Question....

FiannaGym.com

A few months ago I posted the 3 paradigms I saw in the great MMA vs TMA debate. THey went soemthing like this...

1/ TMA can't wait to kick everyones ass in the UFC, gets beaten and says...
2/ UFC "rules" invalidate the loses, gets beaten in "no rules" challenges and says....
3/ TMA is for the street, when the pressure is on we know that we will be able to defend ourselves...

I jokingly said that maybe MMA fighters need to jump TMA guys on the street, but already on this board we can see the development of the next great paradigm in the TMA Vs MMA debate...

4/ TMA is for fighting untrained street tuggs not skilled atheletes
This point has been made more and more on these boards.

Part "A" Discuss and does "skilled athletes" include rugby players?
Could TMA training stop a rugby tackle from a trained athlete? Maybe Step to the left, cat stance, snap kick to the face?

I am actually asking these questions seriously.

Peace

kenpo_dave

FiannaGym.com wrote:

A few months ago I posted the 3 paradigms I saw in the great MMA vs TMA debate. THey went soemthing like this...

1/ TMA can't wait to kick everyones ass in the UFC, gets beaten and says...
2/ UFC "rules" invalidate the loses, gets beaten in "no rules" challenges and says....
3/ TMA is for the street, when the pressure is on we know that we will be able to defend ourselves...

I jokingly said that maybe MMA fighters need to jump TMA guys on the street, but already on this board we can see the development of the next great paradigm in the TMA Vs MMA debate...

4/ TMA is for fighting untrained street tuggs not skilled atheletes
This point has been made more and more on these boards.

Part "A" Discuss and does "skilled athletes" include rugby players?
Could TMA training stop a rugby tackle from a trained athlete? Maybe Step to the left, cat stance, snap kick to the face?

I am actually asking these questions seriously.

Peace

Hi Pearse.

IMO the first 3 questions are only about TMA people who:

1. Have defended themselves successfully in the past and so think that they are fighters, they get a bit cocky and decide to enter MMA competitions.

2. Get beaten and then fail to recognise why exacly they got beaten...IMO its not what the styles do but what they dont do...which is grappling and full contact sparring.

3. Try to cover themselves by making an excuse that cant be challenged.

Please understand that Im not saying this is true of all TMA people, but rather those who entered UFC and other MMA competitions and got beaten.

Also I dont consider all TMA to be for the 'street'. The Japanese weapons styles, Kendo, Iai Do/Jutsu etc, and similar styles are more for WAR, or atleast how war used to be in Japan.

As regards question 4. I dont see where the confusion with this is coming from. Thugs and scumbags are not going to be able to fight anywhere near as well as a fighting athlete, nor are rugby players, and for the most part they arent going to have any decent grappling skills. Its as simple as that. Its not difficult to stop rugby tackles, provided the techniques are trained properly.

Regards,

Dave.

Roper

kenpo_dave wrote:

Its as simple as that. Its not difficult to stop rugby tackles, provided the techniques are trained properly.

LOL! You should be on the Leinster coaching team fella! They should know how simple it is, here's them training full time and still getting caught in tackles...

ShaneT

Roper wrote:

LOL! You should be on the Leinster coaching team fella! They should know how simple it is, here's them training full time and still getting caught in tackles...

LOL!

In fairness. I think Dave was talking about situations where you may respond/retaliate with violence. Not a rugby game. ;-)

The Japanese weapons styles, Kendo, Iai Do/Jutsu etc, and similar styles are more for WAR, or atleast how war used to be in Japan.

Kendo is a sport :eek: :eek: :eek: . Iaido is more esoteric practice with more in tune with zen than war.

Its not difficult to stop rugby tackles, provided the techniques are trained properly.

100% disagree. Having played rugby for 5 years (school and club) I can say that's rubbish. Rugby players tackle against resisting opponents all the time. It may be easy to guillotine a rugby player but stopping the tackle can be very hard especially if its unexpected.

FiannaGym.com

kenpo_dave wrote:

Its not difficult to stop rugby tackles, provided the techniques are trained properly.

Okay so what techniques and trained how? for real, because I dont think its that easy.

kenpo_dave wrote:

As regards question 4. I dont see where the confusion with this is coming from. Thugs and scumbags are not going to be able to fight anywhere near as well as a fighting athlete, nor are rugby players

Yeah, so who cares? Why bother training to fight untrained thugs? WHat happens if you meet a thug who has some training? Basically my question can be boiled down to...
If TMA has relegated itself to being for fightign against untrained thugs, why don't people do MMA which will allow them be better fighters in a shorter space of time against an aria of opponents?

Peace

ShaneT

FiannaGym.com wrote:

Okay so what techniques and trained how? for real, because I dont think its that easy.

Peace

Neither do I. But I imagine that getting the hell out of the way would be a good start....

john kavanagh

Roper wrote:

LOL! You should be on the Leinster coaching team fella! They should know how simple it is, here's them training full time and still getting caught in tackles...

i dont have anything to add to this debate because i think the TRUE answer is summed up in the answers people have give to Q.2 in my '2 questions...' thread....

however i thought you guys might find it interesting to note that the Leinster squad have actually been training freestyle wrestling for the past year with Zhifco whom some of you know and also they've asked me to start coaching them in BJJ:D so if you see O'Driscoll guillotining someone in the future you heard it hear first!!!lol:)

Ger Healy

That it I better get on to the Munster Boy and have a quite word with them

memphis

Ger Healy wrote:

That it I better get on to the Munster Boy and have a quite word with them

LOL

Looking like Leamy is out for the leinster v munster game. Met him on Friday night (he's from my home town, and an old mate of mine). He doesn't look too good, he's still limping about. I's reckon its very unlikely that he'll be playing, unless he make a miracle recovery. Who, knows he could surprise us all!!! Shame to see him injured though, he had such a good session.

Anyway, back on topic... kinda drifted away there!!! haha

Roper

ShaneT wrote:

LOL!

In fairness. I think Dave was talking about situations where you may respond/retaliate with violence. Not a rugby game. ;-)

Not a big watcher of Peter Clohessy in his time then?:D

kenpo_dave

columok wrote:

Kendo is a sport :eek: :eek: :eek: . Iaido is more esoteric practice with more in tune with zen than war.


100% disagree. Having played rugby for 5 years (school and club) I can say that's rubbish. Rugby players tackle against resisting opponents all the time. It may be easy to guillotine a rugby player but stopping the tackle can be very hard especially if its unexpected.

Kendo may now be a sport, just as sparring has become a sport (kickboxing etc), but ultimately Kendo and Iaido/jutsu are styles of swordsmanship, and the purpose of swordsmanship is to become skilled in use of swords for combat.

FiannaGym.com wrote:

Okay so what techniques and trained how? for real, because I dont think its that easy

Firstly Id like to point out that in rugby 1. one of your hands is going to be grasping the ball and 2. youre not exactly allowed to strike the tackler.

In terms of self defense. Someone who attempts to tackle you is not going to have the same momentum as in a match. This means the power of the tackle is reduced. Secondly all the guys entire mass is coming straight at you, so you do as Shane said, get the hell out of the way. Specific techniques arent as important as the basic principles. First move out of the line of attack, though I have seen people try to brace the tackle in training. Attack the head, neck and shoulders.

As I said, for there to be any chance of defending a tackle you must train the defenses regularly. Also bare in mind that this if from a strikers point of view. Im sure people who train in Aikido might have something usual to add.

Regards,

Dave

ShaneT

Roper wrote:

Not a big watcher of Peter Clohessy in his time then?:D

I'm a Welshman. So, one of my most enjoyable rugby moments was watching little Arwel Thomas punch out Christophe Lamaison for dirty tackling him from behind.

We lost as usual but it was a proud day for little welshmen... :rolleyes:

Ballisong

Thugs and scumbags are not going to be able to fight anywhere near as well as a fighting athlete,

I disagree thugs and scumbags who fight on the street on a regular basis are generally very good at fighting on the street because they do it so often. They know, without any type of training, to hit first they know how to make an entry on someone i.e. asking someone for a light or asking for the time and while you look at your watch or reach for a light they strike and as you fall or stumble back they continue their assault and there's no ref to stop him jumping on your head or picking up a near by object and hitting you with it. Now i don't know anyone who train in TMA or MMA who could recover from this scenario and I have seen this many times while working the doors. Thugs and scumbags are so good at this because they have the ultimate ALIVE training, the do it for REAL every week.

dlofnep

Just because they fight doesn't mean they are any good at it. I can throw shot puts at people every day, doesn't mean I'm any good at it.. To get good at it, I need to improve my technique and strength.

uberpixie

dlofnep wrote:

Just because they fight doesn't mean they are any good at it. I can throw shot puts at people every day, doesn't mean I'm any good at it.. To get good at it, I need to improve my technique and strength.

But he is making the point they have the mind set,strike first and have no problem jumping on your head till you're a veggie in bed somewhere.

Remember someone posted here before and a bouncer, who was a good fighter, that got sucker punched by some scum bag with a load of rings on his hand?

Bouncer ended up on ground stunned. He was a better fighter and would have kicked his ass back to the stoneage in a straight fight, didn't do him much good on the ground half out of it.

Ballisong

And you improve your technique by doing it over and over again which is what they do and they don't need to be all that strong if they can hit you first and catch you unawares and unless you walk around with a gumshield in your just as prone to a knock out as anyone else

dlofnep

Ballisong wrote:

And you improve your technique by doing it over and over again which is what they do and they don't need to be all that strong if they can hit you first and catch you unawares and unless you walk around with a gumshield in your just as prone to a knock out as anyone else

I find it silly that you would even consider that people fighting on the street improves their technique, most likely while drunk and most likely lasting no longer than 2 minutes.

To improve your technique, you need to understand the dynamics, then to isolate it to improve it and then to try it against someone who doesn't want you to do it (ie a resisting partner) - So, some bum on the street throwing a cheapshot at someone is not improving their technique.

Roper

No, but I they have the benifit of experience, which would enable them to cope with the panic, adrenaline etc. and also they're the aggressor which gives them an immediate advantage as they know how they want the situation to develop.

dlofnep, for someone who claims to not want to train for untrained attackers, you're making an awful lot of assumptions. Placing this imaginary attacker in the "untrained" bracket for example. If we're going to play the imagination game, why not make it realistic and assume he has some skill.

Ballisong

I find it silly that you would even consider that people fighting on the street improves their technique,

Of course they are, the more they do it the better they will be and I'm not talking about bums or drunk idiots, I'm talking about scumbags who get their kicks by beating on people for no reason, which is not uncommon.

To improve your technique, you need to understand the dynamics,

That's not true, to teach a technique well and to help others improve you need to understand it's dynamic and you will improve far more if you do understand it.

So, some bum on the street throwing a cheapshot at someone is not improving their technique.

They are if each time they knock them down quicker or get fewer punches themselves. I'm not condoning what they do, I'm just saying that with repetition, like anyone else they improve.

dlofnep

Roper wrote:

No, but I they have the benifit of experience, which would enable them to cope with the panic, adrenaline etc. and also they're the aggressor which gives them an immediate advantage as they know how they want the situation to develop.

dlofnep, for someone who claims to not want to train for untrained attackers, you're making an awful lot of assumptions. Placing this imaginary attacker in the "untrained" bracket for example. If we're going to play the imagination game, why not make it realistic and assume he has some skill.

I was responding to his comments that some guy fighting on the street will improve his technique by fighting. Fighting on the street wouldn't be my ideal way to improve anything, other than the familiarity of my name with the law.

Ballisong wrote:

Of course they are, the more they do it the better they will be and I'm not talking about bums or drunk idiots, I'm talking about scumbags who get their kicks by beating on people for no reason, which is not uncommon.

Sure that's fine, but I still don't see how they'd improve their technique by sucker punching some poor guy asking him for a light.

Ballisong wrote:

That's not true, to teach a technique well and to help others improve you need to understand it's dynamic and you will improve far more if you do understand it.

Did you even read what I said? I said "To improve your technique, you need to understand the dynamics, then to isolate it to improve it and then to try it against someone who doesn't want you to do it (ie a resisting partner)".

Ballisong wrote:

They are if each time they knock them down quicker or get fewer punches themselves. I'm not condoning what they do, I'm just saying that with repetition, like anyone else they improve.

No, I don't buy into this at all. Hitting a heavy bag or working on a speedball will help your punching, but sucker punching some guy on the street will not.

TapouT

Alot of people here are talking about fighthing scumbags on the street.

In all honesty who has, and what were the circumstances which made you fight?.

waterford mma

take for example ryu, after numerous street fights, his technique remains exactly the same. he does no more damage with any of his moves in the final fight than he did in his first fight. . however i'm sure if he had stayed in japan and trained or if him and the other street fighters shared technique and offered each other pointers etc that their technique would improve.

Ballisong

Fighting on the street wouldn't be my ideal way to improve anything

,

It may not be your ideal way, that doesn't mean that it won't.

Sure that's fine, but I still don't see how they'd improve their technique by sucker punching some poor guy asking him for a light

.

A fight is not just the punch, it's getting the guy to lower his guard and being able to get inside his reactionary gap as well as other things. But lets take the punch for now, what if the first time he does it he sprains his hand, after he's done it a few more times he's figured out how and where to hit someone without hurting his hand and get better results, that's an improvemen

Did you even read what I said? I said "To improve your technique, you need to understand the dynamics, then to isolate it to improve it and then to try it against someone who doesn't want you to do it (ie a resisting partner)".

He is isolating it and doing it on a resisting partner by going out and actually doing, it's more ALIVE training than hitting a heavy bag.

Alot of people here are talking about fighthing scumbags on the street.

In all honesty who has, and what were the circumstances which made you fight?.

I have worked the doors full time for six years now and have had my fair share of fights, my last one was on Saturday night with a scumbag who tried to attack me after I stopped him attacking a guy in line for the club I work at.

dlofnep

He isn't isolating anything, he's just giving some common guy a dig in the face. Really, he will not improve anything. Also Hitting a bag isn't alive and I never said it was.

Before we stem away from the original argument, let's have a look at what you said.

I disagree thugs and scumbags who fight on the street on a regular basis are generally very good at fighting on the street because they do it so often. They know, without any type of training, to hit first they know how to make an entry on someone i.e. asking someone for a light or asking for the time and while you look at your watch or reach for a light they strike and as you fall or stumble back they continue their assault and there's no ref to stop him jumping on your head or picking up a near by object and hitting you with it. Now i don't know anyone who train in TMA or MMA who could recover from this scenario and I have seen this many times while working the doors.

This was in reply to someone stating that scumbags are not as good as fighters as a trained athlete. That person was correct. they will not be. Anybody can give someone a cheap shot. Does that make them a better fighter? No it does not. I could walk up to fedor and cheap shot him - It doesn't mean I'm going to beat him.

I posted a video of some guy who had some minimal training - he was cheap shotted, didn't lose his cool or back away afraid. Why? He felt confident with his training. He went on to send the attacker running away.. (a guy who obviously punches people on the street for no reason - the type of guy you think is a great fighter)

Pro. F

dlofnep wrote:

Anybody can give someone a cheap shot. Does that make them a better fighter? No it does not. I could walk up to fedor and cheap shot him - It doesn't mean I'm going to beat him.

I posted a video of some guy who had some minimal training - he was cheap shotted, didn't lose his cool or back away afraid. Why? He felt confident with his training. He went on to send the attacker running away.. (a guy who obviously punches people on the street for no reason - the type of guy you think is a great fighter)

no anybody can't give someone a cheap shot. just like anything else, it has to be trained.
no, unless you've trained it, you couldn't cheap shot Fedor.
any body can get cheap shotted and then lose, including Fedor, if he acts stupid. which he could do if he never planed and trained for outside of sport fighting.
that video you posted (the one with the red trousers right?) had a weak cheepshot and no follow up. that was not a video of somebody being properly cheap shotted. the guy threw it just to get the other guy to fight; not with real intent and conviction.

people that fight on the street week in week out are good. they may not be the absolute best but they're very good. it stands to reason, if you do something a lot you improve.

dlofnep

Pro. F wrote:

no anybody can't give someone a cheap shot. just like anything else, it has to be trained.

So you're saying, to walk up to a random person and smack them in the face, it requires training? I'm sure all the thugs on the street secretly hang out in some underground dojo training how to punch guys not expecting.

LOL.. So so far from this thread, street fighters are better than trained fighters, cheap shotting people requires training and beating up guys on a saturday night makes you a better fighter.

Yeah.. That makes an awful lot of sense.

Pro. F

dlofnep wrote:

LOL.. So so far from this thread, street fighters are better than trained fighters, cheap shotting people requires training and beating up guys on a saturday night makes you a better fighter.

Yeah.. That makes an awful lot of sense.

well i certainely didn't say and certainly don't think that street fighters are better than trained fighters, as a rule. some are. some aren't. because some street fighters are good and some trained fighters are bad. being a trained fighter (whatever that actualy is may be up for debate) is a big help if you have to fight in the street.
and yes cheap shotting people requires training. no there's no secret dojo (that i know of) just plenty of opportunity to practice in the street. i should have stated that clearly the first time. they practice in the street.

how can you say that you can cheap shot someone without at least finding out the best techniques first?

now as to fighting all the time as a way of improving technique. picture this. someone does old skool hard sparring every 5 nights a week. 100% sparring. is it the best training? no. will everybody, who does it, improve before they get bored of getting a beating? no. will it turn out some good fighters? yes.
the same applies for lads that enjoy a row/fight/giving a beating on a saterday night.
i'm off now. i shouldn't have posted i'm already late!!

dlofnep

Pro. F wrote:

well i certainely didn't say and certainly don't think that street fighters are better than trained fighters

I never said you did.

Pro. F wrote:

as a rule. some are. some aren't.

Too many variables. Given equal time, equal size - trained fighter will win.

Pro. F wrote:

and yes cheap shotting people requires training. no there's no secret dojo (that i know of) just plenty of opportunity to practice in the street. i should have stated that clearly the first time. they practice in the street.

Like I said, you don't need any training to walk up to some guy and smack him. it's not trying to perfect the dynamics of a left hook, it's just punching someone in the face when they are not expecting. Infact, it's probably the most easiest thing to accomplish in your life-time, besides making toast.

Pro. F wrote:

how can you say that you can cheap shot someone without at least finding out the best techniques first?

Stand next to person, clench fist, punch.. You're really trying to make this out to be more complicated than it is.

Pro. F wrote:

now as to fighting all the time as a way of improving technique. picture this. someone does old skool hard sparring every 5 nights a week. 100% sparring. is it the best training? no. will everybody, who does it, improve before they get bored of getting a beating? no. will it turn out some good fighters? yes.
the same applies for lads that enjoy a row/fight/giving a beating on a saterday night.
i'm off now. i shouldn't have posted i'm already late!!

Street thugs won't fight nearly consistently enough, (one or two fights every second or third weekend (and that's being generous) is not enough for anyone to improve any technique).

Roper

Sometimes reading this forum is like being in an episode of Star Trek where things keep repeating themselves, or Groundhog Day or something I dunno....

kenpo_dave

Off-Topic Time.

kenpo_dave wrote:

Kendo may now be a sport, just as sparring has become a sport (kickboxing etc), but ultimately Kendo and Iaido/jutsu are styles of swordsmanship, and the purpose of swordsmanship is to become skilled in use of swords for combat.

No they aren't. Kenjutsu is a term for the arts of swordsmanship. An example of a style of swordsmanship would be Yagyu-Ryu.

Kendo is a sport. The purpose is to become proficient with the use of the shinai. It has many many complicated rules.
Iaido is not a style of swordsmanship. It is a martial art devoted to the drawing, blood removal and re-sheathing of a blade.
Battojutsu is devoted to the cutting of the blade..

Swordsmanship would be a combination of the three (and many more)as each one is essential to the overall skillset and in the absence of one - none are complete and therefore dont resemble anything used in times of war.

Back on topic

Firstly Id like to point out that in rugby 1. one of your hands is going to be grasping the ball and 2. youre not exactly allowed to strike the tackler.

Punching won't do any good. Look at the good punching does when someone executes a double or single leg. In my opinion to not be rugger tackled you need to have a good sprawl and if the tackle is executed you need a good guard game. Simple enough. To be able to defend your self against a rugby player you need to do some wrestling and some groundfighting (not forgetting striking). A rugby player is an athlete who puts other big monster athletes on their asses how many days a week. A martial artist with no sprawl game and isn't gonna be any opposition.

Ballisong

Like I said, you don't need any training to walk up to some guy and smack him. it's not trying to perfect the dynamics of a left hook, it's just punching someone in the face when they are not expecting. Infact, it's probably the most easiest thing to accomplish in your life-time, besides making toast.

It's only easy if the guy is completely unaware of whats going on, and very few people walk around with their head so far up their hole that they wouldn't have some kind of warning of what was about to happen. Unless you've done it how do you know it's so easy to do? The scumbag can't just appear from thin air, unless he's a ninja , so getting to striking range unheeded must require some skill.

Street thugs won't fight nearly consistently enough, (one or two fights every second or third weekend (and that's being generous) is not enough for anyone to improve any technique).

What are you basing this on? I see the same guys every weekend trying to start fights and see the same names in the paper every week and even if it were accurate thats more than most fighters compete, I work with two competing mma fighters and train with several Thai boxers who compete.

LOL.. So so far from this thread, street fighters are better than trained fighters, cheap shotting people requires training and beating up guys on a saturday night makes you a better fighter.

Yes in a street fight a street fighter is better than a trained fighter, it's what they do. In the ring obviously he'd be beaten because he would have to adhere to the rules, on the street it's a whole different game and one in which he's very accomplished. I'm not saying it's right to beat up people but the more they do it the better they will get.

Also Hitting a bag isn't alive and I never said it was.

I know you didn't, my point is he's putting his technique, from getting close enough to his target to getting him to drop his guard to the actual strike and the follow up into the ultimate alive scenario against a completely resistant opponent.

Pro. F

dlofnep wrote:

Too many variables. Given equal time, equal size - trained fighter will win.

I'd agree with you here, in a fair fight. provided the trained fighter was doing an effective MA and was doing some serious fight practice (eg pro rules mma, muay thai, boxing, etc. or good aggression training and heavy sparring) to complement his normal training.
but you can be a great fighter and get cheap shotted if you haven't studied and trained in the psychology of street fights. i'm by no means an expert. but just listening to the evidence and doing some of the training opened my eyes.

Like I said, you don't need any training to walk up to some guy and smack him. it's not trying to perfect the dynamics of a left hook, it's just punching someone in the face when they are not expecting. In fact, it's probably the most easiest thing to accomplish in your life-time, besides making toast.

Ballisong briefly mentioned some of the more complicated aspects and concerns of the cheap shot earlier; the factors outside the punch which, among other things, make the effects of the punch more certain. you seem to know nothing about it and not want to find out anything about it. your choice. if you change your mind there are people on this board who can direct you to info better than i can. for us, i suppose, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Street thugs won't fight nearly consistently enough, (one or two fights every second or third weekend (and that's being generous) is not enough for anyone to improve any technique).

i'd say a few every weekend.

more off-topic time

Originally Posted by columok
Swordsmanship would be a combination of the three [ed. kendo, iado and Battojutsu] (and many more)as each one is essential to the overall skillset and in the absence of one - none are complete and therefore dont resemble anything used in times of war.

interesting topic. Donn F. Draeger wrote a lot on the difference between Japanese martial arts (jutsu) and martial ways (do) where 'way' means a way for spiritual, cultural, psychological and health development. three volumes of Martial Arts And Ways Of Japan (Classical Bujutsu, Classical Budo & Modern Bujutsu & Budo) i have only read the first two. from what i can remember the main point was that older jutsus were born on the battlefield and were based around effective combat. where as more modern dos were adapted versions of the battelfield arts, changed to make them more effective for personal development, with a sacrifice of effectiveness.
eg iajutsu to iado; kenjutsu to kendo etc.
so the bushi in fuedal japan didn't combine jutsus and dos to be more effective they just did jutsus. then changed to dos when society required fewer maniacs with swords.
Note: this comment doesn't cover arts developed within the last 150 years - i haven't read the third book yet

judomick

Ballisong wrote:

Yes in a street fight a street fighter is better than a trained fighter, it's what they do.

trained fighter in what? if i took anyone from SBG (1 years training) and they were to fight a untrained thug(similiar weight), my money would be on the sbg guy 100% this is not biased its common sense! we train 5 days a week in a physical martial art that by its nature is fighting effectively(bjj,mma), the other guy has lets say 1 drunken fight a week, no technique,cardio, or skill involved just agression, he has a haymakers chance but thats 1 in 100 imo

Dragan

Ballisong wrote:

It's only easy if the guy is completely unaware of whats going on, and very few people walk around with their head so far up their hole that they wouldn't have some kind of warning of what was about to happen. Unless you've done it how do you know it's so easy to do? The scumbag can't just appear from thin air, unless he's a ninja , so getting to striking range unheeded must require some skill.

Rubbish!!! No offence dude, but when you are walking down the street or across a pub etc, very few, and i mean a minor percentage of people are watching for any sort of attack!

Next time you are walking down Grafton steet, see how many people you pass who will be half looking the other way to check out windows, or take to friends or be buried in there phone. And why? Because you don't expect to simply be punched in the face in the middle of a busy street.

So all in all, it takes no skill whatsoever to get withing sticking distance.

Next time your down the pub and some one is walking along in front of you, or needs to squeeze past because it's a little crowded......thats striking distance!!!

Now then, thankfully, i had never really thought about any of this stuff until you made that post.......jesus, do RBSD people need to think about all that stuff????

Man, that would suck!!!!

Ballisong

Rubbish!!! No offence dude, but when you are walking down the street or across a pub etc, very few, and i mean a minor percentage of people are watching for any sort of attack!

I never said that they were watching for any sign of attack, thats the last thing on most peoples mind and it should be. What I'm saying is that most people and I assume that you are one of them are generally aware of whats going on around them.

Next time you are walking down Grafton steet, see how many people you pass who will be half looking the other way to check out windows, or take to friends or be buried in there phone. And why? Because you don't expect to simply be punched in the face in the middle of a busy street.

If this were the case then Grafton street would be full of people walking into each other, lampposts and other inanimate objects, this isn't an every day occurrence because on some level people are aware of whats going on around them.

Next time your down the pub and some one is walking along in front of you, or needs to squeeze past because it's a little crowded......thats striking distance!!!

I'm in a night club 5 nights a week, thats where I work and yes most people are well within striking range of each other but in all the time I've worked in pubs and clubs I've never come across a totally unprovoked attack, most of the fights are over someone upsetting someone else, no matter how insignificant it may be there is always a reason the fight started i.e. he looked at me funny, he spilled my drink he was talking to my girlfriend, in these scenarios if someone had had the sence to walk away there may not have been a fight, usually drink and ego are a big factor. I've reviewed hundreds of fights from pubs and clubs CCTV footage and not one was a totally unprovoked attack everyone of them started from something stupid. The people who start unprovoked attacks generally don't get let into the places I work after 6 years of door work, 5 nights a week you get pretty good at spotting trouble makers.

Now then, thankfully, i had never really thought about any of this stuff until you made that post.......jesus, do RBSD people need to think about all that stuff????

Well at least I got you thinking about it good or bad

Dragan

Yeah but basically the problem is all about how you interpret someone being that close to. Regardless of the situation or who it is, 95% of the time people never worry about what is really going on around them, as nothing bad ever really happens to people ( on the grand scale of things and all that!!!!! ).

As such, we let people into striking distance all the time, and just assume that they will not!

As such, getting into someones striking distance does not really involve any skill at all!!!

Having spent a long time working in clubs etc i know exactly what you mean about very few attacks being unprovoked, but as far as i am aware the point of contention is just how easily people let other people into striking distance. Which is pretty easily!!!!

Even in the old club face off which will often happen before any fists are thrown, both guys are normally within range of each other!!!

Silly beggars!!!

The Bored One

Personally I feel that the best thing a person could do is a combination of MMA and TMA. There is an awful lot of useful techniques and skills in TMA styles such as Aikido. Doing MMA as well would be a good way of field testing and learning what does and does not work, what modifications are neccessary, as well as giving you a useful and tough skill set for fighting anyway.
To me all martial arts represent different skill sets or tools, and Im interested in having a tool for every occassion as it were.
Course thats just my intentions, every one has their own way.

Ballisong

Yes thats it, it is easy to get into someones striking range, it's not easy to go up and hit someone unprovoked without showing any sign of intent. I'm sure 99.9% people on this forum are decent folk and as such would find it hard to hit some innocent for no reason, I know I would, we would have to build our self up for it, how do you do this without projecting some sort of intent, but scumbags manage to do it, to my mind that is a skill, even though it is used in a negative way. If you think of it this way, when you were on the door you can tell when someone is going to hit you, their not in any stance and their arguing with you like hundreds of people have done before without striking out, but some how you know whats coming, your picking up on his intent, it's not some mystical bulls*$t but basic human instinct.

The Bored One

The Bored One wrote:

Personally I feel that the best thing a person could do is a combination of MMA and TMA. There is an awful lot of useful techniques and skills in TMA styles such as Aikido. Doing MMA as well would be a good way of field testing and learning what does and does not work, what modifications are neccessary, as well as giving you a useful and tough skill set for fighting anyway.
To me all martial arts represent different skill sets or tools, and Im interested in having a tool for every occassion as it were.
Course thats just my intentions, every one has their own way.

Pressure testing ones traditional martial arts techniques in a "realistic resisting opponent setting" is indeed the best way of evolving our understanding of what works and what doesnt.

Essentially all martial arts contain the same basic stuff- throws, holds, locks, chokes, punches, kicks, elbows, knees, headbutts. The fundamental difference is training methods. Over time, using the wrong training methods for fighting, techniques warp and change. In the end we can be left with something that is lightyears away from the original.

I'll use some examples... The irimi in Aikido is quite similar (I suppose) to the 2 in 1 in wrestling. The 2-in-1 however is much easier to apply against a resisting opponent. It isn't stylised or pretty. It's simple and it works.

The roundhouse kick in TKD and the thai roundhouse kick. Same basic principle. The TKD one got changed to deal with semi contact- the muay thai one kept the original intention of maximum damage. Apply a TKD roundhouse kick in a full contact environment and you may break your foot. Also it'll be a 10th of the power of a muay thai kick.

So pretty much all martial arts teach the same stuff. Some bad training methods change it. You aren't left with something new or different but something that won't work as well in a full contact situation.

Dragan

Ballisong wrote:

Yes thats it, it is easy to get into someones striking range, it's not easy to go up and hit someone unprovoked without showing any sign of intent. I'm sure 99.9% people on this forum are decent folk and as such would find it hard to hit some innocent for no reason, I know I would, we would have to build our self up for it, how do you do this without projecting some sort of intent, but scumbags manage to do it, to my mind that is a skill, even though it is used in a negative way. If you think of it this way, when you were on the door you can tell when someone is going to hit you, their not in any stance and their arguing with you like hundreds of people have done before without striking out, but some how you know whats coming, your picking up on his intent, it's not some mystical bulls*$t but basic human instinct.

Point well made!!!!

The Bored One

columok wrote:

Pressure testing ones traditional martial arts techniques in a "realistic resisting opponent setting" is indeed the best way of evolving our understanding of what works and what doesnt.

Essentially all martial arts contain the same basic stuff- throws, holds, locks, chokes, punches, kicks, elbows, knees, headbutts. The fundamental difference is training methods. Over time, using the wrong training methods for fighting, techniques warp and change. In the end we can be left with something that is lightyears away from the original.

I'll use some examples... The irimi in Aikido is quite similar (I suppose) to the 2 in 1 in wrestling. The 2-in-1 however is much easier to apply against a resisting opponent. It isn't stylised or pretty. It's simple and it works.

The roundhouse kick in TKD and the thai roundhouse kick. Same basic principle. The TKD one got changed to deal with semi contact- the muay thai one kept the original intention of maximum damage. Apply a TKD roundhouse kick in a full contact environment and you may break your foot. Also it'll be a 10th of the power of a muay thai kick.

So pretty much all martial arts teach the same stuff. Some bad training methods change it. You aren't left with something new or different but something that won't work as well in a full contact situation.

I agree that some Aikido is far too stylised, but Im doing a modified version of Aikdio anyway, and its been broken down to as basic as possible. And it makes use of biting, shin kicks, headbutts and throat punching. Which is nice.