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

[JustaFighter]

They do? Wow that's a cool idea actually! But I guess the stungun can simulate stabbing motions of a knife attack, but not really cutting/slashing?

The only reason(as I see it) you would want to pull out a knife on someone would be to cause more damage/harm then what your hands could do with more ease and alot faster. And of course the situation would have to be justifiable. IE your life is on the line.(Since we're all properly socialized people and wouldn't do such a thing on a whim. Right?) Now within this context your goal of attacking someone with a knife should not be to cut him up and teach him a lesson but to stick it inside of him to cause the most damage possible to the individual, and that you can be the one standing at the end of the horrible altercation. So training w/ a stun gun doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Getting the s#!t shocked out of you is a great way to learn that you just messed up and figuratively speaking at least 3 inches of steel has entered your body and has caused injury. IMHO.

I guess what I'm trying to say is who care about being cut. It's getting stabbed you should worry about.

[gabbah]

Obviously. But it's pretty close, and it's certainly the closest humane way to train for combat to date. So much so that the Army has already adopted it as it's empty handed combatitives and even uses Bjj techniques to fight against knives(and they do this full contact, using a stungun in place of a knife).

They do? Wow that's a cool idea actually! But I guess the stungun can simulate stabbing motions of a knife attack, but not really cutting/slashing?

[DickHardman]

martial arts is like religion inmop. there are many different ways to achieve the same goal, yet you have people from all sides claiming their way is the only way and everyone else is wrong.

[DickHardman]

mike, i think uke is just trolling. he keeps claiming you said things you never said, and the more you point this out, the more he does it.

[Tom Yum]

Combat Sports

Uke, while I agree combat sports don't train to kill 100%, they certainly can.

Pankration, as practiced by the Ancient civilizations, was fought until the death. Men were choked passed unconcsciousness, dropped on their heads and beaten passed KO. Sometimes weapons were thrown in the fray.

Muaythai, until the 1920's, was a sport where participants fought until death. Rope-gloves were used, meshed with crushed glass. If you buy into perceptions or personality as a sole gauge of fighting prowess, muaythai fighters from Thailand are just poor, underpriveldged, skinny, wimpy looking, peacefull, non-threatening asian dudes.

Bareknuckle boxing in England and the US were fought until practitioners were laying in pools of their own blood and near dead.

The early days of the UFC were as no holds barred as you can get.

Remember kick boxer Pat Smith? He KTFO of Scott Morris the ninjitsu practitioner, who aggressively rushed the kickboxer and tried to take him down. Pat kept his balance, took the mount and elbowed Morris until his face was a bloody mess and he was badly KTFO.

Remember the Gordeau-Gracie fight? Gerard Gordeau got outgrappled by Royce Gracie. Gracie said that Gordeau bit his ear during the fight. Once Gracie turned the tables, he didn't release his choke when Gordeau tapped and required 250-lb Big John Macarthy to yank him off once he got it in.

I know there are huge tactical differences in the approach of combatives/TMA systems compared to MMA, but the strategic approach is to render your opponent unable to fight.

[Tom Yum]

Teach a man who is 5'4, 150lbs boxing or MMA and put him up against a man who is 6'0, 190lbs but has had a lot of streetfights and done some bouncing and see how well the 5'4 guy does.

Did you ever see Genki Sudo fight Butterbean? Sudo is about 5'6" and maybe 150lbs. Butterbean is about 6'...........................and about 350 lbs. Bean is a superheavyweight toughman champion who KOs heavyweights and has been in some outta the ring brawls.

In the first round, Sudo tookdown Butterbean. Again, Sudo is giving up nearly 200 lbs and is severly lacking in strength compared to the Bean. Sure its a ring match, but the action and contact are real.

Second round, Bean manages to nearly knock Sudo against the ropes with a well time jab, but Sudo does something that almost resmebles a WWE move and looks like he's in trouble as Bean just falls on top of him. Sudo, using his MMA training, maneuvers himself to get a heel hook on Bean.

Bean taps because he can either let his hamhock sized ankle snap from the smaller man's leverage against it or continue on and earn a paycheck in another fight.

Sure they could've fought to the death (like Muaythai matches before 1920 were fought) - Bean would have been on the mat, struggling to get up off his broken ankle using the ropes, while Sudo kicked his head in. Or in a cleaner, more humane way, Sudo could've choked him beyond unconsciousness.

Personally, I would have cringed if Sudo would have killed Bean.

[jubaji]

[90% of fights go to the ground, but 90% of self defense situations DO NOT. .

.............................

[Uke]

I don't think there is one "ideal" way to train. I think eveyone can agree (Mike has certainly said this plenty of times) that there are plenty of things that need to be addressed for self-defense that aren't found in sport fighting; that includes things like mass attack, weapons and techniques that are illegal in the ring.

http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/showthread.php?p=201986#post201986

Post #46 pretty much addresses and answers everything you wrote.

No one is suggesting that sport is the be all end all of self-defense, but I really don't understand why some SD people are so adamant that sports are completely useless even though they use many of the same tools as sportsmen. If anyone has ways of improving on sport training methods for reality I'd love to hear about them, but denying the utility of many (not all) techniques that are legal in sport is just throwing out the baby with the bath water.

And no one ever suggested that anything was useless. This is how you and people like you keep a debate going on by arguing points that were never stated. Of course the tools are the same in sport and SD, but the approaches are significantly different. If they weren't, MMA fighters wouldn't have to seek out weapon skills, disarm skills, awareness skills, and multiple attack skills. Once you acknowledge that those elements are what distinguish reality from sport, you can't just oversimplify "a couple of skills ya need to pick up in order to be well rounded." Those elements are the core of SD and require a focus on them exclusive from sport so that your reactions will be based on reality and not a rule based environment.

Say you're attacked and you instinctively front kick the guy away from you because that's what you've been working in kickboxing class. Now you've created ample distance for your attacker to reach for a weapon. Or what if you and a guy get into a conflict and he grabs you and you take him down and he rolls into your guard. What are you going to do then? Say "Oops, I didn't mean that because this is real" and ask for a reset?

The point is that if you want your responses to be geared towards RBSD, then you need to train that and that only. Mixing and matching and playing the games that you and Mike are suggesting will confuse your responses and eventually cost you. It holds the same for SD trying to compete in MMA. They'd get disqualified the minute they did something illegal that came second nature to them.

How many times have we seen MMA fighters get penalized because they headbutted or kicked someone in an event that was different than the one that they were accustomed to competing in? They did what was natural to them. They responded in the manner in which they trained.

You can let Mike Brewer convince you that your responses won't slow down or get confused by fighting outside where you're accustomed to fighting, but try it on the street and find out for yourself. You might have the luxury of second guessing yourself in the ring because its not an all out fight where you might pay with your life. But if you think rolling the dice with your own life is a cool or fun thing to do, that's up to you.

If you train MMA or any other method of sport fighting, there is a very STRONG possibility that you'll attempt a sporting maneuver in response to any form of aggression thrown at you. And once you find yourself in a familiar position that's fine for sport but terrible for a street fight, you better hope and pray that the dude you're fighting doesn't make you pay for it.

That's why you train your reflexes and your brain a certain way. That's why once you've realized toward what end your training, you dedicate your focus to that end and you don't mess around with that focus by contemplating how you can implement sports into your SD reactions. Sure, you can work out like an MMA fighter. You can refine your strikes by doing drills and using conditioning methods that are found in MMA.

But the buck stops there. As soon as you begin using their approach to combat you've begun deviating away from your focus. Mike Brewer will tell you that its okay to jab a guy repeatedly in a fight while shuffling away from his power hand. I would tell you like my teacher taught me like his teacher taught him that a smart SD fighter doesn't get into fights. As soon as an altercation begins, a SD man closes the distance and let's all the stops go. Strikes. Bites. Headbutts. Groin shots. Everything goes and explosively. You break your man down until you have opportunity to finish it.

That's why 90% of fights go to the ground, but 90% of self defense situations DO NOT. They're different. The mindset is different. And the approach is different.

Don't try to find a place in this debate by arguing against statements that were never made, Sagacious Lu. No one ever labeled anything as useless, and when you say things like that its only an attempt to make my points in this debate seem more hostile.

[Uke]

I have trained for more than 3 years. What's with all the personal hostility? And my experience comes from 23 different states and four countries - not just Colorado Springs. It's actually a pretty representative picture when you think about it. Both coasts, north to the Canadian border, south to the Mexico border, and several states in between. Countries in Asia, South America, and Europe. I'm pretty well travelled, Uke.

The reason that the 3 years is highlighted is that those are the credentials that you lay down when discussing how you know what you know. I have no doubt that you've been to tons of seminars and have been all over. But you aren't dropping any other names but the one that comes along with the three years of training. Who you know is irrelevant, Mike Brewer. Its what YOU know that's important here. Where you've been and who you've met means nothing. Just like all of your brawl stories aren't worth anything here, which means you only tell them in an attempt to convince people how tough you are, but there's no need for that if you've been there and done that. I know ex-cons and ex-leo who have seen more action than you who tell less stories about it.

And the quote you posted is not contradictory in any way to what I have said. I have never once denied that MMA is a sport and that - alone - it is not the most complete approach to self-defense. Again, I'd like to direct your attention ot the word "supplemental" in nearly every post I've made about using MMA methods to (here it comes again, so get ready) supplement reality-based training. But good try.

We weren't discussing the mindset or conditioning methods of MMA. Let's be honest here. You were saying that the sportive methods of combat found in MMA are okay to teach as self defense. You did the same on the topic with Boarspear when you suggested that you'd hit him if he was standing next to you. You had mentioned how you pushed someone who was wielding a knife and Boarspear's bullshit alarm IMMEDIATELY WENT OFF in his head. At that point, he didn't expect to hear that from you, but you stood your ground. He knew that anyone who had really studied combatives wouldn't create any additional distance between himself and a knife wielding attacker once he was close enough to lay a hand on him. That's a self defense maxim. But Mike Brewer will argue from now till eternity that he "pulled it off" and will teach that as a method of self defense. That's negligence as a teacher.

I'm glad you used the word "supplemental" and that you wrote that it is not the most complete approach to self-defense. But in your very own quote, you wrote that reality "reduces the effectiveness of MMA to a conditioning and mindset exercise, with your other training taking the lead as far as applicable skill for the situation." I've been saying that MMA science and conditioning methods are among the best because they create PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, so we already know this. You're the only one trying to expound on what you said beautifully the first time. The point being argued is that you're telling people that its okay to "try and pull off" sportive techniques like posturing, leglocks and other complicated submissions under the duress of a heavy adrenaline dump where weapons are present. The minute you said that you pushed that guy with the knife it drew a huge picture demonstrating towards which end your own training is geared: SPORT. You may not have seen that, but anybody who has any SD training saw that the minute you wrote it.

And as for the Defense Institute, I trained with Eric Lalone (one of the head instructors) before they opened that school. I've attended seminars there with David James, and I've sent my students to compete at their competitions in everything from kickboxing and MMA to stickfighting. I have trained under Dick Woods, the boxing coach who works there, and I continue to maintain friendships with several of the SF soldiers and students there. I know a whole lot better than you what they teach, and what their students train. They're good guys, and they see the benefits of allowing students concerned with self defense to cross over and augment (see also - supplement) their Vee-Arnis Jitsu training with things like kickboxing and grappling.

Eric Lalone is the head instructor of what? John Petrone is the man teaching the Professor's system at the Defense Institute. They make a clear distinction between what they teach for self defense and what they teach for MMA/kickboxing. I'm glad you've attended seminars with David James. David is my senior and I've know him for close to 20 years. And they're not just good guys ... according to you Mike Brewer they're premier men! And yes, VAJ does use thaiboxing and newaza jujitsu, hence the "jitsu" in VeeArnisJitsu. But its for conditioning strikes. And in newaza grappling they DO NOT teach laying on the ground, but they teach how to get up no matter how dirty you have to be to do it. I have never stated that these places do not train people for kickboxing/MMA. I have stated that they make the distinction between what is sport and what is reality .. a line you're trying to blur by saying that every approach is applicable to reality. After looking at cases like Lee Murray and Alex Gong you'd have to think twice before you push a guy with a knife or chase a criminal for a fair one. Again anyone interested in seeing the distinction that the Defense Institute makes need just click the following:

http://www.defenseinstitute.com/kickboxingprogram.html

[QUOTE-Mike Brewer]You don't have a leg to stand on and you can't prove in any way that MMA is detrimental when used as a suopplement to reality-based methods. So you're making stuff up. Just like BoarSpear and his backward magazine picture. I wrote in that thread that we all got that the dumbass's magazine was backward, but he still wants to think I didn't see it. He can't make a point worth listening to, so he goes for personal attacks. It's oh-so-predictable.[/QUOTE]

No matter what I've written, everyone of my posts addressed to you and most others aside from blatant idiots have contained fact based arguments. I haven't had to name drop or require cheer-leading from spectators who have had nothing useful in this debate.

Tell you what. Let's knock off the insults and do what I suggested, Uke. Take a stand. Fire a point at me. Make a good strong point on a firm position, and I'll defend my own points based on that. That hardly seems unfair. You know where I stand, what I study, who I've studied with, what jobs I have worked and for how long (even though you still like to say I've only trained for three years...this whole losing thing must really be getting to you), I've made my beliefs clear, and I'll even restate them again here so you don't have to go back and look for them.

Contrary to what you believe, I have taken a strong stand in every post addressed to you on any topic. I don't consider you a spammer like some of the other guys here, so I take the time out and write posts that contain not only a strong stance, but facts to back them up, just like the one you're reading. You continue to pat yourself on the back for arguments that you haven't won, but its because you have a deep desire to be right even when its plain and clear that you aren't. In my last post, I even went as far as to number the points in which you could respond to, but your responses are opinion based and have little to NO FACTS that support them.

I believe that a functional self-defense system assumes that weapons and multiple attackers are the most common types of engagements, and prepares for those things first. I believe that along those lines, one needs to stress conditioning - mental, emotional, and physical conditioning - in order to perform well under life and death stress. I believe that contact training is important if not elemental in such training. I believe that resisting opponents, unpredictable circumstances, and various other stresses should be included in training to produce fear, anxiety, stress, fatigue, confusion, and panic so that students can learn to fight through all of those things. And I believe that various sport martial arts, including boxing, kickboxing, sport grappling arts like Judo and BJJ, and yes, Mixed Martial Arts can provide valuable tools and techniques for moving closer to the goal of being a functional fighter when used in conjuction with non-sport methods as the primary focus.

I had to make a point here. I waited until you got to the core of your argument and you tried to convey the underlying message(s) of how you see this debate. It was important enough for you to feel that you should write it in bold so its no assumption that this passage contains the points you wished to drive home. I underlined the most important parts of you passage to do one thing: Demonstrate that your understanding of self defense and combatives are based on your own opinions and what you have chosen to believe. Unbeknownst to you Mike Brewer, there are facts and proven methods in SD/UC. Just above I stated that everyone of your responses is based on your own opinions, and in the very next passage you gave a great example.

Its common knowledge that one cannot argue against someone else's opinions. You can show that they are poorly formulated, but you cannot tell someone that they are wrong for feeling the way they do. All you do is talk about what you, Mike Brewer, believes and there are next to no facts to back them up. All opinion. Little to no facts.

I have pointed out that the techniques in SD/UC are not different than the sportive methods. Judo throws are judo throws. A hook is a hook, whether its in boxing or SD. A kick is a kick whether a tae kwon do, muay thai or SD man is delivering it. The point I've made dozens of times is that SD/UC is different in its approach. It cuts out the fluff, and seeks to use direct methods of engaging an opponent(s). If you want a better explanation look here on post #46:

http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/showthread.php?t=18800&page=4

The most important quality of SD/UC that separates it from sports like MMA, kickboxing and boxing is that practitioners don't have to be in professional shape to be effective. Being in great shape can only help any endeavor, but if your method won't be effective if you aren't in top shape then it reflects on your method. Teach a woman to box, or kickbox or try MMA and let her try to use those methods without spending considerable amount of time on her conditioning and see how well she'll fare in a mugging or a rape attempt. Teach a man who is 5'4, 150lbs boxing or MMA and put him up against a man who is 6'0, 190lbs but has had a lot of streetfights and done some bouncing and see how well the 5'4 guy does.

Do you even know why SD/UC has been revered all this time, Mike Brewer? Its because most of the pioneers of these methods were NOT big men. They taught men who were considered small how to fight with bigger and stronger men. Most Filipino masters aren't big men, but they'll kill you because their methods aren't based on strength or size. They don't need weight divisions or classes because its skill vs skill, not same weight vs same weight. Weapons equalize all the factors like size, weight and strength, which is why SD/UC is based on weapons. You can spend all of your time trying to reinvent something that has already been discovered, researched and refined if you want Mike Brewer, but MMA isn't offering anything that SD/UC hasn't already offered other than MMA's superior conditioning methods and sports science.

If you're attempting to say that MMA offers a better mindset than SD/UC for reality then you're foolish. How can a a method geared for sports dictate reality to a method geared for killing? Just the mindset to take a life alone is beyond anything that MMA teaches as far a mindset.

MMA is an event that hosts kickboxers that now use ground grappling methods due to having their asses handed to them in the first three events. Why Mike Brewer pretends that its become some super-sport science is anyone's guess. I brought up the fact that 99% MMA fighters DO NOT strike as well as K-1 kickboxers or grapple as well as Abu Dhabi champions. The reason that this information is important and relevant is because Mike Brewer keeps stating that SD and UC could use MMA striking and grappling to enhance the methods. I contend that traditional martial arts such as kickboxing karate and muay thai far outshine MMA in terms of striking ability and that's what we see in K-1. Abu Dhabi exhibits grappling arts such as sambo, BJJ and wrestling which are all traditional martial arts with superior grappling skills to MMA grappling skillsets. So the point is why would SD/UC take striking and ground grappling skillsets from MMA when traditional arts do it so much better and have proven that through competition?

It makes no sense to do that, just like it makes no sense to imply that MMA provides a mindset for reality when its predicated entirely upon referred matchups with pads, gloves and rules.

Its seems your entire point is that athleticism is athleticism, and any activity that improves your athleticism is a benefit to any training. I agree with that statement by itself. When you start trying to sneak in the MMA mindset and methods crap, that's where the debate begins and ends.

Show me the smashed facts! But first let me ask how facts can be smashed by your opinions alone? That makes no sense as all you offer are opinions based on what "you believe", Mike. And in the end whether anyone agrees with me or not, if MMA was all the things that Mike Brewer says they are everyone would be doing it. Mike Brewer knows this, and that's why he tries to blur yet another line and claim karate, muay thai and jujitsu drills are MMA. So by his logic the drills in those arts didn't exist until the last 9 years?

There's no double talk here. There's no accusing you of saying things that you have not said. There's only me agreeing with you that reality reduces the effectiveness of MMA to a conditioning and mindset exercise.

And I don't think there will ever be a consensus that I am right about anything here. In a SD school, definitely. On this website, I highly doubt it. So I guess you get to keep your $5 dollars because many will agree with you here on a pro-MMA site regardless what you've said. I'm sure many of them thought you said something that made sense on the soft and hard topic, so it wouldn't surprise me that they'd think you're saying something here.

[Tom Yum]

No doubt Mike, I guess there are some people that will argue that water isn't wet if they get pissed off enough.

Good Lord!

[Garland]

No doubt Mike, I guess there are some people that will argue that water isn't wet if they get pissed off enough.

water's wet? priceless! seriously, you're pulling my leg, right? Water ain't wet, bitch...

[DickHardman]

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

[J-Luck]

Sorry bout posting the above post here guys but I didnt get to refute him in time(i dont have the internet and am not here frequently) and the post got shut down.

It's strictly to show hiim he's an idiot and I hope I haven't interrupted anyone

[J-Luck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Luck
Much closer to 60 %(Christians that is).

nope. according to this website, its only 33% of the world, with all its differnt sects included.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Luck
Nope, hasn't been edited many times. From the newest manuscripts we have to the oldest there is a 3% change rate. Most of those changes are merely translation errors. Get your facts straight... it's not good to be THAT wrong.

haha, there are so many different versions of the bible, some saying things completely different from eachother. and i wasnt even talking about translation errors. the bibles actual contents have been edited by many different people over time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Luck
What does it matter who selected it to support their agenda? That's complete retoric and stupidity on your part to bring that up.

if you dont even care about the true origins and messages of your own religion thats your problem, not mine. then again, i wouldnt expect some do-rag wearin, john cena wannabe poser to care about the agendas behind things he "claims" to believe in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Luck
You find it funny that a book that's completely inconsistent with respected scripture, wasn't written by the person in the title, and was specifically written as heresy 100s of years after Thomas' death didn't make it into cannon scripture.

the only reason it didnt make it into cannon scripture was because it didnt fit into the "agendas" of the people who were selecting and discarding books in putting together the cannon bible. i find it suspect that the church, one of the richest and most powerful institutions in the world, would have a problem with a book depicting jesus as teaching his displices that there are multiple paths to god and for them to find their own way.

im not claiming anything to be right or wrong, but if you are going to put your entire faith into something then i suggest you ask yourself the tough questions.


Ok I will concede the first point. I appologise for not being up to date on that... Christianity is shrinking... I wasn't sure it was that much though.

Nope wrong again. We are talking orthodox Christianity... therefore the other versions are irrelevant. What does a Mormon or other cult's version have do to with Christianity???

I'm sorry you're a dumbass??? What do I care about others agenda? And if I wear a du-rags what does that mean? I didnt grow up with the kinda money you did... SORRY!!! ILL TRY TO GROW UP NICE AND RICH NEXT TIME!!! Who the **** is John Cena?? You bring up my socio-economic status, and some dude I don't know to bring up how much of an idiot you are?

It had nothing to do with an agenda... the only agenda was to truly find the teaching of Jesus Christ, and more importantly the truth. I gave you the reason why it doesnt fit, you dont wanna listen, then you're making yourself look stupid. You can find that suspect... but that means you truly don't listen to reason.

[J-Luck]

No doubt Mike, I guess there are some people that will argue that water isn't wet if they get pissed off enough.

Amen to that