"Military" systems vs MMA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Ho

The problem with Krav is the way they train. Here's an example. They have one guy stand in the middle, while let's say 10 other guys surround him. They attack him one by one, each guy takes a turn to mock attack and let the guy in the middle mock knee him in the nuts several times. What does this accomplish besides giving you a false sense that you can take on multiple attackers?

---

I agree with Louis 100% that "taking turns" during "mass attack" training gives one nothing but false confidence. That's just bad training. If you want "mass attack" type training, you need to have 2+ guys going at you full speed while you wear protective gear. And also give the guys going at you hard foam sticks or rubber knives. And you also have to do it outside the gym, like in a parking lot where you have things like parking blocks, manholes, sidewalks, bushes, etc that you have to be conscious of while evading your assailants. That's what we did in my PFS JKD classes. The goal is not to "beat up multiple attackers." But to run run hit run. Or just run and evade in a closed off area. So long as you survive, you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griffin Lambert

There are effective techniques with in each system but often it has a lot more to do with the fighters themselves. Obviously a system designed to kill your opponent or seriously injure him would have an advantage over any fighting thats adapted to to sports rules. The mentality of a military style would give it an advantage as well. In mma you don't have to worry about dying. In any military combat situation death would be a possibility and I think that mind set would be a game changer. Try not to think about style vs style. There are great techniques in many systems but it doesn't make one better than the other. It's all fighting.

---

Generally speaking I would agree however there are literally hundreds of martial arts styles that do not teach basic fighting principles like a good fighting stance, good footwork, how to use angles, as well as positional dominance in the clinch and on the ground. In these instances, it is not about a different way of doing things or even of an incomplete style but rather these styles are dated and fundamentally flawed.

For example, defense as taught in my old TDM classes that I used to take as a teenager, was trained as a series of choreographed drills. During no time were kickboxing or boxing fundamentals (ie, this is how you hold your head, this is how you check a kick) ever explained or even utilized during these drills. Though some of that stuff would be touched upon in sparring in general our striking was fundamentally broken. We were wired for specific defensive scenarios and we didn't have basic defensive principles from which to handle an ad hoc fighting scenario.

There is such a thing as bad martial arts.

Army Soldiers and Special Forces Soldiers Hand to Hand Combat is Based on Jiu Jitsu and MMA. Just saying.. :)

The 1 on 1/no weapons scenario is really the only way you can test the skill of one's system/art over that of another. Technically, those conditions are rules. But if it's really no rules, and anything goes, there are really too many variables that could invalidate any comparisions. Let's say I'm fighting a Krav guy and I have him mounted. He's trying to eye gouge me, but I elbowed him so hard that he swallows half his teeth and his face just caved in. But then his mother sees us fighting and she rushes over with a gun and shoots me. So, technically Krav won under true no rules. This example is really silly, but I hope you can see my point. You really want to show that you are better? Beat me with your hands. Forget about bullshit hypothetical scenarious like, "Oh, the Krav guy would find a stick on the ground and use it to kill you."

Kevin, if that's what the U.S. Forces are using, then that makes a lot of sense. I was hoping that you would reply. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Ho

The 1 on 1/no weapons scenario is really the only way you can test the skill of one's system/art over that of another. Technically, those conditions are rules. But if it's really no rules, and anything goes, there are really too many variables that could invalidate any comparisions. Let's say I'm fighting a Krav guy and I have him mounted. He's trying to eye gouge me, but I elbowed him so hard that he swallows half his teeth and his face just caved in. But then his mother sees us fighting and she rushes over with a gun and shoots me. So, technically Krav won under true no rules. This example is really silly, but I hope you can see my point. You really want to show that you are better? Beat me with your hands. Forget about bullshit hypothetical scenarious like, "Oh, the Krav guy would find a stick on the ground and use it to kill you."

---

My "personal" opinion doesnt mean much, but if it did I'd say something like....Krav is what my dad taught me growing up...there is no such thing as a fair fight. Whats to say if an MMA guy or JJ guy was in a fight (we will keep it on the Battlefield) with any opponent he too wouldnt or couldnt eye gouge or hit you with a stick or the butt Stock of his rifle. MMA and JJ being the base of your fighting style doesnt mean you cant also do all the things that come to you by nature when your life is at stake...

I totally agree with that Kevin. But I have guys telling me that the MMA guy would lose because his instincts are to stay within the rules. The Krav guy is gonna go for the kill right away.

I can't imagine how the Krav guy would win against a well trained MMA guy who's not retarded and realizes pretty fast that his life is on the line. Remember guys, eye gouges and groin strikes happen ALL THE TIME in mma. And that's with a referee standing only a few feet away from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Ho

I totally agree with that Kevin. But I have guys telling me that the MMA guy would lose because his instincts are to stay within the rules. The Krav guy is gonna go for the kill right away.

I can't imagine how the Krav guy would win against a well trained MMA guy who's not retarded and realizes pretty fast that his life is on the line. Remember guys, eye gouges and groin strikes happen ALL THE TIME in mma. And that's with a referee standing only a few feet away from you.

---

Ask the Krav guy if he has ever been in a situation that was life or death beyond "practice" in his school...all that crapp goes out the window when its for real. Talk is Cheap...Instincts and "Fight or Flight" kicking in on top of the MMA and JJ skills makes for a very effective Combat Soldier....who yes, can also bite, eye gouge, groin kick blah blah...that aint "special" to one Martial Arts, thats Human Nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Ho

Kevin, if that's what the U.S. Forces are using, then that makes a lot of sense. I was hoping that you would reply. :)

---

I got your Back Bro. 10 Years gives me a little bit of a persepctive :)

US Soldiers, Sailors, Arimen and Marines are the Best Trianed Fighting Force in the World...In My opinion. On top of that, we have some Bad Ass Coalition Partners

Is that even debatable? Of course a MMA fighter would win 1 on 1 with a guy who isn't armed. They do that for a living. If anything, I'd assume someone trained in self-defense being forced to fight an MMA star would reach for a weapon or run. Why fight their fight?

I do, however, disagree with the statement: "The 1 on 1/no weapons scenario is really the only way you can test the skill of one's system/art over that of another."

If my martial art is based off of a weapon, or maybe even gang style fighting, why would I ever want to fight you alone unarmed? Sounds like I'd be fucking myself doing something stupid like that.