MMA is Not Self Defense!

[Mike Brewer]

Well migo, your question is likely to take us a little off topic but I'll offer some opinions just the same since we appear to have resolved the previous sidebar.

What do you do for someone who can't handle the intensity of MMA or wrestling training? Well, first you try to determine what it is that they can't handle. Fights can be fairly intensive endeavors as well, and so you don't want to overlook preparation just because it's uncomfortable. If a guy can't handle training because, for example, he's out of shape, then the answer is to get him in shape. That's actually one of the things I really like about sports like boxing and MMA - you can't hide from your own training. If you have weaknesses you don't want to confront, they'll show up in the other guy's corner to fight against you on game day. So in that respect, a part of the process is building the person up to a point that they can handle the training. That doesn't mean they have to be competitors, but the types of sparring and conditioning that goes on in a lot of sports gyms is good for people of all backgrounds and ability levels.

Assuming then that the person has other limitations like chronic injuries or health issues that make it impossible to safely train up to athletic levels, then the only substitute I've ever found is treachery.

Teaching someone to be unassuming and ruthless is every bit as difficult as teaching them to be athletic, and it's not something you want to take lightly. Definitely not something you want to throw open the doors and teach to the masses, either. But assuming that the person is of good moral character and has a good head on his shoulders, what you're trying to teach now amounts to the purest self-protection available. I believe this is very likely in line with what TTEscrima might view as "self-defense." This is the ability to avoid literally every fight that's not a life or death ordeal. It means swallowing your pride a lot and letting all but the most severe of incidents roll loff your back. That kind of humilty is difficult, and the amount of ego suppression involved is tougher still. But because your athletic options are limited, you have to have some intermediate options that don't require force on force. Most often, that means apologizing even when you're right and finding a way out. When it gets bad, it's a matter of escalation, surprise, audacity, and violence of action (to use the military parlance). It means being that gray man, the one that looks like the average anybody and blends in with the wallpaper. It means identifying threats before they get critical, and recognizing the next four or five options you'll have if things go south. To put it the way a good friend of mine has: Be nice to everyone, be friendly with no one, and have a plan for killing everyone you meet.

It's very easy to walk that attitude right on into the realm of paranoia, and that's unhealthy and a misinterpretation of what I mean. Again, though, that's where the humility and lack of ego come in. The idea is that you're simply prepared. You don't worry, and you don't pack all your pockets with weapons. You don't strap knives to your forearms or wear kevlar to the grocery store or anything, but you recognize and make peace with the idea that if someone stops you on the way to your car and decides it's you or him, you're going to bury that Bic pen as far as you can in his skull and yank his eyeball out like a martini olive.

I think the thing is that the more athletic you are, the more options you have. If you can be an athletic, sport-oriented fighter that also has a solid background in the types of tactics that allow you extract eyeballs like martini olives, you have a whole host of options available to you that many others just won't have. You can decide to injure slightly, to control instead of hit, or to ramp things up and get nasty. You also (and this is truly, truly important) have the athleticism to run farther and faster than whatever bastard is trying to do you in. Fitness is a potent weapon, and it happens to be one that competitive sports of all types develop well. Combative sports are even better because they give you tools that do, in fact, work in fighting.

The second you decide that conditioning and athleticism are not viable options, the only real substitutes you have open to you are treachery and ruthlessness. It's a good option, but never overlook the fact that the conditioned and athletic can also be treacherous and ruthless.

[Knuckles&Knees]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

I never said I didn't practice combat sports, I just said none of them are the same as the real thing. I've been hit in the ring and I've been seen combat and I assure you there is a world of difference in someone actually trying to kill you and your opponent in the ring "trying to tear your head off". Sorry I missed out on bouncing I was too busy as a Master-at-Arms in the Navy for the last 20 years.

I notice some very defensive attitudes about this subject whenever and wherever its broached people protest way too much whether they're MMA or TMA people.

I'm sure in those 20 years you've learned some things, given your MOS or I think the Navy calls is Rate.

The job of a bouncer, especially I'm told in England, is no joke. And I'm just going to say this flat out, by-in-large trained combat athletes are far more dangerous than any "average joe" on the street, in the military, or in Law Enforcement, when it comes to hand-to-hand. Now, that may not be so once you start putting knives or broken bottles into the picture. A boxer or Thai boxer or submission wrestler may find him or herself out of her element once one or more persons draws knives or straight razors.

Look, even in U.S. prisons boxers and trained fighters are respected. Basically boxing and MMA gyms are some of the best institutes we have today for turning out modern day gladiators.

And to be honest with you, sometimes I get irritated with this idea that some one has to break their legs or necks to improve as a fighter. In the U.S. military people put ear plugs in their ears so they don't go deaf and can keep their hearing for when they need it come combat time.

Not to mention people have died in the boxing ring. And had Sherman or Forrest ever met hand-to-hand without weapon, against one of today's Thai boxers or BJJ practitioners, it would be lights out for both those Civil War Generals.

Yeah, if I'd want to learn how to do night raids on horse back, then I'd defer to Forrest. I'm not deferring to that chap (to borrow British slang) to learn how to throw with proper distance in my jab.

I don't post to often on the board, but every now and then I come around and browse. Not so long ago I was browsing and saw a video clip Michael Wright had put up of himself (if I remember it might have been with the Minnesota group?). I was very impressed with what I saw in both his hands and feet on focus pads (if I remember correctly). I feel confident in saying he would defeat most of the best street fighters on the "tough streets of the U.S."

I'm a U.S. citizen by the way, born and bred.

(I'm not trying to come down on you either, but I wanted to make a response because I think you unjustly, into much haste, jumped the gun on Michael W.)


Peace.

[Tant01]

Few things are more fear inspiring than a well trained adversary.

Seems there was a recent "attack" in the US involving hand grenades? Grenades don't really care if you're an athlete...MMA or ballet...

We are all "soft" targets.

[jwf89]

iv'e met a couple self defense fanatics before and they said practical ground fighting prventing takedowns in a practical way and striking in full contact sparring is essential to self defense even and by the way there's alot of mma schools that teach self defense

[TTEscrima]

A few quotes from Matt Larsen.

"I wrote the FM, I was one of the guys who developed the program in the Ranger Regiment, I was NCOIC of combatives for the Ranger Regt. And then the Ranger Training Brigade and now I am the NCOIC of the Army combatives school and of all combatives training for the infantry school.

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

Lets face it, there has never been a time when the average soldier was competent with the techniques that the Army doctrine called for them to know.

That is where BJJ comes in. Soldiers begin their learning with the basic ground grappling from BJJ, not because that is how we envision them fighting, or because many fights go to the ground (that is another discussion), but because it is easy both to teach and to learn.

It is also true that to win a fight you must have a strategy. The strategy of almost anyone that you are likely to fight is to pummel you with strikes until you are incapacitated. Perhaps adopting that same plan is not the best way.
’ll talk about our training plan in my next letter."

Matt Larsen

[Tom Yum]

I don't mean to get off topic....

I talk to a lot of folks going for the same job I'm going to - some say that they are not sure how they will react if in a scenario where they would have to kill someone at close quarters, others brag about how they can do it without blinking an eye.

99% of these guys haven't been in a job where they've had to - the 1% who did tended to say that doing it is not a scenario they would brag about one bit or could predict how they were going to react before and after it happened.

That being said - how do reality-based fighters know how they will react if they aren't drilled in spontaneous, resistance that MMA/boxers/muaythai fighters go through?

Unless of course, they go out and get in street fights on a regular basis (i.e. Paul Vunak or Bas Rutten).

[Mike Brewer]

It's always dangerous to quote out of context, which is what you've done here, TT. Those quotes were in reference to why the Army decided to add things like BJJ and other MMA based training methods (along with stick and knife training from kali, courtesy of Marc Denny and pals) instead of relying on pure boxing. In other words, you're shooting your own argument in the foot. The Army - specifically Matt Larsen and his command - decided that they needed to fix the problems that were associated with the program taught to soldiers before. To do that, they shied away from a lot of the Fairbairn - Applegate - Sykes based material and traditional based stuff that had been taught before and incorporated things you can use and train against active resistance. In other words, they incorporated wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, and kali.

The quotes you've chosen are persuasive, but put into their original context and into the context of what was happening in the Army at the time MACP was introduced, they hurt your argument. It's like this statement:

"Lets face it, there has never been a time when the average soldier was competent with the techniques that the Army doctrine called for them to know."

One way to read that is that the soldiers were not capable of performing effectively given the nature of Army requirements.

Another way to read it is that soldiers have never been able to learn all that the Army requires of them.

The first is a negative statement about the Army's requirements; the second is a negative statement about the soldier. Context is the key to understanding and putting it into its proper frame. Since soldiers have all entered combat for the first time with nothing except their training - no real-world experience at all - the training is indeed of real value.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

It's always dangerous to quote out of context, which is what you've done here, TT. Those quotes were in reference to why the Army decided to add things like BJJ and other MMA based training methods (along with stick and knife training from kali, courtesy of Marc Denny and pals) instead of relying on pure boxing. In other words, you're shooting your own argument in the foot. The Army - specifically Matt Larsen and his command - decided that they needed to fix the problems that were associated with the program taught to soldiers before. To do that, they shied away from a lot of the Fairbairn - Applegate - Sykes based material and traditional based stuff that had been taught before and incorporated things you can use and train against active resistance. In other words, they incorporated wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, and kali.

The quotes you've chosen are persuasive, but put into their original context and into the context of what was happening in the Army at the time MACP was introduced, they hurt your argument. It's like this statement:



One way to read that is that the soldiers were not capable of performing effectively given the nature of Army requirements.

Another way to read it is that soldiers have never been able to learn all that the Army requires of them.

The first is a negative statement about the Army's requirements; the second is a negative statement about the soldier. Context is the key to understanding and putting it into its proper frame. Since soldiers have all entered combat for the first time with nothing except their training - no real-world experience at all - the training is indeed of real value.

I don't know how you figure I took that out of context, here's the entire letter.

"First, when you say they you mean me. I wrote the FM, I was one of the guys who developed the program in the Ranger Regiment, I was NCOIC of combatives for the Ranger Regt. And then the Ranger Training Brigade and now I am the NCOIC of the Army combatives school and of all combatives training for the infantry school.

I have been in the infantry in both the Army and the Marine Corps for the last eighteen years and the truth is that until recently there was almost no combatives training happening. What little there was, was almost universally thought of as a joke and a waste of time. It is hard for the “combatives” crowd to admit but it is the truth. The big question is why. Why did both soldiers and commanders think that combatives training was a waste of time.

In my opinion it is because the Army has been trying for the last sixty years to implement the very things you are advocating. You said that you were in the infantry. I assume you were an advocate of combatives training while you were in. Why then did the system that you are advocating not spread throughout the Army from your platoon or company the way the current system spread from the third platoon charley company 2/75th?

I don’t want you to take that the wrong way, I am sure that we agree on what soldiers need to know. Knowing what they need to know is the easy part. Its how do you actualy get them to know it that is hard. How do you motivate that pencil neck commander/squad leader to get his men training? That is the real question.

That is also where the systems of the past have failed. Lets face it, there has never been a time when the average soldier was competent with the techniques that the Army doctrine called for them to know.

If you look at the way marksmanship is taught as an analogy, combat marksmanship is a very difficult and complicated task. You are fatigued and breathing hard, firing from unusual positions or while moving. Your targets are fleeting and hard to identify, not to mention NODS, optics etc.

Now all of that being true, no one question the need for BRM. Even though it bears little resemblance to the sort of shooting that we expect of our soldiers on the battlefield.

This is not so with combatives. The training methods that have been used with combatives is much like teaching shooting at the soldier of fortune convention. You put a guy down behind a machine gun. He squeezes of a few rounds. Its cool. He walks away motivated. He may even have a good feeling about the training, but at the end of the day, no one showed him about site alignment. Is he a better shooter, marginally if at all.

Now you take that same man and show him how to strike with the ridge of his hand, tell him to grab their nuts, stomp them with his heel. He is motivated. He may have a good feeling about the training, but is he actually a better fighter? Or when the actual fight happens is he going to resort back to his natural farm boy technique? We have done quite a bit of experimentation to prove the latter.

That is where BJJ comes in. Soldiers begin their learning with the basic ground grappling from BJJ, not because that is how we envision them fighting, or because many fights go to the ground (that is another discussion), but because it is easy both to teach and to learn. It is also true that ground fighting is not too dissimilar from standup fighting, and the lessons learned there make it easier to teach further techniques.

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

It is also true that to win a fight you must have a strategy. The strategy of almost anyone that you are likely to fight is to pummel you with strikes until you are incapacitated. Perhaps adopting that same plan is not the best way. I’ll talk about our training plan in my next letter.

Matt Larsen"


I wasn't gunning for Matt or I'd have ripped all the info he perpetuated in order to get his system accepted. I left out his slams of combatives because they were off subject for this forum and he was made a fool of by people for those comments very shortly after making them. I posted the relevant portions to the discussion at hand that pertained to training, but if you want to discuss the comments he made belittling Rex Applegate, W.E Fairbarn and WWII combatives and the men who used and founded them I'd be delighted to participate in that discussion as well.

Matt began bad mouthing combatives after the official solicitation from US Army SOCOM Ft Bragg for instruction and instructional materials for CQC training specifying the USMC Line system in support of the Special Forces Qualification Course was leaked making LINE the official training SF wide (not group specific). The solicitation number is ZA92-02-Q-0024. This was a change from Matts program. Here's the quote from the Sol. "Most recently during fiscal years 01 and 02 LINES training has become the standard training incorporated into the Special Forces Qualification Course." After this was leaked at SOC.net where Matt and his FM were already getting ripped to shreds by current operators he wrote that letter. It only went downhill from there when he began insulting Fairbairn, Applegate & Sykes combat records and credentials.

It's interesting how little details are there if you just know where to look, who is the man tasked with training the instructors for the Army Q course? Ron Donvito, who the hell is Ron Donvito you might ask, he's the man who invented the LINE system formerly used by the Marine Corps. So while details of the program are still classified the background of the man training the instructors isn't and it's WWII combatives.

[Knuckles&Knees]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, and I'm pretty much jumping to the last page, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding the context in which you put this quote excerpt up as a reply (to who on the board I'm not sure).

Anyways... the body mechanics, that is the trained body mechanics of boxing are such that I know of no one that can utilize the boxing fighting style with only 10 hours of training. It can take some people several months before they can even step in with a proper jab. And that's just a simple basic move. But people moving forward and backward with while throwing a jab, when they are just learning to do it, and while they are practicing it, look like they are half-way mentally challenged.

If you've got no skill or coordination in kicking, I would not suggest trying to use Thai kicks when you have only 10 hours of training either.

In fact I can't even believe someone would waist money (per time/payroll) studying this sh*t, the Army could have asked me (I have no authority whatsoever - just making a point) and I would have told them for free.

[Mike Brewer]

I understand, TT. I read that letter a long time ago. What I mean by "out of context" is that this is a thread about MMA not being adequate for self-defense. In that context, you quoted a letter written during a time when the Army was looking for a new method and ended up using...MMA. Yes, they used it as a part of a larger whole (as we've all agreed is a great idea and the only good way to go), but when the professionals needed something that worked, they settled on a rough approximation of MMA to find it. Since your argument all along has been that MMA does nothing to prepare you for a real fight, I find it odd that you'd quote a letter from the man who helped develop and institute a program of MMA for real soldiers in real war. You countered your own points.

Also, it's a plain fact that there wasn't much (read: any) solid combatives training going on before MACP came along. It was a bunch of tired stuff that had been diluted by a lack of expertise and "FM-itis" to the point that all it was really good for in most places was teaching mindset and killer instinct.

(As a side note, I've made that statement before and caught hell for it, but I still maintain it's the truth. There are exceptions to be sure, but that's what they are - exceptions)

After MACP, combatives training took off. Everyone is now required to go through a Level One certification in the Army, which means that the foundation of every soldier's combative training is now MMA. More specifically at level one, it is Brazilian Jiujitsu and little more. The theory, then, that MMA cannot and does not prepare people for real fights is blown all to little itty bitty pieces because that's what is currently being used, and it's working.

As for the context, no letter or statement provides context. What I meant by context is the overall world situation surrounding the writing of that letter. What was going on? What inspired that letter? What was happening that made a switch necessary in the first place? And then there's the overall question of whther or not Matt Larsen was right in deciding what he did. (That too is debatable). I didn't mean that your taking the letter out of context was a negative thing, mind you - just that it's dangerous to show one pice of one point of view without recognizing the place it fills within a much larger and more complex whole.

By way of illustration, I might be talking to one student who has great footwork and hand speed, but no power in his punches. I might have a conversation with him one day in which I tell him something like, "Listen up. The most important thing for you to work on in your fighting skill set is power. Without it, no amount of moving around and touching the guy are going to matter." For that guy in that context, that may be a valid bit of advice. But let's say another guy on another day is there and he has power to spare. He can knock down elephants with either hand, but his shoes are made of lead-lined cement and he's got the head movement of a dime store mannequin. I say to him, "Brother, I want you to forget about working on your power. The most important thing for you to work on is going to be getting up on the balls of your feet and getting mobile. Without movement, that power isn't going to do you any good." Again, for that guy in that context - good advice. But if all you do is stick the two quotes side by side, it looks like a complete contradiction:

The most important thing for you to work on in your fighting skill set is power. Without it, no amount of moving around and touching the guy are going to matter."

forget about working on your power. The most important thing for you to work on is going to be getting up on the balls of your feet and getting mobile. Without movement, that power isn't going to do you any good."

The context, the surrounding events, and yes - the audience - are important factors. That's all I was trying to point out. Not a dig against you by any means, TT. I'm just suggesting that on a different day to a different audience under different circumstances, you're likely to read different opinions from the same guy...based on context.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Knuckles&Knees

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, and I'm pretty much jumping to the last page, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding the context in which you put this quote excerpt up as a reply (to who on the board I'm not sure).

Anyways... the body mechanics, that is the trained body mechanics of boxing are such that I know of no one that can utilize the boxing fighting style with only 10 hours of training. It can take some people several months before they can even step in with a proper jab. And that's just a simple basic move. But people moving forward and backward with while throwing a jab, when they are just learning to do it, and while they are practicing it, look like they are half-way mentally challenged.

If you've got no skill or coordination in kicking, I would not suggest trying to use Thai kicks when you have only 10 hours of training either.

In fact I can't even believe someone would waist money (per time/payroll) studying this sh*t, the Army could have asked me (I have no authority whatsoever - just making a point) and I would have told them for free.

Isn't it comforting to see the thought process of the man responsible for using MMA to train soldiers though? When they already know what they want it's fun to watch people rationalize their way to the outcome they desire.

[Mike Brewer]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

Isn't it comforting to see the thought process of the man responsible for using MMA to train soldiers though? When they already know what they want it's fun to watch people rationalize their way to the outcome they desire.

Unfortunately, there was a great deal more to it than even that.

Also, this time fortunately, given the mission a lot of our guys are facing (in which bad guys are either shot during battles of apprehended and processed), the hands on restrain and control types of tactics seem to be working. I still get reports from Iraq in which people are having to use MACP training on combative civilians and prisoners from time to time. I'm personally glad to see that they have some options other than a butt stroke or a couple of warning shots fired at center mass to get the locals under control when the situation arises.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Unfortunately, there was a great deal more to it than even that.

Also, this time fortunately, given the mission a lot of our guys are facing (in which bad guys are either shot during battles of apprehended and processed), the hands on restrain and control types of tactics seem to be working. I still get reports from Iraq in which people are having to use MACP training on combative civilians and prisoners from time to time. I'm personally glad to see that they have some options other than a butt stroke or a couple of warning shots fired at center mass to get the locals under control when the situation arises.

As a MAA I spent the majority of my time hands on, no one ever expected us to try and use any of the BJJ concepts to control people who could have anything from a knife to a bomb concealed under their clothing. "Knives are more common than shoes here" was a gem everyone was reminded of on a regular basis. War is ugly and the truth is people get hurt, we were often expected to round up people for questioning who might be innocent, and since your innocence is determined by things like waterboarding even innocent people tend to resist, thats why the BJJ format was pushed to allow the detention and questioning of civilians, however experience shows everyone fights when they're going to be tortured. Overwhelming force and a few swift kicks are still the only effective to control people in a war zone and even that control is only temporary.

[migo]

Mike, thanks for the response. I liked your breakdown. I figured it was on topic with the OP, as it was looking at the question from the point of view of, "what is self defense?" rather than, "what is MMA?"

The point you brought up about treachery and ruthlessness combined with trainging and conditioning being better than one or the other might also be addressing part of where the debate comes from. MMA type training is a very important piece of self-defense (or maybe not, I haven't been in any fights since training MMA), but situational awareness, swallowing ego, and picking the right time to be nasty (or not nasty, as there's retaliation to consider) is also a very important piece of self defense. If you have one or the other, it's not too hard to think up a scenario in which you won't succesfully defend yourself, but when you combine the two it gives you a much narrower selection of scenarios in which you won't be able to defend yourself.

I'd venture a guess that when people are arguing that MMA is good for self defense they place greater valre on the aspects MMA obviously prepares you for. If they argue MMA isn't good for self defense, they're placing greater emphasis on the aspects that MMA doesn't obviously prepare you for (or they're failing to recognize some of the benefits of MMA training, possibly on account of looking at it from the context of their TMA training, which these days can quite likely be much more technique oriented while MMA comparatively places much more emphasis on attributes).

[Mike Brewer]

Appreciated, but many of the guys I hear from are MPs, Civil Affairs, and PSYOP soldiers who would do more harm than good in their missions by roughing up the locals more than they had to. None of them are opposed to shooting bad guys, and none of them consider BJJ a good counter-IED tactic either - these are not stupid people. But on occasion, they run into problems with civilians in less threatening areas or in holding areas after searches have taken place. Yes, I realize things can be missed even in detailed searches, and so do they. But in many cases, a simple restraint or hold while a buddy applies zip cuffs is a good alternative to becoming known as "The American assholes who like to smack us all around and kick us while we're down."

Sometimes, jobs that are geared toward getting information and building rapport require more restraint than an infantryman might need to show.

Still not the point. MMA is in fact being used to train soliders as a supplement to their other training, and for the most part, it has gotten good results in all the areas we've already outlined.

My point after your pre-letter posts was that training methods do matter, and that they do a lot to prepare you for reality. I think that's a very valid point. Further, I think it's worth noting that almost every recognized "elite" training method uses concepts that are present in sport fighting. Conditioning, endurance, working through fatigue, improvisation, being able to think under pressure, and training against tough, prepared opposition are watchword in almost every elite fighting force's training methods the world over. They are common threads that are also present in sport fighting. I can't see why it is so hard for some people to admit that training in sport martial arts like Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, MMA, etc. can and does have very real benefits for real-world fighting. I really don't understand that.

I'm also not entirely sure I agree that nothing but reality can prepare someone for reality. I can agree that exposure to real world situations can make someone better, but I think that training goes a long, long way to prepare people. That's why elite training is better than haphazard amateurish training. The former does indeed prepare you better, doesn't it?