Despite style vs style wars and art stereotypes,why RBSD,military,and street versions so similar?

[Bullsherdog]

I already posted this once but since the last time did not generate much discussion and it was ignored, and since I really find this topic intriguing, I will post it again.

As seen all the time on reddit's martial arts section and other various fighting forums, people are always arguing style vs style or talking about stereotypes of an art such as TKD relying on fancy kicks and jump attacks, Muay Thai using hard bat roundhouse, BJJ relying on pins in contrast to Judo's focus on throws, Savate using kicks and punches, etc etc etc........



On thing I notice is that the RBSD and military versions of an art and esp the street version (or at least streetfighters who practise primarily the one style or its main techniques)..................



Tend to USE FAR MORE COMMON principles in fighting than the stereotypes of the styles they practise. For example I saw a TKD instructor in a documentary who was in the Korean SF and now teaches RBSD. Rather than using the high jump kicks that many martial artists on this subreddit esp MMA proponents criticize TKD using, he just went straight to the point and took the guy down using a throw and following with a pinning to the ground.



I also saw some Thai military practising on Youtube and they used the exact same move the TKD instructor used-rather than throwing elbow swings, they quickly did a take down technique as they were sparing with each other. I saw French police techniques a while back on Human Weapon on the Savate episode and they too practised the same exact move during one of the training session. In addition there was a Yakuza fight and a Yakuza used the same technique and I could have sworn I saw a clip once of prisoners doing the same move........



In addition when the TKD instructor was demonstrating strikes he focused far more on knees and low-kicks, some of them even looking exactly like Savate kicks esp the Coup de Pied Bas and the knees was relying on many principles of Muay Thai (esp the clinch in the first few blows) and he ended the sparring session with a rear naked choke, something not typically used among TKD fighters but a standard BJJ move.......



I bring this up because I notice when they fight for real outside the ring rather than sticking to stereotypes such as straight karate punches or the use of quick slippery footwork as the prime defense against kicks on Savate, practically every hardened street fighter, military, and RBSD versions of an art rely on extremely "get to the point" techniques. I mean I read about an incident in France where a gang member who specializing in Savate instead of throwing kicks or punches, just grabbed his victim and smashed his skull on a table. In the exact same manner you typically see prisoners do in youtube vids and documentary in American max security fights. A technique also I seen in a documentary about a Japanese cop warning that Yakuza and other thugs might do to rookie police who just graduated from the academy. Which my dad had done a few times when I was acting like a cocky ******* (though he controlled the force to just pain me instead of breaking my head into two and he slammed my head on a wall not a table) and might I add my dad is in the Army National Guard and practises combatives.



Basically I notice in the realistic "fight for survival version" of a martial arts and among many practitioners of an art who actually frequently fought in the streets at one point of their life, they don't stick to trying to use stereotypes such as open hand strikes so associated with Silat and instead they just get fuckin ASAP to the point. I mean in addition to the TKD instructor throwing MT style blows and lower kicks resembling Savate I seen a friend who practises Kyokushin doe the exact same thing where he primarily kneed the guy and used kicks to sweep him down (not necessarily Savate kicks-actually karate but he used the basic principle in Savate of ending a fight by disrupting his legs). While he did not choke the person after the knees and low kicks swept him to the ground, he pinned him on top in a similar manner your typical manner that a trained fighter would if he was trying to choke someone.

I had to ask how come once you start getting into "real fighting" for lack of better words, plenty of stereotypes from the flailing flowery movements of Tai Chi to the acrobatics of Capoeira disappear? I mean with how much many martial artists on /r/martialarts, Bullshido, and other martial arts message boards argue fanatically about how "traditional Hapkido does not rely on kneeing!" or "real Capoeira relies on dancing movement and acrobatic attacks" and all the style vs style arguments criticizing TKD as impractical for relying too much on high kicks or Karate being too rigid and reliant on straight attacks, you'd think expert level martial artists would fight akin to their style's popular stereotypes. Instead what I seen and read seems to be practitioners of every style prefer to use straight forward common sense moves from getting a beer bottle and whacking a guy on the head with it to tackling a guy and pinning him on the wall with both choking or slamming him on the wall while also kneeing him or some other mundane attack!



Can anyone explain why out on the street hardened fighters despite specializing in one style such a BJJ prefer to use techniques far beyond what they teach at a typical gym or dojo teaching the style? And why practically every fighter be they army combatives instructors or Arnis Filipinos end up using extremely basic movements and ending a fight ASAP? Its as though style vs style doesn't exist in real fighting on the streets and fighters who never trained in several styles somehow can knee as hard as a pro MT kickboxer or dodge attacks with fluid footwork commonly found in Savate and using backslap motions and other flowery moves of Tai Chi! I mean seeing a Yakuza guy do a backwards spinning elbow move in Deadliest Warrior was extremely shocking!



Why is this? Does this mean in reality, style vs style is an extremely pointless thing and style stereotypes are not true despite how internet arguments always emphasize?

 

[jobo]

I already posted this once but since the last time did not generate much discussion and it was ignored, and since I really find this topic intriguing, I will post it again.

As seen all the time on reddit's martial arts section and other various fighting forums, people are always arguing style vs style or talking about stereotypes of an art such as TKD relying on fancy kicks and jump attacks, Muay Thai using hard bat roundhouse, BJJ relying on pins in contrast to Judo's focus on throws, Savate using kicks and punches, etc etc etc........



On thing I notice is that the RBSD and military versions of an art and esp the street version (or at least streetfighters who practise primarily the one style or its main techniques)..................



Tend to USE FAR MORE COMMON principles in fighting than the stereotypes of the styles they practise. For example I saw a TKD instructor in a documentary who was in the Korean SF and now teaches RBSD. Rather than using the high jump kicks that many martial artists on this subreddit esp MMA proponents criticize TKD using, he just went straight to the point and took the guy down using a throw and following with a pinning to the ground.



I also saw some Thai military practising on Youtube and they used the exact same move the TKD instructor used-rather than throwing elbow swings, they quickly did a take down technique as they were sparing with each other. I saw French police techniques a while back on Human Weapon on the Savate episode and they too practised the same exact move during one of the training session. In addition there was a Yakuza fight and a Yakuza used the same technique and I could have sworn I saw a clip once of prisoners doing the same move........



In addition when the TKD instructor was demonstrating strikes he focused far more on knees and low-kicks, some of them even looking exactly like Savate kicks esp the Coup de Pied Bas and the knees was relying on many principles of Muay Thai (esp the clinch in the first few blows) and he ended the sparring session with a rear naked choke, something not typically used among TKD fighters but a standard BJJ move.......



I bring this up because I notice when they fight for real outside the ring rather than sticking to stereotypes such as straight karate punches or the use of quick slippery footwork as the prime defense against kicks on Savate, practically every hardened street fighter, military, and RBSD versions of an art rely on extremely "get to the point" techniques. I mean I read about an incident in France where a gang member who specializing in Savate instead of throwing kicks or punches, just grabbed his victim and smashed his skull on a table. In the exact same manner you typically see prisoners do in youtube vids and documentary in American max security fights. A technique also I seen in a documentary about a Japanese cop warning that Yakuza and other thugs might do to rookie police who just graduated from the academy. Which my dad had done a few times when I was acting like a cocky ******* (though he controlled the force to just pain me instead of breaking my head into two and he slammed my head on a wall not a table) and might I add my dad is in the Army National Guard and practises combatives.



Basically I notice in the realistic "fight for survival version" of a martial arts and among many practitioners of an art who actually frequently fought in the streets at one point of their life, they don't stick to trying to use stereotypes such as open hand strikes so associated with Silat and instead they just get fuckin ASAP to the point. I mean in addition to the TKD instructor throwing MT style blows and lower kicks resembling Savate I seen a friend who practises Kyokushin doe the exact same thing where he primarily kneed the guy and used kicks to sweep him down (not necessarily Savate kicks-actually karate but he used the basic principle in Savate of ending a fight by disrupting his legs). While he did not choke the person after the knees and low kicks swept him to the ground, he pinned him on top in a similar manner your typical manner that a trained fighter would if he was trying to choke someone.

I had to ask how come once you start getting into "real fighting" for lack of better words, plenty of stereotypes from the flailing flowery movements of Tai Chi to the acrobatics of Capoeira disappear? I mean with how much many martial artists on /r/martialarts, Bullshido, and other martial arts message boards argue fanatically about how "traditional Hapkido does not rely on kneeing!" or "real Capoeira relies on dancing movement and acrobatic attacks" and all the style vs style arguments criticizing TKD as impractical for relying too much on high kicks or Karate being too rigid and reliant on straight attacks, you'd think expert level martial artists would fight akin to their style's popular stereotypes. Instead what I seen and read seems to be practitioners of every style prefer to use straight forward common sense moves from getting a beer bottle and whacking a guy on the head with it to tackling a guy and pinning him on the wall with both choking or slamming him on the wall while also kneeing him or some other mundane attack!



Can anyone explain why out on the street hardened fighters despite specializing in one style such a BJJ prefer to use techniques far beyond what they teach at a typical gym or dojo teaching the style? And why practically every fighter be they army combatives instructors or Arnis Filipinos end up using extremely basic movements and ending a fight ASAP? Its as though style vs style doesn't exist in real fighting on the streets and fighters who never trained in several styles somehow can knee as hard as a pro MT kickboxer or dodge attacks with fluid footwork commonly found in Savate and using backslap motions and other flowery moves of Tai Chi! I mean seeing a Yakuza guy do a backwards spinning elbow move in Deadliest Warrior was extremely shocking!



Why is this? Does this mean in reality, style vs style is an extremely pointless thing and style stereotypes are not true despite how internet arguments always emphasize?

what it means is if your fighting for your life, you use the highest r% technique available to you and do it as quickly as you can

high %% technueqes are much the same in most arts, and if you have both a head and a table adjacent to each other, why wouldn't you bang them together

 

[skribs]

Three big reasons why there's a disparity between the stereotype of an art, and how an art would handle a real situation:

1. The stereotype exists because of the sporting rules of the art, and not what the art teaches
2. The stereotype exists because of the logical fallacy that one skill precludes another
3. The stereotype exists because people want to put down any art that doesn't match their philosophy

I'll use Taekwondo as an example to discuss all 3 reasons why such a stereotype can exist.

#1 - The sport authority for Taekwondo focuses almost entirely on kicks. Grabbing isn't allowed. Punches are barely allowed, and even more rarely scored. The focus is entirely on kicks. Fancier kicks like the back kick or tornado kick score more points. Headshots score more points. Naturally, the result is that the sport focuses on kicks, especially fancy kicks and high kicks. In a real self-defense situation, I'm not limited to the rules of the sport. I can grab, punch, go for the nads, use weapons (carried or improvized). I have a lot more options available to me.

The counter-argument here, which is a valid consideration, is that the other techniques you learn in TKD are not tested against a resistant opponent. A lot of the techniques are practiced in forms or 1-steps, but not in sparring. Compared with say a wrestler who will spar with their take-downs or a BJJ fighter who will seek to land a choke.

#2 - Often as an extension of the problem of what the art is known for, is the assumption that means it can't be anything else. This is a similar discussion as the one regarding the common question of "can Jackie Chan fight?" (Or any other movie martial artist). The idea is that because Taekwondo can kick really well, they must not be good at punching or throws. While it is true that we spend less time on them, and therefore a TKD guy of 5 years will have worse throws than a Judo guy of 5 years (all other things being equal), it doesn't mean that TKD doesn't have throws, or that TKD folk don't know how to throw. It just means we practice them less.

It even gets more specific. On the MA subreddit you talk about (maybe a bit too much in your post, since it seems this was copied + pasted from a post you made there), I've been told that TKD doesn't even know how to kick effectively, because WT sparring uses a faster kick for points. The first thing we learn is how to do power kicks. The speed kicks come later, and we learn both. You really can't be a high level in TKD and -not- know the principles behind generating power in a roundhouse kick. But because someone saw WT sparring, they assumed it was the only way to kick.

#3 - Taekwondo doesn't teach a technique the way they would teach it. I made a post on the MA subreddit about this. That the TKD method of teaching a punch is you start with one piece of the punch (the arm motion), then you add the stance, then you add the hip movement, then you add the proper guard. It comes to the student in pieces so they only have one thing to work on at a time. Lots of people don't understand the process, don't trust the process, or don't believe the process. However, instead of "that's not how I'd teach it", it usually goes more like "you're a ****ing idiot, you don't know how to punch, you're lying to your students and I'm such a nice guy I'll tell you exactly what you should do with your life."

It all boils down to the fact that people have made a decision on what philosophy they want to follow. How do they train, how do they learn and evaluate techniques, etc. And if there is a different philosophy that works, then they have three options:

1. Re-evaluate whether or not you're training in the best way
2. Acknowledge the pros and cons of the different art and decide whether or not to cross-train
3. Jump down the throat of anyone with a different philosophy so you don't have to worry if you made the wrong decision

#1 is the best option if you are competitive, #2 is the best option if you are cooperative. #3 is never the best option, but it is for some reason the most common.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Most also stem from similar places as well as above about not many solutions that work for many problems. Like krav maga has a large ish defendu influence and that influneced the commonwealth and U.S's combative programs as well as a few other things like krav maga. and actually some throw away Self defence techniques i have seem, seem to look similar to ones taught in that from the manuals.

edit: and some of the psychology for soft skills is seperate and based on actual studies. Which shouldnt generate vastly diffrent results if they were done right.

 

[frank raud]

For example I saw a TKD instructor in a documentary who was in the Korean SF and now teaches RBSD. Rather than using the high jump kicks that many martial artists on this subreddit esp MMA proponents criticize TKD using, he just went straight to the point and took the guy down using a throw and following with a pinning to the ground.

This might be hard to follow, but as the instructor is now teaching RBSD, the reason he doesn't do the high jump kicks of TKD is because he isn't doing TKD.

 

[Bullsherdog]

This might be hard to follow, but as the instructor is now teaching RBSD, the reason he doesn't do the high jump kicks of TKD is because he isn't doing TKD.

I meant he was teaching the self defense version of TKD. Not RBSD specifically. Even military TKD doesn't have high jump kicks and rely far more on punching and kneeing than kicking.

 

[skribs]

I meant he was teaching the self defense version of TKD. Not RBSD specifically. Even military TKD doesn't have high jump kicks and rely far more on punching and kneeing than kicking.

Because that is the self defense part of TKD.

Those fancy kicks are very low percentage moves.

 

[Danny T]

The is far more to most martial art systems than what is in the sport aspect of them. If one trains only for the sport then they are only training and practicing a part of the system. I like to use Judo when discussing such. I'd venture to say most don't think Judo has striking yet it does, there is a complete striking, kneeing, kicking part of the art of Judo however, many Judo players only train for the sport. In sport there is no striking, there is also a strong groundwork aspect as well (BJJ came from Judo) but many of the chokes, locks, and throws aren't allowed in the sport.

 

[frank raud]

I meant he was teaching the self defense version of TKD. Not RBSD specifically. Even military TKD doesn't have high jump kicks and rely far more on punching and kneeing than kicking.

Gonna try to help you write English gooder.

For example I saw a TKD instructor in a documentary who was in the Korean SF and now teaches RBSD ( this strongly implies the instructor is a former TKD instructor who now teaches RBSD)
. Rather than using the high jump kicks that many martial artists on this subreddit esp MMA proponents criticize TKD using, he just went straight to the point and took the guy down using a throw and following with a pinning to the ground.

Watch how I turn your entire paragragh of indecision about what he (the instructor) is teaching.

For example I saw a TKD instructor who was in the Korean SF who took the guy down with a throw and followed with a pinning to the ground. He did not use the high jump kicks that many would recognize as TKD.

See? No confusion as to which art the instructor was teaching, no word salad of unnecessary blathering, simple and to the point.

 

[drop bear]

A lot of rbsd comes from these weird places that are not necessarily scientific method driven.

So instead they look to people in authority and take their experience generally pretty dogmatically.

So instead of tkd guy using a system he knows. He thinks he will be better off with some untested system because a famous badass did it.

And what this does is it forces everyone to kind of conform to a theme. So then in a street fight you will......

And to train for a street fight you have to.....

And so on.

The entertaining part is this kind of madness is performed by guys who would otherwise be good martial artists.

That thread on straight punches not being done on the street is a good example.

Another would be burkas post regarding weapons defence.

 

[skribs]

A lot of rbsd comes from these weird places that are not necessarily scientific method driven.

So instead they look to people in authority and take their experience generally pretty dogmatically.

So instead of tkd guy using a system he knows. He thinks he will be better off with some untested system because a famous badass did it.

And what this does is it forces everyone to kind of conform to a theme. So then in a street fight you will......

And to train for a street fight you have to.....

And so on.

The entertaining part is this kind of madness is performed by guys who would otherwise be good martial artists.

That thread on straight punches not being done on the street is a good example.

Another would be burkas post regarding weapons defence.

I think part of the reason for this is the application of the techniques. You want to test the application of a technique in the ring? Step into the ring and test it. You want to test the application of a technique on the street? Go to a bar and hit on enough wives and girlfriends until someone tries to throw you a beating.

In my Psych 101 class, my professor talked about the problem with studying humans is that you fall into one of two problems:

1. You observe people with their knowledge, and they behave as if they are being observed.
2. You observe people without their knowledge, which can quite often be a violation of privacy.

The example she used is if you are trying to study the mating practices of homo sapiens. There's either going to be a strong observer effect or there's going to be major legal and ethical violations.

The same applies to self-defense martial arts. If there isn't a sport where you can compete, then outside of going out and getting into street fights, you vicariously learn what does and doesn't work from an authority on the subject. You should do internal testing, which should increase in resistance and competency, but there isn't much of an option for external testing. Your other options are:

• Create a sport built around the art. This will change the approach of the art from "survival" to "achieve win condition" and will come with a change in tactic and strategy.
• Compete against similar arts in their sport. Same problem as the first option, with the additional issue that you will be at a disadvantage on their turf. The McGregor Maywhether fight is a great example of this. If a Judoka and a Wrestler were to wrestle, I'd instantly put down money on the wrestler winning, and vice versa in a Judo competition.
• Compete in MMA. This is the best representation of what works in a fight when both people square off. It's not a good representation of many of the scenarios that RBSD is supposed to cover.

 

[Tez3]

The McGregor Maywhether fight is a great example of this.

Though to be fair Conor was a boxer before he was an MMA fighter, the difference is that Maywhether is a better boxer. This is why you can't always judge styles, their exponents aren't always equal.

 

[drop bear]

I think part of the reason for this is the application of the techniques. You want to test the application of a technique in the ring? Step into the ring and test it. You want to test the application of a technique on the street? Go to a bar and hit on enough wives and girlfriends until someone tries to throw you a beating.

In my Psych 101 class, my professor talked about the problem with studying humans is that you fall into one of two problems:

1. You observe people with their knowledge, and they behave as if they are being observed.
2. You observe people without their knowledge, which can quite often be a violation of privacy.

The example she used is if you are trying to study the mating practices of homo sapiens. There's either going to be a strong observer effect or there's going to be major legal and ethical violations.

The same applies to self-defense martial arts. If there isn't a sport where you can compete, then outside of going out and getting into street fights, you vicariously learn what does and doesn't work from an authority on the subject. You should do internal testing, which should increase in resistance and competency, but there isn't much of an option for external testing. Your other options are:

• Create a sport built around the art. This will change the approach of the art from "survival" to "achieve win condition" and will come with a change in tactic and strategy.
• Compete against similar arts in their sport. Same problem as the first option, with the additional issue that you will be at a disadvantage on their turf. The McGregor Maywhether fight is a great example of this. If a Judoka and a Wrestler were to wrestle, I'd instantly put down money on the wrestler winning, and vice versa in a Judo competition.
• Compete in MMA. This is the best representation of what works in a fight when both people square off. It's not a good representation of many of the scenarios that RBSD is supposed to cover.

People don't take what they know and apply it to what they don't know.

They assume someone else knows take that on faith and try to teach that.

If a tkd guy can reliably kick a guys face off from pretty much any position and he is basing his self defense around arm locks he is shooting himself in the foot.

And sports precisely reflect this. Kabib is not going to adopt john jones kicking game regardless how successful john jones is with it.

It is silly.

Self defense is ultimately about how to make what you are good at achieve the objectives you want.

So if a boxer is ambushed by multiple oponants he doesn't start trying to throw people on the ground.

Where a Judoka very much might.

This idea that sports do not contain the mechanics for self defense is precisely the idea that creates this mental block that applies to self defense.

And why we get these conforming concepts with RBSD.

 

[drop bear]

Though to be fair Conor was a boxer before he was an MMA fighter, the difference is that Maywhether is a better boxer. This is why you can't always judge styles, their exponents aren't always equal.

Can't judge styles on one guy. If a style is churning out kill monster after kill monster you can judge it is better than a style that doesn't.

 

[skribs]

People don't take what they know and apply it to what they don't know.

They assume someone else knows take that on faith and try to teach that.

If a tkd guy can reliably kick a guys face off from pretty much any position and he is basing his self defense around arm locks he is shooting himself in the foot.

A TKD guy can reliably kick a guy's face off in a game where you're not allowed to grapple at all, are barely allowed to punch and are discouraged from punching, and in which damage is secondary to points. Those are three huge caveats as to why a TKD guy should think twice before they try and make a "kick their face off" self defense system.

It's also silly to assume that a TKD guy can't punch or throw, just because they can kick. Ability in one skill does not preclude ability in another skill.

And sports precisely reflect this. Kabib is not going to adopt john jones kicking game regardless how successful john jones is with it.

It is silly.

Self defense is ultimately about how to make what you are good at achieve the objectives you want.

So if a boxer is ambushed by multiple oponants he doesn't start trying to throw people on the ground.

Where a Judoka very much might.

Do boxers go into MMA and only ever punch? Or do boxers go into MMA and learn how to kick, throw, and submit?

Are there no people in MMA that can both throw someone down AND throw a punch?

This post would seem to suggest that people should only ever take specific arts and never cross-train or mix them.

This idea that sports do not contain the mechanics for self defense is precisely the idea that creates this mental block that applies to self defense.

And why we get these conforming concepts with RBSD.

Sports contain many of the mechanics for self-defense. They are not all-encompassing. You said it yourself: "Self defense is ultimately about how to make what you are good at achieve the objectives you want."

If you are not thinking about objectives other than "win the fight in the Octagon", then any fight which includes factors other than those in the Octagon will be going through your fight-or-flight response, instead of through your trained reflexes.

Both approaches to self-defense (RBSD and Combat Sport) have a piece of the puzzle. If you train exclusively for scenarios and never spar, your techniques won't be sharpened by combat. If you train exclusively for the sport and never stop to think "what would I do in X situation", then you can make a real situation a heck of a lot worse by doing what you're trained to do. This could be a TKD guy kicking high and getting caught in a single leg, or it can be a BJJ guy taking a fight to the ground and having his enemy's friends help out.

 

[Flying Crane]

why does it all look the same? because that is fighting.

a lot of what the OP is calling "art stereotype" is connected to the specifics of how a method tends to go about training some of their material. There are physical manifestations in the practice, that are suppressed or simply won't manifest in the chaos of a real fight. These "stereotypes" tend to emphasize certain physical principles in an exaggerated way that helps hardwire the movements into one's subconscious. Once that hardwiring is done, the exaggeration does not need to be expressed in a real fight.

So people fight, and it tends to look similar, regardless of what style they may have trained in. And there is a lot of overlap between systems. No system has a monopoly on the good moves.

 

[drop bear]

why does it all look the same? because that is fighting.

a lot of what the OP is calling "art stereotype" is connected to the specifics of how a method tends to go about training some of their material. There are physical manifestations in the practice, that are suppressed or simply won't manifest in the chaos of a real fight. These "stereotypes" tend to emphasize certain physical principles in an exaggerated way that helps hardwire the movements into one's subconscious. Once that hardwiring is done, the exaggeration does not need to be expressed in a real fight.

So people fight, and it tends to look similar, regardless of what style they may have trained in. And there is a lot of overlap between systems. No system has a monopoly on the good moves.

Fighting doesn't all look the same.

 

[drop bear]

A TKD guy can reliably kick a guy's face off in a game where you're not allowed to grapple at all, are barely allowed to punch and are discouraged from punching, and in which damage is secondary to points. Those are three huge caveats as to why a TKD guy should think twice before they try and make a "kick their face off" self defense system.

It's also silly to assume that a TKD guy can't punch or throw, just because they can kick. Ability in one skill does not preclude ability in another skill.



Do boxers go into MMA and only ever punch? Or do boxers go into MMA and learn how to kick, throw, and submit?

Are there no people in MMA that can both throw someone down AND throw a punch?

This post would seem to suggest that people should only ever take specific arts and never cross-train or mix them.



Sports contain many of the mechanics for self-defense. They are not all-encompassing. You said it yourself: "Self defense is ultimately about how to make what you are good at achieve the objectives you want."

If you are not thinking about objectives other than "win the fight in the Octagon", then any fight which includes factors other than those in the Octagon will be going through your fight-or-flight response, instead of through your trained reflexes.

Both approaches to self-defense (RBSD and Combat Sport) have a piece of the puzzle. If you train exclusively for scenarios and never spar, your techniques won't be sharpened by combat. If you train exclusively for the sport and never stop to think "what would I do in X situation", then you can make a real situation a heck of a lot worse by doing what you're trained to do. This could be a TKD guy kicking high and getting caught in a single leg, or it can be a BJJ guy taking a fight to the ground and having his enemy's friends help out.

You missed the point.

It is not that say TKDers can't benefit from learning to grapple.

It is that in martial arts there is what is known and what is unknown and people confuse the two.

If I haven't been in a heap of street fights there is really only one way to develop a system for myself that I know works.

 

[skribs]

You missed the point.

It is not that say TKDers can't benefit from learning to grapple.

It is that in martial arts there is what is known and what is unknown and people confuse the two.

If I haven't been in a heap of street fights there is really only one way to develop a system for myself that I know works.

At some point you had to start learning techniques. At some point you had to learn techniques from an authority who knew from experience that it worked, before you had a chance to go into a ring and test them.

 

[dvcochran]

So people fight, and it tends to look similar, regardless of what style they may have trained in. And there is a lot of overlap between systems. No system has a monopoly on the good moves.

Agree. Who is to say 'who' is the authority? Unless it is a systemic evaluation there is no true authority. It is very hard to account for people who simply know how to fight with zero formal training at all. We all know they exist. It is akin to the same variable(s) that make one fighter better than another even when every measurable it identical.
I wish I could bottle that stuff up and sell it.