- Feb 23, 2014
- Reaction score
Getting good at what you do doesn't mean you will be able to beat a criminal at what he does.
The only thing doing well in an MMA gym will show is how well you can do in an MMA gym. Boxers & MMA fighters have been beaten, stabbed, killed, and hospitalised by people who have no skill or training.
There is no doubt who here was the better fighter, there is no doubt who would win if they sparred in an boxing or MMA gym.. But the point is a criminal will not fight you, he will not play your game on your terms by your rules. he will do what he is good at, he wil paly his game, by his rules. So any test of your fighting skill is only a test of your fighting skill. The benchmark for self defence is only fighting when you A) do not understand the difference between fighting and self defence, and B) do no understand the nature of criminal violence.
The fact that you do not understand these different does not make the people that do understand them wrong.
If you want to get good at fighting, train for fighting, if you want to get good at self defence train self defence but don’t make the mistake of assuming that getting good at fighting means you are good at self defence, or that getting good at self defence means you can win trophies in an MMA ring.
Isnt requiring people to be actually attacked in self defence situations so they can recognise the difference between training and the real thing kind of counter productive to why people learn self defence in the first place?