The sparring Thread.

[MJS]

Hmm. Not much here that I agree with... yes, you can talk your way out of conflict with a predator, but not in the way most think of as "talking your way out of things". A blindside attack is one launched from an unseen position, and negates any pre-emptive striking (you've already been hit, nothing pre-emptive about what you'd do), so it's not the right context for "hit first", or anything else mentioned. As far as the threat being recognised, I also wouldn't say there's no good excuse for a fight to occur... but we're really getting into the broader range of possible situations, and at that point, the only thing you can really say is that there aren't any absolutes.



Nah, none of those are "best" for self defence... you're getting focused on a physical action, which is not the way to approach it (I've mentioned previously that "the technique aren't the important thing"...). Within a self defence scenario, each of those might indeed be your best physical tool to apply... but the tool itself is really nothing. If you really know what you're doing, it won't matter too much what you use, as they can all have relatively equal value. For the record, I teach primarily open hand methods as well... but not for the reasons you've listed.

Of course, talking your way out, if possible, should be done. But, if talking isn't working or if there's no time, then a pre-emptive strike should happen. I mean, why wait until the guy's punch is half way to hitting you? His actions of aggression, moving towards me, drawing his hand back, etc., are enough for me.

As for the rest...you're right...what works for me, might not work for you, and so forth. IMHO though, the open handed strikes, as well as a hammerfist, elbow, etc, are most likely going to result in less of a chance for injury to the defender, rather than a closed hand. Not saying a closed fist won't work or isn't effective. I'm simply saying if I use an open hand strike to the guys ear, I'm most likely going to run less of a chance of injury than if I punch the guy.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So I guess for sparring to be more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??

I would set up different scenarios with asymmetric rules and victory conditions. Some examples that I've played with or heard of other people trying:

Partner A has friends coming soon, partner B does not. Start with partner A getting a cooperative takedown. The match begins as soon as B hits the ground. Victory conditions for A are to get a submission or hold B down until time expires (when his friends would be arriving to help). Victory conditions for B are to get up and escape off the edge of the mat before A's friends arrive.

Attacker is designated secretly by the instructor beforehand. The defender is positioned in the middle of a milling crowd with the other students moving around and jostling at close quarters. The attacker will pick his best moment to grab the defender in a surprise headlock and either drag him to the ground or bend him over and start punching. (No static headlocks - the attacker should be trying to dominate the whole time.) The defender has to escape and preferably finish his assailant.

Partner A starts out in the cage at the opposite side from the exit. Partner B starts between A and the exit. Victory conditions for A are to get to the exit. Victory conditions for B are to keep A in the cage and land as many punches as possible.

Start class sparring as normal, but a randomly selected student may have a hidden training knife which he will pull out and use whenever he feels like he is losing the match. Alternately, the instructor may toss a training knife onto the ground at some point in the match where either participant might be able to grab it.

Start sparring on the ground with one partner on top. At some point several "friends" of one participant will run up and start attacking their friend's opponent. That partner needs to disengage and escape as quickly as possible.

The possibilities are endless. The goal is that after engaging in enough of these exercises you can lose your attachment to the dueling mentality and adjust to whatever your objective needs to be in a given situation.

(BTW - these are not full blown realistic scenario drills such as Chris and SteveNC were describing. They're just variations on sparring designed to open your mind to different possibilities.)

 

[MJS]

Back to the topic at hand.

So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't. Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?

I mentioned, earlier in this thread I believe, of a few different ways that I spar. As for evidence...I have none. Personally, I don't run around with a video camera nor do I have a amateur/pro record. I can only go off personal experience. As you probably noticed by now, you're going to get a mixed review on this topic. Some feel it's useful, others feel it isn't. IMO, something needs to be done in the training, to give a more 'real' feeling, for lack of better words.

 

[K-man]

Engage, disengage, re-engage is one issue... the tactic of moving in to trap is, of course, just one approach. Disengaging to escape is another. The problem with relying on only one (or dominantly one) tactic is that there can be any number of situations that that's just not useful, or optimal for.

Engaging and disengaging in a non-sporting environment is really quite different. I teach to engage, do what you need to do, then disengage. And certainly you can disengage to escape, but neither of those really apply in a competition context, particularly the point sparring type context where if you were to clinch you are separated and warned or penalised. In one way you can really only disengage where you have that option. In a situation where you are not in control your opponent could choose to prevent your disengaging. In the sporting situation where you have no contact to control, your opponent had as many options as you do. In the situations you outlined above you actually disengaged before there was a real involvement, again an impossibility in a sporting context.

Again, just a tactical difference, and needs to be matched to the situation. I teach both, for instance, moving away (defensively or evasively), and moving in (offensively), as each encounter will require a different response.

Sure, moving out of range is an option but again it depends on how you read the situation. If a guy has moved yo attack you it is pretty certain that if you move back he is just going to attack again, this time with the knowledge that you have some avoidance training. If I move back out of range, as you might see with an attack with a weapon, I will be looking to move straight back in once the attack has passed by. Again totally different to the conventional point sparring scenario where you jump in, score a point, then get out of range ready to do it again. In a real life situation I am normally going to wait for the attack to come to me. Then, if it doesn't I won't have to do anything. In the sparring situation, I would be penalised for not showing enough aggression.

A lot of that (the circle etc) are more acclimation drills than scenario drills, similar to Geoff Thompson's Animal Day training (highly recommended as well, by the way!), I'd also add adrenaline drills, which can take a number of forms.

True, but I'm trying to describe training that is available that works on building skill and confidence without going down the 'sparring' path.

Damn it Chris! If I didn't know you better I'd say you were arguing with me for the sake of arguing!

 

[Kframe]

Chris, I think we all agree that the techniques are not as important as the awareness and verbal judo skills that must be apart of self defense. I think most of us are referring to that point when we failed that and its now physical.

During your paragraph regarding range, you mentioned keeping a BJJ/grappler in striking range and out of grappling range. I agree with that. The minor issue im having and I have discussed it with my teacher is that bbt, the striking I have mainly seen has always been same foot same side striking. Now I know thanks to your PM'S that the Japanese developed there own striking style due to the nature of they development, but physically and martially. Now according to my teacher we do rear side striking, with out stepping forward into another stance, its just not as prominent and we approach it differently. Having to step with each strike(regardless of fist type used) seams and feels a lot slower to execute then a typical 1-2..

If we are going to be using movement and distance to keep a grappler in a range he is weakest, I would think being able to throw speedier strikes would behoove us? I just feel slower when trying to string together strikes (in the air) with the constant stepping in to strikes. Now we didn't have a lot of time in class to deal with my question as it was late, but he said ill understand as time goes on. They did demonstrate how it is done in the kata, and it of course was the step strike/ step strike same side deal.

Unless having a rapid barrage of strikes isn't what this art is about. Wonder if it is more about fewer but stronger well placed hits. Wouldn't that mean spending more time controlling the spacing of a grappler if im only getting a shot in every now and then? Still as I type that, it sounds like a sparring problem, but I cant help but wonder how it would play out on the street in self defense. A lot of people Here in the states wrestle in their youth, so basic grappling skill is present in a lot of would be miscreants.

Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers. Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.

 

[CNida]

Well, firstly I'd ask why they'd want to. It's not part of MMA, and just takes time away from training MMA. Next, I'd advise them to not worry about dedicating "a few rounds of sparring" to self defence... it's really just not the right approach. The first thing they'd need to do is to recognize what the differences are, then develop a completely separate curriculum to deal with it. I'd recommend they use the physical skill sets of MMA as a framework, but the tactical applications would need to be vastly altered. There'd be absolutely no point in looking at doing anything like that in a sparring context until they got that down first, otherwise they'd just be sparring a skill set they didn't have.

Chris, I am curious. I have seen you mention the "physical skill sets of MMA" a few times. Which skill sets, specifically, were you referring to, and in what ways do you think they are effective in the "violent" portion of self defense?


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."

 

[K-man]

Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers. Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.

The fallacy here is that apart from boxers, every style contains grappling range techniques. Wrestlers grab, Jujutsu is grappling, Aikido is utilising the same space, traditional CMA and karate incorporate grappling. It is the untrained who are likely to be raining punches and kicks from outside grappling range. Just another reason why the sparring you normally see is for competition. Best just become comfortable with hands on techniques.
:asian:

 

[Blindside]

The fallacy here is that apart from boxers, every style contains grappling range techniques. Wrestlers grab, Jujutsu is grappling, Aikido is utilising the same space, traditional CMA and karate incorporate grappling. It is the untrained who are likely to be raining punches and kicks from outside grappling range. Just another reason why the sparring you normally see is for competition. Best just become comfortable with hands on techniques.
:asian:

Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....

 

[CNida]

Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....

I also believe that most boxers DO train some clinchwork... Obviously no throws or takedowns but positioning. I think I heard during one of Money Mayweather's fights that he was training some clinch stuff with Rich Franklin during his preparation for that particular fight. Can't remember the fight though.


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."

 

[K-man]

Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....

I agree and I nearly put it in my post. The difference is that they are coming close for protection from punches. Against a trained MA they have now positioned themselves to be caught by knees and elbows. You could probably throw a few karate and TKD guys in with the boxers too as being out of their element but they should at least have some skills to work at close range if required.
:asian:

 

[SteveNC]

Clinching is a staple in my instruction. So much control and a plethora of tactics you can utilize

 

[Chris Parker]

Of course, talking your way out, if possible, should be done. But, if talking isn't working or if there's no time, then a pre-emptive strike should happen. I mean, why wait until the guy's punch is half way to hitting you? His actions of aggression, moving towards me, drawing his hand back, etc., are enough for me.

Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.

As for the rest...you're right...what works for me, might not work for you, and so forth. IMHO though, the open handed strikes, as well as a hammerfist, elbow, etc, are most likely going to result in less of a chance for injury to the defender, rather than a closed hand. Not saying a closed fist won't work or isn't effective. I'm simply saying if I use an open hand strike to the guys ear, I'm most likely going to run less of a chance of injury than if I punch the guy.

Yeah, again, we're in agreement (I'd target the jaw rather than the ear, but that's it).

Engaging and disengaging in a non-sporting environment is really quite different. I teach to engage, do what you need to do, then disengage. And certainly you can disengage to escape, but neither of those really apply in a competition context, particularly the point sparring type context where if you were to clinch you are separated and warned or penalised. In one way you can really only disengage where you have that option. In a situation where you are not in control your opponent could choose to prevent your disengaging. In the sporting situation where you have no contact to control, your opponent had as many options as you do. In the situations you outlined above you actually disengaged before there was a real involvement, again an impossibility in a sporting context.

Not sure how this was an argument to my comments... I agree that it's all about the context itself, I say that often enough myself, but all I was saying was that relying on a single tactic when you don't know exactly what you'll face, or the restrictions that will exist (in a self defence situation) can lead to trouble.

Sure, moving out of range is an option but again it depends on how you read the situation. If a guy has moved yo attack you it is pretty certain that if you move back he is just going to attack again, this time with the knowledge that you have some avoidance training. If I move back out of range, as you might see with an attack with a weapon, I will be looking to move straight back in once the attack has passed by. Again totally different to the conventional point sparring scenario where you jump in, score a point, then get out of range ready to do it again. In a real life situation I am normally going to wait for the attack to come to me. Then, if it doesn't I won't have to do anything. In the sparring situation, I would be penalised for not showing enough aggression.

Hmm... no, don't think I can agree with that. For one thing, we (human beings) are hardwired in certain ways... one of those ways is to move back (straight back, along what is called the Primal Line) when faced with a sudden attack. So, in the majority of cases, the first thing that you'll do in any real attack scenario is to move back... all I was suggesting was a method of using this natural, built-in skill in a tactical fashion by not fighting against it. I do agree with the sparring/competition comments, of course.

True, but I'm trying to describe training that is available that works on building skill and confidence without going down the 'sparring' path.

Cool, I was just clarifying that those drills, valuable though they are, aren't actually the scenario drills being discussed.

Damn it Chris! If I didn't know you better I'd say you were arguing with me for the sake of arguing!

More for clarification, my friend... oh, and remind me to clear some room and send you a PM with an invitation... keep forgetting... unless you still have my email address?

Chris, I think we all agree that the techniques are not as important as the awareness and verbal judo skills that must be apart of self defense. I think most of us are referring to that point when we failed that and its now physical.

Yeah, I got that. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that tactical application (of the techniques) is far more important than whether you use an open palm, a closed fist, a head butt, or whatever. The actual technique you use (when it becomes a physical altercation) isn't really important... how you use it is.

During your paragraph regarding range, you mentioned keeping a BJJ/grappler in striking range and out of grappling range. I agree with that. The minor issue im having and I have discussed it with my teacher is that bbt, the striking I have mainly seen has always been same foot same side striking. Now I know thanks to your PM'S that the Japanese developed there own striking style due to the nature of they development, but physically and martially. Now according to my teacher we do rear side striking, with out stepping forward into another stance, its just not as prominent and we approach it differently. Having to step with each strike(regardless of fist type used) seams and feels a lot slower to execute then a typical 1-2..

Hmm. There's a lot here... first, and most importantly, you're still confusing contexts. Modern defence against modern grapplers need a modern response, and traditional Japanese arts simply aren't modern responses... really, stop looking at them expecting them to be. They're not designed against a modern grappler, why would they be optimised for it?

Now, from there, yes, we do use rear-hand striking, but that's a minor usage, really (probably about 90% lead hand/leg, 10% opposite, with Koto Ryu and Togakure Ryu having more than any of the other Ryu). And yes, stepping with each strike can be slower... but, again, you have to recognize what it's designed for (and against), and what it's not. Frankly, the arts of the Bujinkan (or any other similar system) don't care at all about handling a modern grappler... as it's just not in their context.

If we are going to be using movement and distance to keep a grappler in a range he is weakest, I would think being able to throw speedier strikes would behoove us? I just feel slower when trying to string together strikes (in the air) with the constant stepping in to strikes. Now we didn't have a lot of time in class to deal with my question as it was late, but he said ill understand as time goes on. They did demonstrate how it is done in the kata, and it of course was the step strike/ step strike same side deal.

Who says that the techniques of the Bujinkan are even suited to handling a modern grappler?

Unless having a rapid barrage of strikes isn't what this art is about. Wonder if it is more about fewer but stronger well placed hits. Wouldn't that mean spending more time controlling the spacing of a grappler if im only getting a shot in every now and then? Still as I type that, it sounds like a sparring problem, but I cant help but wonder how it would play out on the street in self defense. A lot of people Here in the states wrestle in their youth, so basic grappling skill is present in a lot of would be miscreants.

Yeah, we're far more about a deliberate, powerful hit, more surgical than anything else, not a barrage. As for the rest... really, don't expect to find answers to modern problems in the technical answers of the past.

Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers. Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.

Eh, I'm not particularly concerned about grapplers... hell, we are grapplers.... we're just not ground fighters...

Chris, I am curious. I have seen you mention the "physical skill sets of MMA" a few times. Which skill sets, specifically, were you referring to, and in what ways do you think they are effective in the "violent" portion of self defense?

Sorry, I thought that was rather self-explanatory.... I'm talking about the physical methods found in MMA, seen in matches and training gyms, striking and kicking drawn from boxing and kickboxing (in different forms), takedowns and takedown defence from wrestling and Judo, ground work from BJJ etc. I was really just talking about the fact that there's nothing wrong or ineffective in the techniques found in MMA.

 

[MJS]

Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.

Sounds good. As for the use of avoidance you mentioned before....as I said, I agree. If you can avoid the fight altogether, why not do it? Such tactis have saved my *** many times. LOL.

Yeah, again, we're in agreement (I'd target the jaw rather than the ear, but that's it).

Sure, that too!

 

[MJS]

Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.



Yeah, again, we're in agreement (I'd target the jaw rather than the ear, but that's it).



Not sure how this was an argument to my comments... I agree that it's all about the context itself, I say that often enough myself, but all I was saying was that relying on a single tactic when you don't know exactly what you'll face, or the restrictions that will exist (in a self defence situation) can lead to trouble.



Hmm... no, don't think I can agree with that. For one thing, we (human beings) are hardwired in certain ways... one of those ways is to move back (straight back, along what is called the Primal Line) when faced with a sudden attack. So, in the majority of cases, the first thing that you'll do in any real attack scenario is to move back... all I was suggesting was a method of using this natural, built-in skill in a tactical fashion by not fighting against it. I do agree with the sparring/competition comments, of course.



Cool, I was just clarifying that those drills, valuable though they are, aren't actually the scenario drills being discussed.



More for clarification, my friend... oh, and remind me to clear some room and send you a PM with an invitation... keep forgetting... unless you still have my email address?



Yeah, I got that. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that tactical application (of the techniques) is far more important than whether you use an open palm, a closed fist, a head butt, or whatever. The actual technique you use (when it becomes a physical altercation) isn't really important... how you use it is.



Hmm. There's a lot here... first, and most importantly, you're still confusing contexts. Modern defence against modern grapplers need a modern response, and traditional Japanese arts simply aren't modern responses... really, stop looking at them expecting them to be. They're not designed against a modern grappler, why would they be optimised for it?

Now, from there, yes, we do use rear-hand striking, but that's a minor usage, really (probably about 90% lead hand/leg, 10% opposite, with Koto Ryu and Togakure Ryu having more than any of the other Ryu). And yes, stepping with each strike can be slower... but, again, you have to recognize what it's designed for (and against), and what it's not. Frankly, the arts of the Bujinkan (or any other similar system) don't care at all about handling a modern grappler... as it's just not in their context.



Who says that the techniques of the Bujinkan are even suited to handling a modern grappler?



Yeah, we're far more about a deliberate, powerful hit, more surgical than anything else, not a barrage. As for the rest... really, don't expect to find answers to modern problems in the technical answers of the past.



Eh, I'm not particularly concerned about grapplers... hell, we are grapplers.... we're just not ground fighters...



Sorry, I thought that was rather self-explanatory.... I'm talking about the physical methods found in MMA, seen in matches and training gyms, striking and kicking drawn from boxing and kickboxing (in different forms), takedowns and takedown defence from wrestling and Judo, ground work from BJJ etc. I was really just talking about the fact that there's nothing wrong or ineffective in the techniques found in MMA.

Question Chris. Are the Bujinkan methods capable of dealing with a modern grappler or any modern attack for that matter? I know you don't follow the Buj per se, so what makes the way you train, different?

Just trying to understand the arts better.

 

[Kframe]

Cant type much on my phone. Chris, I get that the movements found in kata are from the past. However, what I was told is that this art dosent add techniques to deal with new threats we adapt what we already have. All of which is moot, as right now its more of a academic discussion with no bearing on my training at all to this point. I can only do what im told to do.

I look to the past of our art, because we are always told we adapt the techniques to meet the current threats, thus you have to look to the past to figure out the future.


I do generally get the feeling that my issue with striking will be resolved with time I just like having information ahead of time. Even thought It wont be of any use lol.. The thing they mention a lot is not breaking structure. I wonder how you would manage to throw a proper taijutsu punch from the rear side with out stepping and breaking structure.

I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there. I think they need to develop something else.

 

[Chris Parker]

Question Chris. Are the Bujinkan methods capable of dealing with a modern grappler or any modern attack for that matter? I know you don't follow the Buj per se, so what makes the way you train, different?

Just trying to understand the arts better.

Oh boy... Look, when it comes to the Bujinkan in particular, it's quite difficult to answer. To look at the material that comes from the various Ryu within the system, then no, it's simply not geared up for that at all. Where it then gets into some rather grey areas is that, well, the traditional material (the actual methods of the Ryu that are found in the Bujinkans arts) might or might not be actually followed... or they might be done altered... or they might be ignored almost entirely, with instructors basically making up whatever they want. They might try to address modern situations (modern grapplers, modern striking forms etc), but just because one instructor/dojo does doesn't mean that the actual methods are found in the Bujinkan itself, just in that particular expression/approach.

So, are they capable of handling modern attacks? Well, kinda, sure... there's the potential if an instructor has enough knowledge of what such attacks are actually like, and understands what needs to be altered to deal with it. But the actual, formal material (all of which comes from the Ryu-ha themselves), no, they're just not designed for it. In terms of what I do that's so different, well, for one thing, I don't pretend that the traditional material is anything to do with modern attacks... and I teach modern defensive methodologies completely separately.

Cant type much on my phone. Chris, I get that the movements found in kata are from the past. However, what I was told is that this art dosent add techniques to deal with new threats we adapt what we already have.

Yeah... look, not to say your instructor is lying or anything (I'm pretty sure they believe that), but that's garbage. The principles can be adapted (within reason), but the techniques absolutely have to be changed/added to. If you doubt it, try something like Ichimonji no Kata against a boxers attack from a boxing range...

All of which is moot, as right now its more of a academic discussion with no bearing on my training at all to this point. I can only do what im told to do.

Sure.

I look to the past of our art, because we are always told we adapt the techniques to meet the current threats, thus you have to look to the past to figure out the future.

No. To understand current needs, you need to look to the present. To understand historical usage, you need to look to the past. To understand where the arts methods have come from, you have to look to the past. Big differences there... you might as well say that, in order to understand and use a machine gun, say, an AK-47, you need to study old matchlock rifles... you really don't.

I do generally get the feeling that my issue with striking will be resolved with time I just like having information ahead of time. Even thought It wont be of any use lol.. The thing they mention a lot is not breaking structure. I wonder how you would manage to throw a proper taijutsu punch from the rear side with out stepping and breaking structure.

That would be a question for your instructor... I could show you, but words on a forum aren't really conducive to such a question. It's to do with body control and weight management as you transition, though.

I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there. I think they need to develop something else.

Hmm, no, not really. The "techniques" of MMA are good, solid methods. The "ear muff" cover is very good (I use it myself in our modern methods), but it does need to be done without gloves... and it needs to be very tight against the side of you head... Really, the techniques don't need to be adapted much... it's the tactical application and strategic methodologies that need adaptation there (as you're looking at a modern method being used to deal with a modern method of attack... and, let's not forget, there is a huge influence on modern attack methods directly from the presence and influence of MMA in the current zeitgeist anyway... in other words, attacks have changed in large and small ways to try to imitate/be MMA methods, so of course the technical side of MMA is fine for handling them).

 

[K-man]

I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there. I think they need to develop something else.

We call that 'helmet' or 'cerebellum' cover. We train it without gloves but possibly in a slightly different way to MMA. Primarily we are moving forward slightly as the punch is coming in. The hand is actually on the back of the head with the heel of the hand covering the ear rather than cupping it. The elbow is straight in front so as you move inside the strike you are actually attacking your attacker.

Hmm, no, not really. The "techniques" of MMA are good, solid methods. The "ear muff" cover is very good (I use it myself in our modern methods), but it does need to be done without gloves... and it needs to be very tight against the side of you head... Really, the techniques don't need to be adapted much... it's the tactical application and strategic methodologies that need adaptation there (as you're looking at a modern method being used to deal with a modern method of attack... and, let's not forget, there is a huge influence on modern attack methods directly from the presence and influence of MMA in the current zeitgeist anyway... in other words, attacks have changed in large and small ways to try to imitate/be MMA methods, so of course the technical side of MMA is fine for handling them).

The critical thing here is that there is no gap between the forearm and the bicep. With gloves it doesn't matter but a bare fist can go straight through the gap if you don't get the arm right. Tight against the head is of course important too as is tucking the chin in against the shoulder.
:asian:

 

[MJS]

Oh boy... Look, when it comes to the Bujinkan in particular, it's quite difficult to answer. To look at the material that comes from the various Ryu within the system, then no, it's simply not geared up for that at all. Where it then gets into some rather grey areas is that, well, the traditional material (the actual methods of the Ryu that are found in the Bujinkans arts) might or might not be actually followed... or they might be done altered... or they might be ignored almost entirely, with instructors basically making up whatever they want. They might try to address modern situations (modern grapplers, modern striking forms etc), but just because one instructor/dojo does doesn't mean that the actual methods are found in the Bujinkan itself, just in that particular expression/approach.

So, are they capable of handling modern attacks? Well, kinda, sure... there's the potential if an instructor has enough knowledge of what such attacks are actually like, and understands what needs to be altered to deal with it. But the actual, formal material (all of which comes from the Ryu-ha themselves), no, they're just not designed for it. In terms of what I do that's so different, well, for one thing, I don't pretend that the traditional material is anything to do with modern attacks... and I teach modern defensive methodologies completely separately.

So, that being said, this is why a) people tend to drift, cross train, etc, to other things. I mean, if something is teaching antiquated things, and passing them off as things that'll actually work in todays world, well, IMO, they're doing a dis-service to their student. B) The subject of whether or not real world experience is necessary, is also something that's come up on here, many times. Is RW experience necessary? I mean, we have people teaching that have never been in a fight, we have people teaching that have been in them. Or at the least, been in a position in which they had to defend themselves. Of course, the counter to that, is when people say, "Well, what if the instructor hasn't been attacked with a knife in the RW? Should they still teach knife defense?" I personally know people that have successfully defended themselves empty handed, yet have never had a gun pulled on them, but still teach gun defense. OTOH, those people usually tend to research things a bit more, and train a bit more realistic, ie: scenario training. These are the guys that'll use airsoft training guns, no lie blades, etc, and scenario train. I've found that those folks tend to teach things that have a higher percentage of working, compared to other things that are taught in most places.

 

[Kframe]

Just using my previous experience the only real place is see trouble is trying to strike with rapidity when the situation calls for it. Of course maybe im putting to much into rear side hand striking. Maybe with good power generation I can get good power and speed of striking from just the one lead hand that we do strike with. I still wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the movements tend to be similar to weapons movements. I kind of see Ichimonji as a spear, with the lead hand being the tip of the spear.

I don't know about you but, I still feel it is the person using the techniques that matters more. Of course, I think that our dojo may be different because I have heard repeatedly that the way they were taught to do things was different because Nagase Shihan teaches in a more "combative" method. Which is kinda vague.

When it comes to striking defense, I don't see a issue. The plethora of very usable parries and the quality movement strategies are more then adequate for dealing with strikers. Its just they may not put out as much DPS as modern strikers. However, in the context of street defense, its moot, as most don't have striking training..

I wonder if I and many like me keep looking at every possible thug and miscreant as former UFC champs out looking for a butt to stomp. That's not the case, not in the least.

 

[Chris Parker]

So, that being said, this is why a) people tend to drift, cross train, etc, to other things. I mean, if something is teaching antiquated things, and passing them off as things that'll actually work in todays world, well, IMO, they're doing a dis-service to their student.

Well, yes and no... yes, they're doing a potential dis-service to their students, but at the same time, they might not be. After all, confidence is one of the biggest skills and attributes that can be bestowed by martial training, and that can be done in most systems, regardless of the actual practical applicability of the school and teaching in question. People tend to drift and cross-train, not because they are getting sub-standard information, but more often due to unresolved personal images or doubts, commonly placed there from external fears (stemming from a lack of knowledge, when it comes down to it), such as the fear of "but if they know this (say, ground fighting), I need to know it as well!" When all's said and done, that's actually a fairly unrealistic mentality... but it's also a very common one.

On the other hand, if someone is teaching an antiquated methodology, or a methodology that is exclusively dealing with an alien (different and removed) cultural or societal reality, and the instructor approaches them as being the same thing (sadly, not uncommon), then there's been a disconnect in the reality at some point. Unfortunately (and I'm going to head over to the "Modern versus Antiquated" thread with this soon...) many seem to make the mistake of thinking that violence has always been the same, which is simply far from the reality. But I'll leave that for the other thread.

B) The subject of whether or not real world experience is necessary, is also something that's come up on here, many times. Is RW experience necessary? I mean, we have people teaching that have never been in a fight, we have people teaching that have been in them. Or at the least, been in a position in which they had to defend themselves. Of course, the counter to that, is when people say, "Well, what if the instructor hasn't been attacked with a knife in the RW? Should they still teach knife defense?" I personally know people that have successfully defended themselves empty handed, yet have never had a gun pulled on them, but still teach gun defense. OTOH, those people usually tend to research things a bit more, and train a bit more realistic, ie: scenario training. These are the guys that'll use airsoft training guns, no lie blades, etc, and scenario train. I've found that those folks tend to teach things that have a higher percentage of working, compared to other things that are taught in most places.

Honestly? They don't need to have any actual first-hand experience themselves. Sure, it can help, and it can solidify or validate some or many aspects, but it's not a necessary thing for a variety of reasons. What is needed is a proper education, and an ability to both test and realistically rate methodologies. There needs to be something (based in reality, commonly experience of some kind, although not necessarily first-hand) for the methods and training to be compared to and contrasted with. After a while (when approached properly), you should be able to simply take a new concept, and have enough understanding to ascertain it's usability and realism without having to go out and get in a fight just to prove it works.

Just using my previous experience the only real place is see trouble is trying to strike with rapidity when the situation calls for it. Of course maybe im putting to much into rear side hand striking. Maybe with good power generation I can get good power and speed of striking from just the one lead hand that we do strike with.

We're not Wing Chun. Striking with rapidity just isn't what we do... we're not chain punchers, we're not in a multiple-round match where we're trying to wear down an opponent... it's just not the right context for us. But, on the other hand, you're still getting contexts confused. The stepping punch is very much the traditional methodology, and is commonly out of place in a modern situation... looking at the traditional methods and saying "hey, but a street fight is different, why do we do it this way" without taking into account that the "street" situation just isn't even on the radar of the traditional approach is to miss the point entirely. You really do have to learn to recognize what a traditional context is versus a modern one... and what applies where (and why).

I still wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the movements tend to be similar to weapons movements.

Yep.

I kind of see Ichimonji as a spear, with the lead hand being the tip of the spear.

Nope.

I don't know about you but, I still feel it is the person using the techniques that matters more.

The individual comes later. Unless a particular individual is just naturally gifted and incredibly talented (think Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Musashi...), then it's more down to training methods. After all, if it was just the individual, why would they need to attend a school? The old line about "well, it's up to the individual to use the techniques" is true, but flawed... they can't use the techniques without being trained in how to first, in the tactical application and so forth.

Of course, I think that our dojo may be different because I have heard repeatedly that the way they were taught to do things was different because Nagase Shihan teaches in a more "combative" method. Which is kinda vague.

Yeah... I've heard such things before, and, when it comes down to it, there's little more "combative" in most of the approaches claimed to be... what they might be is a bit harder in application, or it could be more a case of delusions of superiority, or something similar... my first question would be "okay, how is what he does more 'combative' than, say, Hatsumi? Or anyone else, really?", and see what the answer is.... but, again, I tend to take words for their meaning rather than hoped-for implications....

When it comes to striking defense, I don't see a issue. The plethora of very usable parries and the quality movement strategies are more then adequate for dealing with strikers.

With the traditional Ude Uke/Jodan Uke/Uke Nagashi movements? There's some very good principles, certainly... but the actual mechanics need to be altered quite a bit if you expect to handle Western Hands (the most dominant striking methodology around).

Its just they may not put out as much DPS as modern strikers.

Hmm..."DPS".... "Damage Per Second"... I had to look that up. Video game terminology isn't really that usable here... for a range of reasons. For the record, you'd need to clarify a lot here... what "modern strikers" are you talking about? Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on. Some non-sporting systems seek to overwhelm (such as a number of Chinese systems, Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut etc), so might focus on a large number of strikes applied in rapid-fire bursts. We don't do that. We hit to defined targets with a hell of a lot behind them, with the idea of doing as much with one strike as another might with multiples. I had a Wing Chun student once throw a series of chain punches into a pad I was holding, after which he turned to me and asked if I could tell how many strikes he'd thrown. When I couldn't, he looked satisfied, smiled, and said "Exactly! If you can't keep up, how can you block them all?". I told him to hold the pad, and hit it once. That one hit was significantly more than anything he'd thrown, as our mechanics put our entire bodyweight behind everything... he winced, turned away, and shook some feeling back into his hand. "How many was that?"

I don't need to overwhelm with multiple strikes, I'm just going to hit once or twice... any more than that, and I've missed quite badly what I'm aiming for. In other words, we give more "damage per strike", as we're not concerned about 15 rounds, or them necessarily blocking or evading anything (there are reasons for that, of course)... which can very easily be more damage per second as well. To end this little diatribe, Charles Daniel (early generation American instructor, Bujinkan) was once teaching a class for his black belts, which was being watched by one of the students girlfriends. During a break in the class, Charles was talking to her about what she was seeing, and she told him "You're so deliberate in everything you do". "Of course I'm deliberate, I'm lazy!" replied Charles... "I'm not going to throw anything that's not going to land."

However, in the context of street defense, its moot, as most don't have striking training..

Nor do they have grappling training, BJJ training, weapon training, MMA training, or anything else. However, what they need the least of is striking training... and, in a sense, they'll have a lifetimes worth of "striking training" anyway, even if they've never set foot in a gym/dojo/kwoon/dojang in their lives...

I wonder if I and many like me keep looking at every possible thug and miscreant as former UFC champs out looking for a butt to stomp. That's not the case, not in the least.

And, honestly, it's not only a false concern, it's a dangerous one, as you'll spend your time worrying about (and mentally, if not physically preparing you for) something that you won't face... and take time away from preparing for a potential reality.