excellent points made John. I think 'performance' in the thread's opening context meant training for astetic/visual quality for entertainment or higher judge score. It's a difference of intent.
still, an XMAist, stuntman or gymnist for example could presumably translate that training to self-defense from sheer athletic ability - certainly they'd be better in theory, of defending themselves than their general population of spectators. but would they be correct in thinking they are specifically training FOR self-defense? I know I wouldn't want to get kicked by a soccer guy, or be thrown by a football player...but if I were training kicks and throws - could I say I'm training in Soccer or football?
In the strictest sense, there are occupations and environments that call for the real and active everyday threat of defense against personal assault. policeman, states of civil unrest/lawlessness, ground-force military, bodyguards etc Even then, the first line of personal defense is with firearms. Even personal
offensive occupations like criminals often opt for gaining the tactical edge with firearms. Only occupations like night-club bouncers and 'streetwalkers' have the much higher % chance of non-firearm physical assault than a random victim....but even then, the objective isn't to kill - it's to subdue the attacker and remove yourself from the threat. Thats done by causing knockout, choke or injury. The closest actual simulation is 'sport' MA which have any/all of those as allowable outcome. boxing allows knockout or injury to 'win', BJJ has choke or injury to 'win'...MMA and some full contact MA's for example have all three as acceptable within it's 'game'.
If you train eye rakes and groin grabs for instance, obviously it has to be taken on faith that they work with reasonable certainty. some things that
seem intuitively plausible, may in fact turn to mush when someone is *really* attacking you. but who really knows. Sure, we can hear isolated incidents where things work, but any isolated incident only proves it
can work. the question is, can it work with reasonable certainty against someone who really tries to prevent it and without acting. I believe yes it can be trained for.
*** now my flip-side argument ***
Think of what someone could do if they trained for nothing else than building skill for attacking the eyes for 40 years- conditioning, speed, accuracy - all the skills necessary for building skills for various attacks specifically against someone's eyes. even though they might not have ever actually done so...is it unreasonable to assume that they couldn't take care of themselves? certainly it's a stratigically sound target. would YOU really want to attack someone trained in such? lol
if it 'can' work...it 'can' be trained for is my own counterpoint. so even though you train in something that is good simulation of reasonable certainty and testable within the context of competing against someone resisting it, I wouldn't be hasty to rule out what 'can' be trained for and what cant. I also wouldn't be hasty to assume just because something 'can' work, that it will.
I sometimes argue with myself....then I choose who I want to be right. clearly, I am delusional, but we've all got to find our 'happy place'.
there are rules such as Where,& how hard you are to hit your opponent,& where you're to hit your opponent with either very little contact,or a tag.
Someone in that pansy XMA can be a tougher fighter!?!?
But as I've said before,SD is'nt the same as soring a point in compititon.
)
