Plus I can't imagine here in the states having a school allow you to come in and test them if they have no clue who you are or where your coming from. Just because someone comes in and says they are BJJ doesn't mean squat. Unless your familar with the person or school, no ones going to let you roll if for no other reason than liability. And it would be a no win situation if you came in all arrogant and challenging, you win? Well you probably were supposed to, if you lose? You'd never live it down in your own MA world. Worry about your own training and we'll worry about ours.
Exactly! Pointless. On the other hand, what about a civil interaction? I must disagree with your use of "worry about your training and we'll worry about ours" in this situation, though - this is about giving uninformed people more information to worry about their training. You may feel confident in your ability to judge quality training. Ok. That's cool. But Soccer Mom#41? All she knows is what she's seen on TV. If she heard that the 10th dan instructor of her little Jimmy, who's talked frequently about how his style is the ultimate synthesis of Judo, Aikido, Jujutsu, Karate, Kung Fu, and Tae Kwon Do, was easily beaten by a 20-something half his size and 2 years in his style - maybe Soccer Mom will reconsider whether her boy's really learning how to handle himself.
Atharel, it really is pointless. No matter how many times people point out problems, you can't accept it. If the majority of older and more experienced people as well as many bjj students tell you dojo storming is a bad idea and is little more than ego boosting, and you still support it, I don't know what to say.
What is? I've found this discussion meaningful, and it's reinforced some of my beliefs while changing a few others. What more can I hope for from a debate? I won't accept criticisms that I can easily refute, no. Disregarding the appeal to authority fallacy, if they tell me to think something but can't tell me why without me seeing and pointing out errors in their logic, I have no reason to accept that belief. I of course still accept that dojo storming can be done to boost the ego. That's obvious. To condemn the practice because it could be done by a group of jerks in the wrong way was is flawed. I could use that argument to ban automotives. "Dojo storming, when done in a civil manner with the purpose of demonstrating/determining the combat abilities of a school for informational purposes, is a practice that cannot be condemned" seems a fair summary of my "thesis" here, and I just haven't seen any argument opposing it that makes sense.
Atharel, the problem is that you switch back and forth between ring and self defense at a moment's notice as well as between mma and bjj. You talk about demonstrating and educating the public when there is no evidence that it happens. You talk about civil, but the reality is that is counter to the perception of storming. I think most would argue that a civil test is not storming. No one is against civil, reasonable tests of styles. No one is against educating the public about obvious frauds. People are against obnoxious behavior that accomplishes nothing but pumps up peoples chests. If multiple people are giving you essentially the same reasons over and over again and you keep ignoring them and saying that you have pointed out errors in their logic and others keep saying saying you are just ignoring what you disagree with, perhaps it might be the latter?
No, I've been quite consistent. Have you missed everything I've been writing about combat ability as a part of self defense which is easily testable? It looks like you're unable to get past the artificial separation of fighting ability and self defense. I am also quite consistent in discussing MMA-related arts, and indeed hard-sparring and honest arts in general, rather than solely BJJ. When I discuss BJJ it is because someone else already brought it up. When I am done replying to them about it I return to my original point. I have throughout this discussion also mentioned other hard sparring arts. Attempting to reduce "dojo storming" to "BJJ bullies" when it's convenient then making generalizations about "the octagon" or "the cage" when those are convenient is disingenuous. Pretending that I'm saying "BJJ is teh best!!" at any point is a strawman attempt. Incorrect. R. Pereiras, a BJJ instructor and supposed black belt, has come under heavy scrutiny by the combination of shady claims to where he got his belt and him supposedly being tapped by white, blue and purple belts in training with a visiting school. The untouchable Kiaijutsu master on youtube was exposed as a fraud and has lost students due to badly losing a challenge to a karateka. A kung fu guy on youtube got his arm broken via americana when fighting a BJJ'er ater he said that his eye gouges and dirty tricks would let him defeat a groundfighter. There are many examples of the public being educated by empirical testing of claims to fighting ability. A hostile but civil test is still dojo storming. The Kiai master was not denigrated or insulted prior, during, or after his challenge by the karateka. He was just beaten. And the challenge came because his claims were doubted. I am not ignoring them, I am disproving them. Please find one thing that I've ignored rather than replied to and refuted, I don't know of any. Maybe I missed something.
Hrmmm if people aren't dicks about it and just walk into a school and be like "hi I would like to test my skills against so and so level of student," I don't see what's the problem. Not only for informational purposes but also to test your own skills, perhaps have a technique exchange, and make some new friends seems to be just fine.
I have on numerous occasions seen people punching and knocking out multiple opponents in real fights but to date have never seen a grappler choking someone out whilst having a second person in an armbar And for the record I totaly agree with the above quote.
Perhaps if the title was called "Training at another school to test your skills" everyone would feel the same. But Dojo storming suggests bursting through the gym doors and bullishly trying to fight to prove that you are a better fighter than they are.
So have you seen anyone punch one opponent out with a right hand while simultaneously punching another opponent out with a left?
No, but I can guarantee you that I can punch the second far faster than I can stop grappling the first and takedown the second. And I am very good at takedowns.
Not every schools purpose is to make their students killers on the streets. I make a point in telling moms and dads that their kids probably aren't going to be able to do much in self defense before ages 10-12. Below that, I tell them their kid will listen better, gain better balance and coordination. They'll be more polite and be better behaved in school and at home. Most parents are thrilled at getting that in return for their $40-50 a month. Kids are exercising, something that most don't do anymore, they have a strong social interaction, and they gain some much needed discipline. Now if someone claims their little five year old Johnny is a black belt and is good at self defense, that's hogwash. Anyone who wants to snatch a 5 year old, theres not much the kid can do regardless of their training.
Yes, I assumed you were talking about the relative benefits of TKD compared with MMA for the purposes of self-defence, not how they fare against each other in MMA competition. Clearly there are plenty of statistics that demonstrate the value of one type of training regime over another within the context of MMA competition. Heck, you never know, I might even agree with you that one is better than the other for self-defence - BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN STATISTICALLY DEMONSTRATED. Seems to me you're making an assumption here. Under what rules would a 'dojo storming' challenge be held? Seems to me you're assuming it would be under MMA rules. If you come into my dojo and challenge me why on earth should I agree to play by your rules? If the hypothetical TKD instructor had any sense he'd get you to fight by TKD rules. Then he'd win, regardless of whoever's art is better preparation for self-defence. To be honest, I'm not really sure how I'd handle such a challenge, it would depend on the particular circumstances. But you can rest assured that I wouldn't be fighting by your rules, I'd be fighting by rules of my choosing, which I suspect might make it even more "remarkably similar to a real fight". I'm not actually remotely interested in the MMA v TMA debate. I know my thoughts on it. I'm not dogmatic, I think both schools of thought have something to offer. I'm also as aware as anyone of some of the pitfalls of TMA training. Funny thing is, I've never trained in MMA or competed in it, but I have been in quite a lot of fights. And my TMA training stood me in good stead, but I learned about its weaknesses and (ultimately) modified my training in accordance with what I learned. From your last sentence above its obvious that you are comparing MMA and TMA with respect to their value in self-defence - "the poor dead horse of MMA's relation to real fighting can be beaten mercilessly". Hence it seemed appropriate to clarify that the statistical correlation that you're inferring isn't actually valid. So in summary... 1. Statistically, there is much evidence that MMA training better equips martial artists for MMA competition than arts such as TKD. 2. There is no demonstrated statistical correlation between each arts success in MMA competition and its fitness for the purposes of self-defence. Mike
Did you read what I said? *headscratch* Nothing you've said here has anything to do with what I was getting at with "statistically", as I plainly explained in my previous post. Under the smallest ruleset possible that will allow both parties to use their fighting skills, and probably also pure grappling and pure striking. TKD rules have less to do with actual combat ability than a less restrictive ruleset. I'd agree that a TKD guy should get a chance to show ability in a kickboxing format if that's what you mean. Unless the claim being tested was supreme combat ability regardless of what your opponent was doing, but that's one thing even most crap TKD people aren't guilty of. If they did though they should be expected to prove it even against someone that can do takedowns and submissions. "Your"? And I hope you realize how little sense there is in demanding someone fight in a ruleset less like real fighting to make it more like real fighting. "You can only fight me with your left hand! Not the right, not the elbows, not the knees, not the legs, not the head - just your left hand! I set the rules, so it's more like the street!" Just... no. That's nice. Relevance? This isn't a TMA/MMA debate. AGAIN, you need to actually read what I wrote! I didn't even come close to talking about statistical success or correllation or whatever it is you're working off of here - I was talking about statistics of % of good schools/total schools. And are you arguing that having more rules, including rules eliminating entire ranges of fighting, makes it more like a fight? In summary, you're replying to an imaginary friend, because I have not said anything about statistics concerning MMA's superiority for SD.
I'm sure, but not every situation that uses grappling is one where you have to finish two people at the same time. And I'm guessing that not every single punch you throw knocks someone out.
I think he read it. I am not sure, but I think that you perceive anyone who disagrees with what you wrote as a reading problem. Wouldn't that be no rules? Reading comprehension alert. He wasn't saying fight by TKD rules. He was saying "I'd be fighting by rules of my choosing, which I suspect might make it even more "remarkably similar to a real fight"." In other words, come in dissing him, expect he is going to do whatever it takes to put you in your place. In other words, not a competition, but a real fight. See the part above about no rules. Really? Several people might question that. Especially with comments like crap tkd people or that tkd and wc are in a gray area. You have two choices of how to interpert that. What is total schools? Total ma schools or total schools of that style? Since there are so few good mma schools compared to the other styles, you would have a hard time with that very tiny percentage. The reality is that while there might be a better ratio of good vs. bad schools in mma it is easier to find a good tkd or karate school than a good mma school because there are so many more of them. Once again, you don't seem to be reading what others write. He never argued that. This quote has absolutely nothing to do with what he wrote.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. The percentage of fights that end up with one punch knocking a person out is pretty low. And generally having multiple opponents means you are screwed. I just get tired of the constant argument that if you can't succeed in mma or bjj rules against one person in a ring or on a mat, how does anyone think that they can possibly do better in a fight on the street or against multiple opponents. The reality is that the grappler has the advantage in a one on one scenario where the is no debris. The striker has the advantage against multiple opponents (as compared to a grappler) or in a place with lots of debris. That is why crosstraining is so important. You can't succeed without both sides. Even then, against multiple opponents who know what they are doing and want to hurt you, you are probably screwed.
