Recently, I was watching an instructional DVD from a somewhat known MA personality. The DVD basically dealt with ways of integrating techniques from MA styles that were pretty popular in the '80's and early '90's into a modern MMA paradigm. I have also read a number of internet posts from said personality that followed similar lines. He spends an inordinate amount of time trying to justify his use of "dead patterns". He also spends an inordinate amount of time (on both the DVD and in his internet posts) trying to use the term sarcastically, letting you know he is obsessed with trying to prove they are not, in actuality, "dead patterns". I keep laughing every time he brings it up, because he truly does not understand why those training methods are being critiqued. In case he reads this (a highly dubious assumption), or anybody who sees his work and is curious about that criticism and just happens to stumble over my blog, I will try to clarify some things.
The greatest problem with so-called dead patterns is NOT that they do not work. Obviously, there are a lot of fighters who have come through that type of training and can functionally demonstrate their skills. ANY practice of a physical movement will increase your ability in using that movement in a "real" situation. That is obvious and not up for argument. Rather, the question is, is there a better, more efficient, and faster way of accomplishing the same thing as a "dead" pattern. The answer is a resounding yes. And, even better, that is an easily provable fact. It is actually a weird semantic debate that is pre-loaded with negative feelings because of the term dead. So, getting past that, what we are dealing with is
what is a better way of training someone to perform adequately in a fight?
IMHO, modern MMA methods have built up an unassailable history of proof. These methods work because we see, on a constant basis, the results. Watch UFC, Pride, IFL, Bodog Fight, EXC, and tons of smaller local competitions. We can see them in BJJ and submission grappling tournaments, where average people demonstrate the validity of these methods. The methods work because if they did not, these competitors, from the average amateur on up through the top professionals like Chuck Liddell would not be using them. Let's be real for a moment. Right now, there is a great deal of money at stake for the top guys (Liddell made over 2 million from the last Ortiz fight). Do you honestly think that if there was a better way to train, these guys would not jump at the chance, since that might mean the difference between earning $20,000 and $2,000,000? If someone could show Liddell that doing chi sao for 2 hours a day would give him an edge in his rematch with Rampage Jackson, do you not think he would do it? The fact is, there is a better way of training for a fight. And by better, I mean faster, more efficient, more sure, more specific. And that is the crux of the arguement. A professional fighter could devote the time to use "slower" ways. He has nothing but time. But for the average person, who might have 2-4 hours a week available, they don't. They need the most efficient methods. And simply put, the MMA training paradigm is superior, hands down.
As soon as someone can debate that, I will listen. But the debate HAS to be that the "dead patterns" work as easily and as efficiently as MMA methods. Please, let's not base the debate on "dead patterns work too". That is irrelevant. Focus on the heart of the matter. Otherwise, we are wasting valuable free time that should be spent in more productive ways.
