Assumptions....

MaeveD

I thought this article was pretty good....

http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1783

john kavanagh

i certainly agree there is no 'best' martial art

but imho there are 'best' training methods - if you're goals are to have quantifiable, measurable, functional fighting ability.

if your training goals are just to have fun, then just do what makes you smile:D

as for the rest of the article...yeah 'what ifs', there everywhere...what if there's 2, 3 or 10 of them, what if they have knives/guns/modified torches/curly wurly bars:eek: personally i think you should get handy at dealing with a single, unarmed fighter first then worry about the 'what ifs'

just my $0.02

Cabelo

That was lovely. Even a dancer could be epic

columok

Every system of understanding is based on limits and assumptions. To do anything we MUST assume. Everything we do in life is based on assumptions. We walk on the footpaths assuming that they have'nt been changed into roads. We eat our dinners assuming that our loved ones haven't laced them full of poisons when we weren't looking. Some assumptions we think of, some are automatic. Martial arts are a part of the world we live in and should be no different. It's all well and good for a Japanese sensei to insist that we shouldn't assume but its deeply deeply unrealistic and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world we live in.

Oh and Donny is an arsehole...

dranoc

I dont understand the recent need for the traditional arts to be saying that BJJ and MMA is ineffective because they can't deal with a knife attack.

But, that aside, my question is: if that sensi had not had the lace how would he have done ? I think quite badly. Now if you say to me that he ALWAYS has the lace on stand by in case of a take-down attempt , well good, he is ready for it.

The MMA'er always has his "sprawl" with him.

John is correct. A person should learn to deal with one before training for multiple attackers. And for sure if you cant deal with one unarmed how do you think you could deal with one with a knife ??

It seems like common sense but the point is always missed.

Roper

Yes, Donny is a bell end.

I thought the article was good to a point. There certainly is no ultimates, and I would say that any good self defence teacher will tell you that irregardless of whether they teach Kenpo or MMA.

I think the problem with some of these arguments and articles we see is that they generally give an example of a complete dick like Donny and use him as a marker for MMAers. We saw it with crazy Silat man (my dogs are still waiting on my solicitors letter) and his "MMA guys" shouting abuse at him etc. Or when we see some idiots taping their mate beating up another guy. Then again, about a year ago a load of "MMA guys" cam to a boards meet and did some escrima, Taekwondo and Capoeira and nobody challenged anyone.

For me the ultimate way is MMA, not because it teaches me to be a perfect fighter, but because the entire concept is based around improvement without boundaries. So I can take a throw from judo, a face rake from combatives, a shoe string choke from classical budo (:) ) and incorporate it into my game, so long as I have a good base from which to work.

Roper

Who?

loz

EmuLemu wrote:

I think Twokingsmick may have been challenged by someone and subsequently beat him up.

Don't recall anyone challenging anyone - nor anyone getting beaten up - although Mick did introduce me to Mr Guillotine...:eek:

pearsquasher

Sorry, I don't understand the problem with the article. On the "assumption" thing, the article dealt with one guys wrong (in this case) assumption about the outlook of one partcular koryu person. The fact that there was an assumption, isn't in dispute, and so saying that the koryu person is "deeply deeply unrealistic and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world we live in" based on the article, is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

By the way, I personally think that the idea of a seminar designed to show the difference between classical and sports MA is a bit odd. Not sure why the koryu guy would bother. It'd be like someone from apple showing the difference between microsoft and apple computers to a professional IT crowd....... i'm sure the people there know by now the difference. If the crowd is new to computers, then show them how the Mac works, what it can do etc, then let the user go to a microsoft seminar and see their stuff and let them figure out the pro's and cons for their needs, themselves.

pearsquasher

And perhaps ring-based fighting is "quantifiable and measurable", but is real close quarters fighting? How do you measure success in a real confrontation? What is "success" in a confrontation? The Brazillian guy on the tube was sucessfully subdued, but it wasn't the "right" outcome in many ways. Too many variables to measure/quantify human conflict under real stress, it seems. I do understand that competition contains a lot of the variables, but many people feel not enough to reliably simulate reality while others reckon it's enough. No-one can say who's right for sure otherwise one idea would be dropped by now wouldn't it?

Perhaps a healthy mix of both is the way..... true MMA!!!!!

Jean Luc

a noob question but I always thought that MMA was someone who were fully trained to high standards (say black belt) in four or five different arts..
From what I've read it seems to be just a bit from each one?
Is this true? If so why do MMA supporters constantly seem to knock people who follow on or two arts only? A good example was the guy who asked was anyone doing kenpo on this forum and the MMA guys starting slating it when the guy only wanted to talk to other Kenpo artists?

pearsquasher

A black belt in many arts is far from high standard but the beginning of the art... as far as I can see. MMA isn't a formal classification either is it, so I guess you could ask the MMA instructors on their individual qualifications in other arts to see what's what. It depends what you want to learn from them. Self defence? Sports? Security services? Reputation counts for a lot in these things and with sports its "wins" in reputable competitions I guess.

Personally if it was an MMA person I wanted to train with, for say, self defence.....I'd find out all their credentials in other arts and expect high levels in each. If i wanted to become a great sports fighter i'd do some digging on their success rate. If it's the security services then I'd see who's training in the system and what sort of work/expericence they're involved with and who they're training - cops, private military etc. On the other hand you could just have a personable affinity with someone and go with that if you enjoyed the training. Maybe you'll get blown away by the potential instructors techniques. Maybe you won't a few years after you start. It's a tough call starting out and certainly takes most people a while to settle on their chosen art. I think we can all agree on that!

judomick

jean luc the "mma guys " that slated Kenpo are black belts in that art, i would think there more than qualified to comment on it? maybe it was off topic but do you not think they are at a level in kenpo where they can comment?

judomick

jean luc the "mma guys " that slated Kenpo are black belts in that art, i would think they are more than qualified to comment on it? maybe it was off topic but do you not think they are at a level in kenpo where they can comment?

Roper

pearsquasher wrote:

A black belt in many arts is far from high standard but the beginning of the art... as far as I can see. MMA isn't a formal classification either is it, so I guess you could ask the MMA instructors on their individual qualifications in other arts to see what's what. It depends what you want to learn from them. Self defence? Sports? Security services? Reputation counts for a lot in these things and with sports its "wins" in reputable competitions I guess.

Personally if it was an MMA person I wanted to train with, for say, self defence.....I'd find out all their credentials in other arts and expect high levels in each. If i wanted to become a great sports fighter i'd do some digging on their success rate. If it's the security services then I'd see who's training in the system and what sort of work/expericence they're involved with and who they're training - cops, private military etc. On the other hand you could just have a personable affinity with someone and go with that if you enjoyed the training. Maybe you'll get blown away by the potential instructors techniques. Maybe you won't a few years after you start. It's a tough call starting out and certainly takes most people a while to settle on their chosen art. I think we can all agree on that!

Fine in theory Pearsquasher, but lets face it, there's hardly a marker laid down for what constitutes a good qualification in martial arts in Ireland. I'm sure we all know really poor 4th degree black belts and really good blue belts. I think the measure of a succesful martial arts school is whether it does what it says on the tin or not, irregardless of what the instructors credentials are.

BJJ for example is in it's infancy in Ireland, so a few people might go to the top BJJ gym here and say, "well the coach isn't even a black belt, and everybody knows that's the benchmark for an instructor". I'm sure we could say the same for some of the FMA's (though I can't really comment), and a great many of the training groups around Ireland. Yet by training in these places you'd probably learn far more than in some Grandmaster's school.

Baggio...

Hey Roper,

I'd agree with you on that. The whole black belt thing is a very grey area in my book. I've been given a black belt because I went through the A.K. Syllabus, and was able to preform a set of pre-determined moves at an acceptable level of competence. This in no way qualifies me as a decent fighter – it just means I can do Kenpo to a black belt standard. Also the way Black belts are thrown around these days they mean less and less. Sure, you can by them on ebay with certs.

To be honest with you I'd much rather fight a black belt. Before I'd take on a Boxer or MMA guy. In my opinion a average boxer will knock-out a good black belt with little or no trouble (of course there can always be exceptions). One of the reasons I think Combatives is so effective is because it uses the same body mechanics of boxing (with some good old fashioned dirty tricks).

"it's the man - not the Dan"

But that's just me,

Bagg.

dlofnep

Jean Luc wrote:

a noob question but I always thought that MMA was someone who were fully trained to high standards (say black belt) in four or five different arts..
From what I've read it seems to be just a bit from each one?
Is this true? If so why do MMA supporters constantly seem to knock people who follow on or two arts only? A good example was the guy who asked was anyone doing kenpo on this forum and the MMA guys starting slating it when the guy only wanted to talk to other Kenpo artists?

Jean Luc.. competence in all ranges, is alot better than being an expert in one range and not others.

An example. Let's say you have Jack Spratt who trains in Spratt-do for 10 years. His training methods involve repeated kata, rarely any sparring and he never competes to test what he has learned so he can refine it if need be. What you get is 10 years of bad habits and 10 years of false pretences. After 10 years he enters a competition in Spratt-do.. He squares off against Jimmy Spratt. Jimmy however has constantly refined his technique has he continously competes. He has only been learning for 2 years, but in those two years he has made the correct progress.

Who wins? Jimmy wins 99 times out of 100. Why? He knows what to expect. Here 10 years of training and a black belt means nothing.

The same goes for MMA. Take a guy with one year's MMA training. He covers all ranges, striking, clinch, and the ground game.. Because of the way he trains, he knows what to expect in each scenario. He's not worried about belts and can personally assess his own progress. He doesn't have to be an expert in all, but he eventually will probably prefer one range over the other.. Later on in his life he will incorporate this into his gameplan.

Time is only important if you train correctly. What is the correct way to train? In my opinion - It is to constantly compete, and to train agaisnt resisting partners.. This helps you refine your technique as if something doesn't work at first, you can either disregard it or improve it until it does.