Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by skribs, Feb 7, 2020.
Roman formations are really clever by the way.
Where do you think the techniques you use in mma came from, the very arts you are knocking.
Anybody who questions the effectiveness of TMA, does not have indepth knowledge of these arts. You know what they say, knowledge is king, but a little knowledge is dangerous.
With reference to flying armbars - a broken neck in grappling match in Sankt-Petersburg (Russia):
First: please write down a coach-student lineage from 1840 to Mike Tyson. And please write down which techniques and tactics used by 1840 unknown pugilist Mike Tyson used too. Or please write down how 1681 year boxing takedowns, elbows, headbutts, kicks (what was allowed in boxing matches in this time) work for Mike Tyson. BTW Broughton's Rules are from 1743.
Second: HEMA has no unbroken lineage. It is a re-creation from old books, not learning directly from old fencing masters. Battle-tested fencing has ended with Maxim's invention. Today we have sport-tested fencing, cause HEMA is sport and fun not a every week bloody onslaught.
Third: Karate was not invented to the Japanese in 1300. Okinawa was fully annexed by Japan in 1879.Till 17th century it was independent kingdom with own language an culture. And ther is no evidence (like with HEMA) that nowadays Oyama's karate, Funakoshi's karate use the same techniques that were used for example in 14th century.
Fourth: sorry for my english
Not at all.
I am knocking the idea that a case built with no evidence is as good as a case built with evidence.
Anyone who questions that does not understand how critical thinking works.
I will admit, TMA is playing catch up with regards to evidence, which is there,but its the fractured relationship between associations and styles inability to work together, that will cause a problem presenting it. Mma is fortunate enough to have a very clever person, with a lot of cash, who exploited a gap in the sports industry, an industry that demands stats, that makes the most of technologies and sceince available. These technologies and sceince are also available to TMA.
As for the understanding of thinking, this is why we do ma, its to know thyself, Of course knowing yourself better allows you to see more clearly the same things in others. It became easier to see and feel tension in others, to see the origin of their movement. This allowed you to get inside their movement (think OODA loop for those who know) and shut it down or control and lead it. I do not need sports stats as an evidence, to know this to be true.
In your video, this shows your arrogance, yes the way the receiver reacted was imo very suspect, but the bilateral gall bladder points 18 and 19 are very real, as are some other points on the body, and its really quite simple to prove, by getting someone to punch or firmly press them for you. I agree with you that mma is great training, its great sport, and it would be effective in sd, but its a trend, one that is demand led, a few years ago it was must train muay thai, then its must train bjj, then judo, then catch wrestling (examples not actual), and when the next person to win a superbout, trains in another mix, you will all like sheep follow the trend, and tell the rest of the world they are wrong, mma is better, because of whatever that trend is, there are a lot of martial artists out there that train in blind faith, and dont really care if it works real world, and thats fine, but there are a lot of ma that do care, and they dont have the platform mma does, they understand what they do, they push themselves beyond the absolute limit to find that extra 20-30%, the 20-30%, that is more than just physical ability or strength, a resource very few know they have, and that is evidence enough for me, so for now, I have more important things to attend to.
When the new thing comes around and I would follow it is precisely the point. The evidence changes so my opinions change.
If your nothing became something I would support it.
This is essentially how critical thinking works as opposed to dogma.
I mean we can see that wrestling throws people on the ground, boxing and kick boxing knocks people out and bjj ties people in knots. It is a proven method that works. It works pretty consistently we can predict with accuracy how a fight will go.
As compared to what exactly? What evidence that their methods work in the real world? or pushes them that extra 20% or works at all.
If that were the case MMA would be a cake walk and you could just dominate and basically take care of that argument all together.
Ok. So here are some examples of people punching and firmly pressing down on other people.
Why do they seem to be able to take a lot more punishment than you are suggesting is needed via pressure points?
Or make a case on real world incidents. Let's use wrestling as an example.
So that I make sure I understand where you are going with the video; are you calling BS?
@drop bear , I am just curious what kind of work do you do? I have been an electrical engineer (control & automation) most of my adult life. Critical thinking is a tool we often actively use but I think you and I may interpret the definition differently.
noun: critical thinking
the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
"professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students"
The five critical thinking skills are : analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, self-regulation, open-mindedness, and problem-solving.
In the classic definition of the noun it says to form a judgement. Per the five skills, the judgement is dependent on interpretation, inference, self-regulation, and open-mindedness, along with other skills. So evidence alone is not enough to justify critical thinking. By far, self-regulation, and open-mindedness are the toughest to maintain in most analytical processes.
I can think of Way too many times when myself or others have spent days, weeks, even months analyzing a process in an effort to improve or modify it to result in improvements. At some point we got fixated on one part of the process, thinking this was the only or main area to focus on, and forgot or missed how the actions or areas around the process impacted each other. The results were often less improvement than calculated or sometimes no improvement at all. What happened? We got fixated on one or more things and missed the bigger picture. Even though we had tons of evidence that supported out beliefs.
What's my point? MMA is a style just like TMA is a style. MMA is excellent in a one on one situation. It is less effective in a multiple person or multiple attack tool encounter. Conversely, Many TMA's are excellent in a one on one situation and is more effective in a multiple person or multiple attack took encounter.
MMA, BJJ, wrestling, often get lumped together even though they are very different tools. Various TMA get lumped together although they are very different tools. TMA has splintered into so many styles and ideas it is misleading to group them all under the same banner.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of the instruction and more importantly what the person (student) does with it. Casually learning MMA or TMA in an ineffective way results in a ineffective or less effective tool. This is where the style bashing comes from and it is all too easy to find Youtube for ALL styles of effective and/or crap tools. EVERY style has humorous video of fails or ineffective technique/skills. Grabbing only these videos without weighing them against proof of the same or similar skills being performed effectively is not critical thinking.
Ok. This is what I am getting at.
This is a big statement with no evidence.
So let's look at that wrestling video. And we can see that the fights go pretty consistently. Even within the style we can see than a back take and suplex is probably the highest percentage move to train followed by a double leg.
So now we make the statement that against multiple oponants that process will be countered .
Instead of any logical process we jump straight to this idea that TMA has the solution to that problem. This is without evidence that this method doesn't work against multiple attackers and that whatever alternative is suggested even works against one guy. Let alone multiple guys.
If TMA (or anyone) makes a claim of being able to be a solution to multiple attackers they would need evidence that their solution works.
Then we can judge both methods based on these ideas of personal preference or better for a specific goal.
Then we could have a comparison.
But we are not even to the point that TMA can be considered anything to compare MMA to in self defense.
Don't know the style could also just be training people to be pussies.
It comes down to the amount of scientific method that is used to test martial theories.
MMA is about the best testing method we have at the moment.
I mean we can find fault with it. So say mma mostly doesn't fight multiples. But then your testing would have to fight multiples. Not also not fight multiples but talk about it more.
In Medicine, you go to class and talk about medicine. Then you go to a dummy, a VR component, or a live patient and you practice what you learned. Then you go back to class and talk about it. Then you go back to practice and put it into effect.
Everything you've learned in martial arts, I guarantee you that at some point you had to talk about it. You don't just take a student and say "go do 1000 punches, a hundred double-leg takedowns, and set 100 arm-bars." You show them how to punch, and when they punch mostly with their arm you tell them how to put their hips into the punch. You show them the double leg, and when they can't get it in sparring you explain how to set it up or how to finish it. You show them the armbar, and when their opponent isn't tapping, you teach them the proper leverage points and hand position to make it work. Or you explain these things when you demonstrate.
I agree that if all you do is talk about it and never practice it, then yes that doesn't work. But the fact people talk about it isn't proof they don't practice it or test it.
Ok then show me where you have practiced it. In medicine the method should have been scientifically tested at some point.
Because we are still arguing something vs nothing.
Agree. But it is also true that many of the techniques taught in TMA that have been proven to work cannot be practiced with full intent all the time. It would become more of a Mortal art rather than a Martial art.
Edit: Before you say it; I imagine there are videos of the techniques I mention in action but I hope there are not too many videos of when they are actually used with full intent. I picture them as being at the fight outside the bar, the LEO in service, or a military situation. Not a lot of video going on there. Does that sound lame? Maybe but it is the best answer I have.
Sorry, but I had to disagree with that one.
But the testing does fight multiples and singles who are tapping out or debilitation. Decades (centuries?) equaling tens of thousands practitioners and witnesses who bring this to bear. Are there tons of Youtube videos? Apparently not to a degree that satisfies you. Do they exist at all? Yes, I believe they do. Change your search parameters and I am sure you can find them.
Not being a dxxk but I have seen and been a part of too much in my lifetime to buy what you are selling. I love MMA. It has been a boon to the martial arts industry. It is Not the only valid game in town however.
Big agree with this.123
Separate names with a comma.