for self defence wants the point!?!

easyontheeye

If your looking to be able to handle yourself or self defence, whats the point in doing any art other mma, thai boxing or boxing?!!?

most other arts take years before your near any level to defend yourself!

columok

most other arts take years before your near any level to defend yourself!

many martial arts impede your combat ability by teaching you rubbish. Trying to unlearn karate punching when i started mma was really awkward.

ShaneT

Granted. But, ultimately, it comes down to the level of contact and resistance that you experience in training. Also, let's not assume that "karate" is "karate". It's a generic terms these days. Kyokushin is to "karate" what muay thai is to "points sparring / kickboxing".

In the end; if you're covering all the ranges and you're pushing your limits ever further - it's going to be useful. As for which is best? There is no best. One man's BJJ is another man's wrestling. One man's Muay Thai is another man's Kyokushin. One man's boxing is another man's "brawl".

That's the great thing about the sport of MMA. It allows people to practise in fight style (or system) that suits them and pit against people of other styles/systems. It's shown people that being adept in all ranges is they key. But, MMA is far from being a "style". It's DEFINITELY becoming one with time... ...as the line between styles becomes blurred (at least in the ring or cage).

"Was that bjj I just saw or judo or wrestling? Was that a Muay Thai kick or a Kyokushin kick (GSP)? Was that a boxers punch or just an adapted for suitable for MMA?"

It's all good. But, in the end -it's those with a solid base in "traditional" arts that come through as champions in MMA. That'll change I believe; but for now it remains the case.

Boxing
Kickboxing
Kyokushin
Muay Thai
Judo
Wrestling
Sub Grappling
BJJ
etc. etc. etc.

It's all good; at risk of stealing SBG's sales line - in the end - it's the "aliveness" (progressive resistence) of the training that counts.

ShaneT

And having completed that essay... ...I realise why Boards.ie is banned by the proxy server at work!

The Bored One

In all fairness, self defence doesn't really have much to do with martial arts anyway. Its mostly about knowing how to avoid trouble, and how to run like hell when necessary.
So the main reason you should be doing a martial art is because you enjoy doing it, the other stuff is all secondary.

yomchi

most other arts take years before your near any level to defend yourself!

Off all these 'other arts' - how many have you studied for 'years'. I'm just assuming you're not making assumptions.

The fighter is in the person, not the art.

columok

fighters are largely determined by training methods.

SorGan

The Bored One wrote:

In all fairness, self defence doesn't really have much to do with martial arts anyway. Its mostly about knowing how to avoid trouble, and how to run like hell when necessary.
So the main reason you should be doing a martial art is because you enjoy doing it, the other stuff is all secondary.

well just because i want to argue this fine morning..
1.you cant always run away...i.e. with kids/girl/no time/sh1t legs on ya
2. knowing how to avoid trouble does not always equate to avoiding it. i.e...defending someone/being attacked/being violently burgled/on the job.
3.running is for wimps:rolleyes:
generalization to follow...:)

the main focus for any non sport combat training should be defense of one self,imo, enjoyment is or should be secondary..but hey individuals will always differ.

SorGan

easyontheeye wrote:

If your looking to be able to handle yourself or self defence, whats the point in doing any art other mma, thai boxing or boxing?!!?

most other arts take years before your near any level to defend yourself!

not much point, but id look into combatives and krav maga too.
some crosstraining into bjj and or judo would be cool

Mark Hamill

Jon wrote:

The fighter is in the person, not the art.

Michael Schumacher is probably the best race car driver in the world, yet if you put him in a Fiat Panda and me in a formula one racing car, I'm pretty sure I would win. As good as he is, i think the fact that a formula one race car can go 0 to 100 and back to 0 again in under 3 secs, while a Fiat Panda takes 14 secs to get to 60 might actually win it for me.
Yes, being a good fighter has a lot to do with the type of person you are, but doing better martial arts is a big help too

yomchi

Valid point. But i'd say you're more than likely going to kill yourself in an F1 car!

However take a small example of all the top fighters the world over.
The one thing they all have in common is their natural ability to fight, they have the mindset that makes them top of their game.
Each of these fighters will be at the apex of their respectives arts, all that seperates them is their style and via that, their training methods.

However it is the person who dictates their journey in the arts and how well they do, by that i mean their intent.

You can teach a placid guy all the very best tried and tested training methods in the world and he could be **** hot at applying them i training, but if he hasn't got the intent to put it to the test in a full on environment, his training methods mean squat - not literally

columok

You can teach a placid guy all the very best tried and tested training methods in the world and he could be **** hot at applying them i training, but if he hasn't got the intent to put it to the test in a full on environment, his training methods mean squat - not literally

Very true Jon. But number one is training methods. Someone's ability shouldn't dictate the quality of what they're taught- instead it determines the intensity with which they can do it. So just because someone won't make a Fedor beater doesn't mean they have to opt out of good training methods- instead they can do the same principles at a lower intensity. So essentially training methods make 90% of the martial artist. The other 10% comes from the person. You can be the most natural athlete in the world but if you don't train right then the fat guy with the trained skillz will beat you.

yomchi

columok wrote:

Very true Jon. But number one is training methods. Someone's ability shouldn't dictate the quality of what they're taught- instead it determines the intensity with which they can do it. So just because someone won't make a Fedor beater doesn't mean they have to opt out of good training methods- instead they can do the same principles at a lower intensity. So essentially training methods make 90% of the martial artist. The other 10% comes from the person. You can be the most natural athlete in the world but if you don't train right then the fat guy with the trained skillz will beat you.

I agree with most of that Colm, I reckon however that its 90% mindset and 10% skill. Look at what Liddell is good with, the big punch. He has a knock out punch. Small amount of skill, massive drive and determination and he knows he's going to put you out with it before he throws it. Thats just a small example of a very big debate however.
I do believe tho that good training methods will garner better fighters, however the real fighters are born that way, or develop that way anyway.

columok

Yeah to be top level you have to be something before training. I agree 100% with that.

But without training methods Chuck Liddell would be nothing. The tattoo on his arm says it all. He's the best because he trains like the best.

yomchi

agreed

pma-ire

columok wrote:

Yeah to be top level you have to be something before training. I agree 100% with that.

But without training methods Chuck Liddell would be nothing. The tattoo on his arm says it all. He's the best because he trains like the best.

what tat? the kempo one??

pma-ire

columok wrote:

many martial arts impede your combat ability by teaching you rubbish. Trying to unlearn karate punching when i started mma was really awkward.

karate punching is only useless when used out of context. but then most styles that train this "punch" train it with the intent of it doing the "one strike, one kill" idea miss the whole point of whats happening.

kravist

This whole "Nature V's Nurture" debate reigns trun in almost every facet of life. It is almost impossible to prove either way no matter what your opinion. Believe what you want to believe!!! Train what you want to train!

paxo

easyontheeye wrote:

If your looking to be able to handle yourself or self defence, whats the point in doing any art other mma, thai boxing or boxing?!!?

most other arts take years before your near any level to defend yourself!

Almost anyone in reasonable physical health can be taught to fight. For thousands of years armies have trained young men and sometimes young women to fight. Training simplisticaly put consists of physical training, tactics and mindset. What varies is how each army implements these components as cultural, environmental, technological factors etc come into play.
The purpose of this training was to develop a soldier who could kill his enemy.
IMO MA's today fullfill many worthwhile purposes, sporting, recreational, vocational, artistic but very few if any have killing as there focal point

I am not a big fan of the term self defence. In my experience of "street " fights I have had little or no influence of when and how the attack happened, who was involved and how violent it was going to become. As a contrast when I worked as a crowd controller we were often able to influence the When, where and how factors.

I also find the term self defence to be a bit passive for my personal likeing. I prefer to use active avoidance of potentialy dangerous situations or if I have to then I will fight untill the threat is no longer present. Of the 3 components mentioned above IMO mindset is the most important. No to minimise the value of being fit and strong and haveing good technique but the ability to switch on in an assault situation and think " Come what may I am going to rip your B*llox off and force feed it to you" can be a decided advantage
Paxo
Paxo

SorGan

paxo wrote:

Almost anyone in reasonable physical health can be taught to fight. For thousands of years armies have trained young men and sometimes young women to fight. Training simplisticaly put consists of physical training, tactics and mindset. What varies is how each army implements these components as cultural, environmental, technological factors etc come into play.
The purpose of this training was to develop a soldier who could kill his enemy.
IMO MA's today fullfill many worthwhile purposes, sporting, recreational, vocational, artistic but very few if any have killing as there focal point

I am not a big fan of the term self defence. In my experience of "street " fights I have had little or no influence of when and how the attack happened, who was involved and how violent it was going to become. As a contrast when I worked as a crowd controller we were often able to influence the When, where and how factors.

I also find the term self defence to be a bit passive for my personal likeing. I prefer to use active avoidance of potentialy dangerous situations or if I have to then I will fight untill the threat is no longer present. Of the 3 components mentioned above IMO mindset is the most important. No to minimise the value of being fit and strong and haveing good technique but the ability to switch on in an assault situation and think " Come what may I am going to rip your B*llox off and force feed it to you" can be a decided advantage
Paxo
Paxo

hey i like this guy.

but we all agree already ma,s these days offer a piss poor combat training experience..
with obvious exceptions

Millionaire

I prefer to use active avoidance of potentialy dangerous situations or if I have to then I will fight untill the threat is no longer present.

Yes, we all take this as the natural No 1 course of action, so that being stated.

Of the 3 components mentioned above IMO mindset is the most important.

Yes,I I agree based on my own actual street situations, this 80% of the battle.

Not to minimise the value of being fit and strong and haveing good technique

Yes, of course, regular hard training, with aggression and contact stands us well.

but the ability to switch on in an assault situation and think " Come what may I am going to rip your B*llox off and force feed it to you" can be a decided advantage
Paxo

I am going to rip your B*llox off and force feed it to you

With this attitude, a Chi Gung person has a better chance on the street, than someone dabbling and not getting stuck in totally committed in Muay Thai or MMA training. (using them as way of example).

Thats exactly the attitude, and I add "Win at all Costs".

Thats what the seasoned street fighter/ Thug who attacks innocent people thinks attitude wise. (most of them size up people who they think are weaker targets anyway, so they can win, and get their violence fettish off, or easy mugging etc).

If someone tries that, such a violent attack on on me, I want them to be thinking of me every night for the rest of their lives (unless they can afford dental implants) , when they still aged in their 20s, have to slip out an upper sent of dentures, and put them into a glass of water beside the bed. LOL! HA HA.

dlofnep

The point is, You can learn practical and functional training methods in quite a short time. Those arts who reserve "special moves" for higher belts are really just giving something to keep interest so they can sell more belts. Any boxing gym, muay thai gym or mma gym have the same mindset - Make this guy a better fighter. That's what it all boils down to.

yomchi

Any boxing gym, muay thai gym or mma gym have the same mindset - Make this guy a better fighter

You mean - make this guy a better boxer, a better MT fighter and a better MMA fighter, remember each style is governed by its own competitive rules.

Therefore, the same could be said about Taekwon-Do, Shotokan, Fencing, wrestling etc etc. Each will have their own training methods to make their respective 'fighters' better, for their own environs.

columok

what tat? the kempo one??

Exactly. Without decent training methods Chuck Liddell would probably be carrying a big Kempo belly doing Winged Defanging Dragon around his local church hall. It took an epiphany on his part, obviously, to make him ditch the crap and start training properly. It took the fighter in him to turn this up to "become UFC champion" rather than just "train functionally".

pma-ire

columok wrote:

Exactly. Without decent training methods Chuck Liddell would probably be carrying a big Kempo belly doing Winged Defanging Dragon around his local church hall. It took an epiphany on his part, obviously, to make him ditch the crap and start training properly. It took the fighter in him to turn this up to "become UFC champion" rather than just "train functionally".

has he said his?

edit*

actually i just had a google into this and chuck still trains in kempo!

http://www.ufcfightnews.com/news/liddell.html

his black belt in Hawaiian Kempo his has a large kickboxing/full contact karate content.

this is his instructor...
http://thepit.cmasdirect.com/site/view/22000_HawaiianKemposhistory.pml;jsessionid=4b4bm3auodt

pma-ire

dlofnep wrote:

The point is, You can learn practical and functional training methods in quite a short time. Those arts who reserve "special moves" for higher belts are really just giving something to keep interest so they can sell more belts.

i totally agree with you dlofnep!

it's one of my biggest pet hates in martial arts!! as far as i'm concerned keep it simple and everyone can take something from it! too many arts make fighting too complicated, and simetimes it's nice to look at. but usually not worth a whole lot in a pressured situation.

Mark Hamill

Jon wrote:

You mean - make this guy a better boxer, a better MT fighter and a better MMA fighter, remember each style is governed by its own competitive rules.

Therefore, the same could be said about Taekwon-Do, Shotokan, Fencing, wrestling etc etc. Each will have their own training methods to make their respective 'fighters' better, for their own environs.

Yes, but you have to ask yourself, is being the best in Taekwon-do, Shatokan etc etc good enough in terms of self defense (where there are no rules). ie how well does a martial art translate to an environs with no rules?
(remember the original question was about self defense).
If you train purely in one range (clinch,striking,ground), then you are going to have problems when (not if) you land in any of the other ranges.
You have to train your martial art properly (for SD this means lots of sparring against 80-90 or even 100% resistance) and you have to cross train in the other ranges, not necessary to get good in them, but to know what to do (and what not to do) when you get caught in them.
People who train in just one range are like a friend i have who did some form of kung fu a while ago, i can't remember which, and i would say to him: "your kung fu punches are all well and good, but what happens if you are taken down?", his answer? "i wouldn't get taken down", i'd say "the best wrestlers in the world get taken down, what makes you think you could stop someone taking you down?" and he said "i would just side step the take down".
From never experiencing any range besides kung fu, he never saw that takedowns didn't start with a guy standing four and a half yards away and and run at him with his head down and so never learned real takedown defense.
This can happen with any range: the striker who thinks his strikes are good enough to keep the wrestlers at a distance; the bjjer thinking he won't get hit by the guy sitting in his guard, etc etc

columok

has he said his?

edit*

actually i just had a google into this and chuck still trains in kempo!

lol Paul. What percentage of Chuck's cardio and fight skills training do you reckon are kempo based???

"I still train Kempo"="I still do a bit of that but when I actually need to practice fighting I might up with John Hackleman and my fight team and train properly".

Seriously.

pma-ire

columok wrote:

lol Paul. What percentage of Chuck's cardio and fight skills training do you reckon are kempo based???

"I still train Kempo"="I still do a bit of that but when I actually need to practice fighting I might up with John Hackleman and my fight team and train properly".

Seriously.

from what i can see the kempo guys he trains with train full contact fighting so i'm sure it was the base for his stand up? would you not agree?

just becase they are doing "kempo" don't mean that they have to fight in the classical kempo style all the time.

i'm sure chuck has a specialised fight team because pro-mma is a big step up from full contact kickboxing.

my point was just that you can't make comments about what chuck thinks about something without reference to him saying something on the subject?

columok

Oh I'm well aware of John Hackleman and the pit.

from what i can see the kempo guys he trains with train full contact fighting so i'm sure it was the base for his stand up? would you not agree?

Whether they are "kempo" guys or not is questionable. They've kept the "kempo" name but really do you think that even compares to 99% of the kempo or kenpo out there? Ever seen any Hackleman stuff? It's FK kickboxing or muay thai under a different name. Think anyone respects him cause of his 10th dan or cause he's an animal fighter, animal coach and animal conditioner. Somewhere along the line his school either outright deviated or slowly crept away from the classical BS. If that hadn't have happened then Chuck Liddell wouldn't be who he is today.

just becase they are doing "kempo" don't mean that they have to fight in the classical kempo style all the time.

My point being if Chuck focussed on the classical mess he wouldn't be a very good fighter.

pma-ire

columok wrote:

My point being if Chuck focussed on the classical mess he wouldn't be a very good fighter.

i actually agree with you man! classical mess is what i'm talking about here. these guys are from the same cloth as benny the jet and bill wallace. even chuck norris back in the day!

it's just an older incarnation of full contact kickboxing which came out of full contact karate.

flowery classical kempo is what it is and again it's down to training ethos.

yomchi

Yes, but you have to ask yourself, is being the best in Taekwon-do, Shatokan etc etc good enough in terms of self defense (where there are no rules).

They same can be said for UFC, Pride et al - everyone of them have rules and more.

Having said that, If I wanted to learn self defence I would concentrate on a purely self defence 'system', 'style' or some eclectic concept - call it what you will.

Everything else is sport related, TKD, JKD, Judo, BJJ, MMA and the rest. Everyone one of them governed by a specific number of rules.
To train in the 3 ranges will indeed improve your chances, but just training in the 3 ranges alone still leads a massive void in training when it comes to self defence.

Mark Hamill

Jon wrote:

To train in the 3 ranges will indeed improve your chances, but just training in the 3 ranges alone still leads a massive void in training when it comes to self defence.

I don't think you'll have a massive void as long as you remember that just because you wouldn't consider things like groin shots/eye gouging/biting (because the rules you train by don't allow) doesn't mean that the other guy wont.
You can win a fight using tactics from the 3 ranges as long as don't start relying on things like a referee stoppage

cowzerp

Jon wrote:

Everything else is sport related, TKD, JKD, Judo, BJJ, MMA and the rest. Everyone one of them governed by a specific number of rules.
To train in the 3 ranges will indeed improve your chances, but just training in the 3 ranges alone still leads a massive void in training when it comes to self defence.

in real self defense situations good old fashioned boxing is going to be the most important aspect for 1 simple reason-most people attacking you in the street wont be trained fighters but more than likely drunks or junkie's or gangs of thugs etc..when more than 1 opponent is involved the last place you want to be is in a grapple situation, standing or grounded as your going to be pounded by the other people attacking. if you throw kicks like in mma the same will apply, you will probably end up on your butt. good punches thrown at speed and accuracy and ability to dodge crap punches!! will help you against 1 or multiple attackers-i was on a mini bus 1 day when my mate got attacked by a big ars-hole and i tried to break it up and got a head butt in the nose for my trouble! i let fly with the shots and he was out very quick, within a 2 minute period i dropped his other 4 mates without taking another smack, then the big fella got up for more and got the same treatment-this was in a confined space and a perfect example of self defense-none of the other tactics would of worked in this situation-none of the attackers where trained fighters either and where fairly easy to beat, boxing is a sport but it easily transfers into real situations-mma is the most complete fighting system in my opinion but most of it should not be used in self defense circumstances as its not 1 on 1 and the ground is not a nice place to be when surrounded by yobs-most traditional arts are not real fighting at all and give you a false sense of security, most mma lads can box anyway and if they do get taken down can escape easily enough..if i end up on the ground my bjj and mma will help but i dont want this in a street situation.

yomchi

Mark Hamill wrote:

I don't think you'll have a massive void as long as you remember that just because you wouldn't consider things like groin shots/eye gouging/biting (because the rules you train by don't allow) doesn't mean that the other guy wont.
You can win a fight using tactics from the 3 ranges as long as don't start relying on things like a referee stoppage

The biggest difference won't be eye gouging/biting etc - all of which can be used inately. The difference will be the uexpectance. All MA matches have one thing in common - both parties are willing participants, have had prior knowledge of the bout, have studied each other thouroughly, have trained tirelessly for it. In a self defence situation, none of that comes into play. Also, we tend to think that the typical self defence situation will be a one on one, 2 lads having a slug on a saturday night. Other variables have to be factored in, are you alone and your attacker not, may he or they be armed, is the attack pre-meditated, are you ambushed, do you have a significant other with you, wife, daughter, mother/father. May it be a road rage incident, may it be a nut on the rampage.
So you can't really compare both instances.

What are we talking about anyway

cowzerp

Jon wrote:

The biggest difference won't be eye gouging/biting etc - all of which can be used inately. The difference will be the uexpectance.

so self defense training will help you if your punched in the back of the head how? practising against resisting fighters will stand you in the best shape for any self defense needs..not doing crappy techniques that cant be used in real life..

Nothingcompares

Jon, would I be correct in thinking that because you train in Urban Combatives (RBSD) you would think this is the best form of self-defense training?

My opinion is MMA training is the best training to prepare you for a self-defence encounter, boxing and judo (Muay Thai, Wrestling, BJJ too) would be second best, basically anything trained functionally and in a sporting manner to help you become as good as possible as quickly as possible. However, as we all agree, the "soft skills" aspect of self-defence is extremely important. By soft-skills I mean observation, avoidance, attitude, conduct. These skills however, I think have their roots in basic common sense and require much less training in to become proficient. In other words, if your main aim was to improve your self-defence I'd recommend you train 3/4 times a week in MMA (or other combat sport) for a long time and once a week/month for a couple of weeks/months in RBSD environment just to understand some legal and psychological aspects of being attacked/mugged.

paxo

Hi
This is an interesting thread but at risk of being contentious, there is no best art for fighting, nor do I believe in different ranges it is either fighting or it isn't. If you are attacked it will not be at a time or place of your chosing and there are multiable variables that come into play, number of attackers, weather, your state of mind, weapons, bystanders, drugs, etc
There are in essence two possible outcomes, you survive or you dont. In this situation the fight or flight response kicks in rapidly and you react. If you fight it is usually by useing gross motor movements, You will not think in terms of range or technique in fact often you will not clearly recall what you did do. If you survive you may later discover that you sustained injuries that you were oblivious to at the time.
Unfortunately the only way to really know how you are going to respond is to have the lived experience.
Paxo

arybvtcw0eolkf

Paul, although I'm not a huge fan of urban combatives I tend to listen to Jon.

I know through some friends of mine who I've both trained with, and worked door's with, that Jon has vast experience with 'live' real life situation's.

Although I've never attended one of the seminar's he's host's I do intend making it along to one pretty soon to check out what its all about.

Like Jon too, I've alot of doorwork experience, over 15 yrs, so I know the bullsh*tter talking crap about fighting & self defence.

And Paul, I'm not doubting your abilities as a fighter, either on the street or through a sport. But as you know self defence isn't just about fighting ability. I've worked with some brilliant scrappers over the year's, guys who you'd love minding your back. But I'd never put the same guys fronting a door because their their situational awareness and abilities in handling an aggressive person would be sh*t. I think self defence training is more geared towards that sort of stuff rather than balls out fighting.

cowzerp

Mairt wrote:

And Paul, I'm not doubting your abilities as a fighter, either on the street or through a sport. But as you know self defence isn't just about fighting ability. I've worked with some brilliant scrappers over the year's, guys who you'd love minding your back. But I'd never put the same guys fronting a door because their their situational awareness and abilities in handling an aggressive person would be sh*t. I think self defence training is more geared towards that sort of stuff rather than balls out fighting.

i done a little door work when i was about 21 and your right, it was not for me! i done the main door with an experienced door man and although i believe i've good awareness etc.. i dont have the patience that a top doorman needs so did not do it for long, your probably thinking, he's to small for doorwork!! i used to be 4 stone heavier so i was bulky back then!! i still maintain that without the ability to outfight your opponent your screwed-personally i hate streetfights and people who start them. talk later martin.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cowzerp wrote:

i done a little door work when i was about 21 and your right, it was not for me! i done the main door with an experienced door man and although i believe i've good awareness etc.. i dont have the patience that a top doorman needs so did not do it for long, your probably thinking, he's to small for doorwork!! i used to be 4 stone heavier so i was bulky back then!! i still maintain that without the ability to outfight your opponent your screwed-personally i hate streetfights and people who start them. talk later martin.

Paul I'd never think your too small for door work, not in a million year's. One of the best/toughest I've worked with was more or less your size and almost twenty yr's your senior. Jon know's him well, and I think you might too.

I just think Jon has the benefit of experience when it comes to these discussions, but thats not to say I ignore what you and the other lads have posted..

Well I'm off to bed. I finished a 24hr duty, but would you believe it, I feel asleep just before the Mayweather fight, then settled down to watch it on Sky at 10:30 and guess what.... Fell asleep again!!!. Although thanks to my daughter being in a playful mood I caught the last 5 rounds

cowzerp

ah man the 1st 7 where the best-de la hoya dominated most rounds..

Boru.

Perhaps this best sums it up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ruyfbT6dEM

Roper

Boru,
Just one question,
What if someone comes up with six second abs?

cowzerp

i'll do 5 second abs!

Boru.

A little OT guys, but here's the answer - Matt Furey already advertises a 5 second abs program - and it's crap compard to mine You see I have 5,000 + independant scientific studies supporting 7 seconds as the optimal time under tension for maximal stimulation and strength gains. Anything below 7 seconds- PAH! that's just marketing hype.

Now...get back to your windmilling. :rolleyes:

Oh and cowzerp, you may have to start at 3 seconds! I'm not sure if you could last the full 7 on my program!

Roper

Ahem... its from There's Something About Mary- "6 minute abs! You're outta your mind!"

Pride Fighter

I think this is true of most arts. The longer you train the better you can defend yourself. However you have a relevant point. In boxing there is only 4 punches, jab, cross, uppercut and hook and an economical guard and stance. In muay thai there are the same things as boxing with maybe 3 or 4 different kicks elbows and knees. When you train in so few techniques it makes you excellent at the few you have. Judo is very much the same. Jigoro Kano in his first Judo manual had 45 techniques taken from a selection of thousands from its parent art, Ju Jitsu. Judoka were unbeaten in challenge matches for ages due to their superior (but fewer) techniques. Less can be more and your point is relevant.

yomchi

Jon, would I be correct in thinking that because you train in Urban Combatives (RBSD) you would think this is the best form of self-defense training

No,not at all. I enjoy doing it. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it, plain and simple. Same reason you do what you enjoy.
It is merely an option.

Mairt, you should try get to the next seminar, I'm sure you'll like it. Pop in sometime mate, haven't spoke in a while

columok

It's like you're about dreaming Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time baby!

arybvtcw0eolkf

Jon wrote:

Mairt, you should try get to the next seminar, I'm sure you'll like it. Pop in sometime mate, haven't spoke in a while

I'll try get along to the seminar of course. As for dropping in, sure, but at the moment I've been up to my eye's with work.

I'm usually passing by your place either before you open or after you've shut up for the night.