mick coup post copy and paste

takeda shingen

I read this post over on self protection dot com. I know that mick coup posted ocassionaly on this site but thought that for those who dont read that site, its worth a look.
bottom line for me out of this is: a hard smack in the mouth is a hard smack in the mouth. forget your over anal ised concept of delivery systems. whether it is muay thai, mma, kyokoshin, western boxing, the gung fu, savate, jujutsu. if they can hurt you and they have being hurting people for many years, keep at it.


Mick Coup post


As far as the whole 'MMA vs. combatives' issue is concerned, what's the real difference? I see the same punches, the same kicks and knees - nothing vastly different at all. The only constant separation that really exists is the context of the activity, and this leads to varying training methods employed to meet it, nothing more.

As some will be aware, personally I do not use the term 'combatives', or any variation such as 'CQC', 'H2H' etc, to define a separate and self-contained entity - I leave that for the more naïve to obsess over, along with 'lineage' and the like - actually it's just a generic handle describing how a selection of (similar) skills are intended to be used, in this case within a fighting, not competing, context.

To this end, I personally feel that any style/system/art can be 'combative' if you practice and intend it for actually fighting with, just as they could also be utilised in a 'sportive' context if a symmetrical and controlled competitive outlet were sought.

A punch to the head is the same whether performed in a 'combative' or 'sportive' scenario - the same applies to a takedown or strangle - in fact, considering it's all the same arms and legs, what could possibly be different?

To take the side of 'MMA' first, it's generally regarded as one of the toughest of all the combat-related sportive endeavours - with good reason too, and I wholeheartedly agree. Although in a 'pure' sense, most people practice what could be described as MMA - not just today, but it has always been this way - for example the revered WW2 instructors certainly did! For the purpose of this piece I'm simply using the term to refer to the sport-based NHB-type systems, nothing else.

I am always amused to read the stereotypical 'combatives' practitioners deride the various MMA competitors for their lack of 'dangerous' techniques, and restrictive rules that supposedly render what they do only 'sport' and never 'street' - for the most part MMA does actually 'boil' down what works and what doesn't, if you step back and consider the bigger picture.

The early UFC events - admittedly I never followed these in detail, but have seen enough to know - seemed to establish exactly how effective certain techniques actually were, and raised several disappointed eyebrows in the process!

Rules seemed to be thin on the ground back then, but I still didn't notice many axehands or chinjabs putting any opponents away, even though I know for a fact that they were included within the skillset of many of the early fighters.

Remember the pre-fight profiles, and the demonstrations of the various 'deadly' techniques that mostly never made an appearance, even though they would've certainly been allowed?

For the most part, I feel that the average MMA competitor does indeed have superior training methods compared to the majority of his 'combatives' counterparts - and this is largely due to the beneficial result of having a workable, though restricted, skill-base that can be directly applied to a resisting opponent in a 'safe' and controlled manner without huge padded-suits and the like, utilised during each and every training session to build up the necessary 'flight time' exposure.

Note how I use the term 'average' above - one of the common flaws of any comparison-based argument is to unfairly place an expert from one party against a novice from another.

Dismissing an entire system or method because it wouldn't prevail against a world champion UFC/PRIDE fighter is a lame argument - nothing does, including 'MMA' stuff, that's why they're champions! I prefer to keep debates objective, removing false positives such as the phenomenal ability of select individuals, and to concentrte on the bigger picture - the 'probable', not just the 'possible' so to speak.

Classing this ring/cage skillbase as ineffective for the street - as some do - is laughable, most of the fit young men who ended up in hospital around the world last weekend didn't suffer at the hands of eyejabs and the like - just good old-fashioned blunt trauma to the head, which is admirably covered in most MMA-club training regimes!

It's true to say that MMA is a symmetrical-combat scenario in essence, as most of its 'combative' detractors will be quick to point out - but it's equally true that the most skilled MMA practitioners don't seem to realise this and perform with pure asymmetrical tactics, and win because of it - no mean feat considering that key and crucial elements of 'surprise' and 'artifice' are distinctly absent!

MMA fighters are understandably proud of their tough sport, and of the gruelling training that goes with it. I can appreciate their apparent lack of respect that is sometimes shown for the 'combatives community' - as often it is well grounded when their 'online opponents' have berated them with cries of 'sport', and all along some poor Spar-Pro is beaten to death every other night with theoretical deadliness, using techniques that are 'far too dangerous' to ever be used except in 'life threatening' circumstances that never actually appear to the vast majority of the 'combat tourists'.

This leads to more and more stylised methods appearing, the exact opposite to the original intention of most 'pure' combative methods, which in effect the MMA crowd still retain - is that irony perhaps? Regardless of whatever rules are in place, they still aspire to physically and forcefully 'stop' an active and aggressive enemy.

The above is true in many cases - unfortunately but also undeniably, but equally not all 'combatives' exponents are insular 'garage commandos' leading dubious tactical lifestyles! Certain individuals looking to bypass real work, committed time and personal sacrifice do indeed seem to gravitate toward 'combatives' as a short cut of sorts - learning from books and DVDs, and practising alone is no substitute for the watchful eye of an experienced instructor and the resistance of a real partner - and associated exposure to applying and resisting force.

It's absolutely true to say, and I must stress the following - that not all combatives-orientated individuals fall into this negative typeset, many do train with an intensity and focus that is easily the equal of their MMA counterparts, so nothing should be taken away from them in this respect.

On the other hand, sometimes the MMA guys do lose sight of context, and whilst performing within the rules of their chosen sport undoubtedly gives massive crossover value for real fighting, it isn't the exact same deal is it? This only applies to those that actually argue that their sport is 'all you need' - and that fighting is the same regardless of context. For the entirely sport-focused, those that make no bones about the 'street' issue, this argument needn't be applied.

Groundfighting, grappling-based, is a major portion of the current MMA game - though possibly there is now a move away from its previous emphasis - and this most definitely does not translate to realistic applications in any form as a preferred option.

Submission holds, and anything that supports a prolonged approach to fighting has little combative mileage also - except in team-based security applications - and some of the 'pre-programmed' positions adopted are without question effective within a sporting context, but less so when the rules are removed and options for resistance are broadened.

This is, of course, not the huge deal that many make it out to be - as previously addressed, applying liberal 'blunt force' to a person can generally offset such academic criticism!

Combat is a truly, exceptionally, dynamic affair - most criticisms of technique and the like, from both camps, are directed to what is actually a 'still' shot taken from a 'movie' - run the camera and see the real effect! When demonstrating various concepts it's not uncommon to hear "but that leaves you open...." and suchlike, to which the best answer has to be "tell me that when I'm hitting you in the head!" - it's all about application ultimately, not academics, about who is 'left' and not about who is 'right'!

Ultimately - and from a completely 'street effective' perspective - 'combative' training is limited by currently available practice formats, simulations are excellent - but are still not 'combat'. 'Sportive' training is hampered by restrictive rule-requirements that can condition 'out' certain essential tactics in favour of others, but the whole 'alive' experience usually makes up for this - often a less 'deadly' technique can be more effective than a more 'deadly' technique if it is supported by better training. It's a simple fact that it's 'easier', from an application and logistic point of view, to train effectively within the typical MMA skillset than it is with the corresponding combatives version - padding can be worn over the closed hands, eye and throat protection isn't an issue and so forth.

Possibly, and moving forward from the usual stalemate argument, a compromise can be achieved. Training a purely combative skillset with high intensity - obviously many already do this, but - in truth - plenty do not! Force on force options are tricky, and to achieve the combative equivalent of hard sparring is difficult - substituting 'safer' techniques will definitely 're-programme' them as the default options, to the exclusion of the original methods.

This seems to be the most positive argument submitted by the MMA exponents - why indeed have techniques that you cannot train? Unless they are constantly utilised, in the exact situation that they are intended for - they may well be part of your 'system' but they won't surface when required.

In essence, during high-stress situations - and every single incidence of real combat is one of these - expect to fall to the level and substance of your training, not to rise to your desires and expectations of the occasion.

Attacking the eyes and neck is always going to be hard to train in a 'live' drill - the fragility of these areas is precisely what makes them such effective targets, even with the best-available protection, safety rules out any real force being directed at them.

If you don't truly practice, as an example, headbutting and gouging every time you have the opportunity - against 'live' targets - then it should be no surprise that you probably won't do it for real - no matter how much you say 'but on the day.....' put simply, why would you?

This may leave one question - why don't I practice some form of 'MMA', seeing as how I appear to be such a fan?

In truth, if I didn't do what I currently do, and I definitely believe that I achieve my aims regarding combative training, perhaps I would! I feel that there is much to be taken from the MMA model of training, not so much the fighting methods as such - they're the same anyway!

Mick

mark.leonard

I like it, pretty objective and clear on his opinions, nice to see it!

cowzerp

Yeah its fairly honest alright..

crokester

Good article

columok

Excellent article.

Khannie

Good read. I really liked this line:

In essence, during high-stress situations - and every single incidence of real combat is one of these - expect to fall to the level and substance of your training, not to rise to your desires and expectations of the occasion.