In exercise and sports science, there is this scientific principle called training specificity. Simply put, if you want to get good or improve in a certain ability or skill, one's training should encorporate the actual skills involved and/or subsets within it. If want a bigger bench press, train using actual bench press equipment and increase resistance incrementally. Makes sense right?
Then how come some people can't use that same reasoning with the effectiveness of Martial Arts. They hold on to tradition (not saying tradition in itself is bad), conjecture, and unsubstantiated 3rd person information.
Haters always say, "yeah but MMA isn't real fighting." But that's all they really say and offer no real answer/solution to real fighting training. If you use the principle of specificity, MMA training is "as real as it gets," and most closely resembles "real fighting." Is it perfect? No. But it's the best and most documented and sensible litmus test to what will hold up in combat. It's becoming harder and harder to convince informed people that training the "deady/dirty" techniques with predetermined outcomes and non-resisting/static opponents is going to be effective against a skilled opponent.
Then the haters will say, "what about MMA'ers and multiple opponents?" I see time and time again this knock, yet they offer no viable answer to multiples themselves. How in the blue hell are you gonnna handle 2 plus attackers if you can't even handle one? Shite, I'll put my money on Couture, V. Silva, Ortiz, or BJ Penn versus multiples over some "Master" in multiples whose training consists of attacks coming at him one at a time.
What about weapons? The same principle applies. Weapons training should be "as real as it gets" and I think people like the "Dog Brothers" have it right. This is an area where I'll admit MMA training is lacking.
Then how come some people can't use that same reasoning with the effectiveness of Martial Arts. They hold on to tradition (not saying tradition in itself is bad), conjecture, and unsubstantiated 3rd person information.
Haters always say, "yeah but MMA isn't real fighting." But that's all they really say and offer no real answer/solution to real fighting training. If you use the principle of specificity, MMA training is "as real as it gets," and most closely resembles "real fighting." Is it perfect? No. But it's the best and most documented and sensible litmus test to what will hold up in combat. It's becoming harder and harder to convince informed people that training the "deady/dirty" techniques with predetermined outcomes and non-resisting/static opponents is going to be effective against a skilled opponent.
Then the haters will say, "what about MMA'ers and multiple opponents?" I see time and time again this knock, yet they offer no viable answer to multiples themselves. How in the blue hell are you gonnna handle 2 plus attackers if you can't even handle one? Shite, I'll put my money on Couture, V. Silva, Ortiz, or BJ Penn versus multiples over some "Master" in multiples whose training consists of attacks coming at him one at a time.
What about weapons? The same principle applies. Weapons training should be "as real as it gets" and I think people like the "Dog Brothers" have it right. This is an area where I'll admit MMA training is lacking.
Comment