The rule sets of combat

[Dirty Dog]

Sport was how people traditionally trained for self defense, for war and to build warrior ethos. (And other human qualitys.)

Boxing and wrestling are the two oldest martial arts in existence.

Training in boxing or wrestling is intended to teach you the building blocks of fighting.

And yet, you don't see that in their advertising all that often. So apparently not.

 

[Martial D]

This is a repost from my blog. i am curious on peoples thoughts.

The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Very uhhh. Diplomatic.

Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.

Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

so then why not just carry the gun everywhere and skip all the martial art training?

Why did the team America theme song just come into my head there?

i would personally advise anyone who can, to seek what ever training they deem necessary or mandated by law and carry when they can legally.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

And yet, you don't see that in their advertising all that often. So apparently not.

Double post, so apologies.

Boxing and wrestling are pretty old but not in the now as we know them ways, there are some folk styles which have died off which are damn old and i think everywhere had a folk wrestling style in some capacity.

Look far enough back you could probably find a pretty no holds barred fighting system. Wrestling to me means grappling and i think thats the literal definition for the term outside of citing wrestling as a style. Wrestling by far is pretty useful against a armed/armoured opponent and also is less dangerous out of the two i would say. which can be a factor as to why its pretty popular, if you want to kill someone draw your blade and cut them, if you want martial showmanship/practice which can be applied decent to armed warfare wrestling is there.

How ever as in England boxing took off quite a bit, but in old terms that was basically no holds baring and some of the domestic wrestling styles had strikes and kicks in them. But then unarmed fighting systems might appear where you couldn't otherwise be armed as you see now with the crackdown of weapons over history in places. Isn't karate kind of like how it is because of a Okinawan crackdown on weapons in its history? And actually ban of its practice.



If im not wrong the oldest European or English martial system recorded was one in the 11-12 00's. I forget if it was European oldest or the oldest for England. It IS English though or recorded in England. Forget its name. (its not unarmed, it has some unarmed techniques in it though as most should)

Pretty jumbled point but i hope it made sense. Ultimately drop bear is not fully wrong or right, but the modern arts how we look at them now are not reflective or are slightly reflective of their history. Only so much as foil fencing is reflective of sword fighting as it has a sword representative in it.

Obviously i am not martial arts historian so i will take correction to any of this. I would say i am a hobbyist in terms of martial history as its my preferred genre of history. (military history mostly but this is under military history) Just ask for clarification of anything if you need it and want it.


Edit: Oh and if this was a joke reply, RIP me.



@drop bear Its a double reply to both of you i would say.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Very uhhh. Diplomatic.

Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.

Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.

MMA tests a pretty consistent subset of techniques against a specific subset of people (trained fighters, almost exclusively, and of similar skill), and with specific variables controlled. There's a fair amount that's been made to work outside that context that either doesn't work reliably in that context, or that just doesn't apply. MMA is a great testing ground, but we can only use it to confirm something works in that context (and can pretty safely generalize that to most other fighting contexts, rules allowing). It's not a reliable source of disconfirmation. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a good source for disconfirmation, which allows for a lot of disagreement without much evidence to work with.

 

[jobo]

Very uhhh. Diplomatic.

Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.

Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.

I'm sure we have done this before ? mm a as it appears in most of these discussions relates to accomplished fighters with a well above average level of physical conditioning, and there seems little doubt as to the effectiveness of mma in a " ring" or in a strest brawl, when its these folk we are considering,

what's a lot less defined, is how out relates to mr less than average who does a class a week and isn't particularly turn on to diet and metabolic training. he us going to get beat up badly if he tries his luck in an octagon against the folk above and he may quite likely lose heavily in a street brawl if he runs into someone with even basic skills and a much higher level of conditioning, that is much the same situation that mr karate or mr wing chun finds him self in. to me there seems no real world difference, unless or until you reach a fairly high level of skill and fitness ! which then takes a very high level of commitment to achieve if indeed it's ac hievable at all by any particular individual

 

[skribs]

Very uhhh. Diplomatic.

Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.

Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.

Except that MMA isn't an accurate representation of the situations you'll find yourself in. In MMA, both people are the aggressors.

 

[Martial D]

MMA tests a pretty consistent subset of techniques against a specific subset of people (trained fighters, almost exclusively, and of similar skill), and with specific variables controlled. There's a fair amount that's been made to work outside that context that either doesn't work reliably in that context, or that just doesn't apply. MMA is a great testing ground, but we can only use it to confirm something works in that context (and can pretty safely generalize that to most other fighting contexts, rules allowing). It's not a reliable source of disconfirmation. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a good source for disconfirmation, which allows for a lot of disagreement without much evidence to work with.

Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.

Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.

Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.

 

[jobo]

Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.

Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.

Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.

the rule set thing is pretty simple if you fight a boxer under boxing rules, he will probably beat you, if you fight a karate man under karate tournament rules he will have an advantage in much the same way, that you would possibly beat both if it was mma rules

 

[Bruce7]

This is a repost from my blog. i am curious on peoples thoughts.

The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Excellent article. Very true. Very well written.

My master fought in the Korean War. So hitting us hard was not uncommon, just to edge of breaking a bone.
A bloody nose was not uncommon during sparring. We could take a punch or kick and keep on fighting.
IMO this training could save your life. It is also true, you may never have need to use that training.
IMO this is the reality of the real world.

Today my grandson in a padded human body suit and is not allow to hit much harder than a touch.
When the kids accidentally get hit with just a little force, they just stop.
This training is good to help kids develop physically and they seem happy.
IMO this is the reality is best describe of as an activity reality.

 

[skribs]

Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.

I'm pretty sure that eye gouges, groin kicks, and elbows to the spine are not used because they are so effective at damaging the human body that they would be unsafe to include in MMA. My Dad was able to ask a professional MMA fighter why you don't see Hapkido in MMA, and her answer was that most of those techniques are banned.

If you take a technique and ban it, then of course it isn't used. And the reason techniques are banned is quite often because of how destructive they are to the human body. Just like how you're not allowed to punch after the KO, you're pulled off during a TKO, and once they tap you have to release the hold. All of those techniques are "allowed", but as soon as you get to the point where it could cause damage, you release.

I am not going to argue that MMA isn't effective, because I agree that it is - for the points you mention. However, I do not believe that "tested in the cage" is the only way to prove if a technique is effective or not.

 

[Martial D]

I'm pretty sure that eye gouges, groin kicks, and elbows to the spine are not used because they are so effective at damaging the human body that they would be unsafe to include in MMA. My Dad was able to ask a professional MMA fighter why you don't see Hapkido in MMA, and her answer was that most of those techniques are banned.

If you take a technique and ban it, then of course it isn't used. And the reason techniques are banned is quite often because of how destructive they are to the human body. Just like how you're not allowed to punch after the KO, you're pulled off during a TKO, and once they tap you have to release the hold. All of those techniques are "allowed", but as soon as you get to the point where it could cause damage, you release.

I am not going to argue that MMA isn't effective, because I agree that it is - for the points you mention. However, I do not believe that "tested in the cage" is the only way to prove if a technique is effective or not.

Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.

They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.

 

[Martial D]

Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.

They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.

I'd also add that 'elbows to the spine' are perfectly legal in MMA, unless they are thrown at a 12-6 angle.

 

[skribs]

Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.

They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.

Based on how well people continue to fight after an accidental eye poke in MMA, I'd disagree.

 

[Martial D]

Based on how well people continue to fight after an accidental eye poke in MMA, I'd disagree.

The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.

 

[skribs]

The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.

I've seen people quit because they can't see. I've seen many others continue, and lose because they can't see.

 

[skribs]

The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.

First result when I looked up "Eye Poke Quit MMA".

This was the easiest research I have ever done.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've seen people quit because they can't see. I've seen many others continue, and lose because they can't see.

Not to mention that it’s simply prudent. At the moment, you don’t know how bad it is. It could be bad enough to lose the eye. So you quit the match and get some medical attention. Continuing the match could be possible, even winning, but could lead to losing the eye.

In my opinion, it wouldn’t be worth it to continue. But that’s just me, and I don’t have any interest in MMA or most competition venues anyway.

Translating this onto the street, an eye poke might not end a fight, and the guy who got poked might still win. After the fact, he might lose the eye. It might be worth it, if losing the fight could have worse results. It depends on what is really on the line.

 

[skribs]

Not to mention that it’s simply prudent. At the moment, you don’t know how bad it is. It could be bad enough to lose the eye. So you quit the match and get some medical attention. Continuing the match could be possible, even winning, but could lead to losing the eye.

In my opinion, it wouldn’t be worth it to continue. But that’s just me, and I don’t have any interest in MMA or most competition venues anyway.

Translating this onto the street, an eye poke might not end a fight, and the guy who got poked might still win. After the fact, he might lose the eye. It might be worth it, if losing the fight could have worse results. It depends on what is really on the line.

In the video I linked, you see almost everyone as soon as the poke happens they call time-out. It's immediately disorienting, you lose your depth perception, and lose awareness on one side of your body. Because you are probably blinking and tearing up (the natural response to an eye poke) your other eye is going to be less effective. This is all if you can keep a cool head.

In a real fight if you react to an eye poke by turning your head and covering your eye (like happens quite often in these clips), and there is no ref to stop the other person, they have a clean shot to just rain blows on you.

Add in the fact that people generally don't train their natural response to an eye poke. You spar all the time to get kicked in the ribs or to take punches to the head. These are hits the people are used to. The reason they go down so quick on an eye poke is they aren't used to pain there, so they don't know how to respond. And if you do train for that, you'll go blind before you use it in a fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.

Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.

Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.

The ruleset comment was more about the fact that MMA moves work well anywhere the rules don't hamper them (so, MMA fighter won't do as well under boxing rules).

As for the other part of my comment, there are locks and takedowns LEO manage to use on a reasonable basis, but which I would be surprised if they worked reliably against someone skilled in any kind of grappling.