Training/fighting in a rule set

[ShaolinDan]

"If you can't fight within a rule set, then you're sure going to be in trouble when there isn't one."

I've been seeing a lot of versions of this statement, coming up in the dreadful MMA vs. TCMA battles that go on here, and I wanted to bring attention to it.

Here is the problem I see...Yes, if you train Martial Arts you should be able to handle yourself under any sparring rule set, HOWEVER, you will never handle yourself as well as someone who trains for that particular rule set (unless you're just incredibly awesome ).

A CMA guy should be able to handle himself in an MMA rule set, but he's not going to be competitive with the guys who train specifically for that rule set.

Just as an MMA guy should be able to box, but in a boxing rule set, he's not going to be as good as the competitive boxer.

He won't be winning any TKD point sparring matches either...

To demand a level of skill in an MMA format from CMA's is fair...to demand the same level of skill you demand from an MMA is not fair.

If I keep 'wasting' afternoons training with a spear, I'll never be able to keep up with the guy who trains for the ring... 'Course, my spear-work is bound to be better...

Well, just had to get that off my chest, thanks for reading.

[bawang]

"if"



hjhjhjhjhhj

[SimonM]

If you really want to master the spear though you should be getting together with like-minded spear users to do resistive drills using staffs or boffer spears or something though.

I mean, I'm like that with the Jian, I love me a good fencing match. It's still the same principle. If you want to learn to do the thing you have to do it as close to real as possible.

[ShaolinDan]

If you really want to master the spear though you should be getting together with like-minded spear users to do resistive drills using staffs or boffer spears or something though.

I mean, I'm like that with the Jian, I love me a good fencing match. It's still the same principle. If you want to learn to do the thing you have to do it as close to real as possible.

Well, I just started with the spear recently...solo work is fine for me for now...I just said spear 'cause it's what I was doing right before I came online...

Anyway, not many (if any) posters on here (including me) who don't think you should train (close to) full-contact with an MMA type rule set once in a while, but to win at MMA you have to train that rule set practically all the time.

I just don't think it's sensible to ask TCMA guys to post vids of themselves winning MMA matches... Or to say they obviously can't fight if they can't win in that venue...

Things are more complicated than that, there are lot's of different kinds of fights.

[SimonM]

Getting hung up on the rules set is a trap.

The specifics of the rules really don't matter. If you are happier with san da / shuai jiao rules do that. If you are happier with no rules at all use none. What matters is training your skills against something harder than air.

It isn't about rules. If you think the debate is rules vs no rules you have set up a false dichotomy

It's about training to fight vs. training to do an elaborate ritual dance.

Which do you want to do? When you decide do that.

[ShaolinDan]

Ahh well, this is what always happens... You, Simon, have too much skill with the written English language to misread me like that... there's no excuse for you.

I don't think the debate is about rules or no rules...I'm just pointing out that to win in a competitive venue you have to train specifically for that venue, and MMA is one of those venues. That's all.

[David Jamieson]

Hi ShaolinDan-

You noticed that little strawman argument too eh? lol

When Alex Gong (rip) was shot and killed I wonder if he thought he should have trained for the street instead?

Yes, it is a meaningless thing to say that those prone to giving buy in to cliches will be just fine with.

Of course, it's a crock because reality actually dictates that the most dangerous killers don't do much training at all.

Many of these mentally lacking individuals who spout such thing are lacking a firm grasp of reality and have somehow come to believe that only mma training in a ufc type of atmosphere prepares people for real conflict.

That is about as far from truth as anyone can get without overlapping back onto their own crap. lol

But hey, if it gets some guy into the gym, so be it. Sell em whatever line you want I guess. It does seem to be about selling something.

[faxiapreta]

Of course, it's a crock because reality actually dictates that the most dangerous killers don't do much training at all.

Be sure to mention that to the military and special forces, Swat Teams, and police departments.

Whowuddathunk they could not have to go through training and still be dangerous to those opposing them.

Only in the kung fu bizarro world will you hear fantasy statements like this.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"If you can't fight within a rule set, then you're sure going to be in trouble when there isn't one."

I've been seeing a lot of versions of this statement, coming up in the dreadful MMA vs. TCMA battles that go on here, and I wanted to bring attention to it.

Here is the problem I see...Yes, if you train Martial Arts you should be able to handle yourself under any sparring rule set, HOWEVER, you will never handle yourself as well as someone who trains for that particular rule set (unless you're just incredibly awesome ).

A CMA guy should be able to handle himself in an MMA rule set, but he's not going to be competitive with the guys who train specifically for that rule set.

Just as an MMA guy should be able to box, but in a boxing rule set, he's not going to be as good as the competitive boxer.

He won't be winning any TKD point sparring matches either...

To demand a level of skill in an MMA format from CMA's is fair...to demand the same level of skill you demand from an MMA is not fair.

If I keep 'wasting' afternoons training with a spear, I'll never be able to keep up with the guy who trains for the ring... 'Course, my spear-work is bound to be better...

Well, just had to get that off my chest, thanks for reading.

Actually, while you bring out a valid point, it only goes as far has highly SPECIALISED rule sets and doesn't apply to MMA or:

If you are a striker it doesn't apply to MT / KB or any striking systems that is full contact.
If you are a grappler it doesn't apply to submission grappling.

The simple fact is that the once you state that you are "too deadly" for sport fighting or that you train for the "real fighting", you then should be able to function in a limited and controlled environment.
Notice I didn't say WIN, but you should at least "hold your own".

[sanjuro_ronin]

On a side note, even NOW you can still find a venue that will cater to YOUR ruleset.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think the debate is about rules or no rules...I'm just pointing out that to win in a competitive venue you have to train specifically for that venue, and MMA is one of those venues. That's all.

Of course, that is only logical.
YET, like I mentioned above, one can easily find the ruleset that most closely resembles the type of "fighting" one trains for.

[SimonM]

Of course, that is only logical.
YET, like I mentioned above, one can easily find the ruleset that most closely resembles the type of "fighting" one trains for.

Which, linguistic chicanery aside, was sort of my point too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The whole point is NOT about ruleset anyways.
The whole point is that, if one can't be effective within an environment that is designed for a "level playing field", how do you expect to be effective on a non-level playing field?
The issue is that.
If you can't beat a guy when all he can do is punch and kick, and that is your specialty, how will you beat him when he outweights you by 50lbs AND can do anything he wants?

[brothernumber9]

To a degree the point is very much about rule sets.
Many, if not most people, create rulesets for themselves, even in lethal situations. Some of us may have a rule to not kill, or to not maim. Some may have a rule that they will not continually attack a person down. Some have a rule that they will not attack first, etc. Some people actually don't have, or abide by any rules, I just don't think such people are the majority.
I believe common sense, morality, and even logic play into peoples' own rules about violence. I think most of us will relent at some point. Maybe I'm wrong. But these figurative lines in the sand marginalize what our own rules are in a given situation.

[David Jamieson]

The whole point is NOT about ruleset anyways.
The whole point is that, if one can't be effective within an environment that is designed for a "level playing field", how do you expect to be effective on a non-level playing field?
The issue is that.
If you can't beat a guy when all he can do is punch and kick, and that is your specialty, how will you beat him when he outweights you by 50lbs AND can do anything he wants?

Well having read Sun Tzu, and still referencing him regularly, you don't want to be on a level playing field. You want to be superior in every way.

contests like sports combat have as much value as a movie or going out to a car race.

No one can say they will be effective in a 50/50 environment.

But the USA can expect to walk into Libya and put it under the gun inside of a short period of time.

Superiority negates the conditions where competition is seen as a way.

In martial arts competition produces a false sense of what the real meaning of martial arts is. That is to say to defeat your opponent in as quick a manner as possible.

If my opponent is stronger and greater than I, then I must resort to treachery and deception. Where he wants to hit me with his fist, I will stab at his gut and legs with a knife.

competition? It's martial, not contest for who get's a belt.

I want the guy to be down and out. I may not want to kill him, But I'm not going to compete with him, I will seek out the superior way to defeat his ass and use it pronto.

what's not to get?