This question needs attention?

This is comparing apple and oranges.

You are comparing sports with self defense and self defense with training.

Yes we do hit our partners in the groins in our dojo. Maybe not full force, but enough. In the dojo we work with each other. We are not killing one another. If I'm fighting I can care less if you live or are injured. My concern is my safety or the safety of those I'm protecting.

These types of comparisons place too much emphasis on eye gouging and nut shots. Yes we teach them. it is not an answer to everything. It is done to distract an attacker for a split second and allow me to escape or do something else to control the attacker or end the threat. I'm not there to fight and win a contest.

I was teaching a group of black belts from a variety schools and styles several moths ago. We were going over some defenses to a double or single leg take down. We taught what to do if it is your uncle and you don't want to hurt them to what to do if this guy has a couple of friends and you need stop this person quickly by any means. One black belt that does bjj was struggling. I became his uke. I broke down the technique into small step by step processes. If he took too long I showed him a counter. Like most in bjj they enjoy a fight. So I took him down and was going easy on him. I was letting him know I have the arm bar. But he wanted to roll I guess. So I showed him that he can resist if he wants. I would have moved quicker in a real fight than a teaching exercise. I gave him a heel to the groins and locked in the arm bar. I reminded him afterwards that this is not bjj or a sport. This is self defense. It didn't hurt him bad, but I got his attention. Then he had to do something to make them drop and give him a little relief. I let him walk it off and we continued to train.

Point is you only do those thing when they give you something better and when in position to do so. It is a surprise technique. Just like a spinning hook kick. It is a surprise technique. You should just go around throwing spinning hook kicks even if you see it in tournaments. They are doing it wrong. You set them up to use it.

If a guy is doing clinching. They are in range to get a finger, thumb to the eye. Do I poke, scratch or try to take the eyes out f the socket? Those or my choices. Do i grab the hair to control the head or do use a pressure point under the nose. It all depends on what is readily available and going to put my in my effective fighting range.

Effective fighting range - is where I'm in a good position to strike, etc my attacker and the attacker is limited and has to move to avoid my attack or to escape. They can only move in so many directions. I must know what they are and take that away or encourage it because it will give me something else.

It is much too complex to discuss on a forum.

I don't know anyone here saying that TMAs don't have rules in a class setting or competition. I figured it was given that you don't do anything that would harm your partner in either case. Actually, TMAs don't have rules. It's the instructor's personal classroom rules. You research MMA, you'll see there's a rule set. But rule sets don't apply to TMAs as TMAs encompass many styles and with that, the instructors of those styles may have their own rules. Look up Russian Kyokushin. They do stuff to each other that very well would be against the rules many of the instructors have in place here. It's classroom specific. Not a matter of TMAs allow.

I think this whole rules thing is misunderstood. From what's been posed to me (for example in pm with other users) is why some TMAs are apparently unsuccessful in MMA. I usually state that it's irrelevant if it's useful in MMA because MMA is a sport. Personally, I focus on TMA as a form of hand to hand combat where in a real life scenario someone is actually trying to hurt me. I couldn't care less about how effective it may be in the ring as that's not a focus of mine. I know it works as a form of self-defense and that's all I care about.

There's argument that why should rules such as what you've stated inhibit "Taekwondo's usefulness" in the ring. It doesn't. It inhibits what the fighter can and cannot do. I see grappling in Taekwondo which is 'apparently' something it lacks. That's the person's fault if they can't find the grappling techniques in the hyung and apply it to the ground during rondoori.

If I was an instructor and saw any sort of "rule-breaking" I'd ask why it was broken and handle it from there. If I have a student going out of their way to harm another in any way, shape, or form, I'd expel that student.

EDIT: Jw knocked this thing out of the park

EDIT: @Darth - Thanks, sir

LOL

I think you're mistaking the difference between safe training and rules which prohibit certain techniques (and therefore, the players do not train to use those prohibited techniques).

I have trained to spar using, as you say, eye gouges and nut shots. We don't go full force, and the partner who receives the technique needs to concede the strike. If the partner refuses to concede the strike, then, the problem is that s/he is not understanding the concept of the drill. Were I to be in that situation where my partner refused to concede the strike, then I will not hold back next time. Eye gouges and nut shots included.

There are other techniques much more lethal: throat strikes, solar plexus strikes, etc. Of course, I won't *not* hold back here (meaning, I would hold back), but I would choose a technique without lethality and then not hold back.

The bottom line is that the training has no rules: How often does a boxer have to train to deal with kicks and arm locks? Never. That's because they're not part of the rules, so boxers never have to worry about such strikes. But we in TMA have to deal with multiple opponents, weapons, and commonly prohibited strikes all the time, and we train to defend against them, and we train to use them. It's simple, really.

Well first just let me say that in my adult advanced and black-belt classes light contact to the groin in sparring was allowed sometimes so that students could better develop their skills at attacking that area or defending from attacks to it. Let me also say that whenever I am showing or teaching someone something in any way I usually teach them the various aspects of using or applying it. Those aspects include both the self-defense and street application aspects as well as the stricter aspects that structured fighting brings to the table with its rules, referees, and judges. I do this with both stand-up fighting as well as grappling and ground aspects of fighting including chokes and submissions. That way a person is well versed in how to use something more effectively in those various environments rather than stuck in a situation and not able to do so.

There are or course some limits to this approach and so direct attacks to the eyes are not allowed where contact is made. Biting is another aspect that is not allowed for health reasons but is still taught by me and when someone is more vulnerable when applying something or what a person needs to do to avoid that when applying something. All this is taught and done at the higher levels though and not at the beginner levels so much because of their lack of control and understanding of the whole "kids don't try this at home" aspect. Most instructors and schools that turn out a good, well rounded product of high standards take this approach but it is always monitored and controlled by the instructor also and may not be something that you see when you first go and watch a class initially.

Obviously no one kicks people in the groin or gouges eyes out in the middle of class. There are rules within the dojo disregarding that. But that doesn't mean you don't learn these things. You still learn how to do them, but they obviously cannot be applied during sparring.

Since MMA is centered around what you would be doing in the ring, they don't learn these things because it would be pointless as they would never use it during competition, which is what MMA focuses on. TMA teaches you techniques because you are training for actual self defense, not competitions. And, since anything goes on the street, you learn things that would be illegal in and otherwise controlled environment.

Ever hear of CONTROL?

What a weak argument.

MMA is a "sport with rules" because the final outcome of a sport is the game, not self defense. The purpose of a sport is one with rules. This is why people say "MMA has rules". MMA trains to hit the ball inside the park. That's the point.

Since when is common sense a bad thing? If your argument is over logic, then I suggest you post this type of question in the psychology section.

I always, as my teacher does, inject the Family rule in all my instruction.

If you don't see everyone in the class as family, you don't belong on my floor, in my house.

My instruction is based strictly on principles of Life Protection and Preservation, be it yours or someone whose aid you come to, family, friend or stranger.

Application is done extensively utilizing bunkai, oyo, kakie, randori, tegumi/kumite - in that order, so you are breaking down, applying mechanics for understanding and drilling, applying sticking hands to develop sensitivity and coordination, applying continuous light contact flowing movement, exchanging technique with continuous contact and progressing resistance and pressure.

The bunkai and oyo phase is discovering and showing the application, with no resistance, as each student has to be made to understand the technique. All the other phases, from Kakie on, are progressively introducing resistance.

If you have ever done Kakie, it is tough training. Some of what you see online includes applying technique with the kakie, but really, that comes later. The most important part of kakie is the resisting training back and forth, stationary and also with footwork - according to the student's progress.

Randori is touching contact, flowing, very smooth, for developing continuous motion, as a practitioner never stops during this training. You never separate from your partner. Resistance is increased.

Tegumi and Kumite are actually the same term. The only difference is the placement of the "te" part, so the "k" is spoken as a "g" when it is after the prefix. As in the kata called "fukyu", you you say - fukyugata, not fukyukata.

Tegumi training is using trapping and grappling under constant pressure and resistance.

Kumite is including uchi and tsuki - strikes, thrust, along with tegumi..

There are many who believe that TMA do not spar, and for the most part, they are right, but they are also wrong because many of those schools are only TMA in name but not in essence.

People like "john" shouldn't even be in this conversation for lack of real knowledge.

It's a shame that the real schools are being bunched in with the garbage schools, but that's the nature of those with agendas.

You, Clowns, would not strike at a person who has only been training a couple of months, with the same force you would a person who is equal or advanced in skill... would you? You would not apply an armbar with the same intensity. What would that make you if you did? The same applies to both sides of the TMA/MMA spectrum.

@Sev - beautifully spelled out.

In over 30yrs I have never roped a persons eye out in self defense let alone class. And I doubt many people have resorted to using the eye guage in self defense otherwise we would see a lot more one eyed people around.

No there are a few rules we do have. Although me and one of my partners do go full force with weapons, but that is only because we have each others timing down. I have never been able todo that with anyone else. It just never worked out with them.

That is one of the purposes of kata to practice techniques that can't be done full force. There are a number of moves that can't be done full force.

Depends, but in a class or Tournament every one of them should have rules.

So it's stupid that TMA don't have rules, and one of the thing is "Don't harm anyone unless forced to"

And your point is what?

That MMA is the best thing for protection, because of what?

Apples and oranges never did mix well.

Sev gave a great answer.