We are talking about using sport methods to develop fighting. If you take the methods of any sport and apply it ti the end goal of fighting (in your particular context) then that's going to work well. I don't see the things you mentioned as less sportive... I see them as less applicable to fighting because they focus on noncombative outcomes. I have a bias towards MMA, full contact striking arts and grappling arts because I think they have the best expression of the sports method for combat applicability in a broad sense and serve as a formidable base for any scenario work etc that you might want to undertake.
Sport method and techniques governed by "urban" tactical considerations [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSyhvw6FaQ&list=PL6A4C15405DC9345F"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSyhvw6FaQ&list=PL6A4C15405DC9345F[/ame]
I am talking about a person who actualy trains and competes realisticaly in an activety will still ,on a physiological fundamental level , be able to apply those fundamentals in an emergency situation that resembles that trained activety. I gave running,swimming, climbing.. as an example because its simpler and takes away any baggage associated with martial arts or SD...or thought it would. I am not trying to say that anyone athletic can do any athletic activety. A person who runs and competes under pressure will still apply those same physiological fundamentals if they have to run away in an emergency. No one would try to set a training regime that takes a good runner and tells them that they need to now run another way because are being chased by a danger..no one would say to a competative swimmer that their swimming ability will be useles if they had to swim from danger and so create another way for them to swim. Of course there could be other factors like some reacting to the danger quicker than others...some freeze...etc etc...but im not adressing that. The articles are relevant in a way but people who compete full contact or spar hard or drill hard still experience stresses, adrenalin, etc etc too...things that make it difficult to do anything other than what works in those situations and learn the nuances and tweeks that make, say, a right cross, work..refine .the motor skills that do work in a fight but not on a pad, for example. There was a post where you gave information on the spinal engine. I was meaning more something like that...as in,for example, does the way the spinal engine works for a runner in a competative run change drastically if they had to run in an emergency to the point where it becomes irrelevant and a new way for the spine to function has to be used?
PHP: Nice post. Just one part that I bolded in the quote below that confuses me: "A person who runs and competes under pressure will still apply those same physiological fundamentals if they have to run away in an emergency. No one would try to set a training regime that takes a good runner and tells them that they need to now run another way because are being chased by a danger..no one would say to a competative swimmer that their swimming ability will be useles if they had to swim from danger and so create another way for them to swim." Teaching people to run and swim differently is exactly what happens for real world and sport. I think maybe dependency on equipment is something you are leaving out of the equation. Just like in MMA you got Gi and no-Gi. Now you got street clothes and formal wear also. About 25-30 years ago, if I recall a team of Navy Seals got turned around and drowned a few miles from shore. One thing about what they wore is they went sleeveless. Apparently, if you have sleeves, you can tie them up and keep air in them as a makeshift floatation device. Could that have saved them, I don't know but it was a topic of discussion. Sprinters have very strong legs, but they need to learn to run distance with 80 lbs packs. Yes the training regime is different when equipment comes into play.
So where have I said "that if you are not training for competition then you must be spending all your time on kata, eye gouges, pressure points and nipple twisters" ? Admission by omission? I have the power over any information I give about myself. And, come on, anything other than me saying I have competed for a world title or something would then , to your eyes, just give you more ammo to attack the person making the point rather than the point itself. Iv seen this forum in action haha many times. Plus im not going to sit here behind a keyboard saying Iv done this or that, check me out. Iv competed,not on a major level or any thing to get excited about, iv had heavy spars, iv had real fights or situations outside.
Maybe another way to look at it is, as I mentioned before, how specialized real world skills can be. A killer only needs to be really good at one way to thrust a knife or one way to come down with an ice pick. They can kill someone that is much more skilled than them in martial arts with just some experience, determination, and a few weeks of dedicated practice on the one killing strike. The fundamentals of body motion only come into play if you can survive the specialization of the opponent. Some people spend a lot of time on one particular technique, and most of the time that is all they need. They aren't expecting a long confrontation that requires a broader spectrum of skill and abilities.
Its a good point and I get where your coming from. I can only say that if swimming with clothes on was a requirment ,then all training and competing would be done with clothes on too. They would not train them to swim and compete with clothes on, then say heres a different way to swim with clothes on for real. For me I would say its a tactical difference as oppose to a physiological difference.
My (perhaps flawed) view is this; If you cannot beat me, or are not training to beat someone like me, then what are you training for? For instance, what if I am the eejit starting a fight with you. Or I am the person robbing you. Although worth remembering I've had a little kali and feel not uncomfortable with a stick/knife in my hand. That's really the worst case scenario. People think that 3 on 1 is a bad situation to be in. Truth is 1 on 1 with me, or someone like southpaw in a back alleyway where no one can save you is a bad scenario. Don't get me wrong, 3 on 1 in dark alleyway is bad when the other three can't fight too. Which would you rather have though, 3 on 1 or Hannibal off-duty?
If you're just talking about applying sport science to martial arts training, then yes, I agree. However, research into such diverse sports as golf, figure skating and cricket can be informative, and, as far as I know, there is more research into these types of sport than there is into MMA, so I'm not sure that the "combatness" of said sport is particularly relevant. The sports you list are effective for building fundamental fighting skills because of the training methods, not because they are sports.
I was trying to decipher your posts about "set moves" and "standing on your toenails". Did I come to the wrong conclusion? Set me straight. Not at all. I haven't entered so much as a tiddlywinks match, competition just doesn't interest me. I certainly wouldn't be disparaging of any competitions you have entered, and I am not attacking you as a person, but you have formed your opinion through your experience, so it is relevant to addressing your points.
This I do very much agree with. The "we are only training to fight numpties" argument trotted out by some of the RBSD crowd is a poor copout, in my opinion.
What if it is Luke Rockhold robbing you? Or Bas Rutten, Mike Tyson and the ghost of Bruce Lee? You want to be prepared the best you can but the "what if" argument can be pushed to the nth degree. People criticize "training for the common" and I get that underestimating a threat is potentially a deadly mistake, but training to face ninjas and supervillains is a futile goal all the same - especially when the people seeking self-defense training (vs combat sports) are average joes and janes with average athleticism, resources and time to dedicate to learning how to fight. Surely we can prepare people "for the common" without assuming the common is always an untrained guy drunk off their gourd. Especially when some people don't have a problem posting proof of bjj's effectiveness for self defense showing an elite black belt subduing...an untrained guy drunk off their gourd. Seems like there's a cognitive dissonance there sometime. But I'm going on a tangent.
Yes, that's a good point, but I think it is just the difference between a short SD course and spending years learning a fighting system. If you've spent years learning a fighting system and still haven't got past pretending to fight numpties, then you have wasted your time.
But I am actually training as hard as I can to beat those guys. I'm not saying I can beat them, largely in part due to the fact I'm a length of string and Luke Rockhold would be a chain attached to an anchor in my analogy.
Yes, I was going to pick the off duty Hannibal because I knew there was a loophole in the logic my competitive mind could exploit. Yay, I WIN!!! On the practical side, I would pick Hannibal because if I was seriously hurt, he would make sure I made it to the hospital.
