Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Can someone define what is meant by "combat" or "combat effective". I think some assumptions are being made from different perspectives.
I don't study the arts for it's supposed "combat effectiveness". In a kill or be killed situation, or self defense, there are things that are simply much more effective than rolling around the ground, or twirling around. But before I can discuss them further, need to really know what is "combat effective" as we are framing it here.
I think Kevin has a valid point here. "Combat effectiveness" can have nothing to do with dojo martial arts at all, so clarifications may be necessary.
As far as things being more effective for self defence than rolling around on the ground, I can vouch for that from personal experience more than once. If I were to believe my own experiences alone
I'd say that BJJ, Judo and any ground grappling art was useless for real world self defence (having been in multi-attacker situations numbering 8 folks at least once). The proof lay in folks who did end up on the ground and as a result ended up in hospital with severe head injuries from boot kicks and stomps from the rest of the group.
However I'd be wrong in assuming that ground grappling arts were useless for self defence simply from those experiences. It's just that in the multi-attack scenarios I experienced at that time, the "take it to the ground" tactic would not have worked really well and the Aikido we do worked perfectly.
Of course me saying that the grappling arts don't work because of my little experience is as uneducated as saying any other art doesn't work in self defence (where what style you do is not as important as what you can get away with under the pressure and adrenal stress imho).
But in the end folks will believe what they need to sleep well at nite.
Kevin has a good point on the "combat effectiveness" question though.