The "Reality" of UFC/NHB fighting, pressure testing sports moves, and the Real World.

[Bob Hubbard]

-For the hundreth time...You made the claim of it's effectiveness. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you. I cannot prove a negative. This is how science works. This is how the courts and law works too.

The MMA jock riders are wrong. TMA is NOT full of nerds and geeks. Nerds and geeks would understand middle school level science.

There are several hundred arts/styles/etc.
They have been around for a long time. Decades, Centuries, and in a few cases, longer. Wing Chun dates back quite a ways. Karate (real karate, not the watered down stuff) dates back over 100 years. Numerous Chinese arts have longer histories. The simple fact that they continue to be used, taught and passed down indicate their effectiveness. American GI's at the end of World War 2, learned Karate in Okinawa and Japan, impressed by it's effectivness. If it wasn't effective, if they hadn't "experienced" it, why would hardened combat veterans bother with it? Simple - They wouldn't.

Experienced combat troops, learned the hand to hand art of their enemy, and brought it home to teach and pass on so as to become better.

That is the proof.

Given: Karate was used by the Japanese during World War 2
Given: Karate was learned from the Japanese after World War 2 by the victorious American Army.
If an art is effective, then it will be used by those most qualified to determine it's effectiveness.
If the Victor learns if from the vanquished, it must be of value.
Therefore Karate is of value and is effective to a combat soldier.

 

[RoninPimp]

There are several hundred arts/styles/etc.
They have been around for a long time. Decades, Centuries, and in a few cases, longer. Wing Chun dates back quite a ways. Karate (real karate, not the watered down stuff) dates back over 100 years. Numerous Chinese arts have longer histories. The simple fact that they continue to be used, taught and passed down indicate their effectiveness. American GI's at the end of World War 2, learned Karate in Okinawa and Japan, impressed by it's effectivness. If it wasn't effective, if they hadn't "experienced" it, why would hardened combat veterans bother with it? Simple - They wouldn't.

Experienced combat troops, learned the hand to hand art of their enemy, and brought it home to teach and pass on so as to become better.

That is the proof.

Given: Karate was used by the Japanese during World War 2
Given: Karate was learned from the Japanese after World War 2 by the victorious American Army.
If an art is effective, then it will be used by those most qualified to determine it's effectiveness.
If the Victor learns if from the vanquished, it must be of value.
Therefore Karate is of value and is effective to a combat soldier.

-That is not empirical proof by along shot. It is weak anecdotal evidence at best. Wikipedia's articles on the "scientific method" and "proof" would do you good with a read.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

-It wouldn't, but why are you saying MMA guys limited to 100% unarmed training? True, in a MMA specific class they will be doing more ring focussed techniques and strategies. The basics from that will still work for unarmed situations though. If they are interested in weapons training they should train weapons in the same manner. Drill and spar. Drill and spar. I have never argued against this. Both MMA and TMA empty hand techniques are of little value when faced with weapons and mutiples. The sport training method is the path to truth in combat, whether its empty hands or not.

-Now please answer my questions.

We're getting there.

You admit that pure NHB training is more focused on ring than street?

Empty hand techniques are of little value when confronted by multiple opponents and/or weapons?

You claim that their basics will work in unarmed situations? But do they work when one cannot effect a take down, clinch or try for a submission?

You claim that through sports you can find truth in combat, but what is that truth?


I am not saying that they are limited to only unarmed, but that most of them limit themselves to unarmed. There is a difference. As you train, you become. If you train to not aim for the spine, you will tend to omit that target when on autopilot, because when on autopilot if you target it in the ring, you get DQed. That is why I say that pure NHB training does not prepare you for the street.

A true "Mixed" approach will allow you to play in both worlds.

Have I answered your question?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

-That is not empirical proof by along shot. It is weak anecdotal evidence at best. Wikipedia's articles on the "scientific method" and "proof" would do you good with a read.

No, that is basic logic, with a premise, and conditions, and a proof.
US servicemen learned Karate after WW2, brought it back and opened schools. That is a fact.
These were combat hardened veterans.
Another fact.
Why would they learn something, from an enemy they hated (yes, hated), if it wasn't effective in their eyes?
They wouldn't.
This would mean (and I have read interviews with numerous people on both sides) that Karate had been used in battle by the Japanese, against the Americans.
Notice, they didn't come home and open samurai sword schools. They opened Karate schools. Because swords don't work too good against machine guns it seems.

 

[RoninPimp]

You admit that pure NHB training is more focused on ring than street?

-From a strategic standpoint? Yes. From demonstrating the most effective empty hand techniques? No. That is because the most effective empty hand techniques work wherever they are used. Ring strategy ids drastically different that str33t strategy. I have always said this in so many words, going back to the first page. Why did it take 11 pages before you read my posts?

Empty hand techniques are of little value when confronted by multiple opponents and/or weapons?

-I have said this over and over. You may get lucky, but 99 times out of 100, empty hands loses.

You claim that their basics will work in unarmed situations? But do they work when one cannot effect a take down, clinch or try for a submission?

-Basic striking could.

You claim that through sports you can find truth in combat, but what is that truth?

-Truth in combat to me is effectiveness in combat.

I am not saying that they are limited to only unarmed, but that most of them limit themselves to unarmed. There is a difference. As you train, you become. If you train to not aim for the spine, you will tend to omit that target when on autopilot, because when on autopilot if you target it in the ring, you get DQed. That is why I say that pure NHB training does not prepare you for the street.

-Some do and would readily state that. The same can be said of TMA guys though. The spine is a bad example for you. If you are in a position to strike the spine with any force, you are in a dominate position. Gaining and maintaining a dominate position is a HUGE part of MMA. Who would be better at this, the MMA guy or the TMA guy who is trained primarily in forms?

Have I answered your question?

-No, and you asked the same questions AGAIN that I had already answered, but I answered them AGAIN anyway.

 

[Andrew Green]

Moderator note:

This thread seems to have run it's course and is going in cricles at this point, getting more personal each lap. Thread locked, please feel free to RTM any posts you feel need looked at.

Andrew Green / MMA Moderator