MMA_Jim

Theres simply not enough evidence to support the "one punch one kill" concept. The best punchers in the world are boxers, and even when going against complete amatuers, they rarely ko with one hit (usually a quick combination will do the trick though). Under concepts of self defense, on the other hand, you're not so much looking to ko your attacker as much as you are looking to escape the situation. In this respect, you hit your attacker hard enough to make him go on the defensive (ie put his hands up, take a step back from you, etc) albeit for only a second. This is all you need to begin to run and remove yourself from the situation. In this respect, it CAN work, but why rely on something that only works part of the time?

The same techniques that work against opponents of the same size generally work just as well against opponents of a larger size. Jabs crosses and hooks all still work just as well. Armbars and chokeholds still work just as well. Whats the difference? You have a smaller room for error. You may make an error against someone of similar size, and it wont be as problematic. You'll get punished more accordingly against a larger opponent. Lets talk striking- you step into your punching combinations, fire away, and then step back out of range. Making a mistake (such as not backing out, not bringing your hands back to your head fast enough) gets you hit. A bigger guy hits harder, and therefore has to hit you a fewer number of times to knock you out, as compared to someone of your size. Lets talk grappling- I shoot in for a double leg, but I forget to keep my back arched and my opponent sprawls out to defend. This may not be as big a problem against someone my size, but when someone's 50lbs heavier, their weight will pancake me into the ground face first.

Tallgeese is spot on here A 13 year old CHILD does not have the intuition and know how to teach (effective) martial arts. In Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, you cant get your black belt until you're 18, and you cant even get your blue belt (1 step up from white) until 16 (15 for exceptional students). It is precisely because of this. A child is far from mastery, and far from knowing how to teach himself. Hes not even old enough to be in high school. Theres a difference between not having an ego and just being plain naiive.

Decent prices for a JJ school will be somewhere from $100-200 a month, depending on the quality of instruction. For example, if the school is headed by a purple belt, I could expect something like $75-100 a month, whereas brown and black belts will be somewhere around $125-200 a month. Certain chain of schools? Doesnt have to be Gracie, just be sure that its BJJ. I wouldnt recommend Japanese Ju Jitsu. It has more striking than does BJJ, but BJJ makes up for this with its remarkable technique- a 6 month white belt in BJJ will generally have the same grappling proficiency as a black belt in Japanese Ju Jitsu. Reputable schools? Only ones I know of in or around New England Area is Florian's school. If you find one, post it and I'll fill you in on what I know about it.

Here are some within a 10-25 minute drive: Traditional Korean Karate: Tang Soo Do. A School that offers Tang Soo Do, Tai Chi, Kempo, Wung Chun, and Ju Jitsu. A school that offer TKD and Kum Do Aikido TKD Traditional Japanese Shotokan Karate Within a 30 to 50 minute drive: Judo Hapkido I know there are more but this is just a sample. I live in Marion Iowa, about an hour away from Iowa City and ten minutes from Cedar Rapids if any of you want to google search the area for different schools. Honostly speaking, it would seem your best option would be going for Judo. Striking styles, such as karate, wing chun, Tang Soo Doo, Tae Kwon Do, etc will not teach you how to restrain someone, at least effectively, when compared to other grappling styles such as wrestling, BJJ, and Judo. These styles do better teaching striking, and you cant just start wailing on someone if you're a security guard. I also wouldnt recommend the Japanese Ju Jitsu or the Hapkido either. Their grappling cirriculums are not very widespread and are still primarily striking arts, albeit they do just a little more grappling than the other traditional striking arts.

Jiu Jitsu is anything but a grip based art. While there are techniques that involve the use of a gi or some sort of clothing, jiu jitsu is a leverage based art, with its submissions relying on leverage rather than grips. If it were a grip based art, then it wouldnt work if the gi were taken off. Given the success of jiu jitsu in the gi-less world of MMA, this generalization doesnt seem accurate.

There are many obvious suggestions when it comes to self defense. I can offer two more. Always be sure that you (and others) respect your personal space. Many attacks occur when someone gets too close and suckers the other. Space is your friend, and be sure that others know this- you can speak to me from 6 feet away instead of right in front of my face. Close enough to touch is close enough to hit- keep your hands up (albeit in a peacefull "stop" type of posture) in order to give yourself better reaction time. The second is one that mostly applies to women- any weapon you choose to carry, be it a knife, pepper spray, or anything else, is useless if its not in your hands. Many women I know will carry a knife or gun in their purse, or pepper spray on their keychain. Keep the knife or gun in hand, finger on the trigger, and in your coatpocket, or the pepper spray in hand with your finger on the trigger.

Sometimes, in a social studies elective such as psychology or sociology, it comes up about fighting back, that the girl/woman should fight off her attacker, if only to get away. Rather than a fist, the girls tend to know the use of the palmheel. But there's always someone who says to the other girls that it shouldn't be used against his nose (target selection?), because you'll break it and the piece(s) will go into his brain and kill him. . Just had to comment on this one here: Striking with the palm is good for the simple reason that by striking with a closed fist one takes great risk at seriously injuring their hand. While there are those out there who say "I'd rather break my fist and get away" realize that just because you hit your opponent doesnt mean you've escaped- a broken hand is now a useless hand that cant be used anymore very effectively to escape the situation. As far as the nose break into the brain thingy- thats a myth circulating the martial art world. Its almost a statistical impossibility. I believe it was made popular by Mike Tyson, who's far from a reliable source when it comes to anatomy, biology, or anything scientific.

I'll agree with Tallgeese on this one- MMA and RBSD are (obviously) similar, but have different goals. The goal of MMA is to achieve absolute victory over your opponent. The goal of Self Defense is to get away from the situation without regard for you opponent- that is to say, injuring or otherwise "defeating" your attacker is not neccessary to achieve what would be considered a victory. So, simply put- Self Defense is pretty much the very basics of what MMA is used simply to try to survive a situation. Any space or opening is all thats needed for you to escape the situation and survive. MMA is about completely dominating and ultimately defeating your opponent. If your opponent tries to avoid the fight and be defensive, you need to use your skills to find an opening, setup attacking opportunities, and find a way to submit or ko your opponent. If in a self defense situation your attacker does the same thing, you simply take advantage of the situation and run away. So, ironically, MMA is RBSD taken to the next level

I'll add my concensus. It seems as if everyone and their mother is an MMA fighter nowadays- I hear them all the time "Oh hey, I dont come to the bar to fight- Im an MMA fighter" yada yada yada. So heres how I grade them. Training MMA is about as easy as it gets. Nothing difficult about it. Its like someone saying they "train" football, basketball, or whatever else. Just because they train in it doesnt make them good at it. The quality of the school also has to be taken into account. Many karate and generic martial arts schools have taken advantage of the popularity of MMA and therefore have MMA programs headed by instructors who's skill level is absolute beginner at best. Quite frankly, there are even alot of professional MMA fighters who's technique, skill, and just overall fighting ability is very poor. So you fight MMA- great- the big question is- how successfull are you at it?

I remember a friend from when I was in college who had a black belt in karate (I don't know the style; people just said "karate" then), and he had said something I heard only from him: fight to be in the center. I didn't hear him speak of zoning, or speak in some way of having them be in one-another's way. He said that the one in the center has the advantage, but I knew little about karate at that time, so I didn't even know what to ask him to elaborate on this. Looking back, it almost sounds like the best defense is a good offense. Jim, are you referring to anything like what this fellow was saying? No- just as tallgeese stated- the swarming will be done by the many attackers against the lone defender. I would say that you're friends advice for fighting multiple attackers has to be some of the worst I've ever heard. If you're in the middle, than your opponents have 360 degrees from which to attack you. All one has to do is merely grab you and the others are free to tee off on you. I see lots of other suggestions too but in the end they're all guesses- they dont even qualify as theories. Fighting hard and dirty is something that people already do when fighting one on one- and throat/eye/groin attacks have not proven to be any more effective than the simplicity of a punch. If you're fighting multiple people who are intent on hurting you (i.e. in contrary to the popular Mike Valley "streetfight" where he beats up 4 140lb kids who slap fight) chances are incredibly high they're going to be successfull at it.

Listen to those who tell you to sprawl and such. The only way to get good at avoiding the ground game is to practice the ground game- sorry. As far as "keeping the distance and dont let them grab you" thats always the idea, isnt it? It simply doesnt work that well. A skilled groundfighter has the option to keep the fight on his feet or take it to the ground. A non skilled groundfighter (regardless of his striking skills) doesnt have the same options. Train grappling more than your opponents do.

Basic principle of attacking someone with numbers- swarm them. The premise of dealing with attackers one at a time I believe is a bad hangover from cheesy 80's karate movies. You cant decide to handle your opponents one at a time- your opponents can only decide to fight you one at a time.

Yes, I made an example of that when I mentioned Kendo. If you're fighting in a mountainous terrain with unstable ground, perhaps the low fighting stances of Kung Fu would serve you best. Wearing a suit of armor and without your primary weapon, the throws in Judo would do quite well to put your opponent on his back and give you time to draw your secondary weapon. If you have a baton or knife available, kali or eskrima would be quite effective. In modern day hand to hand combat, be it civilian combat (i.e. street fight) or military combat (hand to hand) styles such as those shown in MMA competition have proven to be the most effective. It's sound to agree that a martial art shouldn't remain static, but evolve over time. New martial arts come into being, taking from existing knowledge, seeing existing arts in a new light, forming new applications, and producing something unique, while some older ones might no longer hold their allure if they fall behind the times, that they have stagnated. This is contrary to the statement that all martial arts are equal, and the practitioner proves the difference. I think this might be interpreted as a "call to arms," Jim, that the martial artist with broader knowledge (and so a greater arsenal) is in a better self-defense position than one who holds to the ways of a single art, and so to a single perspective. Thats true in theory, but not in practice. What makes someones fighting style effective is the efficiency of their techniques- NOT the number of techniques. A person who spends too much time studying too many different styles may never learn the important details of the moves hes executing. Early UFC's were full of people who had trained in numerous martial arts and attained black belts in them (sometimes 5 or more styles). Not only did they not do as well as those who were trained solid in one style, they often actually lost to such practicioners, due to their opponents having a better understanding of their fighting techniques. To give an example, a blue belt and a black belt in jiu jitsu both know how to throw a basic armbar. A black belt will get the armbar more often because he understands the move much moreso and can utilize numerous setups all leading to that one techinque. In theory, they both know the armbar, but in practice the experience of the black belt prevails. This makes me think of the samurai in Japan and the hwa rang in Korea. Nowadays, we have an emphasis on the average citizen seeking to protect him- or herself in a street situation, especially to be able to escape from the scene and call the police. It doesn't take away from the police and the military needing their own martial arts training, but most martial artists of today are not members of these organizations, and we can't expect the police in particular to be everywhere at once to protect us. Barring everyone carrying weapons, we fall back on our own awareness and self-defense capabilities. This is exactly why all martial arts arent created equal. Modern day martial arts, such as Judo and Jiu Jitsu, and sportive martial arts that allowed combat barring armor and weapons (wrestling, boxing, muay thai) have proven to be more effective for modern day combat

Its unfortunate that this simply is not the case. Some styles are simply better than others. Not all martial arts were created equally, and not all of them are designed to do the same thing. Modern day fighting/combat is much different than it was say, 1000 years ago. Some styles have changed with the time- others have not. Take Kendo for example. Arguably a horrible martial art in terms of unarmed self defense- a wrestler or boxer would have no problem fighting a kendo practitioner... unless of course said practitioner has a sword, then its possibly the best form of self defense! A karate practitioner will never be able to teach you to throw like a judoka, and a wrestler wil never be able to teach you how to punch as well as a boxer. Different styles are proficient at different things, some of them being much more (or much less) effective in a modern day altercation. Most styles of martial arts were not taught as a means to defeat your opponent- they were taught as a means to generate time or space from your opponent allowing you to draw a secondary weapon with which to continue the fight.

Thats the point. By being grabbed, you're mobility and fighting ability becomes severely inhibited. If you had no grappling experience, the moment one of the multiple attackers attempted to grab you, you're defeated since you can no longer use your strikes. Someone well versed in grappling, on the other hand, stands a much better chance at breaking any grappling lock and preventing any takedown, allowing them to stay on their feet in a situation where a striker would have simply been thrown to the ground, or just held and hit.

I hear throughout the entire martial arts world the theory of being able to soundly defend oneself against multiple assailants, much what has been shown in Hollywood over the past decades. Lots of people believe they can, at least the ones I interact with. Im simply curious of the concensus of this forum. Lets assume people of your same athletic ability, age, size, etc. A 250lb man who beats up 3 guys who weigh 140lbs doesnt prove any technique. So assume 2-3 attackers of similar build to yourself with the exception that they've never had any formal martial arts training. Feel free to explain your choices I'll start off with my own: I always hear people go on and on about how grappling is great for 1 person, but bad for multiple opponents- i.e. "you should take karate for that" (I use the term karate as a generic term) Every martial art trains its theories of how to most effectively defeat an attacker in a fight. There are two things when learning how to fight- theory and practical application. All martial arts have the theory, but not all have the practical success as the others. Trace back to the early MMA events that were filled with people who claimed they could defeat such numbers of attackers. Many of them proved unable to defeat a single attacker. If their theory of how to defeat one attacker was apparently flawed, their theories on how to defeat multiples would surely be exponentially more flawed. If you have such a difficult time defeating one person, what makes you thing that 2 or 3 isnt going to be almost impossible? Nevermind comments about illegal techniques and whether the fighters involved were "real" martial artists (they were)- all fighters had to fight with the same rules, and dirty techniques such as eye gouging, biting, and groin shots are just as applicable for ground fighters as standup fighters.

Submitting to an attacker is something I would never never advocate for someone. There are other things to take into account. You have no idea the diseases that a rapist has. What if one submits to being raped and aquires an incurable disease such as AIDS, hepetitis, herpes, or whatever else have you. If you want to play the odds and hope you'll be ok, thats up to you. I'd suggest you fight with everything and anything you have.

You misunderstand, Tallgeese- Im simply bringing that topic up to prove that even those who train for a "no rules" street fight will indeed train using protective equipment and rules- thereby negating their own argument.

Krav Maga teaches a little more than just standup striking. There are a lot of bad techniques taught in Krav to make an experienced fighter, but it does have its virtues. Simply put, Krav will teach boxing principles, a few kicking principles, and even some groundfighting principles. The biggest advantage a Krav practitioner would have over a TKD practicioner would be his limited knowledge of ground skills. This would prove to be invaluable. Whether the krav practicioner takes advantage of this is up to him. It does seem as if this webpage chooses to discredit groundwork- the problem is that they actually advocate it when you answer their questions/ statements asked intended to refute it: What does a grappler do when attacked on stairs or on a subway or in knee deep snow or on a crowed street? What he does best- grapple. Grappling favors close quarters since, surprise, a grappler wants to grapple. An in close fight almost guarentees that the fight will go into a clinch or grappling scenario, where a grappler can best use his weapons. Such a situation would be a death knell for a pure striker, such as the TKD this webpage suggests What about an attacker with a knife or other concealed weapon? A person in a submission hold may not have an empty hand way of getting out of the hold, but a knife in the kidney will end the hold, and the holder. Thugs do not walk around with just one weapon. You may control the arm with the gun, but the other arm may pull a knife. Submissions come on much quicker than they realize. First off, a dominant position makes for much easier to control someone. If Im mounted or cross side on you and you have a knife in your pocket- I'll guarentee you you're not going to get it, and I'll break your arm in the process. There are also numerous ways to control both of your opponents arms, especially if he is not knowledgeable of grappling. A head triangle and kimura attack works exceptionally well of doing just that, as does the techniques that the militech camp uses so well- watch how Matt Hughes delievers elbows from cross side. He locks up one arm with his bottom arm, triangles and locks up your other arm with his legs, and it now free to drop elbows on your face, from which his opponent now has no defense. What is better suited for this situation- grabbing someone and actively preventing them from drawing their weapon in the first place, or backing up and giving them the space to draw the weapon (i.e. gun or knife) that you so earnestly dont want them to have? When dragged into a broken glass filled alley, do you want to grapple on the ground? Probably not- its a good thing that grapplers know takedowns, that way your opponent is on his back on the broken glass, dirty syringes, and lava pits, and not you. Do you want to get into a test of strength with an attacker who is high on psychoactive drugs. What does this have to do with grappling? What does the grappler do when the attacker has a friend? Do you want to be on the ground holding an attacker, when a friend comes to his or her aid? While you are holding down one attacker, what will the other attacker be doing with your spouse? Probably use his grappling skills and takedown defense to AVOID being taken to the ground. Grapplers are quite proficient in the clinch and have the luxury of choosing whether the fight goes to the ground or not. Someone not versed in grappling would be much easier to retrain in this circumstance. Those points aside, striking has proven to be no more effective at combating multiple opponents than has grappling. An attacker may not be able to escape from your hold-down, but he or she will bite and spit Spit? Is that what we're dreading these days? You're opponent can spit just as well on his feet or on the ground. Biting? Human teeth are quite pathetically weak and prove unable to go through simple fabrics such as denim. Any attempts to bite your way out of a choke will end up with a broken jaw- I've had people try that one on me. If you are a law enforcement officer, do you want to grapple with a suspect and give him or her an opportunity to grab your firearm or other weapon First off, a law enforcement officer MUST grapple with a suspect if he wishes to subdue and eventually arrest him. Unless he physically grabs and restrains him, the suspect runs. Secondly, since a law enforcement officer must address this situation, its best that he become familiar with it. Anyone who attempts to reach for a weapon on someone's belt or waist gives themselves up to an easy guillotine or kimura lock. Its almost better that the officer has the gun on his hip than nothing at all- it almost guarentees that the assailant will reach for it, at which point the officer can apply a simple kimura, break the assailants arm/shoulder, and proceed to cuff his crippled suspect.

That kind of fight wouldnt look very much different, assuming the same combatants. Some fighters can fight to adhere to the rules- fighting for a decision, for example (lay and pray, landing good, but weak punch counts from the feet) but everything else is working just fine- a ko or submission ends a fight just as well as the next thing. How would it look if it were real combat? Well, it would look alot like the very first MMA events- except we dont stop when the person gets ko'ed or taps out. After they've been ko'ed, choked unconcious, or crippled by a joint lock, one could simply choose to keep beating them until death. Combat is- hand to hand combat isnt much different

EVERYONE fights with rules- this is a moot point! Marines, Army Rangers, mixed martial artists, traditional martial artists, Reality based martial artists- ALL FIGHT AND TRAIN WITH RULES. Rules are required for the safety of those involved. MMA'er train with rules for reasons I explained before. Marines and military train with rules so as not to seriously injure one another while practicing, as does everyone else I mentioned. When you practice your eye gouges or your throat strikes- do you go full power on your opponent? I'll bet a resounding NO from everyone who responds to this question. I'll also bet that your opponent isnt fighting with everything he has to keep you from doing it. Then there are those who pad themselves up (i.e. Reality based "martial artists"). You will not be padded up when you're in a fight! And neither will your opponent. Most of the people I see doing this have someone wear a suit of armor so they (the student/ instructor) can beat the hell out of them. The most important thing these people are neglecting is the ability to take a hit. The point is- NO ONE trains to fight "without rules." Whoever you are and whatever you're training no one here does it. Whether you're going at a slow pace, wearing protective gear, tapping out, or stopping short of killing your partner- these are ALL RULES. Multiple opponents and weapons.... I see great irony in these arguments. Take this into consideration: The earliest MMA events (UFC and beyond) had no rules- NONE. So yes that means you could bite, eye gouge, and groin kick your way through them. These events were filled with martial artists who claimed they could do just what you explained- defeat multiple assailants with their years of training. Why is it then that EVERY fighter from either of these respective styles proved unable to defeat but a single attacker? Where is the logic in this argument? "I can fight and defeat 3-4 men at once, but a single attacker proved too much for me." Perhaps what we should say is that they trained the theory of how to fight and defeat 3-4 men at once- that makes much more sense. But it also stands to reason that they've trained for 1 attacker, correct? So if their theory for fighting one person was apparently greatly flawed (proof being that they were soundly defeated) that is incredibly strong evidence that their theory for defeating MORE than one person would be exponentially more flawed. Someone who trains to fight multiple or single opponents doesnt become better at it just because they train it- they have to train it properly. I can train to fly by flapping my arms everyday for 10 years, but after all that time I'll have no more success at flying than someone else who's never tried it.

Absolutely, but perhaps it depends on what kind of martial arts you're practicing (and how long you've been practicing for). Something as simple as a double leg takedown can be the deciding factor in a fight. The same can be said for a basic jab and cross. Street fighting is not its own martial art, its just the name you give people who have no idea how to fight or fight outside of a ring, cage, or other venue. "Street fighters" are inexperienced and react accordingly. If you didnt use what it was you train in, you're probably training the wrong thing. Fancy moves are generally defined as that because they've got many details in order to be pulled off correctly. The more that has to be done in order to execute the technique, the more that can go wrong (i.e. simple is effective). If you really think martial arts arent helping you to learn how to fight, there was an episode of pros vs joes where they brought out a pro boxer (the second on the show, after roy jones jr) who was about 140lbs. He dropped every joe, some who outweighed him by more than 50lbs, and it did it with ease and a smile on his face. He didnt do that natrually- he was taught how to do it.

How far are you from northeast philly? Theres a school that teaches both kempo and jiu jitsu- would be right up your alley.

I dont think any technique compares to the rear naked choke. When applied, it will render your opponent unconcious in a matter of seconds (and dead in a couple of minutes). Strikes rely on the power of the striker and the resiliance of the person being attacked. A 100lb woman could never hope to drop a 300lb athletic man with strikes, but if I take that same woman and put her on his back and have her sink in a choke.... its goodnight This technique can be taken advantage of quickly- unless properly trained, people routinely give up their backs and their necks while in a fight, making opportunities for this technique numerous