TBK's MMA and Self Defense Survey (Fixed)

[Matt Bernius]

My feelings on the subject is that a lot of MMA schools don't explicitly train self defense applications for their techniques. But the crux of the issue is that it's much easier to transition to self defense mode from sport fighter mode, than it is vice versa.

I agree in principle with this. However, that is assuming that an individual is concerned with transitioning to a sport based fighter mode at the end of their self defense training (not a bad option... but not the only option). So I think there is a bit of a conflation going on there.

In general that most contact athletes will learn the physical side of self defense than someone fresh off the street or people training in a non contact martial art.

b.) Barring weapons and multiple attackers, the only difference between a sport fight and a self defense situation is the intent on the part of the Martial Artist involved; whether to win a victory, or escape/injure/kill your attacker. It doesn't take much to flip on that switch in a fight or flight situation to toggle between the two, to extend that arm bar an extra two inches to break the arm, or to hold on to the choke for an extra few seconds.

Ok, while I don't support the rediculous claim that a sport fighter can't throw thow the switch, I can't support this statement either. There are number of important differences between the average sport fight and a self defense situation.

The most obvious are issues of consent to fight and typically a period of escalation. In a sport fight, there is an immediate acceptance and consent on the part of both competitors. The hallmark of a self defense situation is that consent doesn't exist and that the defender needs to transition to it quickly. And while the fall back is usually "well, thats just common sense" then I have to ask why it seems to be lacking in so many quarters of the population.

Speaking from my subjective experience, I've competed in a Dog Brother's style full contact stickfighting event. In other walks of life I've been involved in non-fighting performance based events. I've also been attacked once in a bar. I can say that the adrenal dumps and phsycological conditions of the competition did not match those of the attack.

Were there similiaries? Yes. And note that I'm not arguing that anyone who practices a resistive, contact based martial art doesn't have a leg up on many MAists out there, let alone the general population. (also note that I'm not getting into dirty tricks, the str33t, or any other asinine arguement).

I am saying that saying there is little difference between a self defense situation and a sport fighting situation is a naieve statement.

So if you're really concerned with self defense:

1. Train at a school that does MMA-type sparring.
2. Practice wind sprints.
3. Buy a gun and learn how to use it properly.

Close. I'd switch it to:

1. Train for a half a year to a year at a reputable RBSD program
2. Transition to a school that does MMA-type sparring.
3. Practice wind sprints.
4. Buy a gun and learn how to use it properly.

- Matt

[Thaiboxerken]

RBSD is optional and even then, it only takes one or two days to fully absorb the useful parts of RBSD programs.

[Matt Bernius]

RBSD is optional and even then, it only takes one or two days to fully absorb the useful parts of RBSD programs.

It may take a little time to absorb it, but that can be said about the fundimentals of fighting. Where the magic takes place is in the practice and refinement.

Thats why the good programs spend a lot of time doing scenario work.

- Matt

[Thaiboxerken]

Poke them in the eye and kick them in the groin doesn't take 6 months of training to absorb.

[Phrost]

I agree in principle with this. However, that is assuming that an individual is concerned with transitioning to a sport based fighter mode at the end of their self defense training (not a bad option... but not the only option). So I think there is a bit of a false conflation going on there.

In general I'd argue that most contact athletes will learn the physical side of self defense than someone fresh off the street.

Fighting is fighting. If you don't lean the fundamentals, the exotic and sublime will be exponentially less effective in practical application.

Ok, while I don't support the rediculous claim that a sport fighter can't throw thow the switch, I can't support this statement either. There are number of important differences between the average sport fight and a self defense situation.

The most obvious are issues of consent to fight and typically a period of escalation. In a sport fight, there is an immediate acceptance and consent on the part of both competitors. The hallmark of a self defense situation is that consent doesn't exist and that the defender needs to transition to it quickly. And while the fall back is usually "well, thats just common sense" then I have to ask why it seems to be lacking in so many quarters of the population.

Situational awareness and conflict de-escalation are skills that can be taught in a weekend, and don't need entire styles based on or centering around them. The bulk of Self Defense involves avoiding doing stupid crap and mitigating risks.

Speaking from my subjective experience, I've competed in a Dog Brother's style full contact stickfighting event. In other walks of life I've been involved in non-fighting performance based events. I've also been attacked once in a bar. I can say that the adrenal dumps and phsycological conditions of the competition did not match those of the attack.

Were there similiaries? Yes. And note that I'm not arguing that anyone who practices a resistive, contact based martial art doesn't have a leg up on many MAists out there, let alone the general population. (also note that I'm not getting into dirty tricks, the str33t, or any other asinine arguement).

I am saying that saying there is little difference between a self defense situation and a sport fighting situation is a naieve statement.

Outside of intent, weapons, and environment, what is the difference? Fighting is fighting. Your arms don't become detached from your body requiring you to learn a different style of punching or grappling for Self Defense applications. You're taking the garnish (nuanced differences) and replacing the meat and potatoes with it.

Close. I'd switch it to:

1. Train for a half a year to a year at a reputable RBSD program
2. Transition to a school that does MMA-type sparring.
3. Practice wind sprints.
4. Buy a gun and learn how to use it properly.

- Matt

You got it backwards. If you don't learn the fundamentals of fighting properly, there's no point in learning how to escape attacks by box cutter wielding jihadists. Save your money and your dignity by avoiding the military and J-Lo wannabes and go get punched in the face by real people. THEN suppliment your understanding of how to perform in a high-stress combat situation with considerations specific to defending yourself in non-sport environments.

It's a lot easier if you avoid learning bad habits picked up in non-sparring training and learn the fundamentals of a fight (distance, timing, taking a punch, dealing with adrenaline dumps, conditioning in a fully-resistant situation) first, than to do it after you've got other garbage in your head. Just like it's a lot easier to learn 2+2 first, before you move on to algebra and calculus.

[Cullion]

I think it might be interesting to open this poll to members who can demonstrate that they work as a bouncer or LEO, or perhaps have a seperate poll aimed just at that group.

[Matt Bernius]

Situational awareness and conflict de-escalation are skills that can be taught in a weekend, and don't need entire styles based on or centering around them. The bulk of Self Defense involves avoiding doing stupid crap and mitigating risks.

I agree that things can be taught in a weekend. I disagree that they can be internalized in a weekend. Or can necessarily be internalized by many people without practice. I don't think this is an area where we'll reach agreement.

Outside of intent, weapons, and environment, what is the difference?

Ummm... do you see the irony of this statement? When blows are thrown, I'll agree there is little difference. All of the difference is in the lead up and the factors that you've mentioned. And none of those should be afterthoughts (though they are in most people's training).

You got it backwards. If you don't learn the fundamentals of fighting properly, there's no point in learning how to escape attacks by box cutter wielding jihadists. Save your money and your dignity by avoiding the military and J-Lo wannabes and go get punched in the face by real people.

And again we have the irrational bias against all RBSD programs based on a certain stereotype. And again, I'll make it clear that I'm not taking a Martialist approach here. I'm going from solid programs like those offered by Blauer, SBG, and others.

As far as getting it backwards, if you are starting from a position of wanting to learn self defense first, then why not go to a program that specifically focuses on self defense and utilizes proven training tools, instead of building a sports base and then transitioning over. Doesn't that fall into the category of you need to train in X for a while before you can focus on the specific self defense aspects.

Again Blauer and SBG's programs, amoung others, use a sports based approach and then mix in excellent scenario training (which is the heart of good RBSD).

It's a lot easier if you avoid learning bad habits picked up in non-sparring training and learn the fundamentals of a fight (distance, timing, taking a punch, dealing with adrenaline dumps, conditioning in a fully-resistant situation) first, than to do it after you've got other garbage in your head. Just like it's a lot easier to learn 2+2 first, before you move on to algebra and calculus.

Again, I'll suggest that you are positing a black and white world based on limited exposure to various programs. In my mind its about training mix. Good RBSD programs teach you the fundimentals of fighting (and by the way use progressive resistance) while at the same time starting from day one with the fundimentals of self defense.

Now, I am happy to agree that someone who already has sport fighting fundimentals (or any other form of progressive, resistance based fight training) can come up to speed faster. I still firmly believe that the scenario work has value for that person (and I understand that you don't... thats a leap of faith that lots of people have problems with).

But at the same time, I'm positing that someone who is interest in self defense can find a good program and go from there without the sport training. I don't see why this is such a rediclous concept to grasp. Further, I think that this can be done without invoking rediculous stereotypes about the training (that are sadly propigated by individuals that would give anything that they were involved with a bad name).

- Matt

[Phrost]

If you don't include sparring in your class, which many "RBSD" schools are noted for lacking, you're not going to learn as efficiently. That's all there is to it.

You only learn to grap the fundamentals realistically if you get punched in the face for failing to grasp them. And if you're not facing the risk of getting your ass beat in class, how are you going to be prepared for a self defense situation?

You suggested learning "self defense" first. I said it's asinine to try and learn nuance without fundamentals. Unless your "self defense" course incoporates MMA sparring, then you're not learning those fundamentals as they're next to impossible to accomplish successfully in a real fight if you've never used them successfully in a somewhat restricted one.

Pretty simple. You're trying to obfuscate the issue.

[Matt Bernius]

If you don't include sparring in your class, which many "RBSD" schools are noted for lacking, you're not going to learn as efficiently. That's all there is to it.

Again:

1. I agree that sparring and progressive resistance training is necessary.
2. I will [again state that when I say RBSD I am referring to the programs that take that approach. See the references in the last post. They're out there.

You only learn to grap the fundamentals realistically if you get punched in the face for failing to grasp them. And if you're not facing the risk of getting your ass beat in class, how are you going to be prepared for a self defense situation?

Again:

1. I agree that sparring and progressive resistance training is necessary.
2. In the RBSD program in my school there were KO's, bloody lips, shiners, a scratched cornea, and some hyper extensions. It's a Blauer program. Again there are RBSDs that engage in that level of contact. BTW did I mention that Kickcatcher trains in a similar RBSD program?

You suggested learning "self defense" first. I said it's asinine to try and learn nuance without fundamentals. Unless your "self defense" course incoporates MMA sparring, then you're not learning those fundamentals as they're next to impossible to accomplish successfully in a real fight if you've never used them successfully in a somewhat restricted one.

Hmmm... didn't I mention that folk's like Blauer's programs do encorporate those. From the beginning. God I must have forgotten to post that repeatedly. Silly me.

Pretty simple. You're trying to obfuscate the issue.

Bull. In fact I've been agreeing with the basic arguement all along. YOU are choosing to ignore my continual citing of RBSD programs/systems/what-ever-you-want-to-call-them that train in exactly the manner you describe (possibly because they violate your rediculously simple model that all RBSD programs involve too deadly techniques, no contact, flashlights, masturbating to the idea of taking down terrorists, answers like "I'd simply shoot them" and what ever else you can come up with).

- Matt

[Phrost]

Not all RBSD programs involve that bs. But most of them do.

I'm primarily arguing with your statement that someone should train in RBSD first, assuming they can find a school that isn't a McDojo Krav Maga franchise out of a TKD school or one run by people who aren't prepping for a zombie invasion, which more often than not is the case.

Why not just train at the SBG if they have that approach? They're not a RBSD school, they're a Sport-Based school, like most MMA schools out there. Have you even read Thornton's opinions on RBSD? He pokes fun at them for being paranoid nutjobs.

You and your "No TRUE RBSD Scotsman" argument notwithstanding, if MMA sparring is what validates a RBSD school in your eyes, why not just train in MMA and add self defense to the mix, or as Thornton says "just add dirt"? At the very least, you won't have to deal with the Elmores of the world that way.