Maybe you need to work on your mindset if you can't make your sport dirty or train with guys that can. How is it ridiculous? More ridiculous than someone saying they can tell you exactly how to move or what technique to do...if you will be going, up, down, left, right at any moment during chaotic violent moment? Can anyone say..." do a right cross like this, then do this and he will do that and so do this"....no they can't ..it is not possible! You have to adapt on the spot and will not know, physiologically what position you will be in to strike, clinch, grapple so have to be able to do as much as possible from every position that could happen, recover from failure, change course.etc ..whatever needs doing. No one would ever fight anyone if it was the case that these things could be known because they would already know what would happen....as in it takes two so why would an eventual loser even start a fight or attack someone to then lose? Competitive training is a lead up or should be to a full contact fight or at least a heavy spar,where the real learning takes place... where you could get hurt...but not as bad as failing in a real situation where you could get very very hurt.
Looks like you had a lot of fun knocking down those straw men you built! You seem to be mistaking me for someone who does kata and has never sparred hard. What's your competition record?
Rubik cube champion 1979. Household Connect 4 champion 2009 - 2015. Most worn out person on MAP 2014- current. What do I win.
What do you mean by make sport dirty? Are you talking about dirty tricks and techniques? Or are you talking about attitude, such as really trying to hurt someone? Let's not forget about the importance of experience. An experienced fighter may not know exactly everything, but they will have a good idea of what comes next. There are signs. When you get a good shot on them and all the blood empties from their face, their hands drop and jaw opens, there is a moment you know you really got them good. Experience will help you seize the opportunity to help or finish them, rather than hesitate and act too late. I think you are way over complicating this. People are creatures of habit. When something unexpected happens, the mind tends to lag behind on processing the data, the body goes on autopilot and acts out of habit. People tend to get tunnel vision and at the worst, panic. In another post you made a statement to the effect that a trained rock climber could get away from danger better than someone not trained, meaning something like if I had to climb over something, being trained in rock climbing would make me better at it. However, then you say that someone can't tell exactly what will happen, they need to adapt at the moment. Maybe you are focusing on the skill set, but let's not forget about the experience. A trained rock climber under stress is going to have better habits, but there is more to it. Staying calm, being aware of the situation and surroundings, having options... everything you need to adapt quickly first requires that you have experienced the situation before or something similar. Whether in real world, simulation, training, whatever... you are tested. The first time usually doesn't go well unless you are just lucky. Each time after should get a bit more efficient. Going back to the importance of experience, perhaps I can turn your statement around. Adapting on the spot is a really vague concept. So much of adapting is on knowing ahead of time where you need to be to be successful. If I'm working a clinch, knowing where I need to be to apply a shoulder lock means that I can immediately start working the angles and footwork to get there, and more importantly, I can identify when the enemy gives me the technique, and I can just take it with a good set up, like a cross-face at 45 degree angle. In order to take a technique the enemy gives me, I can't have my mind bogged down with all sorts of thoughts. I already need to be always protecting myself, more fluidly, be a hard to hit target, etc. I can't be focusing on all this and be able to take openings on the spot. So you advocate competitive training to lead up to heavy sparring. At which point the real learning takes place. If I extrapolate, the real learning is in adapting on the spot or to the point where you can adapt on the spot. I believe what you say has merit and I would agree completely, except the line of thinking can be viewed as very vague. What if I said, "don't fight the enemy, duel them." What does that mean? Maybe it doesn't matter what it means, but I will say, the term "fight" can be very vague in that it can mean many things. When someone duels, it isn't so vague.
Indeed. I agree. I'm glad you see so clearly that you have to train for something in order to be better at it than you would be naturally. Which is exactly why, if reliable, versatile, reproducible and applicable (by a wide range of people) self defence skills are what's required you actually train and drill the skills required for self defence, and not just the skills required for the particular sport martial art they happen to do (of which there are many). Use of dialogue, likely scenarios, common attacks (HAOV), suitable tactics, loop-holing, de-escalating, knowledge of the law, aftermath (dealing with injuries, the police, retribution), escaping (and knowing to "run away" doesn't cut it...tactically escaping can and should be drilled just like any other technique), group tactics, self defence priorities ("winning" ain't always the end goal), protecting weaker others and a whole host of other facets of self defence a sport class won't cover. To put it another way...when someone turns up to Thai boxing do you assume they know how to throw a jab? No right? You show 'em how to throw one and there will be a highly variable facility for throwing a jab between people. Some people will have a good one straight away or very soon (previous experience, natural talent, good pro-prioception) while other will take months or years of drilling to get a servicable jab. And so it is with the facets of self defence I've mentioned. Some people will have the gift of the gab, some will already be very confident, some will know the law, some will bring strong physical skills but have no street smarts, some will have street smarts but no physical skills, etc etc. So a good self defence orientated club will cover all the bases to make sure everyone is up to snuff no matter what their indvidual talents may be.
Where have I mentioned you or rules in any of this? I've no idea who you are or what you can do and that's not pertinent when discussing training modalities and training for specific goals. We all bring very different mixtures of skills and aptitudes to the table so individuals are best left out of it. The question isn't "What can person A do?" but "What does training approach "A" involve and does that cover what is needed for desired outcome "B"? When it comes to self defence you think sport martial arts (which let's not forget runs the gamut from semi-contact tippy tap and WTF TKD right up to Brazilian Vale Tudo so I've no idea how you can be so sweeping in your validation of sport martial arts for self defence) adequately answer that question, whereas I do not. Again...don't get me wrong. I'm a massive fan of sport martial arts and they are often great for furnishing people with tried and tested physical skills that can be used and adapted for self defence. I just don't think going to a sport martial art club is the best course of action when your desired sphere of functionality is self protection, self defence and fighting in a real situation. There are clubs out there better suited to that aim (and of course a whole host of clubs that purport to be involved in that aim that are rubbish).
I'm a big believer in the idea of developing your attributes, honing your fundamental delivery systems and allowing context to dictate your tactics. I think sportive training is the best way to address the first two and having a tactical understanding of the self defence environment through study and ancillary technical work can bolster the later. Soooooo you are both right! Yeeeeeay
"Rubik cube champion 1979. Household Connect 4 champion 2009 - 2015. Most worn out person on MAP 2014- current" This obviously and bowling.
So you have no evidence that shows we move differently on a physiological level in an emergency than we do during sport and combat sport ? Where have a said that sport martial arts adequately answers the question for SD? That ones been pulled out of thin air. What I have said is that on a physiological or physical level the way we move fundamentally ,during an emergency is more like we do during sport than anything else. That is not a bad thing to say or calls for any major disputes as far as I can see nor means to be argumentative ...it's simply what is true according to what is known.
Jake Shields vs Dan Henderson after match confrontation Herbie Hide vs Michael Bent press conference Larry Holmes dropkicking his opponent off a car roof Eric Cantona....no, forget that one Anytime a press conference goes south it looks NOTHING like two trained fighters going at it
Conversely - [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84wBVPpcqc"]Rugby fight between Royal Navy and Marine Nationale | France v England | Toulon - YouTube[/ame] This looks more like MMA then anything else.
Under an emergency, people move how they are trained to move based on their natural abilities and experience. I would say that sport is 90% hidden and 10% visible. The 10% is important because that is your potential. However, to reach that potential, the secret is in the other 90%. Like an iceberg, the 10% is the visible part (above the water line) and the other 90% is hidden (under the water line). I could point out differences in how people move in sport and under emergencies BASED ON THEIR TRAINING. For instance, you might run in a straight line based on your training, or you might run with random changes in direction or weaving based on your training. Which one is used in a 100 meter race and which one is used when evading getting hit by a someone shooting at you? Like others may have implied, the potential physical movements are important, but the secret is in how you get there to unlock your potential. How you get there is hidden. Looks like a brawl, minus the weapons of opportunity. If we took that same video but the topic was "this is how we train", more than likely someone would post that "it looks like bad MMA" and someone else would post, "that's what we do in our RBSD classes". Whereas, the question for SD might be better, "how does your training prepare for this situation?"
How does that show that we physiologically move differently? Non of those fighters suddenly jumped on there toenails and moved there heads like chickens or something and changed the fundamental how they would strike. It became more chaotic with limited time frames but they still moved fundamentally the same. Would you say to Herbie Hide that he is punching wrong and change him physiologically...get him on his toe nails maybe..reinvent his striking...tell him to move like a zebra instead.just because it's now a situation outside the ring?....no one would. His tactics, mindset, maybe adding clinch and grappling etc it might be suggested could need added or changing ...but he would hit harder and more efficiently than any non boxer in a SD situation if he saw the opportunity and it arose in that context....as in it wouldn't be perfect or technically great like a ring fight, but what ever came out would be fundamentally superior to a non boxer or someone who has never thrown a punch in a realistic situation
Why is this your argument? It's no-one else's. The argument is that the physical and psychological pressures you need to face are different.
People are creatures of habit. It isn't easy to switch between sport and SD under pressure. People need time to make that decision based on the situation. When caught under fire, that initial split second on perceived threat or contact is coming off intuition based on how you train it, or if you do not trust your intuition, then maybe you hesitate. The point being that the initial split second movement has to work for BOTH sport and SD because you have no time to decide otherwise. Some call it the flinch response. No one is debating the merits of proper training done in sport or how effective techniques used in combat sport are. Instead, look at habits, especially that very first initial reaction or split second on contact and decide if it is only good in sport, only good in SD, or applicable to both. Because this initial reaction isn't going to be changed on the fly or adapt, it is going to come intuitively, often before you even realize it is done.
Its not an argument or my argument. It's a fact based on what we know physiologically. It gives merit to the importance of learning physical fundamentals though competitive sporting activity which is a point I have not moved from but which has been challenged and I'm responding to.
