Article on Grappling - by Marc MacYoung

Mathis

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/grappling.html

A good article by Marc McYoung.

Hope this can provide some nuances in the (from what I've read here so far) very polarized "Grappling is crap VS Grappling is THE BEST Martial Art" discussion.

What do you guys think?

Br,
Mathis

EnjoyChoke

Mathis wrote: »

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/grappling.html

A good article by Marc McYoung.

It would have been a good article, if it was written circa 1993. Maybe it was. It's a really tired argument at this stage.

Mathis

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

It would have been a good article, if it was written circa 1993. Maybe it was. It's a really tired argument at this stage.

I'm not sure what you mean? Have there been a lot of development in this area lately? Can you please elaborate/inform me?

_oveless

Mathis wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean? Have there been a lot of development in this area lately? Can you please elaborate/inform me?

The underlying message seems to be, "Grappling is great and all, but it's pretty useless in a real fight".

Mathis

_oveless wrote: »

The underlying message seems to be, "Grappling is great and all, but it's pretty useless in a real fight".

I don't get that from the article.

I do get that Grappling does have it's limitations, like every single other Martial Art out there.

pearsquasher

I can never really fault MacYoungs arguments... Good stuff.

On a similar theme...I'm currently reading... again.. the "Compendium of Bartitsu"... turn of the 20th Century Martial Arts in Europe.

Over 100 years ago, there was a massive culture of mixed wrestling/grappling/boxing events and .... (Japanese) jujutsu ground fighting prevailed for a time because the conditions of these events suited it. (This was pre-judo).

However, the creator of "Bartitsu" and the man who first brought these jujutsu practicioners from Japan, who also combined his 3 years of Jujutsu training in Japan with his street knowledge and boxing/cane-fighting skills.... never took up the competitve side of things because he realised that there's more to handling yourself than what was going on with these sports events.

But popularity of the "sport" superceded the practicality of what he was interested in and his art didn't come to much. (turns out he was aterible business man too)

Anyway, we can see the same marketing and social-conventional forces that MacYoung talks about having happened 100 years ago! Interesting...

dasmoose

For a start anyone who writes something like:

a basic problem arises if you are attempting to subdue someone in a self-defense situation: After you have him in a nice submission hold, how are you going to get to the phone to call the police?

Clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Submission holds aren't nice pretty positions that you've both agreed constitue victory - people tap to submissions because it's either that or have something broken, or go to sleep.

Mathis

dasmoose wrote: »

For a start anyone who writes something like:



Clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Submission holds aren't nice pretty positions that you've both agreed constitue victory - people tap to submissions because it's either that or have something broken, or go to sleep.

I might get mixed up here, isn't Kesa Gatame (side control) a submission hold? It doesn't have to be a choke or some kind of arm/leg/foot bar to be a submission hold?

Aside from that, I think the point he made was that you'll run into problems when you apply whatever you have learned in a different context, under different rules. Which is a fair point.

I assume we both agree that the grappling you would learn as a Police Officer would be different from what you would learn for sport? Since you have different agendas and motives?

EnjoyChoke

pearsquasher wrote: »

I can never really fault MacYoungs arguments... Good stuff.

"let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies would lie down when they fought. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use submission holds and mounting positions to defeat the other army's soldiers." - MacYoung

For Jaysus sake.

EnjoyChoke

Mathis wrote: »

I might get mixed up here, isn't Kesa Gatame (side control) a submission hold? It doesn't have to be a choke or some kind of arm/leg/foot bar to be a submission hold?

You can armlock off Kesa Gatame, but yes it does have to be a "choke or some kind of arm/leg/foot bar to be a submission hold" otherwise it's a "pin".

Doug Cartel

Mathis wrote: »

I might get mixed up here, isn't Kesa Gatame (side control) a submission hold? It doesn't have to be a choke or some kind of arm/leg/foot bar to be a submission hold?

Not sure if you're joking, but Kesa is a pin. Typically you put somebody in a pin in order to control them, then you apply a submission form there.

Doug Cartel

dasmoose wrote: »

Clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Submission holds aren't nice pretty positions that you've both agreed constitue victory - people tap to submissions because it's either that or have something broken, or go to sleep.

It's funny how he's taken a grain truth, and like some kind of malformed oyster he's turned it into a pearl of BS.

Grappling isn't the answer to everything? Holy god, my world is collapsing around me. Better start learning how to poke people in the eye and other deadly moves like that, and not spend so much time on things like choking people from positions where it's impossible fro them to free themselves.

Killme00

I often make phone calls from scarf hold, but then i dont learn grappling for self defence, only for fun.

Doug Cartel

Look, I think telephones are great, and everyone should know how to use one - but you have to realise that they're not suitable for every situation.

Mathis

pearsquasher wrote: »

I can never really fault MacYoungs arguments... Good stuff.

On a similar theme...I'm currently reading... again.. the "Compendium of Bartitsu"... turn of the 20th Century Martial Arts in Europe.

Over 100 years ago, there was a massive culture of mixed wrestling/grappling/boxing events and .... (Japanese) jujutsu ground fighting prevailed for a time because the conditions of these events suited it. (This was pre-judo).

However, the creator of "Bartitsu" and the man who first brought these jujutsu practicioners from Japan, who also combined his 3 years of Jujutsu training in Japan with his street knowledge and boxing/cane-fighting skills.... never took up the competitve side of things because he realised that there's more to handling yourself than what was going on with these sports events.

But popularity of the "sport" superceded the practicality of what he was interested in and his art didn't come to much. (turns out he was aterible business man too)

Anyway, we can see the same marketing and social-conventional forces that MacYoung talks about having happened 100 years ago! Interesting...

True, he could probably have cashed in on that

I wouldn't say it's a bad thing for a MA to be changed from a "system for killing" to a "sport". As long as it's honest about what it is.
Did Judo myself for a number of years when I was a kid, and had a great time doing that. Wouldn't say it prepared me for "the super-deadly-ultimate streetfight" tho. Which was fine, that's not what i signed up for anyway.

What I do not like, is all the talk about "train this and become a street fighter" or claim it will make you a "warrior" (whatever that means... one could argue it would include killing people, which most sane people - including myself, don't have any wish to do).

And this I guess you can find in most MA cultures/clubs. Why is it all this hype about being this super-macho-killer-beast?

Here's some nice UFC quotes that show the attitude I'm talking about:


“My breathing techniques make me impervious to chokes.” - Joe Son before getting choked out in his UFC debut.

“At least one time in your life, train with the will to die.” - Enson Inoue

“I come to kill or be killed. My plan is to rip his head off. If that doesn’t work, I rip his arms off. If that doesn’t work, I rip his legs off.” - Tony Halme before losing a fight in under 30 seconds.

“Blood is just red sweat.” - Enson Inoue

Edit: reading it now, I'm seeing I went on a bit of a ramble, apologies for that.

EnjoyChoke

Killme00 wrote: »

I often make phone calls from scarf hold, but then i dont learn grappling for self defence, only for fun.

Hope your using a Blu-tooth headset, you let go of that elbow and that's your back taken right there.

Raging_Ninja

Meh. The problem I have with the article is that it says that grappling is only really good if you don't want to hurt someone. While that has has a fair bit of truth in it, it can be difficult to justify beating somebody into the ground with your fists even in a self-defence situation.

Besides, if somebody ends up in a situation where its five against one (to use the example in the article) you've been doing something fairly wrong and more than likely you're going to get a beating no matter what kind of martial art you practice.

Mathis

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Meh. The problem I have with the article is that it says that grappling is only really good if you don't want to hurt someone. While that has has a fair bit of truth in it, it can be difficult to justify beating somebody into the ground with your fists even in a self-defence situation.

Well there's a difference. Saying Grappling is superior if you want to control and not hurt someone, is not saying it's useless to hurt someone.

If I want a Bouncer, id rather have a recent grappler than a Muay Thai guy..

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Besides, if somebody ends up in a situation where its five against one (to use the example in the article) you've been doing something fairly wrong and more than likely you're going to get a beating no matter what kind of martial art you practice.

Yep - chances getting out intact if 5 guys want to fight you as slim to none - unless you got a black belt in Uzi..

Mathis

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

You can armlock off Kesa Gatame, but yes it does have to be a "choke or some kind of arm/leg/foot bar to be a submission hold" otherwise it's a "pin".

thanks for clearing that up (my old Judo instructor would be crying now)

EnjoyChoke

Mathis wrote: »

And this I guess you can find in most MA cultures/clubs. Why is it all this hype about being this super-macho-killer-beast?

I know what you mean. While I enjoy training, I have to disagree with my Sensei telling us that fear, defeat and pain (all natural human experiences) don't exist within the confines of the Dojo. Also his assertion not to show "mercy" while competing is not something that I'd be prepared to do. But he's an experienced Martial artist so it wouldn't be my place to contradict him.

Doug Cartel

Mathis wrote: »

Well there's a difference. Saying Grappling is superior if you want to control and not hurt someone, is not saying it's useless to hurt someone.

Think about this way - a grappler who isn't looking to tap you out, but actually hurt you will be trying to break one of your limbs or choke you out. This guy is advocating things like eye pokes. I've been poked in the eye, it's not always a big deal.

Now if somebody was to grapple you into a pin and then apply an eye-poke where they have the leverage to actually make it count it would be a different story. But if they can get you into a pin they could as easily apply a standard sub.

Doug Cartel

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

I know what you mean. While I enjoy training, I have to disagree with my Sensei telling us that fear, defeat and pain (all natural human experiences) don't exist within the confines of the Dojo. Also his assertion not to show "mercy" while competing is not something that I'd be prepared to do. But he's an experienced Martial artist so it wouldn't be my place to contradict him.

Sweep the leg?

EnjoyChoke

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Sweep the leg?

That's not something I'm proud of.

arybvtcw0eolkf

dasmoose wrote: »

Clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Submission holds aren't nice pretty positions that you've both agreed constitue victory - people tap to submissions because it's either that or have something broken, or go to sleep.

In the context of a street fight and ringing the police.

I've often been in the position whereby I have someone in a joint lock, they might be out of the head of coke or something else, and aren't submitting to sh*t - do I smash a wrist, shoulder or elbow so I can ring the guards?.

Sleepers are great, fight is finished quick and clean. But there are limitations to applying joint locks on the street.

Mathis

Matilda Important Pain wrote: »

In the context of a street fight and ringing the police.

do I smash a wrist, shoulder or elbow so I can ring the guards?.

I'd say yes

Dyr

Mathis wrote: »

I'd say yes

Maybe ring a decent solictor before the garda so

dasmoose

Matilda Important Pain wrote: »

In the context of a street fight and ringing the police.

I've often been in the position whereby I have someone in a joint lock, they might be out of the head of coke or something else, and aren't submitting to sh*t - do I smash a wrist, shoulder or elbow so I can ring the guards?.

Sleepers are great, fight is finished quick and clean. But there are limitations to applying joint locks on the street.

Oh absolutely, I'm not really suggesting it's appropriate or a good idea to go around breaking things, i'm more just responding to MacYoung's apparent belief that submission holds are like a game of tag.

Did anyone else notice as well that in one paragraph he argues that grappling is ineffective in a real fight because submission holds only work when someone is willing to submit, and then in the next paragraph argues that grappling is a bad idea in a real fight because (to take one of his examples) using a choke hold is considered lethal force?

I'm not a grappling nazi who thinks that grappling is always the best option, and i would always advocate cross training and being sensible as a first line of defence, but I have to admit it does irritate me when some people go out of their way to denigrate grappling as a fighting style with stupid arguments like his.

simon-king

Quote from article:

'My critics overlook that these same MMA 'warriors' -- that they call me a pussy for not facing in the ring -- have never offered to step into an alley with me and five of my friends'....'Or even just come up and attacked me when I'm armed... Marc Animal MacYoung'


This is just unbelieveable .. how can these MMA 'warriors' get away with this kind of tripe and expect to be respected!


Quote from article:

'Those experiences -- including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the ground -- makes me a little leery about the myth of universal applicability of grappling in so-called "real" fights'


How can grappling credibly claim to be a part of any real martial art ffs!


Quote from article:

'What I am against is the marketing and advertising that tells people it is applicable in every kind of violence'


I'm completely against this too man ... anyone have a link so I can educate other people??


Man thanks for the article .. welcome to the real world grapplers!

arybvtcw0eolkf

dasmoose wrote: »

Oh absolutel
I'm not a grappling nazi who thinks that grappling is always the best option, and i would always advocate cross training and being sensible as a first line of defence, but I have to admit it does irritate me when some people go out of their way to denigrate grappling as a fighting style with stupid arguments like his.

Its ok to be a Nazi

Tbh I don't think he really have any argument to put forward.

He draws (for himself) a clear line between athletes fighting in the ring or mat and someone like himself who has never fought in a competitive environment and uses that to make the case that the sports man or woman doesn't know what they're talking about.

What about the fighter who competes AND works in and environment where violence is a routine occurance - say for example law enforcement or bar/niteclub security?.

Tbh, I think the guy is a bit of a fantasist.

Mathis

Matilda Important Pain wrote: »

Its ok to be a Nazi

Tbh I don't think he really have any argument to put forward.

He draws (for himself) a clear line between athletes fighting in the ring or mat and someone like himself who has never fought in a competitive environment and uses that to make the case that the sports man or woman doesn't know what they're talking about.

To draw a clear line is completely fine, as the line is very clear, and very real. How does he say that the sportsman/woman doesn't know what they are talking about?
On another note - the point he makes about not stepping into the ring VS not stepping into the alley is a very good example of difference in mentality.

What about the fighter who competes AND works in and environment where violence is a routine occurance - say for example law enforcement or bar/niteclub security?.

I suppose grappling would work great for that.

Tbh, I think the guy is a bit of a fantasist.

Please elaborate?

HammerHeadGym

The problem with a lot of 'the animal's' musing is that he sees all self defence scenarios as unfairly sacked in terms of numbers, mentality, and armaments. He basically breaks it down into 2 varieties of violence. Self defence and arrest (what a bouncer might do).
That is too say, he never envisions a shoving match between a couple of young-fellas, over a bag of chips.
He treats every 'self defence' situation as a threat on his life by someone who doesn't care if he lives or dies, and fears neither jail nor hell. He also makes the assumption that the attacker will be a skilled street fighter, who knows and employs dirty tricks, is backed up by similar, and who is more than likely carrying a weapon of some kind, with the sole intention of inflicting permanent damage.
While I'm not saying that's impossible, it's just something the vast majority of us will never face. Ever.

Speaking as a 15 year veteran of club doors, and the hundreds of fights I've had and thousands I've witnessed, I can honestly say the one area in which I wish I had more knowledge and experience is Judo and/or wrestling. Judo is probably more practical in ireland, given the need for heavy and durable out garments.

Clive

Mathis wrote: »

What do you guys think?

His fundamental premise - that being on the ground in a "street" situation is a bad idea is a sound one. It's also a pretty obvious one - I've never heard anyone but fanboys who are still in their first few evangelical years suggest it.

Where the article falls apart is that he uses inaccurate, outdated and often incorrect terminology which makes it obvious that he's not too well up on the area he's talking about. He confuses grappling and groundwork etc.

It also must be made clear that he's not talking about self-defence or real life for normal people. He says "I'm talking live-fire situations and in places where multiple opponents and weapons were very much how violence happened" which just isn't true for people in this country (not that they don't occur but they're not the norm).

Dyr

Clive wrote: »

It also must be made clear that he's not talking about self-defence or real life for normal people. He says "I'm talking live-fire situations and in places where multiple opponents and weapons were very much how violence happened" which just isn't true for people in this country (not that they don't occur but they're not the norm).

I don't get into fights as a matter of habit but I've been in found myself in probably three confrontations in as many years and they all involved multiple opponents and weapons. Even if they didn't come into play they were present. All the assaults I've seen over the last few years involved uneven numbers and very often, also involved weapons. I don't think that dublin is the last bastion of the honourable straightener.


MacYoungs articles tend to be polemics which distracts from whatever valid points they might raise.

Clive

Bambi wrote: »

I don't think that dublin is the last bastion of the honourable straightener.

Neither do I, but we certainly don't have the culture of getting tooled up before going out, and you don't see large packs of thugs roaming the streets just looking to victimise someone on their own. Go to any large town in Ireland on a Saturday night and most of the violence you'll see is pushy shovey between two people or "yeah ... yeah" and a few digs between groups of lads.

simon-king

Quote from article: 'But that isn't what this page is about, what it is about is: Should you cross train?'

He rambles from ranting about 'live fire situations' to this statement. Cross train with what exactly .. 'grappling mixed with automatic weapons training is a win!'

This guy reads as having a Napoleon complex. He uses headings pointing at grappling but references the UFC, MMA and allegations of cowardice towards him by 'them'. He looks like he has a chip on his shoulder because he feels that these 'MMA warriors' don't appreciate how 'tough' he is because of what he has done/witnessed etc.

When not to use grappling
Do NOT attempt to use grappling if faced by Megatron this is the LAST thing you want to do you WILL get killed!

pearsquasher

That is too say, he never envisions a shoving match between a couple of young-fellas, over a bag of chips.

Does anyone seriously think that this sort of situation warrants the use of techniques that could actually injure somebody? Thats a walk-away scenario not a defend-yourself-at-all-costs one.

It pretty obvious that MacYoung is focused on life-threatening or high risk enocounters NOT school yard antics.

He also makes the assumption that the attacker will be a skilled street fighter, who knows and employs dirty tricks, is backed up by similar, and who is more than likely carrying a weapon of some kind, with the sole intention of inflicting permanent damage.

When you do sports martial arts, you can happly leave those assumptions alone and concentrate on other things like technical skill. But when you're training to deal with actual assault you had better make those assumptions the very first thing on your mind and act accordingly.

A while back I read that a bouncer restrained a young man who had a knife concealed in his sock and got stabbed in the thigh. I believe he was seriously injured. Had the bouncer assumed a hidden weapon and trained with that in mind he would probably have restrained the guy differently or not at all.

Young men carry knives... Bouncers should train to assume that they do and so, when it comes to restraint, how accessable a knife is should be built in. Its going to make your grappling skills a whole lot different and harder probably.

Raging_Ninja

pearsquasher wrote: »

Does anyone seriously think that this sort of situation warrants the use of techniques that could actually injure somebody? Thats a walk-away scenario not a defend-yourself-at-all-costs one.

Its how the majority of fights I've seen start while I was working in bars. Usually starts out with one or both shouting/trading insults, then moves to shoving, then somebody throws a punch. Occasionally they skip the shoving.

A while back I read that a bouncer restrained a young man who had a knife concealed in his sock and got stabbed in the thigh. I believe he was seriously injured. Had the bouncer assumed a hidden weapon and trained with that in mind he would probably have restrained the guy differently or not at all.

Young men carry knives... Bouncers should train to assume that they do and so, when it comes to restraint, how accessable a knife is should be built in. Its going to make your grappling skills a whole lot different and harder probably.

Great. Tell you what, get a job as a doorman and when the time comes for you to eject a customer, do so under the assumption that he is armed with a weapon. Then see how long it takes for you to (a) get fired and/or (b) wind up in court.

In this country, you have to justify the fact that you used force, and then you have to show that the amount of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Explaining to a judge that you broke some guy's arm/beat him into unconsciousness because he *might* have had a weapon hidden in his sock (which in fairness is improbably in itself) will see either heavily fined or with a prison sentence.

Finally

Young men carry knives...

Wow. What kind of scumhole are you from?

pearsquasher

Great. Tell you what, get a job as a doorman and when the time comes for you to eject a customer, do so under the assumption that he is armed with a weapon. Then see how long it takes for you to (a) get fired and/or (b) wind up in court.

Show me where I advocated using violence on somebody that you think might have a weapon?

I have a freind who deals with drug addicts and general scum in his job in social services. He has to assume these people will just lunge at him with weapons. That makes him LESS likely to get physical with them, not more. He practices MA too but not a sports one. That's what I meant.

Dave Joyce

Its how the majority of fights I've seen start while I was working in bars. Usually starts out with one or both shouting/trading insults, then moves to shoving, then somebody throws a punch. Occasionally they skip the shoving.

Well I'd presume Pearquasher means that MOST reasonable thinking people can walk away from that kind of schoolboy crap and is not to what he is referring.

Great. Tell you what, get a job as a doorman and when the time comes for you to eject a customer, do so under the assumption that he is armed with a weapon. Then see how long it takes for you to (a) get fired and/or (b) wind up in court.

In this country, you have to justify the fact that you used force, and then you have to show that the amount of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Explaining to a judge that you broke some guy's arm/beat him into unconsciousness because he *might* have had a weapon hidden in his sock (which in fairness is improbably in itself) will see either heavily fined or with a prison sentence.

Well Jaysus, talk about JUMPING in with BOTH feet :rolleyes: It IS possible to NOT BEAT the Bejaysus outta someone and STILL have enough awareness/preparedness to assume they COULD be carrying and react appropriately....in other words PREVENT them from deploying the weapon so you don't have to beat the dog poo outta them. Mind you, I suppose this is a given IF you train for that kind of situation.

What kind of scumhole are you from?

Wow:rolleyes:, what kind of Utopia are YOU from???

HammerHeadGym

pearsquasher wrote: »

...It pretty obvious that MacYoung is focused on life-threatening or high risk enocounters NOT school yard antics.

Thats the point I was making. When Marc Mac Young says 'self defence' he means life or death situations. I was attempting to clear the terminology up for those unfamiliar with his work.

pearsquasher wrote: »

...when you're training to deal with actual assault you had better make those assumptions the very first thing on your mind and act accordingly.

I've been a doorman for 15 years. In that time Ive had about a half dozen blades used against me (including broken bottles, needles etc) That's one weapon attack every 2 and a half years approximately. My training should reflect that proportion of frequency I think. My time is far better employed dealing with punches and stand up grappling as most fights go down like that.

pearsquasher wrote: »

...Had the bouncer assumed a hidden weapon and trained with that in mind he would probably have restrained the guy differently or not at all.

I restrain about a dozen guys a week, 99% of whom I release as soon as they've calmed down. I've trained in a broad cross section of reality based self defence systems, and in the last few years have moved over to combat sports.
But a bouncer who restrains a combatant and doesn't pin his arms, doesn't know his job. It's got nothing to do with what he's learning.
To be honest, the sports stuff stands me in much better stead than the 'reality' stuff ever did. I was always pretty sure I was safe with the old one. I don't remember the last time I was even remotely worried since learning combat sports.

pearsquasher wrote: »

Young men carry knives..

No they don't! Not in any frequncy, anyway. Like I said, my job is to deliberately put myself in front of the gougers, and even then I see one every 2 and a half years.

pearsquasher wrote: »

Bouncers should train to assume that they do and so, when it comes to restraint, how accessable a knife is should be built in. Its going to make your grappling skills a whole lot different and harder probably.

Now that is a good point. But forget weapons for a second, If you attempt to restrain someone for the purpose of arrest or ejection from a premesis, keeping flailing arms in check is your priorit here. Knife or not, if I leave an arm loose you can hit me with it, so I don't leave it loose.

ON a last note, I think where Marc MacYoung falls down is the assumption that your opponent is skilled. At the most, once a year I come accross someone who can 'have a fight' or has a reputation. And by and large they can't. I have encountered so few skilled fighters on the door it's unbelievable. If I didn't know how to fight myself of course, it might be a different matter, but a year in a halfway decent combat sports club, should make 99% of people safe in 99% of situations.

pearsquasher

I'm not blind to the fact that lethal assault is very rare. I'm not training to deal with lethal assault on a daily basis.. I'm actually interested in the physicality and mentality that takes place in dealing with this extreme. I have the luxury of not really having to use it daily although I have done a few times, once with hidden a blade. I would have lost a kidney if my art hadn't built into it the appreciation of hidden weapons.

My interest is biomechanical and tactical/strategic. It's an amazingly interesting puzzle to work on movement that takes into account multiples/weapons/lethal force. So when I read articles by somebody who works with, trains, and has lived with this sort of reality AND it completely meshes with my interest, I take note.

I'm not likely to encounter ultraviolence, but my students might. (2 of them do weekly). I send them to MacYoungs website regularly and they know from day one that I'm there to show what's possible, whether likely or not and that I'm not a MacYoung with years of high-risk experience. The dojo is just a lab and while our lab doesn't pretend to be the street it does have a set of conditions that you don't get in the sports arena and that changes the outlook of all the participants. It so happens that MacYoung's outlook seems uncannily similar.

HammerHeadGym

pearsquasher wrote: »

... although I have done a few times, once with hidden a blade. I would have lost a kidney if my art hadn't built into it the appreciation of hidden weapons...

This was the point I was making regarding bouncers knowing their job. It is the fault of the guy who trained the bouncer in, rather than the coach who thaught him to wrestle though. I think anyway.

pearsquasher wrote: »

...My interest is biomechanical and tactical/strategic. It's an amazingly interesting puzzle to work on movement that takes into account multiples/weapons/lethal force. So when I read articles by somebody who works with, trains, and has lived with this sort of reality AND it completely meshes with my interest, I take note...

What got me back into martial arts after a 5 year absence actually. I just feel Mr. Mac Youngs opinions are a little dated. Actually dated isn't the right word here. Let me have a thinka bout it and I'll get back to you.

pearsquasher wrote: »

...I send them to MacYoungs website regularly and they know from day one that I'm there to show what's possible, whether likely or not and that I'm not a MacYoung with years of high-risk experience....

I personnally like his site, for the most part. I do fear however that he goes a little off the deep end when it comes to worse case scenario type stuff. If i was to write a god's honest thruth book about bouncing, 60% of it would be how to stick your chest out and shout someone down, and 35% would be how to trip a guy up and pin him with your knees until he gasses himself out.

pearsquasher wrote: »

...The dojo is just a lab and while our lab doesn't pretend to be the street it does have a set of conditions that you don't get in the sports arena and that changes the outlook of all the participants.

Totally agree. Someone who wants to learn self defence definitely needs to have that sort of thing explained in a non-sport envinronment. (weapons, buddies, verbal disarms, distractions, diffusions etc.) The mentality of the 2 arenas is totally different, in my opinion. Although I do feel the techniques are practiced more thouroughly and efficiantly in a combat sports environment. I guess it really depends on how much violence you realistically expect to face in your day to day life.