Disqualifications in MMA are Reality on the Streets

[MatsuShinshii]

I'm a very firm believer that the practitioner is at fault, and not the style!!

The style that YOU, whomever YOU is, are in right now...it's solid, it's effective....but are you?? If not, then the blame might be as close as the nearest mirror.

Agreed. Appreciate the comments.

As I have stated the art is effective. If fault is to be found, it is usually in the instruction (thus training methods as Tempest pointed out) or as you pointed out "look in the mirror".

Love that! But it's so true. To thy own self be true. How many people now days actually find fault or weakness within themselves and own up to it? It's way to easy to find a patsy or scapegoat to blame short comings on. Lost the fight? Blame it on the art. Lost at a tournament? blame it on the instructor.

Blame it on anything except yourself.

Look in the mirror! Sensei8 I think you just discovered the answer to every winy teenagers problems. You're a GENIUS.

Wouldn't it be just grand if everyone had just a smidge of integrity to own up to their own short comings?

What an innovative, fresh and novel Idea.

[Tempest]

I'm a very firm believer that the practitioner is at fault, and not the style!!

The style that YOU, whomever YOU is, are in right now...it's solid, it's effective....but are you?? If not, then the blame might be as close as the nearest mirror.

Agreed. Appreciate the comments.

As I have stated the art is effective. If fault is to be found, it is usually in the instruction (thus training methods as Tempest pointed out) or as you pointed out "look in the mirror".

Love that! But it's so true. To thy own self be true. How many people now days actually find fault or weakness within themselves and own up to it? It's way to easy to find a patsy or scapegoat to blame short comings on. Lost the fight? Blame it on the art. Lost at a tournament? blame it on the instructor.

Blame it on anything except yourself.

Look in the mirror! Sensei8 I think you just discovered the answer to every winy teenagers problems. You're a GENIUS.

Wouldn't it be just grand if everyone had just a smidge of integrity to own up to their own short comings?

What an innovative, fresh and novel Idea.

"Let no man's ghost return and say his training let him down."

I believe that saying is pretty popular in USMC training circles.

We as instructors have a responsibility to our students to do everything we can to prepare them for the situations that they are likely to face. But even MORE of a responsibility to prepare them for situations that we TELL them we are preparing them for.

If I tell my students that I am teaching them self defense, then there are certain things that have to be included in that.

If I tell them I am preparing them for a Judo tournament, there are certain things that have to be included in that.

We can tell ourselves whatever we want to about a students preparation, about their training, about whatever... but if they fail, and we could have done something to help prevent it, and didn't, either from foolish, stubborn pride or from ignorance or for whatever reason, then that students failure SHOULD haunt us and likely will. At least it will me.

[MatsuShinshii]

Well said sir. And as you put that I totally agree 100% with your assertion.

But this fits perfectly if you think about it. No excuses and the buck stops here works for the instructor as well as the student. If you fail to properly prepare your student then you should be the one looking in the mirror. No excuses.

However the instructor can only control so much. The Dojo/Gym/School and the Marine Corps are different animals through and through. In the Corps you have complete control over you Marines and their training because you are with them for 60 hrs or more a week, every week. There is also the reality that war/combat is a real possibility and there for the motivation of the "students" is very high to learn all that they can so in the event that they get called up they will be prepared.

In civilian life the average person will go their entire life time without an incident. In many this reality is only a distant possibility and there for the motivation factor is lower.

Tell a student that in 2 months they WILL have to fight for their lives and that factor would change.

What I am saying is this, I agree with you about our responsibility towards our students and that if you haven't done your job then their failure is reflected on you. It should be. However it is also up to your students to apply these lessons to their training outside of the Dojo/Gym/School. As we do not have control over their lives and can not force them to show up and learn, nor can we force them to train outside of class.

Yes a degree of responsibility falls on the instructors shoulders and I absolutely understand and subscribe to this mentality but... whats the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink".

I get your point but you are talking about two totally different cultures and mindsets. The Marine trains and absorbs every bit of knowledge and strives to develop every skill they can because they have the very real understanding that any day they may be called upon to go and fight for their country. The average civilian does not have this mindset. Not in the least. So the analogy that you are drawing, although I agree as a Marine, is faulty due to the reasons for training and the degree of possibility of threat.

This comes back to our discussion about the mentality of the fighter. A cage fighter training to fight in the cage has a different mentality than the guy who is studying an art as a hobby or for something to do. The real threat of violence is real in most of our minds but to the average citizen it's a very remote possibility. How many times have you watched the news and hear the words, "I never ever thought it would happen to me"? It's a different mindset. So I stand on the look in the mirror not only to your point about the instructor but also to the student. We can teach but we can not crawl in their mushy skulls and adjust their mentality about training.

By the way Tempest I appreciate your point on the topic. Sounds like you know a thing or two about us Jarheads. We're all stead fast and very stanch in our beliefs and as you could probably tell very opinionated to say the least. Semper Fi!

[Tempest]

I do know a bit. I grew up with my dad. He served with the 1st Marines from 70-74 in several exotic Asian locales.

I don't think that you can necessarily change a civilians mindset about training, BUT, I think that part of the purpose of MA training, just like part of the purpose of EMT, or LE, or any other training that should prepare you to handle adrenal charged emergencies with some degree of a clear head and proper direction, is to EVENTUALLY change you in to more than just a bystander when violence happens.

That is why I harp so much on aliveness, active resistance, and other points that make training as real as possible.

When something happens, and odds are that it will at least once in your life if you live in an urban area like I do,

then part of the role of a MA is to do more than just stand there with a slack-eyed and silly look on their face.

That is something that I can expect of my students BECAUSE we train in an alive manner with active resistance. This is NOT something that someone who trains with only cooperative partners and dead patterns can expect of their students. Odds are their students will fail, and then they will berate them for "Not training hard enough", when doing the wrong thing as hard as you want to will not produce the correct result.

[MatsuShinshii]

I do know a bit. I grew up with my dad. He served with the 1st Marines from 70-74 in several exotic Asian locales.

I don't think that you can necessarily change a civilians mindset about training, BUT, I think that part of the purpose of MA training, just like part of the purpose of EMT, or LE, or any other training that should prepare you to handle adrenal charged emergencies with some degree of a clear head and proper direction, is to EVENTUALLY change you in to more than just a bystander when violence happens.

That is why I harp so much on aliveness, active resistance, and other points that make training as real as possible.

When something happens, and odds are that it will at least once in your life if you live in an urban area like I do,

then part of the role of a MA is to do more than just stand there with a slack-eyed and silly look on their face.

That is something that I can expect of my students BECAUSE we train in an alive manner with active resistance. This is NOT something that someone who trains with only cooperative partners and dead patterns can expect of their students. Odds are their students will fail, and then they will berate them for "Not training hard enough", when doing the wrong thing as hard as you want to will not produce the correct result.

To your Dad, Semper Fi! And thank him for his service.

Again I do not disagree with your ideals on alive manner or active resistance. It is fundamental to teaching fighting skills and preparing students. I could not agree more.

[TJ-Jitsu]

I do know a bit. I grew up with my dad. He served with the 1st Marines from 70-74 in several exotic Asian locales.

I don't think that you can necessarily change a civilians mindset about training, BUT, I think that part of the purpose of MA training, just like part of the purpose of EMT, or LE, or any other training that should prepare you to handle adrenal charged emergencies with some degree of a clear head and proper direction, is to EVENTUALLY change you in to more than just a bystander when violence happens.

That is why I harp so much on aliveness, active resistance, and other points that make training as real as possible.

When something happens, and odds are that it will at least once in your life if you live in an urban area like I do,

then part of the role of a MA is to do more than just stand there with a slack-eyed and silly look on their face.

That is something that I can expect of my students BECAUSE we train in an alive manner with active resistance. This is NOT something that someone who trains with only cooperative partners and dead patterns can expect of their students. Odds are their students will fail, and then they will berate them for "Not training hard enough", when doing the wrong thing as hard as you want to will not produce the correct result.

You.... I like you.

We should hang out

[Alan Armstrong]

ORIGINAL TOPIC:

Disqualifications in MMA is the reality on the streets.

It has often been said that "traditional martial artistsis are no match for MMA fighters" when in fact traditionalists learn to fight and defend on the street.

Timidity is a disqualification in MMA for MMA fighters, on the street timidity isn't really a worthwhile strategy to take advantage of, due to getting oneself terribly injured or even killed.

MMA fighters are being elevated too high, from experience I know what goes up must come down; just a matter of time.

Traditional martial arts has being compared to as a babysitter service or virtual martial arts with acrobatic dance gymnastic also described as exercises for the elderly public.

Has the fighting spirit of traditional martial arts been consumed by the MMA mania?

[bushido_man96]

I don't think MMA fighters should be considered "timid." They are fighting in a setting where the goal is to knock the other person out of otherwise defeat them. Yes, it is a sport, but that doesn't mean that they can't defend themselves on the street. MMA fighters train the tool set they have at full resistance, and then put it to work the same way in the ring or octagon.

The more "traditional" Martial Artists will spend more time training things at less than full speed and resistance. The bunkai from katas can be very helpful in self-defense training, but they won't cover all scenarios, and when someone is actually trying to hit you, it presents a whole different aspect.

Both styles have great things about them. And both can be beneficial for self-defense training.

[TJ-Jitsu]

So lets try this another way. We're often in disagreement, so I'm going to do my best to discuss this in a manner that's much more basic and simple.

It has often been said that "traditional martial artistsis are no match for MMA fighters" when in fact traditionalists learn to fight and defend on the street.

So lets point out your assumptions here:

1: Traditionalists or their styles even know how to fight

2: Said styles fight specifically for the streets

3: The implication of #2 is that "sport" styles don't train "for the street."

Point one is the idea that all martial arts and practitioners are equal, when in fact they are NOT. This is the greatest misinformation that is often put forward. IF all martial arts were equal, then why are TKD guys submitting BJJ guys? Why are Kung Fu guys throwing Judo guys? And why aren't wrestlers ko'ing boxers?

If the answers aren't obvious, its because they don't all train in the same thing. Styles absolutely matter. While it can be said that no one style can incorporate every facet of fighting, some styles merely do a much better job preparing their practitioners for actual combat. This is shown in the numbers. There is a reason why grapplers overwhelmed their striking opponents in early UFC and MMA events. These events were often held with little or no rules. Despite these rules grappling styles dominated over striking styles. I don't want to go into the specifics of why as that can be yet another lengthy discussion, but this happened. Many challenges were issued (Gracie Challenge being one) to anyone claiming to be the best fighter. Call it what you will, no one was victorious- and these were also no rules matches.

Moving on to point #2.

This is assuming point #1 has been proven and that's what the early MMA events set out to determine. Could someone prove to be as deadly and dangerous as they claimed? There were plenty of opportunities for every pressure point, death touch, and dirty fighter tactics in early MMA events- none proved successful. Say what you will about the rules, but the rules have to be abided by BOTH fighters, not just one or the other. Now this is a pretty big assumption that "Style X trains for the street and not the ring" when style "X" proved incapable of being the slightest bit respectable in the slightest degree in the first place! I find it particularly rich when this excuse is used over and over but I'll go a step further and say this was predicted ahead of time when the UFC put them on the spot.

Initially many of these styles claimed that a kick or knee in the face, or whatever else would easily eliminate their grappling attackers. Their strikes did not prove to be as powerful as they initially thought. Many were too overwhelmed and couldn't cope with what reality was presenting them. Some sought to learn the practical styles of fighter while others chose to continue to lie to themselves- that's right, before MMA all these practitioners were "No Rules" fighters. Then when actually put on the spot (and failing miserably) they stopped being NHB fighters- they became "street" fighters. This became your regular "Oh we don't train for competitions, we train for the street!" claims.

So if you hadn't noticed, what many of these people are attempting to do is trying to make their argument unfalsifiable. You're given the opportunity to prove the style in the ring, then the cage, and even behind closed doors and these practitioners continue to backpeddle each and every time. This is hardly a convincing argument, and most people can see what they're attempting to do- hence the hard words and criticism one often gets when this topic arises.

This kinda brings us to point #3- that all these "sport" styles were designed to be exactly that. All of the "sport" styles were very martial in their origins. Wrestling in its various forms has always been a cornerstone of every military prior to the invention of firearms. Sport aspects of it were created to allow their soldiers to practice them against each other on a competitive level to get better

Then of course theres BJJ, which is really what we're trying to get at right? That's what many are suggesting when they talking MMA aren't they? Yes, BJJ was created to fight on the city streets of Rio de Janeiro where there are no rules whatsoever. There were plenty of circumstances where family members had to flee because they were outnumbers, or assailant were armed, only to come back later when odds were in their favor (or themselves armed...).

Timidity is a disqualification in MMA for MMA fighters, on the street timidity isn't really a worthwhile strategy to take advantage of, due to getting oneself terribly injured or even killed.

We're talking self defense vs fighting. This is a form of entertainment, so yes you cant just be timid. If we're talking about self defense now things are a bit different- your job isn't to entertain, nor do you have to defeat your opponent to win- you just have to stay alive. As you can see, this is much easier than going on the offensive. Its very difficult to fight someone who's even modestly trained when the other fighter DOES NOT want to fight. This is self defense. This is the first, the simplest, and the EASIEST part of martial arts. You're attempting to flip things around and make it be the most difficult...

MMA fighters are being elevated too high, from experience I know what goes up must come down; just a matter of time.

Traditional martial arts has being compared to as a babysitter service or virtual martial arts with acrobatic dance gymnastic also described as exercises for the elderly public.

Has the fighting spirit of traditional martial arts been consumed by the MMA mania?

Of course you'd think that if you felt your style was being attacked. I'll tell you what created my vitriol- its Charlatans claiming to know how to do something- those that sell you something that they don't even possess. Im of the opinion that this is a serious problem in the world of martial arts- to a degree much greater than you probably would. I feel there is good reason too.

Imagine you're trying to learn how to swim. So you read books, you do exercises, and you practice holding your breath. You do everything you can to learn how to swim except actually get in the water.

When asked you rationalize that swimming is meant to be used for life and death circumstances. Its not to be made a sport and only used for survival. Meanwhile others are actually swimming and getting in the water, making marked improvements in style, theory, and application. You decide you dislike this, as it doesn't fit with your world view. You critique Michael Phelps and other Olympians as being "sport" swimmers who wouldn't have any idea of what its like to have to swim for your life.

So the day comes that you're in the middle of a large lake and your boat capsizes. This is your first time getting wet. This is merely another day at the shop for them- but you want someone to put you on their level when you wont even jump in the pool....

[bushido_man96]

A very valid argument, TJ.