Mixed Martial Arts, One of the oldest forms of fighting.

[gabbah]

Originally Posted by Ardith

Well, I'm not dismissing the fact that there are lunatics out there, I just don't think loonies are going to be the average encounter.

Hehe and we all agree with you man.
But once in a while even that which is not average might occur... and then you will need more drastic methods to defend yourself, right?
For instance, a rape will often ruin the life of a woman for many many years. Getting raped is not the average for her daily life, but once it occurs she SHOULD do ANYTHING to get away, including crushing the attackers eyes and nut balls, don't you agree?

[Ardith]

Yeah, I agree that she should do whatever it takes to get away from it.

Every time someone mentions rape though, I always remember this product:

http://www.rapestop.net/

[Tom Yum]

Originally Posted by Ardith

I think it is rather irresponsible to teach people techniques that can cripple, paralyze, or kill others and then go with that mentality of brutality out on the street. Once you begin teaching that you are no longer teaching "self-defense." You're not training murderers and assassins. And we're obviously not fighting a war against our own people..

What if the guy attacking you has the intent of crippling or killing you for random or pre-mediatated reasons?

Granted these things don't happen often, but all it takes is one to shake you up.

Originally Posted by Ardith

Morality and better discretion obviously aren't classes being taught in these schools...

I think they are to some extent.

Originally Posted by Ardith

Why not instead of wasting our time with learning hand-to-hand combat just give everybody knives and guns and teach them how to kill the average man before he has a chance to scream?...

Because if you're a law-abiding citizen you cannot carry a pistol or knife everywhere. It is unlawful to carry these weapons in certain places.

Originally Posted by Ardith

Face it, we don't live in an age of biker barbarians where only the strongest survive and you have to kill every single opponent to continue to survive.

It'd make a damn good movie though...

True. I'd rather have it and not need it then the reverse.

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Ardith

This thread is a pile of garbage.

I can't believe there are martial artist's touting systems that they teach that are designed to cause serious harm, or potentially kill someone. Haven't we all learned lessons from such classic cases as Bernie Goetz?

I certainly do not think there is any merit to using this sort of force, unless you are a soldier in the military. And soldiers don't win fights by using hand-to-hand combat, so teaching people hand-to-hand combat is a moot point.

I think it is rather irresponsible to teach people techniques that can cripple, paralyze, or kill others and then go with that mentality of brutality out on the street. Once you begin teaching that you are no longer teaching "self-defense." You're not training murderers and assassins. And we're obviously not fighting a war against our own people.

Morality and better discretion obviously aren't classes being taught in these schools.

Why not instead of wasting our time with learning hand-to-hand combat just give everybody knives and guns and teach them how to kill the average man before he has a chance to scream?

Face it, we don't live in an age of biker barbarians where only the strongest survive and you have to kill every single opponent to continue to survive.

You're a pile of untermensch garbage.

Touting martial arts that maim and kill? What don't you understand about the word "martial"? Are you that much of a jackass? These arts, all of them, at one point were designed with the intent to maim and kill people...in self defense or not. The point you made about soldiers IS a moot point...why not go against people that own guns too? Should people not be able to own a pencil or a potato peeler because they could conceivably stab the shit out of somebody in a fit of rage?

The mentality of brutality? Martial artist does not equivicate "antisocial personality disorder". People who go out and start fights or intend to kill people already have a priori problems, martial arts training does not make people murderers or assault-prone.

Morality and better disgression? Morality is subjective...and disgression is situational. For the record...if people don't understand the consquences of engaging in an illegal use of physical force, then they should be considered mentally fucking handicapped.

Give anyone a knife and they can kill. You don't need to be trained to stab somebody, it's pretty straightforward, you jackoff.

No, but we do live in a world where there are muggings, home invasions, rapes, assaults, stabbings, murders, thefts, sexual assaults, etc. You've obviously never been or known a victim of a crime. Not everyone lives in a bubble.

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Ardith

Yeah, I agree that she should do whatever it takes to get away from it.

Every time someone mentions rape though, I always remember this product:

http://www.rapestop.net/

Is a woman supposed to wear that all the time? Or just put it in when "she thinks she's going to be raped"? That's retarded.

So it's okay to let somebody violate and penetrate you so long as you can identify them later? **** you. If you walked in on somebody raping your mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend...what would you do? Would you walk into the other room and call the police, then watch the clock until they left...you probably fucking would, wouldn't you?

[Ardith]

Originally Posted by Garland

Is a woman supposed to wear that all the time? Or just put it in when "she thinks she's going to be raped"? That's retarded.

So it's okay to let somebody violate and penetrate you so long as you can identify them later? **** you. If you walked in on somebody raping your mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend...what would you do? Would you walk into the other room and call the police, then watch the clock until they left...you probably fucking would, wouldn't you?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I also don't care to expound.

[Mike Brewer]

I think it is rather irresponsible to teach people techniques that can cripple, paralyze, or kill others and then go with that mentality of brutality out on the street. Once you begin teaching that you are no longer teaching "self-defense." You're not training murderers and assassins. And we're obviously not fighting a war against our own people.

I'm glad you make this point, as it's something I consider every time a person walks in wanting to be able to fight. I believe that martial arts instructors have a high moral obligation to do everything they can to ensure the things they teach will not be misused. One of the things I personally do to ensure this is I base the first full phase of a student's training on physical conditioning and learning what I call "intermediate force options." They learn punches, kicks, and other tools that can be lethal, but rarely are, and they are driven to work so hard on their conditioning that all but the most serious quit or wash out. The attrition rate at my school is something close to 80%, and I like it that way. I find that people looking for easy methods to harm or kill others don't take the time to go through rigorous programs in order to do so. Mostly, they do what Garland suggested and just get a knife or gun and "wing it." However, by making my program so arduous, I can weed out all but the most serious and most dedicated.

The second phase of training in my schools is built around sparring. Again, those who aren't scared off by intensive conditioning will usually fade when contact starts in earnest. They're learning to apply all of those intermediate force options on live, resistant partners, so the skills they have are functional. They generally prepare a student for the kinds of fights that are most common in our society (based on where I live and where my students generally live), and they give the student a very real appreciation for the consequences of fighting, even in a training scenario. They get hurt from time to time, and it gives them an appreciation for safety and staying out of trouble. This phase usually claims another low percentage of students to wash-out.

By the time a student has progressed to a point where I trust them with guns, live blades, etc., they have not only been training hard over a long period of time, but they have developed a serious work ethic, a dedication to their training, and a genuine bond with the other members of the school. By this time, it is not an exaggeration to say that the student has become a part of our training family, and has earned my trust through his actions and character. Even still, I limit the amount of firearms training and edged weapons stuff I share to a small circle or people, and to professionals like cops and soldiers who live and die by those methods. Professionals, incidentally, do not have to go through the first two phases to get to the lethal force options. They are deemed trustworthy by virtue of their volunteering to serve in the organizations they belong to.

Now this is bound to cause some confusion. I have long, long been an advocate of basing one's functional training on weapons and mass attack. I have long been at the forefront of the debate, saying that a person truly concerned with self-protection needs to address the tough stuff first - not empty hand, one on one fighting, but armed, multiple assailants coming from many directions at a time when it's hard to be ready. That is my focus, and it's what I advocate to people when asked for my honest opinion. I personally can think of no better focus for someone concerned with the realistic protection of himself or his family than those areas. Here's the caveat:

Because I have experienced the things I have, and because I choose to believe some of the lessons handed down to me by the people I respect most, I take my moral obligation very, very seriously. I know there are places people can go to learn to be deadly with a knife or a gun. That's why I don't teach beginners those things. If someone has a working knowledge or a professional need, I'll build on that for them, and I will stress moral responsibility and awareness of the law at all points. I don't have a way of judging character except by one's actions over time, so I require that "proof" from those learning from me. If I think someone has a real need for lethal measures, and that person has not proved their character to me, I will refer them first to the authorities, and then to people I know can help them. But I have seen up close and personal what the wrong end of a knifing or shooting means, both to the victim/loser, and to the families on both sides. And while I will continue to train in and seek improvement in lethal measures, I won't accept the moral burden of handing someone deadly tools before I know their character.

That's likely to draw some fire, but it's okay with me.

[WildWest.]

Does your school have a website Mike?? I like the sound of your training methods by the way.

[Tom Yum]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I'm glad you make this point, as it's something I consider every time a person walks in wanting to be able to fight. I believe that martial arts instructors have a high moral obligation to do everything they can to ensure the things they teach will not be misused. One of the things I personally do to ensure this is I base the first full phase of a student's training on physical conditioning and learning what I call "intermediate force options." They learn punches, kicks, and other tools that can be lethal, but rarely are, and they are driven to work so hard on their conditioning that all but the most serious quit or wash out. The attrition rate at my school is something close to 80%, and I like it that way. I find that people looking for easy methods to harm or kill others don't take the time to go through rigorous programs in order to do so. Mostly, they do what Garland suggested and just get a knife or gun and "wing it." However, by making my program so arduous, I can weed out all but the most serious and most dedicated.

The second phase of training in my schools is built around sparring. Again, those who aren't scared off by intensive conditioning will usually fade when contact starts in earnest. They're learning to apply all of those intermediate force options on live, resistant partners, so the skills they have are functional. They generally prepare a student for the kinds of fights that are most common in our society (based on where I live and where my students generally live), and they give the student a very real appreciation for the consequences of fighting, even in a training scenario. They get hurt from time to time, and it gives them an appreciation for safety and staying out of trouble. This phase usually claims another low percentage of students to wash-out.

By the time a student has progressed to a point where I trust them with guns, live blades, etc., they have not only been training hard over a long period of time, but they have developed a serious work ethic, a dedication to their training, and a genuine bond with the other members of the school. By this time, it is not an exaggeration to say that the student has become a part of our training family, and has earned my trust through his actions and character. Even still, I limit the amount of firearms training and edged weapons stuff I share to a small circle or people, and to professionals like cops and soldiers who live and die by those methods. Professionals, incidentally, do not have to go through the first two phases to get to the lethal force options. They are deemed trustworthy by virtue of their volunteering to serve in the organizations they belong to.

Now this is bound to cause some confusion. I have long, long been an advocate of basing one's functional training on weapons and mass attack. I have long been at the forefront of the debate, saying that a person truly concerned with self-protection needs to address the tough stuff first - not empty hand, one on one fighting, but armed, multiple assailants coming from many directions at a time when it's hard to be ready. That is my focus, and it's what I advocate to people when asked for my honest opinion. I personally can think of no better focus for someone concerned with the realistic protection of himself or his family than those areas. Here's the caveat:

Because I have experienced the things I have, and because I choose to believe some of the lessons handed down to me by the people I respect most, I take my moral obligation very, very seriously. I know there are places people can go to learn to be deadly with a knife or a gun. That's why I don't teach beginners those things. If someone has a working knowledge or a professional need, I'll build on that for them, and I will stress moral responsibility and awareness of the law at all points. I don't have a way of judging character except by one's actions over time, so I require that "proof" from those learning from me. If I think someone has a real need for lethal measures, and that person has not proved their character to me, I will refer them first to the authorities, and then to people I know can help them. But I have seen up close and personal what the wrong end of a knifing or shooting means, both to the victim/loser, and to the families on both sides. And while I will continue to train in and seek improvement in lethal measures, I won't accept the moral burden of handing someone deadly tools before I know their character.

That's likely to draw some fire, but it's okay with me.

That's solid, Mike.

[Mike Brewer]

I don't have a website because I don't market to the masses. I train the military, cops, and other groups on a referral basis and I only accept private students for training. I work out of several different gyms, though, because I like their training philosophies as well, and I think the coaches and teachers at each are world-class in both knowledge and character. The gym where I do all of my sport related training (MMA, kickboxing, boxing, BJJ, etc) is called "Old School Boxing Gym" and it's located near downtown Colorado Springs. The other place I spend a lot of time (working on the practical, real-world focused stuff) is Ft. Carson's Combatives program. We also have a private 800 meter 360 degree shooting range where we run live fire scenarios, combined force drills, shooting from and at vehicles, etc (for tactical and law enforcement purposes), and of course the ranges at Ft. Carson when they are required. Finally, I belong to the local chapter of the Izaak Walton league where we do a lot of shotgunning, marksmanship, and basic safety training for new shooters.

As far as the website goes, like I said, I feel that my own pursuit of fighting effectiveness is just that - mine. Because of the life I've led (military deployments with the Army, etc), I have spent a lot of time studying things I will not share or teach with average civilians. I still maintain a heavy emphasis on things like shooting and edged weapons that I am not willing to commercialize because I just can't stay consistent in my own values and teach that kind of thing to the public at the same time. By keeping my "school" limited to private students, I am able to monitor things much, much more closely than when I was travelling all over the world doing seminars and teaching group classes. I can still show the basics and fundamentals that I believe will protect people, and I can still recommend instructors for people to go and learn things I won't teach. But if people want the material I personally train, it's not about the money. It requires a long-term, personal investment of time, effort, and integrity. With that said, the people who train with me on those things don't pay me a dime in money.

[J-Luck]

Originally Posted by DickHardman

all you did was say i was right, claimed poverty as your excuse for acting like a jerkoff, got waaay too over defensive over the john cena comment, and then you sent me a pm calling me an Arab. i wouldnt quite say you refuted anything.

Again... who is John Cena?!! I dont know how I got defensive... you just didnt explain!!!

I dont act like a jerkoff, I just bring your stupidity to light, and you get mad about it.

I'm not racist lol I just remember a while back reading a post where you got mad at someone for suggesting you were arab or something so i just decided to have fun with it. The arabian people are a great one and I wouldnt insult them. Not like you insulting poor people.

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

Originally Posted by J-Luck

Again... who is John Cena?!! I dont know how I got defensive... you just didnt explain!!!

This, is John Cena:

YouTube - Kevin Federline - WWE Slam appearance

[J-Luck]

Oh, my, God... lol. He called me that guy? A professional wrestler who dresses like an army guy???? Lol, yup that's me emptyness!

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by BoarSpear

Until a question I already posted about in the CMA forums is brought up, and the trolling my every post stops I wont be either...Have you read what I already posted in the CMA forums? Do you know what Cracking is? Then even if I did explain the training you wouldn't understand it's method... I would have to teach you a vocabulary, a technique, a number of principles and a training method... I'll never get that far due to all the nonsense trolling...besides the fact, it isn't my job to teach you the essentials of an art you don't know the first thing about... Especially since the CMA forums are full of your nonsense or are you not Sherwinc as you claimed? So again, why should I waste my time educating a self admitted troll? People who didn't troll my old posts got videos and invites to class to see for themselves trolls got or ignored. I wont bother with explaining an art just so trolls can try to look cool trolling it, 10 people all jump in and want responses...then when I cant keep up you declare victory because 10 people with no idea about the art can shout down one who does, no thanks been there done that. I'll wait for the "experts" to show how little they really know about the things they stopped me from talking about.

Ah, these were good times....

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Uke

Exactly. Its like a Civil War reenactment. Its as close as you can come to reality without the reality. You've got the uniforms and guns with no bullets.

Let me ask you something: What's the difference between kickboxing in the old days of Chuck Norris and Bill Wallace and MMA of today aside from the BJJ thrown in? The answer is that there is no difference except kickboxers were better at standup. They still are today, as we see MMA fighters getting knocked out left and right once they venture out of the waters of mediocrity and into elite kickboxing events like K-1.

The same thing happens once MMA fighters wander over to elite grappling events like the Abu Dhabi.

In other words, the so called evolution that is MMA is great as long as they stay in the pond where their talents are about equal.



Now you've made it clear that you full of shit. How is everything in MMA geared towards practicality and they will circle each other for sometimes over a minute before engaging each other? That's practical? Is that supposed to be "as close to reality as you can get"? Are flying armbars and flopping to the guard a part of that practicality too? Is shooting in practical when you don't know what you're shooting into?



Get the hell out of here. Those are the exception, not the rule. For every MMA match that ended quickly you've got 20 more than went to the cards. I've seen Gracie have a match that lasted over 20 minutes. His match was Severn was a classic case of what I'm talking about. You'd call Gracie's fight with Severn reality? It was a submission wrestling match, not the kind of encounter you'd see in a street environment.



How many times have we seen two MMA fighters brawl it out in the ring? When Wanderlei Silva got his ass beat by Vitor Belfort, he knew Belfort was the superior striker, but he attacked strength anyway. When Ken Shamrock fought Don Frye, he knew Don Frye was the bigger and stronger man, and he knew his own strength was NOT striking, but he attacked strength anyway. Same when Minowa decided to duke it out with Baroni. Minowa knew he was over-matched but wanted to show how tough he was. The list goes on and on and on.



First off, in a street fight there is no fight until the people are in striking distance. None of that bullshit that you see in the ring. Until people are within arms reach, there is no fight. And once you're in close quarters, you keep it there as best as you can and finish it. You don't push the guy away, put your hands up and start circling. You seriously watch too much television if that's your idea of reality.

And sorry to burst yet another of your bubbles, but both parties do not always get hurt in street fights. Well, if they're fighting like you they might. That says something about your own training if you think that before even going in you WILL definitely get hurt.

What happened to this guy? I like reading his posts.