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

[RTKDCMB]

So if you were not actually training full contact. you probably wont go well in a full contact fight. like self defence.

Yet plenty of people in these martial arts have been successful defending themselves.

 

[Steve]

Yet plenty of people in these martial arts have been successful defending themselves.

Plenty of people who have no training at all successfully defend themselves. The question is whether people who train in martial arts are MORE successful at defending themselves. And if so, which arts perform best? Anyone have ideas about how to get this information?

My bet is that training that involves competition, whether formal or informal, will impart usable skills more consistently than those that don't.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Okay, now that I've finally read the whole thread and responded to some individual posts, I can try answering the original question: "what is a better test for martial arts than MMA?"

To start with, it depends on what you consider the primary purpose(s) of your martial art and what factors you consider when evaluating whether a test is "better" than another.

To clarify that second point, suppose you consider the primary purpose of a martial art to be physically defending against real world physical attacks. The most thorough and accurate test of that goal might be to hire a bunch of criminals to assault random practitioners of that art. To do a really through test, you can look at crime statistics (armed/unarmed, single attacker/multiple attackers, assault/robbery/rape/murder, etc) and have your minions attempt the appropriate percentage of each attack against a good sized, randomly selected sample of people studying that art. You'd also want a control group of untrained victims, selected to have similar demographics (age, gender, socio-economic status) to your group of trained targets. With the results from this test, you could draw real scientific conclusions, like "18 months of training in martial art A gives a female student a 30% greater chance of fending off an attempted sexual assault by a single unarmed attacker who is not known to her... 3 years of training gives a male student in his 20s a 5% greater chance of surviving a murder attempt with a knife... etc."

This would be a truly informative test, much more so than anything else we have - but for ethical, legal, and practical reasons I think most of us would agree that it isn't a better test than MMA. (At least not if we include morality, legality, and practicality in our definition of "better." ) Obviously this is an extreme example, but it's a reminder that we have to take these various factors into consideration. Suppose we like MMA as one of the best "tests" out there. Now suppose we want to evaluate the best martial art for a 65 year old who wants to start learning self-defense. Are you going to start throwing a bunch of 65+ year olds (with no previous experience) into MMA competition? Probably not, unless you want to see a significant number of serious injuries and deaths. You probably need to find some less hazardous testing procedure.

Getting back to the first part, regarding the purpose of the art ...

If you train for the primary goal(s) of improving your character (according to whatever your personal standards are), learning to avoid fights, having fun, achieving personal satisfaction or "spiritual enlightenment", then I don't know that it's practical or worthwhile to try finding some objective, external, generalizable test to see how well your art supports those aims. I'm happy to take the word of the individual practitioner for how well their practice is working for them in these cases.

For testing more combative applications of martial arts ,,,

If you are concerned with using and/or defending against weapons, then the sparring which occurs at the Dog Brothers gatherings is a better test than MMA.

If you are concerned with historical application of weapons (including the effects of armor and weapons which are no longer in common use), then some of the HEMA tournaments formats would be a better test.

If you are concerned with the use of firearms, then I will defer to those with the appropriate military/LEO background as to their opinions. (war games, scenario training, target firing under stress conditions, paintball/airsoft practice, etc?)

If you want to test defending unarmed against multiple attackers, use an similar approach to MMA, but in an environment where there is a point designated as the exit or a weapon which could be deployed by the defender. Victory condition for the defender is reaching that point while unrestrained by the attackers. If you want to make it even more challenging for the defender, make the designated goal location randomly placed and not immediately obvious from the defender's starting point. This approach will encourage the defender to maintain mobility and environmental awareness rather than being in a hurry to engage with the attackers or get into a clinch situation.

If you want to test the ability to maintain situational awareness and adaptability, you might start the fight out under standard MMA rules but in a cage with 2 or more gates rather than the standard one. At a randomly selected point in the match, one of the following randomly selected events may happen:

• The gates may open and additional fighters enter from one gate to help fighter A or fighter B. If the other fighter doesn't register the arrival of reinforcements coming to his opponent's aid and escape through the other gate in time, then he gets pummeled by multiple attackers until he escapes or taps out.
• A training knife may be tossed into the cage for whichever fighter notices and can reach it first.
• The gates may open and someone will yell, "it's the police". If either fighter is still in the cage when the police enter 15 seconds later, they are "arrested" and lose their purse for the night. Alternately, if one fighter is in a dominant position inflicting damage on a downed opponent, then only that fighter is arrested.
• etc. Use your creativity.

If you want to test your art's ability to work in a setting where you may have to work with allies rather than always being solo (useful for LEOs, bouncers, COs, military, etc.) , then there are various formats already in existence for team vs. team combat. Examples include 5 vs.5 person MMA, 2 vs. 2 MMA in a multi-level playground sort of environment with obstacles and raised platforms, SCA field battles with hundreds of armored fighters on each side, SWAT Team scenario drills, and so on. It is worth noting that the more open ended you allow the rules to be in these sort of contests, the more difficult it is to maintain safety since there's so much going on that a referee or other safety official will have a harder time keeping track of what's going on than in a one on one match.

There are plenty more possibilities, depending on what you want to test and how much risk you are willing to take. Use your creativity.

One note - some of these tests can be asymmetrical, meaning that one side is more likely to fail even if they are more skilled or more athletic. This means they are less likely to attract people wanting competition. It doesn't make them any less valid as tests, though. If anything it makes them more realistic tests. Sometimes (as I noted in a previous comment), the best you can do is die less often.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Man ... that last post was long enough to have been written by Chris Parker. If only I had inserted some multi-quotes to complete the experience ...

 

[Steve]

Okay, now that I've finally read the whole thread and responded to some individual posts, I can try answering the original question: "what is a better test for martial arts than MMA?"

To start with, it depends on what you consider the primary purpose(s) of your martial art and what factors you consider when evaluating whether a test is "better" than another.

To clarify that second point, suppose you consider the primary purpose of a martial art to be physically defending against real world physical attacks. The most thorough and accurate test of that goal might be to hire a bunch of criminals to assault random practitioners of that art. To do a really through test, you can look at crime statistics (armed/unarmed, single attacker/multiple attackers, assault/robbery/rape/murder, etc) and have your minions attempt the appropriate percentage of each attack against a good sized, randomly selected sample of people studying that art. You'd also want a control group of untrained victims, selected to have similar demographics (age, gender, socio-economic status) to your group of trained targets. With the results from this test, you could draw real scientific conclusions, like "18 months of training in martial art A gives a female student a 30% greater chance of fending off an attempted sexual assault by a single unarmed attacker who is not known to her... 3 years of training gives a male student in his 20s a 5% greater chance of surviving a murder attempt with a knife... etc."

This would be a truly informative test, much more so than anything else we have - but for ethical, legal, and practical reasons I think most of us would agree that it isn't a better test than MMA. (At least not if we include morality, legality, and practicality in our definition of "better." ) Obviously this is an extreme example, but it's a reminder that we have to take these various factors into consideration. Suppose we like MMA as one of the best "tests" out there. Now suppose we want to evaluate the best martial art for a 65 year old who wants to start learning self-defense. Are you going to start throwing a bunch of 65+ year olds (with no previous experience) into MMA competition? Probably not, unless you want to see a significant number of serious injuries and deaths. You probably need to find some less hazardous testing procedure.

Getting back to the first part, regarding the purpose of the art ...

If you train for the primary goal(s) of improving your character (according to whatever your personal standards are), learning to avoid fights, having fun, achieving personal satisfaction or "spiritual enlightenment", then I don't know that it's practical or worthwhile to try finding some objective, external, generalizable test to see how well your art supports those aims. I'm happy to take the word of the individual practitioner for how well their practice is working for them in these cases.

For testing more combative applications of martial arts ,,,

If you are concerned with using and/or defending against weapons, then the sparring which occurs at the Dog Brothers gatherings is a better test than MMA.

If you are concerned with historical application of weapons (including the effects of armor and weapons which are no longer in common use), then some of the HEMA tournaments formats would be a better test.

If you are concerned with the use of firearms, then I will defer to those with the appropriate military/LEO background as to their opinions. (war games, scenario training, target firing under stress conditions, paintball/airsoft practice, etc?)

If you want to test defending unarmed against multiple attackers, use an similar approach to MMA, but in an environment where there is a point designated as the exit or a weapon which could be deployed by the defender. Victory condition for the defender is reaching that point while unrestrained by the attackers. If you want to make it even more challenging for the defender, make the designated goal location randomly placed and not immediately obvious from the defender's starting point. This approach will encourage the defender to maintain mobility and environmental awareness rather than being in a hurry to engage with the attackers or get into a clinch situation.

If you want to test the ability to maintain situational awareness and adaptability, you might start the fight out under standard MMA rules but in a cage with 2 or more gates rather than the standard one. At a randomly selected point in the match, one of the following randomly selected events may happen:

• The gates may open and additional fighters enter from one gate to help fighter A or fighter B. If the other fighter doesn't register the arrival of reinforcements coming to his opponent's aid and escape through the other gate in time, then he gets pummeled by multiple attackers until he escapes or taps out.
• A training knife may be tossed into the cage for whichever fighter notices and can reach it first.
• The gates may open and someone will yell, "it's the police". If either fighter is still in the cage when the police enter 15 seconds later, they are "arrested" and lose their purse for the night. Alternately, if one fighter is in a dominant position inflicting damage on a downed opponent, then only that fighter is arrested.
• etc. Use your creativity.

If you want to test your art's ability to work in a setting where you may have to work with allies rather than always being solo (useful for LEOs, bouncers, COs, military, etc.) , then there are various formats already in existence for team vs. team combat. Examples include 5 vs.5 person MMA, 2 vs. 2 MMA in a multi-level playground sort of environment with obstacles and raised platforms, SCA field battles with hundreds of armored fighters on each side, SWAT Team scenario drills, and so on. It is worth noting that the more open ended you allow the rules to be in these sort of contests, the more difficult it is to maintain safety since there's so much going on that a referee or other safety official will have a harder time keeping track of what's going on than in a one on one match.

There are plenty more possibilities, depending on what you want to test and how much risk you are willing to take. Use your creativity.

One note - some of these tests can be asymmetrical, meaning that one side is more likely to fail even if they are more skilled or more athletic. This means they are less likely to attract people wanting competition. It doesn't make them any less valid as tests, though. If anything it makes them more realistic tests. Sometimes (as I noted in a previous comment), the best you can do is die less often.

what a great post. The one thing that jumps out, though, is that some (not all) of the varying contexts you mention presume some degree of ability as a fighter. For example, training for weapons defense builds upon a presumed foundation of being able to fight without weapons. If you jump straight to weapons defense without building these foundational skills, your tests will not be reflective of your actual ability.

It reminds me of when someone (can't remember who) mentioned that aikido was like an advanced degree. In order to really get out of aikido what is intended, you must first have a strong foundation in some other style such as Judo or Jiu Jitsu.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The one thing that jumps out, though, is that some (not all) of the varying contexts you mention presume some degree of ability as a fighter

Well, yeah - since the original question was how to test the effectiveness of an art. No point in having a test for someone who hasn't developed any ability yet. Developmental exercises for beginners would be another topic.

For example, training for weapons defense builds upon a presumed foundation of being able to fight without weapons.

Actually I would suggest that the best foundation for weapons defense is learning to use the weapon first. I mentioned that learning unarmed defense against weapons is a matter of "dying less often." I've seen a lot of knife defenses from instructors of unarmed arts that I would put in the category of "die just as often" or "die even more often", because those instructors have no clue of how a knife works.

There's no inherent need to learn unarmed skills before armed skills and in many arts and cultures the weapon systems would be taught first. (I do agree that for optimizing your chances fighting unarmed against an armed opponent that it is best to have both significant armed and unarmed skills.)

 

[Juany118]

.

This is why Marc Denny and Gabe Suarez have a video series out on knife defense titled "Die Less Often." They have considerable experience in weapons sparring (Denny) and law enforcement (Suarez) and they don't claim to have any techniques which will ensure your safety in a knife assault. Rather the idea is just to improve your chances. In a 100 alternate universes where you are attacked with a knife, perhaps you normally die in 90% of them. (Random number inserted there. I have no idea what the actual survival rate is for real world knife attacks.) By training the highest percentage defenses, perhaps you improve those odds so you only die in 65% of those alternate universes. (Once again, number pulled out of a hat. The point is that improving your odds does not mean you have a high probability of success.

I've sparred unarmed against (trainer) knives. Sometimes I win when doing so. Nevertheless, the experience is enough to convince me that I never want to face a real knife attack, even from an unskilled assailant.

Yeah the way I tend to explain is this...

If you train in the proper techniques acknowledge you will ALWAYS get cut if the opponent has even only half a clue. The point of training proper defenses isn't to completely avoid getting injured some how the way training a proper punch defense is about, it's about training so you can simply survive and keep on fighting. However just like a punch defense it is not going to work 100% of the time. Does this mean the chance of death is still there with a knife, the same as the chance of a KO is still there with a punch? Yep but simply because a punch defense is not 100% successful doesn't mean that we don't train to stop punches and just run in swinging blindly so why do that with knife defense?

 

[Juany118]

Plenty of people who have no training at all successfully defend themselves. The question is whether people who train in martial arts are MORE successful at defending themselves. And if so, which arts perform best? Anyone have ideas about how to get this information?

My bet is that training that involves competition, whether formal or informal, will impart usable skills more consistently than those that don't.

I think "which art is best" is largely unanswerable. If you look at what the local MMA gym teaches and compare it to many (but not all) traditional martial arts there are more things in common than different in terms of practical execution. The difference is in how they may be taught.

There are instructors out there for many TMA's that I would say are more about teaching their students a martial art as performance art, picture perfect dance steps for lack of a better term. Then their are instructors out there who actually teach their students how to fight.

This is the dynamic that is important imo. Teaching method/attitude and then the synergy of teacher with student then how the teaching is validated.

 

[Steve]

I think "which art is best" is largely unanswerable. If you look at what the local MMA gym teaches and compare it to many (but not all) traditional martial arts there are more things in common than different in terms of practical execution. The difference is in how they may be taught.

There are instructors out there for many TMA's that I would say are more about teaching their students a martial art as performance art, picture perfect dance steps for lack of a better term. Then their are instructors out there who actually teach their students how to fight.

This is the dynamic that is important imo. Teaching method/attitude and then the synergy of teacher with student then how the teaching is validated.

Which arts are best is subjective. But, you can certainly put an end to the idea that all training methodologies are equal. They are not, I believe, and if the right questions were asked and stats were kept, we'd have a way to know for sure.

Once again, it would be very interesting to me to see violent crime data that includes some additional information: whether the person trained in martial arts or not, and if so, what style or styles. Heck, I think it would be very informative if the question included information about related activities that aren't actually martial arts, such as parkour training, tae bo, cardio-kickboxing, crossfit or what have you. My belief is that we would find that most martial arts training has no more of an effect on whether a person successfully or unsuccessfully defends him/herself than any other routine fitness. I wouldn't be surprised if it is less, given that many martial arts schools de-emphasize fitness as a part of their instruction. And I think some styles, related by training methodology, would rise to the top. Of course, if the study is objective, I might be surprised at the results, and would welcome that, too.

To be clear, if you think this is TMA vs anything, you're off base. I have said many times I think any style will work if it's trained well. It's the training methodologies, including (and maybe particularly) an openness to testing in a variety of ways, which makes people successful. Some styles welcome this. Some styles discourage it.

I would be very interested in this study, and am open to any ideas about how we could make it happen.

 

[Juany118]

Which arts are best is subjective. But, you can certainly put an end to the idea that all training methodologies are equal. They are not, I believe, and if the right questions were asked and stats were kept, we'd have a way to know for sure.

Once again, it would be very interesting to me to see violent crime data that includes some additional information: whether the person trained in martial arts or not, and if so, what style or styles. Heck, I think it would be very informative if the question included information about related activities that aren't actually martial arts, such as parkour training, tae bo, cardio-kickboxing, crossfit or what have you. My belief is that we would find that most martial arts training has no more of an effect on whether a person successfully or unsuccessfully defends him/herself than any other routine fitness. I wouldn't be surprised if it is less, given that many martial arts schools de-emphasize fitness as a part of their instruction. And I think some styles, related by training methodology, would rise to the top. Of course, if the study is objective, I might be surprised at the results, and would welcome that, too.

I would be very interested in this study, and am open to any ideas about how we could make it happen.

It would be interesting indeed but I don't know if you could make it happen. Here are the issues I see.

1. The FBI UCR based statistics have some flaws for such a study that they only address aggravated assaults and up and they classify an aggravated assault as one that used some sort of weapon if I recall correctly. There are other issues but that is the biggie, it automatically excludes any assault that didn't involve a weapon.

2. Because the FBI stats rely on voluntarily submitted data and on crimes actually reported the BJS does a survey of a few hundred thousand people every year and then uses a formula to determine the "real" number of violent victimizations each year. They don't ask about training though.

3. Police reports, afaik, if they contain martial arts training as part of the evidence, will only do so if it is relevant to the suspect, so they can further demonstrate intent and/or an aggravating circumstance.

So without either a butt ton of manpower and access to the BJS survey list, to have a chance of a large enough data set to be relevant, that would mean some sort of "opt-in" survey and those are always problematic in terms of accuracy.

About the best chance you would have, I think, is to do some serious data mining of assaults/fights in general. See how many times the aggressor was fought off period or where the "victim" at least held their own until LE arrived. Then get a really good statistician to use data like the percentage of US Citizens that actually regularly study martial arts, are military veterans etc along with other data to try and extrapolate how many may have had some sort or training and what effect, if any, said training is likely to have.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure they had streets back then.

i think egypt and those places did.

 

[drop bear]

Well, yeah - since the original question was how to test the effectiveness of an art. No point in having a test for someone who hasn't developed any ability yet. Developmental exercises for beginners would be another topic.



Actually I would suggest that the best foundation for weapons defense is learning to use the weapon first. I mentioned that learning unarmed defense against weapons is a matter of "dying less often." I've seen a lot of knife defenses from instructors of unarmed arts that I would put in the category of "die just as often" or "die even more often", because those instructors have no clue of how a knife works.

There's no inherent need to learn unarmed skills before armed skills and in many arts and cultures the weapon systems would be taught first. (I do agree that for optimizing your chances fighting unarmed against an armed opponent that it is best to have both significant armed and unarmed skills.)

Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But think about how confident you'd be in your abilities if you could win without going ape on them and losing your technique. You'd just need to be okay losing a lot until you get to that degree of competence.

Think of it this way. "Competent" and "Competition" are related words from the Latin root competō.

Etymology aside, I've covered before that I simply have never had any interest in that type of competition. Let's face it, winning at something like MMA pretty much requires being willing to beat someone up to win. Winning without that requires you entirely outclass your opponent, which would require training to the competition. Seems a rather sideways approach, when competition isn't my goal.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's possible for someone to not feel good about their training because it's effective. I don't recall enjoying basic training in the moment, but afterwards... long afterwards, I have come to remember it fondly. I think that there is a fine line here, because effective training tends to be uncomfortable. But if it's too uncomfortable, it is not marketable.

I'd say that feeling good or feeling bad is completely unreliable as a measure for effectiveness. It's a terrific metric for marketability.

I disagree with the distinction, but I don't think it's worth dragging the discussion out further over this point.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Juany118]

Yeah but fighting works a bit differently to sparring. A lot of what shouldn't work againt a knife does due to the speed in which it is done.

It all depends on what you consider sparring...

At my school we go all out like the above, the only difference is we use sticks similar to these Padded Stick during the stick sparring so we only bruise and don't break skin but we use rigid plastic knives with the edges covered in chalk to confirm hits after a round...none of that rubber stuff. If you somehow lose your weapon the fight doesn't stop, you are expected to continue. That doesn't mean trying to pick up your weapon as that leaves you open to attack, that means going after your opponent's and going for control so they can't continue to use it against you.

It really seems a lot of your views of knife/weapons training is based on not really training with them properly in the first place.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is every knife defence I have ever done. He stabs you block the arm catch it attack the arm. attack the person somehow not die.

Akido is a perfect example because they do knife defence in competition.

And how does that work out?

That description isn't the same as the way I read your previous comments (either about grabbing the arm or your defense). If that's what you're talking about, I'm not sure where the disagreement is. You now seem to be talking about attacking the arm, which is our approach. We don't grab it out of the air.

As for the video, I can't watch it on this connection,but your comment tells me what it's likely to show. I'm not fond of what I see in those competitions. I don't know what the rules are, but they seem to stop controlling the attacker well in that portion.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unarmed vs knife training is designed to make people feel good. If they are happy then the training is worthwhile.

That is why it is designed towards the success of the defender. An actual unarmed vs knife is desighed towards the success of the attacker.

So We go back to MMA as the test. People think mount defence looks like this.

When in reality it looks like this.

Knife defence in real life is notheing like knife defence in the gym.

You're making assumptions, again.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Absolutely true. Here's a picture of Conor McGregor in one of his early fights. He did pretty well without any formal training at all.

Okay. I can't let you get away with this one. "Then that day comes when the training is used for real." Unless you're actively and routinely engaging in high risk behaviors, which I would say includes being a cop, bouncer, security guard or other professional risk taker, the chances of "that day... when the training is used for real," is likely never to come. It's like saying, "I wear rubber soled shoes for that day when I'm struck by lightning." When???

The reality is more like, "that day... when the training is passed on by me to someone else as I learned it in the hopes that because it worked for my teacher's teacher, it will work for you in the unlikely chance you ever need it."

I've spent a lot of time posting on this topic, and yet there are a few guys around here who still seem to think that experience is optional.

I've used mine twice, in spite of no such risky behavior. I know several others with similar records.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with you on the definition of aiki, but I think I disagree on the best way to get there. Working with a compliant uke can be a good way to get an idea of what executing a technique with aiki will ultimately feel like, but I don't think it will get you to the point of actually being able to use aiki on a non-compliant opponent. For that I think you need the years of working with non-compliant opponents. That non-compliant experience feels like a major step away from aiki (especially at the beginner levels), but it's necessary to build the necessary sensitivity to the constant shifts in pressure, balance, and structure that a real opponent will make as he tries to overcome your defense.

I'm not against having compliant aiki/energy capturing drills as part of training, if only to remind the student of the ultimate goal, but I don't think it should be the primary focus if you want to be able to apply that kind of movement in real life. Admittedly I'm not a practitioner of an official "aiki" art, but I've noticed that I personally started getting a lot more of those "aiki" moments after some years of non-compliant training than I did during years spent doing compliant drills in an art which promoted the idea of capturing an opponent's energy.

There is an understandable argument to be made that the aiki arts are more designed for use against an untrained assailant who is likely to feed fully committed, off-balance attacks than against a skilled competitor who will stay more on-balance and use feints to set up precisely timed combinations and counters. Nevertheless, my experience suggests that working against the skilled competitor is actually the quicker road to being able to capture the energy of an untrained, overcommitted attacker.*

*(This only applies if you keep that ideal of effortlessly using the opponent's energy in mind while you are training against skilled, non-compliant opponent's. It's also possible to develop a style built around crushing your opponent with relentless pressure, if that's what you're into. Such an approach would probably not lead to much application of aiki.)

That was kind of my point, Tony. To perfect absolute aiki requires a focus on aiki, rather than combat effectiveness. Some aiki arts have gone this way, and that path takes a long time to effectiveness against a non-compliant attacker. To learn aiki, a certain amount of compliant training is necessary (moreso, perhaps, than other styles), but there has to be non-compliant training to translate the techniques, and there should also be non-aiki versions of the techniques wherever possible. I use a blend of the two sides - including plenty of striking.


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido

 

[Steve]

i think egypt and those places did.

2000 years ago, pretty much every place had streets. Most of the ones in Europe were built by the Romans.