What do you think of this composition?

[TMA17]

Any system, IMO, for self-defense use (whether it's taught for SD, or simply being learned for that purpose) needs a simple fighting base. I've only seen a few actual significant variations on that base. Trained with resistance, most become more similar than different. If a KM school starts with that base (rather than going immediately to individual techniques for specific situations) and trains with resistance, then it can be a good vehicle. If it jumps right to the techniques (here's a sequence to break from a headlock), it'll take a long time to build competency. One of the good things about the approach often seen with MMA is they go right to the fighting base and develop that before adding gap-fillers.

Excellent point. I never thought about it that way.

 

[now disabled]

@TMA17

This is what Shane Fazen feels is the current martial arts composition within MMA.

BJJ - 25%
Muah Thai - 25%
Boxing - 20%
Wrestling - 20%
Other - 10%

This is just his opinion. It looks about right to me. I think in the beginning of UFC other was a lot larger, but over time certain arts have proven to be more effective. What appears to be the obvious common denominator is boxing is the best base striking art, and BJJ/Wrestling are the best ground arts.

BJJ, while still one of the most dominant arts to know, has lost a bit of it's dominance to counter takedown defense and better striking.

This leads me to a question, for every day self defense what do you think is a better approach or more pragmatic:

A. Learning a little bit of the aforementioned arts above and getting the very basics of each down pretty well.
B. Learning one art at a time and becoming extremly proficient in it.

If you do A you kinda might never be able to actually apply anything

B you gonna have to spend a long long long time doing that

SD is not a MA ....SD is SD and it has different rules and requirements

As @gpseymour has pointed out simple basic no fills has one goal in mind

Most of the "trad" arts you have got to remember came out of a bygone age where things were somewhat different and even then people spent lifetimes perfecting one Art (I doubt these days if that would be possible)

Also remember that (just my opinion) there is the sport element nowadays (and certain things might well have been taken out ) and that does change the ball park (I am not knocking sports btw just pointing out something that a well respected person told me)

 

[TMA17]

There is a Krav School (not the IKMA one I referred to before) close by that does KM drills like the following. If nothing else, you're getting a good workout.

 

[now disabled]

There is a Krav School (not the IKMA one I referred to before) close by that does KM drills like the following. If nothing else, you're getting a good workout.

Your thinking to much lol .... learn one then think about another get one skill set then look to fill any gaps you see or think you do as jumping ship will leave you jack of all master of none

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is a Krav School (not the IKMA one I referred to before) close by that does KM drills like the following. If nothing else, you're getting a good workout.

Not bad. The defender in the multiples hadn’t any focus on power (taking one out), but at least there was some resistance there.

 

[TMA17]

Thanks for the advice!

 

[pdg]

Most of the "trad" arts you have got to remember came out of a bygone age where things were somewhat different

This is a theory to which I do not subscribe.

How were things different?

I'm willing to bet that even in "the bygone age" people still punched, and kicked, and stabbed, and poked with a pointed stick, and took each other down.

If it was effective then, why would it not be effective now?

Because stuff like UFC and BJJ?

No, sorry.

There was the video on here recently of gorillas fighting - they punch, they kick (of sorts, given the anatomy), they hammerfist, they double leg takedown and they sprawl defend.

They are quite unlikely to look up techniques on YouTube...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a theory to which I do not subscribe.

How were things different?

I'm willing to bet that even in "the bygone age" people still punched, and kicked, and stabbed, and poked with a pointed stick, and took each other down.

If it was effective then, why would it not be effective now?

Because stuff like UFC and BJJ?

No, sorry.

There was the video on here recently of gorillas fighting - they punch, they kick (of sorts, given the anatomy), they hammerfist, they double leg takedown and they sprawl defend.

They are quite unlikely to look up techniques on YouTube...

In my opinion, the issue is less what else has changed (other than information available for developing the art). The issue is mostly that it’s impossible to transmit an art exactly. There will always be “loss of signal” in transmission. If there’s no attempt to improve, there can only be degradation over time.

 

[pdg]

In my opinion, the issue is less what else has changed (other than information available for developing the art). The issue is mostly that it’s impossible to transmit an art exactly. There will always be “loss of signal” in transmission. If there’s no attempt to improve, there can only be degradation over time.

Now that makes much more sense than "it used to work, but times have changed"...

 

[Flying Crane]

Now that makes much more sense than "it used to work, but times have changed"...

What I believe has changed is that for much of the world, life is generally safer and most of us have no need to defend ourselves with any regularity, if at all. As a consequence, we have less need and little urgency to train with the intensity needed to develop truly effective skills. So most people who train martial arts can do so for other reasons such as exercise, the social connections, etc. and fewer people end up developing useful skills or understanding how to go about training properly to develop those skills, even when the system they train still is inherently viable and intact.

 

[Steve]

Everything works and nothing works

It not all down to the Art or system it is down to how it is taught and then bluntly it is down to the student if they can absorb it and then apply it ...........so much these days is blamed on the specific art etc etc etc where it might possibly be ...the student or the teacher

I agree that how something is taught matters, and how it is applied.

This is a theory to which I do not subscribe.

How were things different?

I'm willing to bet that even in "the bygone age" people still punched, and kicked, and stabbed, and poked with a pointed stick, and took each other down.

If it was effective then, why would it not be effective now?

Because stuff like UFC and BJJ?

No, sorry.

There was the video on here recently of gorillas fighting - they punch, they kick (of sorts, given the anatomy), they hammerfist, they double leg takedown and they sprawl defend.

They are quite unlikely to look up techniques on YouTube...

You hit the nail on the head. Most people these days don't punch, kick, stab, or poke other people. That's what has changed.

 

[pdg]

What I believe has changed is that for much of the world, life is generally safer and most of us have no need to defend ourselves with any regularity, if at all. As a consequence, we have less need and little urgency to train with the intensity needed to develop truly effective skills. So most people who train martial arts can do so for other reasons such as exercise, the social connections, etc. and fewer people end up developing useful skills or understanding how to go about training properly to develop those skills, even when the system they train still is inherently viable and intact.

That also makes sense.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but given that I've read and heard stuff like "it was effective in days gone by, but attacks and fighting mechanics are/were different now/then" I'm not sure how.

Honestly I can't believe that the action of attacking or mugging someone has changed - but I can completely believe that the art(s) have 'diluted' themselves and/or people don't train with the same motivation or intensity.

I mean, I train pretty hard in comparison to most other students I know, and I look beyond the single use - but if I thought the chances of truly needing those skills on a regular basis was higher, I'd go harder.

 

[pdg]

You hit the nail on the head. Most people these days don't punch, kick, stab, or poke other people. That's what has changed.

No, most people don't.

But those who attack still do, and I'm betting they do it in pretty much the same way as their predecessors, whether from 1986, 1873, or 762bc.

 

[Flying Crane]

That also makes sense.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but given that I've read and heard stuff like "it was effective in days gone by, but attacks and fighting mechanics are/were different now/then" I'm not sure how.

Honestly I can't believe that the action of attacking or mugging someone has changed - but I can completely believe that the art(s) have 'diluted' themselves and/or people don't train with the same motivation or intensity.

I mean, I train pretty hard in comparison to most other students I know, and I look beyond the single use - but if I thought the chances of truly needing those skills on a regular basis was higher, I'd go harder.

I agree with you on all counts.

However there are a couple situations where I think there could be limited truth to these notions, outside the obvious example of a system that trains in an archaic weapon that nobody carries or uses anymore for personal defense or on the battlefield.

One is if the system was developed with the expectation that all of some parties in the mele would be wearing armor of some kind. I can see where movement or application of techniques would be affected by that assumption. If nobody adjusts those concepts to reflect the fact that people generally do not wear armor anymore, then they might be practicing methods based on an outdated reality.

The other example is if techniques rely on heavy body or hand conditioning, and people no longer put in the time to do that conditioning. Their hand may not survive being used as designed by the technique. A spear-hand is an example.

 

[pdg]

Well...

Even a sword could be considered archaic really, given I've never seen anyone carry one habitually.

As for armour - anything that trains for the opponent wearing it would actually still work. Surely it'd be trained to go for weak points that were necessarily present to allow movement (like under the arm, back of the knee, around the neck) and those areas are just as susceptible without armour. So I'm on the fence with that one.

Conditioning, definitely. I'll spearhand (well, fingertip thrust actually, but same same) on pads or boards. I'll forearm or leg block against doorframes.

And everyone thinks I'm mental

But, I could go a lot harder with that too, there's just I feel no need to go further as I'm not the one padding up to drill with me.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well...

Even a sword could be considered archaic really, given I've never seen anyone carry one habitually.

As for armour - anything that trains for the opponent wearing it would actually still work. Surely it'd be trained to go for weak points that were necessarily present to allow movement (like under the arm, back of the knee, around the neck) and those areas are just as susceptible without armour. So I'm on the fence with that one.

Conditioning, definitely. I'll spearhand (well, fingertip thrust actually, but same same) on pads or boards. I'll forearm or leg block against doorframes.

And everyone thinks I'm mental

But, I could go a lot harder with that too, there's just I feel no need to go further as I'm not the one padding up to drill with me.

A sword is archaic. I practice with them though, along with spears and axes.

As for armor, if the assumption is that the enemy is wearing armor, you may overlook targets and opportunities that exist if he is not wearing the armor.

If the assumption is the you are wearing the armor, you may be moving in a way that makes sense if you are actually wearing the armor, but is inefficient if you are not actually wearing the armor. It may fail to take advantage of the ease of mobility when not wearing it.

 

[pdg]

A sword is archaic. I practice with them though, along with spears and axes.

For entertainment or because you think you might happen to have one to hand if attacked though?

Entertainment is a valid reason, as is being able to translate portions of it to things that may be available, like a pointed stick.

As for armor, if the assumption is that the enemy is wearing armor, you may overlook targets and opportunities that exist if he is not wearing the armor.

I'll make a sweeping assumption here - would training with the idea that your opponent is wearing armour not include looking for any weak point, rather than just concentrating on those that are omnipresent?

Like, maybe their armour is already damaged, so take advantage of that.

Maybe their armour amounts to a t shirt, so take advantage of that...

If the assumption is the you are wearing the armor, you may be moving in a way that makes sense if you are actually wearing the armor, but is inefficient if you are not actually wearing the armor. It may fail to take advantage of the ease of mobility when not wearing it.

Conversely, restricting my training to only being barefoot in pyjamas would put me at a serious disadvantage when I am wearing armour.

Yes, it happens, fairly often.

Boots with reinforced soles and ankle joints, trousers with semi rigid inserts in the knees and hips, jacket with similar inserts on the elbows, shoulders and back, gauntlets, and a helmet.

Aka, bike clothes.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

leave you jack of all master of none

...But oftentimes better than a master of one".

Can i just chip in for the above argument.

Most civilians opt to wear concealable armour for many valid reasons. If you get into a fight you 90% of the time wont know if they have it or not. obviously punching somones solar plexus when they have a kevlar plate there is not going to go down well for your hand. Fighting against armour for the modern day would be a full time consideration and fighting strategy not how it used to be as a battlefield orientated concern and less for civilians.

I dont know if thats relivent, but its a good bit of information to remember that concealable armour exists and is in fashion,

 

[pdg]

Most civilians opt to wear concealable armour

I have never heard of anyone doing that.

 

[Steve]

No, most people don't.

But those who attack still do, and I'm betting they do it in pretty much the same way as their predecessors, whether from 1986, 1873, or 762bc.

The folks who train for self defense mostly don't.