Ring vs battlefield versions of MAs

Uncle

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
204
Reaction score
4
Location
Ontario, Canada
What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?

Examples
Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
Your questions are limited in their function.

What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?
The name.

Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment?
No.

Do you think the training of one is more effective?
No. Training is what it is. Its either good, or its bad. It doesnt matter what style it is, or for what purpose its being learnt.

Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment?
Yes. But only as far as training goes. Because in any real confrontation, youre not in a sporting environment. If youre training for that, so long as youre getting fit, training for contact, and training for intensity, it doesnt make a scrap of difference. I dont need to practice non contact repeated strikes to the back of the neck to be able to actually do it.

Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?
No. Gloves are to protect the hands. In systems with grappling, you wear gloves that make it easier to grapple as well. For ones based on striking, you dont. Go figure. Also, more people get into fights than there are people who break their hands. As for breakfalling, have you ever been slammed down on a mat? The only difference is, if you cant breakfall on a mat, it hurts. If you cant breakfall on concrete, its worse. Why the hell would you train with that danger on concrete on a regular basis. You may as well just slam each others heads into it and call it conditioning.

Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu: Judo is based more on throws, BJJ on submissions, and JJ sometimes doesnt even have much grappling. Sometimes it has tons.
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran: *shrugs* - Personally i think Muay Thai is more focused.
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing: People dont fight the same way they did over a century ago. If we stopped wearing gloves, wed probably still fight the same way in a boxing match. Take an old bareknuckle guy and stick him in a modern arena, and if he wins its because hes a better fighter, rather than a better boxer. Same thing goes if you stick a modern boxer in a bareknuckle ring. Training isnt everything.
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling: Freestyle. Not american. Freestyle. Also, you can still learn catch wrestling. In any case, its all wrestling. If dumping people on their heads in a fight doesnt work, then i guess Greco is just toned down and weak. :D
 

Kong Soo Do

IKSDA Director
Supporting Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
329
What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?

The methodology and foundational principles are completely different and are not interchangeable.
Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment?

Sport is the least effective for the venues of the battlefield and/or self-defense in the 'street'. As mentioned, the methodology is completely different. Sport requires a specific rule set, in a specific environment with an opponent willing to abide by the same. There is no cross-over. To quote a post I did a while back;

There has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

  • Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
  • The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
  • The opponent is unarmed.
  • The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
  • Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
  • The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
  • You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
  • If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
  • There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.


As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;


  • Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
  • Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
  • Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
  • You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
  • There are no rules.
  • There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
  • The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
  • The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
  • The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
  • There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
  • The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
  • To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
  • The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.


When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;


  • Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
  • Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
  • Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
  • Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
  • Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
  • Is the student required to observe certain rules?
  • Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
  • Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
  • Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
  • Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
  • Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.

    This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.


Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;


  • Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
  • A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
  • A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
  • Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
  • The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
  • Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.


Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

An interesting tidbit on Judo training; During WWII, Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill was the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka in the world. He was also a member of the Shanghai Municipal Police Department with William Fairbairn. At the time, it was described as the most dangerous city/job in the world. O'Neill was eventually chosen to teach the First Special Services Forces (also known as the Devil's Brigade) which was a combination of U.S. and Canadian special forces (the movie of the same name was not an accurate portrayal). When designing what is now known as WWII Combatives, O'Neill (and Fairbairn who was a 2nd Dan under Jigoro Sensei) put no Judo into the system. When asked why, O'Neill replied that Judo was useless unless the enemy was wearing a Gi.

Now that was a bit of tounge-in-cheek humor on the part of O'Neill, but the point he was making was that Judo has a lot of sport techniques that require the opponent to be wearing heavy clothing for grip. If they aren't, or the quarters or conditions aren't what is needed then the number of Judo techniques that are possible become limited. Also, while many Judo techniques and principles are excellent for balance displacement, they aren't necessarily lethal which was often necessary on the battlefield or in special ops where stealth and quiet were essential.

Does this mean that Judo is useless for defense? No. Quite a bit in Judo can be effectively applied defensively against a resisting, determined attacker. The goal, for the defense minded Judoka, is to know the difference.

The same can be applied to TKD, or Karate, or any martial art that has both a sport and a self-defense component. For a competitor, who's goal is to win tourneys we need movements that fit within the rules of engagement. While kicks and punches are okay, it probably woundn't prolong your sport career to intentionally elbow strike the opponent, or use an intentional groin strike, or brachial plexus strike or head butt or eye gouge etc. For the defense-minded practitioner, limiting training to sport-geared sparring would limit ones total options as well. Again, the goal is simply to know the difference. One doesn't translate very well to the other. Each has there own specific training methodology and that is fine. The only time confusion or contention enters the picture is when one trains one way and believes it covers the other as well.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?

In

- "sport", you jump in and beat up your opponent.
- "combat", you open a can of red pepper, throw at your opponent's face, and still jump in and beat up your opponent.
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts? Do you think the sport versions are more effective regardless of environment? Do you think the training of one is more effective? Do you think the sport version limits its techniques in breadth and severity because of the artificial environment? Do you think the gloves/mats play a significant role in which techniques are applicable as it's harder to break one's hand or easier to break one's fall?

Examples
Judo/bjj vs. jujitsu
Muay Thai vs. Muay Boran
Boxing vs. old bareknuckle boxing
greco/American wrestling vs. catch wrestling

Are you serious with this?
On a battlefield the objective is to KILL or at least maim the other to the point they are no longer a kill threat as quickly as prudent.
Sport version is play time in comparison!! That alone makes the mental aspect far different and as to techniques used in battle vs ring; good god man!
Equipment does make a difference as do the rules of engagement.
Having been in both arenas I attest to major differences.
 

SacredCoconut

Orange Belt
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Finland
Well i would not say those arts are that good in modern combat, there are modern army arts for that. Every martial arts is mostly as good as what it is made for.
 

Mz1

Blue Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
What do you think is the diffence between battlefield versions of certain martial arts and their sporting counterparts?

In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only had H2H training through his military system. In the streets, an experienced sports fighter who knocks you out can chose to either walk away or kill you by head stomping your skull in as you lay there unconscious, if he wanted to.

All military systems of the world has some form of H2H training, but they don't waste too much time on H2H training today because an assault rifle beats them all. Run out of ammo, then there's the pistol, field knife, bayonet....and then your H2H. But you're more than likely dead already. This is why the average soldier, special forces, cop, etc... even with experience but no other training other than from their respective dept., will usually tap out like any other White belts when they join an MMA gym. The cops are the ones who are better though as they have to do more H2H compared to the soldiers, who usually only shoots the enemy.
 

Mz1

Blue Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Are you serious with this?
On a battlefield the objective is to KILL or at least maim the other to the point they are no longer a kill threat as quickly as prudent.
Sport version is play time in comparison!! That alone makes the mental aspect far different and as to techniques used in battle vs ring; good god man!
Equipment does make a difference as do the rules of engagement.
Having been in both arenas I attest to major differences.


When 2 fighters, ie. MMA, fights.....they are throwing strikes with the same intensity and might of killing and maiming their opponent. A full blown elbow to the face, followed by 10 more is no different than trying to kill someone with these same elbows on the battlefield. A simple choke hold that's locked, is a kill technique. The only reason that no one dies in the ring is because the Ref stops it. But everything leading to that Ref stoppage, KO, TKO, etc...has been done with maximum force and full intentions.

UFC 1-4 allowed all forms of head stomps, soccer kicks to the head, throat strikes, spinal column attacks, eye strikes, nutsack squeezing, etc. Even biting and eye gouging didn't cause a DQ, just $1,000 fine per incident. The purse was $60,000 so that's well worth getting fined to win it. The main difference in the battlefield is that you keep going until the other guy dies, usually....still not necessarily.
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
Mz1,
Bring your ringsport striking and grappling aspect with the referee and the possibility to 'tap' on to a combat battlefield. The strategies are different, the tactics are different, the techniques are different. Have not seen an MMA, Kickboxing, Boxing, Submission Wrestling competition (as yet) fought with the same tactics I trained, saw, or engaged with on a combat battlefield. I have boxed and wrestled in competition, and train people who do compete in Muay Thai and MMA. I understand the sport game. It Is Not The Same! I concede that a punch is a punch and hitting someone as hard as possible to stop them is the same on the battlefield as in a ring/cage but the tactics to get there and the follow up is not. We in H2H I screwed up and either way I will hurt badly or kill and move on. If there is any leftover the next person will finish it. No Such thing in the ring.
 

Kong Soo Do

IKSDA Director
Supporting Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
329
In general, an experienced MMA fighter will destroy an experienced soldier in 1on1, hand-2-hand combat, if the soldier only had H2H training through his military system.

With respect, I cannot agree with your assessment. MMA, in the context that I'm assuming you're putting forth, is a sport. Now, nothing wrong with sport but the skill sets/rule sets differ dramatically from the battlefield/street. In the battlefield/street one will use weapons, improvised weapons as well as H2H that do not subscribe to a rule set. WWII combatives is a prime example. Possibly the most brutal system ever developed, it was simple, based on gross motor skills and more importantly, retained in long term memory. The teaching methodology is simply different. This doesn't mean that the MMA guy is a wimp and my comments should not be taken as such. In the ring, the battlefield/street guy will be at a disadvantage if forced to abide by an artificial rule set. Conversely, the MMA guy will be at a disadvantage in a battlefield/street situation due to his having trained within a rule set and being place in a situation where the opponent is not constrained to the same rule set.

Again, the methodology is simply diametrically opposed. Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does mean one isn't going to satisfactorily cover both venues.
 

Mz1

Blue Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Mz1,
Bring your ringsport striking and grappling aspect with the referee and the possibility to 'tap' on to a combat battlefield. The strategies are different, the tactics are different, the techniques are different. Have not seen an MMA, Kickboxing, Boxing, Submission Wrestling competition (as yet) fought with the same tactics I trained, saw, or engaged with on a combat battlefield. I have boxed and wrestled in competition, and train people who do compete in Muay Thai and MMA. I understand the sport game. It Is Not The Same! I concede that a punch is a punch and hitting someone as hard as possible to stop them is the same on the battlefield as in a ring/cage but the tactics to get there and the follow up is not. We in H2H I screwed up and either way I will hurt badly or kill and move on. If there is any leftover the next person will finish it. No Such thing in the ring.

I've already covered all of what you're arguing in my post already. Don't feel like repeating it.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
6,308
Location
New York
and heres a thread almost specifically made to bring some arguments back into the forum..Uncle, read any of the threads from the last two months that are over 5 pages, and youll find everyones answer to this question
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
I suspect too much of these discussions are being geared around you doing what youre trained in. As in, a boxer will box no matter where he is, rather than, the person who has taken boxing classes will fight.

Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.
First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
In a combative situation, you might be done before you even knew there was an engagement taking place, let alone whether or not the other person was armed, or how many other people there were, let alone where they were.
Its a different situation. With different dynamics.

As for an MMA fighter beating a soldier whos only learned to fight in the military, thats showing a reliance on technique.
Technique that often works due to the other persons technique. In that scenario, my money would be on whichever one looked rougher.
 

Mz1

Blue Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
With respect, I cannot agree with your assessment. MMA, in the context that I'm assuming you're putting forth, is a sport. Now, nothing wrong with sport but the skill sets/rule sets differ dramatically from the battlefield/street.

It takes more skills to fight under the constraint of different rule sets for different types of tournaments, sparring situations, etc. When there are no rules on the battlefield, it would be so much easier. And an experienced fighter will clobber the average, other soldier, if all he's got is some basic H2H training.

But talk about rules and such, if you say that sports fighters can't adapt due to our training and experience of sports fighting w/rules....then does this mean that COMBAT VETERANS who joins an MMA gym will just start killing their training partners uncontrollably and such during sparring because that's how they were trained?

Then there are the MANY, MANY, MANY soldiers, special forces, cops, etc. in the MMA gyms. Many are champion title holders in MMA, etc. yet have been in combat training and in actual combat. Do you think they can't differentiate the two?

In the battlefield/street one will use weapons, improvised weapons as well as H2H that do not subscribe to a rule set.

Obviously a weapon is going to give someone the advantage over their opponent w/o one. What's the point in arguing this?

WWII combatives is a prime example. Possibly the most brutal system ever developed, it was simple, based on gross motor skills and more importantly, retained in long term memory. The teaching methodology is simply different. This doesn't mean that the MMA guy is a wimp and my comments should not be taken as such. In the ring, the battlefield/street guy will be at a disadvantage if forced to abide by an artificial rule set. Conversely, the MMA guy will be at a disadvantage in a battlefield/street situation due to his having trained within a rule set and being place in a situation where the opponent is not constrained to the same rule set.

I bet the average French soldier in silk tights during the Napoleonic ages is way tougher than the a WWII soldier up until today in H2H combat and all around ruggedness. Those guys with their single-shot muskets, actually did fight most of their battles with bayonets and such. And a Roman Centurian will beat both of their butts, H2H. Modern soldiers today hardly even engages H2H.....they have rifles, then pistols then bayonets. But usually they'll die way before any H2H happens. If it does, they just go into bloodlust, survival mode and stab away. But H2H ONLY, then an experience MMA fighter will KO them, and then kill them...because when these trained soldiers come into our MMA gym, they really suck (unless they had MMA training elsewhere)....like they would do the average noob stuff such as turning away when they get hit with too many combos. This is not a sign of someone who can fight well.

Again, the methodology is simply diametrically opposed. Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does mean one isn't going to satisfactorily cover both venues.

A fight is a fight is a fight, to me. It takes more skills to fight under the constraints of different sets of rules. Which makes it so much easier when there are no rules. And also an experienced fighter is way more capable than someone who rarely fights nor spars for KO's often. Most soldiers never even fought H2H on the battlefield to the death, especially the modern soldier with all of their sophisticated weaponry.
 

Mz1

Blue Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.

My goal as a fighter is to knock you out with ONE strike, ASAP. If not, then to hurt you as much as possible. What you're saying here is merely looking for an opening to strike. Against some untrained slob on the street, it may take 1-2 strikes to KO him or at least get him to STFU and go home. Against an equally trained fighter in the ring, of course it's going to be much more difficult and may take hundreds of strikes and eating many....using many strategies & techniques.....and maybe not even KO'ing anyone....nor win.

First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
In a combative situation, you might be done before you even knew there was an engagement taking place, let alone whether or not the other person was armed, or how many other people there were, let alone where they were.
Its a different situation. With different dynamics.

This is just common sense. Just like how I never leave the house w/o my 9mm, knife and EDC. I have a pistol in every bathroom of my house as well as garage, etc. I'm just as paranoid as the average cop.

As for an MMA fighter beating a soldier whos only learned to fight in the military, thats showing a reliance on technique.
Technique that often works due to the other persons technique. In that scenario, my money would be on whichever one looked rougher.

It's both techniques and experience. The average soldier's time is not wasted on training H2H combat, because their primary weapon is their RIFLE with 20-50 round mags + 5-10 spare mags....which makes more sense to train their marksmanship. While most modern soldiers don't even have any H2H fight experience at all, as it's quite rare in any battlefield nowadays....let alone H2H to the death. OTOH, an experienced MMA fighter does fight and spars for KO's often, which is pretty much full blow fights sometimes.
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
If we are talking "todays battlefield" then martial arts in general, "today" don't represent anymore practicality than MMA does. They both have there limitations. What MMA fighters might have over traditionalists is intensity which is attributed to their age. While some not all traditionalist may have many years of solid experience.

No matter how you look at it, our military's CQD "is" because martial arts wasn't relevant enough.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
I suspect too much of these discussions are being geared around you doing what youre trained in. As in, a boxer will box no matter where he is, rather than, the person who has taken boxing classes will fight.

Combative systems, as oppose to sport systems, teach you how to go about things in a more direct way. In a sport system, youre learning to have a certain time and a certain place for certain techniques and strategies.
First and foremost, in a sport fight, you square off and go for each other.
In a combative situation, you might be done before you even knew there was an engagement taking place, let alone whether or not the other person was armed, or how many other people there were, let alone where they were.
Its a different situation. With different dynamics.

As for an MMA fighter beating a soldier whos only learned to fight in the military, thats showing a reliance on technique.
Technique that often works due to the other persons technique. In that scenario, my money would be on whichever one looked rougher.

Soldiers I know are pretty good in a scrap on 'the street', half my working life is spent separating them from whoever they are fighting at the time. One of the reasons we were given a place to train MMA by the military was that the Scots Guards CO thought that if his guys spent more time training in MMA they could hopefully ( and it was a hope lol) they'd get the aggression out by fighting legitimately or failing that ( which is the case) at least they'd fight better 'on the street' and so spend less time either injured or in jail. He's nothing if realistic, squaddies do like a good scrap.
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
My goal as a fighter is to knock you out with ONE strike, ASAP. If not, then to hurt you as much as possible. What you're saying here is merely looking for an opening to strike. Against some untrained slob on the street, it may take 1-2 strikes to KO him or at least get him to STFU and go home. Against an equally trained fighter in the ring, of course it's going to be much more difficult and may take hundreds of strikes and eating many....using many strategies & techniques.....and maybe not even KO'ing anyone....nor win.

Im pretty sure that whether youre learning for sport, or for combatives, thats the same.
I will, however, disagree with taking hundreds of strikes - But, i suspect you were exaggerating, and that it just didnt translate too well into text. All you need to do is bounce the other guys head off the ground.

This is just common sense. Just like how I never leave the house w/o my 9mm, knife and EDC. I have a pistol in every bathroom of my house as well as garage, etc. I'm just as paranoid as the average cop.

Why not just KO them with one punch, like a ring fighting champ? Combatives tend to involve the use of weapons. Im glad we can agree on why.

It's both techniques and experience. The average soldier's time is not wasted on training H2H combat, because their primary weapon is their RIFLE with 20-50 round mags + 5-10 spare mags....which makes more sense to train their marksmanship. While most modern soldiers don't even have any H2H fight experience at all, as it's quite rare in any battlefield nowadays....let alone H2H to the death. OTOH, an experienced MMA fighter does fight and spars for KO's often, which is pretty much full blow fights sometimes.

And here, we agree, sort of. Its almost like your reasoning is great, but your conclusions are a bit peculiar.
Im of the view that technique means much less than method. By that i mean, technique = push off the ground with the back foot, pull with the front foot, drop your weight, extend your rear knee, pivot on your feet, pivot on your hip, rotate your torso and your shoulder, engage your arm into the punch. Method = Punch the other guy in the face.
And im inclined to think that those abilities can come more from experience in hitting other people with your fists, i.e. sparring. I also think that that only teaches you that particular skill in a limited manner.

The average engagement takes place for much further away than you could possibly need unarmed work, certainly. But that doesnt mean the fighter isnt strong, fit, and mentally willing to go for you. He may not be as experienced, but even the experienced can be taken down by someone whos never even been in a fight. And it happens.

MMA makes you better at striking, ill certainly agree. Im not disputing that. But like combatives, theyre often limited in what they teach. In MMA, if you get someone in an armbar, can you stomp on the side of their head? No. Can the person DOING MMA do that? Certainly. And so could anyone else who suddenly thought, in a real fight of any sort, "Hey, i could stomp on his head from here."
Technique < Quality of Training, is pretty much what im getting at. For my opinion on sports vs combatives, read my original reply.
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
Soldiers I know are pretty good in a scrap on 'the street', half my working life is spent separating them from whoever they are fighting at the time. One of the reasons we were given a place to train MMA by the military was that the Scots Guards CO thought that if his guys spent more time training in MMA they could hopefully ( and it was a hope lol) they'd get the aggression out by fighting legitimately or failing that ( which is the case) at least they'd fight better 'on the street' and so spend less time either injured or in jail. He's nothing if realistic, squaddies do like a good scrap.
So basically, they got better at fighting by getting fit and fighting? :)
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
So basically, they got better at fighting by getting fit and fighting? :)


Well they are pretty fit to start with, and being a Scottish regiment they really do like to fight! The Army calls it fighting spirit rofl. It's really a case of recruiting those who like to fight, training them up to take and give orders (the officers are the same btw) and pointing them in the right direction ie the battlefield. The other fights are sort of overlooked as long as no one gets caught or seriously injured.
Irn-Bru is a secret weapon employed by the Scots, sort of like Popeye's spinach. It's made with girders.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/scots-guards-on-afghan-frontline-reveal-1458428


"Scottish Soldiers In Firefight With Taliban-Just like a street fight with guns.."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Discussions

Top