MMA and combatives

darrianation · 06-30-2006, 11:55 AM

Recently I have been criticized for my stance on MMA as to its relevance and relation to combatives and self-defense. I wonder what you folks think. Do the MMAs have a place in combatives? And how legitimate is its roll in combatives?

I do not want this to be a long diatribe on my part but I want to give you folks some of my thoughts on the matter.

I first began martial arts in 1976 with Judo making the switch to karate in 1977 after an injury that made dear ol’ mom have second thoughts about letting me continue in Judo (Pop Warner football and wrestling was okay but not Judo, hmmmm…but then again Judo was brutal much more so than karate). My biggest influences in the martial arts were wrestling, karate, and Muay Thai until I got out of the service after Desert Storm. In the Military I was exposed to combatives (not good one’s mind you) with SCARS and LINE. My military and combat experiences changed my whole way of thinking about my goals and my MA training, a paradigm shift if you will. I began to search for a martial platform, combative in nature, that would help me both professionally (tactical) and privately (self-defense).

In this endeavor I talked to many knowledgeable folks, read many informative books, I investigated many different platforms, this includes weapons based arts (FMAs), sport based MAs, traditional MAs (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) and armed combative training. As I sought out this knowledge I was very dissatisfied with what I was finding.

As an example of this (one example of many) I went into a self-defense school that touted self-defense with Muay Thai, Brazilian jujitsu, and Filipino knife fighting. As I observed the classes and talked to students and instructors I found that each class was done for an hour at a time individually (not integrated), knife drills were always begun with the knife in hand with no mention of drawstroke or mid-fight weapon’s access, and competition strategies were mentioned several times. I was disappointed in this and I left never to return.

Over the years I have met folks and worked with folks, professionals in the security/protection fields who were former spec-ops folks (as well as some folks who were never in the military) who crossed trained in both Muay Thai and BJJ. In fact, I heard mention, on many occasions, Fairtex in San Francisco and Oregon MT training groups (chalambok may know more about this than I do) and I have seen many of these guys wearing the Gracie colors. I also, as another filter saw (and appreciated) the possibilities in combat application watching such events as the UFCs and other cage fighting venues.

I (myself) have never formally trained in MMA or BJJ, but I have had many opportunities to train with folks who had MMA/BJJ (and MT/boxing) back grounds and, or, who were competent MMA folks in their own right (training with them one on one and in small groups). I saw how effective these folks were with what they did both armed and unarmed. I began to incorporate grappling, both wrestling and the newly acquired grappling skills into my overall fighting matrix. I have found this to be a very robust way of covering the unarmed portions of my overall skill-sets. I finally found what was missing.

So in the end we have a combined platform of unarmed skill-sets and armed skill-sets which has been fully integrated.

I believe strongly that some type/form of MMA to be a simple and effective way to turbo charge your overall combatives platform, but it isn’t the only way.

First, I think that in a combative situation weapons come first because it changes the tactical nature of the encounter and brings about faster control and dominance of the situation. However we may not always be able to get to our weapons prior to the fight. Then our unarmed skill-sets become the foundation or framework in which we access our weapons.

Next, who are the best counter grapplers? Grapplers are. Fights do go to the ground in a self-defense situation (at a high percentage), I would personally NEVER recommend going to the ground intentionally, that is a big invitation to a boot party if his friends are around. However, you may slip, he may tackle you, etc (this shit happens even to well trained and skilled folks), So your grappling skills should have the priority to keep you upright (on your feet) or get you back to your feet if you have fallen or were taken down. If for some reason you end up on the bottom and your opponent has you in his mount and you should fail with simple bridge and roll/sweeps to dismount him then you need your grappling skills to provide a conduit to weapons access both in the stand up grapple and the on the ground.

Sometimes, you need, what I call the “nasties” option that is biting, gouging, etc. Although, these still may fail by themselves they may create that opening to escape the mount or an opportunity to access a weapon. In a train collision of two forward driving opponents, that double leg takedown, before all momentum is lost, because of the bigger guy’s force is grater than your own, may provide an opportunity to go for your gun or knife, etc. So, instead of the ground and pound or some sort of progression leading to an armbar or Kimura, we can look for opportunities to access our weapons earlier and establish dominance sooner in the encounter.

I am not saying training in the mixed martial arts (or a combo of MT/BJJ) is the only way, but it is one of the best I have found, and this “hypothesis” which has been tested (by many-with far more real world experience than I) both in high intensity force on force drills against fully resisting opponents who are both capable and competent at full-out street speeds, and in the real world to be truly robust. I am not necessarily saying MMA as a stand alone training platform but a cross trained platform that incorporates a stand up striking platform such as boxing or Muay Thai, etc, some form of grappling platform such as BJJ, Sambo, or Judo, etc, and a weapons platform such as a modern armed combatives, etc, as an example.

We also must consider eye attacks (gouging, raking, etc,) such as taught in many systems (I really like Rich Dimitri’s shredder for instance), strikes to the throat (web hand, ax hand, etc). Also the combative strikes i.e. chin-jab, spearing elbow, hammer fist, elbow, knees, face smash, tiger claw, etc. Incorporated, with biting, headbutts (be careful here), and other nasty unarmed as well as armed movements and techniques, as well as mindset and tactics (we learn in the combatives)

The Army did it (BJJ) with their combatives program…although in my opinion they are too fixated on the grappling, but still a fairly good program from what I have seen and heard.

Sorry, I did not mean for this to turn into a diatribe but it certainly looks like one. I am interested in your input so, what say you?

**Thai Bri** · 06-30-2006, 12:19 PM

I think actuall self protection is a simple matter. None of the theories are hard to learn, you just have to put it into your daily life. Here I'm talking about ways to avoid / escape / dissuade and attack, as well as the use of the Fence whilst dissuading. Mindset is important too, i.e. the willingness to fight like a cornered lion if you need to.

As for fighting? That's pretty simple too. I like the idea of hitting first, and work on that to the extent that I have a few blows that are (almost) guaranteed knockouts, as well as the sneakiness to get 'em in. Now for the rest of the fight if all that other stuff doesn't work? Well, that's just a support system. And guess what? That's simple too!

Martial arts are too complex and too dogmatic. To support all the above all you really need is a handful of effective blows that cover a small range of positions, a basic understanding of grappling, and some dirty dirty tricks. With appropriate practice you can get to an effective standard really quickly.

You guys in cultues were you can carry weapons also need to train the weapon of course.

Forget MMA, Thai Boxing, BJJ etc. Yes, train with these types soetimes. But only to find things that work for you, and keep the words "self protection" in mind, so as to not get distracted into learning the next omoplata (sp) or high kick.

Hope that helps.

darrianation · 06-30-2006, 02:54 PM

Very well put TB.

I have a small core of simple techniques as well, defults, strikes, weapons access, ruse, and tactical movents. The simplist explaination, the one that takes the fewest leaps in logic is generally the best. I pretty much only train with those now.

Good comments.

MolonLabe · 06-30-2006, 02:59 PM

http://strategosintl.com/pdfs/The-Cage-and-Reality.pdf

BoarSpear · 06-30-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolonLabe

http://strategosintl.com/pdfs/The-Cage-and-Reality.pdf

Welcome aboard

VERY NICE.

darrianation · 06-30-2006, 03:51 PM

I did want to mention and I failed to say, when I talk of MMA I am using the term very loosely. What I really mean, is that we should have some capability in the striking range, stand up grapple, and at least some basic ground grappling skills to affect an escape or weapons draw.

I am not necessarily talking about black belts in BJJ cross training in years of Muay Thai or training full time in an actual MMA say Pancrase, etc, for the next ten years ( maybe a year may suffice). Although I personally have no problem with folks doing so, I think a stripped down version of a method of basic strikes, sprawling, and escapes converted into a combative model would suffice quite nicely.

Personally I believe in eclecticism and personalization. I think no one fighting method should be a cookie cutter approach to the masses. I think you learn, you adapt it for the individual, take what is useful and robust for your personal goals and streamline your method for a core group of simple, stout, and aggressive tactics and techniques.

If your goal is self-defense (in the tactical trades there may be further specialization than what the average civilian will need for SD) we do not need to train to fight boxers in a boxing match or a BJJ fighter in a BJJ match or MMA fighter in a cage match etc. We need a small core of basics from each category with an emphases on preflight strategies, weapons access, striking, and finally grappling even if it is just a small number of escapes and a stand up method (to protect you while standing). And a way to bridge it together, i.e. mid-fight transitions from unarmed to being armed (even if that is nothing more than accessing OC spray or a ball point pen, etc).

I find that many systems can be striped down and condensed for its most robust features maybe 75% or in soma case more or less cut out without decreasing its effectiveness (this increases efficiency). That is what I personally believe in.

MolonLabe · 06-30-2006, 11:46 PM

The article simply stated that MMA does not represent the totality of what is present or necesary in modern worled skills developed for armed combat.

I agree that unarmed skill-sets; including but not limited to MMA; will allow access to weapons, help get/keep you on your feet, and will give you a better chance to affect an escape or draw a weapon if you do end up on the ground.

As long as students are incorporating other types of training (effective armed defense against multiple opponents with weapons), their shouldnt be a problem.

I feel that sports have the advantage of allowing you to feel your (resisting) opponents and move to an advantageous positions. Yes, there are rules you must follow, but I feel the benifits outweight the costs.

As far as condensing systems to the most effective moves, the 25% (if it's that high) you keep may be different for each person. It's just a matter of mastery, and finding the moves or techniques that work for you.

Garland · 07-01-2006, 02:46 AM

I think that the whole MMA vs. combatives thing has been done ad nauseum. The argument almost always seems to involve two camps saying very similar things but being unable to come to see eye to eye.

Here's how I see it;
MMA- striking, clinch, and grappling range...could be a mix of just about any or all of the following; boxing, wrestling, bjj, shooto, judo, muay thai, kyokushin, to the almost untrained amateurs one can view in many local venues.

Pros
- pretty extensive unarmed tool box, which may also...depending on the school or instructor, include dirty pool tactics you don't get to use in a sportive fighting event- viz, headbutts, stomping, tailhooking, grabbing the collarbone, instant breaks (some things from BJJ and Judo look alot like Silat
if applied quick....so, i.e. "snap" instead of "tap".)
-Train almost all techniques live, with close to full speed and random sparring.

Cons
-rarely will an MMA practitioner train weapons.
-often the quick and dirty tactics are neglected.
-multiple opponents, and scenario training in MMA is almost unheard of, unless the school does the whole gambit (RBSD, MMA, combatives, etc)

COMBATIVES
Also pretty vague, can be Fairbarn/Applegate stuff, could be "Combat Hapkido", could be the FMA (Sayoc/PT and DT), could be Crucible type stuff, could be Peyton Quinn, or...yuck, Marc MacYoung type stuff, could be RBSD, could be stuff presented by JKD guys who've decided to step on that platform, could even include the RBSD guys...
(for the sake of arguement I'm assuming it's what I'm most fond and familiar with personally; FMA, JKD, and stuff like Geoff Thompson and the Shivworks people put out.)

Pros
-weapons work (sometimes of variable quality, viz, it could vary in quality from RBSD, Marc MacYoung, and combat hapkido stuff to supherb FMA stuff.
-work on multiple opponents scenarios and woofing type training, more often found with RBSD groups...and it's quality varies as well.
-mentality, awareness, common fucking sense, legal, and psychological considerations MAY be present in the curriculum, although are not necessarilly present.

Cons
-really can't be trained realisticly, or lively...you can try, but the mentality isn't there.
-not working against real agressive force.
-even more variable quality material then the MMA.
-false information which can lead to serious fucking repercussions.
-some stuff is tested, other stuff is theoretical, again depending on the quality of the curriculum, arts sampled-or in question, and the quality of the teachers themselves.

Overview-
both "mma" and "combatives" are loose terms, as schools that teach what could technichally be considered each vary in the quality and breadth of what is being covered, not just techniques, but mentality, physical training, legalities, deconstructing the anatomy, and what is acceptable to use and practical to use at different scales on the "ladder" of physical response to agression.

Solution-
FUCKING CROSS-TRAIN.
I love the JKD approach...take what is useful, discard what is useless...so, many JKD guys/and girls include RBSD, MMA, Combatives, and even TMA into their mix.
Think about it... what tools would you like in what range???
Here's my personal idea of what type of tool sets I'd like at different ranges.

Best for stand-up striking- boxing, panatucan/fma/sikaran, muay thai, savate, and kyokushin are pretty much the top contenders.

transition between stand-up striking and trapping = jun fan gung fu.

Trapping-FMA, and Wing Chun...

clinching-Muay thai, or straight to grappling

throws- judo, shooto, wrestling, catch wrestling... jiu jitsu, bjj...silat, sambo, csw. (in no particular order)...and maybe, MAYBE some aikido principles.

ground grappling- BJJ, shooto, sambo, csw, jiu jitsu, judo, wrestling, catch wrestling.

mean spirited shit- consulte greys anatomy, kino mutai, dumog, and jaded and perverse imagination.

edged and impact weapons- the FMA (namely Inosanto blend, Dekiti Tirsia, Pekiti Tirsia, and Sayoc Kali) and western fencing.

Improvised weapons- fairbarn stuff, as well as imaginative stuff...paladin press, gutter fighting, etc...stuff...*boom*

projectiles- proper use of firearms. (nobody throws fucking knives anymore...unless they're knifethrower...sorry dude.)

sickening shit- post graduate Chemical and Biology classes.

maintainence- weight training, plyometrics, isometrics, kettlebell work, cardio work, yoga, DANCE...preferably ballet, none of that goofy ass martha gramme shit, and perhaps swimming, climbing, and mountain biking.

(the psychological will to hurt, the heart and perseverance, and natural talent, are all things that can't be taught...even though they matter the most...sorry!)

darrianation · 07-01-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolonLabe

The article simply stated that MMA does not represent the totality of what is present or necesary in modern worled skills developed for armed combat.

I agree that unarmed skill-sets; including but not limited to MMA; will allow access to weapons, help get/keep you on your feet, and will give you a better chance to affect an escape or draw a weapon if you do end up on the ground.

As long as students are incorporating other types of training (effective armed defense against multiple opponents with weapons), their shouldnt be a problem.

I feel that sports have the advantage of allowing you to feel your (resisting) opponents and move to an advantageous positions. Yes, there are rules you must follow, but I feel the benifits outweight the costs.

As far as condensing systems to the most effective moves, the 25% (if it's that high) you keep may be different for each person. It's just a matter of mastery, and finding the moves or techniques that work for you.

Excellent point.

I deeply believe in personalization.

darrianation · 07-01-2006, 12:21 PM

I think, for the most part folks have a pretty good idea what the “ideal” self-defense or combative system looks like in their heads. The problem is that the “ideal” is pretty much non-existent, to far away, or to expensive to be a viable option for many (there maybe age requirements as well for shooting schools, etc). We all realize that we need knowledge of the criminal environment (selection and attack), preflight strategies, psychological preparation, tactical preparation, physical preparation, mechanical preparation, technical preparation, and gear.

I hear (read, etc) questions all the time that goes something like this, “Where I live there are only X, Y, and Z martial arts to choose from, what would be the best choice?” If X is Aikido, Y is karate, Z is boxing (and these are the only choices), what would you suggest? I guess since we are talking about self-defense the best option isn’t there but boxing maybe the best available option.

If the only option available is A= Traditional Japanese jujitsu, B= Brazilian jujitsu, C= boxing, and D= mixed martial arts (and these were your only options), what would be the best choice? Maybe the MMA would be the best option. Why? Because BJJ offers only a ground option and boxing offers only a stand up option, whereas MMA offers both.

I think if you had an “ideal option” like what Thai Bri suggests (which is very good) then I think the whole discussion on the MMAs or any sport/traditional based martial art issue would be a mute point. I think it is a significant point only in the lack of other alternatives.

One could train in boxing, BJJ, Muay Thai or MMA then supplement that training with combative seminars or short combative training course as well as books and videos from such folks as Geoff Thompson, Rich Dimitri, Kelly McCann, etc. Not the “ideal” but a better option than nothing at all.

I don’t think you need to train in a MMA , etc, for years and years (unless you enjoy it and wish to do so), but maybe a year might suffice to learn the basics and what is useful to you as a individual, then maybe trying something else. Maybe cross training or making a switch to an FMA for a year maybe a good choice. This can give you a basic understanding of what is robust for you as an individual before moving on etc. I know some will disagree with this but those basic 5-10% movements and techniques of a system is what ends up being used in combat anyway regardless of the 100’s of techniques you have learned.

darrianation · 07-01-2006, 12:49 PM

Let’s look at this from a different perspective for a moment.

I see a lot of folks including many friends, acquaintances, and associates, who already have a tremendous amount of tactical training (firearms, knife, prisoner restraint, and other specialized training, etc), but have had no real martial arts training (or some years ago as a teenager) seek out something to fill in the unarmed option.. These folks may be professionals who want to either improve their unarmed fighting skills for their job or just for everyday self-defense off the job.

What would be a good platform for them? A lot of folks I know have gravitated toward MMA. Muay Thai, or BJJ, myself included. What they are looking for is a supplement to their tactical training that offers them a simple robust unarmed method for dealing with folks in the bad breath range.

They all realize that there will be a need for some modification to what they study so those unarmed skills can be integrated with their weapons skills especially mid-fight deployment skills. I think they take that seriously and I have been to many training courses that teach and emphasize that issue. I think for the most part these folks have paid attention to it and are good at doing it.

Anyway, what would you suggest to someone who is already a tactical operator (law enforcement, military, security professional who already has the weapons and tactics stuff down) who wants to improve his unarmed options?

Tant01 · 07-02-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darrianation

Recently I have been criticized for my stance on MMA as to its relevance and relation to combatives and self-defense. I wonder what you folks think. Do the MMAs have a place in combatives? And how legitimate is its roll in combatives?

.............
.......... I am interested in your input so, what say you?

I'm a short and sweet kinda guy. My theories are simple enough and I mostly keep things simple. MMA is big fun. Nothing wrong with fun. MMA is big business. Nothing wrong with making a buck. MMA is a performance art. Nothing wrong with art or fitness that it requires.

MMA is not SD or "combatives" There is a mindset to saving your life that is mostly ignored in any sport art. You have no weapons improvised or other to deal with. It seems almost EVERY serious encounter I've had experience with involved some kind of weapon. If it was knuckles of the steel type or a pen knife. A shoe or projectile improvised from the environment. Any time somebody gets MAD enough to inflict trauma on another person they almost never fail to pick up something and throw it or hit with it.

BoarSpear · 07-02-2006, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tant01

I'm a short and sweet kinda guy. My theories are simple enough and I mostly keep things simple. MMA is big fun. Nothing wrong with fun. MMA is big business. Nothing wrong with making a buck. MMA is a performance art. Nothing wrong with art or fitness that it requires.

MMA is not SD or "combatives" There is a mindset to saving your life that is mostly ignored in any sport art. You have no weapons improvised or other to deal with. It seems almost EVERY serious encounter I've had experience with involved some kind of weapon. If it was knuckles of the steel type or a pen knife. A shoe or projectile improvised from the environment. Any time somebody gets MAD enough to inflict trauma on another person they almost never fail to pick up something and throw it or hit with it.

Well said Brother.

darrianation · 07-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tant01

I'm a short and sweet kinda guy. My theories are simple enough and I mostly keep things simple. MMA is big fun. Nothing wrong with fun. MMA is big business. Nothing wrong with making a buck. MMA is a performance art. Nothing wrong with art or fitness that it requires.

MMA is not SD or "combatives" There is a mindset to saving your life that is mostly ignored in any sport art. You have no weapons improvised or other to deal with. It seems almost EVERY serious encounter I've had experience with involved some kind of weapon. If it was knuckles of the steel type or a pen knife. A shoe or projectile improvised from the environment. Any time somebody gets MAD enough to inflict trauma on another person they almost never fail to pick up something and throw it or hit with it.

TANTO1,

Thank you for your honest comments. I don’t disagree with what you have said. I think that we are talking around each other somewhat though.

A combative platform must reconcile multiple ranges and weapons. I think for the civilian self-defense venue we, unfortunately, will be “reactive” at best since in the street shock and surprise will most likely go to the other guy. So we will go from a loss of initiative to reestablishing the initiative. We might even have to face an opponent who already has his gun pointing at us.

Let’s say I have an opponent in front me (he’s woofing me up and posturing or an opponent who is innocently trying to get close and is not complying with my commands to “back off” or “stop”, etc). I am in my fence, after several warnings to “back up” I have a few options. I can preemptively strike, let’s say I chin-jab him, then shove him back, draw my gun from its concealed IWB carry position. Two- He throws a haymaker, I high elbow shield (flinch style-freeze a technique in the middle and that’s what it will most likely be), chin-jab him, then shove him back, draw my gun from its concealed IWB carry position. Of course there are many other options but this works the best for me. Often my opponent will try to grab on and I go from the chin-jab (or spearing elbow another favorite of mine) to the clinch, and knees before shoving off to a weapons draw. Three- I go straight from my fence to a weapons draw. four- I go straight for my weapon bypassing the fence (best of all for a fast resolution).

But what I am talking about here (MMA or a method of unarmed struggle) is the interim moments between being unarmed to being armed. Not all gun fights start off as gun fights (same for the knife, etc). We need some form of a platform for this transition and, or, to keep us in the fight long enough (before being put out or overwhelmed) to get to a weapon (one you have on your person or one from the environment).

I think any combative platform has to provide a method of dealing with all the ranges (stand off, face to face, and the ground) and more importantly a way to smoothly transition between these ranges. Therefore, an unarmed method is a viable and important component to ones self-defense method. It is unfortunate very few folks teach a method of knife fighting, gun fighting, stick (improvised impact weapons) fighting, and a standup, grappling, method that is oriented to the modern battlefield of the modern streets where many thugs are armed with firearms, teams (multiples), and or other weapons, and employ various methods of a approach and contact.

I think that most of us have to patch stuff together in a way that makes sense the best we can on our own. This may mean cross training or studying different systems (6 mo. to a year at a time) until we have a foundation that can be brought together by some of the methods I mentioned earlier i.e. seminars, short training courses with credible combative instructors, vids, books, etc. However one can certainly train in a preferred system as long as he/she chooses. I think the point is that one should be able to fight in the unarmed arena as well as the armed and have the ability to smoothly and seamlessly transition between the two.

darrianation · 07-02-2006, 12:28 PM

Let’s take a look at what the MMAs brought to the table that might be useful for those seeking a combative platform.

One- MMA has taken the “Take what is useful” approach in taking the most proven and high performance entities from various martial arts such as Muay Thai, western boxing, BJJ, western wrestling, and Russian sambo (all high performance systems in their own right). So they combined the best of the best of the unarmed systems.

Two- The MMAs have smoothed out the seams between the three ranges of combat (that they train in) i.e. standup striking, standup grapple, and the ground grapple.

Three- It is simple to learn (relatively speaking when compared to many other systems) it is straight forward and an aggressively direct system that at its core is designed to take your opponent into uncharted territory as quickly as possible and end it (within the limitation of HTH).

Four- Proven or filtered through dynamic, fully resisting opponents. Only those moves that are successful to a high degree of repeatability finds wide spread acceptance, something that most SD programs can rarely hope to find in their training environment (due to safety issues). The MMA have proven themselves to be a robust multi-dimensional unarmed fighting platform.

I think the most important elements of this are “Filtration, ranges, and transitions between the ranges”. A close second is a highly capable striking platform followed by it’s grappling both stand-up and the ground.

Some folks may say that the MMA is beneath them and not worthy of discussion when it comes to “real” self-defense. Does that mean knocking folks out isn’t relevant to self-defense? We could talk about the differences between the MMAs and combatives such as one is geared for sport and the other the street, etc. But even combatives has both an unarmed and armed component. I think it is much easier to find an armed combative class or a good unarmed combative class but it is more difficult to find a combined armed and unarmed combatives class. So, I am talking about cross training here.

I think most folks out there are looking for that silver bullet and The MMAs is not a silver bullet but in a real go there is a lot off crashing and banging going on and I think those who criticize the MMAs have most likely never stepped foot in a ring or the cage or even trained with any MMA guy (truly brutal stuff). Go to an actual gym and train under a real coach and work with real athletes. Of course that might involve getting your ass beat on a regular basis (until you get caught up on the curve). MMA guys tend to be in shape, they tend to be tough, and they tend be strong, and oh yah….they also tend be skilled. I have been involved with several unarmed systems over the years and these MMA folks will blast though any of them.

Folks often talk about they suck (MMA) for SD because they can’t use a knife, or a gun, gouging, or biting, etc….what a crock of shit. Nothing prevents those folks from seeking additional training or using other methods very effectively in a “real” street fight along with their boxing skills and stand up grapple, etc. I know plenty of MMA folks that can fight with their hands, on the ground, and with their guns, and they can bite, gouge, and crush tracheas with the best of them.

Folks say that grappling shouldn’t be used in the street. I agree, however, the MMA can teach you how to keep the fight standing in the first place and perfect the scramble to get back to your feet, or to put into effect the ground and pound if that is your last option available left to you in the encounter. Another example, many MMA guys can fight so aggressively in the stand-up in large part because they are confident in their clinch and ground fighting capability.

As far as me and many of my MMA friends are concerned, who work in careers that put us in harms way with real violence will keep seeking, perfecting, and using what works against live fully resisting opponents who have an determination to kill and are capable of doing so. And that includes best practices from a variety of disciplines and subject matter.

What we should be seeking is a systematic approach to INTEGRATION and training the pieces in a manner that will allow them to fit seamlessly when brought together. These are separate components from footwork, hand movement, body mechanics, drawstroke...all in sync with your movement patterns and all hinged on the same frame.

I think and I have at least proven to myself within my knowledge, experience, and training that MMA can be a major player in close quarters combat for the pro or for the private citizen. What I would suggest for those who do not live where there are established fully integrated combative schools is to find a MMA gym, get some modern firearms training (tactical and combative-many also teach the knife), and drill them in a way that provides a mechanism for their integration several times a week.

I think a striped down version of the MMAs fit rather nicely into combatives. The MMA will need to be integrated into the combatives of course, but the final product will be a system that can transition from range to range (ranges- stand off, stand-up striking, stand-up grapple, to the ground grapple, and back up to the feet again), and weapon to weapon, (weapons transitions- punching and kicking, clinch and knees, takedowns and G&P, to escapes back up to the feet again, or to a gun/knife, etc). “Taking what is useful” and proven from several high performance entities filtered through capable and competent opponents who are fully resisting.

06-30-2006, 11:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	MMA and combatives Recently I have been criticized for my stance on MMA as to its relevance and relation to combatives and self-defense. I wonder what you folks think. Do the MMAs have a place in combatives? And how legitimate is its roll in combatives? I do not want this to be a long diatribe on my part but I want to give you folks some of my thoughts on the matter. I first began martial arts in 1976 with Judo making the switch to karate in 1977 after an injury that made dear ol’ mom have second thoughts about letting me continue in Judo (Pop Warner football and wrestling was okay but not Judo, hmmmm…but then again Judo was brutal much more so than karate). My biggest influences in the martial arts were wrestling, karate, and Muay Thai until I got out of the service after Desert Storm. In the Military I was exposed to combatives (not good one’s mind you) with SCARS and LINE. My military and combat experiences changed my whole way of thinking about my goals and my MA training, a paradigm shift if you will. I began to search for a martial platform, combative in nature, that would help me both professionally (tactical) and privately (self-defense). In this endeavor I talked to many knowledgeable folks, read many informative books, I investigated many different platforms, this includes weapons based arts (FMAs), sport based MAs, traditional MAs (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) and armed combative training. As I sought out this knowledge I was very dissatisfied with what I was finding. As an example of this (one example of many) I went into a self-defense school that touted self-defense with Muay Thai, Brazilian jujitsu, and Filipino knife fighting. As I observed the classes and talked to students and instructors I found that each class was done for an hour at a time individually (not integrated), knife drills were always begun with the knife in hand with no mention of drawstroke or mid-fight weapon’s access, and competition strategies were mentioned several times. I was disappointed in this and I left never to return. Over the years I have met folks and worked with folks, professionals in the security/protection fields who were former spec-ops folks (as well as some folks who were never in the military) who crossed trained in both Muay Thai and BJJ. In fact, I heard mention, on many occasions, Fairtex in San Francisco and Oregon MT training groups (chalambok may know more about this than I do) and I have seen many of these guys wearing the Gracie colors. I also, as another filter saw (and appreciated) the possibilities in combat application watching such events as the UFCs and other cage fighting venues. I (myself) have never formally trained in MMA or BJJ, but I have had many opportunities to train with folks who had MMA/BJJ (and MT/boxing) back grounds and, or, who were competent MMA folks in their own right (training with them one on one and in small groups). I saw how effective these folks were with what they did both armed and unarmed. I began to incorporate grappling, both wrestling and the newly acquired grappling skills into my overall fighting matrix. I have found this to be a very robust way of covering the unarmed portions of my overall skill-sets. I finally found what was missing. So in the end we have a combined platform of unarmed skill-sets and armed skill-sets which has been fully integrated. I believe strongly that some type/form of MMA to be a simple and effective way to turbo charge your overall combatives platform, but it isn’t the only way. First, I think that in a combative situation weapons come first because it changes the tactical nature of the encounter and brings about faster control and dominance of the situation. However we may not always be able to get to our weapons prior to the fight. Then our unarmed skill-sets become the foundation or framework in which we access our weapons. Next, who are the best counter grapplers? Grapplers are. Fights do go to the ground in a self-defense situation (at a high percentage), I would personally NEVER recommend going to the ground intentionally, that is a big invitation to a boot party if his friends are around. However, you may slip, he may tackle you, etc (this shit happens even to well trained and skilled folks), So your grappling skills should have the priority to keep you upright (on your feet) or get you back to your feet if you have fallen or were taken down. If for some reason you end up on the bottom and your opponent has you in his mount and you should fail with simple bridge and roll/sweeps to dismount him then you need your grappling skills to provide a conduit to weapons access both in the stand up grapple and the on the ground. Sometimes, you need, what I call the “nasties” option that is biting, gouging, etc. Although, these still may fail by themselves they may create that opening to escape the mount or an opportunity to access a weapon. In a train collision of two forward driving opponents, that double leg takedown, before all momentum is lost, because of the bigger guy’s force is grater than your own, may provide an opportunity to go for your gun or knife, etc. So, instead of the ground and pound or some sort of progression leading to an armbar or Kimura, we can look for opportunities to access our weapons earlier and establish dominance sooner in the encounter. I am not saying training in the mixed martial arts (or a combo of MT/BJJ) is the only way, but it is one of the best I have found, and this “hypothesis” which has been tested (by many-with far more real world experience than I) both in high intensity force on force drills against fully resisting opponents who are both capable and competent at full-out street speeds, and in the real world to be truly robust. I am not necessarily saying MMA as a stand alone training platform but a cross trained platform that incorporates a stand up striking platform such as boxing or Muay Thai, etc, some form of grappling platform such as BJJ, Sambo, or Judo, etc, and a weapons platform such as a modern armed combatives, etc, as an example. We also must consider eye attacks (gouging, raking, etc,) such as taught in many systems (I really like Rich Dimitri’s shredder for instance), strikes to the throat (web hand, ax hand, etc). Also the combative strikes i.e. chin-jab, spearing elbow, hammer fist, elbow, knees, face smash, tiger claw, etc. Incorporated, with biting, headbutts (be careful here), and other nasty unarmed as well as armed movements and techniques, as well as mindset and tactics (we learn in the combatives) The Army did it (BJJ) with their combatives program…although in my opinion they are too fixated on the grappling, but still a fairly good program from what I have seen and heard. Sorry, I did not mean for this to turn into a diatribe but it certainly looks like one. I am interested in your input so, what say you? __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

06-30-2006, 02:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	Very well put TB. I have a small core of simple techniques as well, defults, strikes, weapons access, ruse, and tactical movents. The simplist explaination, the one that takes the fewest leaps in logic is generally the best. I pretty much only train with those now. Good comments. __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

06-30-2006, 03:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	I did want to mention and I failed to say, when I talk of MMA I am using the term very loosely. What I really mean, is that we should have some capability in the striking range, stand up grapple, and at least some basic ground grappling skills to affect an escape or weapons draw. I am not necessarily talking about black belts in BJJ cross training in years of Muay Thai or training full time in an actual MMA say Pancrase, etc, for the next ten years ( maybe a year may suffice). Although I personally have no problem with folks doing so, I think a stripped down version of a method of basic strikes, sprawling, and escapes converted into a combative model would suffice quite nicely. Personally I believe in eclecticism and personalization. I think no one fighting method should be a cookie cutter approach to the masses. I think you learn, you adapt it for the individual, take what is useful and robust for your personal goals and streamline your method for a core group of simple, stout, and aggressive tactics and techniques. If your goal is self-defense (in the tactical trades there may be further specialization than what the average civilian will need for SD) we do not need to train to fight boxers in a boxing match or a BJJ fighter in a BJJ match or MMA fighter in a cage match etc. We need a small core of basics from each category with an emphases on preflight strategies, weapons access, striking, and finally grappling even if it is just a small number of escapes and a stand up method (to protect you while standing). And a way to bridge it together, i.e. mid-fight transitions from unarmed to being armed (even if that is nothing more than accessing OC spray or a ball point pen, etc). I find that many systems can be striped down and condensed for its most robust features maybe 75% or in soma case more or less cut out without decreasing its effectiveness (this increases efficiency). That is what I personally believe in. __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

07-01-2006, 02:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
Garland Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 5,013 Groans: 1 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	I think that the whole MMA vs. combatives thing has been done ad nauseum. The argument almost always seems to involve two camps saying very similar things but being unable to come to see eye to eye. Here's how I see it; MMA- striking, clinch, and grappling range...could be a mix of just about any or all of the following; boxing, wrestling, bjj, shooto, judo, muay thai, kyokushin, to the almost untrained amateurs one can view in many local venues. Pros - pretty extensive unarmed tool box, which may also...depending on the school or instructor, include dirty pool tactics you don't get to use in a sportive fighting event- viz, headbutts, stomping, tailhooking, grabbing the collarbone, instant breaks (some things from BJJ and Judo look alot like Silat if applied quick....so, i.e. "snap" instead of "tap".) -Train almost all techniques live, with close to full speed and random sparring. Cons -rarely will an MMA practitioner train weapons. -often the quick and dirty tactics are neglected. -multiple opponents, and scenario training in MMA is almost unheard of, unless the school does the whole gambit (RBSD, MMA, combatives, etc) COMBATIVES Also pretty vague, can be Fairbarn/Applegate stuff, could be "Combat Hapkido", could be the FMA (Sayoc/PT and DT), could be Crucible type stuff, could be Peyton Quinn, or...yuck, Marc MacYoung type stuff, could be RBSD, could be stuff presented by JKD guys who've decided to step on that platform, could even include the RBSD guys... (for the sake of arguement I'm assuming it's what I'm most fond and familiar with personally; FMA, JKD, and stuff like Geoff Thompson and the Shivworks people put out.) Pros -weapons work (sometimes of variable quality, viz, it could vary in quality from RBSD, Marc MacYoung, and combat hapkido stuff to supherb FMA stuff. -work on multiple opponents scenarios and woofing type training, more often found with RBSD groups...and it's quality varies as well. -mentality, awareness, common fucking sense, legal, and psychological considerations MAY be present in the curriculum, although are not necessarilly present. Cons -really can't be trained realisticly, or lively...you can try, but the mentality isn't there. -not working against real agressive force. -even more variable quality material then the MMA. -false information which can lead to serious fucking repercussions. -some stuff is tested, other stuff is theoretical, again depending on the quality of the curriculum, arts sampled-or in question, and the quality of the teachers themselves. Overview- both "mma" and "combatives" are loose terms, as schools that teach what could technichally be considered each vary in the quality and breadth of what is being covered, not just techniques, but mentality, physical training, legalities, deconstructing the anatomy, and what is acceptable to use and practical to use at different scales on the "ladder" of physical response to agression. Solution- FUCKING CROSS-TRAIN. I love the JKD approach...take what is useful, discard what is useless...so, many JKD guys/and girls include RBSD, MMA, Combatives, and even TMA into their mix. Think about it... what tools would you like in what range??? Here's my personal idea of what type of tool sets I'd like at different ranges. Best for stand-up striking- boxing, panatucan/fma/sikaran, muay thai, savate, and kyokushin are pretty much the top contenders. transition between stand-up striking and trapping = jun fan gung fu. Trapping-FMA, and Wing Chun... clinching-Muay thai, or straight to grappling throws- judo, shooto, wrestling, catch wrestling... jiu jitsu, bjj...silat, sambo, csw. (in no particular order)...and maybe, MAYBE some aikido principles. ground grappling- BJJ, shooto, sambo, csw, jiu jitsu, judo, wrestling, catch wrestling. mean spirited shit- consulte greys anatomy, kino mutai, dumog, and jaded and perverse imagination. edged and impact weapons- the FMA (namely Inosanto blend, Dekiti Tirsia, Pekiti Tirsia, and Sayoc Kali) and western fencing. Improvised weapons- fairbarn stuff, as well as imaginative stuff...paladin press, gutter fighting, etc...stuff...boom projectiles- proper use of firearms. (nobody throws fucking knives anymore...unless they're knifethrower...sorry dude.) sickening shit- post graduate Chemical and Biology classes. maintainence- weight training, plyometrics, isometrics, kettlebell work, cardio work, yoga, DANCE...preferably ballet, none of that goofy ass martha gramme shit, and perhaps swimming, climbing, and mountain biking. (the psychological will to hurt, the heart and perseverance, and natural talent, are all things that can't be taught...even though they matter the most...sorry!) __________________ homo homini lupus

07-01-2006, 12:21 PM	#10 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	I think, for the most part folks have a pretty good idea what the “ideal” self-defense or combative system looks like in their heads. The problem is that the “ideal” is pretty much non-existent, to far away, or to expensive to be a viable option for many (there maybe age requirements as well for shooting schools, etc). We all realize that we need knowledge of the criminal environment (selection and attack), preflight strategies, psychological preparation, tactical preparation, physical preparation, mechanical preparation, technical preparation, and gear. I hear (read, etc) questions all the time that goes something like this, “Where I live there are only X, Y, and Z martial arts to choose from, what would be the best choice?” If X is Aikido, Y is karate, Z is boxing (and these are the only choices), what would you suggest? I guess since we are talking about self-defense the best option isn’t there but boxing maybe the best available option. If the only option available is A= Traditional Japanese jujitsu, B= Brazilian jujitsu, C= boxing, and D= mixed martial arts (and these were your only options), what would be the best choice? Maybe the MMA would be the best option. Why? Because BJJ offers only a ground option and boxing offers only a stand up option, whereas MMA offers both. I think if you had an “ideal option” like what Thai Bri suggests (which is very good) then I think the whole discussion on the MMAs or any sport/traditional based martial art issue would be a mute point. I think it is a significant point only in the lack of other alternatives. One could train in boxing, BJJ, Muay Thai or MMA then supplement that training with combative seminars or short combative training course as well as books and videos from such folks as Geoff Thompson, Rich Dimitri, Kelly McCann, etc. Not the “ideal” but a better option than nothing at all. I don’t think you need to train in a MMA , etc, for years and years (unless you enjoy it and wish to do so), but maybe a year might suffice to learn the basics and what is useful to you as a individual, then maybe trying something else. Maybe cross training or making a switch to an FMA for a year maybe a good choice. This can give you a basic understanding of what is robust for you as an individual before moving on etc. I know some will disagree with this but those basic 5-10% movements and techniques of a system is what ends up being used in combat anyway regardless of the 100’s of techniques you have learned. __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

06-30-2006, 12:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
Thai Bri Premiere Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,423 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	I think actuall self protection is a simple matter. None of the theories are hard to learn, you just have to put it into your daily life. Here I'm talking about ways to avoid / escape / dissuade and attack, as well as the use of the Fence whilst dissuading. Mindset is important too, i.e. the willingness to fight like a cornered lion if you need to. As for fighting? That's pretty simple too. I like the idea of hitting first, and work on that to the extent that I have a few blows that are (almost) guaranteed knockouts, as well as the sneakiness to get 'em in. Now for the rest of the fight if all that other stuff doesn't work? Well, that's just a support system. And guess what? That's simple too! Martial arts are too complex and too dogmatic. To support all the above all you really need is a handful of effective blows that cover a small range of positions, a basic understanding of grappling, and some dirty dirty tricks. With appropriate practice you can get to an effective standard really quickly. You guys in cultues were you can carry weapons also need to train the weapon of course. Forget MMA, Thai Boxing, BJJ etc. Yes, train with these types soetimes. But only to find things that work for you, and keep the words "self protection" in mind, so as to not get distracted into learning the next omoplata (sp) or high kick. Hope that helps.

06-30-2006, 02:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
MolonLabe Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	http://strategosintl.com/pdfs/The-Cage-and-Reality.pdf

06-30-2006, 11:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
MolonLabe Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	The article simply stated that MMA does not represent the totality of what is present or necesary in modern worled skills developed for armed combat. I agree that unarmed skill-sets; including but not limited to MMA; will allow access to weapons, help get/keep you on your feet, and will give you a better chance to affect an escape or draw a weapon if you do end up on the ground. As long as students are incorporating other types of training (effective armed defense against multiple opponents with weapons), their shouldnt be a problem. I feel that sports have the advantage of allowing you to feel your (resisting) opponents and move to an advantageous positions. Yes, there are rules you must follow, but I feel the benifits outweight the costs. As far as condensing systems to the most effective moves, the 25% (if it's that high) you keep may be different for each person. It's just a matter of mastery, and finding the moves or techniques that work for you.

07-01-2006, 12:49 PM	#11 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	Let’s look at this from a different perspective for a moment. I see a lot of folks including many friends, acquaintances, and associates, who already have a tremendous amount of tactical training (firearms, knife, prisoner restraint, and other specialized training, etc), but have had no real martial arts training (or some years ago as a teenager) seek out something to fill in the unarmed option.. These folks may be professionals who want to either improve their unarmed fighting skills for their job or just for everyday self-defense off the job. What would be a good platform for them? A lot of folks I know have gravitated toward MMA. Muay Thai, or BJJ, myself included. What they are looking for is a supplement to their tactical training that offers them a simple robust unarmed method for dealing with folks in the bad breath range. They all realize that there will be a need for some modification to what they study so those unarmed skills can be integrated with their weapons skills especially mid-fight deployment skills. I think they take that seriously and I have been to many training courses that teach and emphasize that issue. I think for the most part these folks have paid attention to it and are good at doing it. Anyway, what would you suggest to someone who is already a tactical operator (law enforcement, military, security professional who already has the weapons and tactics stuff down) who wants to improve his unarmed options? __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

07-02-2006, 12:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
darrianation Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,161 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts	Let’s take a look at what the MMAs brought to the table that might be useful for those seeking a combative platform. One- MMA has taken the “Take what is useful” approach in taking the most proven and high performance entities from various martial arts such as Muay Thai, western boxing, BJJ, western wrestling, and Russian sambo (all high performance systems in their own right). So they combined the best of the best of the unarmed systems. Two- The MMAs have smoothed out the seams between the three ranges of combat (that they train in) i.e. standup striking, standup grapple, and the ground grapple. Three- It is simple to learn (relatively speaking when compared to many other systems) it is straight forward and an aggressively direct system that at its core is designed to take your opponent into uncharted territory as quickly as possible and end it (within the limitation of HTH). Four- Proven or filtered through dynamic, fully resisting opponents. Only those moves that are successful to a high degree of repeatability finds wide spread acceptance, something that most SD programs can rarely hope to find in their training environment (due to safety issues). The MMA have proven themselves to be a robust multi-dimensional unarmed fighting platform. I think the most important elements of this are “Filtration, ranges, and transitions between the ranges”. A close second is a highly capable striking platform followed by it’s grappling both stand-up and the ground. Some folks may say that the MMA is beneath them and not worthy of discussion when it comes to “real” self-defense. Does that mean knocking folks out isn’t relevant to self-defense? We could talk about the differences between the MMAs and combatives such as one is geared for sport and the other the street, etc. But even combatives has both an unarmed and armed component. I think it is much easier to find an armed combative class or a good unarmed combative class but it is more difficult to find a combined armed and unarmed combatives class. So, I am talking about cross training here. I think most folks out there are looking for that silver bullet and The MMAs is not a silver bullet but in a real go there is a lot off crashing and banging going on and I think those who criticize the MMAs have most likely never stepped foot in a ring or the cage or even trained with any MMA guy (truly brutal stuff). Go to an actual gym and train under a real coach and work with real athletes. Of course that might involve getting your ass beat on a regular basis (until you get caught up on the curve). MMA guys tend to be in shape, they tend to be tough, and they tend be strong, and oh yah….they also tend be skilled. I have been involved with several unarmed systems over the years and these MMA folks will blast though any of them. Folks often talk about they suck (MMA) for SD because they can’t use a knife, or a gun, gouging, or biting, etc….what a crock of shit. Nothing prevents those folks from seeking additional training or using other methods very effectively in a “real” street fight along with their boxing skills and stand up grapple, etc. I know plenty of MMA folks that can fight with their hands, on the ground, and with their guns, and they can bite, gouge, and crush tracheas with the best of them. Folks say that grappling shouldn’t be used in the street. I agree, however, the MMA can teach you how to keep the fight standing in the first place and perfect the scramble to get back to your feet, or to put into effect the ground and pound if that is your last option available left to you in the encounter. Another example, many MMA guys can fight so aggressively in the stand-up in large part because they are confident in their clinch and ground fighting capability. As far as me and many of my MMA friends are concerned, who work in careers that put us in harms way with real violence will keep seeking, perfecting, and using what works against live fully resisting opponents who have an determination to kill and are capable of doing so. And that includes best practices from a variety of disciplines and subject matter. What we should be seeking is a systematic approach to INTEGRATION and training the pieces in a manner that will allow them to fit seamlessly when brought together. These are separate components from footwork, hand movement, body mechanics, drawstroke...all in sync with your movement patterns and all hinged on the same frame. I think and I have at least proven to myself within my knowledge, experience, and training that MMA can be a major player in close quarters combat for the pro or for the private citizen. What I would suggest for those who do not live where there are established fully integrated combative schools is to find a MMA gym, get some modern firearms training (tactical and combative-many also teach the knife), and drill them in a way that provides a mechanism for their integration several times a week. I think a striped down version of the MMAs fit rather nicely into combatives. The MMA will need to be integrated into the combatives of course, but the final product will be a system that can transition from range to range (ranges- stand off, stand-up striking, stand-up grapple, to the ground grapple, and back up to the feet again), and weapon to weapon, (weapons transitions- punching and kicking, clinch and knees, takedowns and G&P, to escapes back up to the feet again, or to a gun/knife, etc). “Taking what is useful” and proven from several high performance entities filtered through capable and competent opponents who are fully resisting. __________________ The law of tyranny: 1. Any power that can be abused will be abused 2. Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. 3. If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika . Coming soon Jan 20th 2009!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: