Tell that to the ancient Greeks, dude. Or the Soviets. Or the Russian and Ukrainian military. Or the US military. Or the ancient Japanese. Actually, tell that to really any military ever to regularly fight hand to hand. Those who spend lots of time fighting up close train in sportive grappling, and always have. Those who do not, instill a willingness toward violence in its place via pugil stick, boxing and ritualized striking. People forget so quickly who the real hard men of the world are when they start talking about the deadly streets.
none of that is any match for the groin strike and you know it, its just sport fighting with rules ....:woo:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/grappling.html http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/MMAsport.html Read and finish the arguement =) Grappling by itself isnt the answer. neither is striking. learning MMA does not imidiately make epic street fighters. Though its the most well rounded training i have seen as of yet greeks used striking AND grappling to augment their weapon arts. sambo was made to use grappling AND striking in street/war conditions. *its sports aspect is becoming pretty famous too Japanese developed their grappling more cuz it was stupid to punch and kick armour. karate involved using clinch, throws and strikes to defend against armed or otherwise bandits and tyrinnical samurais yada yada. What i'm trying to say is that an art involving grappling and striking is IMPORTANT but there is equal emphasis on adapting and practicing for different situations. ring vs pavement, same techniques different ways its implemented. =) I learn striking now. but i intend to learn judo too. but i do not believe that in its own will make me an EPIC street capable man. self defense is a lot more than a jab and nut kick or a double leg takedown and rear naked choke. =)
I dunno about anyone else but I'm not interested in surviving on the ground. I wanna DOMINATE. And that takes grappling know-how and always will. Sure you can get by with a bit of dirty fighting. Maybe even win a fight or two. But for SD we are in the business of stacking odds in our favour. Grappling knowledge (in particular knowing the dominant positions and how to transition to them) REALLY stacks the odds in your favour. To the point where someone that has grappled for a year can often completely dominate a newb that outweighs them or is stronger. And why is no-one ever poses the flip side of this question? Really... wen ur on your feet in a life or death situation why not use eye pokes, spearing the throat, squeezing/ripping testicles, and biting? If those are fight winning techniques why aren't they fight winners stood up too? Why's it always on the floor? I'll tell you why...it's because people move, block, grab, punch you and otherwise thwart your attempts. You need supplementary skills to back them up. Timing, awareness, footwork, accuracy, set-ups etc. And you need those on the floor too (or the floor equivelants like good ground movement and flow). In short....it's a stupid question that tries to artificially divide fighting on the floor from fighting on the feet.
It's beyond me why so many people are so concerned with "street fighting" anyway. It would be interesting to see what percentage of grown folks (bar LEOs and security professionals) are in any real danger of getting into regular altercations, that couldn't simply be mitigated by a change in lifestyle, attitude, choices etc. Involvement in combat sport is far more conducive to a healthy mindset, not to mention better for actual fighting. People who continually postulate ball strikes and eye gouges seem a little wrong in the head to me, frankly.
Agreed. In my youth, we had some because my family (dad and uncles) owned a few bars in the rough part of town. As I became older, you tend not to be around such places likely a confrontation would occur. Then there are those, who claim to be in so many, won these, and in reality, it was just a neighborhood skirmish
Then why did you post this in the MMA area? Why not post directly in the self defence area? This seems to be what you are really getting at.
Icefield is right in his comment about grappling (and I'll add MMA to that) is not self-defense, but rather a sport. However, I believe MMA is the most effective training method that you can pressure test your skills in a live manner against resisting opponents. It builds a strong skill set in all ranges and the ability to transition between them. It gives you FAR more real feedback of what IS real and what is theory or fantasy. IMO, FAR too many in the TMA's don't really know what would work because of outdated and ineffective training modes. Many of their skill sets and strategies will not work against a fully resisting attacker during an adrenal dump. This does NOT mean that all TMA systems and training methods are ineffective or outdated; far from it. But many would be greatly enhanced by adding in live training and looking at the effects of adrenal stress on both the defender and the attacker. Once again, I'll I'll agree that MMA is NOT self-defense, but I believe it's a great and possibly the best start. This is why I cross train in the FMA's and in RBSD. I also get a lot of useful material from my TMA roots now that I know what criteria to look for and can see the roots of many drills that were later warped by those who lacked pressure training and became outdated.
such a shame some people cant read sarcasm....maybe it doesnt come across very well on the net..........
Opps, for some reason I thought at the time that the original comment I quoted was from Effortless (the OP). Sorry. Although the original post is still more about self defence in my opinion so the gist still stands. Carry on.
I don't get the artificial distinction between sport and self defense. Surely knowing how to effectively punch someone in the face or control them via grappling is viable self defense? SD is attitude and awareness driven, any martial art is secondary to that IMO.
QFT The distinction is not only artificial it is propaganda - typically form those who cannot fight a lick and need to justify themselves to their students/friends/ego. In my mind the only distinction to make is effective and non-effective, but even within that there is wiggle room.
I think there is a distinction, but it's not what people often make it out to be. They also share a lot of things, such as need for pressure testing, upper body wrestling skills and ground control. As someone who teaches sport and TMA, and I emphasise all those things for self defence, the dynamics are just different. It's a false distinction when people are using it to justify not touching each other in training.
spot on I know who will be doing the eye poking in that position, and it aint "effortless" does anyone know what he is on about here, something like this ? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VmKCpvGNsU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VmKCpvGNsU[/ame]
