MMA as self defense

[lonewolfofmibu]

I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.

I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.

I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match

 

[tellner]

Let's take a look at the basic things which will help you defend yourself effectively:

1. Strong
2. Good endurance
3. Aggressive
4. Appreciation of distance
5. Timing
6. Can hit hard and accurately
7. Can keep from getting hit
8. Can take a hit
9. Comfortable in close
10. Competent on the ground
11. Used to contact
12. Not fazed by aggression
13. Skills trained under repeatedly under pressure

Are all of these developed in a good MMA training program?
A half-assed MMA program?
If you've got these are you better off than almost anyone you're likely to come up against?

 

[baughman]

MMA is good self defense for the simple facts..

They train full contact.

They train a few punchs, kicks, take downs , and submissions over and over agian until its instinct.

Any art that trains with contact is good self defense no matter what its called. I use to train Muay Thai many years ago. Alot of the time when someone starts training. They turn there back or cover up when they get hit the first few times. Takes a bit of training to get that instinct out of your head. You never know how you will react unless its under pressure.

 

[tellner]

Just in case I wasn't clear, any decent MMA program will give you all those important skills and attributes. It will do this as well as if not better than most other ways you could spend your time.

 

[jks9199]

MMA (and any other combat sport) can definitely help you with self defense. But it's got some significant problems, too. You're certainly finding out what you can do against a resisting opponent, and what you can do when you've been hit, choked, etc. The training is great conditioning, too.

But it doesn't tell you what you can do in street clothes. Nor does it tend to involve an opponent who is significantly larger (or smaller) than you. Your hands are wrapped and gloved; hitting with unprotected hands is quite different (as many boxers who defend themselves discover). Not impossible, but different. The environment is controlled. And -- as a general rule -- your opponent isn't really trying to kill you. And there's no ambush going on...

Short of going out and getting mugged, attacked, robbed, shot, etc... no training is perfect. You need to balance your training, using different and appropriate methods to practice and to address the inherent weaknesses of training.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

MMA is better training than many arts for street self defense. I only see two major problems with it....

1) It's a sport. MMA fighters train with rules and develop reflexes that are inappropriate for the street. The best example is a willingness to go to the ground. The moment I drop to my back and break some guy's arm with a perfect arm bar is the same moment his buddy whacks me in the skull with a pool cue.

2) Few of the MMA fighters I've met are aware that this is true.

Keep in mind that one can say that about a lot of different fighting styles. Boxers who train wrapped all the time will break a hand the first time they punch someone for real. The world is littered with the corpses of tae kwon do black belts who never learned not to kick for the head on the street.

The key to good self defense is to recognize and train against the weaknesses of your primary system. To deny they exist gives your opponent an opening to kill you through.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

You know, I'm going to go the controversial route again. Let's see how this flies...

I have come to the realisation that no martial art or sport is "good" for self defence!

That's right, none of them, not even my own. Neither is MMA, Tae Kwon Do, or anything else that gets the moniker "martial art" or "combative sport". They are not designed for it, they are not geared up for it, they do not have it as a goal in any way whatsoever. Does that mean that the skills learnt there cannot be utilised for self defence? Not at all.

As I've said in another thread, the idea that martial arts are good for, or even meant for self defence, is rather inaccurate. It comes from marketing and popular media, not from the systems themselves. To understand that, you simply need to look at what the systems themselves actually are, what they are teaching, and how they are teaching to realise that. Then you need to understand what self defence actually is. That difference will be the focus of this post.

To begin with, martial arts. And by that, I am refering to what is refered to Traditional Martial Arts, whether newer systems such as Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Karate (in the main), Judo, or older systems such as Japanese Koryu arts, Chinese arts such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Taiji, Bagua, or similar. These systems teach methods removed from the legal requirements of todays society, and against attacking and assaulting methods not found today, including against weapons that simply are not encountered.

The way things are taught is a formalised structure, learning skills by rote, as it were, and then methods of application according to the methods of the system. To take a few examples from the Japanese Koryu traditions, a system such as Katori Shinto Ryu will only ever train with pre-structured series of techniques (kata), with the speed, intensity, power and so forth being increased with time. There is also a great focus on study of things such as strategy. Systems such as Owari Kan Ryu (a school of spearmanship) actually start with shiai (a form of competitive sparring) before kata training. And systems such as Araki Ryu have a tradition of heavily pressure testing kata. So there is a variety of teaching and training methodologies just in that small area. But you may notice that the focus in none of them is self defence.

The more modern systems such as Karate often talk about their self defence aspects in their teachings, but is it really there, in the actual art itself? Again, teaching happens primarily via repetition of basic movements and kata, often with sparring used to heighten the application of the skills. But sparring is not self defence application, as it is a method of sharpening the practitioners skills against another practitioner, often of similar skill and experience, using the same strategies and tactics, attacking and defending with the same techniques. This is very different to self defence, but we'll get to that.

When it comes to sport systems (which can be part of traditional systems, such as Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, and so on), the sporting aspect is really a method of testing individual abilities in an even setting. The method of testing varies, obviously, but it is really just variations of the same idea. In order to test safely, there are always rules involved, both explicit and implicit. As the theme of this thread is MMA, let's look at that.

The explicit rules are fairly simple. Certain techniques are not allowed (fish-hooking, eye-gouging, groin strikes, in some organisations elbows and knees are disallowed in certain circumstances, such as when an opponent is on the ground, or to certain targets such as the back of the head, and so on). The implicit rules are where we get our biggest deviation from anything close to self defence, or, as many put it, "a real, or street fight". These include the environment (padded floor, cage or ropes surrounding it), single opponents, a lack of weapons, no "surprise" attacks, and so on. Added to that are the methods of "winning", which include ways os scoring points, or gaining submissions (implicit rule: don't actually break anything or damage in a permanent way), as well as ways the fight will be stopped (the opponent gives up, is submitted, or gets knocked out, the time expires, the corner throws in the towel, and referee stoppage). These are important, as they again take you away from a real fight, especially the referee stoppage.

There are other major differences, including the timeline for both, but I've covered those often enough in other threads. The point here is that these methods are again not in any way methods of self defence. But that brings us to what exactly is self defence anyway, and how is it taught if not in martial arts or combative sports?

Well, the first thing to realise is that self defence is not focused on techniques. It is, instead, focused on protecting yourself and others against outside (uncontrolable) dangers. So your first port of call should be to recognise what those potential dangers are. And they are very different to what you encounter inside a ring, cage, dojo, kwoon, dojang, and so on. Added to that is the fact that the responces from a self defence approach will be different to that of martial arts or combative sports, in that self defence will seek to keep you safe in the easiest way possible (avoidance of situations that lend themselves to danger, followed by de-escalation, followed by pre-emptive striking, then you start to get into actual defences against attacks, but even then it's based around easily adapted principles rather than techniques), whereas martial arts and combative sports will seek to engage (in most cases, a very few older systems will teach escape and avoidance as well, but the majority will still be focused on engaging), and have a desired outcome of subduing, defeating, injuring, killing, or other, but not escape safely. This is the biggest key difference between self defence and martial arts or combative sports.

When it comes to martial arts and sporting aspects, if these are taught under the guise of self defence, without any consideration to the realities of what self defence actually is, it simply is not self defence. The things learnt there can certainly be very useful in a self defence situation, however it is not what they are designed for, and that should always be recognised above all else.

 

[TigerLove]

Chris Parker, your posts always are argumented and true tellings.

I think also (at least i think that we think the same) that martial arts can be great for self defense, but it's not their focus, and they are not designed for self defense, they are designed for fighting.

There are systems designed only for self defense - first i can think of is Krav Maga.

But i also think it's not only about what you were teached, it's more about which mind set you have in your head, do you know difference between fighting and self defense.

Self defense have only one purpose - saving your head. Nothing, i mean nothing else matters.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi TigerLove,

Not quite. Martial arts are designed to put across the philosophy, values, ideals, and teachings of a particular system (or teacher), which may or may not have anything to do with combat effectiveness. That is just the vehicle they use to get those teachings across.

Think of Kendo, is that anything to do with fighting? No, I'm afraid not. Is it a martial art? Yes. Is it a combative sport? Yes.

Frankly, there are no martial art systems designed for self defence. There can't be, as that goes against the basic idea of a martial art in the first place. There are systems designed for self defence, but they are not martial arts. They are DefTac systems and RBSD systems, which do not have a lot of the benefits of the depth of a martial art system. But they are designed for self defence.

When it comes to Krav Maga, that is not designed for self defence either. It was initially based primarily on Shotokan karate, and was developed for the Israeli military, so that rules out street self defence to begin with. It is closer to an RBSD system than anything else, but to say it is designed for self defence is to misunderstand what self defence is (and the difference between it and martial, security, sporting, and military needs and uses).

 

[punisher73]

Hi,

You know, I'm going to go the controversial route again. Let's see how this flies...

I have come to the realisation that no martial art or sport is "good" for self defence!

That's right, none of them, not even my own. Neither is MMA, Tae Kwon Do, or anything else that gets the moniker "martial art" or "combative sport". They are not designed for it, they are not geared up for it, they do not have it as a goal in any way whatsoever. Does that mean that the skills learnt there cannot be utilised for self defence? Not at all.

As I've said in another thread, the idea that martial arts are good for, or even meant for self defence, is rather inaccurate. It comes from marketing and popular media, not from the systems themselves. To understand that, you simply need to look at what the systems themselves actually are, what they are teaching, and how they are teaching to realise that. Then you need to understand what self defence actually is. That difference will be the focus of this post.

To begin with, martial arts. And by that, I am refering to what is refered to Traditional Martial Arts, whether newer systems such as Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Karate (in the main), Judo, or older systems such as Japanese Koryu arts, Chinese arts such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Taiji, Bagua, or similar. These systems teach methods removed from the legal requirements of todays society, and against attacking and assaulting methods not found today, including against weapons that simply are not encountered.

The way things are taught is a formalised structure, learning skills by rote, as it were, and then methods of application according to the methods of the system. To take a few examples from the Japanese Koryu traditions, a system such as Katori Shinto Ryu will only ever train with pre-structured series of techniques (kata), with the speed, intensity, power and so forth being increased with time. There is also a great focus on study of things such as strategy. Systems such as Owari Kan Ryu (a school of spearmanship) actually start with shiai (a form of competitive sparring) before kata training. And systems such as Araki Ryu have a tradition of heavily pressure testing kata. So there is a variety of teaching and training methodologies just in that small area. But you may notice that the focus in none of them is self defence.

The more modern systems such as Karate often talk about their self defence aspects in their teachings, but is it really there, in the actual art itself? Again, teaching happens primarily via repetition of basic movements and kata, often with sparring used to heighten the application of the skills. But sparring is not self defence application, as it is a method of sharpening the practitioners skills against another practitioner, often of similar skill and experience, using the same strategies and tactics, attacking and defending with the same techniques. This is very different to self defence, but we'll get to that.

When it comes to sport systems (which can be part of traditional systems, such as Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, and so on), the sporting aspect is really a method of testing individual abilities in an even setting. The method of testing varies, obviously, but it is really just variations of the same idea. In order to test safely, there are always rules involved, both explicit and implicit. As the theme of this thread is MMA, let's look at that.

The explicit rules are fairly simple. Certain techniques are not allowed (fish-hooking, eye-gouging, groin strikes, in some organisations elbows and knees are disallowed in certain circumstances, such as when an opponent is on the ground, or to certain targets such as the back of the head, and so on). The implicit rules are where we get our biggest deviation from anything close to self defence, or, as many put it, "a real, or street fight". These include the environment (padded floor, cage or ropes surrounding it), single opponents, a lack of weapons, no "surprise" attacks, and so on. Added to that are the methods of "winning", which include ways os scoring points, or gaining submissions (implicit rule: don't actually break anything or damage in a permanent way), as well as ways the fight will be stopped (the opponent gives up, is submitted, or gets knocked out, the time expires, the corner throws in the towel, and referee stoppage). These are important, as they again take you away from a real fight, especially the referee stoppage.

There are other major differences, including the timeline for both, but I've covered those often enough in other threads. The point here is that these methods are again not in any way methods of self defence. But that brings us to what exactly is self defence anyway, and how is it taught if not in martial arts or combative sports?

Well, the first thing to realise is that self defence is not focused on techniques. It is, instead, focused on protecting yourself and others against outside (uncontrolable) dangers. So your first port of call should be to recognise what those potential dangers are. And they are very different to what you encounter inside a ring, cage, dojo, kwoon, dojang, and so on. Added to that is the fact that the responces from a self defence approach will be different to that of martial arts or combative sports, in that self defence will seek to keep you safe in the easiest way possible (avoidance of situations that lend themselves to danger, followed by de-escalation, followed by pre-emptive striking, then you start to get into actual defences against attacks, but even then it's based around easily adapted principles rather than techniques), whereas martial arts and combative sports will seek to engage (in most cases, a very few older systems will teach escape and avoidance as well, but the majority will still be focused on engaging), and have a desired outcome of subduing, defeating, injuring, killing, or other, but not escape safely. This is the biggest key difference between self defence and martial arts or combative sports.

When it comes to martial arts and sporting aspects, if these are taught under the guise of self defence, without any consideration to the realities of what self defence actually is, it simply is not self defence. The things learnt there can certainly be very useful in a self defence situation, however it is not what they are designed for, and that should always be recognised above all else.

True, but there are some grey areas as well. When karate was first practiced, it was for a civilian self-defense art. That means, that it WASN'T used on the battlefield or against samuari like many state. It was designed to be used against a sudden attack and to injure the opponent and get away quickly. It was also not designed for two people squaring off and trading shots in a ring like boxing does so well (this is one of many reasons that you don't see "karate" in MMA etc.)

The roots are still there before they were changed over for self improvement etc. It is up to the instructor and student to know what the goal is and train accordingly. RBSD isn't the answer either, all of those techniques come from the TMA's anyways so again it comes back down to training methodology.

People assume that MMA fighters are somehow ignorant of the fact that sport is different than a "real fight". People train MMA because they want to and enjoy it. The people I know that train MMA for the street add in the missing factors while they train. They take into account while grappling possible weapons, or other people, bites, eye gouges etc. When standing they take into account verbal deescalation of the situation and situational awareness and other things.

There is no perfect art, there is no perfect range, there is only the best YOU can do with what God/Nature gave you. It is up to YOU to find what fits you best and train it accordingly. It won't matter what system you practice or who you have as your instructor if you never take the lessons learned and make them your own.

 

[TigerLove]

@Chris Parker

I agree with you!

Would you be kind and explain me difference between Krav Maga and RBSD systems?

Last week i was at Krav Maga seminar, and i can't imagine something better for self defense then it.

By the way, in my country there is Tactical Technic Combat System (T.T.C.S), teached By Shihan Dean Rostohar, i think you must have heard of him.

From his mouth, that is for "person who carries a weapon in his/her professional and official work, a person who deals with protection or simply a person who wants to learn to protect and defend him/herself".

 

[Chris Parker]

True, but there are some grey areas as well. When karate was first practiced, it was for a civilian self-defense art. That means, that it WASN'T used on the battlefield or against samuari like many state. It was designed to be used against a sudden attack and to injure the opponent and get away quickly. It was also not designed for two people squaring off and trading shots in a ring like boxing does so well (this is one of many reasons that you don't see "karate" in MMA etc.)

The roots are still there before they were changed over for self improvement etc. It is up to the instructor and student to know what the goal is and train accordingly. RBSD isn't the answer either, all of those techniques come from the TMA's anyways so again it comes back down to training methodology.

People assume that MMA fighters are somehow ignorant of the fact that sport is different than a "real fight". People train MMA because they want to and enjoy it. The people I know that train MMA for the street add in the missing factors while they train. They take into account while grappling possible weapons, or other people, bites, eye gouges etc. When standing they take into account verbal deescalation of the situation and situational awareness and other things.

There is no perfect art, there is no perfect range, there is only the best YOU can do with what God/Nature gave you. It is up to YOU to find what fits you best and train it accordingly. It won't matter what system you practice or who you have as your instructor if you never take the lessons learned and make them your own.

Absolutely agreed, Punisher.

With regard to the Karate origins, I see that the same way I see things such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, developed by Musashi Miyamoto primarily from his personal experiences in real duels with real swords. However, if all you wanted was to learn life-saving skills with a sword (back in the day), the method of instruction would be very different to learning "the art of the sword". Same with Karate. The origins are in actual use, but to train it for that use is not to train it as a martial art, and to train it as a martial art is not to train it for a sudden assault (although that can certainly be a part of it).

RBSD is the answer to certain questions only, really. But then, so are martial arts. And yes, RBSD is pretty well defined by it's training methods rather than technical aspects, and most RBSD systems assume previous experience. But the focus of those systems is handling modern assaults/attacks etc (although I personally feel they are rather limited in that they deal almost exclusively only with the assault itself, rather than dealing with awareness and other things), so they really are the modern training for self defence. As to them taking their techniques from TMA systems, that seems to be more for convenience in the teachings, and most RBSD guys seem to have come from a TMA background, and realised that a lot of what they were training was simply not anything to do with self defence. For the record, though, I prefer the martial art approach, incorporating RBSD and DefTac approaches for the self defence aspect, as that gives the greatest benefits and longevity to study.

 

[Chris Parker]

@Chris Parker

I agree with you!

Would you be kind and explain me difference between Krav Maga and RBSD systems?

Last week i was at Krav Maga seminar, and i can't imagine something better for self defense then it.

By the way, in my country there is Tactical Technic Combat System (T.T.C.S), teached By Shihan Dean Rostohar, i think you must have heard of him.

From his mouth, that is for "person who carries a weapon in his/her professional and official work, a person who deals with protection or simply a person who wants to learn to protect and defend him/herself".

Essentially, the focus of RBSD systems is to prepare you for the pre-fight (handling the sudden assault, handling the adrenaline, surviving a barrage etc) by use of a variety of drills designed to simulate real assaults (what ít's like being hit and continuing, getting an adrenaline dump and then acting, etc). Krav Maga includes a number of drills similar, but also has a more formal approach, and teaches a range of skills, including unarmed and armed methods, group defences, and more. These things are not done in an RBSD system per se, but the principles an RBSD puts across can be used for such situations.

Yes, I know of Dean, his TTCS system seems to be designed for military use, same as Krav Maga. So it can be thought of as similar, but with a different origin. Remember, though, what I said about pretty much all martial arts claiming self defence in their marketing. After all, are you going to go to a seminar if the guy says "This is not designed to help you, although parts of it might!"?

 

[MattJ]

Excellent posts by Chris Parker and Punisher, couldn't agree more. I have often said that there is no type of training can totally prepare someone for a real attack - there are too many variables that are impossible to train for. And nothing anyone learns will work until you internalize it, and make it work for you.

jks -

But it doesn't tell you what you can do in street clothes. Nor does it tend to involve an opponent who is significantly larger (or smaller) than you. Your hands are wrapped and gloved; hitting with unprotected hands is quite different (as many boxers who defend themselves discover). Not impossible, but different. The environment is controlled. And -- as a general rule -- your opponent isn't really trying to kill you. And there's no ambush going on...

Fair to say that no one, in any type of training, is really trying to kill you - that is not a flaw of MMA training. All training environments are controlled, too. I will say that some MMA places do train in street clothes (shirts/shorts), and it is also common to train with folks that are much bigger/smaller than yourself. You may be confusing MMA competition with MMA training.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, train a Koryu system properly and you should certainly feel like your opponent is trying to kill you! To quote Shitami Sensei, 16th Dai Shihan of the Sosuishitsu Ryu,

"From the moment of bowing-in for kata practice, you and your partner are professional warriors whose only goal is to kill one another. You must have that mindset to properly execute or understand the kata."

With that said, I agree completely with you, MMA training is not MMA competition, just as TMA training is not fighting. And training is street clothes is always a good idea (we do the same thing with our street classes from time to time).

 

[jks9199]

Excellent posts by Chris Parker and Punisher, couldn't agree more. I have often said that there is no type of training can totally prepare someone for a real attack - there are too many variables that are impossible to train for. And nothing anyone learns will work until you internalize it, and make it work for you.

jks -



Fair to say that no one, in any type of training, is really trying to kill you - that is not a flaw of MMA training. All training environments are controlled, too. I will say that some MMA places do train in street clothes (shirts/shorts), and it is also common to train with folks that are much bigger/smaller than yourself. You may be confusing MMA competition with MMA training.

Please take note that I stated very few absolutes there; I used words like "tend" and "generally." Some MMA clubs do have fighters who train with people outside their own weight class -- but most of the small handful I've seen generally pair people up who are approximately the same size, for example. Of course, I've seen this happen way too much in police DT training, too. While it's useful to pair up with someone similar in size -- it's necessary to pair up with people larger and smaller, too, for real world defensive applications.

MMA is great training -- but like so many others have said, and as I said in my post, no one form of training is complete by itself. Truthfully, as Chris Parker said, no martial art is "good" self defense training. Self defense is different from "fighting" which is why most DT programs and most good self-defense classes don't resemble martial arts training of any sort to any great extent.

 

[Chris Parker]

I missed this earlier, might address it now...

I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.

I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.

I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match

I personally wouldn't want to be attacked by either!

A little more seriously, you may be underestimating your "someone on the street" a bit there. Just because someone has a fight career (whether amateur or professional) and has learned how to hit doens't make them the most dangerous. A typical attacker on the street is not a street fighter, but what is refered to as a street predator. This person has no compunction about hurting you, is looking just to cause pain and damage, is wanting an easy target, wants to attack with no or minimal risk to themselves, and is usually very experienced at doing just that. Your guy may train to hit people in a ring, this guy just hits people. Not someone to be underestimated, I feel.

 

[MJS]

I have heard countless times that training MMA is conterproductive to good self defense, has anyone else ever heard this or have any studies to back it up, it personally doesn't make sense to me.

I have always believed that if you can hit a trained fighter who is ready for you to hit him you should be able to hit a possibly untrained fighter who may or may not be ready for you.

I personally would much rather have someone on the street attack me then anyone who has ever fought in a pro or semi pro MMA match

A little late to the party, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways. IMHO, I think that many TMAs can benefit from MMA, and likewise, MMA can benefit from TMAs. MMA will give you the contact, the striking, kicking, clinching and grappling. But like anything, it too has its limits. Keep in mind that people need to be able to seperate the ring mentality from the real world mentality.

As its been said, there is no one magical solution to self defense. People will argue this point, with people from both camps, MMA and TMA, each saying that their respectful art is better. I beg to differ. Again, both can benefit from each other. IMO, if someone really wants to be as well rounded as possible, they'll be open minded and smart enough to look at their training and see whats lacking.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Chris, a little off topic but since you brought up RBSD and Defensive Tactics, would you care to mention some of the more effective and applicable ones you have discovered?

Thanks

 

[teekin]

Chris, my duck, this is way way off topic, but the most brutal criminal element and most violent population I can think of is within the USA prison system. They seem to turn out the most mentally and physically violent humans without fail. There is a methodology that Works! going on in there.
It supprises me that this has not been reverse engineered to produce a close combat system. Or perhaps it has?
Lori