No you're not. But that's okay.
Originally Posted by raylawley
What? Why? You're the one comparing grappling, MMA, & "No Rules At All". Soldiers have rules. Try the UCMJ & the Geneva Convention?
The short-term negative impacts of stress still apply regardless of the cause of that stress. I'm not sure at all what your point is here, but relating this to the battlefield is escalating it further than it needs to go.
No, that isn't what I said, & if you bothered to read my post accurately you'd know that. Try again, kiddo.
Are you saying someone who gets mugged and has the crap beaten out of them doesn't understand real life situations or have real life experience? Oh, of course. Only soldiers need to know how to defend themselves, and only soldiers understand what danger means.
So, what part of "no rules at all" has a fucking thing to do with you "discounting weapons"??? No Rules means No Rules.
I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was discounting weapons from this. You're trying to bring this argument to a different level to allow yourself to shrug it off.
Bullshit. So as long as I don't use any small joint manipulation, I'm still free to run the guy over with a Chevy, right?
The direct rule disparity is greater. As I specifically said, I am not talking about mental differences. The only techniques you cannot use in the cage are stated in those rules.
You're a fucking idiot. If RUN-FU was the only art, there never would have been any wars, just many many marathons...
Therefore, discounting weapons and multiple opponents (which, again, I stated BEFORE making that example, and these situations are totally different anyway, in that Run-Fu is the only effective art)
Yeah, like I mentioned any of that, you fuckin' nuthugger. I'm much more interesting in dealing with the REAL human factor of problems OUTSIDE of the cage. THEY BRING WEAPONS AND FRIENDS. If you're going to talk intelligently about the subject, you can't just "discount" them and pretend actually talk about this.
the rule difference is greater between grappling tournaments and MMA than the difference in allowed techniques between MMA and the real world.
You can start talking about brick walls, broken glass and lava all you like, but these only result in strategic differences and to argue differently is semantic and irrelevant.
Yes, it would. In a completely different way than training Silat or FMA.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The rules either make a difference or they don't. The scenarios are almost identical, and by your own argument training for a BJJ match would improve your MMA grappling skills. Therefore, training for MMA would improve your self-defence related fighting skills, would it not? Therefore your learning curve would not be ruined?
Not all of them, just some of them. Just like any martial art used in a sport context, you have to either wind back the force or just not use them. Right? This isn't lost on you?
You argued that you can't prove your art works in a full-contact situation because the techniques are too dangerous.
If gear in intended to allow the application of techniques while protecting your training partners, then WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Then, when I asked how you could train them effectively, you pointed out this gear. So I asked, why can that gear not be used to prove your art works in a full-contact situation?
Of course it could be adapted to the ring. I never said that it couldn't be, I said that it WOULDN'T BE. Especially by me, or anyone I know who does Silat.
Cool. In that case, if Silat trains you for a life-or-death situation, which is according to you far more stressful than a ring fight, it shouldn't take much to adapt it to the far less stressful rigours of a lil' ring fight...
Really? Which rules will we be following then? & if stomps and knee drops to EFFECTIVE targets aren't allowed as applied in my art, then how should I deal with a downed opponent. Perhaps join him down there and get in a Brazilian horizontal hugging contest? Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you?
A takedown is a takedown. If it gets the guy to the ground, it'll still work in MMA. If it doesn't work because it isn't followed up by a knee / kick to the head of the downed opponent, then it probably isn't a reliable takedown anyway. Also, stomping and kneeing on the ground IS allowed in some MMA rulesets.
You're right. I'm not interested in proving Silat to anyone, especially you. Plane tickets are too expensive. & this conversation is useless otherwise, so...
So, you obviously have a problem with people who are asking for proof of its effectiveness. If you have this problem, prove it works. If not, and you don't care about personal validation, then why are you bothering to post things like the above to try and defend Silat.