Disqualifications in MMA are Reality on the Streets

[Tempest]

Tempest,

Depends on the students/instructors understanding of vital targets and the amount of power is needed to contact the target for maximum damage. An example would be a slash to the clavicle. Hurts but does little damage vs a stab down behind the clavicle which severs arteries, veins and nerves.

Yeah it kinda does, but then, if you have this understanding, the restrictions on the types of movement allowable with this sort of training sort of invalidate it from the beginning anyway.

If the instructor understands the severity of the cut/slash/stab then there is a logical way to assess damage. The key is to translate this to your students.

I find nothing wrong with Alan's training methods unless the instructor is allowing the students to free for all without proper knowledge of targets.

Except that a "Free for all" is a good chunk of the point of sparring. Some knowledge of targeting is needed, but being able to deliver force to target when they are actively and intelligently resisting is better.

If the student does not understand what the vital targets are and what the damage to said target represents this exercise is nothing more than a count of hits rather than a complete understanding of damage. In that I agree with your assessment.

Knowing that a slash/cut to a target does little damage as a apposed to a stab to the same target is key to the exercise that Alan presented. A good instructor giving good instruction in the effects of a given attack method on a given target brings this exercise to a more real life state vs. who can strike their opponent more. It does little good if you slash your opponent 10 times with little damage if your opponent strikes you once with deadly effect. The fight is over and he goes home and bandages his wounds but lives another day where as his opponent goes to the morgue.

The thing is, this knowledge needs to be more than just intellectual in nature and incorporate more than just a theoretical understanding of "If I were to get stabbed here it would suck." A few bumps and bruises are a small price to pay for this more visceral knowledge in my opinion.

I agree with your statement that understanding what a live blade can do by actually cutting/stabbing into a target medium is also a primary point of knowledge for a student. It does little good to know targets if you can not transmit the proper power into your thrust/slash to penetrate to cause the expected damage to end the fight.

I will end with this statement, it is far less dangerous/risky to the student to be hit by a felt tipped marker vs. a steel practice blade. A lot of damage can be cause by an over zealous student utilizing maximum power and using a steel/aluminum blunt edge even when wearing protective equipment as it doesn't cover the body completely.

I have trained the way you suggest with both blunt and live blades. However I see nothing wrong with utilizing a marker vs a blunt or live weapon. You can make it real by understanding the effects of a given strike and the power generated to make if effective.

You say that you have trained the way I suggest with blunts, and even sharps. I would make the argument that your understanding of what is required to make a given strike effective would not be high enough to benefit from the marker without the training that I suggest. With it, there is no need for such things. As I stated previously, fighting is an inherently dangerous activity, and not one that can be learned from theory. It requires practice. And as much realistic practice as possible is best.

[Tempest]

Alan,

Not defending the Aikido crowd as I have never taken the art, but the reason they go with the techniques is so that no one gets hurt as they learn. This is the same with Judo. However I have no idea if they then practice with an unwilling opponent to prove the application works.

I can say that Judo is practiced (learned) while Uke allows the technique to be applied during the learning stage. This is so the students learn the proper way to apply and execute the technique first so they can apply it during Randori or when competing. When two participants get out on the mat the object is not to allow the other to throw you or apply a hold, it is to resist. This may be the same for Aikido.

It may just be that they were allowing you to teach them the proper method of applying your techniques so that they could learn before applying them against a resisting opponent. But again I am speculating and assuming that it is learned in the same way that Judo is.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting.

[Alan Armstrong]

The most noticeable problem with Aikido, is that the attacker ironically accommodates the defender.

When in reality, attackers are usually unpredictable and are behaving in a difficult manner, the defender needs to use countering techniques that are realistic.

The Aikido uniform hides the legs from the waist down in the Dojo but on the street everything is a target.

Those that wear an Aikido uniform when practicing self defense will be out of touch with reality when the groin, knees, shins and feet are valid targets for other people to attack; even more so if a knife is involved, such as the thigh, calf and Achilles tendon become targets also.

Those that know how to knife fight, can use the snooker player mentality, that every shot lines up for the next, then the next and so on; The ABC principle of "Attack By Combination"

There are other ways to use a knife other than cut/slash/stab; such as hooking/ripping/skewing/pounding/throwing.

Even more techniques, especially if the knife is designed to have a bouble cutting edge capability, also the handle butt can be utilized, in conjunction with the blades.

As mentioned earlier about using the knife on "vulnerability targets" wouldn't get too wrapped up on that topic, as those that are knife fighting specialists, know exactly where they all are.

[MatsuShinshii]

You say that you have trained the way I suggest with blunts, and even sharps. I would make the argument that your understanding of what is required to make a given strike effective would not be high enough to benefit from the marker without the training that I suggest. With it, there is no need for such things. As I stated previously, fighting is an inherently dangerous activity, and not one that can be learned from theory. It requires practice. And as much realistic practice as possible is best.

I'm not saying that one should replace the other. I am just acknowledging that it is definitely a safer alternative.

IMHO if you have the knowledge and have utilized a target medium such as Goza or Tatami and understand the power it takes to effect real damage whether slashing or stabbing, I see little difference between a blunt and a marker. However I will preface this with saying that I agree that it can not be learned by theory and must be physically practiced to understand not only how to move, deflect, shift, avoid and counter but also to apply an actual effective strike (slash/cut/stab to a vital target. I'm in complete agreeance with you.

I personally do not feel that any student should practice with a live blade and it takes years of training to understand not only how to use one but to develop the peripheral skills and depth perception skills to know where your blade and your opponents blade is at all times in relationship to yourself and your opponent so that accidents do not happen. I say accident but with the severity of what can happen with a live blade it makes it sound like it's no big deal but that's far from the case.

I'm all for realism and keeping training alive, as you put it, but this is a tad different than just getting a busted lip or broken nose from a punch. The wrong thing happens and it may not be just a trip to get stitches at the hospital. I always err on the side of caution when it comes to actually putting a live weapon in a students hands.

[MatsuShinshii]

Alan,

Not defending the Aikido crowd as I have never taken the art, but the reason they go with the techniques is so that no one gets hurt as they learn. This is the same with Judo. However I have no idea if they then practice with an unwilling opponent to prove the application works.

I can say that Judo is practiced (learned) while Uke allows the technique to be applied during the learning stage. This is so the students learn the proper way to apply and execute the technique first so they can apply it during Randori or when competing. When two participants get out on the mat the object is not to allow the other to throw you or apply a hold, it is to resist. This may be the same for Aikido.

It may just be that they were allowing you to teach them the proper method of applying your techniques so that they could learn before applying them against a resisting opponent. But again I am speculating and assuming that it is learned in the same way that Judo is.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting.

I will take your word for it as I have never actually taken the art. I did watch and participate in a demonstration of Ki by an Aikido teacher when I was a teenager. I was impressed with this at the time. However I was more into striking arts and never entertained it again. Having said that I really have nothing to put forth on the subject if you are saying that it is not practiced like Judo. So... I'll take your word for it until someone else chimes in with a different experience.

[Tempest]

Alan,

Not defending the Aikido crowd as I have never taken the art, but the reason they go with the techniques is so that no one gets hurt as they learn. This is the same with Judo. However I have no idea if they then practice with an unwilling opponent to prove the application works.

I can say that Judo is practiced (learned) while Uke allows the technique to be applied during the learning stage. This is so the students learn the proper way to apply and execute the technique first so they can apply it during Randori or when competing. When two participants get out on the mat the object is not to allow the other to throw you or apply a hold, it is to resist. This may be the same for Aikido.

It may just be that they were allowing you to teach them the proper method of applying your techniques so that they could learn before applying them against a resisting opponent. But again I am speculating and assuming that it is learned in the same way that Judo is.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting.

I will take your word for it as I have never actually taken the art. I did watch and participate in a demonstration of Ki by an Aikido teacher when I was a teenager. I was impressed with this at the time. However I was more into striking arts and never entertained it again. Having said that I really have nothing to put forth on the subject if you are saying that it is not practiced like Judo. So... I'll take your word for it until someone else chimes in with a different experience.

Yeah, we had an Aikido school renting out part of our Judo dojo for a bit. It's really interesting to watch, but when you get someone from that school that is supposed to be a black belt, on average they can't grapple with even a yellow or orange belt, so you can see the difference. And it's not from lack of time. It takes every bit as long to earn a black belt in Aikido, at least according to their curriculum, as it does in Judo. They just don't really train alive, so they don't have any actual skills they can really apply against anyone who knows what they are doing.

And I agree with you about sharp blades. They are dangerous. But so are real firearms. Are you suggesting that people can learn to shoot without time on the range with actual ammo? Same thing applies.

It isn't needed to SPAR with live steel. Although some paired drilling and light resistance with very experienced partners is ok, but students should handle and be able to cut with live steel very early in training.

Sparring with speed, power, resistance and contact is reserved for blunt steel and polymer training implements. That's what they are for. Wood works too, but requires more safety gear and is not as realistic so, I avoid it for anything but pell work.

The difference between the blade and the marker is one of movement and defense. Sparring with blunts and protective gear still FEELS like a fight, and there are some fight-like consequences for messing up. Bruises, pain, mess up badly enough and you could break something.

Those potential consequences are what train the subconscious, the mushin no shin for you Japanese sword swingers, to understand the threat and adapt to it at speed. The marker just doesn't do that. There is still too much disconnect between the consequence and the action. You can TELL someone their guard is weak a hundred times, but if you spar with them and HIT them 2-3 times in the same place, they will learn much faster.

[Alan Armstrong]

Just to clarify, the red marker idea, that isn't the one and end all that stops there training method, it is just a way to show that where it touched shows red like blood; similar to shooting with paint balls.

The other idea, is that being just fixated on just knifes is very limiting, as other/many hand held objects can also do alot of damage; therefore the red maker isn't just representing knifes but hopefully all sharp and potentially dangerous weapons, including a pistol.

[MatsuShinshii]

And I agree with you about sharp blades. They are dangerous. But so are real firearms. Are you suggesting that people can learn to shoot without time on the range with actual ammo? Same thing applies.

I disagree. I have had a rifle or pistol in my hand since I was very young and the premise that they are one in the same while practicing with them is not in my mind even close. The premise of this discussion is practicing with a resisting opponent with a knife. That means that the opponent is trying to score hits and so are you, attack and defend. If you were to liken this type of one on one practice to a fire arm you wouldn't call it practice because practice has the connotation that you are able to do the exercise again. This type of practice with a fire arm is final and can not be repeated. This would not even be called practice, it would be called battle. The person that looses dies.

When teaching a layman to shoot the barrel is aimed down range at it's intended target, not flailing around with the intention of striking another individual unless you are practicing CQC and this would be without rounds (ammo) in the weapon. The only reason that you would be engaging a combatant to bludgeon or bayonet him is because they either surprised you and got within your danger zone to were you would not have time to turn the barrel of them or if you were out of ammo. The point is that the part that is dangerous is aimed away from people. Practice is not aiming and shooting your training partner.

It isn't needed to SPAR with live steel. Although some paired drilling and light resistance with very experienced partners is ok, but students should handle and be able to cut with live steel very early in training.

Sparring with speed, power, resistance and contact is reserved for blunt steel and polymer training implements. That's what they are for. Wood works too, but requires more safety gear and is not as realistic so, I avoid it for anything but pell work.

This all depends on your experience and how you were trained. I have trained with a live blade. However I agree this is not needed. You mention Japanese sword swingers below. There are three types of practice blades utilized which are Iaito, Bokken and Shinai. All need protective equipment to utilize during sparring. However they make (I personally have not used this) foam swords now so that you can engage fully when attacking and defending without the risk of injury.

But again I am not saying that the Marker idea is the end all but merely a safe substitute to blunt blades. I have used blunt blades as well as wooden and bamboo to practice with an opponent. I have also used Shinken. In utilizing knives I have used blunts and wooden weapons. I'm not unaccustomed to the use of these training implements and I do agree that it adds the extra element of realism or aliveness as you say. However safety is always an issue especially with a novice. In fact I fear a novice with no experience more so than a master of their perspective art because the novice has no idea what they are doing, they can be over zealous, unpredictable and have literally no control. For this I would definitely utilize the markers as a safe alternative and again if you understand the targeting, methodology, power and resulting damage I still would utilize this for experienced practitioners as a way to measure their progress against other experienced practitioners.

The difference between the blade and the marker is one of movement and defense. Sparring with blunts and protective gear still FEELS like a fight, and there are some fight-like consequences for messing up. Bruises, pain, mess up badly enough and you could break something.

Those potential consequences are what train the subconscious, the mushin no shin for you Japanese sword swingers, to understand the threat and adapt to it at speed. The marker just doesn't do that. There is still too much disconnect between the consequence and the action. You can TELL someone their guard is weak a hundred times, but if you spar with them and HIT them 2-3 times in the same place, they will learn much faster.

To the bold above... exactly!

To the underlined... totally agree.

To the rest... Understood and I get were you are coming from however I must make this statement that a martial artist can take any object and make it a lethal weapon if you know how to use it and where to use it.

The element of danger is not removed completely but limited. What is the difference between a pencil and a knife? I can do just as much damage stabbing you with a pencil in vital targets as I can with a knife. In fact I would submit more because I can break the pencil off in side of you. A marker, although not the right length so an argument could be made for that, is still a weapon of sorts and this purpose is to inflict damage, although not the kind a real blade would. A blunt practice weapon by it's very definition is the same thing.

Look, I agree with you because I have trained this way. However I can see the value to the utilization of this implement to train. Yes you could argue that it's not as realistic but that depends on the intent. If a seasoned practitioner is utilizing the marker, do you think lessons could not be learned by analyzing the marks made during a full out session? Do you think that at full speed, targeting, precision and type of strike would not be training tools in analyzing the marks after a session? I think this would be very helpful. A blunt and live blade have their place in training but you can't see what you had done after the conflict with a blunt, especially when wearing protective gear. There are no marks. A live blade... well a live blade would definitely tell the tail but this would be akin to practicing with a fire arm as a stated before, final. I see the potential benefits is this methodology and I think it can teach a well trained practitioner what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. Now if you are only using this to see how many times you connect, then yes I agree its pretty foolish.

Just my 2 or 3 cents on the subject.

[MatsuShinshii]

Just to clarify, the red marker idea, that isn't the one and end all that stops there training method, it is just a way to show that where it touched shows red like blood; similar to shooting with paint balls.

The other idea, is that being just fixated on just knifes is very limiting, as other/many hand held objects can also do alot of damage; therefore the red maker isn't just representing knifes but hopefully all sharp and potentially dangerous weapons, including a pistol.

???????????

How can a marker be likened to a pistol? And for what intended purpose in training.

I can see a practice, maybe rubber, pistol to practice striking an opponent once you are out of rounds but how does a marker fit into this equation? I gotta say I'm not following.

[Alan Armstrong]

Just to clarify, the red marker idea, that isn't the one and end all that stops there training method, it is just a way to show that where it touched shows red like blood; similar to shooting with paint balls.

The other idea, is that being just fixated on just knifes is very limiting, as other/many hand held objects can also do alot of damage; therefore the red maker isn't just representing knifes but hopefully all sharp and potentially dangerous weapons, including a pistol.

???????????

How can a marker be likened to a pistol? And for what intended purpose in training.

I can see a practice, maybe rubber, pistol to practice striking an opponent once you are out of rounds but how does a marker fit into this equation? I gotta say I'm not following.

Clarification: The idea is when a pistol is held as close to the body and is fired at 0 distance.

Also, a felt tip marker isn't as damaging to a student as a blunt knife can be.

Everything has its place as when throwing knifes a sharp point is appropriate and throwing markers would be pointless; excuse the pun:)