Don't Overlook "Competitive" Martial Arts

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
And that line of thinking made him get his *** handed to him. IMO, his line of thinking is no different than the same people some MMA guys talk bad about...you know, the extreme traditional guys, who don't want to follow the advice of the MMA guys, who believe in cross training. Hell, if you look at some of the Gracie guys, like Renzo and Ralph, they do a lot of striking. They don't seem anti striking. I wonder what they feel about their relative.

But, to each their own, I suppose. :)

I trained with a Brazil top team guy for a bit and they had no issue.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
Either there is a difference or there isn't. If there is a difference you have to drill it. If there is no difference stay on the mat and save yourself the injuries.

If all it takes to turn mma into rsbd is one break fall on concrete then you are not going to have much of a street sport argument.
As you said yourself there is no difference, so why were you talking about having to practise break falling on concrete fifty or sixty times?
They don't butt flop in mma either. The rule of the day is win the scramble.

But you never know you might want to give your friends the opportunity to kick the other guys head in.

I have rolling guillotined someone in the street.
Lucky no one saw you. Most places these days you go to jail for a long time for doing that unless you can prove SD. None of my mates, who do a lot of security work, would dream of a choke hold these days.

The maximum penalty for the charge of attempts to choke (Section 37 of the Crimes Act) is twenty-five years imprisonment.
http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/attempts-to-choke

You seem, from your posts, to have been in more street fights than anyone I have met.
:asian:
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
As you said yourself there is no difference, so why were you talking about having to practise break falling on concrete fifty or sixty times?
Lucky no one saw you. Most places these days you go to jail for a long time for doing that unless you can prove SD. None of my mates, who do a lot of security work, would dream of a choke hold these days.



You seem, from your posts, to have been in more street fights than anyone I have met.
:asian:

If there is no difference then it makes more sense just to train on the mats. Which is kind of why you have somewhere to train in the first place.

Yeah the choke hold is a difficult one.it is frowned apon. But it is also safer for me. This idea that the industry believes I can wrist lock everybody into submission just enrages me to be honest.


I have no time for the ppct system that is sold to the industry.
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
I trained with a Brazil top team guy for a bit and they had no issue.

No issue with what? Striking? IMO, I think there are a lot more BJJ guys that while they recognize a strong ground game, they also realize the importance of a good stand up game as well. :)
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
No issue with what? Striking? IMO, I think there are a lot more BJJ guys that while they recognize a strong ground game, they also realize the importance of a good stand up game as well. :)

Yeah no issue with striking and btt is about as Brazilian as you can get for jujitsu.
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hmm, a bit late to this one…

I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.

Hmm, I remember when you first started here as well… 2009… I was involved in many of your early threads, and I don't remember any such comments being made. In fact, your early threads were asking specifically for systems that would allow you to control, pin etc without striking… and you were told specifically to look for Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, Wrestling, Ninjutsu systems, and so on… no-one said anything negative about any of them. Just to be sure, I went back and checked (with less than 100 posts, it wasn't difficult to do)… and I can't find any examples of the comments you're discussing here.

Anyway...

After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying…

The simple fact is that none of that is "needed". You can do one, the other, both, or none of the above, and still have a real, dependable self defence approach (as you've put this in the General Self Defence forum, I'm taking this as only applying to that). If you're good enough at a striking approach, you don't really need grappling… and vice versa. Of course, none of that is anything to do with the criticisms of sporting/competitive approaches… there are plenty of striking competitive systems as well.

Don't overlook judo/bjj/jiu jitsu

Er… wasn't aware that anyone was.

I'll even go a big more extreme. There is no such thing as anti-grappling, but there is such thing as anti-striking.

When your opponent punches at you, if you can

- wrap his punching arm,
- take him down,
- finish him on the ground.

What else do you need? The issue is whether you have enough training to be able to "wrap" your opponent's punching arm when he throws his 1st punch at you. If you can do that, you have "anti-striking" skill.


Hmm. I don't think I agree with anything in this post. And I'm not sure how it pertains to the OP, where there was no mention of anti-grappling, or anything else dealt with in this reply…

Correct, SOME MMA training does not directly translate to self defense BUT that can be said for all martial arts on the planet...if a new student came to me and asked me to teach him self defense that he could use quickly.

I would teach him full contact jabs, crosses, hook, elbows, low body kicks, basic choke methodology and basic grappling defense and offense and in that order...All well covered by MMA but overlooked by some traditional arts. Today, many schools "full contact" alone does not translate to real full contact...:)

Just to throw a spanner in this, I wouldn't teach any of that at all. If I was teaching them to survive a fight, on the other hand… I wouldn't teach anything that complex… but it'd be closer to that.

Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground.

And most people don't know how to fight standing up, either… but I gotta say, "fighting" on the ground has little to do with self defence, and therefore not much to do with the context you've set up in this thread.

And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people.

So? This might not be a question you've considered, but so what? Do you actually consider them essential for self defence? If so, why? If not, why is it important that people need to know them?

All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.

Why wouldn't strikers be aware of their foot placement? Do you think that striking systems (non competitive ones) only have striking? And, even if they do, why would they not be aware of their foot placement? It'd be an integral part of their structure and power generation, after all.

Tbh one move I have skipped out on is single/double leg takedowns. I use my trips and sweeps so often that I never use it. And now that I am raising my level I have found I need that move a little more. But I wouldn't use it on the street because I carry a gun and all of my moves revolve around creating space and opportunity to draw said gun.

So, if your primary tactic is to create space and gain the opportunity to draw, how does needing to know ground fighting fit into that? Ground escapes, sure… but ground fighting? Wouldn't a simpler method be to strike in order to disengage and gain distance/separation?

I have always felt Judo is a great art for Self defense. Never mess with a good Judoka

Damn straight.

Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete.

Sure, you can. I mean, if you're training on concrete, and your partner is trying to throw you, that's going to meet some pretty real resistance…

Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.

Sure… but there's risk in everything. I do a lot of weapon work… there's a lot of risk in that… especially when we deal with real weapons… Oh, but it would depend on who you were training with, of course. I could happily train in such a situation with some of my senior guys, as I know their level of control… my juniors, on the other hand, wouldn't be allowed to try such a thing, as it would just be too risky (for all involved).

Same with things like training with belt kit. I have gone down a few times in situation and had no more than scrapes and pulled muscles. But I could not do it the fifty or sixty times it would take to learn the technique properly.

You do understand the difference between training drills to learn a technique, training drills to apply a technique, and training drills to pressure test a technique, yeah?

I can take a punch in the head without a mouth guard. But I am not sure I would train like that.

Pity, that can be quite enlightening… depending on how you do it, of course.

Tricky. You generally negate striking with grappling by closing distance. That double leg can be a bit of a get out of jail free card if you are getting bashed.

I still work on the principle of.
A. Stop getting bashed.
B. Deal with my other issues.

You can stay standing mostly with a double leg. But if you don't flatten them with the throw they can just pop back up.

Yeah… you're still looking at techniques as the answer… they're not. They're simply not important in that sense.

Anyone who thinks striking is flawed has never seen this video:

[video]http://youtu.be/(null)[/video]

lol.

My point is to demonstrate that grappling isn't a worthless art. Here is one scenario to which I refer:

[video=youtube_share;dclfBro8ews]http://youtu.be/dclfBro8ews[/video]

Not sure of anyone who's said that either striking is flawed, or that grappling is worthless… it'd be like saying that food has a bad taste, rather than specific food having a bad taste… it just doesn't make sense. There's no single skill set called "striking" or "grappling" in that sense.

In both areas grappling knowledge was important. In the first it is obvious. The 2nd the guy needs to stay on his feet. That is why I love judo. You learn how to stay up. Not just how to take down.

Judo's far from alone there…

Yeah but the sport training is training to problem solve on the fly.

Do you think that non-sports training doesn't? Additionally, if you don't, do you understand the influence that the specific contexts of learning have on the way such training is processed?

So resorting to training is fine because you are just auto piloting basic concepts while thinking of creative solutions. Otherwise you have to sort through millions of processes until you find the one that matches your environment.

Are you familiar with the OODA loop?

Falling on a hard surface is no different to falling on a soft one technique wise. There is no mat concrete break fall or roll variation.

Not sure I'd agree with that entirely…

It just sucks more to fall on concrete. I think most people know that without having to be led through the process.

On the other hand, concrete (and bricks etc) can certainly speed up the development of such skills… and yes, I'm saying that from personal experience.

Training on real environments like parking lots becomes a trade off. If I train on concrete I either have to dial down the pace and the resistance or restrict the skill set. If I am aiming for reality I have already shot myself in the foot a bit because I have to reduce the reality to train in the environment.

All training methods have trade-offs… I believe you've had that pointed out to you a few times already, yeah? If you're aiming for reality, you aim to get as close to reality as you can get… but here's the thing. That doesn't mean everything in a single drill or training method. You might have a larger skill set being applied, or a greater pace being employed, in safer environments… which are non-realistic due to the surrounds… and then slightly alter it when training in a more realistic environment… and then have adrenaline training separate again. There is no single method that offers a complete picture of reality… but there are some that get closer than others.

So I am not sure why I would bother that much with it in the first place.

If you're not understanding it, I'm not surprised you're not seeing the value of it.

But a gym is the real world. There is often no getting around that. There are other people occupying space things to avoid mats that get slippery and so on.

And you think that makes it "real world"? Really?

No.

Now as far as awareness and other specific skill sets. They are completely bolt onable. Mma does this anyway. Anybody who cross trains is doing this. The advantage is I can go to a sports instructor who specialises in his skill set and not have to rely on their ability to teach awareness. I can go to an expert in that and train that. Then go to an rsbder and learn use of dirty tricks. Go to a weapons expert and learn that.

Depends on what you're there for. But here's a question… what happens when your sports/specialist training dictates a particular response, and your self defence/awareness training dictates the opposite… which do you follow? Do you know which one you'll choose? Or why? Or how you'll choose it?

Oh, and do you really think that RBSD is about "dirty tricks"? I've got experience in a range of RBSD methods, and "dirty tricks" is hardly how I'd describe them… it can be an aspect, but it's just as likely to be an aspect of any traditional art as well.

I am not going to expect a martial arts school to teach me to shoot or drive defensibly I would not expect my defensive driving instructor to teach me to box.

Hmm, my schools must be quite the anomaly to you, then… you've just described quite a number of things that I've done in our "martial art school"...

There is an element of that. But the common movement is against it.

Royce is still anti striking. His reasoning?

Because the street.
http://m.mixedmartialarts.com/mma-news/438995/Rener-Royce-is-right-about-BJJ-only-and-wrong/

I don't think that's exactly Royce being against striking. It's about him advocating for BJJ as a pure art in itself (which does include some striking BTW) rather than blending it with other arts such as wrestling or boxing. I don't really agree with his purist stance, but it's not really the same as saying "grapplers are better than strikers, so nyaah!"

During a question and answer period at a seminar I attended with Royce a few years back, he was asked what he thought of the current MMA cross-training approach… his answer was, fairly succinctly, "MMA? You know what that means? To me, it means that you can't do anything properly… so you try to do a bit of everything… if they were really good at what they did, they wouldn't need MMA."

Well congrats. You are the first grappler I have met who said otherwise. Then again I read somewhere that one of the Gracies (can't remember which one) is good friends with Sam Kwok and is an admirer of wing chun. I didn't think of that until just now LOL.

Make it two, then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,576
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
Chris Parker said:
During a question and answer period at a seminar I attended with Royce a few years back, he was asked what he thought of the current MMA cross-training approach… his answer was, fairly succinctly, "MMA? You know what that means? To me, it means that you can't do anything properly… so you try to do a bit of everything… if they were really good at what they did, they wouldn't need MMA."

Sounds like I interpreted Royce's viewpoint accurately then.

It's funny, though. According to Royce's statement, everyone in the world (including him) must really suck at what they do. After all no one out there (including Royce) can succeed at the top levels of modern MMA without cross-training. I'm sure that if you pressed him on that he'd say that it's because of time limits - never mind that in his only fight with a high-level representative of modern well-rounded MMA (Matt Hughes), Royce didn't make it to the end of the first round.

None of that is to bag on Royce's accomplishments. He's a great martial artist and an MMA pioneer. It's just a bit rich for him to deride modern MMA practitioners when he made his name fighting practitioners of single styles, most of whom wouldn't make it out of the minor leagues of modern MMA competition, let alone qualify for the UFC. Hopefully he's moderated his rhetoric in the years since he made that statement.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
Hmm, a bit late to this one…



Hmm, I remember when you first started here as well… 2009… I was involved in many of your early threads, and I don't remember any such comments being made. In fact, your early threads were asking specifically for systems that would allow you to control, pin etc without striking… and you were told specifically to look for Judo, Jujutsu, BJJ, Wrestling, Ninjutsu systems, and so on… no-one said anything negative about any of them. Just to be sure, I went back and checked (with less than 100 posts, it wasn't difficult to do)… and I can't find any examples of the comments you're discussing here.

Anyway...



The simple fact is that none of that is "needed". You can do one, the other, both, or none of the above, and still have a real, dependable self defence approach (as you've put this in the General Self Defence forum, I'm taking this as only applying to that). If you're good enough at a striking approach, you don't really need grappling… and vice versa. Of course, none of that is anything to do with the criticisms of sporting/competitive approaches… there are plenty of striking competitive systems as well.



Er… wasn't aware that anyone was.



Hmm. I don't think I agree with anything in this post. And I'm not sure how it pertains to the OP, where there was no mention of anti-grappling, or anything else dealt with in this reply…



Just to throw a spanner in this, I wouldn't teach any of that at all. If I was teaching them to survive a fight, on the other hand… I wouldn't teach anything that complex… but it'd be closer to that.



And most people don't know how to fight standing up, either… but I gotta say, "fighting" on the ground has little to do with self defence, and therefore not much to do with the context you've set up in this thread.



So? This might not be a question you've considered, but so what? Do you actually consider them essential for self defence? If so, why? If not, why is it important that people need to know them?



Why wouldn't strikers be aware of their foot placement? Do you think that striking systems (non competitive ones) only have striking? And, even if they do, why would they not be aware of their foot placement? It'd be an integral part of their structure and power generation, after all.



So, if your primary tactic is to create space and gain the opportunity to draw, how does needing to know ground fighting fit into that? Ground escapes, sure… but ground fighting? Wouldn't a simpler method be to strike in order to disengage and gain distance/separation?



Damn straight.



Sure, you can. I mean, if you're training on concrete, and your partner is trying to throw you, that's going to meet some pretty real resistance…



Sure… but there's risk in everything. I do a lot of weapon work… there's a lot of risk in that… especially when we deal with real weapons… Oh, but it would depend on who you were training with, of course. I could happily train in such a situation with some of my senior guys, as I know their level of control… my juniors, on the other hand, wouldn't be allowed to try such a thing, as it would just be too risky (for all involved).



You do understand the difference between training drills to learn a technique, training drills to apply a technique, and training drills to pressure test a technique, yeah?



Pity, that can be quite enlightening… depending on how you do it, of course.



Yeah… you're still looking at techniques as the answer… they're not. They're simply not important in that sense.



Not sure of anyone who's said that either striking is flawed, or that grappling is worthless… it'd be like saying that food has a bad taste, rather than specific food having a bad taste… it just doesn't make sense. There's no single skill set called "striking" or "grappling" in that sense.



Judo's far from alone there…



Do you think that non-sports training doesn't? Additionally, if you don't, do you understand the influence that the specific contexts of learning have on the way such training is processed?



Are you familiar with the OODA loop?



Not sure I'd agree with that entirely…



On the other hand, concrete (and bricks etc) can certainly speed up the development of such skills… and yes, I'm saying that from personal experience.



All training methods have trade-offs… I believe you've had that pointed out to you a few times already, yeah? If you're aiming for reality, you aim to get as close to reality as you can get… but here's the thing. That doesn't mean everything in a single drill or training method. You might have a larger skill set being applied, or a greater pace being employed, in safer environments… which are non-realistic due to the surrounds… and then slightly alter it when training in a more realistic environment… and then have adrenaline training separate again. There is no single method that offers a complete picture of reality… but there are some that get closer than others.



If you're not understanding it, I'm not surprised you're not seeing the value of it.



And you think that makes it "real world"? Really?

No.



Depends on what you're there for. But here's a question… what happens when your sports/specialist training dictates a particular response, and your self defence/awareness training dictates the opposite… which do you follow? Do you know which one you'll choose? Or why? Or how you'll choose it?

Oh, and do you really think that RBSD is about "dirty tricks"? I've got experience in a range of RBSD methods, and "dirty tricks" is hardly how I'd describe them… it can be an aspect, but it's just as likely to be an aspect of any traditional art as well.



Hmm, my schools must be quite the anomaly to you, then… you've just described quite a number of things that I've done in our "martial art school"...



During a question and answer period at a seminar I attended with Royce a few years back, he was asked what he thought of the current MMA cross-training approach… his answer was, fairly succinctly, "MMA? You know what that means? To me, it means that you can't do anything properly… so you try to do a bit of everything… if they were really good at what they did, they wouldn't need MMA."



Make it two, then.

Allrighty.

Sports training does not require you to be in every environment you may have to fight. It trains decision making. If another method requires you to train for every circumstance you may face that is the issued with the other method.


As far as I can tell you would need a gym method then a concrete method then a grass method different methods for day and night and so on for all of that you would need to hold them in your head and then try to sort them out. Which would seem a very complicated.

I certainly don't train like that. And I don't think I would gain advantage from it.

I have never heard of the odaa loop but I am sure it is lovely.

Hard surface falling. Feel free to show the difference. I just break fall and roll. Which works as well as anything else.


I am saying falling on concrete does not speed the learning process from personal experience.

If there is a trade of then it is not reality training. Regardless of what people do. So the argument that it is reality training is wrong. Now if you go out in a dangerous environment. And then can't actually train on it I am not sure why they go out in the first place.

Accepting that none of it is reality training means you can just train where it is easier to get the technique right. Which is more beneficial.

I do not understand why I need to go between 2 parked cars to do a walk though of technique. I can't actually bust heads through windows or slam doors on people to get a feel for it. It is just theory driven. Just train the concepts of moving people around and hurting them efficiently and the parked car realism will work itself out.

Sorry gyms really are real places. They are part of the real world. Over the last two nights. I slipped over, one guy got caught in the nuts, one guy got thrown into a roller door, I threw a guy over the top of two bystanders, someone head butted a wall.

You still have to negotiate real physical obsticals during training.

I train to make choices so if I am in a situation where my sports training and the situation conflicts I will adapt to meet the situation. As in the top part of my post.

I don't see why the martial arts instructor has to be burdened with the teaching of all things self defence. In mma especially they are not even burdened with being all things in sports fighting. Quite often there is a striking grappling and fitness specialist within the same gym.

Most instructors are not really capable of providing that training on there own to the standard that specialists would. Awareness is one I would be very hesitant to learn in a martial arts school.

The problem these days is that people who are good at mma are really good at the individual parts. That is because the other guy is good at the individual parts and like an arm race you get forced to keep up.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.

If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.

Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
Yeah no issue with striking and btt is about as Brazilian as you can get for jujitsu.

Cool! I would imagine that as time went on, both the strikers and grapplers realized that learning from each other, would only improve their respective art. :)
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
The simple fact is that none of that is "needed". You can do one, the other, both, or none of the above, and still have a real, dependable self defence approach (as you've put this in the General Self Defence forum, I'm taking this as only applying to that). If you're good enough at a striking approach, you don't really need grappling… and vice versa. Of course, none of that is anything to do with the criticisms of sporting/competitive approaches… there are plenty of striking competitive systems as well.

No, none of that is needed, however, IMHO, what is needed, is an understanding of how things work. I've always been a believer in that if you're doing to teach a defense to something, then you better know how that something works.


Just to throw a spanner in this, I wouldn't teach any of that at all. If I was teaching them to survive a fight, on the other hand… I wouldn't teach anything that complex… but it'd be closer to that.

How is any of that stuff, complex?



And most people don't know how to fight standing up, either… but I gotta say, "fighting" on the ground has little to do with self defence, and therefore not much to do with the context you've set up in this thread.

IMO, I think a lot of the time, when people use certain words, it tends to get misunderstood. As I've said many times, intentionally prolonging the fight on the ground or even standing, is just foolish. So yeah, taking someone down to the ground, just because that's your strong point, and rolling around, looking for a sub. But, IMO, I feel that having enough knowledge in all ranges, is a huge part of self defense. Enough skill/knowledge to survive the intial assault, and get back to your feet, is important.


And you think that makes it "real world"? Really?

I'm with you on this one Chris. :)
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Sounds like I interpreted Royce's viewpoint accurately then.

I'd say so, yeah.

It's funny, though. According to Royce's statement, everyone in the world (including him) must really suck at what they do. After all no one out there (including Royce) can succeed at the top levels of modern MMA without cross-training. I'm sure that if you pressed him on that he'd say that it's because of time limits - never mind that in his only fight with a high-level representative of modern well-rounded MMA (Matt Hughes), Royce didn't make it to the end of the first round.

I think the thing is, Royce isn't interested in what MMA has become… it's no longer "which is the 'best' system/art", it's more a personal achievement thing. His focus is on the benefits of BJJ, it's dominance over other systems, not someone learning lots of bits of things, but never any one thing in any real depth… at least, that's how I read him. It's more a case of "well, if you have to do all that just to beat what I do…" or, more likely, "so you know what I do works, and because you can't do it anywhere near as well, you want to add things and patch it up with other stuff, rather than learn it properly?"

None of that is to bag on Royce's accomplishments. He's a great martial artist and an MMA pioneer. It's just a bit rich for him to deride modern MMA practitioners when he made his name fighting practitioners of single styles, most of whom wouldn't make it out of the minor leagues of modern MMA competition, let alone qualify for the UFC. Hopefully he's moderated his rhetoric in the years since he made that statement.

I'm not sure that he has… or would even be able to. But that's getting into a whole other area… Again, MMA itself just doesn't interest him… I don't think he either envisioned, or intended for the UFC to spawn the modern MMA approach it has… and I don't think he's particularly pleased with it.

Allrighty.

Before we get too far, you do know you can separate out a quote to show exactly what you're responding to, yeah? Similar to the way I've done it here… there are a couple of ways. One is to hit the "Quote" button in the top of the reply box (the one on the far right)… but what I do is to simply highlight the first part of the quote link (it looks like this without the spaces - [ QUOTE = {user name};{number of post/quote}]/[ QUOTE = Chris Parker;1628361]), copy it, and paste it in front of the section I want to separate out. At the end, use the "end quote" link (again, without the spaces - [ /QUOTE ]). It'll just make communicating a lot easier.

Sports training does not require you to be in every environment you may have to fight. It trains decision making. If another method requires you to train for every circumstance you may face that is the issued with the other method.

Sports training certainly does require you to train for each environment you're likely to fight in… whether an open matted "ring", a ring with ropes, or anything else. Not all of your training is going to be "in the ring" itself, of course, but without training in the ring, you're not really training for the sport itself. As far as sport training "decision making" (as if that's any different to non-sports systems training methods), no, it doesn't. At least, not in any way removed from, better than, or more effectively than other training methods. Sports training is centred on context-specific skill application, not decision making.

Let's take an experiment to look at that, though. In your sports training, how much time is dedicated to understanding tactical approaches and strategies? And how are such things understood (in other words, what is a strategy, and what is a tactic, how do you recognise them, how do you develop them, how do you choose which to apply, and how much depth do you have in your training of such)?

Your final comment there about certain training methods requiring you to train for "every circumstance" being an "issue" with such methods, well, all I can say is that it's not an issue at all… especially when you understand exactly what it means.

As far as I can tell you would need a gym method then a concrete method then a grass method different methods for day and night and so on for all of that you would need to hold them in your head and then try to sort them out. Which would seem a very complicated.

Not really (on both counts… needing "different methods", and on it being "very complicated")… in fact, quite the opposite. A big part of training in such different environments is about acclimatisation, rather than looking at different approaches or methods. There might need to be some adjustment, sure, and the training is designed to highlight that, so you know both when it's needed (and when it's not), and what is needed. It also serves to highlight any methods that rely on a specific context or environment for their success… so you know what to drop from your training, making it less complicated when all's said and done.

I certainly don't train like that. And I don't think I would gain advantage from it.

You train sports. You don't need to train like that. If you want to train for reality and real life, though, there are a large number of benefits and advantages, if you could allow yourself to see them.

I have never heard of the odaa loop but I am sure it is lovely.

OODA… Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It's a sequence for decision making (you know, what you think sports training is all about… the fact that such things aren't really part of sports is a big indication of why you're not correct when you think that).

Hard surface falling. Feel free to show the difference. I just break fall and roll. Which works as well as anything else.

Hard surface rolling allows far less margin of error, for one thing… but the exact methods can vary quite a lot. I mean, are you familiar with how Judo and Aikido differ in their ukemi? Are you aware of the difference between ukemi and nigemi? Do you know where you would use each? How much do you know of more traditional ukemi methods, as opposed to modern methods? Do you know why their different (most traditional methods don't look much like break falling at all… especially when compared with, say, Judo or Aikido methods)? But if you want some more definite differences, look to the use of the legs, the angle of the body hitting the ground (as well as the height from which you fall), the usage of the legs, and so on.

Oh, and there's really no such thing as "just break fall and roll"… the sheer number of different approaches means there isn't any single form. Attending Aikido classes, my break falling and rolling is "wrong"… but bring them into my context and environment, and it all changes.

I am saying falling on concrete does not speed the learning process from personal experience.

If it doesn't, it's pretty damn painful… and, if you don't learn faster with that impetus, I don't what might help you.

If there is a trade of then it is not reality training.

Honestly, that closed minded attitude of "well, if you can't make it exactly, perfectly real, it's not reality, therefore any other training that's unrealistic is just as good" is not doing you any favours. You do understand that there are scales and levels of reality in training, yeah? And that "Reality Based Training" isn't claiming to be training reality, but training with the basis of understanding and gearing itself towards reality… bit of a difference there…

Regardless of what people do. So the argument that it is reality training is wrong.

Only if you insist on an unrealistic set of requirements for it to be reality training (hmm… kinda ironic, really).

Now if you go out in a dangerous environment. And then can't actually train on it I am not sure why they go out in the first place.

What environment can't be trained on? I really don't think you've understood what you've been told.

Accepting that none of it is reality training means you can just train where it is easier to get the technique right. Which is more beneficial.

Yeah… you haven't gotten why the other environments are used… or when they're used.

I do not understand why I need to go between 2 parked cars to do a walk though of technique. I can't actually bust heads through windows or slam doors on people to get a feel for it. It is just theory driven. Just train the concepts of moving people around and hurting them efficiently and the parked car realism will work itself out.

Actually, no, it won't. You're actually arguing against the way your brain works here… and while you can't really smash your training partners heads through car windows (just what scenario are you thinking of here?!?), should a training drill both allow and require such methods, they can be trained with quite a degree of realism without damage… if you don't get that, then you don't get realistic training or scenario training… which I believe has been mentioned before.

Sorry gyms really are real places. They are part of the real world. Over the last two nights. I slipped over, one guy got caught in the nuts, one guy got thrown into a roller door, I threw a guy over the top of two bystanders, someone head butted a wall.

You're not really getting the distinction. Gyms/dojo/dojang/kwoon are real (physical) places… they have a real physical reality to them, they have walls, they have certain physical properties, and so on. And those physical properties can change from location to location (I train in one place with fantastically soft matting, another with solid, unsprung, hardwood floors… one has open walls without anything on them, another is covered with weapon racks and framed pictures… one old location had columns through the room, a low ceiling with frames for lights, and all walls were either glass or mirrors… some had equipment I could use, others didn't… and so on). That's all "real", sure… but it's not what we're talking about.

The difference is myriad, and include the fact that it's a "known" place… there is rarely anything unexpected as an obstacle… lighting is consistent and there to allow you to see what's going on… you're in a "safe" place (psychologically, even more than physically)… you're emotionally and mentally prepared for the experiences of fighting/training/physical discomfort/close physical presence of others etc… what's happening is "known", and fits within an expected framework… and more. All of these aspects (including the unwritten ones) remove the environment from being "real" in the sense of self defence training… it doesn't mean that the gym/dojo/whatever is a bad place, or what you learn/train there isn't "real/effective/whatever", it just means that you need to understand the limitations.

You still have to negotiate real physical obsticals during training.

Known ones. And not anywhere near as many as simply walking through your house during the day.

I train to make choices so if I am in a situation where my sports training and the situation conflicts I will adapt to meet the situation. As in the top part of my post.

No, you won't. Sorry, but that's simply not the way that either training, nor your brain works. You will respond with what you personally (unconsciously) feel/believe is the most powerful… which will most likely be what you've experience the most consistent success (or simply the most "important" success… a bit different, but not to be discounted) previously… commonly something you've trained a lot. But here's the thing… the way you've trained it is vitally important. If you train it as "fun", it'll be catalogued (internally) as part of your "fun" responses… if you train it as "win/sports", it'll be catalogued there… only if you train it as "self defence/serious" will you actually have anything there to fall back on… and, unless you've actually trained to handle adapting, you won't. You'll just respond with the same thing.

I don't see why the martial arts instructor has to be burdened with the teaching of all things self defence. In mma especially they are not even burdened with being all things in sports fighting. Quite often there is a striking grappling and fitness specialist within the same gym.

A martial arts instructor isn't burdened with teaching "all things self defence"… but a self defence instructor is. I mean, my Iai instructor doesn't discuss such things as legal repercussions to cutting down a retreating enemy (yeah, we do that… with his back turned and everything…), as he has no reason to. And while awareness is a huge part of the Iai training, it's quite different to "self defence" awareness. In MMA, while one instructor might not be expected to deal with all aspects of MMA training, the gym is expected to… and each "specialist" instructor is expected to know their field and all it's relevant aspects.

Most instructors are not really capable of providing that training on there own to the standard that specialists would.

Sure… but you're failing to see what the self defence instructors specialisation is. It ain't sports.

Awareness is one I would be very hesitant to learn in a martial arts school.

Pity… of course, it would depend greatly on the school, but really… pity.

The problem these days is that people who are good at mma are really good at the individual parts. That is because the other guy is good at the individual parts and like an arm race you get forced to keep up.

Being good at the individual parts is rather useless, though. What's more important is to be able to take those individual parts and put it together in a congruent method… and the most successful MMA competitors do that in a way that is particular to them.

There was a bit about resistance and concrete. If the guy resists I have to crank the pace to get him. If he really resists I have to really drop the guy.

If that is done on concrete then someone will get hurt.

Fine by me shouldn't have been mucking around out there in the first place.

Again, why and when such training is embarked on isn't being understood here.

No, none of that is needed, however, IMHO, what is needed, is an understanding of how things work. I've always been a believer in that if you're doing to teach a defense to something, then you better know how that something works.

Nah, not even that. It's highly advised, and a very good idea… but it's honestly not "needed". I do agree that if you're going to teach it, you need to know it, of course… but that wasn't the context of "need" here.

How is any of that stuff, complex?

By themselves, they're not. What I was saying was that the entire list (as a whole) was too complex for the stated requirement (which was to have a new student come along and ask to be taught some self defence that they could use quickly). The list supplied was overly complex and too broad to suit such a need… to get that done in a way that was passable in all areas you'd need about 18 months to 2 years… not exactly "quickly" in this context. Given a more realistic time frame of, say, 3 months, I'd keep it down to maybe two strikes that could be done multiple ways, two kicks, two gross-motor takedowns or throws, and one or two basic defensive actions. Which I would choose would be determined by the student themselves… but, for preference, I'd give an open palm strike, and either an elbow or a straight fist (elbow preferred), a straight shin kick and a knee strike, a tackle (single/double leg) and a trip (osoto gake, as a base-form), a cover and a jam. That's it. They'd then be trained in multiple applications (pre-emptive, reactive, defensive, evasive, multiple hits, hits to remove grips, and so on)… which is a far more effective training methodology than just a list of specific techniques… it's a more "skill-based" method, rather than a "technique-based" one. Oh, and for the record, "full contact" there isn't really that important either… other aspects have far greater precedence.

IMO, I think a lot of the time, when people use certain words, it tends to get misunderstood. As I've said many times, intentionally prolonging the fight on the ground or even standing, is just foolish. So yeah, taking someone down to the ground, just because that's your strong point, and rolling around, looking for a sub. But, IMO, I feel that having enough knowledge in all ranges, is a huge part of self defense. Enough skill/knowledge to survive the intial assault, and get back to your feet, is important.

That's certainly one approach. The problem with it is that you can't cover everything… which has you always looking for what gaps you might have.

I'm with you on this one Chris. :)

Ha, thought you might be!
 

TKDTony2179

Blue Belt
Joined
May 18, 2013
Messages
263
Reaction score
2
I remember when I first started on this forum. It was because I was looking for something new. I had boxed and I wanted advice on self defense arts. A lot of people said that things like "judo" were not as useful because they were "competitive" arts. The same with BJJ (which I now have my "blue" and once I can regularly attend again I will get my purple). Anyway.

After spending a lot of time doing grappling and judo I realized how good judo is for self defense. While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake. And judo/bjj/jujitsu are excellent choices. If you can knock someone to the ground you are much more likely to win a fight. I'm not claiming ultimate art or any of that garbage. Just saying...

Don't overlook judo/bjj/jiu jitsu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.


I am not even sure there is a street training. Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.

If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.

But none of that is street.

None of that is three guys weaponed up stealing your wallet.

Show an example of street training and what you get is a drill.
 

TKDTony2179

Blue Belt
Joined
May 18, 2013
Messages
263
Reaction score
2
Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.

It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.


And by the way this is a triangle sweep.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=215w4pGxgwI

You can use that submission to effect a stand up.
 

TKDTony2179

Blue Belt
Joined
May 18, 2013
Messages
263
Reaction score
2
It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.


And by the way this is a triangle sweep.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=215w4pGxgwI

You can use that submission to effect a stand up.

Yea, I was going to mention about going to a sweep but I was in hurry.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
Yea, I was going to mention about going to a sweep but I was in hurry.


It is something that needs to be mentioned people seem to have a very one dimensional view of how this sort of thing works.

I blame combat secearios for that.
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
Nah, not even that. It's highly advised, and a very good idea… but it's honestly not "needed". I do agree that if you're going to teach it, you need to know it, of course… but that wasn't the context of "need" here.

So, it looks like I'm missing it then. What was the context here then?



By themselves, they're not. What I was saying was that the entire list (as a whole) was too complex for the stated requirement (which was to have a new student come along and ask to be taught some self defence that they could use quickly). The list supplied was overly complex and too broad to suit such a need… to get that done in a way that was passable in all areas you'd need about 18 months to 2 years… not exactly "quickly" in this context. Given a more realistic time frame of, say, 3 months, I'd keep it down to maybe two strikes that could be done multiple ways, two kicks, two gross-motor takedowns or throws, and one or two basic defensive actions. Which I would choose would be determined by the student themselves… but, for preference, I'd give an open palm strike, and either an elbow or a straight fist (elbow preferred), a straight shin kick and a knee strike, a tackle (single/double leg) and a trip (osoto gake, as a base-form), a cover and a jam. That's it. They'd then be trained in multiple applications (pre-emptive, reactive, defensive, evasive, multiple hits, hits to remove grips, and so on)… which is a far more effective training methodology than just a list of specific techniques… it's a more "skill-based" method, rather than a "technique-based" one. Oh, and for the record, "full contact" there isn't really that important either… other aspects have far greater precedence.

Ah, ok...well, yes, when you put it that way, yes, I agree with that! :)



That's certainly one approach. The problem with it is that you can't cover everything… which has you always looking for what gaps you might have.

True. IMO, with that said, I'd say work on what would be the most common/most likely attacks that you'd face.



Ha, thought you might be!

:)
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I believe there is a benefit to most grappling arts as it is to striking arts for the streets. But like Kong Soo Do said somethings in sports training can cause harm than help. It really boils down to which tech you are using that will benefit you more in competition than it would be in the streets.

It's not the techniques that are the difference.

I am not even sure there is a street training.

Hmm… really? Perhaps you need to broaden your understanding, then.

Everything I have seen from drills to combat scenarios to sparring is all a version of training. Sports training does the same thing.

Er… what? Training is training, what it's designed for doesn't matter, as it's all just training? Great news! We'll get the police trained in tennis, then, as all training is just training…

Seriously, no.

If people want to drill outside in the sun that is fine. Sometimes we train at the beach.

That's not the distinction. If done just for a change of venue, it's just a change of venue.

But none of that is street.

Who said it was? If you're training sports outside, you're still training sports.

None of that is three guys weaponed up stealing your wallet.

Unless the drill is specifically for that, of course…

Show an example of street training and what you get is a drill.

Sure, in some cases… but the drills are differently structured to sports drills… which is what you're not getting.

Did anyone see the video I post under the general martial arts thread about 5 reasons to grapple? The guy gave good reasoning to go to the ground or not to go to the ground. If it is a street fight then you would want to get back up and not go for a submission like the triangle choke shown earlier in this thread. If you are in a grappling position (standing clinch) then yea hip toss or maybe arm drag can work for you. Also the double leg take down can be effective. One slam to the head or shoulder and fight is over before it starts. I would suggest leaving promptly so you don't have to tell the police why you had to do that though.

Yeah, I saw it… quite a few issues there, honestly… mainly that most of what he was saying as the reasons for grappling could also be used for not grappling… but he was looking for grappling applications, and if you're good at it, then it should be part of your "go-to" toolbox, no issue with that. As for the rest, techniques aren't the answer… or the problem.

It depend what is happening on the ground. If you are in guard the biggest threat is not the potential to be kicked by a third party. But getting bashed by that guy on top of you.

No, if you're in guard the biggest threat is the guy on top pulling a blade on you… or his girlfriend pulling one (one of the most common situations involving stabbings in Australia is guys being stabbed by the girlfriend of the guy they're fighting…).

And by the way this is a triangle sweep.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=215w4pGxgwI

You can use that submission to effect a stand up.

Uh… maybe. Pretty convoluted for street application, of course… I can see it being a good method in sports application, but it's really not a good go-to outside of that.

It is something that needs to be mentioned people seem to have a very one dimensional view of how this sort of thing works.

Really? I don't think so… at least, if it's there, it's to a far lower degree than you seem to have when looking at anything not MMA/BJJ…

I blame combat secearios for that.

Except you've shown no actual grasp of what combat scenario training actually is, so… hmm…

So, it looks like I'm missing it then. What was the context here then?

The context of "need" was "needed for self defence"… and it's not. Boxing can be great for self defence, it doesn't "need" ground fighting…

Ah, ok...well, yes, when you put it that way, yes, I agree with that! :)

Ha, cool.

True. IMO, with that said, I'd say work on what would be the most common/most likely attacks that you'd face.

Which is exactly how any decent self defence instructor should be structuring their training methodology.
 

Latest Discussions

Top