Fight Science! Did anyone watch this?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Fighting in a ring vs fighting in a bar surrounded by obsticles. Fighting with weapons vs of fighting empty handed. Fighting multiple people vs fighting one person. Fighting as part of a group vs fighting alone. Fighting a trained martial artist vs fighting an ordinary aggressive person. And so on.

As an example, I can tell you from my own experience that some techniques which work great with blunt weapons (such as sticks or clubs) don't work well with blades, and vice-versa. I can give specific examples if you want, but I would think it should be obvious. I am not going to attempt to give specific examples of MMA techniques, because I am not that familiar with the specific techniques that MMA competitors typically use.

At least you finally specified the situations you were talking about, but then you admitted you had no intention of ever providing a specific example of an MMA technique that has its lunch eaten by a non-MMA technique in those situations.

So in other words, you never had a point.

Again, my argument is not even specific to MMA. I object to the notion that the the techniques which are optimal for any specific type of fighting are going to be optimal for all types of fighting, especially when the specific type of fighting is as specialized and restricted as MMA competitions are.

Object away. Have fun. Then come back any time you get your hands on some evidence that contradicts the available video evidence.

That is pretty much the point. The footage you are citing as evidence does not seem to support the claim you are making. At best, you could claim that MMA competitors are consistently better fighters than people who do not do extensive full-contact training. This is certainly no surprise.

No. What I've claimed consistently is that:

1. Full contact trumps non-full-contact. (We agree on this).
2. MMA is the best of breed full contact right now because it uses the least restrictive set of rules and attracts the best competition.
3. If you train full-contact, you quickly discard things that don't work, which includes a lot of stuff woo-MAers think work great.

The evidence for #3 is by necessity negative evidence, but that's great for you. It means you only need one or two good counterexamples to disprove it.

So what? It is also a necessary part of life. The key is to have good criteria for deciding who to trust, and what to trust them about. And keep in mind here that none of this trust I am talking about extends to the ridiculous extreme of me learning techniques in a non-contact setting, and then expecting them to work in a real fight.

Just to clarify something here. I personally do not trust any technique which I have learned in regular training to be something that I can reliably use in a real fight until I have practiced it in sparring. The closer to full-contact the better. When my teacher tells me that a particular technique works in real fights, I trust that it is worthwhile training that technique. But the final confirmation that I can actually use that technique in a fight comes from my ability to use it in sparring, which comes later (much later, for difficult techniques).

That's nice. It's better to have video though, because people lie, people are confused, and people make totally suboptimal techniques work on sufficiently suboptimal opponents. Often because they don't know any better ones.

That is exactly what I am talking about. But "giving it a go" often means more than practicing the technique for a while, trying it out in sparring, and throwing it away if you can't make it work.

The thing is, there is plenty of good evidence that a double leg shoot works when it matters. That makes it worth training for as long as it takes. Someone's word is not good enough.

This is a question of semantics. When I said "basic" I meant that they form the basis of many grappling techniques. A wrist lock is typically a component of something else, such as a take-down, a disarm, a throw, or an attempt to control. I agree that they are difficult to execute. That is precisely why their usefulness cannot simply be discarded when you find that after a little practice, you still can't get it to work on a resisting opponent.

It occurred to me overnight that it's possible we are suffering from another semantic problem. Are you including disarms or weapon-facilitated wrist locks under the heading of wrist locks? It seems like something a guy with your background might do, and if so I'm happy to acknowledge that wrist locks are more practical if the opponent kindly provides you with a nice long lever to manipulate.

Unarmed versus unarmed I still say they are a party trick, and if your teachers who are willing to fight full contact say otherwise there are lots of minor MMA events around where they can show us all how it's done without having to worry about Mirko Filipovic kicking their head off.

I have. I said I did full-contact weapons training. Believe it or not, that includes grappling (just not as much as you see in unarmed combat). As a matter of fact, the basic wrist lock is the only joint lock I have been able to make work in full speed sparring. Most of the grappling I end up doing amounts to contests of strength and size, but that is unrepresentative since I am pretty big.

This is probably what led me to the surmise above. A stick in their hand to use as a lever, and your own gear to get you past the stick's danger zone to the range where you can grab their arm, makes a wrist lock a very different proposition.

Like I said, if you have to "fiddle around" to get it, then you should not be trying to do it at all.

Maybe full-timers can get so good they can catch amateurs 100% of the time with these party tricks with no fiddling around. I want to see evidence though, and I want to see evidence it's an achievable goal for hobbyists before I take claims like the one above seriously.

If it is one on one, maybe. Especially if that sort of thing is what you are best at. But I wouldn't suggest that in a bar. Not unless you like the idea of his buddy, who you possibly did not even realize was there, sticking a knife in your ribs. And I don't particularly relish the idea of getting in a clinch with somebody holding a broken bottle, either. Odds are that we will both end up getting cut quite a bit.

This is the old bait and switch. You propose a scenario, and then when you don't like how it plays out you add a homicidal buddy with a knife and the bottle suddenly turns into a broken bottle.

If we're going to be fair you shouldn't try a wrist lock in that situation either, because outside Steven Seagal movies you will still be trying to make the wrist lock work when the homicidal buddy stabs you in the back, and the person you are trying to wrist lock will punch you in the face as well.

Alternatively if we're transforming ourselves into action movie heroes for this scenario then I'll duck under the bottle guy's first swing as I shoot, pick the guy up bodily without materially slowing down, and slam them into the ground. Or possibly toss them on their back with a shoulder throw. In that case we both win, but he thing about my ridiculous fantasy heroics is that there is good evidence skilled people can actually do such things.

1) Wrist locks are not pain compliance holds. If I break your wrist, you drop your weapon. If I lock your wrist and strip your weapon, you drop your weapon.
2) If it is low-percentage, don't do it. Either train it until it is not low-percentage anymore, or throw it away (as you have apperantly done).

1) You bait and switched again. You introduced a wrist lock as a more humane alternative to a punch in the nose. When I point out there are alternatives that are more reliable and more humane you switch tracks and say you were actually going to break their wrist. So now you're advocating a technique which is much harder to execute and inflicts grievous bodily harm.

(I won't go into the use of certain standing wrist locks as pain compliance holds, suffice to say that they can be used safely that way and in fact it's the only practical use I see for them).

2) Standing wrist locks are always going to be low percentage compared to other grappling moves, because you're trying to exploit a small lever while your opponent has the rest of their body free.

Anyway, I just want to clarify something here. I am objecting to the claim that what is optimal for MMA competition is optimal for all types of fighting, and that any techniques which are not particularly useful in MMA competitions, are just useless in general. It seems to me that the burden of proof here should be on the person making the claim. Where is your evidence to support this? None of the evidence you have cited seems to support this at all.

As they say, you can't prove a negative. It's just that nobody ever uses them, and the people who say they could use them never step up and try it. It's a guess, but I guess that even the ones who honestly believe they could make this stuff work in a full contact environment and try to train up for a MMA bout come to their senses after their first or second sparring session.

Something else that occurred to me overnight is that there is a real chicken and egg problem with party trick techniques that only work on the clueless. Much like techniques which immediately maim, you can't train them full contact and so it's nigh impossible to functionalise them. Unless you have a convenient supply of the clueless who are willing to act as your practise dummies I suppose.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Im trying to find any example of a tackle first guy against multiple opponents

The closest thing I could find is Mike Valelly on youtube vs a bunch of weenie idiots. But he punches a lot and only tackles once later. And he also will tell you he just took a tiny bit of TMA when he was little, nothing else

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPXeWCClEBQ&mode=related&search=

edit:

OOops, TMA I meant, kenpo

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you do the math on this, you will find that this isn't the case. The fact is, the force from a short punch thrown with full body weight is several times stronger than the biggest haymaker you can throw.

Feel free to offer your proof (mathematical proof) of this.

The short punch turns out to be faster and more powerful and because the body is in such a perfectly aligned position, the faster an opponent is attacking the harder he gets hit as well.

I don't agree. Muscles are like any other engine, they take a bit to accelerate to full speed. 1 inch isn't enough time.

And I disagree. I have used it in the ring and on the street to put down a guy who was younger, bigger, stronger and faster. Although anecdotal to you, it is proof positive to me.

Yes, and many psychics have proof positive for themselves as well.



I have to wonder, why aren't 1-inch punches being used effectively in martial art competitions if they are just as powerful as jabs, crosses and hooks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Im trying to find any example of a tackle first guy against multiple opponents

Try finding examples of anyone beating up multiple opponents and get back to me.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think all anyone stated was that TMA were valid for self defense, and in fact worked well for self defense against multiple opponents. I almost always made it out with my possessions and my body mostly intact. Were I to tackle one of em, I wouldnt count on that same outcome

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think all anyone stated was that TMA were valid for self defense, and in fact worked well for self defense against multiple opponents. I almost always made it out with my possessions and my body mostly intact. Were I to tackle one of em, I wouldnt count on that same outcome

In otherwords, you are a fast runner. Thanks for the info.

 

[pipelineaudio]

see now, all that hemmin and hawin, and Mr. miyagi was right : best defense, no be there

Truthfully, its not always as easy as running. Often youve got to give them a good reason not to follow you. In the common situation of getting mobbed while exiting a bus, youve usually got to break free of the mob who has you backed against the outside of the bus.

Try tackling then

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

At least you finally specified the situations you were talking about, but then you admitted you had no intention of ever providing a specific example of an MMA technique that has its lunch eaten by a non-MMA technique in those situations.

So in other words, you never had a point.

On the contrary, my point was, and still is, that it is ridiculous and unjustified to make the blanket assertion that anything which is not useful in MMA competition is always useless, or that what is optimal for MMA competition is always optimal. Your demand for examples of MMA techniques which don't work in some other type of fighting just avoids the fact that if you are going to make such assertions, you need to support them with evidence. And citing examples of MMA competitors fighting people without any full-contact experience just doesn't cut it.

Again, my argument is not even specific to MMA. I object to the notion that the the techniques which are optimal for any specific type of fighting are going to be optimal for all types of fighting, especially when the specific type of fighting is as specialized and restricted as MMA competitions are.

Object away. Have fun. Then come back any time you get your hands on some evidence that contradicts the available video evidence.

What available video evidence? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim?

No. What I've claimed consistently is that:

1. Full contact trumps non-full-contact. (We agree on this).

Yes, we agree on this.

2. MMA is the best of breed full contact right now because it uses the least restrictive set of rules and attracts the best competition.

Best for what? And how are its rules the least restrictive? They completely leave out what are probably the two most decisive advantages one can obtain in a real fight: Weapons and outnumbering your opponent.

Perhaps this is the point we really disagree on? I don't consider any form of unarmed one on one competition to be even remotely "unrestrictive". Not when the first thing I would do in any real fight is find anything I can reasonably use as a weapon.

3. If you train full-contact, you quickly discard things that don't work, which includes a lot of stuff woo-MAers think work great.

We absolutely agree on this point.

The evidence for #3 is by necessity negative evidence, but that's great for you. It means you only need one or two good counterexamples to disprove it.

Since number 3 is something we agree on, this really doesn't matter.

Number 2 is the claim which I don't think you have presented supporting evidence for.

This is a question of semantics. When I said "basic" I meant that they form the basis of many grappling techniques. A wrist lock is typically a component of something else, such as a take-down, a disarm, a throw, or an attempt to control. I agree that they are difficult to execute. That is precisely why their usefulness cannot simply be discarded when you find that after a little practice, you still can't get it to work on a resisting opponent.

It occurred to me overnight that it's possible we are suffering from another semantic problem. Are you including disarms or weapon-facilitated wrist locks under the heading of wrist locks?

Absolutely. And many other things as well. Again this is why I refered to the rist lock as being "basic". The basic rist lock you see demonstrated and practiced in martial arts seminars is not something you actually typically end up doing in a real fight. It is more of an excersize for training you how to do real techniques, which could be anything from disarms to throws to control techniques, to simply breaking the wrist.

It seems like something a guy with your background might do, and if so I'm happy to acknowledge that wrist locks are more practical if the opponent kindly provides you with a nice long lever to manipulate.

Of if your goal is to neutralize a deadly weapon in the hands of a relatively unskilled fighter as quickly as possible. Again, it is easy for somebody who primarily does competition with highly skilled fighters to poo-poo this as "something that only works against the clueless", but it is exactly this type of situation which typically threatens people's lives.

Unarmed versus unarmed I still say they are a party trick, and if your teachers who are willing to fight full contact say otherwise there are lots of minor MMA events around where they can show us all how it's done without having to worry about Mirko Filipovic kicking their head off.

Well, given that my whole point was that what is not useful in unarmed vs unarmed (particularly when your opponent is highly skilled), is not necessarily just plain useless, I would say that this just confirms my point.

I have. I said I did full-contact weapons training. Believe it or not, that includes grappling (just not as much as you see in unarmed combat). As a matter of fact, the basic wrist lock is the only joint lock I have been able to make work in full speed sparring. Most of the grappling I end up doing amounts to contests of strength and size, but that is unrepresentative since I am pretty big.

This is probably what led me to the surmise above. A stick in their hand to use as a lever, and your own gear to get you past the stick's danger zone to the range where you can grab their arm, makes a wrist lock a very different proposition.

Actually it was most often when fighting with practice knives. With longer weapons the fight usually never even gets that close.

If it is one on one, maybe. Especially if that sort of thing is what you are best at. But I wouldn't suggest that in a bar. Not unless you like the idea of his buddy, who you possibly did not even realize was there, sticking a knife in your ribs. And I don't particularly relish the idea of getting in a clinch with somebody holding a broken bottle, either. Odds are that we will both end up getting cut quite a bit.

This is the old bait and switch. You propose a scenario, and then when you don't like how it plays out you add a homicidal buddy with a knife and the bottle suddenly turns into a broken bottle.

When being swung around, bottles have a rather nasty habit of turning into broken bottles all on their own. As for the buddy with a knife, my point is that outside of the ring, you can't count on other people not getting involved. So you can't just do what you would do in a ring with no regard for for what is going on around you. In the ring, you don't have to worry about turning your back on a potential enemy. In the martial arts training I do, not doing that is something which is often addressed, and it can drastically alter your choices about what is the best thing to do in a particular circumstance.

If we're going to be fair you shouldn't try a wrist lock in that situation either, because outside Steven Seagal movies you will still be trying to make the wrist lock work when the homicidal buddy stabs you in the back, and the person you are trying to wrist lock will punch you in the face as well.

Again, if you have to spend any time trying to make it work, don't do it. More to the point, if during your initial defense of the attack (block, parry, evasion, or whatever), you don't get ahold of them in the right way, you don't mess around trying to get it. You do something else.

1) Wrist locks are not pain compliance holds. If I break your wrist, you drop your weapon. If I lock your wrist and strip your weapon, you drop your weapon.
2) If it is low-percentage, don't do it. Either train it until it is not low-percentage anymore, or throw it away (as you have apperantly done).

1) You bait and switched again. You introduced a wrist lock as a more humane alternative to a punch in the nose.

I did no such thing. When a lock is used for control, it is more humane than other alternatives for ending a fight, such as knocking the person unconscious, or injuring them to the point where they cannot continue. If weapons are involved, humanity is probably not even a concern. The goal is to not get killed. If weapons are not involved, controlling the person, while much more difficult than just beating them senseless, may be a better option. Particularly if the person in question is a minor, or somebody you have some responsibility to. And of course there is the law enforcement aspect. But even then, it is not pain compliance. Once you have the lock, it is a question of mechanics. You can move the person. If they have a very high pain tolerance, and forcefully resist, they may break their own wrist (or whatever joint is locked), but even that is preferable to beating them senseless.

When I point out there are alternatives that are more reliable and more humane you switch tracks and say you were actually going to break their wrist.

No, I said that in response to the claim that it is pain compliance. What forces the compliance is not just pain, but the fact that if they don't comply, they break something.

There are plenty of techniques which really are just pain compliance. And many of them are quite humane too, since they don't inflict actual injury. They just aren't as reliable, because not everybody reacts strongly to pain.

So now you're advocating a technique which is much harder to execute and inflicts grievous bodily harm.

Would you rather have a broken wrist or a broken jaw? A broken finger or a tooth knocked out? How about broken ribs? And I haven't even gotten to the rather nasty things that happen to people when you do a takedown on the street. A simple throw, when done for real on the street, can easily be fatal.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

On the contrary, my point was, and still is, that it is ridiculous and unjustified to make the blanket assertion that anything which is not useful in MMA competition is always useless, or that what is optimal for MMA competition is always optimal. Your demand for examples of MMA techniques which don't work in some other type of fighting just avoids the fact that if you are going to make such assertions, you need to support them with evidence. And citing examples of MMA competitors fighting people without any full-contact experience just doesn't cut it.

So your argument is that I have to find positive proof that no technique which is useless in MMA is ever useful? Any other universal negatives you'd like me to prove while I am at it?

It's 2006, and a fair standard for today is "Is there impartial evidence that anyone, anywhere, any time has used these techniques successfully? If and only if we have that evidence, what's the training time involved and how do these techniques compare to other techniques?".

You are the one training this stuff, you should be able to justify the time you spend on it by pointing to evidence that you are not wasting your time.

What available video evidence? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim?

Yes. There is ample evidence that MMA techniques work.

Best for what? And how are its rules the least restrictive? They completely leave out what are probably the two most decisive advantages one can obtain in a real fight: Weapons and outnumbering your opponent.

I'm speaking purely of unarmed combat. For armed combat the Dog Brothers or metal weapon re-enactors are the people I'd look to for evidence of what works.

MMA is the unarmed combat sport with the least restrictive rules. As opposed to judo, BJJ, boxing, muay thai, kyokushinkai, wrestling and so on that have relatively restrictive rules.

Perhaps this is the point we really disagree on? I don't consider any form of unarmed one on one competition to be even remotely "unrestrictive". Not when the first thing I would do in any real fight is find anything I can reasonably use as a weapon.

This claim could be part of a consistent position if it were not for the fact that you train unarmed combat skills. Presumably you have a reason to do so?

Of if your goal is to neutralize a deadly weapon in the hands of a relatively unskilled fighter as quickly as possible. Again, it is easy for somebody who primarily does competition with highly skilled fighters to poo-poo this as "something that only works against the clueless", but it is exactly this type of situation which typically threatens people's lives.

But if we've assumed for the sake of argument that our opponent is indeed clueless, what makes this technique better than any other again? Evidence it is better please.

When being swung around, bottles have a rather nasty habit of turning into broken bottles all on their own. As for the buddy with a knife, my point is that outside of the ring, you can't count on other people not getting involved. So you can't just do what you would do in a ring with no regard for for what is going on around you. In the ring, you don't have to worry about turning your back on a potential enemy. In the martial arts training I do, not doing that is something which is often addressed, and it can drastically alter your choices about what is the best thing to do in a particular circumstance.

Again, if you have to spend any time trying to make it work, don't do it. More to the point, if during your initial defense of the attack (block, parry, evasion, or whatever), you don't get ahold of them in the right way, you don't mess around trying to get it. You do something else.

Okay, so you try it and it fails. Now you've got two opponents, one with a broken bottle and one with a knife.

What's the evidence that at this point you are more likely to walk away than an MMAer?

I did no such thing.

So what exactly did you mean by "But if you are an expert fighter, and some drunk swings a bear bottle at your head, maybe beating him senseless isn't the best approach?" then, if you were not advancing a wrist lock as a kinder alternative to a few punches in the head? It now sounds like you meant "But if you are an expert fighter, and some drunk swings a bear bottle at your head, maybe breaking his wrist is easier on your knuckles than punching him?".

When a lock is used for control, it is more humane than other alternatives for ending a fight, such as knocking the person unconscious, or injuring them to the point where they cannot continue.

Less humane than a pin or a choke of course, but better than the other things in the typical striker's tool kit, sure.

If weapons are involved, humanity is probably not even a concern. The goal is to not get killed. If weapons are not involved, controlling the person, while much more difficult than just beating them senseless, may be a better option. Particularly if the person in question is a minor, or somebody you have some responsibility to. And of course there is the law enforcement aspect. But even then, it is not pain compliance. Once you have the lock, it is a question of mechanics. You can move the person. If they have a very high pain tolerance, and forcefully resist, they may break their own wrist (or whatever joint is locked), but even that is preferable to beating them senseless.

Frankly, I think you have funny ideas about damage to human beings too. I'd rather get knocked out than have a limb broken. Still, knocking people out or breaking their limbs is still unnecessary if you can just pin them or choke them.

No, I said that in response to the claim that it is pain compliance. What forces the compliance is not just pain, but the fact that if they don't comply, they break something.

There are plenty of techniques which really are just pain compliance. And many of them are quite humane too, since they don't inflict actual injury. They just aren't as reliable, because not everybody reacts strongly to pain.

Wrist locks that push the wrist forward, as opposed to twisting it, are virtually all pain compliance moves. You usually don't have the leverage to do more than damage the muscles at most.

Would you rather have a broken wrist or a broken jaw? A broken finger or a tooth knocked out? How about broken ribs? And I haven't even gotten to the rather nasty things that happen to people when you do a takedown on the street. A simple throw, when done for real on the street, can easily be fatal.

Similarly a simple punch can be "fatal" if they fall and hit their head. That's why my ideal fantasy fight would involve me dropping the other guy with a throw that allows me to control their head so they don't hurt themselves too badly, then choking them out. As an added bonus, I train to do exactly that to resisting opponents.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

On the contrary, my point was, and still is, that it is ridiculous and unjustified to make the blanket assertion that anything which is not useful in MMA competition is always useless, or that what is optimal for MMA competition is always optimal. Your demand for examples of MMA techniques which don't work in some other type of fighting just avoids the fact that if you are going to make such assertions, you need to support them with evidence. And citing examples of MMA competitors fighting people without any full-contact experience just doesn't cut it.

So your argument is that I have to find positive proof that no technique which is useless in MMA is ever useful? Any other universal negatives you'd like me to prove while I am at it?

Of course not. My argument is that you need to have evidence that actually supports your claim. What do you think would reasonably establish that something which is not useful in MMA competition is never useful? Or that what is optimal for MMA competition is always optimal?

It's 2006, and a fair standard for today is "Is there impartial evidence that anyone, anywhere, any time has used these techniques successfully? If and only if we have that evidence, what's the training time involved and how do these techniques compare to other techniques?".

You are the one training this stuff, you should be able to justify the time you spend on it by pointing to evidence that you are not wasting your time.

I absolutely agree, and I can point to such evidence. It just doesn't happen to be videotape of competition matches.

Maybe you and I disagree on what we will and will not accept as reliable evidence. Maybe my evidence is based largely on fights and full contact sparring that I have actually seen, rather than on video footage.

What available video evidence? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim?

Yes. There is ample evidence that MMA techniques work.

That alone is not sufficient to support your claim. Nobody is even challanging the assertion that MMA techniques work.

Best for what? And how are its rules the least restrictive? They completely leave out what are probably the two most decisive advantages one can obtain in a real fight: Weapons and outnumbering your opponent.

I'm speaking purely of unarmed combat. For armed combat the Dog Brothers or metal weapon re-enactors are the people I'd look to for evidence of what works.

OK. Well, maybe that is part of the problem. I got the definite impression from your prior statements that you were talking about all types of fighting.

That said, I still think the issues of multiple opponents and self-defense vs an untrained attacker vs fighting a trained martial artist, are relevant.

MMA is the unarmed combat sport with the least restrictive rules. As opposed to judo, BJJ, boxing, muay thai, kyokushinkai, wrestling and so on that have relatively restrictive rules.

I agree. But it still leaves out some important things which will drastically effect what is optimal in a given situation.

Perhaps this is the point we really disagree on? I don't consider any form of unarmed one on one competition to be even remotely "unrestrictive". Not when the first thing I would do in any real fight is find anything I can reasonably use as a weapon.

This claim could be part of a consistent position if it were not for the fact that you train unarmed combat skills. Presumably you have a reason to do so?

Well, obviously I am not always going to be able to find a weapon. Besides, the system I do attempts to train all forms of hand-to-hand combat. Armed and unarmed, vs single opponent or multiple opponents, vs trained attacker or untrained attacker. If I was only interested in weapons combat, I would do something else.

Remember that I am not just training to be the most effective I can possibly be at defending myself against an attack on the street. Nor am I training to be the best I can be at a particular type of competition. If either of those things were my goal, I would be doing something else.

For example, I do not in any way criticize or slight the way you, or any other MMA competitor trains (or any other competitor). If your goal is to be the best you can be at MMA competitions, then that is great. But that is not my goal.

Of if your goal is to neutralize a deadly weapon in the hands of a relatively unskilled fighter as quickly as possible. Again, it is easy for somebody who primarily does competition with highly skilled fighters to poo-poo this as "something that only works against the clueless", but it is exactly this type of situation which typically threatens people's lives.

But if we've assumed for the sake of argument that our opponent is indeed clueless, what makes this technique better than any other again? Evidence it is better please.

I did not say he was clueless. I said "relatively unskilled", meaning somebody who is very likely to make mistakes, and who does not have a great deal of experience in avoiding and/or countering the techniques in question. That doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous.

And that is what makes them better. Even against such an attacker, every time they attack you there is a significant likelyhood of you getting cut (even if you successfully defend against the attack). Reducing the amount of chances he gets to attack you thus becomes a critical issue.

As for a specific technique being better than any other, I am not even sure what you mean. A disarm is certainly better at neutrilizing a weapon that simply beating your opponent senseless is, if you can make it work. Is it better than anything else? Only in certain conditions. You can always imagine scenarios in which something else will be better.

Okay, so you try it and it fails. Now you've got two opponents, one with a broken bottle and one with a knife.

What's the evidence that at this point you are more likely to walk away than an MMAer?

You're not. You're in exactly the same boat. If you can't make it work, then obviously it is not helpful to you.

So what exactly did you mean by "But if you are an expert fighter, and some drunk swings a bear bottle at your head, maybe beating him senseless isn't the best approach?" then, if you were not advancing a wrist lock as a kinder alternative to a few punches in the head?

I meant exactly what I said. "Beating somebody senseless" and "a punch in the nose" are two very different things.

It now sounds like you meant "But if you are an expert fighter, and some drunk swings a bear bottle at your head, maybe breaking his wrist is easier on your knuckles than punching him?".

No, what I meant is that things like broken bones, knocked out teeth, concussions, and even organ damage, are all common results of beating somebody until they quite fighting.

Also, the advantages to things like disarms in the above situation go well beyond just the amount of injury you cause your attacker. Again, neutrilizing the weapon is critical.

When a lock is used for control, it is more humane than other alternatives for ending a fight, such as knocking the person unconscious, or injuring them to the point where they cannot continue.

Less humane than a pin or a choke of course, but better than the other things in the typical striker's tool kit, sure.

I won't comment on chokes, because I am not that familiar with them. As for pins, given that they involve taking somebody to the ground, not only are they very likely to result in serious injury when done on the street to somebody who does not know how to fall, but there is also the old problem of turning your back on other potential attackers.

Wrist locks that push the wrist forward, as opposed to twisting it, are virtually all pain compliance moves. You usually don't have the leverage to do more than damage the muscles at most.

Then it isn't a lock.

Similarly a simple punch can be "fatal" if they fall and hit their head. That's why my ideal fantasy fight would involve me dropping the other guy with a throw that allows me to control their head so they don't hurt themselves too badly, then choking them out. As an added bonus, I train to do exactly that to resisting opponents.

Then you are just talking about another control technique. I don't see how that is going to be any easier in practice than taking them down in a controled way with a joint lock. In fact, I am having difficulty imagining how you could take a resisting person down in a controlled way without either a joint lock, or just being much bigger and stronger than they are.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course not. My argument is that you need to have evidence that actually supports your claim. What do you think would reasonably establish that something which is not useful in MMA competition is never useful? Or that what is optimal for MMA competition is always optimal?

The evidence is purely negative, much like the evidence for the nonexistence of UFOs. When someone catches a UFO on video I'll take notice, and when someone catches useful trapping and standing wrist locks in an unarmed bout I'll sit up and take notice.

I absolutely agree, and I can point to such evidence. It just doesn't happen to be videotape of competition matches.

Then I've got evidence of UFOs.

OK. Well, maybe that is part of the problem. I got the definite impression from your prior statements that you were talking about all types of fighting.

Sorry if I gave that impression.

That said, I still think the issues of multiple opponents and self-defense vs an untrained attacker vs fighting a trained martial artist, are relevant.

Evidence anyone can usefully fight multiples is scarce. I'd love to see video of untrained people fighting skilled martial artists who use non-MMA techniques but it seems to be as scarce as good UFO footage. That's why I harbour the suspicion that "skilled martial artists who use non-MMA techniques" may turn out to be as rare as Bigfoot.

For example, I do not in any way criticize or slight the way you, or any other MMA competitor trains (or any other competitor). If your goal is to be the best you can be at MMA competitions, then that is great. But that is not my goal.

To clear up what seems to be a misconception, I'm not an MMAer. I'm just a BJJer. It's not really relevant though. As I have said elsewhere, in 2006 you don't need to actually train yourself to know what has been proven to work and not work.

I did not say he was clueless. I said "relatively unskilled", meaning somebody who is very likely to make mistakes, and who does not have a great deal of experience in avoiding and/or countering the techniques in question. That doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous.

And that is what makes them better. Even against such an attacker, every time they attack you there is a significant likelyhood of you getting cut (even if you successfully defend against the attack). Reducing the amount of chances he gets to attack you thus becomes a critical issue.

As for a specific technique being better than any other, I am not even sure what you mean. A disarm is certainly better at neutrilizing a weapon that simply beating your opponent senseless is, if you can make it work. Is it better than anything else? Only in certain conditions. You can always imagine scenarios in which something else will be better.

That's the thing. Is attempting a wrist lock better than attempting a clinch, or a throw, or a punch? Where's the evidence?

I won't comment on chokes, because I am not that familiar with them. As for pins, given that they involve taking somebody to the ground, not only are they very likely to result in serious injury when done on the street to somebody who does not know how to fall, but there is also the old problem of turning your back on other potential attackers.

I think a judo class or three would clear up a number of misconceptions you have about grappling. There are plenty of relatively safe throws, and in fact I prefer them because I can use them on beginners without scaring the [Rule 8] out of them.

Then it isn't a lock.

Semantics. In any case, people I know who could beat the crap out of both of us refer to such things as locks.

Then you are just talking about another control technique. I don't see how that is going to be any easier in practice than taking them down in a controled way with a joint lock. In fact, I am having difficulty imagining how you could take a resisting person down in a controlled way without either a joint lock, or just being much bigger and stronger than they are.

There are lots and lots of ways, trust me. When you go to that judo class or three, just say to them "I am having difficulty imagining how you could take a resisting person down in a controlled way without either a joint lock, or just being much bigger and stronger than they are". They'll be happy to assist your imagination.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

The evidence is purely negative, much like the evidence for the nonexistence of UFOs. When someone catches a UFO on video I'll take notice, and when someone catches useful trapping and standing wrist locks in an unarmed bout I'll sit up and take notice.

How about if that someone is you? If you don't have a camera on you, are you going to just dismiss what you observed?

I absolutely agree, and I can point to such evidence. It just doesn't happen to be videotape of competition matches.

Then I've got evidence of UFOs.

Great. If you have got what you consider to be convincing evidence, then you are justified in believing in them. Whether or not you can convince anybody else is another story.

Similarly, I do not expect you to just take my word for it when I say that I have seen techniques like joint locks work in unarmed combat. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I only even mentioned it because you seemed to be wondering why I think they are worth training, and why I think that techniques which MMA competitors don't find useful can still be useful.

Note again that my contesting your claim that anything that MMA competitors don't find useful, is useless in general, does not in any way require me to present counter examples. You need to present evidence that actually supports your claim. And evidence that MMA techniques really work, is not sufficient.

That said, I still think the issues of multiple opponents and self-defense vs an untrained attacker vs fighting a trained martial artist, are relevant.

Evidence anyone can usefully fight multiples is scarce. I'd love to see video of untrained people fighting skilled martial artists who use non-MMA techniques but it seems to be as scarce as good UFO footage. That's why I harbour the suspicion that "skilled martial artists who use non-MMA techniques" may turn out to be as rare as Bigfoot.

Such suspicions are perfectly fine by me. But there is a big difference between saying that you are not convinced that these techniques are useful, or that you suspect they may not be, and saying that they simply are not, and furthermore that you have evidence that they are not.

That's the thing. Is attempting a wrist lock better than attempting a clinch, or a throw, or a punch? Where's the evidence?

Again, the evidence that has convinced me is what I have seen for myself, and what I have been told by experienced fighters who I know are have experience in using all of the above types of techniques.

And again, I don't expect this to convince you. I did not tell you what convinced me with the expectation that it would convince you. I told you what convinced me because it was relevant to the discussion.

I won't comment on chokes, because I am not that familiar with them. As for pins, given that they involve taking somebody to the ground, not only are they very likely to result in serious injury when done on the street to somebody who does not know how to fall, but there is also the old problem of turning your back on other potential attackers.

I think a judo class or three would clear up a number of misconceptions you have about grappling. There are plenty of relatively safe throws, and in fact I prefer them because I can use them on beginners without scaring the [Rule 8] out of them.

I can assure you, I have had far more than two or three. The instructor I normally train under is a 5th dan in Jujitsu, and most of the people I train with are black or brown belts in Jujitsu. I have attended a number of their seminars and a number of their classes, as well as general grappling training with many of them outside of class. I told you I had not done full contact unarmed training. That does not mean that I have not trained in grappling.

As for your example of throws that don't hurt people who don't know how to fall, it does not seem like much of a leap to me to assume that this was done at slow speed, with little or no resistence on their part, and most likely on mats.

Then you are just talking about another control technique. I don't see how that is going to be any easier in practice than taking them down in a controled way with a joint lock. In fact, I am having difficulty imagining how you could take a resisting person down in a controlled way without either a joint lock, or just being much bigger and stronger than they are.

There are lots and lots of ways, trust me. When you go to that judo class or three, just say to them "I am having difficulty imagining how you could take a resisting person down in a controlled way without either a joint lock, or just being much bigger and stronger than they are". They'll be happy to assist your imagination.

I'll ask one of my instructors next time I see her. She is a 5th dan in Jujitsu (and yes, she has done full contact sparring). Incidentally, I discussed this discussion with her last Sunday, and she seemed to agree with me. Not that this should convince you of anything...


Dr. Stupid

 

[qayak]

Yes, and many psychics have proof positive for themselves as well.

Believers like yourself also have their blinders on most of the time. Can't see the simple truth because of all their indoctrination and TV hype.

I have to wonder, why aren't 1-inch punches being used effectively in martial art competitions if they are just as powerful as jabs, crosses and hooks.

The principles are used all the time, ie-the jolting jab. The only difference is the distance which does not take away the fact that the principles, techniques and muscles involved are exactly the same. Training the 1 inch punch is a good way to increase the power of any short distance punch.

I don't think you understand anything about the principles that make a 1 inch punch work. It is not mystical, it is just simple body mechanics that anyone with 15 minutes of training can do. The principles are the same for many strikes, including elbows.

What passes for a jab in MMA is a joke. It is a slapping, pawing, arm flail that is just a waste of energy. Have you ever seen a MMA guy jab as a defence to a punching attack? I haven't. Good boxers do it all the time because they know the power of a jab. It will stop an attack dead and allow them to counter. MMA don't know this and they don't spend the time to learn it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How about if that someone is you? If you don't have a camera on you, are you going to just dismiss what you observed?

Ask me when I see a UFO.

Similarly, I do not expect you to just take my word for it when I say that I have seen techniques like joint locks work in unarmed combat. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I only even mentioned it because you seemed to be wondering why I think they are worth training, and why I think that techniques which MMA competitors don't find useful can still be useful.

Was it an accident that you moved from "wrist lock" to "joint lock"? Joint locks work in MMA.

Note again that my contesting your claim that anything that MMA competitors don't find useful, is useless in general, does not in any way require me to present counter examples. You need to present evidence that actually supports your claim. And evidence that MMA techniques really work, is not sufficient.

In that case UFO non-believers need to disprove every UFO sighting, or UFOs are alien spacecraft.

I can assure you, I have had far more than two or three. The instructor I normally train under is a 5th dan in Jujitsu, and most of the people I train with are black or brown belts in Jujitsu. I have attended a number of their seminars and a number of their classes, as well as general grappling training with many of them outside of class. I told you I had not done full contact unarmed training. That does not mean that I have not trained in grappling.

Judo = full contact sport.
Brazilian Jiujitsu = full contact sport
Japanese jujitsu = pretend.

By the ranks involved I'm going to take a wild guess and say I think the people you train with are Japanese jujitsu people. Am I right?

Go to a judo class. JJJ people will try to tell you they are the same. They are not. Go to a judo class.

As for your example of throws that don't hurt people who don't know how to fall, it does not seem like much of a leap to me to assume that this was done at slow speed, with little or no resistence on their part, and most likely on mats.

Slow speed, no. Less than full resistance, no. Mats, yes.

If I state a personal anecdote it was from full-contact grappling, I'm not going to waste your time with pretend stuff.

I'll ask one of my instructors next time I see her. She is a 5th dan in Jujitsu (and yes, she has done full contact sparring). Incidentally, I discussed this discussion with her last Sunday, and she seemed to agree with me. Not that this should convince you of anything...

Did I say "Ask a non-contact grappler?". Japanese jujitsu people can't fight. Go to a judo class.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Believers like yourself also have their blinders on most of the time.

I'm not a believer, I only make conclusions based on evidence at hand.

The principles are used all the time, ie-the jolting jab. The only difference is the distance which does not take away the fact that the principles, techniques and muscles involved are exactly the same. Training the 1 inch punch is a good way to increase the power of any short distance punch.

I doubt it. I haven't seen the 1 inch punch knocking anyone out in any venue.

 

[Wudang]

It doesn't have to have power?

Sigh. It doesn't have to have enough power to hurt someone. If it jolts them out of position or makes them flinch or blink that might be an opening for you. Unlikely against a well-conditioned opponent.

I'm dead impressed you MMA guys are such deadly and experienced fighters that you can describe fighting a non-MMA guy as so easy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What passes for a jab in MMA is a joke. It is a slapping, pawing, arm flail that is just a waste of energy. Have you ever seen a MMA guy jab as a defence to a punching attack? I haven't. Good boxers do it all the time because they know the power of a jab. It will stop an attack dead and allow them to counter. MMA don't know this and they don't spend the time to learn it.

Some good boxers do MMA or train MMAers. Not the very best, because there is more money in boxing at the top end, but enough.

I'd have to ask an actual MMAer why they don't use the boxing jab in the MMA ring, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a good reason. I'd guess that the reason is that in boxing you don't care if someone wears your jab in order to clinch with you, whereas in MMA you could easily lose a fight that way.

I'm dead impressed you MMA guys are such deadly and experienced fighters that you can describe fighting a non-MMA guy as so easy.

Oddly enough, I've never heard of a non-MMAer wanting to fight an MMAer and being short of takers. Whereas MMAers who willing to fight a non-MMAer always seem to find the non-MMAers are washing their hair that day.

I'm only a BJJer, but I'd still happily wrestle any non-contact martial artist who wanted to give it a go. We wrestle whoever shows up at training anyway. It's what we do for fun, so generally we've got no objections to doing it any time someone wants to.

That's the thing about the sport arts. You show up at a BJJ class and want to wrestle we think that's great. You show up at a judo class and want to wrestle they think that's great. Show up at a boxing or muay thai gym and want to spar, they'll probably try to dissuade you for your own good but if you say you've done some martial arts and want a give them a crack I'm sure you could find someone to oblige you.

 

[Wudang]

Some good boxers do MMA or train MMAers. Not the very best, because there is more money in boxing at the top end, but enough.

I'd have to ask an actual MMAer why they don't use the boxing jab in the MMA ring, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a good reason. I'd guess that the reason is that in boxing you don't care if someone wears your jab in order to clinch with you, whereas in MMA you could easily lose a fight that way.



Oddly enough, I've never heard of a non-MMAer wanting to fight an MMAer and being short of takers. Whereas MMAers who willing to fight a non-MMAer always seem to find the non-MMAers are washing their hair that day.

I'm only a BJJer, but I'd still happily wrestle any non-contact martial artist who wanted to give it a go. We wrestle whoever shows up at training anyway. It's what we do for fun, so generally we've got no objections to doing it any time someone wants to.

That's the thing about the sport arts. You show up at a BJJ class and want to wrestle we think that's great. You show up at a judo class and want to wrestle they think that's great. Show up at a boxing or muay thai gym and want to spar, they'll probably try to dissuade you for your own good but if you say you've done some martial arts and want a give them a crack I'm sure you could find someone to oblige you.

Non sequitur.

For one thing most of the people I've come across who enjoy recreational violence tend to lack the discipline to stick with MA, and that includes boxing etc. I'm not going to debate the difference between a planned bout, however free the rules, and ad-hoc violence because you and Ken hold a dogmatic position and any suggestion that there may be any difference between a pre-planned event and jumped out the blue by an inadequate who gets off on violence is anathema. I was merely expressing my amusement.
And thanks, but I trained in boxing at uni and have the rebuilt nose to prove it.

 

[Wudang]

Some good boxers do MMA or train MMAers. Not the very best, because there is more money in boxing at the top end, but enough.

I'd have to ask an actual MMAer why they don't use the boxing jab in the MMA ring, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a good reason. I'd guess that the reason is that in boxing you don't care if someone wears your jab in order to clinch with you, whereas in MMA you could easily lose a fight that way.

And there's a big focus on grappling and hitting with a more open hand leaves your hand more ready to grab? Plus grapplers tend to hold their arms a little further out than boxers so they're not quite so lined up to throw a straight jab? And the less padding you have on your hand the less you want to hit the hard bones of the face?
Pure speculation as it's a long time since I watched a pro MMA bout.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And there's a big focus on grappling and hitting with a more open hand leaves your hand more ready to grab? Plus grapplers tend to hold their arms a little further out than boxers so they're not quite so lined up to throw a straight jab? And the less padding you have on your hand the less you want to hit the hard bones of the face?
Pure speculation as it's a long time since I watched a pro MMA bout.

No, punches are still with closes fist BECAUSE we want to hit bone to bone, this causes cuts. Not as bad as an elbow would, though. Grapplers don't do anything special to get out of line of a straight jab. Yes, you are purely speculating, just like you are purely speculating that "street-fights" run on a completely different dynamic and set of physical laws than an MMA fight.