The Undiscovered Style of MMA

[White Warlock]

Let me enter in one more closing comment:

MMA competitions are a great thing, don't misunderstand me. Any competition allows you to hone certain skills, but they are not the end-all. They are not the litmus test. There really is no other litmus test than to survive a real-life encounter with a very lethal assailant(s), and this not a litmus test you can redo if you fail. There are no rules in real life, and no second chances. The MMA, and other full-contact competitions, help you to hone 'particular' skills, but not ALL skills, and certainly not all the skills needed in a real life confrontation. Therefore, they should not be the benchmark.

[SubGrappler]

Okay, let me point out a few things (and only a few):

• [*]If you throw down a person with force, against concrete or jagged rocks, you will likely end the fight and cripple them. However, if you throw down a person with force, against a padded floor... they bounce.

Agreed

[*]If you scrape a person across the ground, and that ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you'll shred your opponent's back, possibly tearing major muscle groups. However, if you scrape a person across canvas, they'll get a mild rug burn.

Disagree- the pavement would give mild scrapes, cuts, and abrasions. I seriously doubt the ability to tear major muscle groups. I've been on the concrete in grappling situations and while these things will happen- When you're fighting outside you're not worried about scraping your knee, or abrasions on your back- you're worried about the other guy curb stomping you. Its a fight, and chances are you're not going to walk away unscathed regardless what you train in.

[*]If your strength is in grappling, you can keep the person on the ground until you are able to 'end' the confrontation with a choke or a limb break. However, if someone 'interrupts' your groundwork, because the audience wants more action, you're thrown out of your element... and back into theirs.

Very much agreed.

[*]If you act like you're not going to fight, then thrust a pencil through thier neck, grab a handful of dirt and shove it into their face and eyes, then rip off their ears, bite their carotid artery and spit it out, stab a branch through thier indefensible underarm, tear off chunks of their hair, push a rock through their teeth, take a chair and bounce it off them a few times, toss a few cue balls off their noggin', grab a baseball bat and rearrange their jawline, maneuver them backwards to trip on items or slip on a puddle, impale them on a fencepost, distract them by exposing your nipples, break off a few fingers, pull their shirt over their head, drop their pants, and remove their reproductive organs... i think you just might have a chance of winning an encounter.

Many people will encouter tunnel vision during their fights- its a very common thing

The problem here is this: If you are conditioned by a particular type of competition, and then you are entered into a 'real confrontation,' where rules don't exist, it is exceedingly likely that you will 'still' abide by the rules you have 'conditioned' yourself to abide by. So, here you are fighting MMA competition style, pseudo-no-holds-barred, and here the assailant is... fighting 'truly' no-holds barred.

Thats not entirely true, and we can take a few examples from it as well.

Wes Simms got DQed for stomping a downed opponent when he mauled Frank Mir's head against the cage. This technique is clearly illegal in UFC competitions. The same happened with Igor Vovchanchin when he fought Mark Kerr and delivered knees from a front headlock position. During this fight, the 4 points rule was in effect (no knees or kicks to a downed opponent).

Under this assumption, Jiu Jitsu fighters wouldnt use strikes from advantageous positions such as the mount, cross side, and back mount positions because training under this style would forbid you from doing so. The same goes for wrestlers, or for any kind of striking oriented fighter who stomps on a downed opponent.

Now, I do understand somewhat at what you're getting at, which I believe is situational awareness. However, the fighting skills these guys have is what takes such a long time to learn. Situational awareness isnt quite as difficult. What good will reaching for a pool cue do if you get knocked out before you get a chance to make it to the billiard table?

[White Warlock]

[*]If you scrape a person across the ground, and that ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you'll shred your opponent's back, possibly tearing major muscle groups. However, if you scrape a person across canvas, they'll get a mild rug burn.

Disagree- the pavement would give mild scrapes, cuts, and abrasions. I seriously doubt the ability to tear major muscle groups.

As i stated, if the ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you can do so. I did fail to mention that you must also have the intent to do so and be trained in being 'able' to do so. It is a merciless act, which most fail to recognize as an option whilst in a confrontation... because of the tunnel vision you noted and their lack of training in maintaining, as you call it, situational awareness.

I've been on the concrete in grappling situations and while these things will happen- When you're fighting outside you're not worried about scraping your knee, or abrasions on your back- you're worried about the other guy curb stomping you.

As have i, and i hurt the person pretty bad by centering my mass and driving my chest into their head, then scraping their head against the ground. A similar tactic i've used to make a point with a jujutsu BBer while on the mat. But, on the mat, it was only sufficient in causing him to tap repeatedly and in a frantic manner.

Many people will encouter tunnel vision during their fights- its a very common thing

I agree that it is common, especially in those not trained in handling the effects of tunnel vision. Borrowing your definition for it, situational awareness is the antithesis to tunnel vision. It is what counters it, and it is something that must be studied, honed, encouraged. Practicing in an environment that subjects you to tunnel vision, such as MMAs, helps you to develop your ability to 'function' whilst under the assault of adrenalin. However, because of the type of conditions, it does not develop your... what did you call it?... situational awareness. By being subjected to such circumstances and NOT working on situational awareness, you actually 'increase' the gap in being able to go there.

The problem here is this: If you are conditioned by a particular type of competition, and then you are entered into a 'real confrontation,' where rules don't exist, it is exceedingly likely that you will 'still' abide by the rules you have 'conditioned' yourself to abide by. So, here you are fighting MMA competition style, pseudo-no-holds-barred, and here the assailant is... fighting 'truly' no-holds barred.

Thats not entirely true, and we can take a few examples from it as well.

Wes Simms got DQed for stomping a downed opponent when he mauled Frank Mir's head against the cage. This technique is clearly illegal in UFC competitions. The same happened with Igor Vovchanchin when he fought Mark Kerr and delivered knees from a front headlock position. During this fight, the 4 points rule was in effect (no knees or kicks to a downed opponent).

I'm glad you presented those examples. By acting 'outside' the rules, applying tactics that would be acceptable in a street-survival incident, they were rewarded with negative reinforcement. Tell me, have they been disqualified since?

Situational awareness isnt quite as difficult. What good will reaching for a pool cue do if you get knocked out before you get a chance to make it to the billiard table?

I disagree. I've been sharing the classification for it all as, "situational awareness," so as to maintain a common ground for points, but it is not sufficient a descriptor. It is more than merely situational awareness, it is also the ability to improvise, your ability to quickly develop a strategy (as opposed to merely applying situational tactics), as well as an innate understanding of your 'other' weapons, your other choices. To develop this, it takes a 'very very' long time. Far longer than merely learning the skills necessary to win in a competition. And the reason for this is two-fold: One is, because these studies are the juxtapose of tunnel vision and all the other negative aspects associated with an adrenalin rush. Two is, practice is hindered by the inability to do so under real conditions (lest one wishes to spend a significant portion of one's life behind bars).

Despite these study hardships, they are an essential aspect of training that can be developed, and should be.

[unknownstyle]

i would say that shorin ryu is a art that would be very good in mma

[Goju_boi]

wasn't this conversation originally whats good for the ufc? not for the sole purpose of surviving a real confrontation

[White Warlock]

wasn't this conversation originally whats good for the ufc? not for the sole purpose of surviving a real confrontation

That's the thing about discussions... they are rarely linear.

Anyway, it traveled this route because some comments were presented that prompted tangential discussion. The original discussion had already run its course, as far i could tell. And, the goal of these discussions should not merely be to post one's views, but to learn and grow. By discussing various topics, rather than maintaining a linear approach to such, we all gain an opportunity to delve into other facets of the arts... other areas that 'deserve' exploration and examination, a deeper examination into our assumptions and perceptions.

We are not automatons, and yet we are capable of gaining very fixed perceptions. Only by sharing our perceptions with others can we, or they, find the possibility for change. For none of us is right, on everything.

[elbows_and_knees]

Let me enter in one more closing comment:

MMA competitions are a great thing, don't misunderstand me. Any competition allows you to hone certain skills, but they are not the end-all. They are not the litmus test. There really is no other litmus test than to survive a real-life encounter with a very lethal assailant(s), and this not a litmus test you can redo if you fail. There are no rules in real life, and no second chances. The MMA, and other full-contact competitions, help you to hone 'particular' skills, but not ALL skills, and certainly not all the skills needed in a real life confrontation. Therefore, they should not be the benchmark.

It was never intended to be a litmus test. However, at this time, that IS the closest thing to one, so anyone using it as one is technically justified. The skills that you learn there will have definite benefits in a real situation, and it offers benefits that some other styles / venues do not.

Who would you rahter have your back in a fight - chuck lidell or some unknown guy who claims he is skilled and has had one streetfight? Why?

[elbows_and_knees]

Okay, let me point out a few things (and only a few):

• If you throw down a person with force, against concrete or jagged rocks, you will likely end the fight and cripple them. However, if you throw down a person with force, against a padded floor... they bounce.
   
  
• If you scrape a person across the ground, and that ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you'll shred your opponent's back, possibly tearing major muscle groups. However, if you scrape a person across canvas, they'll get a mild rug burn.
   
  
• If your strength is in grappling, you can keep the person on the ground until you are able to 'end' the confrontation with a choke or a limb break. However, if someone 'interrupts' your groundwork, because the audience wants more action, you're thrown out of your element... and back into theirs.
   
  
• If you act like you're not going to fight, then thrust a pencil through thier neck, grab a handful of dirt and shove it into their face and eyes, then rip off their ears, bite their carotid artery and spit it out, stab a branch through thier indefensible underarm, tear off chunks of their hair, push a rock through their teeth, take a chair and bounce it off them a few times, toss a few cue balls off their noggin', grab a baseball bat and rearrange their jawline, maneuver them backwards to trip on items or slip on a puddle, impale them on a fencepost, distract them by exposing your nipples, break off a few fingers, pull their shirt over their head, drop their pants, and remove their reproductive organs... i think you just might have a chance of winning an encounter. However, if you're not allowed to do any of those things in your competitions... and don't practice such concepts strenously outside of these competitions... it is not likely you'll end up trying such in a real fight. A fight where your very existence may be on the line.

Closing comment: If you have the ability to avoid a confrontation altogether, and do so, that's absolutely fantastic. However, if both you and your opponent are set to fight, with stated rules... then the resultant survivor will be the one who is better able to 'abide' by those rules, and has thus adapted their fighting style by them. This, however, does not indicate who is the better martial artist (for the better martial artist would have been the one who avoided the confrontation as a whole), but who has better adapted themselves to work within the restrictions placed by a given competition.

The problem here is this: If you are conditioned by a particular type of competition, and then you are entered into a 'real confrontation,' where rules don't exist, it is exceedingly likely that you will 'still' abide by the rules you have 'conditioned' yourself to abide by. So, here you are fighting MMA competition style, pseudo-no-holds-barred, and here the assailant is... fighting 'truly' no-holds barred.

coincidentally, I got into a BIG fight two weeks ago - 4 of us, 7 of them. I will respond to each of your bullet points in reference to how the fight went:

1. a hard throw onto the concrete neither injured nor crippled him and the fight kept going.

2. I got dragged across jagged concrete - skin scrapes are the only damage I sustained.

3. I used a kimura in the confrontation while we were on the ground. Granted, I was hit by someone afterward, but that was by my own doing - as a bouncer, we are supposed to restrain people. I coulda easily snapped his shoulder well before I got hit.

4. those things are all easy to talk about, but bottom line is that most people do not think that way. Also, there is not always something lying around. There were no sticks outside on the concrete, no bottles, no dirt, etc.

5.

[Goju_boi]

what's number 5 ?

[White Warlock]

coincidentally, I got into a BIG fight two weeks ago - 4 of us, 7 of them. I will respond to each of your bullet points in reference to how the fight went:

Well, before we go to those points, let me clarify i'm given the impression you do not practice the concepts presented above. These things aren't 'by default,' they are by design. Also, you are using a 'single' incident as base for your presentation of thoughts, when i'm sure you know that each incident is different.

1. a hard throw onto the concrete neither injured nor crippled him and the fight kept going.

It is likely the throw was not performed with the 'intent' to cause injury. Judoists specialize in throwing, and in my opinion are the best at presenting devastating throws, but even they 'assist' their ukes in a fall so as to decrease injuries. These 'tournament/training' habits can undermine the effectiveness of techniques.

The acceleration in the throw, the angle of the drop, the point in the body of first contact, the hold or grip maintained while posing a throw... all these things can effect a serious injury when impacting a hard surface if that is not merely the intent, but within the execution of the technique.

2. I got dragged across jagged concrete - skin scrapes are the only damage I sustained.

Your single incident does not dismiss my point, which is that if you 'practice' with the intent to cause serious bodily harm when dragging one against such surfaces, you will likely succeed in doing so... unless they're wearing a leather jacket, or other protective clothing. Also, it is not merely the dragging, but knowing how to 'center' your wieght and pressure on a specific point (or points), which are vulnerable to such.

In the example i posed at the last post, i presented pressure against a person's head, causing it to scrape against a 'mat' so hard as to cause the 'experienced wing chun/jujutsu black sash/belt' practitioner to frantically tap the mat and me. Consider this, and then consider the outcome had i 'not' stopped and had the surface been a jagged/hard surface...

My point being. The act alone is insufficient. There needs also to be intent and training, just like 'any' other martial art action. These actions are not 'symbiotically' attached to all martial artists, as not all martial artists are trained in grappling, throwing, takedowns, strikes, kicks, or energy redirection.

3. I used a kimura in the confrontation while we were on the ground. Granted, I was hit by someone afterward, but that was by my own doing - as a bouncer, we are supposed to restrain people. I coulda easily snapped his shoulder well before I got hit.

Which strengthens my argument, but only partly. It is a single incident, again, and the opponent may not have known any means to counter.

Blindfolded, with one hand tied behind the back, an aggressor can perform devastating techniques on a child. Not merely because the child is physically incapable of countering, but also because he doesn't know how to counter. Both these factors apply to the child, yet only one is needed to bring about the same end results. And while this example may be a little disturbing, it nonetheless presents a vivid picture.

4. those things are all easy to talk about, but bottom line is that most people do not think that way.

And THIS is EXACTLY my point e&k. Or, at least one of my points. Most people do not think this way, and especially not ones who place competition skills on a pedestal.

Some intentions in my posts may be getting distorted, so let me iterate where i'm coming from. Competition skills are segregated techniques, presented in a rules-based environment so as to decrease injuries. By doing so, people are able to hone those 'particular' skills to a very high degree, and this is very important to recognize as one of the great benefits of competitions. Not merely MMAs, but all types, for all types segregate techniques, by the mere presentation of rules. Boxing, with modified Queensbury, has developed into one of the simplest yet most precise systems of striking available. Freestyle wrestling, with its rules, allows practitioners to hone their takedown and ground-control skills. Etc, etc, etc. The MMA competitions are developing a new 'set' of segregated techniques, applicable to the set of rules presented in those types of competitions.

This said, there is still 'plenty' that is not presented in any competition, because the techniques, the actions, the tactics, are simply too damaging. As i stated in an earlier post, when the intent of a technique is to cause permanent bodily injury or death, we have a 'training' problem. This problem is in the conundrum of building your skills and your mindset so as to be able to apply lethal or near-lethal force when necessary, yet without direct application or the 'live' factor. Because of this, and mainly because of this, many sport practitioners of today are 'dismissing' these techniques as 'irrelevant.'

The trend of now is to praise mma competitions and competitors. This is where the limelight is, and thus this is where the fanfare will be. These are the persons catching the headlines and the praise, because these are the persons 'putting their stuff' on the mat.

However, this same 'overemphasis' and exuberance to these competitions is causing a backlash against all things not 'applicable' to the ring. And this... is my main point.

Although we can praise the competitions out there for presenting insight into various phases of combat and specific areas of study, we must not dismiss the need to keep things in perspective. What is practiced and applied in competitions is not the totality of the arts, nor may they be the most crucial when it comes to a life or death scenario. One can hone their skills, see beyond what is there, work with the adrenalin to 'reverse' tunnel vision, and think outside the box... outside the tunnel.

The hardest part of all this, unfortunately, is being able to differentiate between fact and fiction. Since these things cannot be readily applied without loss of students and time in jail, there lies within the practice the 'potential' for falsivity, sham, or simple delusion. So, when such things as, "using a particular voice to cause their bodies to enter a state of shock" are tossed in a training regimen, common sense says, "yeah right." And it's a good thing too, because you need to have a discerning eye, a non-gullible mind, in order to ensure what you are learning isn't smoke and mirrors. For example, many 'so-called' pressure points only work if a person is relaxed, if his muscles are not tense and certain vulnerable nerve centers are exposed because of this lack of contraction... lack of defensive contraction. Indeed, most of these 'so-called' pressure points disappear in a 'real' scenario, because many of the concepts are based on non-resisting opponents.

But, some things 'are' going to be effective. All the things i noted in the previous post very likely will work, and thus be able to significantly influence the determinants... of who will go to the hospital. The 5-time MMA champion, who dedicated his entire training regimen to sport mma, can fall victim to one or all of the above noted 'mma illegal' actions because he doesn't train to defend against, and doesn't train to apply, actions that would get him disqualified and likely barred from competition.

Also, there is not always something lying around. There were no sticks outside on the concrete, no bottles, no dirt, etc.

First off, there is almost no place that is devoid of weapons, and of objects that 'even immoble' can influence the outcome of a conflict. Even the Sun presents itself as a useful tool.

Ignoring this, i'm sure you saw that less than half of the things i noted in the previous post even 'required' loose foreign objects. People still wear shirts, still have hair, still have reproductive organs. To see weapons as objects to be utilized is not seeing all the weapons available. The body, the limbs, the targets, the utilities presented on your own opponent, and the list goes on.

In closing, what one exposes one to, what one does and views, is what one ends up learning. If these concepts are not practiced in the dojo, dojang, kwoon, or other-titled training facility, then they will not be 'available inside you' to save your life, or the life of a loved on, should a real life incident occur.