Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Hanzou]

Yeah. Morality. A bully is a terrible martial artist compared to a kind-hearted newbie.

In EVERY arena of life, the criteria of ethics will always be there. I haven't discovered WHY, but it's always included.

How silly. Ethics and morality exists in arts like Bjj and MMA as well. I would honestly say that there's more ethics and morality in those styles than in traditional styles. Why? Because the hard sparring that forces submission tends to evaporate egos and bullying rather quickly.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Are you interested in sponsoring my study? Just kidding, of course. I'm not qualified to do this, but this is one of two studies I would genuinely love to see done.

One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.

Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.

The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are already athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.

(BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)

Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.

 

[Steve]

One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.

Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.

The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are already athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.

(BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)

Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.

Is that completely true though? BJJ in particular seems to appeal to a broad spectrum of people including a lot of awkward, unathletic, nerdy types.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

If you have taken down 1000 guys on the mat, the chance that you can take down the 1001 guy will be high (it's not that easy to accumulate 1000 knock down record).

We all want to develop some door guarding skill through our life time. The ring/mat testing is the only way to develop such skill.

Also competition is fun.

no competition = no fun.

 

[dvcochran]

(BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)

When you say 'recruit the most talented' I tend to think the rest of your post better describes the recruiting method. In other words a gym that is really active, progressive, training hard, and presenting good fighters naturally brings in a better crop consistently.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Is there another criteria we should be applying to the Martial Arts?

This question has been asked so many times in the past. I can repeat the answer here without even missing a single word.

A: Is there another criteria we should be applying to the Martial Arts?
B: MA training is more than just for fighting.
A: What will that be?
B: Performance, health, self-cultivation, inner peace, culture study, de-escalation, world peace, ...
A: How about fighting?
B: If you care about fight, go buy yourself a gun.
A: ...

 

[drop bear]

The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are already athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.

I think that may be more culture than system.

And that may be the case because the stereotype of combat sports are for these alpha style males.

But I think if you change the culture your less traditionally athletic person is quite happy to work his guts out.

I mean look at Spartan races. There was this school of thought that women can't do obstacle courses. Because of athletic ability.

Yet under a different culture. Soccer mums are going out and killing it.

 

[skribs]

This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.

While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.

Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.

Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".

I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.

A couple things to consider. First off, recognize that all arts have weaknesses. We tend to look at things like boxing vs. taekwondo and see that one punches better and one kicks better. If a boxer wants to learn how to kick, he takes an art that teaches kicks (such as kickboxing, muay thai, TKD, or Karate). If a TKD guy wants to learn groundfighting, he'll take wrestling or BJJ.

The same applies to self-defense vs. sport. Both have their pluses and minuses. Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all). However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring. With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in that art. That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world. It's even harder to see something outside of MMA. MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.

That's not to say you need to cross-train from self-defense to sport or vice-versa. However, you do need to pressure test and spar with your self-defense ideas. And if self-defense is a training goal, then you need to take your sport training and think "what if X situation came up, how would I deal with it?" It's always better to have trained for something than to figure it out in the middle of a fight for your life!

As to the other question: barely anyone is going to be better than a professional fighter. A casual MMA fighter or BJJ fighter going 2 days a week isn't going to compete with someone who trains several hours a day because they are paid to. It doesn't matter what art you choose, you're going to lose. Many people could probably train as much as a professional fighter and still not be that good, because some people just don't seem to get it.

"Who would win" quite often falls into a "what rules are we fighting by?" question. I could crush most boxers in a Taekwondo tournament. Probably even professional boxers (assuming that's all they've trained). Most boxers would crush me in a boxing tournament. They'd probably have an edge on me in MMA, since punches are easier to apply.

Let's look at Hapkido (my other art). If I were to use my Hapkido against a boxer (who only ever trained in boxing), if I could get inside his range, I'm not sure what he'd be able to do. He'd have a shot while I'm closing into range, but if that doesn't do the job, I don't think he'll have much of any recourse (as is the case when a striker gets grabbed). Have I tried to close in on boxers? No. This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer).

Now, if he's cross-trained into a grappling art, it would be much more difficult to take advantage of the clinch/trap range and my take-downs and joint locks. Of course, if he's cross-training, I want to cross-train, too. I'll cross-train something more sport focused to give me the edge again.

 

[drop bear]

The same applies to self-defense vs. sport. Both have their pluses and minuses. Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all). However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring. With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in that art. That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world. It's even harder to see something outside of MMA. MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.

Not really unless you are comparing 2 systems that are pretty much on par with each other.

And sport systems are just easier to gauge if they work because it is obvious when they don't.

It isn't obvious when self defence doesn't work.

Because this.

"Have I tried to close in on boxers? No. This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer)."

 

[Hanzou]

This question has been asked so many times in the past. I can repeat the answer here without even missing a single word.

A: Is there another criteria we should be applying to the Martial Arts?
B: MA training is more than just for fighting.
A: What will that be?
B: Performance, health, self-cultivation, inner peace, culture study, de-escalation, world peace, ...
A: How about fighting?
B: If you care about fight, go buy yourself a gun.
A: ...

Yeah, but pretty much every martial art offers those benefits in varying degrees, even the more sporty ones. The universal reason people enter MA is to learn how to fight or defend themselves. Also saying "buy a gun" doesn't really apply to every person. What if you're a teacher working in an inner city or rural school and you want to learn how to defend yourself in case one of the larger kids becomes violent? A gun doesn't solve your dilemma.

 

[Hanzou]

A couple things to consider. First off, recognize that all arts have weaknesses. We tend to look at things like boxing vs. taekwondo and see that one punches better and one kicks better. If a boxer wants to learn how to kick, he takes an art that teaches kicks (such as kickboxing, muay thai, TKD, or Karate). If a TKD guy wants to learn groundfighting, he'll take wrestling or BJJ.

The same applies to self-defense vs. sport. Both have their pluses and minuses. Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all). However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring. With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in that art. That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world. It's even harder to see something outside of MMA. MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.

I would argue that a martial art not teaching an aspect of fighting isn't necessarily a weakness. If the Boxer is fighting a Karateka and can enter and exit the latter's range at will while socking them in the face, then the lack of kicks really doesn't mean anything. Heck, I would argue that throwing a kick in certain situation is actually a rather dangerous thing, so a striking art focusing on punches while providing footwork, evasion, range, and fight experience is actually preferable to a martial art that teaches the entire kitchen sink but doesn't really allow you to master any particular aspect.

That's not to say you need to cross-train from self-defense to sport or vice-versa. However, you do need to pressure test and spar with your self-defense ideas. And if self-defense is a training goal, then you need to take your sport training and think "what if X situation came up, how would I deal with it?" It's always better to have trained for something than to figure it out in the middle of a fight for your life!

But isn't there "spill over" from sport to self defense? For example, if a female Bjj competitor has an excellent Guard, why wouldn't that female Bjj practitioner still have an excellent Guard when someone tries to rape her while she's on her back? Further, thanks to her competitive training, she's more than likely experienced having larger and heavier opponents on top of her trying to overpower her while she's on her back.

As to the other question: barely anyone is going to be better than a professional fighter. A casual MMA fighter or BJJ fighter going 2 days a week isn't going to compete with someone who trains several hours a day because they are paid to. It doesn't matter what art you choose, you're going to lose. Many people could probably train as much as a professional fighter and still not be that good, because some people just don't seem to get it.

I agree, but here's the difference; Bjj has an elite tier of known practitioners, so as you're studying Bjj, you begin to have a rather realistic metric of your personal skill level. You're getting submitted by your peers of equal rank, all of your peers are getting submitted by higher ranks, those higher ranks are getting submitted by the instructors and black belts, and when an elite Bjj grappler visits the school he easily submits all the instructors and black belts.

If you're taking a martial art without that in place, you think your instructor could take on and beat anyone, because there's nothing in place to tell you otherwise. Thus that one time where you surprised your instructor with a kick to the stomach makes you believe that you're also an amazing fighter, even though you're not even close. That's the point.

"Who would win" quite often falls into a "what rules are we fighting by?" question. I could crush most boxers in a Taekwondo tournament. Probably even professional boxers (assuming that's all they've trained). Most boxers would crush me in a boxing tournament. They'd probably have an edge on me in MMA, since punches are easier to apply.

Let's look at Hapkido (my other art). If I were to use my Hapkido against a boxer (who only ever trained in boxing), if I could get inside his range, I'm not sure what he'd be able to do. He'd have a shot while I'm closing into range, but if that doesn't do the job, I don't think he'll have much of any recourse (as is the case when a striker gets grabbed). Have I tried to close in on boxers? No. This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer).

Now, if he's cross-trained into a grappling art, it would be much more difficult to take advantage of the clinch/trap range and my take-downs and joint locks. Of course, if he's cross-training, I want to cross-train, too. I'll cross-train something more sport focused to give me the edge again.

Hmmm, I would try to close in on some boxers and test out your theory. I'd be very interested in your results.

 

[jobo]

Is there another criteria we should be applying to the Martial Arts?

well yes, the criteria the person had when they joined, the criteria that made them stay when they realised that they wernt the next Bruce lee

one must assume that people choosing a tma and then choosing to stay have a very different criteria than you

 

[Steve]

One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.

Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.

Studies like this aren't unheard of. Might pare it down to 100 participants or something like that, focus the scope on the first year, and conduct it in a single area, but the feedback would be interesting and informative. We might even get some interesting data on attrition, if we tracked the participants for longer than a year. This is, of course, just thinking through how we might do the study. Would be cool... I think we need to get an academic to make it happen.

The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are already athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing.

I agree with your overt statement here. But you seem to be implying that people who don't have those attributes avoid competitive sports, which I don't think is true at all. On one hand, we have many, many examples of people who train in combat sports who do not have (or at least don't start with) those attributes. You are exhibit A. But we have a lot of women who train. And we also have a lot of lawyers, doctors, scientists, network engineers, etc, of both genders. I think it's a myth that combat sports people are all lunkheads. So, while people who are athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough will gravitate toward combat sports, that is not to the exclusion of folks who do not.

I would actually flip your statement around to say that the level of athleticism is higher in combat sports because combat sports, like other sports, builds athleticism, motivates the participants, and promotes mental toughness. When you walk into a gym, you can tell the new students from the veterans, but you can't really tell the lifelong athletes from the students who walked into the gym a year or 5 years ago with a beer gut and a little courage.

Now, all of that said, there are some schools out there that have a macho, aggressive culture. I'd say that the culture is what keeps them that way, though, and not something intrinsic to competition or athleticism. A lot of women train in BJJ, for example, but they don't tend to stay in schools where the instructor is a misogynist.

Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.

Were I to actually conduct this study, the participants (whether it's 100, 400, or whatever) would be distributed among the groups at random. So, the folks don't get to pick their group. 25% would be assigned to group 1, where they would train in some combative sport. 25% would be assigned to group 2, etc.

That said, you touch on a point I think is really important, which is the marketing that goes on. Non-competitive styles tend to bake in this notion that they can teach you to fight without the discomfort (physical, emotional, or mental) that comes with learning how to fight. It's a sales ploy, and in large part it's this con that really angers me when we talk about "self defense."

(BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)

Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.

I can definitely relate to this. It didn't take me quite as long. I trained in WC for while in high school (a little over a year, I think), and was on the wrestling team. But as an adult, I was looking for something to do with my kids. I didn't know much about martial arts, and found myself in a "self defense oriented" school for a few years before I decided to move on.

 

[skribs]

@Hanzou There is spillover from sport to self-defense. But a lot of sport folk just assume they can use their sport training in any situation. That they'll just figure out how to deal with any differences in the actual engagement.

For example, I've had plenty of wrestlers or BJJ guys tell me that they would just use their wrestling or BJJ for knife defense. They wouldn't train it, but if someone attacked them with a knife that's what they'd do. Clinching up is great for stopping power punches from landing, but might make it easier for them to stab you repeatedly.

Same thing with eye gouges. A lot of MMA folk seem to think the only way of attacking someone's eyes is to throw a claw hand like a punch. It's not. I can attack your eyes any time my hands are near your head, because it doesn't require much force.

They also don't address things like awareness, deescalation, when to fight, what to do after the fight. Because in a sport match, there is no deescalation. You know who your opponent is. And after the fight, it's over.

These things can be covered by a sport art. But lots of sport artists tend to quickly dismiss any situation outside of their sport (or outside of MMA) as being impossible to train for, unlikely to happen, or something they can handle easily without having trained for it.

 

[Hanzou]

well yes, the criteria the person had when they joined, the criteria that made them stay when they realised that they wernt the next Bruce lee

one must assume that people choosing a tma and then choosing to stay have a very different criteria than you

It would be ridiculous to believe that TMA practitioners don't have the same reasons to be in their systems as practitioners in "fighting" MA schools. Both groups want to learn how to fight, whether that's for some eventual attacker in a back alley that may never come, or for their next opponent in the ring, it's all the same.

If they just wanted fitness, culture, or whatever, they'd be doing something else.

 

[Hanzou]

@Hanzou There is spillover from sport to self-defense. But a lot of sport folk just assume they can use their sport training in any situation. That they'll just figure out how to deal with any differences in the actual engagement.

I trained in a self defense oriented version of Karate, and the exact same mindset was there as well. That isn't something unique to sport styles.

For example, I've had plenty of wrestlers or BJJ guys tell me that they would just use their wrestling or BJJ for knife defense. They wouldn't train it, but if someone attacked them with a knife that's what they'd do. Clinching up is great for stopping power punches from landing, but might make it easier for them to stab you repeatedly.

Which honestly isn't as crazy as you'd think. It is doubtful that I would remember knife defenses during an adrenaline dump, but it's very likely that I would remember Bjj or Karate since I've done those MAs for so many years. I've taken some knife defense courses over the years, but I doubt I would remember them enough to stop a determined person from cutting me. Then we have the other issue where "self defense experts" say that the knife defense we've learned all these years are BS anyway. So yeah, I'll take my chances with Bjj.

Same thing with eye gouges. A lot of MMA folk seem to think the only way of attacking someone's eyes is to throw a claw hand like a punch. It's not. I can attack your eyes any time my hands are near your head, because it doesn't require much force.

You're going to attempt to poke someone in the eye while they're socking you in the face, taking you to the ground, or have you in a strangle or joint lock?

They also don't address things like awareness, deescalation, when to fight, what to do after the fight. Because in a sport match, there is no deescalation. You know who your opponent is. And after the fight, it's over.

I was actually taught all of those things in Bjj. Honestly, I got more of that in Bjj than I did in karate.

As for sport, considering that there are rules and sportsmanship in competition, competitors tend to know when to let up, not to overly hurt their opponent, and to represent themselves and their school in a good light.

These things can be covered by a sport art. But lots of sport artists tend to quickly dismiss any situation outside of their sport (or outside of MMA) as being impossible to train for, unlikely to happen, or something they can handle easily without having trained for it.

Well again, look at the knife defense training. When you have a constant stream of "experts" saying that their version of knife defense is the truth and everyone else is BS, who are you to believe? I can go to 10 different schools teaching knife defense, and come out with 10 different ways of supposedly doing it.

Let's be real; the only way to really train for knife defense is to have someone get a real knife and you defend against it. Considering that I don't want to get cut up and lose fingers just to learn something that I will probably never need, why would I waste my time?

 

[jobo]

It would be ridiculous to believe that TMA practitioners don't have the same reasons to be in their systems as practitioners in "fighting" MA schools. Both groups want to learn how to fight, whether that's for some eventual attacker in a back alley that may never come, or for their next opponent in the ring, it's all the same.

If they just wanted fitness, culture, or whatever, they'd be doing something else.

i dont think its ridiculous, unless they are delusional then they will recogise the draw backs, allowing that they are not all terminally stupid, its fair to conclude a good % of their motivation must cone from something else,

ive recently joined a chess club, i have no exspectation of reaching even a modest standard, rather that i enjoy it , i meet new people and it passess an hour or two on pkeasantly on a wet cold and dark weds night,

i did two years at night school learnibg plumbing for much the same reason

its very wrong and misguided to pass your motives on to others and thhen judge them on it

 

[skribs]

@Hanzou I'm on mobile, so I'm having trouble selecting specific parts to quote, so bear with me.

Your post kind of confirms my point.

1. I do agree that it goes both ways. But you're talking for one side, so I have to speak for the other to keep the conversation balanced.
2. Are those the only options, that I'm being strangled or punched? I could ve in the clinch, effectively pinned as far as a wrestler is concerned, but able to reach your face. A hand on the face isn't as big of a deal if you're not allowed to go for the eyes.
3. Why can't you continue to train knife defense so your memory is as good as with your other martial arts?
4. Competitors know when to let up...which could be dangerous in a fight. Look at the time BJ Penn got KO'd in a drunken fight, then woke up and tackled the guy from behind. Should you respect the tap or put an attacker to sleep?

Your post just confirms what I said about the attitude I hear a lot from sport folk. Justifications and excuses for why training for anything other than sport is either a waste of time or ineffective.

Yes, there are similar complaints from TMAs regarding sparring, pressure testing, competition, and crosstraining. That's an equally bad position to have.

 

[Steve]

Let's be real; the only way to really train for knife defense is to have someone get a real knife and you defend against it. Considering that I don't want to get cut up and lose fingers just to learn something that I will probably never need, why would I waste my time?

I have a different opinion on this. If you have some actual skill in grappling... as in, you (as an individual) have developed some reliable, applied expertise in grappling... you can do some experiments to layer in additional elements. This idea that BJJ guys can't train knife defense is stupid, and yet we get this straw man all the time. "BJJ/MMA/Wrestlers say all the time that they are impervious to being stabbed because their abs are so rock hard." Okay, maybe not exactly that, but just as ridiculous.

@Tony Dismukes has shared some really interesting experiments that he's done over the years, and there is real value in that. It's useful because it's layered onto actual skill. He has the expertise to evaluate his skills. Or said the other way, a person who lacks grappling expertise is in no position to evaluate knife defense.

 

[Hanzou]

i dont think its ridiculous, unless they are delusional then they will recogise the draw backs, allowing that they are not all terminally stupid, its fair to conclude a good % of their motivation must cone from something else,

No, it is exactly because they are delusional and they don't recognize draw backs.

Do you think someone like George Dillman (who made people believe he could shoot spirit balls of ki from his hands and knock someone out from across the room) would be taken seriously in a MMA gym? He was taken quite seriously in a karate dojo. When you have that level of delusion, a person thinking that they can take an amateur or professional fighter with an eye poke is just a few dozen steps down the delusion ladder.