Rant: What it's all about / How can people still not get it?

Ok, I feel like a rant, lets see how this goes down

...

Part 1: What It's All About

I look at martial arts forums and magazines and it amazes me how some people still don't get what fighting is about.

Ok, people do martial arts for different reasons, I get that, but if they are making any claim towards being able to fight then it is really quite simple what you should be training.

When I try to explain fighting to people I stress two points:

1. What matters is performance against a resisting opponent.

2. Stand Up, Clinch and Ground are all important for fighting.

Therefore, when it comes to fighting all that matters is increasing your performance in stand up, clinch and ground against a resisting opponent (which in training means sparring).

That's what it's all about, there is nothing else. Things that don't matter include: how many techniques you know, how many boards you can break, how many kicks you can do in a minute, who your sensei is, what belts you have, if you can do a back flip, how big your library is, the brand of training gear you wear etc etc.

Someone can walk in the gym and say "I'm a 10th degree balckbelt in so and so" or "I trained with so and so in Japan", I really don't care. All I want to know is how good are you at stand up, clinch and ground against a resisting opponent.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everyone MUST train stand up, clinch and ground. You only need to train all three areas if you want to be a well rounded fighter, what to compete in limited rules events and/or are claiming to teach someone to really fight. Plenty of people just do one and even those who train it all usually have a favourite. As long as they except the limitations of only training one aspect (as shown in countless MMA bouts) and their aim is increased performance against a resisting opponent then they will have some usable tools for fighting (there are plenty of Judoka and boxers for example who are badass fighters, albeit with obvious limitations).

When training, ask yourself "is this increasing my performance in stand up, clinch and/or ground against a resisting opponent?" and "are there better ways I could be doing it?". I'll give you a clue, if you are doing a kata, breaking boards, going up and down the mat doing unrealistic techniques then the answers are "no" and "yes" in that order.

Right, was gonna stop there but seeing as it's a rant I might as well carry on...


Part 2: Combat Sports Are The Way To Go

So, what do you train for stand up, clinch and ground? It should be obvious really, combat sports.

Watch the punching in boxing, Muay Thai, kickboxing, K-1, MMA, NHB etc (ie anywhere people actually fight). All very similar. Look at the takedowns in wrestling, Shan Shou, MMA, NHB etc. All very similar. The simple fact is the best delivery systems are usually combat sports as they are pressure tested in competition and trained against a resisting opponent.

"Alive" training methods and full contact fighting dictate the style and that always ends up becoming like combat sports. If you spar with punches to the head you will develop a high guard or get knocked out a lot no matter where your style says to hold your hands. Same goes for all other aspects. Watch "karate" fighters training for K-1 bouts and you'll think you're watching Muay Thai or Kickboxing. Put two guys together (untrained or from a TMA background) and let them fight; if they really go at it it'll often look like a bad Mixed Marital Arts (MMA) match. Fighting is fighting. Combat Sports have been there and done it under full contact conditions, they have the best training methods for improving performance.

This is the point where I sometimes hear stuff like "I don't do that because I train for the street", "I don't need to grapple because I can bite and eye gouge" and "what about pressure points?". So lets take a quick look at those.

Firstly, sport vs street. Performance in the delivery systems against a resisting opponent is your base for fighting, whatever your intended arena. The delivery systems stay the same, it's the strategies and tactics that change. The "I train for the street" excuse for not training combat sport delivery systems for stand, clinch and ground is false. We all have the basic body structure so fighting doesn't change much from arena to arena. A mount is always a mount, a right cross is always a right cross, a sprawl is always a sprawl. Your ability to perform these movements, no matter what the context, is only down to your performance of these moves against a resisting opponent (ie sparring and alive drilling).

A good example familiar to many is Geoff Thompson. Although he started in what are often called "traditional martial arts" (TMA) when he wanted to progress as a fighter (and had to because of working as a bouncer) the arts he trained in were boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling and Judo. All combat sports. These he then combined in to the Animal Day sessions. While the delivery systems stayed the same he developed specialised strategies and tactics to apply them in the street. Preemptive strikes, "The Fence", disarming dialogue etc all served one simple purpose, to allow him to apply the fundamentals of stand up, clinch and ground developed through what we call "alive" training.

Now for "dirty tactics". Several times I've heard comments from non-grapplers such as "grappling can be countered by biting and eye gouging". When I hear that the following questions spring to mind: If that's your only option what does that say about your training/style? How often do you train it/what makes you think you'd have the chance? Isn't biting/eye gouging as your only option in a grapple a bit extreme (what if you're dealing with a drunk relative causing trouble at a party)?

The inclusion of "dirty tactics" does not excuse a lack of ability in a basic grappling delivery system. If two fighters are in a grappling situation where biting and gouging is happening (which means both sides can do it) who will have the advantage, the skilled grappler or the fighter with no experience in that arena? That's really a no-brainer right? The same goes for the clinch. The grappler is familiar with the positions/movement/timing and physical/mental stress of grappling. If he has thrown his opponent, mounted him and is punching his face in as well as gouging and biting I guarantee the guy on the bottom will wish he could perform a mount escape against a resisting opponent. I think these people either never seen a fight between a grappler and non grappler and/or never sparred.

As for pressure points, give me a break. Not only do not rate them against a resisting opponent for a multitude of reasons but once again it's no excuse for not having stand up, clinch and ground.

If you have no stand up there's a good chance you are gonna get knocked out. If you have no clinch you're gonna get ragged about, smashed up with knees/elbows/head butts and thrown at will. If you have no ground you're gonna get choked out or mounted and bashed up. Fighting is fighting. That's just the way it is.

Nathan

:woo:

Props to Matt Thornton and SBG for much of the vocabulary and the general ideas behind this post.

 

^^ Listen too this guy he knows his stuff.

In following with your well tuned rant, ill post a nice extract from Mastering Jujitsu by Renzo Gracie which follows the same lines.

Matt Thornton and the SBG are the kick up the butt the martial arts work needs if you ask me.

 

Nice posts. I really enjoyed the content of both. Thanks very much for making me think!

 

I've already saved his rant to txt file

 

Agreed.

Not essential though, bear in mind most people don't know anything.

Breaking boards requires power, control and good technique, all three of which are useful for fighting.

I know people who are good at fighting without having trained in ANYTHING, let alone "stand up, clinch and ground". The only arena they're essential in is a fight with someone else who knows all three ranges.

This is what I mean and I agree. Whilst I know I can fight without being a groundwork expert, I can see why it would enhance my ability greatly if I knew groundwork too. I'm with you on this one.

People who train in kata don't *just* do kata kata nothing but kata, it has useful stuff in it but 1) I've not come across a school where it is a replacement for sparring and 2) I don't think such a school should ever exist.

The benefits to combat sports are obvious but that doesn't mean you can't learn useful stuff elsewhere. Although I'm not saying it's better or worse, arts that teach you techniques like kicks to the groin which aren't allowed in combat sports but are very effective in real life can at least cover a gap in sport martial arts training.

[/QUOTE]Watch the punching in boxing, Muay Thai, kickboxing, K-1, MMA, NHB etc (ie anywhere people actually fight). All very similar. Look at the takedowns in wrestling, Shan Shou, MMA, NHB etc. All very similar. The simple fact is the best delivery systems are usually combat sports as they are pressure tested in competition and trained against a resisting opponent.[/QUOTE]

There's not actually a huge difference between punches, kicks and takedowns in any style I've come across. Even praying mantis kung fu, in which we did no sparring, had punches that were similar to those in boxing and judo style throws.

They have the best methods for improving perfomance IN THE RING. Outside the ring, where a karateka can use whatever techniques he likes and his opponent isn't skipping around using footwork, he is not going to start kickboxing. Again, not to say the ring doesn't teach useful stuff, but it *is* different.

In what combat sport are you allowed to break limbs, destroy windpipes, crush testicles, poke eyes out etc?

What about if you learn nastier stuff too? Also, I doubt a drunk at a family party is going to be as dangerous an opponent as a well-trained grappler, therefore I think I would be able to do a bit more to him than just bite him.

So a completely untrained person is a better fighter than someone who only trains in one area?

A lot of what you say I agree with, but so what? This is how most people already train. Most people may not train in all 3 areas, but like you said, there are badass fighters out there who only train in one. This is because training in only one area is better than training in none whatsoever.

The problem with sport martial arts is that things like kicks to the groin are not allowed so this whole "against a resisting opponent" thing goes out of the window the minute someone starts doing anything really nasty. In a real fight, I want to use the most effective techniques, not just the ones that I was allowed to practice in sparring because they're safer. Furthermore, in real life my opponent isn't going to care about only using moves that are safe for sparring.

I just know that someone is going to jump down my throat for saying that, but let them. I'm not denying the usefulness of doing a lot of sparring and learning all 3 areas of fighting. I'm not even saying it isn't better overall. But the fact that you can only do moves which are safe enough to spar with is, in my eyes, ONE big disadvantage that they have. IMO stuff like kicking the groin and gouging the eyes *is* basic because it is easy to do.

At the end of the day I think it's about balance. There are benefits to learning the nastiest possible techniques, and there are benefits to sparring full contact in all 3 areas. Improving your training in one area means toning down the other because otherwise training becomes too dangerous. Some people prefer to tip the balance more in favour of sparring, some more in favour of nasty techniques, but I think it's an inescapable fact that increasing one decreases the other.

 

How about a concealed blade as clinch and mount defense?
Props on the post, it was a good one.
Oh, and to mention the detriments of sports combat: You get a head full of mush, and a chest full of sap, and it is worth mentioning that many people in the street have fists full of lead and chests full of kevlar.

 

Levo,

Nice post!

Just wondering. What's your stance on weapons training? Does it not need to be done at all? Does it need to be done under a sporting format? (There are sporting formats for stickfighting for example.)

I ask because I really like what you've said so far. And I'm curious to know whether there's room for some other priorities in this framework you describe.


Stuart

 

I like the orginal post very much and agree with the concepts in it. Understanding that it is a rant, especially one aimed at certain magazines and such, is important as well. The poster's bias towards (so-called) Combat Sports and bias against TMAs is the only issue I disagree with.

The concepts of pressure testing, practical techniques, addressing all ranges of combat, dialog, "aliveness", and so on can be used (and are used) in TMA schools as well. I think that if an instructor wants to provide top quality instruction, they need to be well-trained (and well-read) on the latest concepts going on. The concepts listed in the original post are ones that should be taught in all self defence schools, regardless of style or designation as a "MMA" or "TMA" school. It may be just my philospohy, but there are many ways of achieving the same end.

 

I disagree. IMO breaking boards makes you good at breaking boards with very little crossover to fighting. It doesn't give you the technique, or more importantly, the timing.

a) What? How can someone be good at fighting without ability in stand up, clinch or ground? If they aren't punching someone out in stand up, smashing them up in the clinch or finishing them on the floor what are they doing? Using telepathy to make them give in? They may not have training, but they have got to be able to finish someone in one of those "ranges" (for want of a better term).

b) I thought this was a martial arts forum where people train so would like to talk about what training to do. The "I know guys who can do so and so without training" doesn't really help anyone.

No, fighting is fighting.

Cool

So a club is only good if they spar? I agree.

Can a club be good if they don't do kata? Of course.

I think my point there is quite clear.

I agree.

Like are said the combat sport delivery systems are the base because fighting is fighting and they are the best at it.

Strategies and tactics change depending on the arena. There is good info for that outside of combat sports, particularly in regard to the street, but that doesn't excuse a lack of ability in stand up, clicnh and ground (ie the basics of fighting).

Edit: Misread post.

Yep, there's not much difference in stuff that works IMO. Fighting is fighting.

Don't agree. Fighting is fighting wether in the ring or on the street, it's the strategies and tactics which change. I'd pick a combat sports exponent against a karateka almost any day of the week (barring exceptional individuals on both sides).

A) Stand up combat sports teach the most efficient and powerful striking, grappling arts teach chokes and how to break limbs. All effective and trained against a resisting opponent, no make believe stuff here.

B) Like I've said several times on this thread strategies and tactics change depending on the arena but that doesn't excuse a lack of ability in stand up, clinch and ground (ie the basics of fighting).

c) IMO ability in stand up, clinch and ground gives you a FAR better base for applying dirty tactics (read the grappler v non grappler with dirty tactics bit in the first post). Example: an eye poke standing. Who has a better chance with this technique, a boxer you tell to open his hand (he has amazing timing with his hands and is hard to hit) vs someone doing open hand moves in a kata/against a makiwara etc?

For the first bit see the comments I've made throughout this thread.

As for the second part, you don't seem to get what I'm saying. There are times you have to physically deal with as they may be a threat to others or themselves without tearing them a new one. Not every situation is a life and death fight where you can bite chunks out of people as your only option. And if you think a drunk relative at a party (and remember that this is just a random example) can't be threat I think you're wrong.

I wish that was the case.

Also, seeing it expressed in a different way can help with communication (explaining things to new students for example).

Anyway, I thought this was a discussion forum

A) Read Renzo's comments posted above they explain it better than I can.

B) People will try to punch you, kick you, headlock you etc etc. All things that appear in combat sports. IMO training those would be useful.

C) As I've said many times, I don't think the "I train for the street" style argument is any excuse for not being skilled in the basics of fighting. And that the basics of fighting derived from combat sports are simply the best platform for using dirty tactics.

d) Who says you can't train groin kicks etc? Once you've got the basics of fighting you can use the training methods of combat sports (live drilling and sparring) to train whatever you want. I never said you have to spar full contact or can't wear different protective gear.

----

Will get to the other posts in a bit.

Nathan

 

In brazilian jujitsu (a combat sport) they train to break limbs. But they train this ability and technique on a resisting opponent with the added safe ability to allow their oppoent to tap out once their in the lock.

I thought yours was an excellent explination to be honest. I was particually impressed with the following paragraph:

 

Somewhat an interesting post, althought many of its points have already being posted just about everywhere and the same misconseptions are repeated again and again...and again. Combat sports are good, they add a sense of competitiveness and instinct that few other things can give you and are very good tools to develop fighting ability. However, we begin to become limited as fighters once we stop using any other technique except for the ones allowed in the ring and the thought of any technique other than the ones allowed in the ring does not even cross our minds, at which point the unexpected will happen, your concentration is broken and is a very good situation to get killed in.

The preconceived idea that TMA exponents do not spar hard contact continues to appear and also the idea that many think that hard contact is not necessary since they can poke eyes out and break knees. Neither of these is correct, the correct view is one that runs along the lines of good schools doing heavy sparring while at the same time keeping in mind other potentially more lethal attacks and practicing on dommies/bags/etc. It is better to know something could happen than to think it will never happen and find yourself surprised. The view that combat sports are combat is another view which is not quite correct, they come somewhat close to combat, depending on which standard of combat we are talking about but they are still very very far from being real combat. At the end of the day, are combat sports good training tools? Yes, as long as the focus of our training remains and we are still training towards effectively partaking in combat and not combat sports.

Thats my response to some points which just keep comming back and comming back again. There are a heck of a lot of bad TMA schools out there, when you see one you should be thinking "this is a bad school" rather than "TMA is bad." When you find a good one you will know because any fighter could tell what combat training should look like, after all, "fighting is fighting."

EDIT: "live drilling and sparring" is not an invention of combat sports, any martial art that claims to be teaching how to fight has and has had this since they were first developed.

 

Apologies in advance for the abruptness of some of the answers, there's a lot to cover and I'm just calling it like I see it...

Fine by me as long as you can do it and are prepared for the consequences (ie prison time).

But, for reliable results you still need to be able to do what? Yes, you guessed it, you need to be able to perform against a resisting opponent in stand up, clinch and ground. Which in your case requires sparring with a safe version of the knife you usually carry concealed in the way you usually carry it.

I'll just add that skill in combat sports would not only give more options but make you more effective (ie better at not getting knocked out, smashed up, takedown down etc).

Thank you

A) Never said you had to wreck yourself training (see Matt Thornton's writing's on "Aliveness")

B) I like in the UK where gun crime isn't that rampant.

C) This is a martial arts forum where people want to train.

D) Even with firearms, training stand up clinch and ground (both with and without the weapon) will improve your chances. I'm sure trying to draw and use a firearm in a grapple would be...err...shall we say interesting.

-------------------------------------

Thank you

Guess!

Best avenue is to improve performance against a resisting opponent in stand up, clinch and ground.

Check out the Dog Brothers or speak to Dave Green (YODA) on here who I admire very much and is the man to speak to about weapons.

Up to you.

If you're talking weapon vs weapon then that's highly unlikely to occur so from that perspective it doesn't NEED to be done.

If you are in a culture where weapons are very prevalent then I'd say it a good idea to be familiar with their use. For example, if I lived in the USA I'd do some firearms training.

I don't train weapons at the moment but plan to do some just to expand my horizons. The training will be mostly live drilling and sparring.

I don't know much about weapon sports but I'd recommend the training methods of combat sports, live drilling and sparring with an emphasis fundamentals.

I saw a tape by Burton Richardson ("High Performance Weaponry" I think it was called) which I remember thinking was great for how to train weapons.

Regards

Nathan

 

Some quick points on the "TMA" vs "Combat Sports" thing brought up.

"TMA" vs "MMA" or whatever doesn't really interest me.

Whatever they call their style, or whether they class themselves "TMA" or "MMA", isn't really important. All that matters is performance against....., hell, you know it by now.

The important thing is training methods, not styles. Maybe my emphasis on "Combat Sports" was a little strong but I use combat sports because they DEMAND the use of the best training methods and most effective techniques due to their goal. The goal is, you guessed it, performance against a resisting opponent, NOT grades/associations/politics/historical recreation etc etc which you SOMETIMES get outside of combat sports. IMO this makes them the best source of information and the most efficient way to increase performance.

Yes, there are some so called "TMA" clubs using good training methods and producing fighters with good performance against resisting opponents. That's great, the more good clubs the better.

I just want to add that I trained in Shotokan for almost 8 years and am a 2nd Dan. I have been involved with "Combat Sports" for about 5 years and am mostly in to grappling.

Nathan

 

Clearly training in all three areas would make you a better fighter in those given areas. I think the emphasis on combat sport is a little much though. Really a fight is only going to last a few minutes, not very often do two people that are trained athlets/Martial Artists face off in the street.

If you could only train two of the 3 areas, I would take stand up and grapple, you could skip clinch with a running tackle or a take down technique learned in your stand up.

And i have to agree with all of cybermonk's post especially his point that live drilling and sparring are not a fabrication of combat sports or MMA, I'm pretty sure people were effectivly training to fight back when all these martial arts were invented.

 

We come from similar backgrounds (Doce Pares). And I'm familiar with what the Dog Brothers do, but I've never been to a gathering.

Meh. I live in the USA. And while it can't hurt, the odds of being in a gunfight are about the same as the odds of being in any other sort of weapon on weapon fight (which you just discounted).

That's my feeling too, though I don't think the specific sports format used for stickfighting is necessary. (I competed in the WEKAF stickfighting tournies.)

Perhaps I'll check it out.


Stuart

 

I liked your follow-up, the entire post, that is but to me the above quoted part really says it all. I completely agree. Nice posts

 

Are you saying the fundamentals of combat sports are only better for longer fights? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. IMO I thought fighting was fighting. Whether you hit or choke him out in the first second or 1 min in it's still the same technique.

If you HAD to then perhaps that's a good choice.

BUT I don't agree at all that you can just skip the clinch. Here are some reasons:

a) If the fight is in the clinch already, better to finish it there than to try and take to another area where you are more comfortable (easier said than done).

b) What if you've been grabbed (ie clinch) but don't want to go to the floor (multiple opponents for example)? How you gonna stop him taking you down or finish him with out the skills?

c) What if you are up against a wall or in a tight space and clinch is simply all you've got to work with?

Agreed, but see my other post for why the emphasis on combat sports.

Doesn't mean people are training it effectively now.

Also, I'm sure athletes in many sports have always trained effectively, but I'm also sure training methods and techniques have evolved.

Nathan

 

One more thing...

...only joking

No, wait a minute, while I'm here....

On the "I train for the street" thing. Focusing on that doesn't seem healthy to me somehow. Look at it like this: is the risk proportional to the amount of time spent training for it? Do you spend as much time drilling crossing the road (a more likely way to get killed than an attacker)? Or for years go to regular classes/seminars/training weekends on driving and join associations, buy special training gear etc? Focusing on performance against a resisting opponent, which is basically just an athletic pursuit, seems a lot more healthy and balanced than thinking you're gonna be attacked any minute and concentrating on about biting/gouging people

Let's see what that kicks up!

Later

Nathan

 

I was saying that combat sport is just that, a "sport". Invented so that people can watch people trained to fight go around a ring in their skin tight undies and have a good few minutes with a break, and then another few minutes of some guys beating the crap out of each other in a controlled enviroment, untill the rounds are over or someone is disqualified, or someone is knocked out.

The first two options there - rounds running out and disqualified - is not going to happen in a real fight - unless the cops show up - so your only option is to be the victor (or get the heck out of there) If i had to choose between training in combat sports or learning to effectively break an arm and destroy a knee in traditional martial arts, i would take the TMA as I would not be engaged in a 'sport' but in a life and death situation where rules of the ring do not apply, and if i can do 3 moves (get out of the way of a punch, trap the arm, snap it) and have it over with, thats how i want it.

which is not to say that if all i could have is combat sport training I would not take it, but, if I'm understanding you correctly, in 'combat sports' you don't learn to break arms and crush windpipes as they would not be viable tactics in the sport aspect for which you are training.

My point here is that if you are an effective fighter at range and on the ground the clinch should be short and sweet as both the stand up and ground styles you've learned would have ways of A) breaking the clinch or B) taking the guy down. Which means that you likely have more training in the clinch than your attacker. If you could study all 3 sure take them, I was just implying that not everyone has 12 hours a week to train in 3 styles in the off chance you may or may not get into a fight with several other people at the same time.

Yes i agree that training method have probably evolved, but that is not also to say that improved traditional ways are not just as good.

My main point is really that training is "Combat Sports" is not necessarily the be all and end all that you might think it is, sure it's definently going to help, no argument there.

 

Ok, I'm jumping into this as a mainly TMA person with experience in and respect for MMA. Couple things:

We've all agreed -> Training methodology is the most important thing. To LEO's point, the one thing that combative sports have is a pretty consistant training methodology. I can therefore understand his view that he'd rather have a combat sports person at his back than a karatika, since he's basing that on an expected training methodology for both. It could be rephrased as "I'd take someone who trained in an alive fashion to watch my back before I chose someone who didn't."

I think we all agree also that -> if you call yourself a complete fighter or call you system complete it needs to address the following things in it's intended style of combat:
1. Kicking range
2. Stiking range
3. Trapping range
4. Grappling range
5. Weapons
Now the answer could be - "there's no grappling in a sword fight" - see Iaido, And that's cool. But don't discount the need to know grappling for street self defense, because that's a different combat environment than your art is designed for.

Second: on deadly techniques... To Yuki's point MMA do train a lot of dehabilitating techinques. Heck locking is a key component of most ground games. And everyone should understand that the difference between a lock and a break is speed and projection. Additionally, since they are training how to dehabilitate someone with strikes to non leathal areas, they can have the control to retarget to hit leathal areas. The one thing that they may lack is the initial reaction to retarget. However, that can be overcome.

Where I disagree is the long held notion that everything ends up looking the same. It will look similiar in many cases, but I have seen people utilize aspects of stylized techniques in full contact combat. Part of the problem is that when most people think about the more esoteric arts they expect that one stays in persona for the whole fight. Ie. if you're a tiger fighter your always striking with a tiger claw. That isn't the way that things work (or at least in successful combat). The magic in these systems is using their specialized techniques when the opportunity presents itself and not at every second of the fight. In that respect it's like an arm bar. No self respecting BJJ person will attempt to arm bar right off the bat. But they train to recognize the moment an opportunity presents itself and take it. The same is true for trapping and other hand techniques that are often disregarded by some combat programs as being unrealistic.

Finally, it's important to acknowledge that there are differences between self defense and sport fighting. And while sport fighting can give someone a strong base for prepping for self defense it isn't a panacea. And if a sport fighter teacher is treating it as such, he's just as guilty of building up false expectations as a TMA teacher who is doing the same thing.

- Matt