Don't Overlook "Competitive" Martial Arts

[stonewall1350]

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

While you should have a background in striking...overlooking grappling is a horrible mistake.

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.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation. Additionally, certain techniques from competitive arts are detrimental in a self-defense situation. You need to be very careful as to which is which, and just as importantly, why they are useful or detrimental.

 

[James Kovacich]

As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation...

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...



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[stonewall1350]

As I've detailed in similar threads, certain techniques from competitive arts can be useful, but the training methodology in-and-of-itself doesn't translate well to a self-defense situation. Additionally, certain techniques from competitive arts are detrimental in a self-defense situation. You need to be very careful as to which is which, and just as importantly, why they are useful or detrimental.

Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.

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.

I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both). Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible. To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally). Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible. As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:

Great for a sporting competition

View attachment 18676



Not so good in a real world self-defense situation
View attachment 18677

(Courtesy of Iain Abernethy's article) http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/h...iain-abernethy

Too many people learn techniques like rear naked chokes/triangle/kamora/cross-body mounts etc, which are viable and extremely useful in these types of competitions, but then try to apply them to a street fight. Can it work? Sure, based on uncontrollable variables which I would prefer not to rely on. As an example, this type of training is normally conducted on a soft, level, dry mat in a well lit area with safety gear and a single opponent that has agreed to the same rule set we are using. If those factors can apply to the street fight then you're all set. But if not, well I don't like the persons chances. This is why I'm a big advocate of scenario based training. All the benefits of full contact but with an training environment and stimuli that can be constantly changed. Going to the ground on a soft mat is dramatically different than going to the ground on asphalt between two parked cars with lots of user-unfriendly objects laying around or the possibility of weapons, improvised weapons or multiple attackers (that may not have originally been seen prior to the altercation).

I once was in a conversation with a BJJ advocate on another board. He felt that BJJ was the ultimate street self defense system. I opined my above thoughts. He didn't seem convinced. So I simply had to ask, "Would you compete against a guy that wasn't bound to your rule set, and the match took place in the parking lot, and there is a possibility that he might be armed with a gun or knife and there was a possibility that a couple of his corner men might jump in?" I don't remember hearing back from him.
:wink2:

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

 

[drop bear]

I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both). Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible. To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally). Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible. As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:

Great for a sporting competition

View attachment 18676



Not so good in a real world self-defense situation
View attachment 18677

(Courtesy of Iain Abernethy's article) http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/h...iain-abernethy

Too many people learn techniques like rear naked chokes/triangle/kamora/cross-body mounts etc, which are viable and extremely useful in these types of competitions, but then try to apply them to a street fight. Can it work? Sure, based on uncontrollable variables which I would prefer not to rely on. As an example, this type of training is normally conducted on a soft, level, dry mat in a well lit area with safety gear and a single opponent that has agreed to the same rule set we are using. If those factors can apply to the street fight then you're all set. But if not, well I don't like the persons chances. This is why I'm a big advocate of scenario based training. All the benefits of full contact but with an training environment and stimuli that can be constantly changed. Going to the ground on a soft mat is dramatically different than going to the ground on asphalt between two parked cars with lots of user-unfriendly objects laying around or the possibility of weapons, improvised weapons or multiple attackers (that may not have originally been seen prior to the altercation).

I once was in a conversation with a BJJ advocate on another board. He felt that BJJ was the ultimate street self defense system. I opined my above thoughts. He didn't seem convinced. So I simply had to ask, "Would you compete against a guy that wasn't bound to your rule set, and the match took place in the parking lot, and there is a possibility that he might be armed with a gun or knife and there was a possibility that a couple of his corner men might jump in?" I don't remember hearing back from him.
:wink2:

So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I've told you before, we train on concrete, between cars, on stairs, in the woods, in an elevator, in a doorway, inside a car, on a bed etc. We don't get stupid with it i.e. pile-driving someone head first into the aspalt, but the only way to know you don't want to be on your back in the road during a fight-ror-your-life is to be on your back during some training. And being in the actual environment that an attack would take place in allows the student to see what is around to be used for cover/concealment/barrier/improvised weapon etc. And we use a measure of saftey of course. You don't need to take someone down full force on concrete to understand the principle of taking someone down. It will depend upon the environment as to what you can do full force and what needs to be controlled for the safety of the student. But then what may be done at a half-measure in one environment can be done full force in another so it evens itself out overall.

 

[K-man]

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...

James, was that you sitting in on my Krav class the other night?

 

[K-man]

So you train on concrete In a parking lot and still allow takedowns?

Is there a problem with that?

 

[drop bear]

Is there a problem with that?

Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete. Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.

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.

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

 

[drop bear]

Well bingo of course. But quite often I find people are completely lost on how to fight on the ground. And additionally people don't understand how to throw, sweep, or trip people. All 3 are great if someone is more worried about striking and not watching their foot placement.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[drop bear]

I've told you before, we train on concrete, between cars, on stairs, in the woods, in an elevator, in a doorway, inside a car, on a bed etc. We don't get stupid with it i.e. pile-driving someone head first into the aspalt, but the only way to know you don't want to be on your back in the road during a fight-ror-your-life is to be on your back during some training. And being in the actual environment that an attack would take place in allows the student to see what is around to be used for cover/concealment/barrier/improvised weapon etc. And we use a measure of saftey of course. You don't need to take someone down full force on concrete to understand the principle of taking someone down. It will depend upon the environment as to what you can do full force and what needs to be controlled for the safety of the student. But then what may be done at a half-measure in one environment can be done full force in another so it evens itself out overall.

I still like the idea of training somewhere safe and just having the adaptability to ajust to different environment as it comes along. Just have a tool box full of high percentage moves than can be taken anywhere.

Alot of the situations that come in sport training come with an unknown quantity. Especially in competition. You may not know the guy what he is going to do or where you will end up.



You cannot train for everything you might do or he might do. So you train concepts and adaptability.

If you can take the guy with striking, fine, if you can't grapple,if it goes to the ground take them there, if you are going to get head kicked, get up.

If you see an opportunity take it. If you see them creating an opportunity deny them that.

 

[drop bear]

One thing I knd of like about mma is the mixed ness of it I can take part of my skill set and wander into a boxing gym or wrestling,bjj karate whatever and still be able to have a decent go at it.

The specific rules may still do me over but it is worth it to challenge my adaptability. And I get to play with people who have no idea what I am capable of. And I have no idea of what they are capable of.

The same as I can take part of that skill set and use it for self defence.

No rules also means no script.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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.

That's why it's okay to have some training in a controlled environment. There is a learning curve.

I still like the idea of training somewhere safe and just having the adaptability to ajust to different environment as it comes along.

Problem here is that, under duress, you revert directly to your training habits. Many people feel they have the ability to rise to the occasion but the harsh reality is that you will instead sink to the level of your training. Decades of law enforcement training and hundreds of years of martial arts training verify this as factual. Training somewhere safe all the time, like the two guys in your video dancing around with padded gloves, floor and walls, doesn't prepare you for a car jacking attempt. It doesn't prepare you for multiple attackers. Nor does it allow you to adapt to your surroundings (read improvised weapons, barriers, cover and concealment, escape and evasion etc) because it only has one surrounding...mats and pads.

Alot of the situations that come in sport training come with an unknown quantity. Especially in competition. You may not know the guy what he is going to do or where you will end up.

Untrue, you're going to end up in the same controlled environment you started in. So is he.

You cannot train for everything you might do or he might do.

Okay, let's examine this from the way I train to the way you train (based upon what you've written and the videos you've offered) using some examples;

• Doing some training in a parking lot. Gives the student some experience in what to do and just as importantly, what not to do. As an example, depending on the height of a nearby vehicle a student could drop and roll under a nearby vehicle to temporarily escape attack. What does this do for them? Well for one, if they have a firearm (most of my students carried) they have now created some distance between themselves and the attacker(s) to provide an opportunity to access the weapon. Or a cell phone to call for help. Perhaps they've narrowed access to themselves i.e. bad guy leans down to grab them and pull them out from under the car and is in a position to get an ancient Chinese secret move called a 'foot to the face'. By doing this, they broaden/add depth to their OODA loop by haven't had some experience with this environment.
• Inside an elevator. Teaches them to stand to the rear and to the side so that someone can't get behind them nor rush them directly from the outside when the door opens.
• Pulling up to a 'shop-n-rob' by parking to the side where you can clearly see inside the store. That way you're not walking into a robbery in progress.
• Inside a car. What is there for improvised weapons? How can the close confinement be used to your advantage? If exiting the car, can you draw a weapon and use it? How can you use your car (a big, heavy, sharp, hard object) to your advantage?
• ATM machine. Being aware of your surroundings. Looking for places of concealment or dark areas that may hide a bad guy. Having a plan for if someone approaches.
• Back to the parking lot. Can you see under your car as you approach? Do you glance in the back seat before you enter?

Inside the gym you can chit-chat about some of these things but it isn't the same as actually being in that environment and doing it. Somethings can be recreated in a gym...but are they? Do the lights get turned down from time to time? They should be since most attacks are in dim light conditions. How about tossing some water on the mats. Setting up some chairs or mats to simulate something. It isn't a substitute for actually being in a specific environment but it's better than what 99.9% of schools do now.

If you see an opportunity take it. If you see them creating an opportunity deny them that.

Precisely, so provide the student with the opportunity to see these opportunities in different environments. It ingrains certain reactions/responses/observations.

No rules also means no script.

Only if you train in an environment that allows for it.

 

[wingchun100]

I understand what you're saying, particularly in regards to carrying a firearm (either concealed or open which I do both). Priority one is to avoid going to the ground when at all feasible. To much can happen while tied up on the ground and mobility is limited (cuffing is a separate issue and shouldn't be done until the individual is under control and the situation/area is secure and safe to do so...at least ideally). Second priority, if taken to the ground is to get up as tactically quick as is viably possible. As I recently posted in another thread, it is situational:

Great for a sporting competition

View attachment 18676



Not so good in a real world self-defense situation
View attachment 18677

(Courtesy of Iain Abernethy's article) http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/h...iain-abernethy

Too many people learn techniques like rear naked chokes/triangle/kamora/cross-body mounts etc, which are viable and extremely useful in these types of competitions, but then try to apply them to a street fight. Can it work? Sure, based on uncontrollable variables which I would prefer not to rely on. As an example, this type of training is normally conducted on a soft, level, dry mat in a well lit area with safety gear and a single opponent that has agreed to the same rule set we are using. If those factors can apply to the street fight then you're all set. But if not, well I don't like the persons chances. This is why I'm a big advocate of scenario based training. All the benefits of full contact but with an training environment and stimuli that can be constantly changed. Going to the ground on a soft mat is dramatically different than going to the ground on asphalt between two parked cars with lots of user-unfriendly objects laying around or the possibility of weapons, improvised weapons or multiple attackers (that may not have originally been seen prior to the altercation).

I once was in a conversation with a BJJ advocate on another board. He felt that BJJ was the ultimate street self defense system. I opined my above thoughts. He didn't seem convinced. So I simply had to ask, "Would you compete against a guy that wasn't bound to your rule set, and the match took place in the parking lot, and there is a possibility that he might be armed with a gun or knife and there was a possibility that a couple of his corner men might jump in?" I don't remember hearing back from him.
:wink2:

Thank you SO MUCH for this post and these pics. I am so sick of people saying, "All striking arts are flawed. Learn grappling!" Even if the pictures here showed the guy on a smooth surface, that foot coming toward his head is proof that sometimes grappling can fail you.

 

[MJS]

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've been saying for a very long time, that everything has something to offer. Personally, I'm not so traditional or stuck in the box with blinders on, that were I to attend a seminar in another art or train 1 on 1 with someone in another art, that I would certainly pick their brain and if there was something that I could 'steal' and add to my own bag of tricks, I'd certainly do it. That said, I've also said many times, that having a basic understanding of the ground, is also important. Yes, there are grappling applications in the stand up arts, ie: kata, but if you want to explore deeper, crosstraining is the way to go.

So, that said, I don't think that intentionally pulling guard and taking the person down, in the middle of a streetfight, is necessarily the smartest idea. However, there are things that can be done from the grappling arts that a) don't require the person to be on the ground, and b) having enough ground skill, so that you can get back up to your feet, rather than looking for that submission, is also key.

IMO, it's natural that people will tend to fall back on their strong points. You'll fight like you train. We saw in the Fight Quest show, Doug and Jimmy, 2 guys who had MMA backgrounds, fall back, more than once, on that training. Now, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it was. IMO, if you can transition the things that you'd do in the ring, to the street, you should be good to go.

 

[K-man]

Yeah you can't train resisted takedowns on concrete. Not without some serious risk. You could take maybe one fall. But to do it to yourself repeatedly would be hell on the body.

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.

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

I'm not sure why you think you need to fall fifty or sixty times on concrete to learn a technique properly. You can learn techniques on mats. If you need to fall fifty or sixty times I might suggest you are a slow learner. Once even, to prove you can do it, should be all you need.
:asian:

 

[stonewall1350]

Thank you SO MUCH for this post and these pics. I am so sick of people saying, "All striking arts are flawed. Learn grappling!" Even if the pictures here showed the guy on a smooth surface, that foot coming toward his head is proof that sometimes grappling can fail you.

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]

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk