reset and will follow through as if he'd escaped the destruction (the most likely result if I try to apply it fully without that arm/body control). The same goes for the joint lock I referred to - I simply release the had as I apply the technique at speed, so there's no risk to my partner.

Of course, for all the techniques that don't have that risk, I can simply apply them to the point of control then use them as submissions, like you see in BJJ.

 

[drop bear]

I don't know how any move that is only useful for destruction would be useful in MMA - legal or not. If I use a standing arm bar (we have a few), there's simply no way to use that to hold someone in place. I have only two choices: transition immediately to another technique, or go ahead and try to break the arm. There's no lock available other than complete commitment to the break. Trying to hold it in place leaves too many openings for either escape or counter.

Then break the arm. I am not sure what the issue is there.