MMA vs. TMA Training Methods: Is One Better Than The Other?

[MJS]

While reading the Martial Artist vs. Pro Fighter thread, I came across a few posts that made me stop and think. We obviously have 2 groups of people, whos methods are different, but both camps will defend their respective training methods. We have those that feel that because they can do eye pokes and groin kicks, that they're the best, and we have those that feel that because they train hard with lots of hard contact, that they are the best.

While reading some posts in that other thread, I started getting the impression that some feel that the MMA folks are really head and shoulders above all other arts, and in a confrontation, the MMA guy will come out on top every time.

I will admit...I've seen some TMA schools, where I really had to stop and wonder if these people ae really capable of doing anything other than defending themselves against the air. I've talked to others, and after hearing how they train, and seeing, (mostly on clips) of how they train, I'm sure they're pretty capable of taking care of themselves.

IMHO, I think that if you're really serious about training for Sd purposes, that you have to not only train as real as possible, but also not be afraid to have hard contact. Not saying that every single class needs to be this way, as I stated in my hard vs. soft training thread, but it needs to be there. I also feel that if you want to be really well rounded, you need to be capable of doing more than just fighting with your fists. While there are, I'm sure, some MMA fighters, that do have some real world experience, I'm sure there're many that do not, but assume they do, due to the fact that because they fight in the ring, that they're prepared for anything. Given the fact that many fights involve weapons of some sort, I would imagine that would be an area that would need to be addressed.

People, in other threads, have mentioned the use of a weapon, should they find themselves in a bad position with someone who grapples. Others have frowned upon that, saying that pulling a weapon, against someone whos simply using empty hand stirkes against you, is overkill. However, overkill or not, looking bad in the eyes of the law or court, fact is, there are people who would not think twice about using a weapon, should they have one.

For myself....I feel that each method has advantages and disadvantages over each other. Look at both, take from both, and add what you feel important, to your respective training methods.

Looking forward to hearing other opinions.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

While reading the Martial Artist vs. Pro Fighter thread, I came across a few posts that made me stop and think. We obviously have 2 groups of people, whos methods are different, but both camps will defend their respective training methods. We have those that feel that because they can do eye pokes and groin kicks, that they're the best, and we have those that feel that because they train hard with lots of hard contact, that they are the best.

While reading some posts in that other thread, I started getting the impression that some feel that the MMA folks are really head and shoulders above all other arts, and in a confrontation, the MMA guy will come out on top every time.

I will admit...I've seen some TMA schools, where I really had to stop and wonder if these people ae really capable of doing anything other than defending themselves against the air. I've talked to others, and after hearing how they train, and seeing, (mostly on clips) of how they train, I'm sure they're pretty capable of taking care of themselves.

IMHO, I think that if you're really serious about training for Sd purposes, that you have to not only train as real as possible, but also not be afraid to have hard contact. Not saying that every single class needs to be this way, as I stated in my hard vs. soft training thread, but it needs to be there. I also feel that if you want to be really well rounded, you need to be capable of doing more than just fighting with your fists. While there are, I'm sure, some MMA fighters, that do have some real world experience, I'm sure there're many that do not, but assume they do, due to the fact that because they fight in the ring, that they're prepared for anything. Given the fact that many fights involve weapons of some sort, I would imagine that would be an area that would need to be addressed.

People, in other threads, have mentioned the use of a weapon, should they find themselves in a bad position with someone who grapples. Others have frowned upon that, saying that pulling a weapon, against someone whos simply using empty hand stirkes against you, is overkill. However, overkill or not, looking bad in the eyes of the law or court, fact is, there are people who would not think twice about using a weapon, should they have one.

For myself....I feel that each method has advantages and disadvantages over each other. Look at both, take from both, and add what you feel important, to your respective training methods.

Looking forward to hearing other opinions.

I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

 

[K831]

You and I have posted in several of these types of threads in the past. Sometimes, my observations about MMA are taken to assume I lack the appropriate respect for them as athletes, competitors and martial artists. That isn’t the case, as many of my other posts will show. Having said that, I do see some glaring weaknesses regarding SD and MMA training. There are some important strengths too. I also recognize weaknesses in much of TMA, however, that isn’t inherent in TMA's; it is teacher and school dependant. I think that is less the case for MMA.

Regarding MMA training methods (IMHO):

Pro’s –

-Conditioning/Fitness

-Simplicity

-Hard contact

Those things are all positives of MMA. Most of the guys I know who are at an MMA gym are pretty fit and they get a lot of sparring and some decent hard contact. The striking they are working is pretty simple, typically basic kickboxing punches and kicks and their ground work, whatever it may be. They work the mitts, and the heavy bag and run a lot of interactive drills. That allows a fairly fast progression to a decent level of proficiency. All of these things are helpful in any fight and many TMA schools could add a lot more of this in.

Con’s –

-While the opponents are resisting, they resist within a pretty narrow set of counter-options.

-Simplicity. Many benefits here, but the lack of even a modicum of attention to many realistic SD situations is a huge weakness from my point of view. Of course we have discussed things like multiple attackers and weapons. But even more simple, just the idea that SD situations do not often start with both individuals putting up their dukes and squaring off. People get attacked from various obscure angles. It is very difficult to strike from these angles (without resetting) unless you have trained it. This seems lost on most MMA guys at our club until we have them try.

-Mindset. I see both sides of this coin. I recognize that there are many, many TMA schools out there with a failed mindset. With a worse mindset than MMA clubs. However, I have seen countless MMA guys push for takedowns, underhooks, submissions, wrist control, etc despite the fact that it put them in a very dangerous position. They don’t see it as a dangerous position, because in MMA competition, it isn’t. They don’t recognize it is flat out stupid outside of that context, and it’s an auto-response. Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.

I have long said that if TMA (whose tactics and techniques, in my opinion, are far superior for SD than the Kickboxing/BJJ blend that makes up most of MMA) would barrow the conditioning practices of MMA, the intensity, and the level of contact (all of which are typically superior to most TMA schools) without buying into the competition mindset and the formulaic approach that competition breeds, they would be far better off.

I hear constantly about how hard MMA guys fight in their training and how no sparing etc in a TMA school is the same as competing. I’m just not sure what other schools are like I guess. We absolutely kick the dog ***** out of each other repeatedly.When we run multi-attacker drills we run them hard. When we "spar" it is hard contact and often without protection. I've been laid out and dropped in a heap, and given the same back. The AKKI is the roughest group I have been with, but when I did Tracy's Kenpo and when I worked with Skip's group, high levels of contact in sparing was very common. This aspect is likely more regular of an MMA gym, but I think that is teacher/school dependent. I wouldn't even stay for an entire class at any TMA school that didn't really bang.

Just as we consider differences between TMA schools, there is a difference between training at an MMA club (which many do) and competing (which fewer do) choosing to go another round when your covered in your own blood or injured does a lot for your psychology and is invaluable in a "real fight."

I truly believe that an individuals psychology, and the mindest they maintain, is the most important factor. How training methods affect this is a fascinating discussions.

 

[K-man]

Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.

It is my understanding that, before karate went into the schools, the hands were normally open. In the schools the teachers did not want half the kids running around with broken fingers, so the hands were closed. Unfortunately, in the early days of western karate, few karateka progressed beyond the basic training and they in turn as they have become the teachers, pass on, in good faith, what they themselves were taught. Closing the hands causes muscles to tense and we slow down. Open hands, muscles relax, and speed increases. Power is a product of mass and acceleration. The faster you are, the more power in the strike. Open hands offer multiple options, especially at close range. Your figure of 85% sounds about right to me. :asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am going to preface my lengthy post with this comment: I do not honestly hold to the idea that traditional martial arts are somehow inherently different than MMA. All of the techniques found in MMA are found in some traditional martial art, be it western boxing and wrestling or eastern karate and judo, or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. And the whole competition vs. the deadly street thing is just silly. Shotokan karateka, Kyoshukin karateka, tangsudoin, taekwondoin, kendoka, etc., all these folks have their own tournaments that they are training for. The folks that are considered to be the tops are often the folks with (surprise surprise) lots of trophies. Many so-called traditional martial arts are just as sport driven as MMA is. Taekwondo most certainly is.

In short, I see them both as essentially equal.

The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.

The only major difference that I see in terms of quality is that MMA focuses on a smaller skill set and the those who actually compete train for competition, which usually means harder training than the average MA hobbyist. The smaller skill set means greater quality of training for each technique and greater repetitions of each technique, while many TMA schools (certainly not all) seem to feel that if they don't teach everything but the kitchen sink, then there is some huge gaping hole.

Broader skill sets make for a more well rounded fighter, but a focused skill set is nearly always more effective.

The other observation is that MMA means live training with a resisting partner, whereas TMA, because TMA is really a few hundred different arts and training philosophies, will not always guarantee that.

A TMA with a narrow, functional skill set, effective weapon defense training (meaning that the guy or gal teaching it actually knows what they're doing), hard training and training with resisting partners is, in my opinion, the best option for the average person who will never compete.

An MMA program with the same weapons defenses would be equally good.

Frankly, a good hardcore TMA school is going to train like a good hardcore MMA gym, so really it is just a question of what flavor you want.

As far as the whole eye poking, throat crushing, too deadly for competition stuff, as a practitioner of three traditional martial arts, I don't want to hear it. If your basics are lousy teh deadly will not help you. If you do not keep yourself in fit-to-fight condition, teh deadly will not help you. The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on. When your students are top notch with the core curriculum, then show them some of the other stuff to keep them around after black belt. But having out of shape students that cannot block, kick, punch, or move effectively and trying to say that because they can eye gouge that they are somehow more prepared for "the deadly street" is ridiculous. And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

Good instruction couple with correct practice, hard training, and working with resisting partners is much more important than what label you slap on your door.

My apologies for the long post.

Daniel

 

[Xinglu]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

 

[K831]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders

Are you saying here that they will rely on congnitive function during potential life/death attack or altercation? It would seem your references to most MMA guys having a "good head on their shoulders" is inferring just that. So they will consciously choose to employ a technique they haven't trained during a fight because they have a good head on their shoulders?

I hear this all the time and I don't understand it. Sure, it is easy to say the boxer will do this and that when it happens for real...

I thought it was clear the role of nuero-muscular memory during the sympathetic nervous systems activation. It is common for most people to barely manage the most basic gross motor skill they have drilled one million times. It is virtually impossible for a person to cognitively and consciously choose to employ tactics they haven't drilled and drilled and drilled in this situation, even those as simple as turning a jab into and eye gouge, let alone all the other things training with a specific rule set in mind would ingrain. Studies show people will default to the most basic thing they have drilled. For the MMA'st, that includes closed fist strikes and the targets and tactics they have drilled.

and practice TMAs as well.

Most of the MMA guys I have met in the last 10 years scoff at TMA. Regardless, for those you mention, they combine both, and so wouldn't the point be moot?

And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

Agreed. But again, in a discussion comparing the two training methods separately, wouldn't this be a moot point?

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

I agree completely.

Most MMA schools I am familiar with are competition oriented skills? How do you think this effects their students mindset as it pertains to SD?

 

[K831]

The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.

Agreed.

The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on.

What basics are you referring to?

I agree to a point. There are some universal basics to be sure. However, there are some "basics" that get lost between sport fighting and SD, and I think they are very important. There are some "basics" regarding SD that I have yet to ever see addressed in the MMA training methodology.

And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

Sure, anyone can reason out how to poke someone in the eye while standing around. That isn't really what we are training for, is it? Personally, I am training for an automatic response. A response so ingrained that it happens without my knowing it even under stress. This is outside cognitive function. It doesn't have anything to do with "figuring out" or "rocket science" or a "good head on your shoulders". It is a result of how you repeatedly drill both physically and mentally.

It's why we run our firearms course with gloves on. Do all of our drills (FTF/FTE/draw/point shooting etc) with the gloves on and under as much stress as possible. To simulate that nervous system dump.

It's no different than anything practicing and training for anything else dangerous. It "isn't rocket science" to know that if you come into a corner too fast on a street bike, that grabbing a handful of breaks will stand the bike up. Anyone with a "head on their shoulders" can remember that, right? And yet, even riders with years of experience, blow through corners and die because at 80 mph and a reducing radius corner, THEY GRAB THE BREAKS because they didn't train it... they thought "surely I can figure this out when it happens for real." There are millions of sports and activities that know this. Why the martial arts world wants to ignore it is lost on me.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'

The only way you're going to get an advantage over multiple attackers is with a weapon.......if anyone thinks they are training in a system that is uniquely designed to deal with multiple attackers hand to hand, they are delusional. It can be done, but only with superior speed, skill, and shear tenacity, not with some special training versus any other kind of training.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Don't think Bruce Lee belongs in the defenders of traditional arts categories........much of what he was advocating was hybridized arts of the same sort that evolved in to MMA.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

 

[K831]

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

Of course not, but are we talking about the elite, or how which type of training would affect the average Joe?

Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

Would a grand Prix driver be better suited to teach a man how to drive a 4x4 rock crawling vehicle out in the desert? Or would it be be better to look to a man with that type of background?

Sure we can make huge generalities. A grand prix drive can drive circles around most so he is who we should turn to for all things driving.

Or, we could define "driving" in its context as it applies to the discussion, consider the type of vehicle etc.

That wouldn't be absurd, would it?

Do police officers carry the same kind of rigg Todd Jarrett competes with? The lack of a race gun on hand makes for some needed adjustments. I have been tought some things in IDPA that are considered by most all in combat shooting scenarios to be big NO-NO's.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course not, but are we talking about the elite, or how which type of training would affect the average Joe?

We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.

Would a grand Prix driver be better suited to teach a man how to drive a 4x4 rock crawling vehicle out in the desert? Or would it be be better to look to a man with that type of background?

A Grand Prix driver would be better suited to teach high performance driving to police than a police officer, or any other person driving under similar conditions.

As to YOUR question, a PROFESSIONAL COMPETITION 4x4 driver would, even though he drives 'with rules'.

Sure we can make huge generalities. A grand prix drive can drive circles around most so he is who we should turn to for all things driving.

Or, we could define "driving" in its context as it applies to the discussion, consider the type of vehicle etc.

That wouldn't be absurd, would it?

It would be absurd to think that the highest skill level attained would NOT be someone who drives for COMPETITION! That would be absurd.

Competition, while not completely, does proof-test concepts. What is absurd is the notion that many martial artists carry that untested THEORY trumps REALITY! And where the theory fails, the theorists begin arguing that the variables weren't exactly right.

Do police officers carry the same kind of rigg Todd Jarrett competes with? The lack of a race gun on hand makes for some needed adjustments. I have been tought some things in IDPA that are considered by most all in combat shooting scenarios to be big NO-NO's.

Really? Funny thing that if you look in Iraq, you see all those fancy red-dot optics attached on every surface. I know i've got one on my patrol rifle.





Now, competition doesn't translate directly to real world, as we have to divide what works because it works in general from what works only within that limited realm..........but denying that much of what exists in MMA works because it works in general is what is truly absurd.

While trying to make your point, you're really reinforcing my point.

 

[K831]

We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.

I think the OP's question was more about training methodology than about "fighting vs training". Have a look at the OP again.

ALso, it is a big leap to assume that a person in a TMA has never had a "real fight". Some of us have had many. By your logic, I know trump all those who have only fought for "competition". Particularly since the times someone has actually tried to harm me, there were no rules or refs to step in on behalf of my safety.

Which is why the OP asked the question about TRAINING METHODS so we could discuss the effectiveness of the methods outside of a pissing match about our "real fights".

So, back to the OP's question. How different do you think the sparring is, in an MMA class or a TMA class. I would say IT DEPENDS on the school.

A Grand Prix driver would be better suited to teach high performance driving to police than a police officer, or any other person driving under similar conditions.

As to YOUR question, a PROFESSIONAL COMPETITION 4x4 driver would, even though he drives 'with rules'.

Exactly. Which is why a combative's instructor who has done it for real would likely have provide better training for a "real situation" and a competitor would provide better training for one wanting to compete.

Once the skill set is in context, it is easy to see that

similar conditions

matter. How similar is competition to a real life or death encounter?

It would be absurd to think that the highest skill level attained would NOT be someone who drives for COMPETITION! That would be absurd.

Take the logic one step further. Would it be absurd to assume that a combat veteran is a safer bet than a great USPSA competitor? Seem simple to me.

Competition, while not completely, does proof-test concepts.

Sir, it proof-tests them in a controlled and pre-determined environment. Some of it may carry over, some of it may not.

What is absurd is the notion that many martial artists carry that untested THEORY trumps REALITY! And where the theory fails, the theorists begin arguing that the variables weren't exactly right.

Who is talking theory? All TMA is theory? Combatives are just theory? Krav Maga has never been tested in reality? Kenpo? Interesting notion

Really? Funny thing that if you look in Iraq, you see all those fancy red-dot optics attached on every surface.

Hmmm some aimpoints and eotechs on a few guys M4's but then again, I think you know there is a lot more to a race gun than a red dot/ reflex. Aren't we talking handguns in this analogy anyways? And I've never seen an officer with a race gun.

Now, competition doesn't translate directly to real world, as we have to divide what works because it works in general from what works only within that limited realm..........

Wait, I thought it was REALITY and that TMA/combatives was untested THEORY?

 

[Bruno@MT]

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'

True, but this is flawed reasoning.

I saw many of those gracie challenges, and their strategy basically boiled down to diving towards the other guy's legs / midsection (blocking or taking any kick or hit along the way) dragging him to the ground where the fight continued in their favor.

Doing this in a situation with multiple attackers will get you your head kicked in rapidly.

This is the reason why in many traditional systems you try to stay on your legs as much as possible, and why you don't attempt takedowns yourself by default. In many realistic SD and (originally) combat situations, this amounts to suicide.

 

[Masshiro]

they are both the same and different. the only think i can say about it realy is that if you are in a fight that lasts more than 3 seconds you are doing it wrong.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think the OP's question was more about training methodology than about "fighting vs training". Have a look at the OP again.

ALso, it is a big leap to assume that a person in a TMA has never had a "real fight". Some of us have had many. By your logic, I know trump all those who have only fought for "competition". Particularly since the times someone has actually tried to harm me, there were no rules or refs to step in on behalf of my safety.

Which is why the OP asked the question about TRAINING METHODS so we could discuss the effectiveness of the methods outside of a pissing match about our "real fights".

So, back to the OP's question. How different do you think the sparring is, in an MMA class or a TMA class. I would say IT DEPENDS on the school.

You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. ) The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.

Exactly. Which is why a combative's instructor who has done it for real would likely have provide better training for a "real situation" and a competitor would provide better training for one wanting to compete.

Once the skill set is in context, it is easy to see that matter. How similar is competition to a real life or death encounter?

How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?

Take the logic one step further. Would it be absurd to assume that a combat veteran is a safer bet than a great USPSA competitor? Seem simple to me.

A safer bet for what? It's much like the former statement about 'combatives instructors'.........there's a difference between being a cop or soldier in a rough area, and actually engaging in repeated combat. You can be a 'veteran' and rarely engage in direct combat. Being shot at conditions you to keep your head under fire, which is important, as mindset is of TREMENDOUS importance.........at the same time, the skills themselves, aren't necessarily superior. A USPSA competitor very likely has superior weapons handling skills.........it is only the mindset that is in question. If his mindset is solid he'll take the fight. If not, the veteran will.

Sir, it proof-tests them in a controlled and pre-determined environment. Some of it may carry over, some of it may not.

Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Who is talking theory? All TMA is theory? Combatives are just theory? Krav Maga has never been tested in reality? Kenpo? Interesting notion

Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory.

Hmmm some aimpoints and eotechs on a few guys M4's but then again, I think you know there is a lot more to a race gun than a red dot/ reflex. Aren't we talking handguns in this analogy anyways? And I've never seen an officer with a race gun.

No, you're trying to specify a narrow definition that fits your argument........but the reality is that even the Modern Method of firearms shooting that we all depend on, developed by Col. Jeff Cooper and others, came from shooting competitions they had to develop it........again, this entirely REFUTES your notion that competition under rules is inferior to untested theory that claims itself about 'real combat'.

Further, aimpoints and eotechs aren't just on a 'few' M4's, they, along with ACOGS, are on nearly all police carbines, and most military carbines in combat units that allow them. That came DIRECTLY from the kind of competition you were referring to.

Wait, I thought it was REALITY and that TMA/combatives was untested THEORY?

If that's what you thought I said, then the problem is your understanding. TMA is untested theory when it's untested. The fact that you say this shows you miss the point entirely. All MMA is TMA proof-tested in a cage, under rules, yes, but under more rigorous proof testing than most TMA practioners take it to.

That is not negated by the second part of my statement that says one must realize what works because it works (knocking someone unconscious with a left hook works as well on the street as in the cage) versus what works because it works in the cage.

Is it reality? Nope, but it's MORE reality than many who practice TMA's and dislike it are doing themselves. Again, those folks talking about how it's not real because it has rules are really whistling in the wind unless they're visiting the bar or traveling to skid-row to fight every week, they really aren't doing anything more 'realistically' but theorizing.

 

[sgtmac_46]

True, but this is flawed reasoning.

I saw many of those gracie challenges, and their strategy basically boiled down to diving towards the other guy's legs / midsection (blocking or taking any kick or hit along the way) dragging him to the ground where the fight continued in their favor.

Doing this in a situation with multiple attackers will get you your head kicked in rapidly.

This is the reason why in many traditional systems you try to stay on your legs as much as possible, and why you don't attempt takedowns yourself by default. In many realistic SD and (originally) combat situations, this amounts to suicide.

The statement still stands.......why would someone worry about fighting more than one person, when they can't even win against one person? What's the answer to that?

Not saying that there isn't merit the other way, as i believe there is..........but if someone doesn't have an answer to the above question that doesn't involve avoiding it entirely, one doesn't have the answer.

 

[sgtmac_46]

they are both the same and different. the only think i can say about it realy is that if you are in a fight that lasts more than 3 seconds you are doing it wrong.

I perhaps lack your skill, but i've been in a number of real world fights that lasted longer than 3 seconds. Not every opponent is nearly as cooperative as some.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The statement still stands.......why would someone worry about fighting more than one person, when they can't even win against one person? What's the answer to that?

Because the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take me to the ground and graple his way to a joint lock or mount position. That scenario is a result of the ruleset of BJJ / MMA.

The above statement does not pertain to fighting 1 person, but to fight 1 person who is going to do something that basically amounts to a suicide move in a majority of realistic scenarios.

In that light it is perfectly valid to worry more about 1 / many attacker scenarios where the attacker is not doing that, and not worry about the 1 person who does.