How much do you really need?

[punisher73]

I agree with Patrick McCarthy's theory about the Habitual Acts of Violence and kata. The kata were designed to counter the most common types of street attacks by an untrained person. Most of the traditional kata utilize the same tools over and over in different applications. You are learning new tools, just new ways to use them. Much easier.

I get tired of the MMA vs. TMA vs. Self-defense argument. I come from a TMA background, I can't think of ONE technique in MMA that 1) isn't found in all the other TMA systems and 2) can't be used in a self-defense situation if the need arose. Everyone throws out "environment" and "going to the ground" like every MMA fighter automatically goes to the ground to grapple and doesn't have other options to keep it standing or run away. Please don't get me started on "weapons defenses" that aren't in MMA, because most of what is taught in any system sucks.

Think of Chuck Liddell, fabulous striker who knew enough of the ground/wrestling to avoid takedowns or if taken down get right back up on his feet to KO the other person. How is this not "street applicable"?

On the flip side. Just because an art is well represented in the ring/cage does not mean that it's basic techniques don't work. That comes down to how the person is training those techniques. For example, there are several throws in karate that are found in Judo and have been used in MMA. There isn't anything magical about them and where they are found, it comes down to how they were trained.

TMA/MMA comes down to your goals in training. I have seen a couple MMA schools that train their stuff and then have "self-defense classes" where guess what? They practice all the foul techniques that all these other guys say they would use; such as eye gouges, biting etc. I would put my money on that any day. Why? Because they already have the awareness of distancing etc. and can apply their basic techniques on an uncooperative person. If you can't land a jab or straight right, you ain't gonna land an eye jab.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It sounds like a faulty study based on the infamous "Hick's Law" that is always thrown out by RBSD folks. That was based on binary computers making choices and the difference in milliseconds was not a significant difference. It also did not take into play unconscious reaction that can be trained into a person.

On it's surface it sounds good, and for someone who doesn't train probably holds true.

Hick's law would apply conceptually to humans with choices where the outcome is roughly equally likely, and there is overlap between available responses - where training hadn't ingrained the responses to an unconscious state and where pattern recognition didn't allow rapid pre-selection. Beyond that theoretical/academic point, I agree - I can't conceive of a well-designed study that would come to that conclusion. If one did, I'd definitely want to look at it to see if there were implications for training. The idea is so opposite to what we see with well-trained individuals. The "fastest" martial artists I know are too old to actually be the fastest, and have far more options even than I do - it's the speed of their selection that makes them seem faster.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with Patrick McCarthy's theory about the Habitual Acts of Violence and kata. The kata were designed to counter the most common types of street attacks by an untrained person. Most of the traditional kata utilize the same tools over and over in different applications. You are learning new tools, just new ways to use them. Much easier.

I get tired of the MMA vs. TMA vs. Self-defense argument. I come from a TMA background, I can't think of ONE technique in MMA that 1) isn't found in all the other TMA systems and 2) can't be used in a self-defense situation if the need arose. Everyone throws out "environment" and "going to the ground" like every MMA fighter automatically goes to the ground to grapple and doesn't have other options to keep it standing or run away. Please don't get me started on "weapons defenses" that aren't in MMA, because most of what is taught in any system sucks.

Think of Chuck Liddell, fabulous striker who knew enough of the ground/wrestling to avoid takedowns or if taken down get right back up on his feet to KO the other person. How is this not "street applicable"?

On the flip side. Just because an art is well represented in the ring/cage does not mean that it's basic techniques don't work. That comes down to how the person is training those techniques. For example, there are several throws in karate that are found in Judo and have been used in MMA. There isn't anything magical about them and where they are found, it comes down to how they were trained.

TMA/MMA comes down to your goals in training. I have seen a couple MMA schools that train their stuff and then have "self-defense classes" where guess what? They practice all the foul techniques that all these other guys say they would use; such as eye gouges, biting etc. I would put my money on that any day. Why? Because they already have the awareness of distancing etc. and can apply their basic techniques on an uncooperative person. If you can't land a jab or straight right, you ain't gonna land an eye jab.

Agreed. My assertion about the MMA vs. SD training has always been that each has its advantage (in the context of self-defense). If someone trains for MMA competition (getting the advantage of the high intensity) and then steps into a SD class based on the same background (gaining the advantage of training with intent for the context), they are probably getting most of the best of both worlds. SD classes are just context-oriented training using techniques from somewhere (in my case, from what most would classify as a TMA).

 

[Steve]

How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.

Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure. If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....

 

[drop bear]

How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.

Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure. If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....

Yeah you can train the same techniques and do it crap. At that point it is less likely to work.

For some reason as soon at it goes self defence the training changes and everything just goes to pot.

MMA clubs do it. I have a few ideas why.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.

Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure. If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....

It would be difficult, at best, to generalize "karate". Some schools never do any significant stress testing. Others spar well and relatively heavily (some protecting the head more than others, for instance) to stress-test the techniques.

The same can be said of SD schools - some stress test and others do not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah you can train the same techniques and do it crap. At that point it is less likely to work.

For some reason as soon at it goes self defence the training changes and everything just goes to pot.

MMA clubs do it. I have a few ideas why.

Ah, see that all the time in bars - someone grabs your shirt front and stares at you. Vicious attack, that.

Those had better be the teaching forms. We have those, too, and fairly quickly transition them into "okay, so here's how you use those movements when someone's actually attacking". That shirt grab would probably include a shove, a drag, or a punch (the most likely reasons someone would grab your shirt), but would never occur as just a grab. I'm not a fan of testing only a static version, for obvious reasons.

 

[Steve]

It would be difficult, at best, to generalize "karate". Some schools never do any significant stress testing. Others spar well and relatively heavily (some protecting the head more than others, for instance) to stress-test the techniques.

The same can be said of SD schools - some stress test and others do not.

Karate is just the term punisher used, but of course, some styles of karate (eg kyokushin) train with contact and a culture that includes a well developed, competitive element (ie "sport"). The larger point I'm trying to make is that we consistently have discussions where everyone agrees that it's not the techniques, but how they're trained. And consistently, the phrasing is something like, "I've seen the same techniques in {non-sport} as in {sport}. It's not the techniques but how they're trained that matters." Always, every single time, the implication is that some (or all) of the non-sport arts are doing it poorly. Every single time.

In past threads, I've said something like, I don't know if I can kill a man with my chi, but I know I can choke a guy to unconscious in several ways with his own jacket. I've done it, even when they don't want me to and are trained to stop me. So, the response is, "Yeah? We train the same techniques." And then we'll see a demonstration from a traditional martial artist that shows the same technique.

But that's not saying the same thing, is it? Fundamentally different, and the distinction is (IMO) very relevant to self defense, if by that you mean fighting skill. out of politeness (I believe) we stop short of the conclusion, which is that sport arts do a much, much better job of consistently developing skill and building expertise.

Said another way, people learn what they are practicing. If you practice kata, you are learning kata. If you practice chi sao, you are becoming an expert in chi sao. Can these drills help support development of technique? Sure. But at some point, you have to ACTUALLY do the technique... for real. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. And this is why I roll my eyes whenever someone asserts they are training to gouge an eyeball. Give me a break. You're practicing something, but it ain't gouging eyeballs. And when you need the skill, you will do what you practiced. I hope, if that ever happens, you've practiced those choking techniques... for real... against well trained partners who are actively trying to keep you from being successful. Because if you can catch a purple belt in a submission, you are probably in pretty good shape "on the street."

The response to points such as mine above tends to lead into context. The idea being that in BJJ, we don't train with knives or something like that. I would say that step one in adapting a skill to a new context is to first learn the skill. I've really appreciated Tony Dismuke's posts on self defense. As a BJJ black belt and someone who has trained a crap ton (technical term) in various striking arts including now, I believe, Wing Chun, he has a lot of insight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Karate is just the term punisher used, but of course, some styles of karate (eg kyokushin) train with contact and a culture that includes a well developed, competitive element (ie "sport"). The larger point I'm trying to make is that we consistently have discussions where everyone agrees that it's not the techniques, but how they're trained. And consistently, the phrasing is something like, "I've seen the same techniques in {non-sport} as in {sport}. It's not the techniques but how they're trained that matters." Always, every single time, the implication is that some (or all) of the non-sport arts are doing it poorly. Every single time.

In past threads, I've said something like, I don't know if I can kill a man with my chi, but I know I can choke a guy to unconscious in several ways with his own jacket. I've done it, even when they don't want me to and are trained to stop me. So, the response is, "Yeah? We train the same techniques." And then we'll see a demonstration from a traditional martial artist that shows the same technique.

But that's not saying the same thing, is it? Fundamentally different, and the distinction is (IMO) very relevant to self defense, if by that you mean fighting skill. out of politeness (I believe) we stop short of the conclusion, which is that sport arts do a much, much better job of consistently developing skill and building expertise.

Said another way, people learn what they are practicing. If you practice kata, you are learning kata. If you practice chi sao, you are becoming an expert in chi sao. Can these drills help support development of technique? Sure. But at some point, you have to ACTUALLY do the technique... for real. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. And this is why I roll my eyes whenever someone asserts they are training to gouge an eyeball. Give me a break. You're practicing something, but it ain't gouging eyeballs. And when you need the skill, you will do what you practiced. I hope, if that ever happens, you've practiced those choking techniques... for real... against well trained partners who are actively trying to keep you from being successful. Because if you can catch a purple belt in a submission, you are probably in pretty good shape "on the street."

The response to points such as mine above tends to lead into context. The idea being that in BJJ, we don't train with knives or something like that. I would say that step one in adapting a skill to a new context is to first learn the skill. I've really appreciated Tony Dismuke's posts on self defense. As a BJJ black belt and someone who has trained a crap ton (technical term) in various striking arts including now, I believe, Wing Chun, he has a lot of insight.

I agree. There's one confounding variable to consider that throws a monkey wrench into it all: the intensity of the people training. If I used my highest-intensity training techniques all the time, I'd never be able to help the people I'm actually reaching for. That's the people who are afraid of getting hurt, who are out of shape, and who are willing to devote maybe a few hours a week.

Sport styles train harder, against skilled and athletically fit opponents, and with higher intensity. That's their main advantage - and it's a big one. Yes, they leave out some techniques (not useful/safe for competition), but their intensity and level of resistance more than makes up for that. But not everyone will train at that level. If someone came to me who was willing to train really hard several classes a week right from the start, and wanted to test their ability against someone trying to take their head off, I'd suggest they find an MMA gym. My program is designed to transfer real, workable self-defense to folks who aren't interested in that level of commitment, nor in the risks therein.

That's the biggest difference between sport-oriented training (and I'm speaking of sports that are fairly intense, not casual point sparring or light-contact sparring competitions). It's who they serve.

Now, if a SD program doesn't incorporate any reasonable intensity, doesn't do anything to help demand and build fitness, or doesn't train with reasonable resistance, then it has swung too far in that direction.

 

[Steve]

I agree. There's one confounding variable to consider that throws a monkey wrench into it all: the intensity of the people training. If I used my highest-intensity training techniques all the time, I'd never be able to help the people I'm actually reaching for. That's the people who are afraid of getting hurt, who are out of shape, and who are willing to devote maybe a few hours a week.

Sport styles train harder, against skilled and athletically fit opponents, and with higher intensity. That's their main advantage - and it's a big one. Yes, they leave out some techniques (not useful/safe for competition), but their intensity and level of resistance more than makes up for that. But not everyone will train at that level. If someone came to me who was willing to train really hard several classes a week right from the start, and wanted to test their ability against someone trying to take their head off, I'd suggest they find an MMA gym. My program is designed to transfer real, workable self-defense to folks who aren't interested in that level of commitment, nor in the risks therein.

That's the biggest difference between sport-oriented training (and I'm speaking of sports that are fairly intense, not casual point sparring or light-contact sparring competitions). It's who they serve.

Now, if a SD program doesn't incorporate any reasonable intensity, doesn't do anything to help demand and build fitness, or doesn't train with reasonable resistance, then it has swung too far in that direction.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreed. But there are training techniques that can help people progress at a lower level of intensity. It's important they are not used in a vacuum - intensity has to be there part of the time. This is where I think things like forms can be helpful. It's also where light sparring helps, and any number of other reasonably effective training techniques.

In any case, this is why I don't like when people compare number of years of training (nor necessarily even the number of hours). There were years when my training was sparse (injuries, work travel, etc.). There were years where my training was was much more intense and time-consuming. If someone trains intensely for 10 hours a week, they should expect to see different results in a year than someone who trains (even intensely) for 3 hours a week. That's especially true if the former starts with a reasonably athletic body and the latter starts in poor condition.

 

[Steve]

Okay, so to bring this back to the OP, my opinion is that there is a kind of hierarchy to what matters.

1: don't voluntarily put yourself in danger by engaging in high risk behaviors.

2: use common sense. This is where things like walking with your face buried in your phone and such comes into play.

3: maintain a reasonable level of fitness.

4: do things that help you feel good about yourself, improve your self esteem and self confidence. This might be martial arts.

I'd say any MA training is optional for most but those who are in high risk professions. If you train for self defense, presume it's all snake oil, because most of it is, and you won't have the expertise to know the difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, so to bring this back to the OP, my opinion is that there is a kind of hierarchy to what matters.

1: don't voluntarily put yourself in danger by engaging in high risk behaviors.

2: use common sense. This is where things like walking with your face buried in your phone and such comes into play.

3: maintain a reasonable level of fitness.

4: do things that help you feel good about yourself, improve your self esteem and self confidence. This might be martial arts.

I'd say any MA training is optional for most but those who are in high risk professions. If you train for self defense, presume it's all snake oil, because most of it is, and you won't have the expertise to know the difference.

I'm not sure that's in context with the OP, but all good points.

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure that's in context with the OP, but all good points.

How much do you really need? In my opinion, none of it. If you take care of items 1-4, any MA training is an unnecessary supplement.

The exception is if you are a member of a category of people who are at higher risk for some reason. IE, if you are a coed on a college campus. If you are a cop. If you are a mall security guard. If you go to a school with a lot of gang activity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How much do you really need? In my opinion, none of it. If you take care of items 1-4, any MA training is an unnecessary supplement.

The exception is if you are a member of a category of people who are at higher risk for some reason. IE, if you are a coed on a college campus. If you are a cop. If you are a mall security guard. If you go to a school with a lot of gang activity.

As usual, Steve, we agree on all but the area where we disagree.

 

[punisher73]

Hick's law would apply conceptually to humans with choices where the outcome is roughly equally likely, and there is overlap between available responses - where training hadn't ingrained the responses to an unconscious state and where pattern recognition didn't allow rapid pre-selection. Beyond that theoretical/academic point, I agree - I can't conceive of a well-designed study that would come to that conclusion. If one did, I'd definitely want to look at it to see if there were implications for training. The idea is so opposite to what we see with well-trained individuals. The "fastest" martial artists I know are too old to actually be the fastest, and have far more options even than I do - it's the speed of their selection that makes them seem faster.

Hock Hochheim's Force Necessary: Hick's Law - The Confusion Explained

Here is an article that sums up what the "hick's law" study was and actually did and how it doesn't necessarily translate to what we are talking about.

 

[punisher73]

How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.

Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure. If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....

I thought I was pretty clear about the training should be that you can apply your techniques against an uncooperative opponent like in a sport's setting. For the record, I'm from a TMA background. I am NOT saying that all TMA's do it wrong or don't train properly. BUT, I do think that only doing preset "one steps" and never progressing past those is not the answer. I don't think that pulling techniques out of the kata and ONLY training them cooperatively is the answer either. On the other hand, I have visited a BJJ school that only did sports style grappling and only started from the knees. They did NOT train in any takedown techniques and the students really had no clue how to safely close the gap and get the fight to the ground.

We could spend pages and pages of "how to train" a technique in styles, but again to keep it short. You must understand many of the concepts that you get from combat sports, such as distancing, timing, rhythm, etc.

 

[Juany118]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

I would agree in certain contexts and that is the problem. In dealing with your stereotypical drunk testosterone junkie in a bar, if you are sober, absolutely but here are the issues do just a few techniques address...

1. The career criminal fresh from prison who had nothing better to do than lift weights and protect himself from other prisoners.

2. If the suspect is high on wet or K2

3. if the suspect has a knife.

I don't think so admittedly my career means I stress over all these scenarios and more. Hell I am bringing my Kali sticks, knife and training ginunting to New Orleans on vacation tomorrow. My wife and friends, we got a suite, will be laughing at me while I do my Wing Chun forms and Kali Drills in our room because I always think about these things.

 

[Mattattack]

I like FlyingCrane's idea of maintaining a small core, and I appreciate it the more as I train. I like learning lots of new stuff, but ultimately I try to focus on maintaining a small toolkit of go-to techniques (my Matt-Fu).

In reading this I'm reminded of something from an Iain Abernathy podcast: criminals and attackers think more in terms of strategy and not tactics. I.E. I'm going to surprise him and punch him in the face as opposed to I'll lead with a jab then go downstairs with a cross to the plex...

I think the corollary is true: Martial Artists need to avoid getting too caught up in tactics and must keep strategy (environmental awareness, possible weapons, escape routes, et.) in mind.

Hell I am bringing my Kali sticks, knife and training ginunting to New Orleans on vacation tomorrow. My wife and friends, we got a suite, will be laughing at me while I do my Wing Chun forms and Kali Drills in our room because I always think about these things.

Enjoy! To quote a French Quarter tour guide I once had: Once you hit Bourbon street, take a right if you want to see the dive bars and seedy strip clubs, but be sure to take a left if you want to see the seedy strip clubs and dive bars.

 

[drop bear]

I thought I was pretty clear about the training should be that you can apply your techniques against an uncooperative opponent like in a sport's setting. For the record, I'm from a TMA background. I am NOT saying that all TMA's do it wrong or don't train properly. BUT, I do think that only doing preset "one steps" and never progressing past those is not the answer. I don't think that pulling techniques out of the kata and ONLY training them cooperatively is the answer either. On the other hand, I have visited a BJJ school that only did sports style grappling and only started from the knees. They did NOT train in any takedown techniques and the students really had no clue how to safely close the gap and get the fight to the ground.

We could spend pages and pages of "how to train" a technique in styles, but again to keep it short. You must understand many of the concepts that you get from combat sports, such as distancing, timing, rhythm, etc.

you will also need to train against somone good.