- Sep 29, 2013
- Reaction score
He got himself into that by commiting. Gordon Ryan could not do a thing before that and the match was only seconds from being over.
You mean Gordon Ryan couldn't do a thing for the minutes he had Josh Barnett under his mount in a dominant position? In fact, Ryan was so helpless that he ended up choking Barnett as he attempted to escape the mount.
As the great Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”I'm not gonna read through all of this, but to answer to the OP - CMA's are definitely superior.
It's like this: if you were merely taught how to play chess; i.e., how the board is initially set up, how each piece moves, what constitutes a checkmate, etc... you know merely know "how" to play.
If that's all you've ever done... how likely is it that you're going to be able to beat a guy that has experience actually playing the game?
Answer: not very.
So, who is going to fund my study?I think any art that is calibrated based on actual performance is going to be better. For most of us, who don't work in a niche field where we get to be professionally violent, competition is the only context for application available.
We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style. You raise many good points, and I agree completely.
But the proof is in how reliably people can apply their skills within and outside of the context for which they train. I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close. To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art. Performance and application will always bear more consistent, reliable results than a perpetual training cycle.
400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:
I think after a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly. Group 2 would, I believe, be functionally the same as Group 4.
- Group 1: 100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
- Group 2: 100 in any non-competitive style (ninjutsu, aikido, krav maga)
- Group 3: 100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
- Group 4: 100 who don't train as a control group.
After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3. Groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable.
After 5 years, the lines keep going. Group 1 at this point would begin to display actual expertise in the area. Group 3 would be very fit, but would have plateaued. The only question at 5 years that I would be interested in is whether Group 2 performs better than Group 4. That's a real question.
And, you know what? I think we all know that this is true. I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?