I will apologies right now because this is going to get ugly. I am Sorry to those of you that I will offend.
Your apology is not accepted.
If you're intending to offend someone with a statement, then "apologizing in advance" does not make your comments any less offensive. If you want to construct an argument that actually explains why you believe what you do, that's one thing, and that's something people can discuss. But posting vitriolic commentary with self-edited by blatantly obvious swearing is not helpful and doesn't really persuade me to believe your statements.
Elite fighters are you ****ing kidding me, they play a sport like boxing or MMA or ring sparring that does no eqaute to self defense.
Actually, it does. It allows for a controlled environment in which to develop skills to be applied outside of that environment. There is a difference in training for the ring and training for self-defense, but that does not negate the fact that alive, resistive training, and sparring are absolutely necessary for developing a solid set of reliable skills, a tool box, a delivery system that you can depend on.
You're creating a false dichotomy by saying the issue is "street vs. sport", when this is completely not the case.
What the **** does an elite fighter really know about S.D. principles?
How do we know that you or any other instructor of self-defense knows anything about self-defense principles? What requirements are you setting by making this statement?
What are "self-defense principles"?
Why does utilizing alive training metholody automatically mean ignorance of self-defense principles?
I have seen S.D. people wipe MMA or fighters up, because the fighters are not use to using what ever they have in there tool chest.
This is called anecdotal evidence. You say this, but offer no proof. Do you have videos of this happening? You expect us to believe you, but this proves nothing.
I've seen "S.D. people" get destroyed by MMA fighters because the tool box they thought they had was full of skills they couldn't actually apply in an alive environment.
Anecdotal evidence, contrasting yours.
No proof whatsoever.
They only know rules of engagaement in a stituation there are no rules survivals is the only winner. Please remember the two are both equally good but only one can really defend.:asian:
Are you telling me that an MMA fighter cannot defend against strikes, kicks, throws, and joint locks? Are you telling me that someone trained by the Dog Brothers cannot defend themselves against someone wielding a pipe, a stick, a bad, a bottle?
Really?
That their training hampers them?
What sort of training program would you recommend then?