# UFC proves KF useless



## 7starmantis

I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true? 

What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?


7sm


----------



## zDom

:deadhorse:


----------



## PeaceWarrior

7starmantis said:


> I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?
> 
> What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?
> 
> 
> 7sm


 
Ho boy...um, well, without seeing the actual fights its kind of hard to tell what they are doing wrong. It could be lack of experience, lack of competent teaching, lack of time devoted to resistance training, or a combination of these things.  It could also be due to the fact that TMA's dont train "UFC fighting".  That is, if youre going to enter a UFC tournament, you train with that in mind.  You want to be athletically gifted first off, plus train as many facets of MA's in as little time as possible.  You train for takedowns and submissions, grappling and striking, etc.   I think that is something that sort of goes against the grain of most TMA's, where it becomes a way of life, and skill is developed gradually over many years.   Its like a star hitter for a baseball team entering a golf tournament; he is going to fail horribly, not because he isnt good at what he does, but because he simply has not trained for the competition he entered.  Or even a wing chun practitioner entering a pro boxing tournament; with those big gloves he isnt going to be able to pull of a lot of real wing chun, so chances are while he will do better than the average joe, he's still gonna get beat.   Plus I think that most traditional martial artists (from the old school) are kind of turned off by the ufc mentality, and they pass that down to their students.  anyways, much more could be said (and Im sure it will)  but I have to go!  

Good topic 7star!  Peace

Keith


----------



## Flying Crane

It's my belief that in order to do well in an event such as the UFC, you need to train in specific ways to prepare for that event, regardless of style.  I suspect that most traditional KF people do not do this, even tho they train in other ways that also build effective skills.

Regardless of UFC records, that does not mean that traditional KF is not effective as a form of fighting and self defense.  I think using events like the UFC as THE yardstick against which to measure the worth of a fighting art is really quite silly.  Using any single criteria as THE yardstick is misguided and myopic.  If I get attacked and get my butt kicked, or even if I win, I certainly don't think my art is either worthless, or better, than others.  It is a product of how well I have trained.  I don't decide that I need to go join the nearest MMA school and start competing in the UFC in order to believe I could defend myself on the street.

It is also important to remember that a successful UFC fighter is an elite  athlete in his prime.  These guys tend to be big, strong, and conditioned to take a lot of abuse, as well as having a lot of heavy experience in full contact fighting.  As individuals, I suspect not many people of any style could do well against them, if they haven't also trained and conditioned themselves in a similar manner.  But these are not the kind of people that I think you would typically need to defend yourself against on the street.  I'm not saying that a street thug should be taken lightly.  Certainly they can be tough and dangerous as well, but I don't think they are going to be on the same level as a successful UFC fighter, if weapons are not part of the equation.  On the street, any traditional art, if well trained, would serve you well.


----------



## JasonASmith

I don't believe that the UFC is the benchmark on the "what style is better/works best/isn't practical in modern combat" arguement...
It's a show...it's a competitive sport...Kung Fu is millenia old, argueably the oldest form of martial art, and it(or any other TMA, for that matter) doesn't need to be validated by a bunch of gorillas beating the crap out of each other inside of a ring...If a TMA has saved even one person's life in its time on the planet(and they have saved many more than that!) then it's viable, it's not useless...I(and hopefully most of the readers/posters here) have faith in my system....I have faith in the martial arts in general...That's why I don't watch UFC or any of the other FC's, because even though I like zoos, I am not prepared mentally to see the dominance/submissive roles played out be humans...I'll leave that to the REAL animals, thanks...If you like Kung Fu or any other TMA, than keep doing it...


----------



## matt.m

I agree with Scott....:deadhorse .  I have always said that if you train hard you will be able to defend yourself.


----------



## Rook

IMO KF is not so much useless as not the best for the task being evaluated.  

One analogy I used is one of a classic car.  In 1927 when the Model A came out, people rushed to buy it.  They didn't want anything besides the quick transportation, but if you still have one today, it would be a valuable collectors item worth having for the historical value.  The model A set off a whole bunch of amateur drag racing, as people discovered that a cheap car with some cheap improvements could go pretty fast.  If you want to beat the pants off people at the race track today, a Model A would by no means be a good choice - you want a stripped down multimillion dollar fiberglass car with a modern engine.  

I see martial arts the same way.  I am interested in knowing about the martial systems of the past in the same way some people are interested in historic cars.  No one in their right mind would claim that a Model A in good condition would sweep the Formula 1 series, and I find claims that various CMA practitioners could do any better to MMA champions equally dubious.  

If you practice kung fu, you get a bunch of Chinese culture, you get a slice of history and a chance to be a part of a tradition.  You might even, if you land a good teacher and train hard, be able to fight better than the overwhelming majority of the population.  It is not the optimum way to fight unarmed and if that is all you are interested in, you would be far better off training MMA.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> IMO KF is not so much useless as not the best for the task being evaluated.
> 
> One analogy I used is one of a classic car.  In 1927 when the Model A came out, people rushed to buy it.  They didn't want anything besides the quick transportation, but if you still have one today, it would be a valuable collectors item worth having for the historical value.  The model A set off a whole bunch of amateur drag racing, as people discovered that a cheap car with some cheap improvements could go pretty fast.  If you want to beat the pants off people at the race track today, a Model A would by no means be a good choice - you want a stripped down multimillion dollar fiberglass car with a modern engine.



Using this car analogy, TMAs are not necessarily 1927s. Couldn't a TMA also be a 1969 GTO? Or a '76 vette?

Not necessarily as fast and as the professional fiberglass racing car with a modern engine, but still fast enough to beat the vast majority: mini-vans, luxury cars, four-doors, etc.

And it has things the pro car no longer has - things like radio, air conditioning, a fuel tank large enough to go 200 miles -- etc. Useful for things other than running the quarter mile.

Stripping down for "optimum" performance means losing options.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Useless? No. Not suited for _Mixed _Martial Arts competitions, yes. Why? Because ALL arts limited to stand-up work are open to the grappling that competitions like the UFC have made popular. 

How to combat this? Take two years of college wrestling, Judo or BJJ. I'd also recommend at least a short boxing or fencing course in order to learn quicker, more mobile footwork.

Take pride in your Kung Fu training and realize that the dividends in physical coordination, stamina, fitness and discipline will pay lifelong dividends and also recognize that a sociopath with a firearm can cancel out ANY unarmed martial arts training.


----------



## Hand Sword

7starmantis said:


> I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them?


 We see them, or their primary style is listed in their pre-fight profiles. In short, they don't do well, as the other TMA's don't, due to their ways of dealing with the inevitable grappling situations, which are illegal, under the MMA rules. Ripping, tearing, raking, poking, biting, illegal in MMA, would very quickly escape a mount or guard position, the primary holds of MMA.

*[qoute=7starmantis;663615]*
_Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?_ [/quote]

No. In competion, yes, for real, each is as applicable as the other. For reality sake, one must have a ground game (street applicable= no rules) to be effective. MMA adresses it a bit better, than the stand up oriented TMA's.



7starmantis said:


> What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?


 
I think the TMA'ers have trouble, due to the nature of fighting in general, which is why eclectic styles emerged. (even they do to a point also) They seem to be based off of dealing with a one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt by an opponent, maybe a quick grab or hold, also. It's also primarily stand up oriented. Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, then to grappling holds, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used. 

IMHO none of the TMA's are being retired, I think, it's about ranges of combat, and the tactics in those ranges that are different. Boxing is best defended against Boxing type tactics, instead of TMA blocking and standing, with flat footed movements. To combat it, do some cross training, or practice under MMA rules, and adapt to it.


----------



## 7starmantis

While I agree that this topic has been done many times, I dont know that its really a dead horse just yet. There is an article in one of the most recent publications of Martial Arts Professional (or one of those magazines) about Frank Shamrocks Complete Ground System. Now, while its an obvious advertisement it has an article about reality training. I didnt mean to use the term UFC to simply mean just UFC registered fights, but rather the MMA scene as made popular by the UFC. It seems the consensus of even this thread is that Kung Fu (or TMA as a whole) is lacking in reality of dealing with grapplers or ground game. Is that really so? Why is that? Did fights never end up on the ground 300 years ago? Is grappling such a new thing? Did the ancient civilizations not learn and even compete in wrestling? Maybe is a modern thing that leaves dealing with the ground game out of TMA teachings. Of course fighting in certain rules, the one who trains those rules will always win, but what about self defense? What about reality fighting using the modern MMA methods or the traditional methods of systems like kung fu?



PeaceWarrior said:


> That is, if youre going to enter a UFC tournament, you train with that in mind. You want to be athletically gifted first off, plus train as many facets of MA's in as little time as possible. You train for takedowns and submissions, grappling and striking, etc. I think that is something that sort of goes against the grain of most TMA's, where it becomes a way of life, and skill is developed gradually over many years.


Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? Im not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words traditional martial arts. Im not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is traditional really so far from fighting? It seems to me traditional kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most traditional schools Ive ever seen. Im not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting. Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the seriousness of kung fu techniques or principles?



Rook said:


> I see martial arts the same way. I am interested in knowing about the martial systems of the past in the same way some people are interested in historic cars. No one in their right mind would claim that a Model A in good condition would sweep the Formula 1 series, and I find claims that various CMA practitioners could do any better to MMA champions equally dubious.


Im not really interested in knowing about martial systems of the past, I mean its interesting I guess, but Im just not really into it that much. Im more concerned with realistic fighting and thats why Im curious as to some of your statements here. Why exactly would you find it dubious that a CMA practitioner could do well against a MMA practitioner? What give the MMA person a better chance of winning? What does the MMA fighter have that allows them to dominate so heavily over the CMA fighter? Im really interested in seeing your opinions here, Im not interested in starting a fight, I find it fascinating really. 



Rook said:


> If you practice kung fu, you get a bunch of Chinese culture, you get a slice of history and a chance to be a part of a tradition. You might even, if you land a good teacher and train hard, be able to fight better than the overwhelming majority of the population. It is not the optimum way to fight unarmed and if that is all you are interested in, you would be far better off training MMA.


I get absolutely no Chinese culture, and at the risk of offending some of my CMA brothers, Im simply not that interested. I have my own culture to learn about. I dont see myself as a part of any tradition really either, except maybe the family I have now from my brothers and sisters I have sweat and bled with. I think you may be right in a vast majority of CMA schools but there are those that are focused on fighting. I would be very interested in hearing why you believe it not to be the optimum way to fight unarmed. Could you explain that a bit? What makes is less optimum than another way of fighting and what way of fighting would you consider optimum?



Jonathan Randall said:


> Useless? No. Not suited for _Mixed _Martial Arts competitions, yes. Why? Because ALL arts limited to stand-up work are open to the grappling that competitions like the UFC have made popular.
> 
> How to combat this? Take two years of college wrestling, Judo or BJJ. I'd also recommend at least a short boxing or fencing course in order to learn quicker, more mobile footwork.


So you believe kung fu to be lacking in these areas? Why do you feel CMA is limited to stand-up? What about grappling makes CMA so useless there? So to beat something you must learn it? Do you feel kung fu has slower less mobile footwork? Why is that? What makes the footwork of kung fu slower and less mobile? Im really interested in knowing what you see as the flaws here.



Hand Sword said:


> IMHO none of the TMA's are being retired, I think, it's about ranges of combat, and the tactics in those ranges that are different. Boxing is best defended against Boxing type tactics, instead of TMA blocking and standing, with flat footed movements. To combat it, do some cross training, or practice under MMA rules, and adapt to it.


I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didnt mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training? 

Sorry to make such a long post with so many questions, Im seriously interested in learning what you guys feel is lacking in CMA that is trained in MMA. I think this is a great discussion so far, I would love to hear more opinions on it.


   7sm


----------



## The Kidd

Nice progression in the thread, several topics have been touched on:

You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).

Just training in one discipline like we have discussed in several threads before this gives you a great base but it helps to widen your perspective all styles have their strengths and weaknesses and to broaden your knowledge only makes you a better MA.


----------



## Andrew Green

The Kidd said:


> You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).



I see this sort of claim all the time, that Kung Fu was not meant for matches, but yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitai 

Similar in intent, just less organized and somewhat different rules.  But at one time Kung Fu WAS used for one on one challenges and tournaments in the same way.


----------



## funnytiger

zDom said:


> Using this car analogy, TMAs are not necessarily 1927s. Couldn't a TMA also be a 1969 GTO? Or a '76 vette?
> 
> Not necessarily as fast and as the professional fiberglass racing car with a modern engine, but still fast enough to beat the vast majority: mini-vans, luxury cars, four-doors, etc.
> 
> And it has things the pro car no longer has - things like radio, air conditioning, a fuel tank large enough to go 200 miles -- etc. Useful for things other than running the quarter mile.
> 
> Stripping down for "optimum" performance means losing options.


 
I just wanted to say that was really well stated! Kudos!


----------



## zDom

Great point and post, Andrew.

Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?

Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?


----------



## funnytiger

> They seem to be based off of dealing with a one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt by an opponent, maybe a quick grab or hold, also. It's also primarily stand up oriented.


 
I have a hard time picturing this statement since my style's MO is "continuous fighting". In other words, combo after combo until the other guy doesn't get up. So is my particular art the odd man out because of that mode of thinking, or is this statement a sweeping generalization? 




> Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, then to grappling holds, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used.


 
I have always thought this was a load of bunk. If I had a quarter for every person on these boards who said, "every (or most) fights end on the ground" I would be a wealthy woman. However, if I was to get a quarter for every fight that I have witnessed with my own eyes that actually ended up on the ground I wouldn't be able to make a telephone call in a phone booth. 

I probably haven't seen as many fights as some, but I've seen my fair share. On second thought, I would say that statment is a half-truth. In the fights I have seen one person always ends up on the ground. Usually ending up the recipient of a boot in the face, and sometimes just unconsciousness.


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> While I agree that this topic has been done many times, I dont know that its really a dead horse just yet. There is an article in one of the most recent publications of Martial Arts Professional (or one of those magazines) about Frank Shamrocks Complete Ground System. Now, while its an obvious advertisement it has an article about reality training. I didnt mean to use the term UFC to simply mean just UFC registered fights, but rather the MMA scene as made popular by the UFC. It seems the consensus of even this thread is that Kung Fu (or TMA as a whole) is lacking in reality of dealing with grapplers or ground game. Is that really so? Why is that? Did fights never end up on the ground 300 years ago? Is grappling such a new thing? Did the ancient civilizations not learn and even compete in wrestling? Maybe is a modern thing that leaves dealing with the ground game out of TMA teachings. Of course fighting in certain rules, the one who trains those rules will always win, but what about self defense? What about reality fighting using the modern MMA methods or the traditional methods of systems like kung fu?


 
While I don't doubt that ancient China had its share of people who wanted to grapple on the ground, they don't seem to have developed the complex and nuanced groundwork of systems like catch wrestling, SAMBO or BJJ.  Perhaps this has something to do with the idea of rolling on the ground as dishonorable, but for whatever reason, the Chinese ground work that shows up in some Shui Chiao systems, as well as in the Dog Boxing tends to be a fairly simple affiar.  



> Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? Im not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words traditional martial arts. Im not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is traditional really so far from fighting?


 
The power of some systems, like TJQ, can really only be achieved after alot of development in things like soft movement and precise shifts of weight.  The beauty of some martial arts to me has always been that most of them are simple to begin to learn, but they have alot of depth to them.  



> It seems to me traditional kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most traditional schools Ive ever seen. Im not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting. Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the seriousness of kung fu techniques or principles?


 
This is a good statement.  



> Im not really interested in knowing about martial systems of the past, I mean its interesting I guess, but Im just not really into it that much. Im more concerned with realistic fighting and thats why Im curious as to some of your statements here. Why exactly would you find it dubious that a CMA practitioner could do well against a MMA practitioner?


 
To date, their track record.  In the end, MMA has been based around the idea of having competition, both with and without rules in order to test various means of fighting against each other.  The MMAist trains in the style that seems to have emerged on top... it just represents a higher stage in the evolution of the martial arts.   



> What give the MMA person a better chance of winning? What does the MMA fighter have that allows them to dominate so heavily over the CMA fighter? Im really interested in seeing your opinions here, Im not interested in starting a fight, I find it fascinating really.


 
If I had to guess at the reasons behind the track record, which is probably what you are getting at here, I would say the combination of the style itself and the training methods - full speed, full contact, freeform, fully resistant - which allow a person to experiance a whole spectrum of uncooperativeness not available to someone who trains with compliant or semicompliant partners.  The style itself is just very refined for what works - because we have so much video and statistical data, its much easier to figure out what is more effective and why, and the fighers work with a system based on this.  



> I get absolutely no Chinese culture, and at the risk of offending some of my CMA brothers, Im simply not that interested. I have my own culture to learn about. I dont see myself as a part of any tradition really either, except maybe the family I have now from my brothers and sisters I have sweat and bled with. I think you may be right in a vast majority of CMA schools but there are those that are focused on fighting. I would be very interested in hearing why you believe it not to be the optimum way to fight unarmed. Could you explain that a bit? What makes is less optimum than another way of fighting and what way of fighting would you consider optimum?


 
I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed.  The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.  




> So you believe kung fu to be lacking in these areas? Why do you feel CMA is limited to stand-up? What about grappling makes CMA so useless there?


 
Well, the lack of kung fu people winning grappling tournaments suggests that the "use our forms principles on the ground" and "we have our own groundwork" and "fukien dog boxing is a lethal groundwork system" doesn't hold up all that well... they seem to be totally incapable of sucessfully engaging other grapplers.  



> So to beat something you must learn it? Do you feel kung fu has slower less mobile footwork? Why is that? What makes the footwork of kung fu slower and less mobile? Im really interested in knowing what you see as the flaws here.


 
In theory, the footwork should be equally mobile. In practice, look at a pro boxer and then at any kung fu practitioner and you will probably notice the ussual difference.  Very few kung fu people have their footwork down like boxers do.  




> I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didnt mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?
> 
> Sorry to make such a long post with so many questions, Im seriously interested in learning what you guys feel is lacking in CMA that is trained in MMA. I think this is a great discussion so far, I would love to hear more opinions on it.
> 
> 
> 7sm


 
I personally think that it is outdated as a fighting system.


----------



## MJS

I do not train in, or know much about CMAs, so I'll refrain from comment on whats incorporated into their material.  I can comment though on the arts that I train in.  As I've said every time this debate comes up, I personally feel that there is something that can be gained from both the MMA and TMA style of fighting.  I've 'borrowed' a number of things from the MMA school of thought, and added it into my own workouts.  

I'd like to post this, for discussion.



> 1.   Butting with the head.
> 2.   Eye gouging of any kind.
> 3.   Biting.
> 4.   Hair pulling.
> 5.   Fish hooking.
> 6.   Groin attacks of any kind.
> 7.   Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
> 8.   Small joint manipulation.
> 9.   Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
> 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
> 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
> 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
> 13. Grabbing the clavicle.
> 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
> 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
> 16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
> 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
> 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
> 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
> 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
> 21. Spitting at an opponent.
> 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
> 23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
> 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
> 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
> 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
> 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
> 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
> 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
> 30. Interference by the corner.
> 31. Throwing in the towel during competition.


 
These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage.  Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win."  However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with.  And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself.  The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment.  If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring?  I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge.  But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge.  Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.  

Mike


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed. The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.


 
That being said, what are your thoughts on MMA and weapons?  

Mike


----------



## shesulsa

The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.

MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight.  Fighting and self-defense are different.

I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention.  In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking.  And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation?  We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....

What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.

If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it.  If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control.  If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that.  If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.

We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.

Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.

Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple.  I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it.  But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.


----------



## PeaceWarrior

7starmantis said:


> Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? Im not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words traditional martial arts. Im not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is traditional really so far from fighting? It seems to me traditional kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most traditional schools Ive ever seen. Im not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting


 
Hmm... I see your point. I guess I am looking at this through my own art, Wing Chun, where it really does take years to get to a high enough level where you can actively and effectively apply the principles in a real life situation without breaking the "rules" of the art. Also I think that it really depends on the time and effort spent on training. In times past, guys would spend 8 hours a day, 6 days a week just to train. 8 hours is a long time, and when you train like that it adds up considerably faster than if you only have say, 1 or 2 hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week. 

And yes, I believe that "traditional" kung fu in the truest sense of the word was violent, focused on fighting and very hard core (hence training for 5-8 hours a day). I do not believe that most people nowadays really train in a traditional way. I think the term TMA is normally used to denote a style that is "sticking to its guns" and not jumping on the MMA bandwagon. 




7starmantis said:


> Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the seriousness of kung fu techniques or principles?
> 7sm



No, in fact I really do believe that even with solid stand up fighting technique, it is advisable to cross train a grappling art to cover your bases (and vice versa), because in reality a lot of fights will inevitably end up on the ground. These tactics would certainly not negate any tools that a kung fu artist has but would add to them. However, I also believe that you should have a _*solid foundation*_ in your primary art before you cross train. My problem with MMA is that guys are just training as many different arts as they can - taking whats useful and throwing the rest away so to speak - which I agree, is probably the best way to develop well rounded fighting skills in the shortest amount of time possible, but in doing so they are forfeiting many high level principles/techniques that a TMA has to offer, to those willing to sacrifice the time and effort that it takes to really learn them. After all, where did the MMAist get all of those nifty techniques?  Out of thin air? No, they all came from traditional martial arts developed over thousands of years. I could be wrong, but I think that someone with 10+ years in a stand up fighting TMA who trains hard for a year or two in a grappling TMA (BJJ, Jujitsu, etc.) would be a devastating fighter in any real world scenario.  

I think that the whole MMA/UFC/Pride mentality has kind of tainted what I consider the true purpose of Kung Fu and other martial arts: a way to tighten the slack, polish the spirit, to sharpen your focus and give you discipline, not just a way to beat somebody senseless or force them to submit.  In fact, most high level martial artists that I have met are very kind; gentle almost. You would never know just from looking at them on the street that they could break your neck in two seconds. I think it should be about balance, respect and honor - words we dont hear much today, and certainly not in the UFC ring.

Peace


----------



## funnytiger

shesulsa said:


> The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.
> 
> MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight. Fighting and self-defense are different.
> 
> I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention. In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking. And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation? We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....
> 
> What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.
> 
> If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it. If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control. If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that. If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.
> 
> We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.
> 
> Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.
> 
> Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple. I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.


 
NICE!


----------



## 7starmantis

zDom said:


> Great point and post, Andrew.
> 
> Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?
> 
> Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?



Thats a very good point. I'm sure things would be very different. In truth that is where I was trying to go with the discussion. I used the UFC because it is well known and has been a great tool for promoting the MMA method of training. But I'm talking more about the idea, principle, or techniques of the styles. It seems the consensus is that MMA is more modern, full contact, more effective, or just overwhelming enough to really be a more effective fighting system than ... well pretty much anything else.  I'm interested in getting to the bottom of why that is, why people feel that way, and what aspects of MMA training they feel create that.



Rook said:


> While I don't doubt that ancient China had its share of people who wanted to grapple on the ground, they don't seem to have developed the complex and nuanced groundwork of systems like catch wrestling, SAMBO or BJJ. Perhaps this has something to do with the idea of rolling on the ground as dishonorable, but for whatever reason, the Chinese ground work that shows up in some Shui Chiao systems, as well as in the Dog Boxing tends to be a fairly simple affiar.


I agree with you on that one. I dont know if it was the type or land or what, but CMA tends to focus on ground fighting from the idea of escaping. I dont think it had to do with dishonor, that would be more a JMA than a CMA thing really. I dont know anything about dog boxing but I agree the grappling tends to be simple. But we must ask why that is. Does that mere fact prove that grappling can overtake these CMA styles? Does a non grappler stand a chance agaisnt a grappler? Why do grappling technqiues automatically get the nod in that lineup? What about fighters like Chuck Liddell, he's not a grappler, he says that himself. I'm not sure that the idea of CMA grappling being simple proves that grappling is a more effective method of fighting. Does it?



Rook said:


> The power of some systems, like TJQ, can really only be achieved after alot of development in things like soft movement and precise shifts of weight. The beauty of some martial arts to me has always been that most of them are simple to begin to learn, but they have alot of depth to them.


Yes but depth doesn't negate quick effectivness does it? The fact that some arts true strength is in the long ter mstudy doesn't mean they aren't effective at the begginning. It just means they are more effective after long term study and training. Right? Or am I off base?



Rook said:


> To date, their track record. In the end, MMA has been based around the idea of having competition, both with and without rules in order to test various means of fighting against each other. The MMAist trains in the style that seems to have emerged on top... it just represents a higher stage in the evolution of the martial arts.


What represents their track record? With what were these methods judged? I think its a misrepresentation to portray CMA as not having been based around competition. They dont seem to have been based around sport or egoisstic competition, but they certainly were based around competition as Andrew pointed out eariler in the thread. Many "schools" or "families" were warring with each other, killing each other, to determien the most effective CMA fighting method all during their conception. MMAist train the style that came out on top of what? Emerged on top of public opinion? Most MMA competitions are based around a set of rules for MMA sport fighting. Just like earlier examples, a baseball player would not do well in a basketball competition would he? They train for different rules. In order to truly compare we must look at fighters who train for the same thing. Thats why I'm more concerned with pure self defense type fighting. Do you feel MMA is a more effective street self defense method of fighting as well?



Rook said:


> If I had to guess at the reasons behind the track record, which is probably what you are getting at here, I would say the combination of the style itself and the training methods - full speed, full contact, freeform, fully resistant - which allow a person to experiance a whole spectrum of uncooperativeness not available to someone who trains with compliant or semicompliant partners. The style itself is just very refined for what works - because we have so much video and statistical data, its much easier to figure out what is more effective and why, and the fighers work with a system based on this.


Thats an interesting way to describe it. What makes what you described MMA rather than CMA? As a CMA fighter, since I train full speed, full contact, freeform, full resistant, does that mean I train CMA in a MMA method? Do we really believe these methods of training are something new or modern? Did MMA emerge and create these ways of training? You spoke of the "style itself". What exactly is the "style" of MMA? I use quite a lot of statistical and video data in my training. What I'm getting at is why are these things presented with ownership to MMA? I have trained like that for years. I'm interested in what makes CMA training like that still less effective, outdated, or useless agaisnt MMA training like that.



Rook said:


> I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed. The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.


Again, what are you basing your "track record" off of? I'm still not completely sure of your definition of MMA. Is MMA refined to a specific style? You spoke of the MMA style itself, I'm really interested in hearing what comprises that style. This is a very interesting discussion, thank you for being willing to discuss things like this.



Rook said:


> Well, the lack of kung fu people winning grappling tournaments suggests that the "use our forms principles on the ground" and "we have our own groundwork" and "fukien dog boxing is a lethal groundwork system" doesn't hold up all that well... they seem to be totally incapable of sucessfully engaging other grapplers.


Thats a great point, and probably one of the most damaging to kung fu people. However the truth is in the words, even the wrods you used: "kung fu people winning grappling tournements". I can very successfully prove the statement: "the lack of grappling people winning kung fu tournements proves grappling to be less effective". But what has happened here is we have judged something out of its element. Any specific tournement will cater to those training for it. Cung Lee is a CMA fighter that seems to be having some great success in the world of MMA. I really wouldn't consider Cung Lee a true CMA fighter, but it seems his methods are working. Why is that? Is it that he has adopted MMA methods?



Rook said:


> I personally think that it is outdated as a fighting system.


Outdated as in its methods, techniques, training habits, what exactly? 

7sm


----------



## exile

MJS said:


> I do not train in, or know much about CMAs, so I'll refrain from comment on whats incorporated into their material.  I can comment though on the arts that I train in.  As I've said every time this debate comes up, I personally feel that there is something that can be gained from both the MMA and TMA style of fighting.  I've 'borrowed' a number of things from the MMA school of thought, and added it into my own workouts.
> 
> I'd like to post this, for discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage.  Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win."  However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with.  And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself.  The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment.  If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring?  I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge.  But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge.  Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.
> 
> Mike



Mike, it's interesting that many of these UFC `fouls' are blithely exhibited by Iain Abernethy in his books and videos as the most probable bunkai for various karate kata. And IA has emphasized repeatedly that these moves---eye/throat/groin strikes, strikes by standing karateka direct towards assailants who were already partially immobilized on the ground, and many other such techniques---were taught and trained by the early Okinawan and Japanese masters. Karate is another one of those striking arts which people have dissed, in relation to MMA/Pride/UFC style ring techniques, so what is one to make of the fact that, if IA and his gang are right about their bunkai interpretations, this particular family of TMAs has built into its fighting repertoire, as recorded in kata, a whole catalogue of techniques regarded as too nasty to use in supposedly `all out' fighting competition? And I would bet that exactly the same observations can be made about KF or any of the Chinese fighting systems.

So far as I can see, it comes down to the same point that you, Shesulsa, and (it feels like) a zillion other people have made in this and various threads on MT since the board began---the resources are there, but you have to train them for the particular purpose(s) you want to apply them to. If hard street defense is what you need, the traditional CMAs, KMAs, O/JMAs, FMAs and so on have enough nasty techniques to keep anyone happy for a lifetime of training---but you then have to train for that purpose. That's why Abernethy devotes the last chapter of his book on applications of kata bunkai to the particular methods he uses at his dojo to make the training of those bunkai as realistic as possible without anyone actually having to be hospitalized...


----------



## Odin

zDom said:


> Great point and post, Andrew.
> 
> Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?
> 
> Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?


 
If there wasnt a cage wall or ropes you'd fall out ( how many times have you seen fighters get tangles in  the ropes in pride, it would be the same except they would be on the floor rolling around the audience!lol)

and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.


----------



## Andrew Green

7starmantis said:


> Thats a very good point. I'm sure things would be very different. In truth that is where I was trying to go with the discussion. I used the UFC because it is well known and has been a great tool for promoting the MMA method of training. But I'm talking more about the idea, principle, or techniques of the styles. It seems the consensus is that MMA is more modern, full contact, more effective, or just overwhelming enough to really be a more effective fighting system than ... well pretty much anything else.  I'm interested in getting to the bottom of why that is, why people feel that way, and what aspects of MMA training they feel create that.




I think it comes down to training mindset and intensity.  Most Kung Fu guys don't regullarly go Full contact, those that do drift to Sanshou, or even Kick boxing and out of the "traditional" line up.  

A person that has a interest in pushing competitive fighting is not likely to stay in a forms based school, they will go to a place that suits there needs.  

Kung Fu can still be combative, and can still work in MMA, Cung Le for example has made the crossover and appears to be off to a strong start 

But, what most people do as Kung Fu is far from combative, not to say its bad, but without the intensity, contact levels and time spent doing hard sparring, combat sports are not a option.



> I agree with you on that one. I dont know if it was the type or land or what, but CMA tends to focus on ground fighting from the idea of escaping. I dont think it had to do with dishonor, that would be more a JMA than a CMA thing really. I dont know anything about dog boxing but I agree the grappling tends to be simple. But we must ask why that is. Does that mere fact prove that grappling can overtake these CMA styles? Does a non grappler stand a chance agaisnt a grappler? Why do grappling technqiues automatically get the nod in that lineup? What about fighters like Chuck Liddell, he's not a grappler, he says that himself. I'm not sure that the idea of CMA grappling being simple proves that grappling is a more effective method of fighting. Does it?




Well, Chuck Liddell was a pretty good wrestler, and still spends a good amount of time training in wrestling.

Grappling is necessary if either person knows how to do it, same as striking.  With a few months training in either a person can dominate over a new person with similar conditioning and aggressiveness quite easily.  Grappling won everything early because the grapplers understood striking better then the strikers understood grappling.

A well conditioned wrestler will be able to force a clinch, and get a takedown fairly easily on someone without wrestling experience.  And once its down, and a superior grappler has control, it's unlikely it will go back up.  The striker might land a couple blows, but well conditioned fighters don't usually drop from a couple blows...

A non grappler going into mixed competition needs to know enough to avoid getting into trouble, avoid submissions, and look for a way back to there feet without getting put in a worse position.  Someone without any grappling experience will likely be taken down and dominated.

But then it's back to that people drifting to where they should be part.  Someone wanting to fight in MMA will lean towards places teaching those skills.

Someone looking for a "well rounded" approach with no intent to compete will need a different level of skills, in different areas.

One thing  that amazes me is why this is a issue, why is MMA vs traditional styles a worry for some?  Traditional stylists have not done well in boxing, kick boxing, muay thai, etc.  Why are there not the same level of Karate vs Muay Thai fights?

My best guess is the rules, not the current ones, but the old "no rules" ones.Other rule sets are much more restrictive, more equipment was worn, especially compared to the old bare knuckle days, and the "rules" excuse was elliminated as best as possible.  There where 2 rules, no biting and no eye gouging, neither of which resulted in a DQ, or even a pause, just a fine that went to the other fighter.

There where of course circumstantial rules, the type of ring, the floor, the cage, no weapons, etc.  Same as in those old Leitai, although different circumstances.  However in both environments fighters would alter there strategy to fit the ring, which happened in the UFC.

Rules and situation always make the fight, in open tournaments all the TKD / Karate / Kung Fu people fight the same way for the most part, same as in MMA.  In judo, same thing, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, Olympic TKD, same thing all around.  The rules dictate what works and what doesn't.

The UFC was an attempt, in the beginning, to answer the question of "What happens without the rules?", promoted by people that knew from experience what to do and expect to promote there system.  How successful the enivronment was to the question is debateable, but nothing better has surfaced, and probably won't for legal reasons.

Now there is rules, and the system is developed.  If you want to beat a MMA fighter, in a MMA match, you need to train the MMA way.  Not the Kung Fu way, not the Aikido way, not the karate way.  Doing so will not work.

But then if your goal is to be able to beat everyone in every type of rules you got some serious insecurity issues that need to be addressed and training should not be a priority...


----------



## Andrew Green

Odin said:


> and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.



That they would...  Ouch...  remember that kickboxer getting suplexed twice in a row by Severn?  I think he'd be eating through a Tub right now if the fight was on concrete :s


----------



## g-bells

i believe that alot of ma do their art for self defence and for their love of their art.i personally train for self-defence and for the fact that i enjoy training and all the learning that comes with improving. i see no need to prove myself in a format such as the UFC. it is great to spar and evulate your progress but there are certain techniques that i don't utilize in sparring that i would use to defend myself in a real life situation.this is just my oppinion and i hope not to offend anybody


----------



## Seeking Zen

7starmantis said:


> I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true? 7sm
> MMA, UFC, ect... are entertaining, an excellant form of sport. As with all point based sports they are bound by rules. Rules that limit actions yet prolong the action for the viewer. This is not based on "reality" or a "full ground curriculum" rather a thrilling expose of strenght, endurance, and skill.
> Traditional MA teaches that real self defence elinmiates the threat in the least amount of time, and most effective way possible. UFC etc are not examples of self-defense.
> 
> Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA
> 
> 
> What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?
> 
> 
> 7sm


MMA, UFC, ect... are entertaining, an excellent form of sport. As with all point based sports they are bound by rules. Rules that limit actions yet prolong the action for the viewer. This is not based on "reality" or a "full ground curriculum" rather a thrilling expose of strength, endurance, and skill. 
Traditional MA teaches that real self defence eliminates the threat in the least amount of time, and most effective way possible. UFC etc are not examples of self-defence.

Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA. All this to say if you take away the below rules TMAKung Fu, Karate, ectwill fare very well.

*Fouls: **[Top]*
1. Butting with the head. 
2. Eye gouging of any kind. 
3. Biting. 
4. Hair pulling. 
5. Fish hooking. 
6. Groin attacks of any kind. 
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 
8. Small joint manipulation. 
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 
13. Grabbing the clavicle. 
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. 
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. 
16. Stomping a grounded opponent. 
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. 
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. 
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. 
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. 
21. Spitting at an opponent. 
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. 
23. Holding the ropes or the fence. 
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. 
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break. 
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee. 
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat. 
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee. 
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. 
30. Interference by the corner. 
31. Throwing in the towel during competition. 

*Ways To Win: **[Top]*
1. Submission by: 
Physical tap out. 
Verbal tap out. 
2. Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest. 
3. Decision via the scorecards, including: 
Unanimous decision. 
Split decision. 
Majority decision. 
Draw, including: 
Unanimous draw. 
Majority draw. 
Split draw. 
4. Technical decision. 
5. Technical draw. 
6. Disqualification. 
7. Forfeit. 
8. No contest.


----------



## Andrew Green

Seeking Zen said:


> Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA. All this to say if you take away the below rules TMAKung Fu, Karate, ectwill fare very well.



This has been addressed countless times.

How many of those things are allowed in your style's full contact matches?  So it is less realistic then?  You're training is bound by rules and restrictions as well, IMO more of them.

None of those rules where there back when Kung Fu and karate guys where fighting in these events.


----------



## Hand Sword

7starmantis said:


> I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didnt mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?
> 7sm


 
 In terms of Reality fighting, it's the key to everything, TMA or MMA. Freeze up, or give into panic, you're done! MMA trains for this, with the contact, and the mental intent of the execution of their goals (seeking a ko, or submission). TMA starts from a defensive mind set, moving after the aggressor attacks (physically, or body language). 

I believe that I said to beat boxing use the TMA in a "boxing type" manner, or tactics, not necessarily box to beat boxing. A boxer will outbox you, spending 100 percent of his time boxing, and TMA's hardly not, overall. You would have to spend a good amount of time Boxing to come up to their level of boxing. I do feel that one should take up boxing, at least for the familiarity factor. It will help TMA'ers adapt their stuff.

CMA is not outdated, IMO, It comes down to a practitioner, anyway. Boxers give all MA'ers Trouble, even MMA too. 

For cross training, definitely a ground game, again, for familiarity of the better fighters. Escape from them, no need to worry about a thug's ground game in a fight very much. Plus you'll pick up better ways of using your ground game. Face it, in TMA classes, attempts of the ground game, or boxing, by classmates won't be nearly the same as those that do it specifically.


----------



## Hand Sword

funnytiger said:


> I have a hard time picturing this statement since my style's MO is "continuous fighting". In other words, combo after combo until the other guy doesn't get up. So is my particular art the odd man out because of that mode of thinking, or is this statement a sweeping generalization?


 
Well, if you train that way, then, yes, you are an exception. You are in a MMA type mind set. 




funnytiger said:


> I have always thought this was a load of bunk. If I had a quarter for every person on these boards who said, "every (or most) fights end on the ground" I would be a wealthy woman. However, if I was to get a quarter for every fight that I have witnessed with my own eyes that actually ended up on the ground I wouldn't be able to make a telephone call in a phone booth.
> 
> I probably haven't seen as many fights as some, but I've seen my fair share. On second thought, I would say that statment is a half-truth. In the fights I have seen one person always ends up on the ground. Usually ending up the recipient of a boot in the face, and sometimes just unconsciousness.


 

I don't believe I said anything about fights ending up on the ground. I said  fights, MMA type also, don't always go along the lines of one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt, or a grab of some sort, Which TMA's spend their time defending mostly. As for the bunk, you spoke of, well let's just say, it usually comes from, and should be reserved, for those that talk along the lines of "Training, seeing, or watching" then them giving opinions of how it "really is".


----------



## Flying Crane

I think there is another part of the picture:  People who are interested in this kind of competition go to MMA type schools, train and then compete.  These schools lean toward that kind of competition, so if that is what you want, that is where you go.

I think perhaps most of the TMA guys, including CMA, just aren't interested in the competition for whatever reason.  Maybe they know they personally aren't cut out for that kind of thing.  Maybe it just holds no interest for them.  Maybe they don't feel any need to prove themselves one way or the other.  So they don't get into it.  

Whatever records exists regarding wins and losses in the UFC and related matches are slanted toward those who practice MMA because they are, by and large, the types of people who compete.  Sure, in the early days some TMA people competed, but I think that is generally not the case anymore.  So we really don't have an accurate picture of how well TMA would stack up.  What we have are a few examples of those who didn't do well, but the data pool is really too small to make any conclusive determination.  The data that really exists is a whole lot of MMA type guys competing against other MMA type guys.  The TMA guys are mostly absent from the data.  You can't make meaningful conclusions from that absence of data.

So maybe the few TMA people who did compete didn't do well, but I think the early UFC was a bit of a wakeup for many people.  It showed a lot of people where their skills may be lacking.  However, I don't think it so much exposed holes in their different arts, but rather perhaps exposed holes in their training methods.

In many cases, I think the training done today in the TMA is not on the same level of intensity that it was done in the past.  Our society has changed and the need to fight has been significantly reduced.  We now have law enforcemet agencies and networks and 911 telephone systems that we can use to get help.  We also have laws that punish criminal behavior, and a society that generally frowns on violent behavior.  For most people, our need to fight and defend ourselves is significantly reduced.

It is certainly possible to go thru your entire life and never get into a real fight.  I have been doing martial arts for 22 years, I have lived in a larger city (San Francisco) for over 12 years, and I have never had to use my skills to defend myself.  Sure, I have had people mess with me, but I have either been able to defuse the situation, or else I had an escape route present itself and I was able to clear out without coming to blows.  Nike-jitsu doesn't bruise my male ego in the least.

But in the older days in places like China of a couple hundred years ago or older, these options didn't always exist.  China is a huge country, with lots of areas that are or were sparsely populated.  Law enforcement was less trustworthy and not present to help you.  Telephones didn't exist.  Aid was often far away if it existed at all.  So you had a much greater need to depend on your skills to save your life.  The severity of training probably reflected this reality.  I think that many people who train in TMA today don't have the same level of useage ability that those in the past did.  We no longer need it on the same level, so our training is not as good.  We no longer have the opportunity to really test our stuff for real, because of how our modern society is.  

But I think it is possible to bring the level of TMA back up.  It is just a matter of making a commitment to train more harshly for the combat and conditioning, that most of us don't do anymore.  If done so, TMA can be elevated to a truly awsome and horrifyingly effective and brutal art.  But for most people, probably myself included, we have lost that edge.  MMA trys to bring that edge back, and for that it should be commended.  But I think TMA are much richer arts than MMA, and if TMA were brought back up to that level we would see some much different results.

Ultimately, I don't see this as an argument over better or worse arts, but rather better or worse training methods and thoroughness.  Perhaps that is where MMA has the edge.  But anybody could bring their TMA up to gain that same edge if they committed to training to do so.  After all, MMA techniques are based on the same techniques found in the TMA.  There really is not difference between the two, except for the mindset and approach to training.  Once upon a time, each and every TMA that we have today was considered Modern and Cutting Edge...


----------



## matt.m

shesulsa said:


> I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.


 
Curiously, I was talking with a friend of mine who has begun taking TKD at my school.  (Side note: This guy also has a purple in Tracy's Kenpo).

He asked me "If you were to fight how do you think it would turn out, since you have a Hapkido, Tae Kwon Do, and Judo background?"  

I replied, "I am not good, I know many personally that could most likely beat the snot out of me.  However, if they win as they most likely would.....hmmm.....that person would have nightmares about our fight and not come back for seconds."

Ah, a question/example of the old kung fu fighting was brought up earlier.  Well it is safe to assume that a big majority of us have seen "Jet Li's Fearless".  It is the same thing as what was being described.  The raised stone platform.


----------



## zDom

Odin said:


> If there wasnt a cage wall or ropes you'd fall out ( how many times have you seen fighters get tangles in  the ropes in pride, it would be the same except they would be on the floor rolling around the audience!lol)



You assume they would go on fighting the same way, but it is likely they would NOT fight the same way if falling out of the ring is a loss. I think fighters would adjust their tactics to make sure they weren't forced out of the ring, resulting in a new set of techniques/tactics/strategies deemed "effective" such as ways to hold your ground, as opposed to ways of moving your opponent into a position up against a cage, which is presently the dominant strategy in the UFC, for example.



Odin said:


> and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.



Many of those takedowns are bad for BOTH guys if they are landing on a hard surface.

We agree, then, that throws would become potential "game enders." Especially if the "no spiking them on their head" rule is removed, as well.

And this would drastically alter the way competitors fought. 

There would probably be a shift in the focus from ground grappling techniques to throwing techniques, ways of avoiding situations which can get you thrown, and breakfalling.

Especially if it was a rough, textured hard surface that could cause abrasions while rolling around on it.

I bet competitors would also holler for a rule change allowing them to wear gis/doboks instead of nothing but biker or boxing shorts.

Do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## zDom

Flying Crane said:


> The data that really exists is a whole lot of MMA type guys competing against other MMA type guys.  The TMA guys are mostly absent from the data.  You can't make meaningful conclusions from that absence of data.



EXACTLY (well put!).

Moreover, the TMA-fighter data that IS available is, IMO, unreliable as it is not truly representative of the best TMAs practitioners.

I think that is because the best TMAists don't feel any need, desire or obligation to prove themselves in a public display under those conditions.

So you are getting the very BEST of MMA'ists in their prime competing against TMA oddballs who, most would TMAists would agree, are NOT the best representatives of their arts.

Find me a 70 year old MMA stylist volunteer with no cage matches ever fought, under blue belt in BJJ, and put him up against Ji Han Jae, for example, and see what kind of results you get. 

That way we can video tape the match so we can play it over and over again as "evidence" that MMA training isn't effective.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Many of those takedowns are bad for BOTH guys if they are landing on a hard surface.
> 
> We agree, then, that throws would become potential "game enders." Especially if the "no spiking them on their head" rule is removed, as well.


 
I think we covered this before, but the "spike on head" rule refers to pro-wrestling style pile driver stuff, not judo/sambo type throws.


----------



## Rook

shesulsa said:


> The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.
> 
> MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight. Fighting and self-defense are different.
> 
> I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention. In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking. And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation? We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....
> 
> What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.
> 
> If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it. If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control. If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that. If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.
> 
> We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.
> 
> Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.
> 
> Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple. I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.


 
Well, there is fighting and then there is avoiding fights.  Most everyone agrees that you should avoid the fights you can and have the best fighting system for the ones you can't avoid.  I don't see how reminding us to try to avoid fights negates best practices for what happens if and when a fight does happen.


----------



## 7starmantis

Andrew Green said:


> I think it comes down to training mindset and intensity.  Most Kung Fu guys don't regullarly go Full contact, those that do drift to Sanshou, or even Kick boxing and out of the "traditional" line up.


That I agree with. I think its a sad state of affairs, but I agree. 
Actually, all the better for me, I would rather someone take a look at me and think, oh there is one of those kung fu guys, I can take him out with no problem. 



Andrew Green said:


> Well, Chuck Liddell was a pretty good wrestler, and still spends a good amount of time training in wrestling.


Yes, but he doesn't plan on taking his fights to the ground, and many that try to take him down find his defense and stirking power too overwhelming to stay conscious. Working on ground fighting is a must, but I just dont think learning a different style (ie. BJJ) is a neccessity for being effective on the ground. 



Andrew Green said:


> Grappling is necessary if either person knows how to do it, same as striking.  With a few months training in either a person can dominate over a new person with similar conditioning and aggressiveness quite easily.  Grappling won everything early because the grapplers understood striking better then the strikers understood grappling.


Another great point. But does "grappling" mean learning a specific type or style of grappling? Ignoring ground fighting is absurd and has been long before the UFC became popular. My problem is grappling is boxed into a specific style or method and thats just not the case. There are many ways to fight effectively on the ground, few of which I think would be realistic on the pleasent surface of a parking lot littered with broken glass and cigarette butts. 



Andrew Green said:


> A well conditioned wrestler will be able to force a clinch, and get a takedown fairly easily on someone without wrestling experience.  And once its down, and a superior grappler has control, it's unlikely it will go back up.  The striker might land a couple blows, but well conditioned fighters don't usually drop from a couple blows...


Thats my major issue. Its a big assumption to assume a conditioned wrestler will be able to easily get a takedown on a non wrestler. Why is it a superior grappler is supposed to be able to keep an experienced "escaper" under control? The issue is grappling or MMA is given the "benefit of the doubt" in any situation requiring real data. Another assumption, conditioned fighters dont drop from a couple of blows....this is simply not true. Take a look at some of the best conditioned fighters and thier knockouts highlights. Again however the situation is appraoched from the grappling mindset. What if the "striker" isn't attempting to grapple (pull armbars, chokes etc) and is simply attacking "soft" areas to be released and gain his/her footing again? Your statement is assuming the striker is going to play the grappling game on the ground. This is the heart of my issue I wanted addressed with this thread. Why is it grappling is considered so overpowering that it bests everything else? Two grapplers grapple, one will loose, but if a conditioned striker is taken down and doesn't atempt the grappling game, why is it just "understood" that he will loose horribly?
What makes these grappling techniques so effective? Why are they so overpowering to other techniques? I dont look for chokes and armbars on the ground normally, I'm looking for ripping move to the genitals, fingers in the throat, etc. I've released many a choke with a nice tight grip and pull on the boys. What makes ground fighters have the advantage when faced with CMA or "standup" fighters? Is it their unrelenting intent to play their game so to speak? Is it that they train for a specific technique and simply look for it the whole time? What is it that makes ground fighters feel they can take what a "striker" has and still take him down and submit him, regardless?



Andrew Green said:


> One thing  that amazes me is why this is a issue, why is MMA vs traditional styles a worry for some?  Traditional stylists have not done well in boxing, kick boxing, muay thai, etc.  Why are there not the same level of Karate vs Muay Thai fights?


I dont think its really an issue so to speak. Its not a worry for me, what I'm concerned with is addressing every possible aspect of fighting. Like it or not (strikers and TMA people) UFC has started a whole new breed of fighters who with or without training will give everything they have and just overpower you if possible. That is important to understand and train against or with. Thats why its important to me, I want to understand it enough to experience it and leanr how I would deal with it. The thing that amazes me is that so many grapplers say there is no dealing with it. That only learning a grappling system and being a better grappler is the key. I think thats absurd and am interested in discussing that idea. Thast all.



Andrew Green said:


> But then if your goal is to be able to beat everyone in every type of rules you got some serious insecurity issues that need to be addressed and training should not be a priority...



I agree, however learning to deal with this type of fighting is important for self defense fighting. There are the bubbas that watch UFC on demand and will come rushing in with everything they got to get that cool choke or takedown. Learning to deal with every possibel type of fighter is important to me in being a well rounded fighter. 

7sm


----------



## funnytiger

Hand Sword said:


> Well, if you train that way, then, yes, you are an exception. You are in a MMA type mind set.


 
Actually, depending on how you define MMA (whether its, "Mixed Martial Arts" or "Modern Martial Arts") my art definitely could be defined as a "Mixed Martial Art" as it is derived from several other kung fu styles. Of course, I alot of Southern-based CMA are combos of other CMA styles. Does that make them MMA?



> I don't believe I said anything about fights ending up on the ground. I said fights, MMA type also, don't always go along the lines of one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt, or a grab of some sort, Which TMA's spend their time defending mostly.


 
You're right. My bad! 

You said:



> It's also primarily stand up oriented. Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, *then to grappling holds*, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used.


 
Which I read to say "goes to the ground" which is not always the case when it comes grappling. Sorry for reading into your post there!



> As for the bunk, you spoke of, well let's just say, it usually comes from, and should be reserved, for those that talk along the lines of "Training, seeing, or watching" then them giving opinions of how it "really is".


 
Okay. I admit, today may be one of my "slow" days because I could not make heads or tails of what you said here...   :asian:

- ft


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> I agree with you on that one. I dont know if it was the type or land or what, but CMA tends to focus on ground fighting from the idea of escaping. I dont think it had to do with dishonor, that would be more a JMA than a CMA thing really. I dont know anything about dog boxing but I agree the grappling tends to be simple. But we must ask why that is. Does that mere fact prove that grappling can overtake these CMA styles? Does a non grappler stand a chance agaisnt a grappler? Why do grappling technqiues automatically get the nod in that lineup? What about fighters like Chuck Liddell, he's not a grappler, he says that himself. I'm not sure that the idea of CMA grappling being simple proves that grappling is a more effective method of fighting. Does it?


 
Well, there really is no one in the big MMA groups who is not capable in  both striking and grappling.  Its just become necessary - no more pure striker vs. pure grappler.  The guys like Chuck Liddell (BJJ Purple, NCAA nationalist wrestling, world class grappling trainers working with him 6 days a week), and Vanderlei Silva (Brazil Armed Forces champion freestyle and grecoroman wrestling, BJJ black belt, world class grapplers working with him 6 days a week) are able to stay standing because they are very, very high level grapplers themselves, and have the skill and experiance to negate the overwhelming majority of takedowns that they face - and even then sometimes end up on the ground.  

Incidentally, the same goes with the grapplers.  They have had to learn striking.  




> Yes but depth doesn't negate quick effectivness does it? The fact that some arts true strength is in the long ter mstudy doesn't mean they aren't effective at the begginning. It just means they are more effective after long term study and training. Right? Or am I off base?


 
No, you are right.  I think some people just hide behind the screen of needing years before they can use their art to justify why no one is available for a challenge match.  




> What represents their track record? With what were these methods judged?


 
I think of the Gracies in Action tapes, the idea of the Gracie Challenge, the Chute Boxe Challenge, and various other offers for no-rules fights with cash prizes if you beat the BJJ/MMA guy.  THe Gracie Challenge still stands, and I find it amazing that no one has claimed it, and everyone thinks their style COULD, but just for some reason doesn't.  There have been many people who tried, and to date they have all failed... yet this bring about more denial than acceptance.  



> I think its a misrepresentation to portray CMA as not having been based around competition. They dont seem to have been based around sport or egoisstic competition, but they certainly were based around competition as Andrew pointed out eariler in the thread. Many "schools" or "families" were warring with each other, killing each other, to determien the most effective CMA fighting method all during their conception. MMAist train the style that came out on top of what? Emerged on top of public opinion? Most MMA competitions are based around a set of rules for MMA sport fighting.


 
This is important.  The superiority arguement is not based just on the ring fights, but also the no-rules fights in and out of rings.  They have had no-rules tournaments in Russia and Brazil.  They have had no-rules challenge matches (still available at anywhere there is a Gracie).  Its not just the ring matches but rather the whole picture of both ring and challenge matches.  



> Just like earlier examples, a baseball player would not do well in a basketball competition would he? They train for different rules. In order to truly compare we must look at fighters who train for the same thing. Thats why I'm more concerned with pure self defense type fighting. Do you feel MMA is a more effective street self defense method of fighting as well?


 
I think the best way to figure out what works best without rules is to look at the challenge matches without rules and see who came out on top.  



> Thats an interesting way to describe it. What makes what you described MMA rather than CMA? As a CMA fighter, since I train full speed, full contact, freeform, full resistant, does that mean I train CMA in a MMA method?


 
That would be the sports method of training, and it has been around since the begining of time.  I wouldn't call it an MMA method, just a sports method, just as boxing and wrestling use.  



> Do we really believe these methods of training are something new or modern? Did MMA emerge and create these ways of training? You spoke of the "style itself".


 
No, MMA didn't create this style.  However, most TMAists do not practice primarily in this manner, but rather in compliant and semicompliant exercises and drills.  



> What exactly is the "style" of MMA?


 
A hybrid of Western Boxing, western freestyle wrestling, muay thai, and BJJ, or any other combination of arts that covers approximately the same combination of techniques (i.e. SAMBO covers roughly the same territory as BJJ and western wrestling).  




> I use quite a lot of statistical and video data in my training. What I'm getting at is why are these things presented with ownership to MMA? I have trained like that for years. I'm interested in what makes CMA training like that still less effective, outdated, or useless agaisnt MMA training like that.


 
The MMA guys have the stats for their competitive fights and use them to improve training.  If you have a competitive fight record and use the statistics from it to feed back into your training, then I would put that in the same area as other sports systems.  Its not unique to MMA, but rather typical of sports systems (boxers and kickboxers do it too).  




> Again, what are you basing your "track record" off of? I'm still not completely sure of your definition of MMA. Is MMA refined to a specific style? You spoke of the MMA style itself, I'm really interested in hearing what comprises that style. This is a very interesting discussion, thank you for being willing to discuss things like this.


 
See above.  MMA as we know it today is a particular hybrid style.  



> Thats a great point, and probably one of the most damaging to kung fu people. However the truth is in the words, even the wrods you used: "kung fu people winning grappling tournements".


 
I used this in referance to the supposed grappling prowess of some CMAists who claim to be able to simply "apply the principles of their art on their backs" who can't seem to win grappling tournaments doing it.  That would suggest that if grappling is a concern or interest, one should look to the "conventional" sports grappling methods of BJJ, SAMBO, Catch wrestling, submission wrestling (some schools are pretty hit and miss) and Judo.  



> I can very successfully prove the statement: "the lack of grappling people winning kung fu tournements proves grappling to be less effective". But what has happened here is we have judged something out of its element.


 
Exactly.  



> Any specific tournement will cater to those training for it. Cung Lee is a CMA fighter that seems to be having some great success in the world of MMA. I really wouldn't consider Cung Lee a true CMA fighter, but it seems his methods are working. Why is that? Is it that he has adopted MMA methods?


 
Cung Lee trained in a modern sports method, San Shou, which is not dissimilar to MMA in its standup methods.  He then trained with Frank Shamrock, a famous if overrated MMAist to prepare his ground skills.  He ended up fighting only two fights, both against cans.  




> Outdated as in its methods, techniques, training habits, what exactly?
> 
> 7sm


 
I would say all three in the case of most CMA schools.


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> Yes, but he doesn't plan on taking his fights to the ground, and many that try to take him down find his defense and stirking power too overwhelming to stay conscious. Working on ground fighting is a must, but I just dont think learning a different style (ie. BJJ) is a neccessity for being effective on the ground.


 
Liddel and Silva (the two guys who to some extent can and have sucessfully stayed standing against most opponents) are themselves excellent BJJ practitioners.  I expanded on this in my last post.  



> Another great point. But does "grappling" mean learning a specific type or style of grappling? Ignoring ground fighting is absurd and has been long before the UFC became popular. My problem is grappling is boxed into a specific style or method and thats just not the case. There are many ways to fight effectively on the ground, few of which I think would be realistic on the pleasent surface of a parking lot littered with broken glass and cigarette butts.


 
There are several sucessful grappling methodologies, but they are rather similar.   BJJ, SAMBO, modern Submission Wrestling, Judo, Catch Wrestling - you could study any of these and end up fine.  



> Thats my major issue. Its a big assumption to assume a conditioned wrestler will be able to easily get a takedown on a non wrestler. Why is it a superior grappler is supposed to be able to keep an experienced "escaper" under control?


 
The early MMA fights were all about this.  We had highly rated standup fighters, everyone from kung fu experts to K-1 and IBC champions, who failed to keep their feet and could not get out from under much smaller grapplers.  We saw a 260 lbs. kickboxing champ stuck under 180 lb. Rickson Gracie and struck into submission, we saw IBC cruserweight boxing champion stuck under an 170 lb. Gracie, we saw a sucession of 200+ lbs experts in a variety of marial arts stuck under 185 lb. Royce Gracie in the UFCs.  



> The issue is grappling or MMA is given the "benefit of the doubt" in any situation requiring real data. Another assumption, conditioned fighters dont drop from a couple of blows....this is simply not true. Take a look at some of the best conditioned fighters and thier knockouts highlights.


 
Quick fights are ussually quick because of matchmaking - if someone gets dropped by one big punch, its ussually because they are nowhere near as good as the other guy (with a couple exceptions).   Fights end quick because of the discrepancy in skill.  



> Again however the situation is appraoched from the grappling mindset. What if the "striker" isn't attempting to grapple (pull armbars, chokes etc) and is simply attacking "soft" areas to be released and gain his/her footing again? Your statement is assuming the striker is going to play the grappling game on the ground.


 
Very few in the early UFCs tried to play the grapplers game on the ground.  Very few in the Gracie challenges.  Very few in the other early tournaments.  Its very probable that if someone who doesn't grapple will get stuck under someone who does.  



> This is the heart of my issue I wanted addressed with this thread. Why is it grappling is considered so overpowering that it bests everything else? Two grapplers grapple, one will loose, but if a conditioned striker is taken down and doesn't atempt the grappling game, why is it just "understood" that he will loose horribly?
> What makes these grappling techniques so effective? Why are they so overpowering to other techniques? I dont look for chokes and armbars on the ground normally, I'm looking for ripping move to the genitals, fingers in the throat, etc. I've released many a choke with a nice tight grip and pull on the boys. What makes ground fighters have the advantage when faced with CMA or "standup" fighters? Is it their unrelenting intent to play their game so to speak? Is it that they train for a specific technique and simply look for it the whole time? What is it that makes ground fighters feel they can take what a "striker" has and still take him down and submit him, regardless?


 
Trackrecord.  It really is the trackrecord of people like the Gracies that really changed the game.  In the early 90s, everyone was saying that anytime now they were going to get torn to pieces before they could get the guy on the ground and it just never happened.  




> I dont think its really an issue so to speak. Its not a worry for me, what I'm concerned with is addressing every possible aspect of fighting. Like it or not (strikers and TMA people) UFC has started a whole new breed of fighters who with or without training will give everything they have and just overpower you if possible. That is important to understand and train against or with. Thats why its important to me, I want to understand it enough to experience it and leanr how I would deal with it. The thing that amazes me is that so many grapplers say there is no dealing with it. That only learning a grappling system and being a better grappler is the key. I think thats absurd and am interested in discussing that idea. Thast all.


 
You don't necessarily have to be a better grappler, but you have to be good enough to survive until you can bring it back to your feet.  That takes a degree a grappling skill against a grappler, and there really isn't a way around it.  



> I agree, however learning to deal with this type of fighting is important for self defense fighting. There are the bubbas that watch UFC on demand and will come rushing in with everything they got to get that cool choke or takedown. Learning to deal with every possibel type of fighter is important to me in being a well rounded fighter.
> 
> 7sm


 
Yep.


----------



## Andrew Green

zDom said:


> I think that is because the best TMAists don't feel any need, desire or obligation to prove themselves in a public display under those conditions.



I think there are a couple things that lead to this...

As soon as someone does start competing in this way they stop being a traditional stylist.

And you are right, the "traditional" styles often stress other things and object to ring fighting, it's not the goal.  So why make a comparrison? Seems like saying a 18-wheeler is useless cause it looses in a drag race, or a sports car is uselss cause it can't haul much stuff across the country.

Different goals, comparrisons are silly.

MMA fighters do what they do very welll, they know what works in it and what doesn't, same for vale Tudo / no rules fighters.  They are the best at what they do, that is what they train for.

If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it.  That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything.  Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose.  Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> I think there are a couple things that lead to this...
> 
> As soon as someone does start competing in this way they stop being a traditional stylist.
> 
> And you are right, the "traditional" styles often stress other things and object to ring fighting, it's not the goal.  So why make a comparrison? Seems like saying a 18-wheeler is useless cause it looses in a drag race, or a sports car is uselss cause it can't haul much stuff across the country.
> 
> Different goals, comparrisons are silly.
> 
> MMA fighters do what they do very welll, they know what works in it and what doesn't, same for vale Tudo / no rules fighters.  They are the best at what they do, that is what they train for.
> 
> If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it.  That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything.  Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose.  Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.



Very well said, Andrew (if I had any rep left to give out right now, you'd be getting some).

And I think it even gets even more specific than that: a bracket racing (drag strip) car won't do well in a NASCAR race, for example, and vice versa. Both are race cars, but both are tweaked for optimum performance in a particular type of race.


----------



## dok

> If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it. That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything. Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose. Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.



I'm not a huge MMA fan, though I do appreciate its effectiveness.  However, early on the UFC was -not- really an MMA event and was much more style vs. style (TMA vs. TMA, boxing vs. wrestling).  Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present?  How did they do?  The question of how a traditional Kung Fu practicioner would fare in the octagon against chuck liddell is sorta done and done, but the UFC discredited some arts in terms of effectiveness (on the mat in the octagon) long before there was "MMA".  Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu?  tae kwon do?  kempo?).

I'm both asking and stating - I don't actually know fight results and who beat who.


----------



## Andrew Green

dok said:


> Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present?  How did they do?



A few, they didn't do well.


----------



## funnytiger

dok said:


> I'm not a huge MMA fan, though I do appreciate its effectiveness. However, early on the UFC was -not- really an MMA event and was much more style vs. style (TMA vs. TMA, boxing vs. wrestling). Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present? How did they do? The question of how a traditional Kung Fu practicioner would fare in the octagon against chuck liddell is sorta done and done, but the UFC discredited some arts in terms of effectiveness (on the mat in the octagon) long before there was "MMA". Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu? tae kwon do? kempo?).
> 
> I'm both asking and stating - I don't actually know fight results and who beat who.


 
I think what's important to distinguish is that kung fu in itself is not a 'style' it defines a multitude of chinese martial art styles. Wing Chun is not the same thing as Hung Ga and Hung Ga is not the same as Praying Mantis.

I would be interested to know what particular styles DID compete in the early days...

- ft


----------



## funnytiger

Jason Delucia is on guy who faught under the style of "kung fu". He wasn't breaking any barriers, but he wasn't awful either. 

Record: 33 - 20 - 1 (Win - Loss - Draw). 

Eh... not bad... apparently he also had some grappling in his arsenal as well.


----------



## zDom

dok said:


> Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu?  tae kwon do?  kempo?)



This could be more of a reflection on the competitors themselves than the styles.

For example, in one of the first UFCs, I saw a Kenpo or Kempo stylist do horrible.

High rank (5th dan?) notwithstanding, the guy didn't exactly look like he was anywhere near being the caliber of someone like Jeff Speakman who by all appearances, would be a much better representative of the art, IMO.

The taekwondo guys I saw compete in the early UFCs looked like weightlifters with minimal TKD training, not as skilled as someone like Simon or Phillip Rhee. Or Pu Gil Gwon 

And I think there was a Five Animals style Kung Fu practitioner, Jason DeLucia, who fought Royce in UFC 2, if I recall correctly. That was the one where he tried to stand up while Royce put him in an armbar. Even though he was tapping out, Royce arched and dislocated his arm.

I have no idea of how you could entice the top caliber representatives from TMAs into competing in this sort of event. Someone like Jeff Speakman or the Rhee brothers or Jet Li have WAY too much to lose, almost nothing to gain.

Whereas the Gracie family, at that time, and the MMA stylists today seeking fame and fortune have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

And both the Gracies and the newly-arrived MMAists have indeed gained plenty. Certainly a good decision on their parts.


----------



## dmax999

Just as another aspect I haven't seen brought up.

Traditional CMA were originally designed to teach soldiers to use spears.  Not much use for ground fighting in those conditions.  I believe TMAs have been modified since those times to focus on empty hand techniques since then, but its roots are definitaly based on the use of weapons first.


----------



## HG1

7starmantis said:


> why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? 7sm


Traditional kung fu trains for self defense & real usage. Entering a MMA sporting competition means there are rules in place for the protection of the competitors. This means I have to water down skills I've spent years developing - no thanks. 


7starmantis said:


> Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? 7sm


I don't think so. Traditional Kung Fu has a different purpose than MMA sport. 


7starmantis said:


> In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? 7sm


As long as there are rules it's a sport - not reality based. This takes nothing away from MMA competitors they are skilled at what they do.


7starmantis said:


> Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?7sm


TCMA are doing just fine. We have been around a lot longer than MMA, are roots are very deep in the martial forest - we aren't going anywhere. 

LOL...'evolution of fighting' that's a good one.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

There's something else that isn't being addressed.

The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.

Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!

Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.

same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.

Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event? You're gonna do something like *THAT* to someone just to win a game? When they have to earn a living same as you? I doubt it. At least I HOPE not.

I know i'd find it hard to live with. *shrug*.

So there is that natural propensity to avoid those things which is less so in the street as well that no one( even those who advocate them) are taking into account.

From the pretenders who throw out stooge pokes as excuses, to the sports crowd who say "oh well, we have fights with no rules and these fouls still dont come out"

Like as if doing something like that is automatically "Just that easy"


----------



## Hand Sword

funnytiger said:


> Actually, depending on how you define MMA (whether its, "Mixed Martial Arts" or "Modern Martial Arts") my art definitely could be defined as a "Mixed Martial Art" as it is derived from several other kung fu styles. Of course, I alot of Southern-based CMA are combos of other CMA styles. Does that make them MMA?


 

I think, and I maybe wrong,  the author of the thread is referring to Mixed Martial arts as UFC, Pride, etc.., and how they train for their sport. (BJJ/wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai). However,  In terms of definition, I guess yours and theirs would fall along the lines.


----------



## Hand Sword

Andy Moynihan said:


> There's something else that isn't being addressed.
> 
> The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.
> 
> Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!
> 
> Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.
> 
> same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.
> 
> Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event?
> 
> I know i'd find it hard to live with. *shrug*.
> 
> So there is that natural propensity to avoid those things which is less so in the street as well that no one( even those who advocate them) are taking into account.


 

Definitely a good point Andy! Plays to the subject of mentality, which was brought up by 7SM earlier. In terms of the real thing, attackers usually have conquered the mental reluctance, or fear, to not only start a fight, but, cause damage to the victim. This is where, imo, MMA training is a bit better equipped. Those that get into the MMA know what can happen to them. In training, the injuries, swelling, bleeding, occurs alot, helping to de- sensorize, and teach them to keep fighting. It also sets their minds to trying to achieve a K.O., or submission, against who's in front of them. In general, and they are exceptions to this, but, the TMA doesn't really do this. Shots are pulled, or no contact at all. Bleeding or an injury stops a fight, with apologies at that moment.


----------



## Carol

Handguns haven't made martial arts obsolete.  

The FMAs use sticks and blades, which are legal in many jurisdictions around the world, they haven't made other martial arts obsolete.

I don't think that the interests match though.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Carol Kaur said:


> Handguns haven't made martial arts obsolete.
> 
> The FMAs use sticks and blades, which are legal in many jurisdictions around the world, they haven't made other martial arts obsolete.
> 
> I don't think that the interests match though.


 
You know, I've said it before, I'll say it again:

I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life and they still dig holes with shovels.


----------



## Andrew Green

Weapons will never make hand to hand training obsolete, even ignoring sport and hobby and looking at it purely from a practical usage point of view, that level of force is not always required, or desired.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Good point and that's another difference between sport vs. defense--In professional fighting your job( within posted rules for whatever match you're fighting) is to otherwise be as aggressive as you can toward winning that match, where an average person defending him/herself most times cannot simply "unload" with everything they have and not expect repercussions after the fact if it is later ruled to be a disproportionate response to the actual degree of threat.


----------



## Tames D

Andy Moynihan said:


> You know, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
> 
> I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life and they still dig holes with shovels.


 
I love that.


----------



## exile

Andy Moynihan said:


> There's something else that isn't being addressed.
> 
> The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.
> 
> Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!
> 
> Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.
> 
> same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.
> 
> Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event?



This point of Andy's contains I think the real problem that the TMAs face in terms of street violence: they contain really horrific techniques for inflcting  extreme and very likely permanent damage on another human being, if they're trained for that purpose---and how many people are going to stay in a MA school which actually _does_ train them, earnestly and seriously,  to crush an assailant's larynx, or blind him, or kill him with a neck twist? The people who bequeathed the TMAs to us often had to do these things, because of the times and places where they lived, but _as a rule, we don't_. How many parents would continue to send their kids---who increasingly make up a large proportion of MA students, if my dojang is at all representative---to a MA school which drilled them on applying the techniques in a way that would allow them to maim and permanently disable, or kill, an attacker? 

That kind of training is mostly reserved for military applications, and a good illustration of what it can do is the battle of Tra Binh Dong, when a greatly outnumbered company of South Korean Marines decimated a sizable combat unit of North  Vietnamese infantry, with much of the fighting taking the form of grotesquely violent hand-to-hand combat in which the Korean Marines, all of them trained in military Taekwando, killed a large number of the attackers. Their use of TKD---the variety designed by General Choi as a lethal combat tool should soldiers be separated from their weapons for whatever reason---had been so effective in previous combat that the Viet Cong military command issued a directive the year before Tra Binh Dong to their officers to avoid any confrontation with Korean trops unless the odds were overwhelmingly stacked in their favor, specifically mentioning the danger that the Koreans' training in TKD posed to the Communist insurgents. Can anyone realistically picture any dojang in the US during the past 20 years imposing the kind of training that those Korean troops would have undergone to achieve that level of combat effectiveness? Or look at the video that we saw a few weeks ago when the `Police Shotokan' thread posted links to it---how many dojos train karate to that level of scary brutality? And it's not gonna happen, in a culture in which people seek out MAs for reasons that have little to do with genuine survival needs.

Here's where the dead horse comes in: it's been said, over and over, that it's not enough to have the techniques, you have to know how to use them and you have to be willing to use them. I've no idea just how Frank Shamrock or any of the Gracies would do against those Korean Marines under the conditions of the battle at Tra Binh Dong (whose ferocity and effectiveness earned every single member of the 11th S. Korean Marine Corps Company a full promotion to the next rank personally authorized by President Park Chung Hee of the ROK)--- but I have a hard time picturing the MMAists looking forward to the encounter. But how many people would _want_ to undergo that training unless they had to, unless they were going to face just those conditions? As Andy suggested in his posts, anyone who eagerly looked forward to being able to deliver that level of violence to someone else under the normal conditions we live in probably has something seriously wrong with them. And no MA school that caters to that desire is going to stay in business for long, because that's not what the MA clientele in this country wants. So as far as I can see there's no point in talking about the TMAs vs. the MMAs or whatever; there's just no way short of fight-to-the-death conditions to evaluate which of them is `better'  in combat, and even then, all you have in the end are individuals, trained to a certain level of destructive capability that in most cases probably falls far short of what is possible,  fighting  other individuals. MAs are _systems_ and systems don't fight systems; people fight people.


----------



## Hand Sword

Outstandingly put Exile!


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I think there is another part of the picture: People who are interested in this kind of competition go to MMA type schools, train and then compete. These schools lean toward that kind of competition, so if that is what you want, that is where you go.
> 
> I think perhaps most of the TMA guys, including CMA, just aren't interested in the competition for whatever reason. Maybe they know they personally aren't cut out for that kind of thing. Maybe it just holds no interest for them. Maybe they don't feel any need to prove themselves one way or the other. So they don't get into it.
> 
> Whatever records exists regarding wins and losses in the UFC and related matches are slanted toward those who practice MMA because they are, by and large, the types of people who compete. Sure, in the early days some TMA people competed, but I think that is generally not the case anymore. So we really don't have an accurate picture of how well TMA would stack up. What we have are a few examples of those who didn't do well, but the data pool is really too small to make any conclusive determination. The data that really exists is a whole lot of MMA type guys competing against other MMA type guys. The TMA guys are mostly absent from the data. You can't make meaningful conclusions from that absence of data.
> 
> So maybe the few TMA people who did compete didn't do well, but I think the early UFC was a bit of a wakeup for many people. It showed a lot of people where their skills may be lacking. However, I don't think it so much exposed holes in their different arts, but rather perhaps exposed holes in their training methods.
> 
> In many cases, I think the training done today in the TMA is not on the same level of intensity that it was done in the past. Our society has changed and the need to fight has been significantly reduced. We now have law enforcemet agencies and networks and 911 telephone systems that we can use to get help. We also have laws that punish criminal behavior, and a society that generally frowns on violent behavior. For most people, our need to fight and defend ourselves is significantly reduced.
> 
> It is certainly possible to go thru your entire life and never get into a real fight. I have been doing martial arts for 22 years, I have lived in a larger city (San Francisco) for over 12 years, and I have never had to use my skills to defend myself. Sure, I have had people mess with me, but I have either been able to defuse the situation, or else I had an escape route present itself and I was able to clear out without coming to blows. Nike-jitsu doesn't bruise my male ego in the least.
> 
> But in the older days in places like China of a couple hundred years ago or older, these options didn't always exist. China is a huge country, with lots of areas that are or were sparsely populated. Law enforcement was less trustworthy and not present to help you. Telephones didn't exist. Aid was often far away if it existed at all. So you had a much greater need to depend on your skills to save your life. The severity of training probably reflected this reality. I think that many people who train in TMA today don't have the same level of useage ability that those in the past did. We no longer need it on the same level, so our training is not as good. We no longer have the opportunity to really test our stuff for real, because of how our modern society is.
> 
> But I think it is possible to bring the level of TMA back up. It is just a matter of making a commitment to train more harshly for the combat and conditioning, that most of us don't do anymore. If done so, TMA can be elevated to a truly awsome and horrifyingly effective and brutal art. But for most people, probably myself included, we have lost that edge. MMA trys to bring that edge back, and for that it should be commended. But I think TMA are much richer arts than MMA, and if TMA were brought back up to that level we would see some much different results.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't see this as an argument over better or worse arts, but rather better or worse training methods and thoroughness. Perhaps that is where MMA has the edge. But anybody could bring their TMA up to gain that same edge if they committed to training to do so. After all, MMA techniques are based on the same techniques found in the TMA. There really is not difference between the two, except for the mindset and approach to training. Once upon a time, each and every TMA that we have today was considered Modern and Cutting Edge...


 
Mike,  Great post! You certainly bring up some very good points.  For myself, I have no desire to compete.  That being said, I'm not going to that 'record' that everyone seems to thrive on having.  Does this mean that I can't defend myself?  Of course not.  Does this mean that the millions of other people that do not compete are incapable of defending themselves? Of course not.  Having a 'record' in 'the ring' does not mean success in every confrontation.  

I know a number of people that have successfully defended themselves, and last I knew, I havent seen them sign up for the latest cage fight.  

I said it before and I'll say it again.  I give alot of credit for what the UFC has done, and I've added methods to my own training.  There are things that I gain from my training, that the mma type just can't offer.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> Well, there is fighting and then there is avoiding fights. Most everyone agrees that you should avoid the fights you can and have the best fighting system for the ones you can't avoid. I don't see how reminding us to try to avoid fights negates best practices for what happens if and when a fight does happen.


 
Well, thats the thing..is there an ultimate art out there?  I think if we look really deep into every art, we'd see, a small hole somewhere.  I'm sure that everywhere we look, we could find something, some area, that could be expanded upon.


----------



## funnytiger

Hand Sword said:


> I think, and I maybe wrong, the author of the thread is referring to Mixed Martial arts as UFC, Pride, etc.., and how they train for their sport. (BJJ/wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai). However, In terms of definition, I guess yours and theirs would fall along the lines.


 
I understood the OP's question and its purpose. It was kind of an aside point on how we define MMA...


----------



## kempo-vjj

I have seen only a few, I'll say chinese martial artists (style?) that have competed in the UFC, from what I could see had very poor boxing skills. American boxing and Chinese taught boxing must be different. For the last Olympics the chinese team went and got cuban coaches to train them. Just 2 cents. I agree it's a training philosophy for UFC training. Traditional martial arts to do not seem to apply to this area. For me and my style neither do any of my self defense techniques.


----------



## 7starmantis

There have been some great points so far in this thread. I wanted to clarify that I am not neccessarily referring to competition and "in the ring" or octagon fighting. I used that example to get my point across as the UFC is well known and would help my point be understood. It seems I wasn't clear enough. I am refering to the style of the UFC if there is one, the grappling mentality, the BJJ guys, the grapplers who train for self defense type combat, not sport competitions. 

In my own opinion I think the whole grappling game is a wake up call for lazy martial artists to realize how they are training. I completely disagree that a person needs to go study bjj or wrestling to be able to effectively defend against a grappler, they need to study their style of fighting and methods of training to see if its realistic enough to handle this type of fighting. What fascinates me is the mentality that a grappler will be just so overpowering and overwhelming that he will take you down and choke you or submit you and therefore that intent is so strong nothing you can do will allow you to defend against it. They are so strong and forcefull they will take what you give them and still get the choke. Now we can all turn our heads and say that type of mentality doesn't exist, but its there and for the most part I think its very true. The problem is the inconsistency of the two opposing forces. For a non grappler, how do you really honestly shut down a grappler who is just forcing you to the ground and choking you out? If the attacker is a bjj fighter and you dont know bjj, you can't use the bjj method of escaping or turning the attack on them. Well, a nice tight ripping grab to the boys might do the trick, but as someone earlier pointed out, is that really what you want to do? I've broken many a choke with a nice tight twisting pull, but I'm not going to take it to the same level the choker can. The choker can put me unconscious with very little concern for my wellbeing, I can't very well scrape optic nerve out from under my fingernails and feel ok about it can I? That right there is the inconsistency of the "competition" of the two. However, most seriously competent grapplers I have trained with or had the pleasure of knowing honestly believe those "nasty techniques" will not honestly work. And with good reason too, most people who apply them either pull them or stop them, or have no force or application behind them. However, are you really going to hurt someone to prove you can defend their takedown or submission? 

So then the discussion is moot some might say. But I find it interesting to discuss the possibilities of specific encounters of these types. In a real situation will a non grappler (who doesn't study a grappling art) be able to seriously defend against an intent takedown? I'm talking in a self defense situation? Then on the other hand, is a takedown really the smart thing to do on the pavement outside the club with 3 of his friends lurking around? These are the things that interst me, not the "will kung fu work in the octagon" discussion. We know it will not. I'm concerned with life or death self defense, and like it or not there are people who watch the UFC and want to go outside and armbar the first guy who looks at their girlfriend. How would a CMA practitioner deal with that type of intensity and technique? Can a CMA player really have the tools to defend those types of attacks without also studying bjj or wrestling? 

7sm


----------



## dok

haven't you've answered your own question?
If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

style is nigh unto irrelevant compared to your commitment to training and the skill level of your instructor.  that goes for mma vs kf or anything else.


----------



## Andrew Green

dok said:


> haven't you've answered your own question?
> If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.




But you are making the assumption that what works against a highly trained professional fighter who is prepared to fight, and knows he is in a fight and is commited to hurting you is what works in all situations.

Self-defence and "fighting", even the physical skills of self-defence and "fighting" are different.

Fighting is a piece of that puzzle, but there are other pieces. IMO MMA fills the fighting piece better then any other style, but it is only one pieces of a larger puzzle.  Kung Fu, and other arts do fall short when compared to MMA under MMA standards.  Look at the bigger picture and perhaps Kung FU fills other pieces of the puzzle better then MMA


----------



## dok

> But you are making the assumption that what works against a highly trained professional fighter who is prepared to fight, and knows he is in a fight and is commited to hurting you is what works in all situations.



the question was [paraphrase] - "can CMA deal with the intensity / technique of someone who trains and fights MMA".  Personally, I wasnt making any statements (cause I don't study KF/ CMA's) - only working off the logic and assumptions that 7star presented.  

We're not talking "any and all" SD situations - as most SD situations don't involve UFC afficionados.  We're talking SD situations VS. MMA (or at least, thats how I read it).  SD overall is a much bigger issue that I haven't even thought of in this context, as quite honestly I don't know enough about CMA's to make a qualified assertion.


----------



## Carol

7starmantis said:


> So then the discussion is moot some might say. But I find it interesting to discuss the possibilities of specific encounters of these types. In a real situation will a non grappler (who doesn't study a grappling art) be able to seriously defend against an intent takedown? I'm talking in a self defense situation?


 
Sure, if they train for the situation.

Can field hockey player put on skates join an ice hockey league on the rink?  I think so.   

But a field hockey player that doesn't spend time learning how to ice skate and doesn't put in the effort learning the rules of their new league will probably not perform as well as the player that spends time training on the rink and absorbing the new rules.



> Then on the other hand, is a takedown really the smart thing to do on the pavement outside the club with 3 of his friends lurking around?


 
That question could also apply Baqua, yes?   (Or Silat, or Judo...)  As a Silat player, I'd say...it depends.



> These are the things that interst me, not the "will kung fu work in the octagon" discussion. We know it will not. I'm concerned with life or death self defense, and like it or not there are people who watch the UFC and want to go outside and armbar the first guy who looks at their girlfriend. How would a CMA practitioner deal with that type of intensity and technique?


 
The same way a CMAer would deal with the intensity and technique of a pugilist that would sucker-punch the first guy who looks at their girlfriend.  Situational awareness is paramount.  



> Can a CMA player really have the tools to defend those types of attacks without also studying bjj or wrestling?


 
Sure a CMA player can have the tools.  But threats can change. 

Sometime back, a teacher taught me ways to help avoid a potential carjacking.  It's great advice.  Park under the light, stay with a trusted companion, carry a light, look around the car, always have a cell phone at the ready...etc.

I believe very strongly in these principles that help prevent carjacking.  I also believe that these principles are so good they help keep me safe from troubles other than carjacking.

But, as good as these skills are, they don't really protect me against....identity theft.  I had to learn a different skillset to protect my credit history.

A CMAer that seeks out how to break a choke or how to defend against a takedown is going to do better than a CMAer that wonders why a defense against a punch may not be enough to get them out of a sleeper hold.


----------



## variance

I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.

First off I believe there hasn't been a large representation of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts fighters in UFC. The "Wing Chun" guy wasn't even a wing chun guy if i remember right. he had what, six months of training?

MMA is a sport.
The difference between street and sport is more than just technique and rules.

The rules in MMA make it biased towards submission and ground because knockouts are more risky and dangerous. You're not going there to defeat or incapicitate/kill them. You're there to win. You don't worry about other factors.

In a real fight. You never want to be on the ground any longer than you need to. Potential Ground Stomp by a multiple opponents. Most sport fighters also don't train extensively to deal with weapons. They train around the rules of the sport in order to win. Not to kill. Not to say they can't defend themselves but to make ignorant generalizations is just retarded. Reminds me of the long retarded arguments of Freudian vs Jungian Psychology.

also in a sport, you have sportsmanship, control. Some people have trouble fighting in a restricted arbitrary ruleset when they've trained otherwise. 
"All or Nothing".  While others may have taken a "zen/buddhist" stance. They see no need to go out and prove themselves to the world or they have other things preoccupying their minds.

I believe someone said it best that the UFC/MMA is the best attitude is mainly a reactionary insecure attitude to what they perceived "mysticism" and "condescendence" of eastern martial arts.

which is not to say that this condescendence/superioity complex doesn't exist. but the art/system being overall superior threads have got to stop.

The only constant in every martial art is adaptability and improvement.
What people are generally taught is techniques and different possibilities
How a individual chooses to interpret and utilize them is up to the individual.
right tool/technique for the task. 

I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.


----------



## matt.m

You guys know something, the post that Exile made about the ROK Marines was a great example.

I will use one of my own......I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994.  The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.

The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself.  You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.


----------



## MJS

variance said:


> I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
> and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.
> 
> First off I believe there hasn't been a large representation of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts fighters in UFC. The "Wing Chun" guy wasn't even a wing chun guy if i remember right. he had what, six months of training?
> 
> MMA is a sport.
> The difference between street and sport is more than just technique and rules.
> 
> The rules in MMA make it biased towards submission and ground because knockouts are more risky and dangerous. You're not going there to defeat or incapicitate/kill them. You're there to win. You don't worry about other factors.
> 
> In a real fight. You never want to be on the ground any longer than you need to. Potential Ground Stomp by a multiple opponents. Most sport fighters also don't train extensively to deal with weapons. They train around the rules of the sport in order to win. Not to kill. Not to say they can't defend themselves but to make ignorant generalizations is just retarded. Reminds me of the long retarded arguments of Freudian vs Jungian Psychology.
> 
> also in a sport, you have sportsmanship, control. Some people have trouble fighting in a restricted arbitrary ruleset when they've trained otherwise.
> "All or Nothing". While others may have taken a "zen/buddhist" stance. They see no need to go out and prove themselves to the world or they have other things preoccupying their minds.
> 
> I believe someone said it best that the UFC/MMA is the best attitude is mainly a reactionary insecure attitude to what they perceived "mysticism" and "condescendence" of eastern martial arts.
> 
> which is not to say that this condescendence/superioity complex doesn't exist. but the art/system being overall superior threads have got to stop.
> 
> The only constant in every martial art is adaptability and improvement.
> What people are generally taught is techniques and different possibilities
> How a individual chooses to interpret and utilize them is up to the individual.
> right tool/technique for the task.
> 
> I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
> and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
> Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.


 
Sir,

You'll notice throughout this forum, there are many topics of a similar nature.  While it may appear to be redundant, anyone is free to start a topic of their choice.  If you feel that there is a post that is rude, inflammatory, etc., feel free to use the RTM (Report To Mod) feature.  Its the little red triangle that is found in the upper right corner of every post.  Doing this will generate a ticket for the mod. team and it will be reviewed.  Also, if there is a post that you do not wish to read, feel free to use the ignore feature which is found on everyones profile, or just ignore the thread.

Mike


----------



## Rook

The thing is, this isn't about competing theories anymore.  In the 80s, we could talk about what art might beat what art when where why and how based on comparing their theories about and approaches to combat.  

This arguement is fundamentally different.  We aren't talking about what could happen, but explaining what DID happen and WHY.  

The grappler is not an unstoppable force, but to stop one, you need to have the only real anti-grappling defense there is - grappling.  

Rodger Gracie divided the martial arts into three general ranges - freemovement, clinching, and ground.  Now, you can easily subdivide them ad nausium, but movement within the three is very fluid, so I'm going to stick with his three ranges.  

Most martial arts deal with only one of these ranges in their common day to day practice.  The  realization of MMA has been that it takes alot less skill and strength to clinch up with someone than to stay out of the clinch, and alot less skill to take someone down than to remain standing against that takedown.  Some people, like the aforementioned Chuck Liddel and Vanderlei Silva, are at such a high level that they are rarely taken down - but even they do go down on occasion.  

There is a need for actual results against MMAists/grapplers (not the same thing BTW) by TMAists rather than theoretical exercises.  I ussually enjoy debating theories, but this is just getting absurd.  Instead of SAYING someone could have sucess, I hope we will get an actual attempt followed by the video being posted and follow-up matches.  

I have other work to do, so I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> There is a need for actual results against MMAists/grapplers (not the same thing BTW) by TMAists rather than theoretical exercises. ... I hope we will get an actual attempt followed by the video being posted and follow-up matches.



Why is this needed? By whom?

And how do you propose to get this video footage? TMAists tend to avoid getting into those situations.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Why is this needed? By whom?
> 
> And how do you propose to get this video footage? TMAists tend to avoid getting into those situations.


 
Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.  

If I say "A decent grappler can submit a larger, top level striker who is not familiar with grappling," I can cite examples, and just like footnote in an academic text, anyone can get the videos.  For example:

Genki Sudo (155 lbs.) submitts Erich Esch (professional 82-9-5 boxing, with 58 KOs, IBA Superheavyweight champion, 390 lbs).  

Royce Gracie (180 lbs.) submits Patrick Smith (225 lbs, K-1 champion)

If I say "A person untrained in sports grappling can defeat a top rated Mixed Martial artist OR a top rated sports grappler" then there is no video, no recorded instance of it ever happening.  Its just theory.  And seeing as there is ample evidence to the contrary, it is not a particularly good theory.


----------



## Flying Crane

Rook said:


> If I say "A decent grappler can submit a larger, top level striker who is not familiar with grappling," I can cite examples, and just like footnote in an academic text, anyone can get the videos. For example:


 

Yes, but I can also say that a decent striker can pummel a good grappler into submission, and then cite Gichen Funakoshi who went to Japan and defeated the jujitsu people by kicking them in the nuts.  They weren't accustomed to these fighting techniques and strategies, and he took advantage of that and defeated them.  

Is this conclusive proof that striking arts are better than grappling arts?  Of course not!  they are just an example, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## exile

Folks---

I really don't think this thread is, or need be interpreted as, a sequence of disguised flames and counter-flames. The people posting are all experienced MAists, and at least some have been involved in real, brutal, dirty fights.  I think the underlying question, the one this thread is really about, is, are you willing to inflict the most horrible damage on another person that you're capable of, using the tools your MA almost certainly makes available to you (in abundance) to carry out that kind of damage? _Are_ you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack? 

If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life _possibly_ in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is _willing_ to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the _chance_ to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that _in general_ the grappler will be able to block _every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities_ that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver? And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
more likely to win _as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist._

But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:



matt.m said:


> I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994.  The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.
> 
> The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself.  You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.



That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by _anyone_, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is _still_ a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?


----------



## Rook

exile said:


> _Are_ you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack?


 
This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques.  A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.  



> If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life _possibly_ in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is _willing_ to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the _chance_ to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that _in general_ the grappler will be able to block _every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities_ that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver?


 
The evidence has been the no-rules matches.  If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now.  There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill.  Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics.  However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better.  



> And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
> more likely to win _as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist._




_I don't believe this.  _



> But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by _anyone_, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is _still_ a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?


 
I understand your position better but I really don't agree.  There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists.  I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> That being said, what are your thoughts on MMA and weapons?
> 
> Mike


 
I think there are proven tactics for the use of weapons, usually based on police statistics.  It is best to learn the use of a weapon if desired from a qualified professional firearms instuctor rather than as a part of a modified traditional fighting system.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I think there are proven tactics for the use of weapons, usually based on police statistics. It is best to learn the use of a weapon if desired from a qualified professional firearms instuctor rather than as a part of a modified traditional fighting system.


 
Thanks for your reply.  I thought you had missed this post. 

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not.  If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the MMAist, is fully capable of a) defending against a weapon and b) this type of training is included in their training?

Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you. 

Mike


----------



## MJS

exile said:


> Folks---
> 
> I really don't think this thread is, or need be interpreted as, a sequence of disguised flames and counter-flames. The people posting are all experienced MAists, and at least some have been involved in real, brutal, dirty fights. I think the underlying question, the one this thread is really about, is, are you willing to inflict the most horrible damage on another person that you're capable of, using the tools your MA almost certainly makes available to you (in abundance) to carry out that kind of damage? _Are_ you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life _possibly_ in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is _willing_ to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the _chance_ to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that _in general_ the grappler will be able to block _every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities_ that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver? And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
> more likely to win _as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist._
> 
> But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by _anyone_, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is _still_ a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?


 
Well,  this is something that I've said before.  There are many people who successfully defend themselves and nothing is taped.  Personally, I dont care if my defense is taped or not.  What matters to me, is that I defended myself and came out safe.

Good points BTW! 

Mike


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques.  A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.
> 
> ...The evidence has been the no-rules matches.  If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now.  There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill.  Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics.  However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better...
> 
> I understand your position better but I really don't agree.  There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists.  I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.



OK, and I understand your position better too---I think we probably are just visualizing different outcomes in the extremely unpleasant circumstances which my scenario involves. As long as my line of thinking is clear, that's as much as I ever hope for in this kind of ongoing debate...:cheers:


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.



Just to sum this up for those who aren't familiar with Rook:

Kevin will accept _nothing except video footage_ as "proof."

So unless I (or some other TMA representative) go out and maim/kill a MMAist and bring along a cameraman, Kevin will simply not believe us 

*shrug*

It ain't worth it 

The thing is, up until VERY recently, mankind has been accepting things other than video tape as proof... for centuries and centuries and centuries.

(Oh, and in case you don't know: video is not always conclusive proof. I'm not disputing any of the video clips you reference, Kevin, because I believe those are legitimate tapes  especially since they were filmed in front of live audiences, for the most part, but you SHOULD realize that photographs and video footage can be altered/fabricated or situations can be STAGED  after all, what do you think feature films are?)

The point I am getting to is this: I have children that are older than MMA, as you define it. I have been practicing Korean martial arts _longer than MMA, as you define it, has even existed_.

MMA is the latest fad. We'll see if it stands the test of time or is simply just a _passing_ fad, in time.

TMAs have proved themselves over and over and over again before video cameras or even photographs even EXISTED. Sorry you weren't around to witness the proof and sorry there weren't video cameras around to document the days when our martial arts were young and trying to prove themselves effective systems by regularly maiming people.

Heck, I am TRULY sorry that footage doesn't exist. I would LOVE to see films!

But these are modern times. You can say there are "no rules" competitions, but the fact IS: you can't engage in "fights to the death" in civilized countries. They WILL throw you in jail. Authorities don't CARE that you both agreed to a NHB fight; you are breaking the law and you WILL go to jail.

The "vale tudo" and "no rules challenges" that exist today are kiddy versions, make-believe "no rules" engagements, compared to the days when OUR martial arts proved themselves.

Those were barbaric times. Civilized people have grown past the stage where we feel it is necessary to prove a martial art effective to everybody who comes along and says "I don't believe it."

The Brazillians will catch up (if they haven't already). But even at their most brutal, nobody was getting killed. Mostly just bruised egos, neh?

If someone actually DID break out some hard-core stuff and maim or kill someone, they would find themselves in the pokey doing 20 to life. And if they brought a video camera, it would make convicting them in court even easier.

I've learned to live with the fact that I will not be able to convince you of anything without video tape proof that I will probably never be able to get. 

You will need to learn to live with the fact that you will probably never get someone willing to go to prison just to convince you.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> Thanks for your reply. I thought you had missed this post.
> 
> Just so I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the MMAist, is fully capable of a) defending against a weapon and b) this type of training is included in their training?
> 
> Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.
> 
> Mike


 
No, sorry, I should have been clearer.  Using and defending against a weapon are two different things.  

To learn how to use a weapon, you need to seek out a qualified professional instructor of that weapon.  While many systems are eager to point out that many of their proponents are camo-wearing gun toting tough men, the use of a weapon is best seperated from any particular unarmed fighting system.  

The defense against a weapon, on the other hand, is part of many MMA connected systems.  Arts like BJJ do include their own anti-weapons drills.  Some arts, like SAMBO, have weapons defenses as a major portion of the curriculum.   Others incorporate it out of various methodologies like Bas Rutten's system and various others.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Using and defending against a weapon are two different things.
> 
> To learn how to use a weapon, you need to seek out a qualified professional instructor of that weapon. While many systems are eager to point out that many of their proponents are camo-wearing gun toting tough men, the use of a weapon is best seperated from any particular unarmed fighting system.


 
I agree.  IMO, its just as important to know its use as well as a defense.  Certainly a qualified inst. is the best way to go.



> The defense against a weapon, on the other hand, is part of many MMA connected systems. Arts like BJJ do include their own anti-weapons drills. Some arts, like SAMBO, have weapons defenses as a major portion of the curriculum. Others incorporate it out of various methodologies like Bas Rutten's system and various others.


 
So do MMA fighters cover this as part of their training or is mostly empty hand, such as striking, kicking, etc.?


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> So do MMA fighters cover this as part of their training or is mostly empty hand, such as striking, kicking, etc.?


 
I would say that a strong majority do study weapons defenses.  There are probably some that don't, but you'll find that in some TMA training halls too, I suppose.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I would say that a strong majority do study weapons defenses. There are probably some that don't, but you'll find that in some TMA training halls too, I suppose.


 
I guess it is true, that you learn something new every day.   I've never seen or heard of that.  I'd figure that with all the MMA tapes of guard passes, mount escapes, and the like, that there'd be a weapon defense tape as well.  

In any case, I'd be curious to know how in depth the training is.  Seeing that weapons are not a part of MMA events, I can't imagine it being worked on that much.  Can you list any fighters that do this?

Mike


----------



## Xue Sheng

I really do not want to get into another of these posts, but here I go stepping into the abyss...again

To big philosophical differences between training MMA and training TMA

MMA trains to fight and overcome an opponant in the ring.

TMA trains to fight in the hopes that they never has to. However if you take that, as TMA cannot fight you are very likely in for a big surprise should you attack one. 

As to MMA you have to admit these guys train and train hard and they train for competition therefore they are focused on fighting. And the result it they can fight and fight well. 

I have had to use my TMA and I am not proud of it, but I do know it can be extremely effective. I have no doubt that MMA can be equally as effective. But the 2 still have a major difference philosophically that makes them hard to compare. 

As to films as proof; if an MMA practitioner posts a film of course it is going to make the MMA guy look better. If it was posted by a TMA practitioner same deal. 

There is another thread going on about Shaolin do and I just saw on the youtube today a Shaolin do guy put up his fight against a Kung fu guy, and I bet you cant guess who looked better. He also posted one against a Tai Chi guy, or at least he claimed it was although speaking as a Tai Chi guy I have serious doubts it was, but again guess who looked better. 

TMA takes fighting a something very serious and not to be taken lightly. MMA takes fighting very serious in order to beat their opponent. Both viable but different. 

I will now do my best to climb out of this abyss and never to return to it, but I make no promises.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> I guess it is true, that you learn something new every day.  I've never seen or heard of that. I'd figure that with all the MMA tapes of guard passes, mount escapes, and the like, that there'd be a weapon defense tape as well.
> 
> In any case, I'd be curious to know how in depth the training is. Seeing that weapons are not a part of MMA events, I can't imagine it being worked on that much. Can you list any fighters that do this?
> 
> Mike


 
I don't actually own any of the videos myself, however, Frank Shamrock and Bas Rutten both have video series on weapons defenses.   Oleg Taktarov makes a point of mixing weapons and barehand on several videos.   The Gracies likewise have show weapons defenses on their instructional videos and in several books.  

Ken Shamrock and the Gracies each have a simplified system for military and police use that drills various weapons defenses.  

BJJ and SAMBO have standardized weapons defenses for the system.  

These are just the high profile people.  There are lots of less accomplished MMAists who also have weapons defense materials.  

The reason we don't discuss weapons defenses very much is that there is little reliable data about the relative sucess for various disarming tactics.  That makes it more difficult to say that one weapons disarming system is significantly better than another.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I don't actually own any of the videos myself, however, Frank Shamrock and Bas Rutten both have video series on weapons defenses. Oleg Taktarov makes a point of mixing weapons and barehand on several videos. The Gracies likewise have show weapons defenses on their instructional videos and in several books.
> 
> Ken Shamrock and the Gracies each have a simplified system for military and police use that drills various weapons defenses.
> 
> BJJ and SAMBO have standardized weapons defenses for the system.
> 
> These are just the high profile people. There are lots of less accomplished MMAists who also have weapons defense materials.
> 
> The reason we don't discuss weapons defenses very much is that there is little reliable data about the relative sucess for various disarming tactics. That makes it more difficult to say that one weapons disarming system is significantly better than another.


 
Thanks again for your reply.  I don't own any of the videos myself, but I did take the time to look online and came across the set by Bas.  I suppose I'd have to see them for myself to really get a feel for them.  I'm pretty much sold on the FMA method of weapon defense though, so unless the ones he is showing are something eye opening, I'll stick with what I know.

I recall a Black Belt magazine article with Bas and some Krav guys.  Not sure if he's 'borrowing' their stuff or not.

In any case though, I still stand by what I've said in the past....there is stuff to learn from both MMA and TMA.  Everyone has their beliefs and its highly unlikely that we're going to change one another.

That being said, I think the most important thing, is to do what we feel is best for us, as we all have different needs, goals, etc.

Mike


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> I recall a Black Belt magazine article with Bas and some Krav guys. Not sure if he's 'borrowing' their stuff or not.


 
The story I've been hearing up until now is that some is pure krav stuff, others has been modified by Bas in light of his personal experiance and his work with police and military, and other sections are completely unrelated to krav.  It's not just going to be krav techniques don't by Bas.


----------



## grappling_mandala

"There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force"

Without a foundation upon which to deliver a spectrum of force and tools, those spectrums of force and tools are non-existant, or perhaps seriously lacking. The stronger the MA's foundational delivery system, no matta what that system is, the higher the chances of them surviving said situation.

When I speak of a delivery system I mean the core mechanics and physics in which the MA's access when making any of their core bodily movements. The stronger their core movements the higher their chances of delivery of any spectrum of force / tools. 

GM


----------



## tsdclaflin

The Kidd said:


> You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).


 
I agree.  MMA is still a sport with rules.  I would not want to have to fight a MMA athlete, but my TMA has prepared me to defend against anyone. A quick kick to the side of the knee, a strike to the throat and/or eyes and a wrist break may just keep me alive.

MMA is probably the closest sport we now have to a real fight, but it is still a sport.


----------



## Rook

tsdclaflin said:


> I agree. MMA is still a sport with rules. I would not want to have to fight a MMA athlete, but my TMA has prepared me to defend against anyone. A quick kick to the side of the knee, a strike to the throat and/or eyes and a wrist break may just keep me alive.
> 
> MMA is probably the closest sport we now have to a real fight, but it is still a sport.


 
THis is exactly the sort of stuff that is wrong with not pressure testing things.  It is very unlikely, regardless of all the hype about it, that a person can put out a knee with a kick, however well placed.  Despite knee kicks being perfectly legal (and frequently employed) in MMA, Muay Thai, and many kickboxing leagues, it is extremely rare that anyone gets any knee injury at all.  The throat, too, will not so easy collapse.  Despite all the talk of crushing windpipes and such, many MMA contests have been help with throat attacks fully legal and I can think of no instance in which an attack was sucessful in ending the match.  The eyes could be seriously injured, but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent, and the effort might be better spent throwing regular punches rather than hitting such a small target.


----------



## 7starmantis

dok said:


> haven't you've answered your own question?
> If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.


Well that is a logical following of ideas, however the point of the thread was to dicuss _if_ these so called "nasty techniques" would work against a determined grappler. So far it seems the consensus of the grapplers is a resounding no but with only blind faith to support it. The consensus of the TMAers is a yes with only blind faith to support it. I am more interested in discussion specific situational technqiues and their strengths and weaknesses than a blind faith forum on grappling vs anything else. 
I stated kung fu would not work in the octagon because of the nature of the sport. What must you do to win in the octagon? What must you do to "win" in a self defense situation? Are the two the same? Is negating a grapplers attempts to submit you and staying away from submissions a win in the sport arena of MMA? is a hard heel kick to the groin and a dropping elbow to the back of the neck a win in this same arena? We can debate (term used loosely) the MMA vs CMA for ever and never really get anywhere. Why not address specific issues such as a specific choke and its strengths and weaknesses as applied to MMA and CMA fighting?

Once again, I didn't mean to set this discussion inside the UFC's octagon or only with its champion fighters. I meant this as a serious discussion about the real issues of a grappler vs a CMA fighter.



variance said:


> I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
> and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.
> 
> I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
> and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
> Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.


 
Im not sure what to say here. Im sorry you dont see my point in this discussion. There are serious implications to real self defense fighting in this type of discussion. What would a grappler do in a certain situation? What would the CMA fighter do? What would be the intent or plan of attack for either? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type of technique or situation? I havent seen any inflammatory posts so far in this thread really, everyone seems polite and respectful.not sure I get your point here. While threads of MMA vs Style X have been done before, it seems that at least 6 pages of discussion has come from this one. Pointless is a subjective term. What you may deem pointless I may gain great insight from. I may not be as skilled or experienced as you are, so allow me my pointless discussion as I may just learn something, eh?



matt.m said:


> You guys know something, the post that Exile made about the ROK Marines was a great example.
> 
> I will use one of my own......I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994. The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.
> 
> The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself. You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.


This is exactly what Im talking about. In this mindset and situation, how would a CMA fighter deal with the intensity and technique of a grappler? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? How can each train to better equip themselves with the skills needed for these types of exchanges?



Rook said:


> Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.


Im assuming your speaking of video proof, but there is other proof than video. Your not going to find video of people attempting to push their fingers through each others eye sockets and the like. You cant seriously be saying that means its not a valid way to discourage an attacker are you?



Rook said:


> This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques. A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.


Good, lets take this example then and apply it to a self defense situation. Is it a viable technique when attacked say in a parking lot on cement? What would you consider its strengths against the standpoint of both your arms being tied up choking while the one getting choke will most likely have both hands free to attempt such techniques as jabbing the eyes, groin, etc? What is your opinion of the mindset that purposefully attempting non-lethal techniques such as a choke in a true life or death self defense situation uses more time nad/or effort, or simply ignores more debilitating and quicker fight enders? What about the idea of choking out an opponent who might have a knife you arent aware of to slash at your choking arms or face, groin, chest areas? This is more along the lines of the discussion Im interested in. 



Rook said:


> The evidence has been the no-rules matches. If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now. There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill. Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics. However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better.


Thats faulty logic at its worst though. Would shooting a grappler or even a Gracie in the chest stop the takedown or submission? It has not been used as of yet, does that means its not a valid defense to it? Would video of a shooter missing a Gracies chest and still getting submitted prove the gun defense unreliable or ineffective? My example may be absurd, but it shows the flaw in your statement. Of course no one would go to that level of force to win a challenge.but then on the same hand, why would someone go to the level of force of actually rupturing someones eyeball, or ripping off of a testicle? Also, your last statement is faulty in its logic as well. The refusal of a challenge match has absolutely no bearing on their ability. Im not saying your wrong, just that your statement doesnt hold proof of such either way. 



Rook said:


> _I don't believe this._


Would you mind explaining a bit more your opinion on this matter? What or why do you believe is the MMA fighters advantage against a person willing to kill/maim/etc ? How often do grapplers train without cups? Do they train themselves to take and withstand shots to the groin? Is that just not a valid technique? I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 



Rook said:


> I understand your position better but I really don't agree. There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists. I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.


I would love to see your proof of this statement. To say no one has been successful in delivering lethal or deadly force against even a moderately skilled MMAist is just absurd. What kind of source do you have for this statement? What do you feel makes a MMAist invulnerable against lethal force? Could you outline any lethal force techniques you feel are incapable of effecting a MMAist? 



Rook said:


> THis is exactly the sort of stuff that is wrong with not pressure testing things. It is very unlikely, regardless of all the hype about it, that a person can put out a knee with a kick, however well placed. Despite knee kicks being perfectly legal (and frequently employed) in MMA, Muay Thai, and many kickboxing leagues, it is extremely rare that anyone gets any knee injury at all. The throat, too, will not so easy collapse. Despite all the talk of crushing windpipes and such, many MMA contests have been help with throat attacks fully legal and I can think of no instance in which an attack was sucessful in ending the match. The eyes could be seriously injured, but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent, and the effort might be better spent throwing regular punches rather than hitting such a small target.


Ive personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella.all from a kick to the knee. This was from a knife fight on the streets of Houston when I was a paramedic there, but to say that no one has ever done that to another fighter in a less than lethal situation means it wont work is again faulty logic and really false premise. Your trying to imply the fighters are attempting to do these types of throat crushing attacks and such which may very well not be the case. In my own martial arts "career" I've seen many badly torn and innjured knees from not only kicks but throws, etc. Also, your assuming these techniques such as the eye strikes are going to be done from a distance as a punch, I usually only apply those types of techniques in extremely close quarters where there is not a lot of movement to deter the technique. Im just trying to point out that your making pretty large assumptions to discount valid proven techniques. Yes, I have seen people loose their eyes from various objects being inserted into them during altercations.its most assuredly valid and if not fight stopping, definitely gives an advantage.

7sm


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> Well that is a logical following of ideas, however the point of the thread was to dicuss _if_ these so called "nasty techniques" would work against a determined grappler. So far it seems the consensus of the grapplers is a resounding no but with only blind faith to support it. The consensus of the TMAers is a yes with only blind faith to support it. I am more interested in discussion specific situational technqiues and their strengths and weaknesses than a blind faith forum on grappling vs anything else.


 
I don't see how there is only blind faith.  People tried and failed.  How is that result only blind faith?  



> I stated kung fu would not work in the octagon because of the nature of the sport. What must you do to win in the octagon? What must you do to "win" in a self defense situation? Are the two the same? Is negating a grapplers attempts to submit you and staying away from submissions a win in the sport arena of MMA? is a hard heel kick to the groin and a dropping elbow to the back of the neck a win in this same arena? We can debate (term used loosely) the MMA vs CMA for ever and never really get anywhere. Why not address specific issues such as a specific choke and its strengths and weaknesses as applied to MMA and CMA fighting?


 
I'm not sure where you're going with the different "wins"



> Once again, I didn't mean to set this discussion inside the UFC's octagon or only with its champion fighters. I meant this as a serious discussion about the real issues of a grappler vs a CMA fighter.


 
Are we discussion pure grapplers, ie people with no formal training at all in striking, or are we talking about MMAists?  The two are rather different, as grappling is only part of MMA.   



> Im assuming your speaking of video proof, but there is other proof than video. Your not going to find video of people attempting to push their fingers through each others eye sockets and the like. You cant seriously be saying that means its not a valid way to discourage an attacker are you?


 
I think it is a very limiting tactic.  You are unlikely to suceed in striking the eyes of a half-way competent resisting opponent, and even if you do by some miracle, the technique is legally problematic (severe permanent damage).  



> Good, lets take this example then and apply it to a self defense situation. Is it a viable technique when attacked say in a parking lot on cement? What would you consider its strengths against the standpoint of both your arms being tied up choking while the one getting choke will most likely have both hands free to attempt such techniques as jabbing the eyes, groin, etc? What is your opinion of the mindset that purposefully attempting non-lethal techniques such as a choke in a true life or death self defense situation uses more time nad/or effort, or simply ignores more debilitating and quicker fight enders? What about the idea of choking out an opponent who might have a knife you arent aware of to slash at your choking arms or face, groin, chest areas? This is more along the lines of the discussion Im interested in.


 
In terms of pure grappling, the position dominence should make it difficult to use a knife while an RNC, for example, is applied (there are video of SAMBO guys doing unscripted but compliant live blide with this stuff).  Assuming it is impossible to escape a knife-weilding attacker, there are weapons defenses in BJJ, SAMBO and some MMA systems as well.  



> Thats faulty logic at its worst though. Would shooting a grappler or even a Gracie in the chest stop the takedown or submission? It has not been used as of yet, does that means its not a valid defense to it? Would video of a shooter missing a Gracies chest and still getting submitted prove the gun defense unreliable or ineffective?


 
No.  However, you might be able to pull it off a takedown and disarm prior to being shot once but not consistantly... we have video of dozens upon dozens of people trying to rake the eyes and grab the groin and poke the pressure points.  There is just a sort of law of averages... with results as consistant as the Gracies have against it, we arn't talking about some freak victory but rather a consistant record of sucess against those techniques.  



> My example may be absurd, but it shows the flaw in your statement. Of course no one would go to that level of force to win a challenge.but then on the same hand, why would someone go to the level of force of actually rupturing someones eyeball, or ripping off of a testicle? Also, your last statement is faulty in its logic as well.


 
People HAVE tried to go to that level of force.  You (and for that matter me) might not want to go for the eyes to prove a point, but there are plently of people on the Gracies tapes who were willing to go that distance.  



> The refusal of a challenge match has absolutely no bearing on their ability. Im not saying your wrong, just that your statement doesnt hold proof of such either way.


 
I think it goes to the idea of the burden of proof being on someone.  If you're not going around saying how great a fighter you are, then no one will ask you to prove it.  However, when people talk about how great a fighter they are and yet have no proof, their credibility goes down at least in my eyes. 



> Would you mind explaining a bit more your opinion on this matter? What or why do you believe is the MMA fighters advantage against a person willing to kill/maim/etc ? How often do grapplers train without cups? Do they train themselves to take and withstand shots to the groin? Is that just not a valid technique? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.


 
I have seen SAMBO guys roll with a "submission due to groin" rule where you can grab the testicles and squeeze at a moderate pressure to make the other person give up (and increase pressure until they do).  Even under that ruleset, you rarely see people submitted by it.  I would not want to roll under those rules for fear of injury, but it is done.  



> I would love to see your proof of this statement. To say no one has been successful in delivering lethal or deadly force against even a moderately skilled MMAist is just absurd. What kind of source do you have for this statement? What do you feel makes a MMAist invulnerable against lethal force? Could you outline any lethal force techniques you feel are incapable of effecting a MMAist?


 
Sure.  Heart-stopping palm strikes, chin jabs, the ol' tear-out-the-intestines, etc.  These "killing techniques" just don't work.   




> Ive personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella.all from a kick to the knee. This was from a knife fight on the streets of Houston when I was a paramedic there, but to say that no one has ever done that to another fighter in a less than lethal situation means it wont work is again faulty logic and really false premise. Your trying to imply the fighters are attempting to do these types of throat crushing attacks and such which may very well not be the case. In my own martial arts "career" I've seen many badly torn and innjured knees from not only kicks but throws, etc.


 
Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike.  The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.  



> Also, your assuming these techniques such as the eye strikes are going to be done from a distance as a punch, I usually only apply those types of techniques in extremely close quarters where there is not a lot of movement to deter the technique. Im just trying to point out that your making pretty large assumptions to discount valid proven techniques. Yes, I have seen people loose their eyes from various objects being inserted into them during altercations.its most assuredly valid and if not fight stopping, definitely gives an advantage.
> 
> 7sm


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I think it goes to the idea of the burden of proof being on someone. If you're not going around saying how great a fighter you are, then no one will ask you to prove it. However, when people talk about how great a fighter they are and yet have no proof, their credibility goes down at least in my eyes.


 
Just so I'm understanding this correctly.  We have two people, person A and person B.  Person A states that he is a good fighter and has video proof of this, so therefore, he is what he says.  Person B states that he is also a good fighter, has no tape, but has been mugged 3 times, and all 3 times, he has successfully defended himself.  Due to no tape, he is not a good fighter?

Mike


----------



## MJS

7starmantis said:


> Ive personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella.all from a kick to the knee.


 
originally posted by Rook


> Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike. The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.



I thought this was pretty interesting.  
http://www.dogbrothers.com/

Click on this link.  Go to the clip that says Dog Bros. Promo Clip.  Specifically look at the clip when it reaches approx 1:58.


----------



## grappling_mandala

> Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike. The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.



... and it's rare for professional surfers to drown?



> but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent,



Never doubt you can do anything in a fight. Deliver the message that needs to be delt.

 It always happens when I shoot a rubber band at a friend, it hits him in the eye! Ouch!


----------



## Kensai

MJS said:


> Just so I'm understanding this correctly. We have two people, person A and person B. Person A states that he is a good fighter and has video proof of this, so therefore, he is what he says. Person B states that he is also a good fighter, has no tape, but has been mugged 3 times, and all 3 times, he has successfully defended himself. Due to no tape, he is not a good fighter?
> 
> Mike



That seems to be it. Video evidence proves that someone is a good fighter. Apparently...


----------



## Hand Sword

I dunno, seems like everyone, trained, and untrained, kid to grandparent seems to always critique and mention how they would win against who they're watching. I hear it constantly--LOL! So I guess it really shows how bad a fighter is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Kensai

Hand Sword said:


> I dunno, seems like everyone, trained, and untrained, kid to grandparent seems to always critique and mention how they would win against who they're watching. I hear it constantly--LOL! So I guess it really shows how bad a fighter is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


 
Yep, same here.  Same with sports, my mates, and sometimes myself yelling advice to some of the best athletes on the planet. Go figure. 

Agree with the sentiments of the post too.


----------



## 7starmantis

Rook said:


> I don't see how there is only blind faith. People tried and failed. How is that result only blind faith?


Well, basically its the aquisition of action or "potential action" through the accomplishments of another. There are a couple of things wrong with your statement here. First, no one on this thread has setup a drill where they attempt a submission against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Thats blind faith in the actions of another person (the Gracies). Second, none of the Gracies have seriously faced a life or death situation in their challenges against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Ask them, they will tell you the same. A challenge is only as good as the restrictions placed on it, be they written or assumed (ie legal/moral restrictions). So therefore, I refered to "blind faith" in that the posts on this thread have no personal experience behind them when dealing with these "nasty techniques". To say they are ineffective because someone who is skilled has defended against them is the same as the TMA guys crying that their super grand master could do it. Just my own personal opinion of course. However, I think you should look deeper into the "Gracie Challenges" and learn from them what they were and are actually about before using them as a basis for a personal belief about your own skill or the skill of practitioners of their style of fighting. 



Rook said:


> I'm not sure where you're going with the different "wins"


What I'm trying to show is the difference in mentality over what is defined as usefull or a "win". For example, a standing rear naked choke resulting in a plung backward onto the mat with your opponents weight landing on top of you can be determiend a win in the octagon, but in a dimly lit parking garage with cement parking curbs and broken glass, it might not be considered a win, in my opinion. What I'm saying is from your standpoint a defense is useless if it does not submit the opponent, from my standpoint its useful if it stops my opponent from submitting me. While a "grappler" is looking for submissions and chokes, a CMA fighter is looking for breaks and throws. Just different strategies for different goals. My main point was that alot of MMAist will overlook a technique as useless if it doesn't lead towards their goal. As would most MAist. So, to a grappler a technqiue that breaks contact with an opponent in order to escape a choke may be useless, but to a stirker or kicker, that may be leading directly to thier goal. I'll address this a bit later on when I reply to another post of yours.



Rook said:


> Are we discussion pure grapplers, ie people with no formal training at all in striking, or are we talking about MMAists? The two are rather different, as grappling is only part of MMA.


No I tend to use the term grappler to mean one who would indend to take a fight to the ground in order to apply submissions and chokes, etc. Its not really so important to define it per se. As a MMAist one would be familiar and even confident on taking a fight to the ground in order to stop it. And the sad truth is most MMAist running around the street are simply looking for and will force at the cost of alot a takedown and fancy submission. I can't tell you how many "MMAist" I have trained with that had nothing at all if you could defend their takedowns, most of which were poorly executed at that. Now that may be a poor group to base my point on, but isn't that the same thing you said wasn't an excuse to the TMA guys? I understand your point about grappling being only a part of MMA as grappling is only a part of my system of fighting as well. So, we can say we are refering to MMAist not just a grappler with absolutely no training or skill in anything but grappling. 



Rook said:


> I think it is a very limiting tactic. You are unlikely to suceed in striking the eyes of a half-way competent resisting opponent, and even if you do by some miracle, the technique is legally problematic (severe permanent damage).


I disagree that its limiting in any case, but I allready said I was not refering to a strike to the eyes as in a punch that hits the eyes. If its really that limiting why are so many UFC fights stopped at least for a Dr. check for eye strikes? Why are so many UFC fighters using the "thumb in the eye" excuse for loosing? However, that being what it is, I'm refering (as I said earlier) to more of a close quarters pushing into the eyes, not a distance strike to the eyes. Your correct about the legally problematic issue to this technique, but that is conflicting with your own statements about it not working as you cited the Gracie Challenge for proof. Does the fact that it has legal issues mean its not valid? Certainly not. However shooting someone is legally problematic yet I carry my handgun and am legally allowed to use it. See, the problem is the crossing over of the sport mentality to the life or death mentality. There arises many issues that are hard to deal with when doing so. Thats why I said I dont believe there have been many if any "challenge" matches (Gracie or not) that have been against an opponent seriously intent on performing these types of techniques. You gave the reasoning yourself. 



Rook said:


> In terms of pure grappling, the position dominence should make it difficult to use a knife while an RNC, for example, is applied (there are video of SAMBO guys doing unscripted but compliant live blide with this stuff). Assuming it is impossible to escape a knife-weilding attacker, there are weapons defenses in BJJ, SAMBO and some MMA systems as well.


Ok, I've tried to get specific allready, but lets try with this example. What position dominence protects the choking arm from slicing with a knife? What about overhead stabbing motions with a knife towards the head of the choker? What about sideways stabbing motions towards teh ribs or back of the choker? All assuming we are talking about RNC here. What position dominence assures protection from these types of attacks? 
Escape is a great tool when dealing with an attacker stupid enough to show you his blade, what about those you dont know have a blade until your being cut? Surely ever MA style has to deal with this issue, but many grappling techniques leave you a bit more exposed and for a longer period of time than some. How would a MMAist deal with the "weakness" of those types of attacks? 



Rook said:


> No. However, you might be able to pull it off a takedown and disarm prior to being shot once but not consistantly... we have video of dozens upon dozens of people trying to rake the eyes and grab the groin and poke the pressure points. There is just a sort of law of averages... with results as consistant as the Gracies have against it, we arn't talking about some freak victory but rather a consistant record of sucess against those techniques.


Thats a good point and yet you yourself gave the reason it is flawed. The "legally problematic" issue that go along with really putting out a fighters eye. Then again your basing a whole method of fighting on the skill of a few elite fighters.....sort of similar to the "super duper grand master" theory, no? I hate to be disagreeable, but in a real life or death situation the "law of averages" does not apply. The myriad of posibilities and the weight of your actions when dealing with your life, the life of your family, or the life of strangers, makes fighting on the law of averages from elite fighters or your teacher, a big mistake. Everyone must stand on their own skill, especially when life or death is on the line. If you think those gracie fights would be the same if either or both fighters seriously believed they were going to be killed, your fooling yourself. 



Rook said:


> People HAVE tried to go to that level of force. You (and for that matter me) might not want to go for the eyes to prove a point, but there are plently of people on the Gracies tapes who were willing to go that distance.


I think you need to study what the "gracie challenge" was really about. Also, you have no way of knowing what level of force a person was willing to go to, you simply can't support that statement. Its an appeal to authority. 



Rook said:


> I think it goes to the idea of the burden of proof being on someone. If you're not going around saying how great a fighter you are, then no one will ask you to prove it. However, when people talk about how great a fighter they are and yet have no proof, their credibility goes down at least in my eyes.


Thats fine, but its a bit mistake to underestimate someone simply because of lack of proof. One of the biggest mistakes made in fighting, in my own opinoin, is the assumption. 



Rook said:


> I have seen SAMBO guys roll with a "submission due to groin" rule where you can grab the testicles and squeeze at a moderate pressure to make the other person give up (and increase pressure until they do). Even under that ruleset, you rarely see people submitted by it. I would not want to roll under those rules for fear of injury, but it is done.


This is where I will revisted the earlier statement about "wins". I'm not talking about submitting someone with a groin squeeze, thats absurd. who is going to just sit there and waite for you to squeeze hard enough to make them tap out? Thats exactly my point though. No one is! So, a nice twisting or ripping tear or pull ot the groin will make the opponent react and most likely loosen up the choke or what have you. My fighting style is heavily based on reactions of the opponent. Like I said early, I'm not aiming for a tapout from grabbing your groin, I'm hoping for a reaction that allows me another attack. With two hands free, one could theoretically crush a testicle and gouge an eye at the same time. Do you seriously believe there is anyone who would continue a choke during either of those? Sure a tap to the groin wont release a choke, but doesn't it prove a further level of force was available there? Will a raking of the eyes stop a submission? Of course not, but would the explosion of the ocular membrane and possible damage or destruction of the optic nerve cause a reaction that would allow a release of the submission? Based on the law of averages and current medical information I would say yes. 



Rook said:


> Sure. Heart-stopping palm strikes, chin jabs, the ol' tear-out-the-intestines, etc. These "killing techniques" just don't work.


HAHA, I completely agree with you. I'm sorry we have gone this long with you thinking I was reffering to the poison buddah palm and such from kung fu flicks. If you seriously believe that a skilled, experienced, and intent CMA fighter fighting for his/her life is going to attempt a poison buddah palm or whatever, your sadly mistaken. Thats a huge issue with the attitude towards TMA or even CMA. Misunderstanding. There are no organ exploding techniques or reaching through the chest to pull out the beating heart techniques in true CMA. Sorry to disapoint.  However, I have put serious study into the human body (I'm currently seekign a masters degree in physical therapy) and I understand how the body works (ex-paramedic). There are fatal or dibilitaing actions one person can take on another in a fight. These are not possible to build an immunity to even if you are a MMAist. 



Rook said:


> Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike. The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.


I agree. It all depends on angle and mass, speed, etc. Again, a fairly in depth knowledge of the human body can show one how these types of attacks can be effective. Just look up the knee joint (synovial) and learn its structure....you would be surprised to learn how fragile it actually is if attacked correctly. Again we fall back to intent and legally problematic issues. Yet I still agree, it would be difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible and total destruction may not be neccessary to elicit a response or reaction that would allow another attack. 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

All of that being said....I think we are a little off topic.

Lets talk about the positional control of the RNC. Would you, or how would you attempt to position the hands of the opponent when performing this technique to lessen the possibility of attacks by the hands while you are performing the choke? Does it matter? I assume the legs would be used to keep the body close to the opponent to avoid groin attacks? 
 What about the head? Would you attempt to pull it back enough to be out of range of facial attacks?

7sm


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> Well, basically its the aquisition of action or "potential action" through the accomplishments of another. There are a couple of things wrong with your statement here. First, no one on this thread has setup a drill where they attempt a submission against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Thats blind faith in the actions of another person (the Gracies). Second, none of the Gracies have seriously faced a life or death situation in their challenges against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Ask them, they will tell you the same.


 
I disagree with this.  Some of the people have been extremely aggressive and I don't doubt the genuine intent of the people who went for their eyes etc.  



> A challenge is only as good as the restrictions placed on it, be they written or assumed (ie legal/moral restrictions). So therefore, I refered to "blind faith" in that the posts on this thread have no personal experience behind them when dealing with these "nasty techniques". To say they are ineffective because someone who is skilled has defended against them is the same as the TMA guys crying that their super grand master could do it. Just my own personal opinion of course. However, I think you should look deeper into the "Gracie Challenges" and learn from them what they were and are actually about before using them as a basis for a personal belief about your own skill or the skill of practitioners of their style of fighting.


 
The difference, I believe, is that the Gracies have done what they say.  Now, the Gracies are not nearly the top of the MMA food pyramid; none of them are even ranked anymore in any of the major organization.  With the exception of Rickson, most of them are not ultra-athletes.  They are normal people who trained very long and very hard and actually have proven victories.  That makes what they do attainable for others who are equally motivated and hardworking.  

The problem with the grandmasters who don't fight is that their level is matter of pure speculation.  Some of them, no doubt, are quite good, others are rather unimpressive and are still venerated by legions of sheep (just look at Emin Botzpe (sp) and William Cheung, or Ron Van Cleif or that video of the Tai Chi vs. Red fist fight from the fifties).  I would guess that there are far more second rate ones than good ones.  When they make extravagent claims about their abilities but don't back up their statements, in my eyes they just look absurd.    



> What I'm trying to show is the difference in mentality over what is defined as usefull or a "win". For example, a standing rear naked choke resulting in a plung backward onto the mat with your opponents weight landing on top of you can be determiend a win in the octagon, but in a dimly lit parking garage with cement parking curbs and broken glass, it might not be considered a win, in my opinion. What I'm saying is from your standpoint a defense is useless if it does not submit the opponent, from my standpoint its useful if it stops my opponent from submitting me.


 
Some failed submissions could still provide a fair window to escape from harm.  While someone recomposes themselves after escaping a choke, you can take off running, for instance.  



> While a "grappler" is looking for submissions and chokes, a CMA fighter is looking for breaks and throws. Just different strategies for different goals. My main point was that alot of MMAist will overlook a technique as useless if it doesn't lead towards their goal. As would most MAist. So, to a grappler a technqiue that breaks contact with an opponent in order to escape a choke may be useless, but to a stirker or kicker, that may be leading directly to thier goal. I'll address this a bit later on when I reply to another post of yours.


 
Ok.  



> No I tend to use the term grappler to mean one who would indend to take a fight to the ground in order to apply submissions and chokes, etc. Its not really so important to define it per se. As a MMAist one would be familiar and even confident on taking a fight to the ground in order to stop it. And the sad truth is most MMAist running around the street are simply looking for and will force at the cost of alot a takedown and fancy submission. I can't tell you how many "MMAist" I have trained with that had nothing at all if you could defend their takedowns, most of which were poorly executed at that.


 
Thats true.  Now that the UFC has gone mainstream, there are alot of people who are just begining BJJ (only 1 of the 4 main component arts) and already think they are gods.  A good fighter should have a muay thai component and a boxing component for his standup, and should have western wrestling for his takedowns, but understandably, many people are not really that serious about it.  



> Now that may be a poor group to base my point on, but isn't that the same thing you said wasn't an excuse to the TMA guys? I understand your point about grappling being only a part of MMA as grappling is only a part of my system of fighting as well. So, we can say we are refering to MMAist not just a grappler with absolutely no training or skill in anything but grappling.


 
The thing is, there is a poor group of MMA guys, there are better ones and then there are some really great fighters.  So far, I don't see anyone who isn't an MMAist who gives the indications of being able to beat these ranked guys.  



> I disagree that its limiting in any case, but I allready said I was not refering to a strike to the eyes as in a punch that hits the eyes. If its really that limiting why are so many UFC fights stopped at least for a Dr. check for eye strikes? Why are so many UFC fighters using the "thumb in the eye" excuse for loosing? However, that being what it is, I'm refering (as I said earlier) to more of a close quarters pushing into the eyes, not a distance strike to the eyes. Your correct about the legally problematic issue to this technique, but that is conflicting with your own statements about it not working as you cited the Gracie Challenge for proof.


 
Well, let me put it this way.  The eyegouge is probably a moonshot to pull off, and if by some miracle it works, then you'll have to deal with the legal issues.    



> Does the fact that it has legal issues mean its not valid? Certainly not. However shooting someone is legally problematic yet I carry my handgun and am legally allowed to use it. See, the problem is the crossing over of the sport mentality to the life or death mentality. There arises many issues that are hard to deal with when doing so. Thats why I said I dont believe there have been many if any "challenge" matches (Gracie or not) that have been against an opponent seriously intent on performing these types of techniques. You gave the reasoning yourself.


 
Ok.  Let me try a comparison.  You may have some sort of defense for, say, someone holding a knife to your throat from behind.  Lets say someone tried to attack you and you sucessfully used the technique.  What they did was both illegal and unsucessful, but it doesn't mean that no one tried or that the defense never happened or that the defense is invalid.  



> Ok, I've tried to get specific allready, but lets try with this example. What position dominence protects the choking arm from slicing with a knife? What about overhead stabbing motions with a knife towards the head of the choker? What about sideways stabbing motions towards teh ribs or back of the choker? All assuming we are talking about RNC here. What position dominence assures protection from these types of attacks?


 
I'll see if I can find a picture later.  



> Escape is a great tool when dealing with an attacker stupid enough to show you his blade, what about those you dont know have a blade until your being cut? Surely ever MA style has to deal with this issue, but many grappling techniques leave you a bit more exposed and for a longer period of time than some. How would a MMAist deal with the "weakness" of those types of attacks?


 
A good positon gives you a huge leverage advantage and may make accessing the weapon difficult for your opponent, but like all styles, grapplers still would be at a disadvantage unarmed against a weapon.   



> Thats a good point and yet you yourself gave the reason it is flawed. The "legally problematic" issue that go along with really putting out a fighters eye. Then again your basing a whole method of fighting on the skill of a few elite fighters.....sort of similar to the "super duper grand master" theory, no? I hate to be disagreeable, but in a real life or death situation the "law of averages" does not apply. The myriad of posibilities and the weight of your actions when dealing with your life, the life of your family, or the life of strangers, makes fighting on the law of averages from elite fighters or your teacher, a big mistake. Everyone must stand on their own skill, especially when life or death is on the line. If you think those gracie fights would be the same if either or both fighters seriously believed they were going to be killed, your fooling yourself.


 
I believe in a law of averages, and using techniques that are most statistically likely to suceed as much as possible.  I don't and wouldn't train moonshot techniques as much as bread-and-butter techniques (some people don't know the difference between their own style's long shot and regular techniques).   




> I think you need to study what the "gracie challenge" was really about. Also, you have no way of knowing what level of force a person was willing to go to, you simply can't support that statement. Its an appeal to authority.


 
I think it is clear that they were trying seriously to damage eyes, groin etc.  




> Thats fine, but its a bit mistake to underestimate someone simply because of lack of proof. One of the biggest mistakes made in fighting, in my own opinoin, is the assumption.


 
I'm going to mention this stuff on the thread in General martial arts about having a record latter.  



> This is where I will revisted the earlier statement about "wins". I'm not talking about submitting someone with a groin squeeze, thats absurd. who is going to just sit there and waite for you to squeeze hard enough to make them tap out? Thats exactly my point though. No one is! So, a nice twisting or ripping tear or pull ot the groin will make the opponent react and most likely loosen up the choke or what have you. My fighting style is heavily based on reactions of the opponent. Like I said early, I'm not aiming for a tapout from grabbing your groin, I'm hoping for a reaction that allows me another attack. With two hands free, one could theoretically crush a testicle and gouge an eye at the same time. Do you seriously believe there is anyone who would continue a choke during either of those? Sure a tap to the groin wont release a choke, but doesn't it prove a further level of force was available there? Will a raking of the eyes stop a submission? Of course not, but would the explosion of the ocular membrane and possible damage or destruction of the optic nerve cause a reaction that would allow a release of the submission? Based on the law of averages and current medical information I would say yes.


 
The assumptions is still that you could get a finger in the eye or a hand on the groin... and it just isn't happening in the TMA vs. MMA fights I have seen.  




> HAHA, I completely agree with you. I'm sorry we have gone this long with you thinking I was reffering to the poison buddah palm and such from kung fu flicks. If you seriously believe that a skilled, experienced, and intent CMA fighter fighting for his/her life is going to attempt a poison buddah palm or whatever, your sadly mistaken. Thats a huge issue with the attitude towards TMA or even CMA. Misunderstanding. There are no organ exploding techniques or reaching through the chest to pull out the beating heart techniques in true CMA. Sorry to disapoint.  However, I have put serious study into the human body (I'm currently seekign a masters degree in physical therapy) and I understand how the body works (ex-paramedic). There are fatal or dibilitaing actions one person can take on another in a fight. These are not possible to build an immunity to even if you are a MMAist.


 
What are you thinking of with these lethal techniques?  Almost everytime people start saying "lethal technique" I start wondering about evidence...  



> I agree. It all depends on angle and mass, speed, etc. Again, a fairly in depth knowledge of the human body can show one how these types of attacks can be effective. Just look up the knee joint (synovial) and learn its structure....you would be surprised to learn how fragile it actually is if attacked correctly. Again we fall back to intent and legally problematic issues. Yet I still agree, it would be difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible and total destruction may not be neccessary to elicit a response or reaction that would allow another attack.
> 
> 7sm


 
I don't think it is impossible, but I doubt that anyone could put out knees with much consistancy.  They would easily sweep the muay thai and international style kickboxing world if they could.


----------



## 7starmantis

Rook said:


> I disagree with this. Some of the people have been extremely aggressive and I don't doubt the genuine intent of the people who went for their eyes etc.


I believe some of the challengers were very aggressive and even looking to hurt the gracies, but I think you need to really look into what the challenges were and why they were started. You spoke yourself about legally problematic issues with seriously doing some of the techniques we're discussing. I think your fantasizing them a bit to believe either fighter was in fear of their life or were intent on taking the life of the other fighter. The truth is there is really no way of knowing the intent of the fighters, either of them. However the fact still remains you are basing your beliefs of effectiveness from the actions of another person. An elite martial artist in their element, no less. That is what I meant by blind faith. 



Rook said:


> The difference, I believe, is that the Gracies have done what they say. Now, the Gracies are not nearly the top of the MMA food pyramid; none of them are even ranked anymore in any of the major organization. With the exception of Rickson, most of them are not ultra-athletes. They are normal people who trained very long and very hard and actually have proven victories. That makes what they do attainable for others who are equally motivated and hardworking.
> 
> The problem with the grandmasters who don't fight is that their level is matter of pure speculation. Some of them, no doubt, are quite good, others are rather unimpressive and are still venerated by legions of sheep (just look at Emin Botzpe (sp) and William Cheung, or Ron Van Cleif or that video of the Tai Chi vs. Red fist fight from the fifties). I would guess that there are far more second rate ones than good ones. When they make extravagent claims about their abilities but don't back up their statements, in my eyes they just look absurd.


You have a good point, but it's not complete. The Gracies have done what they said, but you only know that because you have seen some footage and heard the stories. To say others have not backed up their claims because you haven't seen or heard of it is absurd. That's a major logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.Just because you have no proof doesn't mean something is wrong or doesn't work.There are plenty of fighters, MMA, TMA, and neither that have "proved" their skill or training methods, just because you dont know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I can see the beauty of seeing someone you respect successfully use techniques you train or successfully defend techniques you believe to be useless, but also remember that skilled fighters should be able to defend quite well many different types of attacks. Saying because a Gracie successfully defended a certain technique means all MMAist can defend that technique or that the technique is useless is another big logical fallacy, its called a hasty generalization. But we have already determined that none of the challenge matches were seriously "to the death" so some of that doesn't apply. I have no doubt that martial artists at the skill level of some of the gracies could defend many types of attacks but what does that mean for you and me? Can you or I defend such techniques? Just because a skilled dodge ball player can successfully avoid getting hit by the balls doesn't mean throwing the balls is ineffective. 



Rook said:


> Some failed submissions could still provide a fair window to escape from harm. While someone recomposes themselves after escaping a choke, you can take off running, for instance.


I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. What kind of escape of a choke requires a person to have to recompose themselves? And why were you choking if running was your intent? That's my point in the different intents of the methods of fighting. CMA train grappling from the idea of escaping while MMA trains grappling in the idea of submitting. Just different ideas and methodologies. 



Rook said:


> The thing is, there is a poor group of MMA guys, there are better ones and then there are some really great fighters. So far, I don't see anyone who isn't an MMAist who gives the indications of being able to beat these ranked guys.


Well that's my point though. Who do you see at all aside from MMA guys and the nut jobs that come chasing them? Again, just because you don't see someone who can beat them doesn't mean there aren't people who can. Also, we are talking about elite athletes and MAist here. Are there phenomenal runners out there who are extremely talented and probably faster than most of the world and still get beat or don't even make it to the Olympics? I don't care so much about rank, but I have yet to see anyone who is not a CMA (or is a CMA fighter for that matter) who is able to beat some of the ranked fighters in the organization I belong to. One of the schools I'm affiliated with has an open challenge, which they have yet to loose. I could say that I haven't seen any of your ranked guys coming to fight there, so obviously they couldn't win anyway. See the problem with that line of reasoning?



Rook said:


> Well, let me put it this way. The eyegouge is probably a moonshot to pull off, and if by some miracle it works, then you'll have to deal with the legal issues.


I disagree. It's not a moon shot at all if trained and not done as some amazing spinning 360 reverse eye poke. Also, I don't agree with expecting anything to end the fight, I would keep going until the threat is removed. The legal issues are there if and when the fight starts regardless of eye gouge. If you're legally protected and right in defending yourself, the eye gouge isn't going to change that. That's why fighting for your life and fighting for your ego are two completely different things, complete with jail time. If I'm fighting, it's for my life and I'm not going to worry about the legal issues associated with it until I'm free of the threat. In fact, I use pretty much the same table of force I would with my concealed handgun. 



Rook said:


> Ok. Let me try a comparison. You may have some sort of defense for, say, someone holding a knife to your throat from behind. Lets say someone tried to attack you and you sucessfully used the technique. What they did was both illegal and unsucessful, but it doesn't mean that no one tried or that the defense never happened or that the defense is invalid.


  I don't quite get your point here.



Rook said:


> I'll see if I can find a picture later.
> 
> A good positon gives you a huge leverage advantage and may make accessing the weapon difficult for your opponent, but like all styles, grapplers still would be at a disadvantage unarmed against a weapon.


That would be great. I would love to get into specific technical discussion on this thread. I was starting to think it wasn't possible. Are you attempting to trap or lock the arms or hands when doing the RNC? I understand your statement about leverage, but are you attempting to leverage yourself so far the opponent's arms are not able to reach his own body? Is it relying on the quickness of the choke to combat the free arms of the opponent? Another point to look at is getting into position for the choke, how would you set that up? Are you looking for a takedown to get on top and then choke? Are you looking to get behind the opponent while standing? 

I'm not talking about being at a disadvantage against a weapon, but trying to pull off techniques that actually put you in a more dangerous position against a weapon. Again, the differences of fighting for your life I guess. But weapon or not there are some serious issues with some submission techniques that if applied in a no rules environment would be lacking heavily. One point is the tying up both arms and/or legs while not controlling the opponent's arms or legs. 



Rook said:


> I believe in a law of averages, and using techniques that are most statistically likely to suceed as much as possible. I don't and wouldn't train moonshot techniques as much as bread-and-butter techniques (some people don't know the difference between their own style's long shot and regular techniques).


I agree. I think we just disagree on what is a moonshot and what is not. Also, training something makes you more statistically likely to succeed in the technique. One major issue I have with this line of reasoning is the separation of statistics. Your talking about statistically likely to succeed but basing that on elite martial artists like the Gracies fighting in their element in less than lethal environments. That flaws the statistic as it's not complete or doesn't involve the issues we are dealing with in this type of discussion. Plus it doesn't take into consideration the millions of different issues present in a life or death struggle. Not all attacks are the same even ones that are using the same techniques. 



Rook said:


> I think it is clear that they were trying seriously to damage eyes, groin etc.


Ok, why do you believe that? What makes you think they were intent on doing serious harm or damage? What makes you think they were intent on taking the level of force beyond what would have been needed to simply release the choke/hold/submission?



Rook said:


> The assumptions is still that you could get a finger in the eye or a hand on the groin... and it just isn't happening in the TMA vs. MMA fights I have seen.


It's not an assumption unless it's also an assumption that you can keep someone from getting their finger in the eye. Is it an assumption that you could win the fight? We can argue semantics all day, but in fights where these techniques are not allowed we aren't going to see them trained. And in legal matches where gouging of the eye is still illegal, we aren't going to see them trained or applied either. Again, I'm not saying rely on these techniques as the definitive fight stopper, but they are extremely useful in a real situation. Also, you must ask yourself why you ended up in the position of getting choked in the first place. 



Rook said:


> What are you thinking of with these lethal techniques? Almost everytime people start saying "lethal technique" I start wondering about evidence...




 Well a good start is the list of illegal moves for the UFC. Those types of techniques would fall under what I would consider "lethal" I guess. We could actually use the term potentially lethal, probably better phrasing. Targeting specific areas of the body, eyes, throat, base of the skull, spine area, groin, small joint manipulation, targeting the fingers, ripping or inserting the fingers into orifices of the body or open cuts, etc. Targeting the knee from angles, stomping the knee against its normal angle of movement, stomping or kicking the head of downed opponents. The problem is most MMAist here these terms and immediately go on the defense and say they wont work and aren't successful. However its smart to realize (and many people who spout about relying on them don't either) they are not "show stoppers" but are very valid techniques to use in the whole picture of the fight. As we have seen even in the UFC fights, a finger in the eye even accidentally or a kick in the groin, even while wearing a cup does actually stop the fight. If these techniques are so useless why are these elite athletes stopping the fight because of them? 



Rook said:


> I don't think it is impossible, but I doubt that anyone could put out knees with much consistancy. They would easily sweep the muay thai and international style kickboxing world if they could.


  That doesn't make sense at all. How would someone who _could_ perform this technique necessarily sweep competitions that do not allow the technique in a society that holds such techniques as illegal and morally wrong unless in a life threatening situation? Take for example the Hughes vs. St. Pierre fight this past weekend. Do you remember the leg sweep St. Pierre got on Hughes when Hughes lifted his front leg to avoid the shin kick? Do you think a pushing kick hitting the knee from the front (or even the side), pushing it backward would not have hurt the knee? Especially when all the weight is on the joint, those types of techniques are actually very valid, even if it doesn't destroy the knee, it certainly would have given an advantage, no?

 This discussion has gone the way I guess everyone at the beginning said it would. I would love to see the picture you referred to and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a specific issue such as that one. What I was really trying to get at in this thread is the inconsistency of the match up between a MMAist and a CMAist. When fighting in a non lethal environment a MMAist can still apply their techniques at full power, full intensity and most likely they will. However, a CMAist can't apply their techniques at full power and intensity especially those listed in the rules for MMA events. When those vary techniques may be the ones needed to protect against the intensity of the MMAist. So then how can we really judge how a CMAist and a MMAist would fight against each other? There would have to be a level of respect and humility between two fighters to train and be completely honest with each other and themselves in what works, what doesn't, and how and why. That's just way too far apart in my opinion in the martial arts as a whole and sorry to say it but most MMA circles I run across. 

  7sm


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> I believe some of the challengers were very aggressive and even looking to hurt the gracies, but I think you need to really look into what the challenges were and why they were started. You spoke yourself about legally problematic issues with seriously doing some of the techniques we're discussing. I think your fantasizing them a bit to believe either fighter was in fear of their life or were intent on taking the life of the other fighter. The truth is there is really no way of knowing the intent of the fighters, either of them.


 
I think we've reached an impasse on this one.  I don't agree, but we're not getting anywhere.  



> However the fact still remains you are basing your beliefs of effectiveness from the actions of another person. An elite martial artist in their element, no less. That is what I meant by blind faith.


 
Well, I know that I personally can't do what the Gracies can.  I do know that what they do is attainable because I have seen it done.  



> You have a good point, but it's not complete. The Gracies have done what they said, but you only know that because you have seen some footage and heard the stories. To say others have not backed up their claims because you haven't seen or heard of it is absurd. That's a major logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.Just because you have no proof doesn't mean something is wrong or doesn't work.There are plenty of fighters, MMA, TMA, and neither that have "proved" their skill or training methods, just because you dont know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I can see the beauty of seeing someone you respect successfully use techniques you train or successfully defend techniques you believe to be useless, but also remember that skilled fighters should be able to defend quite well many different types of attacks. Saying because a Gracie successfully defended a certain technique means all MMAist can defend that technique or that the technique is useless is another big logical fallacy, its called a hasty generalization.


 
I didn't say that everyone could do it.  Surely even the majority of people training in MMA gyms are not at the level of the Gracies.  



> But we have already determined that none of the challenge matches were seriously "to the death" so some of that doesn't apply. I have no doubt that martial artists at the skill level of some of the gracies could defend many types of attacks but what does that mean for you and me? Can you or I defend such techniques? Just because a skilled dodge ball player can successfully avoid getting hit by the balls doesn't mean throwing the balls is ineffective.


 
Well, what it means to me is that there is a training system and a method by which I, or others, could, with sufficient work, negate or nearly negate certain techniques.  I know that the method is valid because of the very consistant results it has had at what it claims.  



> I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. What kind of escape of a choke requires a person to have to recompose themselves? And why were you choking if running was your intent?


 
Presumably, there was not initially an opening to run, and while the person regains their breath after being choked, you have an opportunity to take advantage of the opening.  



> That's my point in the different intents of the methods of fighting. CMA train grappling from the idea of escaping while MMA trains grappling in the idea of submitting. Just different ideas and methodologies.


 
A big part of submissions is being able to escape them.  Not knowing how submissions work makes it difficult to know how to counter them.  




> Well that's my point though. Who do you see at all aside from MMA guys and the nut jobs that come chasing them? Again, just because you don't see someone who can beat them doesn't mean there aren't people who can. Also, we are talking about elite athletes and MAist here. Are there phenomenal runners out there who are extremely talented and probably faster than most of the world and still get beat or don't even make it to the Olympics? I don't care so much about rank, but I have yet to see anyone who is not a CMA (or is a CMA fighter for that matter) who is able to beat some of the ranked fighters in the organization I belong to.


 
Would you consider posting a challenge to www.Bullshido.com?  They have, on occasion, flown low-level pro-fighters to other people's training halls in response to open challenges.  I would be eagar to see the video.  



> One of the schools I'm affiliated with has an open challenge, which they have yet to loose. I could say that I haven't seen any of your ranked guys coming to fight there, so obviously they couldn't win anyway. See the problem with that line of reasoning?


 
I encourage you to post their challenge where it is more visable and I am confident someone will respond.  If you post wins over low-level MMAists, some better ones will surely respond in time to try to straighten the record.  



> I disagree. It's not a moon shot at all if trained and not done as some amazing spinning 360 reverse eye poke. Also, I don't agree with expecting anything to end the fight, I would keep going until the threat is removed. The legal issues are there if and when the fight starts regardless of eye gouge. If you're legally protected and right in defending yourself, the eye gouge isn't going to change that. That's why fighting for your life and fighting for your ego are two completely different things, complete with jail time. If I'm fighting, it's for my life and I'm not going to worry about the legal issues associated with it until I'm free of the threat. In fact, I use pretty much the same table of force I would with my concealed handgun.


 
I think we may have reached an impasse on this point as well.  




> I don't quite get your point here.


 
Just because something is both illegal and ineffective doesn't mean that someone won't try it.  




> That would be great. I would love to get into specific technical discussion on this thread. I was starting to think it wasn't possible. Are you attempting to trap or lock the arms or hands when doing the RNC?


 
If desired you can trap them with your legs.  Its pretty hard to reach a target while being choke from there even with the standard version though.  



> I understand your statement about leverage, but are you attempting to leverage yourself so far the opponent's arms are not able to reach his own body?


 
I will try to find the photo I am thinking of with Oleg Taktarov where one of his legs has the opponents left arm pinned to his body and his other arm is can't touch his body because it is trapped by his arms (one wrapped under the upper arm) while he applies his choke.  I don't remember where I saw it but if I find it again I'll post it.  



> Is it relying on the quickness of the choke to combat the free arms of the opponent? Another point to look at is getting into position for the choke, how would you set that up? Are you looking for a takedown to get on top and then choke? Are you looking to get behind the opponent while standing?


 
Either one of those could work, although clinching and tripping could work well with both hands free to try to tie down the hand with the weapon.  



> I'm not talking about being at a disadvantage against a weapon, but trying to pull off techniques that actually put you in a more dangerous position against a weapon. Again, the differences of fighting for your life I guess. But weapon or not there are some serious issues with some submission techniques that if applied in a no rules environment would be lacking heavily. One point is the tying up both arms and/or legs while not controlling the opponent's arms or legs.


 
The best place to have this answered would be a seminar on SAMBO knife defenses.  I'm not sure that I can adequately explain how difficult it is to move around underneath someone who knows what they are doing over the internet.  



> I agree. I think we just disagree on what is a moonshot and what is not. Also, training something makes you more statistically likely to succeed in the technique. One major issue I have with this line of reasoning is the separation of statistics. Your talking about statistically likely to succeed but basing that on elite martial artists like the Gracies fighting in their element in less than lethal environments. That flaws the statistic as it's not complete or doesn't involve the issues we are dealing with in this type of discussion. Plus it doesn't take into consideration the millions of different issues present in a life or death struggle. Not all attacks are the same even ones that are using the same techniques.


 
I think this recaps most of teh arguement we have been having.  



> Ok, why do you believe that? What makes you think they were intent on doing serious harm or damage? What makes you think they were intent on taking the level of force beyond what would have been needed to simply release the choke/hold/submission?


 
Some of them tried to bite/eyegouge while not being choked or submitted but just caught in guard or bottom mount.  Others during the standup portion tried finger jabs and flicks to the eyes or tried to grap the throat one handed or kicked and punched to the groin.  Some bit during the clinch prior to takedown (the Gracies mostly used clinch and trip in the early videos to show how little takedown defense people had).  



> It's not an assumption unless it's also an assumption that you can keep someone from getting their finger in the eye. Is it an assumption that you could win the fight? We can argue semantics all day, but in fights where these techniques are not allowed we aren't going to see them trained. And in legal matches where gouging of the eye is still illegal, we aren't going to see them trained or applied either. Again, I'm not saying rely on these techniques as the definitive fight stopper, but they are extremely useful in a real situation. Also, you must ask yourself why you ended up in the position of getting choked in the first place.


 
I think we have another impasse...  



> Well a good start is the list of illegal moves for the UFC. Those types of techniques would fall under what I would consider "lethal" I guess. We could actually use the term potentially lethal, probably better phrasing. Targeting specific areas of the body, eyes, throat, base of the skull, spine area, groin, small joint manipulation, targeting the fingers, ripping or inserting the fingers into orifices of the body or open cuts, etc.


 
The thing is that all of these things were ok in the Gracie challenge, they were ok in the CHute Boxe Challenge, they were ok in the other no rules challenge matches, they were ok in some of the early vale tudos - all no rules.  

They still are ok in Combat SAMBO total.  (Only rule is a fine for each bit or attempted eye attack).  

They mostly still ok in Finnfight (Only rule no biting or eyegouging).  

Yet NO ONE has made much use of them... 

When they were banned for the sport version, everyone complained, while ignoring that the challenges were still open to them.  



> Targeting the knee from angles, stomping the knee against its normal angle of movement,


 
I challenge you to find on any of the lists of PRIDE and UFC rules that TMAists are so fond of posting any restriction against knee attacks.  There are none in any major MMA organization.  There are none in Muay Thai.  There are none in many international style kickboxing organizations.  I can count on one hand the number of broken knees I have seen in MMA.  



> stomping or kicking the head of downed opponents.


 
Only illegal in American and western European promotions.  Perfectly ok in PRIDE and the other Japanese organizations, the Brazil and Russia and Eastern Europe tournaments etc.  



> The problem is most MMAist here these terms and immediately go on the defense and say they wont work and aren't successful. However its smart to realize (and many people who spout about relying on them don't either) they are not "show stoppers" but are very valid techniques to use in the whole picture of the fight. As we have seen even in the UFC fights, a finger in the eye even accidentally or a kick in the groin, even while wearing a cup does actually stop the fight. If these techniques are so useless why are these elite athletes stopping the fight because of them?


 
The fighters who get hit bring it to the attention of the refs if the ref doesn't see it more because it gets the opponent penalized on points than because it prevents him from carrying on.   



> That doesn't make sense at all. How would someone who _could_ perform this technique necessarily sweep competitions that do not allow the technique in a society that holds such techniques as illegal and morally wrong unless in a life threatening situation?


 
They could sweep all the tournaments were knee kicks are legal.  I would advise them to start winning international style kickboxing matches, and then go to one of the K-1 feeder tournaments and then to K-1.  



> Take for example the Hughes vs. St. Pierre fight this past weekend. Do you remember the leg sweep St. Pierre got on Hughes when Hughes lifted his front leg to avoid the shin kick? Do you think a pushing kick hitting the knee from the front (or even the side), pushing it backward would not have hurt the knee? Especially when all the weight is on the joint, those types of techniques are actually very valid, even if it doesn't destroy the knee, it certainly would have given an advantage, no?


 
It would have been legal.  



> This discussion has gone the way I guess everyone at the beginning said it would. I would love to see the picture you referred to and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a specific issue such as that one. What I was really trying to get at in this thread is the inconsistency of the match up between a MMAist and a CMAist. When fighting in a non lethal environment a MMAist can still apply their techniques at full power, full intensity and most likely they will. However, a CMAist can't apply their techniques at full power and intensity especially those listed in the rules for MMA events. When those vary techniques may be the ones needed to protect against the intensity of the MMAist. So then how can we really judge how a CMAist and a MMAist would fight against each other?


 
I keep saying it.  No rules challenges.  Not in someone's tournament; not in an MMA cage (although I think the result would be the same) or in a kung fu tournament.



> There would have to be a level of respect and humility between two fighters to train and be completely honest with each other and themselves in what works, what doesn't, and how and why. That's just way too far apart in my opinion in the martial arts as a whole and sorry to say it but most MMA circles I run across.
> 
> 7sm


 
Sadly true.


----------



## 7starmantis

Rook said:


> I think we've reached an impasse on this one. I don't agree, but we're not getting anywhere.


I guess we have. However, allow me to offer a caution if I may. Dont take things you see or hear at face value. Look into them; use sensitivity to determine the whole picture and the far reaching effects of the statements or such. What youre referring to is illegal in the U.S. at least and simply isn't what the Gracies themselves refer to the challenge as being about. 
However, we can disagree and continue to believe what we both want to; I dont see how it really effects this discussion either way. 



Rook said:


> Well, what it means to me is that there is a training system and a method by which I, or others, could, with sufficient work, negate or nearly negate certain techniques. I know that the method is valid because of the very consistant results it has had at what it claims.


Isn't that the idea of all martial arts systems? To negate or nearly negate others techniques? Be careful placing your faith in a system vs. a fighter. A style is only as good as the fighter who trains in it. Negating techniques is the core of martial arts in every system. Negating certain specific techniques is what training is for. Certainly one who trains in takedowns and submissions will be very effective at them and at defending their defense. However, one who trains in defending takedowns and attacking will be very effective at that aspect as well. I have certainly not seen any factual proof from you or any other source that really shows a distinct advantage to the "grappler" or MMAist aside from hard work. It seems the comparison is always about working harder than the next guy, but its always assumed the next guy isn't working harder than you. I've seen nothing that shows an advantage to the grappler on core stylistic technique. The Hughes/Pierre fight shows the effects of hard work and how its not really a style vs. style debate, but a fighter vs. fighter debate. 
What I was attempting to do what discuss specific techniques a MMAist might use against a CMAist and vice versa. I can see thats a futile request. That is sad in my opinion. I train with as many MMAist and grapplers as I can, some of which are extremely humble and we can exchange ideas. Its sad that that mentality is not the norm in martial arts. 



Rook said:


> A big part of submissions is being able to escape them. Not knowing how submissions work makes it difficult to know how to counter them.


I wouldn't say not knowing how they work makes it difficult but certainly knowing how they work is beneficial. What I dont understand is the mentality that one cannot learn to defend against or learn to escape or learn "how they work" without training in BJJ or some form of ground fighting. My system has a lot of ground fighting in it and I study it and learn to apply it by fighting against other styles of groundfighters. I'm not interested in semantics or the traditional vs. modern, TMA/MMA, Ground/Standup debate, but specific discussions of ground techniques. The problem is most MMAist are too caught up in their titles and semantical arguments that they wont even discuss things with you unless you claim to also be a MMAist. They just assume youre on a lower level then they are or are simply not going to understand their amazing knowledge of techniques. Sad really.



Rook said:


> Would you consider posting a challenge to www.Bullshido.com? They have, on occasion, flown low-level pro-fighters to other people's training halls in response to open challenges. I would be eagar to see the video.


Couple things about this.
Its not my challenge. I've always maintained that I will fight with anyone at anytime as long as there is a mutual respect and a lack of ego. Problem is thats hard to find, especially on sights like bullshido.
I've already discussed the issues with a CMA fighter seriously fighting a MMAist or grappler. The nature of the techniques is different. The MMAist or grappler can apply their techniques at full speed/power/intent. That is because the techniques are not really designed to seriously injure or even kill. However, to defend that level of intent and attack one would need to also rise to that level of speed/power/intensity. The problem is many of the techniques to be used in defending the MMAist and/or grappler would have to be ones that do seriously injure. I personally am not willing to rise the level of force to that level and dont believe there are really many who would seeing that doing so would result in breaking the law and possible civil and even criminal charges. As I said before, the conundrum of meeting the two fighting methodologies.
I'm not interested in hurting anyone or getting hurt, I'm interested in serious learning and training. I doubt you'll find many expecting the same on your site you listed. I'm always up for training with anyone of any style as long as we can leave ego out. For example, I dont need to really need to rupture a testicle to understand that when you squeeze them hard enough the other person lets go. Now thats just an example, but it shows the difference between the styled techniques. you can effectively apply all of your technique at full power and intent as you most likely will not seriously hurt the other fighter, not so on my end. Can I really start trying to rupture your eyes or burst testicles? Can I really start targeting the spine and base of the skull? Can I really attempt to break joints and dislocate bones? You keep saying "sure" it would be ok, but that ignores the "legally problematic" issues following such actions not to mention the moral issues of really trying to do those types of things for an ego match.



Rook said:


> I think we may have reached an impasse on this point as well.


I guess we have, and thats ok. I stand by my experiences of having seen them work but I can see the issue with them as again we must address moral and legal issues if bringing them into play. I've even seen them used where serious injury was not present (with control) I've even seen someone pulled down to the _sacred_ ground by their eye sockets from two fingers. I dont really expect you to believe me or accept it even so, but we can disagree on our training and still discuss or share ideas.....can't we?



Rook said:


> Just because something is both illegal and ineffective doesn't mean that someone won't try it.


I'm still not following you point. It sounds more like my point. 



Rook said:


> If desired you can trap them with your legs. Its pretty hard to reach a target while being choke from there even with the standard version though.
> 
> I will try to find the photo I am thinking of with Oleg Taktarov where one of his legs has the opponents left arm pinned to his body and his other arm is can't touch his body because it is trapped by his arms (one wrapped under the upper arm) while he applies his choke. I don't remember where I saw it but if I find it again I'll post it.


What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke? What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC? How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?



Rook said:


> Either one of those could work, although clinching and tripping could work well with both hands free to try to tie down the hand with the weapon.


So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker? Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position? Do you address escape from a ground position? You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone? 



Rook said:


> The best place to have this answered would be a seminar on SAMBO knife defenses. I'm not sure that I can adequately explain how difficult it is to move around underneath someone who knows what they are doing over the internet.


You dont have to, I know it from experience...everyday. But that actually falls more in line with my point than your own. I'm not seeking answers really, but a discussion on what a MMAist would train for in this type of situation. Do you not address these types of situations in your own training? 



Rook said:


> Some of them tried to bite/eyegouge while not being choked or submitted but just caught in guard or bottom mount. Others during the standup portion tried finger jabs and flicks to the eyes or tried to grap the throat one handed or kicked and punched to the groin. Some bit during the clinch prior to takedown (the Gracies mostly used clinch and trip in the early videos to show how little takedown defense people had).


Thats my point though. You assume they were trying to the full force of each technique. Grant it they failed, but we also didn't see the gracies get an eye put out and still submit anyone, did we? Punches and kicks to the groin are actually relatively easy to defend, I do it everyday. Strikes and flicks to the eyes are also pretty easy to defend. Like I said before, an athlete and a MAist at the level of the gracies should most certainly be able to defend these types of attacks. Its the close quarters stuff thats more difficult. 



Rook said:


> The thing is that all of these things were ok in the Gracie challenge, they were ok in the CHute Boxe Challenge, they were ok in the other no rules challenge matches, they were ok in some of the early vale tudos - all no rules.


Again you use a false dilemma to prove your point. Because something is ruled as ok and then is not used, means its not a valid technique. Do you see the problem with this reasoning? Its assuming that if something is ruled ok it will be used. It also assumes that something being said to be ok has no other implications for its usage. If we say its ok then that removes all the other far reaching implications of using said technique. Thats just incorrect to begin with. However I would challenge your initial statement. You seem to rely on this type of reasoning to prove your point when there are many other ways to prove your point. I dont think you can correctly say these types of attacks were ok in the challenges. The simple truth is that regardless of what anyone said, or what any fighter agreed to there are laws regulating these types of matches both legal and moral that override and supercede these agreed rules. Your incorrect that they were no rules. They were termed that but were actually few rules. The bottom line is that regardless of it these techniques are ok they are still not legal/moral and thus hold a restriction beyond what is agreed upon. You say striking the eye is ok in some fights, but think through what would happen if a fighter actually ruptured the eyeball striking their finger all the way through the eye socket? What about nerve and brain damage of such attacks? Do you think that because no one has actually taken the level of force to that point that its impossible? 



Rook said:


> They still are ok in Combat SAMBO total. (Only rule is a fine for each bit or attempted eye attack).
> 
> They mostly still ok in Finnfight (Only rule no biting or eyegouging).
> 
> Yet NO ONE has made much use of them...
> 
> When they were banned for the sport version, everyone complained, while ignoring that the challenges were still open to them.


Ok, your own statements contradict themselves. They are ok, but with fines or ok but banned. Once again, youre basing your ideals on the fact that no one has taken it to that level so its not possible. Thats absurd. Again, no one has choked someone to death in the matches, so I guess thats not possible either, eh? Oh sure, they stop before reaching that level of force, right? But that couldnt be the explanation for why none of these fighters are walking around with no eyes or no testicles. Permanent damage is frowned upon to say the least, but your absolutely wrong and a bit naïve if you believe that level of force is simply not possible because it hasnt been done in these matches. 



Rook said:


> I challenge you to find on any of the lists of PRIDE and UFC rules that TMAists are so fond of posting any restriction against knee attacks. There are none in any major MMA organization. There are none in Muay Thai. There are none in many international style kickboxing organizations. I can count on one hand the number of broken knees I have seen in MMA.


   Again, youre basing your beliefs on the fact that:
You      havent seen it
It      hasnt been done
That actually has no bearing on its validity at all. Regardless of the rules you think hyper extending the knee to a point of tearing or breaking wouldnt be considered unsportsmanlike conduct? You think the fighter would continue to receive fights? You think the fighter wouldnt be sued? We need to at least address realistic issues here. 



Rook said:


> The fighters who get hit bring it to the attention of the refs if the ref doesn't see it more because it gets the opponent penalized on points than because it prevents him from carrying on.


Is that why Matt Hughes fell to his knees discontinuing his fighting and/or defense, twice? Is that why they stop the fight and have a doctor check the eyes of the one getting struck? SO your saying those were all fakes? Are you seriously saying you could withstand any type of groin attack and continue on in your fighting like nothing happened? Same with eye attacks? 



Rook said:


> They could sweep all the tournaments were knee kicks are legal. I would advise them to start winning international style kickboxing matches, and then go to one of the K-1 feeder tournaments and then to K-1.


Of course because you should do whatever needs to be done to win, including breaking legal and moral laws regarding your opponents safety. You should permanently injure your opponent as much as possible to get that win, right? Knee kicks are legal, taking \it beyond a kick and damaging someones knee is not legal by the rules or the law. 



Rook said:


> It would have been legal.
> 
> I keep saying it. No rules challenges. Not in someone's tournament; not in an MMA cage (although I think the result would be the same) or in a kung fu tournament.


 
Legal and right are two different things. No Rules challenges do not exist. There are at the very least some sort of acceptable behavior that is governing the matches. Are bricks ok to use in the matches? How about small blades that stick between the fingers? Is grabbing the trachea and actually damaging it to the point of death or emergency tracheotomy acceptable behavior? You keep basing your ideas of what is available on what has been done or what is acceptable. In a life or death situation those rules change, trust me, been there. You cant ignore the physiology of the human body because you have never seen anyone take advantage of its strengths or weaknesses. That is what I termed blind faith. 

   Bottom line, the discussion would be much better focused on these questions I posted earlier in my post:
   So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker? 
   Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position? 
   Do you address escape from a ground position? 
You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone? 
   What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke? 
   What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC? 
   How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?


   Answer me these and we will have a good discussion going.

   7sm


----------



## zDom

Great answers, 7starmantis, even though I think you have reached the same impasse I came to a month or two ago.

On a different note, I keep hearing it said that eye gouges and groin kicks "just aren't that effective" and that video proof is needed.

Truth is, there is plenty of "proof" on video for those willing to see it.

Hasn't Tito Ortiz been complaining about how he lost his match to Liddell because an unintentional thumb to the eye caused him to see nothing but black, allowing Liddell to come in with a flurry of punches?

It didn't even require a burst eyeball or any permanent damage to be effective  just a little bump in the eye!

As for groin shots, just ask Matt Hughes how effective they are. The unitentional groin shots Hughes received from GSP were definately a contributing factor.

And Hughes almost lost a fight to Frank Trigg after getting socked in the winky.

The value of a really, really hard leg kick was also demonstrated in the UFC with a fighter (forget which one) WINNING a match by TKO with a strong roundhouse to the high thigh  delivered with the TMA chambered (using quadriceps as part of the kick) as opposed to the MT straight-leg kick that is often described as a "superior" kick by MMA types.

We often only see what we want to see.


----------



## Xue Sheng

zDom said:


> We often only see what we want to see.


 
Agreed and that should pretty much end the argument right there, But I doubt it will


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> I guess we have. However, allow me to offer a caution if I may. Dont take things you see or hear at face value. Look into them; use sensitivity to determine the whole picture and the far reaching effects of the statements or such. What youre referring to is illegal in the U.S. at least and simply isn't what the Gracies themselves refer to the challenge as being about.
> However, we can disagree and continue to believe what we both want to; I dont see how it really effects this discussion either way.


 
Ok.  



> Isn't that the idea of all martial arts systems? To negate or nearly negate others techniques? Be careful placing your faith in a system vs. a fighter. A style is only as good as the fighter who trains in it. Negating techniques is the core of martial arts in every system. Negating certain specific techniques is what training is for.


 
Let me put it this way.  We have seen ways to negate or very much reduce the incidence of various techniques that still are staple of combat.  Other techniques nearly disappear because of how rare it is to sucessfully use them.  For instance, you can train for a long time against a boxer's jab (pro boxers do just that), but the technique is still very effective and works a large percentage of the time.  It hasn't disappeared from the tournaments where it is legal through the consistancy of counters.  On the other hand, there are techniques that have.  



> Certainly one who trains in takedowns and submissions will be very effective at them and at defending their defense. However, one who trains in defending takedowns and attacking will be very effective at that aspect as well. I have certainly not seen any factual proof from you or any other source that really shows a distinct advantage to the "grappler" or MMAist aside from hard work.


 
I don't believe that MMA has any sort of monopoly on hard work.  Royce Gracie and Rickson Gracie fought numerous people who were physically far superior athletes who were larger than they were to very swift victories.  There is no shortage of either sports stylists, be they boxers, kickboxers, western wrestlers, etc who fell before MMA, and there have been no shortage of hardworking non-sports fighters who didn't get far (just look at Keith Hackney and Jason DeLucia in his pre-MMA training days... very good shape).  



> It seems the comparison is always about working harder than the next guy, but its always assumed the next guy isn't working harder than you. I've seen nothing that shows an advantage to the grappler on core stylistic technique.


 
I say what follows very respectfully.  Grappling is very technical affair and wins and losses between skilled grapplers often hinge on subleties not visable to people who aren't trained in grappling.  Heck, lots of times I or even good BJJ people are showed how little of it they know watching a match.  For instance, to most people, Royce and Antonio Rodrigo Noguera probably look like they are on the same level - they are nowhere close.  



> The Hughes/Pierre fight shows the effects of hard work and how its not really a style vs. style debate, but a fighter vs. fighter debate.
> What I was attempting to do what discuss specific techniques a MMAist might use against a CMAist and vice versa. I can see thats a futile request. That is sad in my opinion. I train with as many MMAist and grapplers as I can, some of which are extremely humble and we can exchange ideas. Its sad that that mentality is not the norm in martial arts.


 
I can't really describe the ways alot of techniques work in words or even pictures if I had them.  Techniques are hard to describe I guess... I'm sorry I couldn't convey the image I wanted to.  



> I wouldn't say not knowing how they work makes it difficult but certainly knowing how they work is beneficial. What I dont understand is the mentality that one cannot learn to defend against or learn to escape or learn "how they work" without training in BJJ or some form of ground fighting.


 
With punching, say, avoiding where the fist is going to be is a intellectually simple affair.  How a slip might work might be hard to describe but easy to see and understand.  Slipping punches or kicks in one style has a great degree of carry over.  Submissions are very specific movements that have very specific counters to escape.  If someone doesn't even know what is being done to them (a fairly common occurance for me as a low-level grappler) its impossible to know the proper counter, let alone be able to execute it.  It might be possible to muscle out or to see something coming and move to avoid it, but that will probably only work so long.  Sometimes the counters are very subtle and really have to be felt to be understood.  (If you watch the Fedor-Noguera fights, you see Fedor make counters that probably look like almost nothing or like he just happens to be moving out of the way - he has an insane skill at submissions escapes and counters that half of the MMA board guys, myself included, can't even begin to understand.)



> My system has a lot of ground fighting in it and I study it and learn to apply it by fighting against other styles of groundfighters. I'm not interested in semantics or the traditional vs. modern, TMA/MMA, Ground/Standup debate, but specific discussions of ground techniques. The problem is most MMAist are too caught up in their titles and semantical arguments that they wont even discuss things with you unless you claim to also be a MMAist. They just assume youre on a lower level then they are or are simply not going to understand their amazing knowledge of techniques. Sad really.


 
Let me try this.  Think about explaining a very very complicated set of machines to someone who has no idea what any of them are.  Maybe like explaining what a "drivetrain" is to someone who says "what the heck is an engine?"   I am not an engineer and I am not a master grappler; to explain something that I am only begining to understand the physics fo myself to someone who has never felt it at all is really just beyond me without a common set of terminology.  I'm not really sure where I could begin and I'm afraid that I will grossly misrepresent techniques with bumbling and rambling explanations.  




> Couple things about this.
> 
> Its not my challenge. I've always maintained that I will fight with anyone at anytime as long as there is a mutual respect and a lack of ego. Problem is thats hard to find, especially on sights like bullshido.


Ok.  I think you will find the professionals to be much less charged then the people who speak on their behalf, but really it is always your choice. 



> I've already discussed the issues with a CMA fighter seriously fighting a MMAist or grappler. The nature of the techniques is different. The MMAist or grappler can apply their techniques at full speed/power/intent. That is because the techniques are not really designed to seriously injure or even kill. However, to defend that level of intent and attack one would need to also rise to that level of speed/power/intensity. The problem is many of the techniques to be used in defending the MMAist and/or grappler would have to be ones that do seriously injure. I personally am not willing to rise the level of force to that level and dont believe there are really many who would seeing that doing so would result in breaking the law and possible civil and even criminal charges. As I said before, the conundrum of meeting the two fighting methodologies.


 
Ok.  I think that many are willing to accept the risk, but if the legal issues are a concern, then I guess there isn't much I can say.  



> I'm not interested in hurting anyone or getting hurt, I'm interested in serious learning and training. I doubt you'll find many expecting the same on your site you listed. I'm always up for training with anyone of any style as long as we can leave ego out. For example, I dont need to really need to rupture a testicle to understand that when you squeeze them hard enough the other person lets go. Now thats just an example, but it shows the difference between the styled techniques. you can effectively apply all of your technique at full power and intent as you most likely will not seriously hurt the other fighter, not so on my end. Can I really start trying to rupture your eyes or burst testicles?


 
I think you can.  I have seen people invited to try and go at the pros all out and it doesn't make much of a difference.  I know that it seems crazy to you, but people like the Gracies and like the pro fighters on Bullshido aren't really that worried that you'll actually connect with their eye or get a good hold on their groin.  



> Can I really start targeting the spine and base of the skull? Can I really attempt to break joints and dislocate bones? You keep saying "sure" it would be ok, but that ignores the "legally problematic" issues following such actions not to mention the moral issues of really trying to do those types of things for an ego match.


 
I suppose so.  




> I guess we have, and thats ok. I stand by my experiences of having seen them work but I can see the issue with them as again we must address moral and legal issues if bringing them into play. I've even seen them used where serious injury was not present (with control) I've even seen someone pulled down to the _sacred_ ground by their eye sockets from two fingers. I dont really expect you to believe me or accept it even so, but we can disagree on our training and still discuss or share ideas.....can't we?


 
Sure.  



> I'm still not following you point. It sounds more like my point.


 
Well, my point was that there can be very reliable defenses which make movement that are both illegal and ineffective countered.  



> What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke? What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC? How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?


 
I would say the chances are rather low.  Thats why anyone is at a disadvantage to a blade.  There are a huge variety of SAMBO and BJJ weapons defenses but I am not sure I could describe step by step how to do them in words.  Maybe someone posted part of the Gracies instructional tapes, but I haven't seen it.  



> So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker?


 
If possible, yes.  Top position, higher leverage, reduced movement all good things.  Throws or half-takedowns (begining the takedown and then disengaging to allow the other person to fall while you remains standing) could be good too.  



> Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position? Do you address escape from a ground position? You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?


 
You shouldn't be going for bottom position.  Pulling guard or otherwise taking bottom position is intended more for a last resort against an unarmed opponent.  



> You dont have to, I know it from experience...everyday. But that actually falls more in line with my point than your own. I'm not seeking answers really, but a discussion on what a MMAist would train for in this type of situation. Do you not address these types of situations in your own training?


 
I don't know how to describe the defenses in words.  Maybe Andrew Green or Marty if he's still around can help me, but i really can't think of how to explain it.  



> Thats my point though. You assume they were trying to the full force of each technique. Grant it they failed, but we also didn't see the gracies get an eye put out and still submit anyone, did we? Punches and kicks to the groin are actually relatively easy to defend, I do it everyday. Strikes and flicks to the eyes are also pretty easy to defend. Like I said before, an athlete and a MAist at the level of the gracies should most certainly be able to defend these types of attacks. Its the close quarters stuff thats more difficult.


 
I think we've reached an impasse on this one too.  I am confident there were people going with genuine intent for eyegouges and bites and groin attacks at all ranges, and I really can't convince you that this was the case.  



> Again you use a false dilemma to prove your point. Because something is ruled as ok and then is not used, means its not a valid technique. Do you see the problem with this reasoning? Its assuming that if something is ruled ok it will be used. It also assumes that something being said to be ok has no other implications for its usage. If we say its ok then that removes all the other far reaching implications of using said technique. Thats just incorrect to begin with. However I would challenge your initial statement. You seem to rely on this type of reasoning to prove your point when there are many other ways to prove your point. I dont think you can correctly say these types of attacks were ok in the challenges.


 
Perhaps the Gracie challenge could have had legal implications, although I don't think the Gracies are/were the types to sue.  The others I listed (Chute Boxe in Brazil, Vale Tudo in Brazil, Combat SAMBO total and AFC in Russian, challenges in Brazil) there would have been no legal issues as there is a different standard for "mutual combatants in those countries that would have made injury in the mutually consented to challenges a non-issue.  There would have been no legal reason to hold back and I have difficulty believing that all the vital points attacks were halfhearted.  



> The simple truth is that regardless of what anyone said, or what any fighter agreed to there are laws regulating these types of matches both legal and moral that override and supercede these agreed rules. Your incorrect that they were no rules. They were termed that but were actually few rules. The bottom line is that regardless of it these techniques are ok they are still not legal/moral and thus hold a restriction beyond what is agreed upon. You say striking the eye is ok in some fights, but think through what would happen if a fighter actually ruptured the eyeball striking their finger all the way through the eye socket? What about nerve and brain damage of such attacks? Do you think that because no one has actually taken the level of force to that point that its impossible?


 
See above.  THere would have been no legal issues in Brazil and Russia, and still wouldn't be under such conditions today.  I don't think that the Gracies would sue in America (although that part is only my guess).  



> Ok, your own statements contradict themselves. They are ok, but with fines or ok but banned. Once again, youre basing your ideals on the fact that no one has taken it to that level so its not possible.


 
I should have split up the different techniques you listed further.  The idea was that in places like FInnfight, where eyegouges and biting is banned, you would still have full legal freedom to go for groin attacks, etc.  



> Thats absurd. Again, no one has choked someone to death in the matches, so I guess thats not possible either, eh? Oh sure, they stop before reaching that level of force, right? But that couldnt be the explanation for why none of these fighters are walking around with no eyes or no testicles.


 
No one has been choked to death because there is no need to in order to win.  The opponent is sleeping and that is enough.  An eyegouge is different in that a miss does not fully accomplish the goal in the way taht a choke does.  Am I making sense? 



> Permanent damage is frowned upon to say the least, but your absolutely wrong and a bit naïve if you believe that level of force is simply not possible because it hasnt been done in these matches.
> 
> 
> Again, youre basing your beliefs on the fact that:
> 
> You havent seen it
> It hasnt been done
> That actually has no bearing on its validity at all. Regardless of the rules you think hyper extending the knee to a point of tearing or breaking wouldnt be considered unsportsmanlike conduct? You think the fighter would continue to receive fights? You think the fighter wouldnt be sued? We need to at least address realistic issues here.


 
In a sanctioned fight?  Like Hughes?  No legal issue at all - in a sanctioned fight anything allowed under the athletic commission rules can't be grounds for lawsuits - thats the whole idea.  No unsportsmanlike conduct either.  Sakuraba, one of the few people I have ever seen pull someone's arm out of the socket, is one of the best loved and most demanded fighters in the world and not one person has questioned his sportsmanship on the MMA boards.  



> Is that why Matt Hughes fell to his knees discontinuing his fighting and/or defense, twice? Is that why they stop the fight and have a doctor check the eyes of the one getting struck? SO your saying those were all fakes? Are you seriously saying you could withstand any type of groin attack and continue on in your fighting like nothing happened? Same with eye attacks?


 
No.  I'm saying that the fighters don't try to "suck it up" and push on because it helps them points wise to be hit in the groin or the eye and have it come to the attention of the ref.  In the early UFCs, TMA people routinely got hit in the groin and pressed on.  



> Of course because you should do whatever needs to be done to win, including breaking legal and moral laws regarding your opponents safety. You should permanently injure your opponent as much as possible to get that win, right? Knee kicks are legal, taking \it beyond a kick and damaging someones knee is not legal by the rules or the law.


 
In a santioned fight?  No legal issues for doing something completely legal in the rules.  



> Legal and right are two different things. No Rules challenges do not exist. There are at the very least some sort of acceptable behavior that is governing the matches. Are bricks ok to use in the matches? How about small blades that stick between the fingers?


 
I pointed out earlier about it being unarmed.  That would be a problem for your knife-wielding man.  



> Is grabbing the trachea and actually damaging it to the point of death or emergency tracheotomy acceptable behavior?


 
Or trying to?  People routinely tried and kept getting matches without either suceeding or being penalized, so I don't see a problem.  



> You keep basing your ideas of what is available on what has been done or what is acceptable. In a life or death situation those rules change, trust me, been there. You cant ignore the physiology of the human body because you have never seen anyone take advantage of its strengths or weaknesses. That is what I termed blind faith.


 
I don't think its blind faith to see someone try and fail repeatedly and conclude as I have.  



> Bottom line, the discussion would be much better focused on these questions I posted earlier in my post:
> So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker?


 
Under certain conditions?  Yes.  



> Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position?


 
Yes.  



> Do you address escape from a ground position?


 
Absolutely one of the most fundamental aspects of grappling.  



> You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?


 
Depends on the specifics of the opponent.  



> What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke?


 
Low.  



> What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC?
> How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?


 
rear mount.  




> Answer me these and we will have a good discussion going.
> 
> 7sm


 
Ok.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I would say the chances are rather low. Thats why anyone is at a disadvantage to a blade. There are a huge variety of SAMBO and BJJ weapons defenses but I am not sure I could describe step by step how to do them in words. Maybe someone posted part of the Gracies instructional tapes, but I haven't seen it.


 
This is a rather interesting comment.  Now, someone can say that they have ground defense in their art, and most likely you will come back and say that BJJ is superior to that.  Now, while there may be weapon defense in the arts you mention, I could say the same about a weapon based art, such as Kali, Arnis, etc.  Just because BJJ, Sambo, etc. have weapon defense, does not mean that its superior to the weapon based arts.

Mike


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> This is a rather interesting comment. Now, someone can say that they have ground defense in their art, and most likely you will come back and say that BJJ is superior to that. Now, while there may be weapon defense in the arts you mention, I could say the same about a weapon based art, such as Kali, Arnis, etc. Just because BJJ, Sambo, etc. have weapon defense, does not mean that its superior to the weapon based arts.
> 
> Mike


 
That is true.  A person armed with a weapon has a very great advantage over an unarmed man, and a person with a better weapon would have a greater advantage still.  Put him against a person trained to fight with a knife, while himself being unarmed, and MMA fighter would be facing long odds.  Of course, a person with a knife would be at a disadvantage to a kenjutsu master (a swordsman) who would probably be at a disadvantage to a man with a handgun, who would be at a disadvantage to a man with a scoped rifle who would be at a disadvantage to a man with an attack helicopter... and so forth.  

We can evaluate unarmed fighting in the Octagon.  It doesn't prove who would win a gun fight or a knife fight or who is most likely to be able to buy an attack helicopter.  It can only tell us who would win an unarmed fight.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> That is true. A person armed with a weapon has a very great advantage over an unarmed man, and a person with a better weapon would have a greater advantage still. Put him against a person trained to fight with a knife, while himself being unarmed, and MMA fighter would be facing long odds. Of course, a person with a knife would be at a disadvantage to a kenjutsu master (a swordsman) who would probably be at a disadvantage to a man with a handgun, who would be at a disadvantage to a man with a scoped rifle who would be at a disadvantage to a man with an attack helicopter... and so forth.
> 
> We can evaluate unarmed fighting in the Octagon. It doesn't prove who would win a gun fight or a knife fight or who is most likely to be able to buy an attack helicopter. It can only tell us who would win an unarmed fight.


 
It proves who wins an unarmed fight in a controlled setting.  As its been said countless times Kevin, I highly doubt agruments like this, although they make for a damn good read, will never be solved.  Fact of the matter is, is a real street encounter will not be what you see in the octagon.  As I said in my thread in the GMA section regarding records, I could care less about having one and by the looks of some of the replies of some here, seems to me like they dont care either.  Just because someone chooses not to have a record or fight in the cage, does not mean that they can't defend themselves.  The quesion I always ask, and the one that always goes unanswered, is the fact that there are many people in the real world that use their MA skill to save their butt.  

There are many arts out there, arts that have been around longer than BJJ has been here in the states, and they're still running strong, the schools are filled with students who love to train.  BJJ was the fad of the 90's, just like Ninjutsu was the fad of the 80's.  Did it open the eyes of people? Sure.  Hell, it opened mine, and again, I'll say that I add grappling, MMA concepts, etc., to my training, but I still love the art of Kenpo.  I didn't abandon my art and jump on the BJJ bandwagon.  Not saying BJJ is a bad art, but its not the end all-be all.  There was mention of mult. attackers.  I think it was in this thread.  I'd be interested to hear how BJJ deals with someone whom they have tied up in the guard, while someone else is kicking the BJJ guy in the head.  Perhaps you could share your thoughts on that.

Mike


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> It proves who wins an unarmed fight in a controlled setting. As its been said countless times Kevin, I highly doubt agruments like this, although they make for a damn good read, will never be solved. Fact of the matter is, is a real street encounter will not be what you see in the octagon.


 
I think we've been here before, but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it?  There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting.  The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.  



> As I said in my thread in the GMA section regarding records, I could care less about having one and by the looks of some of the replies of some here, seems to me like they dont care either. Just because someone chooses not to have a record or fight in the cage, does not mean that they can't defend themselves. The quesion I always ask, and the one that always goes unanswered, is the fact that there are many people in the real world that use their MA skill to save their butt.


 
Let me put it this way.  In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win.  Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system.  In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself.  However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.   



> There are many arts out there, arts that have been around longer than BJJ has been here in the states, and they're still running strong, the schools are filled with students who love to train.


 
THats true.  



> BJJ was the fad of the 90's, just like Ninjutsu was the fad of the 80's. Did it open the eyes of people? Sure. Hell, it opened mine, and again, I'll say that I add grappling, MMA concepts, etc., to my training, but I still love the art of Kenpo. I didn't abandon my art and jump on the BJJ bandwagon. Not saying BJJ is a bad art, but its not the end all-be all.


 
Agreed.  At the moment, SAMBO, Judo, Catch wrestling and good submission wrestling are doing every bit as well as BJJ on the ground, and the full MMA system tends to beat pure grapplers rather consistantly.  



> There was mention of mult. attackers. I think it was in this thread. I'd be interested to hear how BJJ deals with someone whom they have tied up in the guard, while someone else is kicking the BJJ guy in the head. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on that.
> 
> Mike


 
A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group.  If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


----------



## 7starmantis

zDom said:


> Great answers, 7starmantis, even though I think you have reached the same impasse I came to a month or two ago.
> 
> On a different note, I keep hearing it said that eye gouges and groin kicks "just aren't that effective" and that video proof is needed.
> 
> Truth is, there is plenty of "proof" on video for those willing to see it.
> 
> Hasn't Tito Ortiz been complaining about how he lost his match to Liddell because an unintentional thumb to the eye caused him to see nothing but black, allowing Liddell to come in with a flurry of punches?
> 
> It didn't even require a burst eyeball or any permanent damage to be effective  just a little bump in the eye!
> 
> As for groin shots, just ask Matt Hughes how effective they are. The unitentional groin shots Hughes received from GSP were definately a contributing factor.
> 
> And Hughes almost lost a fight to Frank Trigg after getting socked in the winky.
> 
> The value of a really, really hard leg kick was also demonstrated in the UFC with a fighter (forget which one) WINNING a match by TKO with a strong roundhouse to the high thigh  delivered with the TMA chambered (using quadriceps as part of the kick) as opposed to the MT straight-leg kick that is often described as a "superior" kick by MMA types.
> 
> We often only see what we want to see.


I had to quote this just to say what a great post it was. I think your right, there seems to be an impasse here that is hard to get around. Great points in this post by the way.



Rook said:


> Let me put it this way. We have seen ways to negate or very much reduce the incidence of various techniques that still are staple of combat. Other techniques nearly disappear because of how rare it is to sucessfully use them. For instance, you can train for a long time against a boxer's jab (pro boxers do just that), but the technique is still very effective and works a large percentage of the time. It hasn't disappeared from the tournaments where it is legal through the consistancy of counters. On the other hand, there are techniques that have.


Thats true, yet you also have to look at the ability to teach or learn that technique. The basic boxer's jab is a very simple and basic technique that is easily taught and easily learned and easily practiced. That comes into play when you start talking about why it hasn't disappeared. However what has disappeared is whole fights where two opponents stand and deliver jabs to each other until one has had too much and gives out. People have had to learn to adapt and make changes due to the boxer's jab. The most effective defense of the jab is not the jab. Thats my point. The reasons why harder more technical techniques have disappeared from high image sport fighting based on revenue and ratings is not quite a simple as you make it out to be. You would be hard pressed to prove that CMA or any techniques for that matter have disappeared from the aforementioned fighting simply because of their consistent countering. 



Rook said:


> With punching, say, avoiding where the fist is going to be is a intellectually simple affair. How a slip might work might be hard to describe but easy to see and understand. Slipping punches or kicks in one style has a great degree of carry over. Submissions are very specific movements that have very specific counters to escape. If someone doesn't even know what is being done to them (a fairly common occurance for me as a low-level grappler) its impossible to know the proper counter, let alone be able to execute it. It might be possible to muscle out or to see something coming and move to avoid it, but that will probably only work so long. Sometimes the counters are very subtle and really have to be felt to be understood. (If you watch the Fedor-Noguera fights, you see Fedor make counters that probably look like almost nothing or like he just happens to be moving out of the way - he has an insane skill at submissions escapes and counters that half of the MMA board guys, myself included, can't even begin to understand.)


I can't agree. There are not special techniques that require a specific and special defense. There are complicated techniques that require alot of skill to defend, but there is not only one way to defend submissions. Thats simply not true. Techniques do not require a technique to dissolve them. From the mindset of a specific style or so maybe there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" counter, but in a true situation anything that stops the attack is valid. Sure there is only one way to slip a RNC and reverse into a crucifix but saying thats the "correct" or "appropriate" counter is simply assuming the crucifix is what I want to end up in. There are alot of assumptions in saying there are only one correct way to counter various techniques. From the mindset of looking for a submission there may be only one way to counter something, but there are many different ways to escape, counter, defend various techniques. I just can't agree with you on this one. I'm glad you spoke of them being felt. That is the basis of my whole style of fighting. Having the ability to feel your opponents weight and balance and feel which way they are pushing, moving, pulling, etc is a huge part of successfully defending. Thats why I'm saying its not true that there is only one defense. I may be able to feel you starting to roll your shoulder and I can then move my weight out from under yours and relax my arm and slip out of the hold you were attempting. Thats the basis of my training in fighting, feeling. If you put yourself fin situations enough your body will learn to feel them and react to them or escape them before it even happens. By the way, the feel thing is not a new thing nor exclusive to MMA or any one art for that matter.



Rook said:


> Let me try this. Think about explaining a very very complicated set of machines to someone who has no idea what any of them are. Maybe like explaining what a "drivetrain" is to someone who says "what the heck is an engine?" I am not an engineer and I am not a master grappler; to explain something that I am only begining to understand the physics fo myself to someone who has never felt it at all is really just beyond me without a common set of terminology. I'm not really sure where I could begin and I'm afraid that I will grossly misrepresent techniques with bumbling and rambling explanations.


I think we do have a common set of terminology.once again the mindset I spoke of earlier about assumptions others dont have a clue what they are talking about. Ive been rolling with pure grapplers and serious MMAist for years, I do understand the intricacies of and the feel of MMA techniques and being in and out of submissions and chokes. Im there everyday, thats why Im even interested in these types of conversations. Dont assume because someone refuses a certain label that they have or do not have any set of experiences, knowledge, or skill. That can be a huge mistake. 



Rook said:


> No one has been choked to death because there is no need to in order to win. The opponent is sleeping and that is enough. An eyegouge is different in that a miss does not fully accomplish the goal in the way taht a choke does. Am I making sense?


  Yes, that is exactly my point, thank you. There is no need to take a choke to the level of force needed to kill or do serious injury for it to work but the very nature of some of the other techniques we are talking about do have to be taken to that level to work. That is why they are rarely seen, rarely is anyone wanting, needing, willing to take it to that level. On the idea of a miss, a miss is a miss, eyegouge or choke. And a missed eyegouge can still be very effective if it causes a reaction (tears, physical reaction, etc). I get what youre saying but a missed choke doesnt put anyone to sleep either. A miss is still a miss in a choke or anything else. You can still miss a choke. I have become quite effective at defending the initial attack of a choke and thus can negate most choke attempts I come into contact with..are chokes then ineffective? See, its all about the fighter, not the styles. The situation of a fight can change so rapidly and in so many different ways, a technician can be left wondering what to do next when an experienced fighter with feel can simply move on to the next situation. Am I making any sense?



Rook said:


> In a sanctioned fight? Like Hughes? No legal issue at all - in a sanctioned fight anything allowed under the athletic commission rules can't be grounds for lawsuits - thats the whole idea. No unsportsmanlike conduct either. Sakuraba, one of the few people I have ever seen pull someone's arm out of the socket, is one of the best loved and most demanded fighters in the world and not one person has questioned his sportsmanship on the MMA boards.


  Thats not exactly true and no Im not talking about sanctioned fights.your challenge matches. And as far as sanctioned fights and unsportsmanlike conduct, enter UFC rule #22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.



Rook said:


> I think we've been here before, but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it? There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.


  Your right and youre actually describing many different fighting systems, not just MMA. To assume that what you are exposed to and what you know is all that is out there is a large assumption. Many systems of CMA were developed by just that, mine being one of them, except they were not few rules but were many times to the death. Oh, and usage in combat was most of the time life or death as well. Your comparing a sport arena to something you really have no facts about. Take a MMAist and a serious CMAist who train on the same level, fight the same amount of fights, are the same relative age, weight, etc and you have a better example. Especially if you put them in a fight to the death in private back in some field or parking lot. Lots of things change then and if you cant see that, it simply means you havent had to experience that just yet and I hope you never do..but things change. Many kung fu styles consistently come out on top in arenas unlike your UFC sports arena. To say that is the only testing or proving ground is naïve. 



Rook said:


> Let me put it this way. In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win. Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system. In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself. However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.


  I agree with you, but if we are going to start talking about length of fight, injury of winning fighter, economy of energy or tiring fighting I dont think you can support those by claiming MMA. The very nature of sport fighting is to continue the fight to withstand the rules. As a fight continues the statistical probability of injury increases significantly. Just look at the UFC fights for that. The economy of energy or movement or the difference of tiredness is extremely exaggerated in MMA fighting. Thats the whole idea of most CMA systems, quickest kill or removal of threat, least injury to yourself, least expenditure of energy. Ive never heard a MMAist claim those at staples of their training regiment. 



Rook said:


> A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


  I still just dont understand why good takedown defense is reserved for good MMAist and can not be had by other martial artists. Its so assuming to say MMA teaches takedown defense better than systems that focus on remaining standing. In fact, my system teaches takedown defense heavily and then focuses ground fighting to escaping and regaining your feet quickly. Why the assumption that MMAist can do that better than others who train it as well is beyond me. Oh, and I wouldnt recommend sitting in guard while multiple attackers are kicking, swinging things, and punching/pulling you. 
  What makes you feel a MMAist could do these things better than most other people? I mean like what specific skills or training methods give you that impression?

  7sm


----------



## Andrew Green

Wow...  I been around less for a little while to move and finally get back in here, yikes... lots of reading 

Anyways I want to go at a couple of themes:

Intent - MMA trains for different intent then CMA.  Ok, if that is the case then both are equally as "wrong" in terms of the real world.  Intent is purely situation driven, Sometimes you need to hurt, sometimes injure, sometimes restrain and possibly even sometimes cripple or kill. 

Self-defence, the physical aspect, is not about one type of situation, it is about a wide spectrum.  By saying CMA and MMA train for a specific intent in there attacks means they are both only looking at a narrow band on that spectrum.

Drunk guy on street looking for change grabs wrist asking for some change, you need to release and walk away is very different then someone attacks you, not threatens, attacks you with a weapon.

Approaching them with the same intent will either get you seriously injured or in serious legal trouble.  Intent is situation dictated, not style based.

This relates closely to rules of the sport.  TKD is not confined by the rules of Olympic sparring, a Kung Fu club that competes in open tournaments is not confined by the sparring rules of them, and a MMA school is not confined by the rules of a MMA event.

They may choose to focus there training in that way to maximize results in competition at the expense of other things, but that is there choice.  Not a requirement of training to fight under those rules.  There is nothing preventing a MMA school from covering joint breaks rather then controlled submissions, 2 on 1 fighing, illegal attacks, weapons and anything else.  Some will choose not too, others will choose to do them.



> I still just don&#8217;t understand why good takedown defense is reserved for good MMAist and can not be had by other martial artists. It&#8217;s so assuming to say MMA teaches takedown defense better than systems that focus on remaining standing. In fact, my system teaches takedown defense heavily and then focuses ground fighting to escaping and regaining your feet quickly.



I would never claim that any skill set is reserved for a specific style, however there are certain training methods that best develop certain skills.  Paintball and target shooting involve the same basic concept, shoot something, but training one in the way you would train another will not get you far.  

Takedown defence is best learned through a certain type of training, to get really good at it this method is pretty much required.  And, it is also the same type of training that most skills relelvant to the MMA style of sport fighting uses.

Other skills of course require different training methods, some of which are largely irrelevant to MMA fighting and not often done in those clubs, if ever.


----------



## 7starmantis

Andrew Green said:


> Intent - MMA trains for different intent then CMA.  Ok, if that is the case then both are equally as "wrong" in terms of the real world.  Intent is purely situation driven, Sometimes you need to hurt, sometimes injure, sometimes restrain and possibly even sometimes cripple or kill.
> 
> Self-defence, the physical aspect, is not about one type of situation, it is about a wide spectrum. By saying CMA and MMA train for a specific intent in there attacks means they are both only looking at a narrow band on that spectrum.
> 
> Drunk guy on street looking for change grabs wrist asking for some change, you need to release and walk away is very different then someone attacks you, not threatens, attacks you with a weapon.
> 
> Approaching them with the same intent will either get you seriously injured or in serious legal trouble. Intent is situation dictated, not style based.


I have to pick at this a little bit. I dont think intent is situationally dictated. Action is situationally driven, but intent should be there across the spectrum in my opinion. Of course I'm coming from a purely self defense mindset, but the intent must be there. The control afforded a martial artist not to kill when hurting would work is not what I consider intent. Now this may be semantical but I believe you cannot know the intent of your attacker to a high enough probability to really rely on with any safety. Therefore, your intent better be to its fullest extent even with the drunk grabbing the wrist, you truley do not know his intent, or really the situation. A book I read called "Deep Survival" really changed the way I think about situations. Its so easy to make assumptions like, "this guy is drunk, he is wanting change, his is just going to grab my wrist" when these exact assumptions are what set you up for serious danger. Now I'm not talking about no control, but your intent better be there. That is why I say MMA normally trains with moer intent than CMA schools. They take their techniques to execution, they usually fight with more intent than scoring points, etc. The control of action is still present, but the intent is being trained into "muscle memory" if you will. 



Andrew Green said:


> This relates closely to rules of the sport.  TKD is not confined by the rules of Olympic sparring, a Kung Fu club that competes in open tournaments is not confined by the sparring rules of them, and a MMA school is not confined by the rules of a MMA event.
> 
> They may choose to focus there training in that way to maximize results in competition at the expense of other things, but that is there choice.  Not a requirement of training to fight under those rules.  There is nothing preventing a MMA school from covering joint breaks rather then controlled submissions, 2 on 1 fighing, illegal attacks, weapons and anything else.  Some will choose not too, others will choose to do them.


Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport. 



Andrew Green said:


> I would never claim that any skill set is reserved for a specific style, however there are certain training methods that best develop certain skills.  Paintball and target shooting involve the same basic concept, shoot something, but training one in the way you would train another will not get you far.
> 
> Takedown defence is best learned through a certain type of training, to get really good at it this method is pretty much required.  And, it is also the same type of training that most skills relelvant to the MMA style of sport fighting uses.
> 
> Other skills of course require different training methods, some of which are largely irrelevant to MMA fighting and not often done in those clubs, if ever.


I agree but what I was addresing was the mentailty and near blind quoting of ideas that anything outside the MMA circle doesn't train for those or trains ineffectively for those situations. I would *not* agree that those skills are "most relevent to the MMA style of sport fighting". Those skills are relevent to anyoen who is looking to avoid takedowns. And the methods of training them are not new or exclusive. Getting good at takedown defense is required for any serious fighter in my opinion, not just the MMA sport fighter. 


7sm


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I think we've been here before, *but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it?* There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.


 
The bold is mine.  What you're describing is what works in the environment of the ring.  There are many arts out there, all of which can prove effective.  As I've said countless times, but don't seem to get a reply...we can sit and debate about tape, proof of this and proof of that, but the fact remains that there are many folks that have used TMA to defend themselves and there is no tape.  This does not mean that its not effective.





> Let me put it this way. In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win. Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system. In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself. However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.


 
Again, 2 people matched, in a controlled environment.  The ring dictates what happens, what does not happen, weapons, etc.  This is an apples to oranges debate.





> A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


 
Sure, that is possible, against one person.  I'm interested in hearing how this is done against 2, 3 or more?

Mike


----------



## MJS

7starmantis said:


> Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport.


 
Exactly!!!


----------



## Andrew Green

7starmantis said:


> Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport.



Yes, fight the way you train, I agree to that fully.  On that note do you subscribe to hard sparring as a regular part of training?  I think the stop before a target method of sparring is probably one of the most counter productive activites you can do under this theory.

I also think that in order to fight the way you train, you have to be "fighting" in training, which means some form, or better yet many different forms of sparring.

As far as goals go, again, I agree.  Someone training to be a Olympic TKD fighter should focus on the skills needed for that.  Someone looking for a more general purpose method, one that can be adapted to different situations, needs to train in many ways.  Sort of a Jake of all Trades approach.

MMA is this in the limited spectrum of the sport systems.  It covers boxing, wrestling, Submission, Kickboxing, etc.  Few of the fighters would be at the top level of the specialized sports, but as those are not the goal, they train in all to a more moderate level.

Of course MMA does not cover the full spectrum, nor does any other art.  But it is a individual choice as too how wide of a piece of that spectrum they want to focus on.  With that comes a trade off, the more stuff you focus on, the less you get to focus on the smaller pieces.

If the goal is to be the best at a single piece, that leaves little room for the others.  However, competition, or being the best at any given slice is not everyones goal.




> I agree but what I was addresing was the mentailty and near blind quoting of ideas that anything outside the MMA circle doesn't train for those or trains ineffectively for those situations.



It goes back to the same idea as above.  MMA fighters train the most effective techniques and methods for the slice of the spectrum that they specialize in.  Perhaps not to the same level as those in more specialized systems, but still basically the same.

A wrestler and a MMA fighter will train takedown defences in basically the same way.  A wrestling club will likely spend more time on it, go into more detail of it, and a MMA club will take more things into consideration (ex. punches) but for the most part, they are trained to do basically the same thing, and use the same sort of training methods to do it.

Where conflicts come up seems to be where one of two things happen:

1) Someone tries to assert that certain things work / do not work within that MMA piece of the spectrum, something which people that train in MMA know to be false through experience. (ex. When mounted simply use tiger claw technique and finish him)

or

2) Someone from within that spectrum tries to make claims about other pieces of it to those that specialize in training for those pieces.


We are all martial artists, but we do different things.  If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.

Similar to tradespeople.  There are many types, they do different things.  Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.  

If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen.  Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> We are all martial artists, but we do different things.  If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.
> 
> Similar to tradespeople.  There are many types, they do different things.  Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.
> 
> If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen.  Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....



Well said Andrew. Speaking just for myself (although I'm sure a lot of TMAists will agree) you are not the one I find myself disagreeing with.

But there are a couple of MMA enthusiasts (some of which, I understand, don't even TRAIN in MMA!) who will hold forth on things that I find hard not to take issue with.

For example: 

 The claim that MMAists have identified and practice the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE techniques known to mankind  and that those practiced by TMAs are INeffective because they are not proven on tape!

Absurd! Especially when we often are using/training the EXACT same techniques! 

Why would an armbar (juji-gatame) as trained by a MMAist be any more effective than the very same armbar I train in hapkido?

What makes him think that a sprawl defense as trained in a MMA gym effective while the sprawl I train in hapkido isn't?

 The claim that the Muay Thai kicks (which these MMA fans claim is part of MMA and not really a TMA because they SAY it is!) are selected because they are the most effective kicks  more effective than the Korean TMA kicking I train.

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps MMAists train that MT roundhouse kick, for example, because it is _easier_ to master the basics of than a Korean roundhouse?

Sure, it is effective enough: I see lotsa people in UFC knocked out with what I consider to be a sloppy, unrefined roundhouse.

Why do I consider it sloppy and unrefined? Well, because it is exactly how I see brand new students with NO kicking experience but sufficient flexibility kick!

But BETTER (the optimal!) than the roundhouse kick I have spent years refining? You gotta be KIDDING!

Lets hook up a force recording machine and I can SHOW them with objective data, or lets go rock a heavy bag (a bit subjective, but probably demonstrable).

Heck  there is even video proof: we have seen scores  maybe HUNDREDS  of MT roundhouse kicks thrown to the legs used to "weaken" the opponent with cumulative effect.

Then go look at the most recent pay-per-view UFC: somebody chambers and unleashes a roundhouse on someone's hip (i.e., using the quads instead of just the hip flexors as with the MT straight-leg roundhouse) and it DROPS the guy with a SINGLE KICK  a TKO from a LEG KICK!


I could go on and on, but to wrap this up: I don't think the MMAist have found a list of OPTIMAL techniques so much as they have seen a recipe that works (for example, MT kicks + boxing hands + BJJ ground techs) and decide to train that recipe.

More power to 'em! I'm not casting stones their way  they found something that works, so go with it!

But to presume to tell TMAists that our techniques do NOT work because they are not listed among the ingredients of that particular recipe is, well offensive or comical, depending on your outlook on life.

Likewise, claiming that particular recipe is the "optimal" or "best way" because it has a "proven record on tape" is fallacious.

For example, I don't see anybody in the MMA using ridgehands. I don't have any taped proof they would work in the UFC, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if someone trained it and tried it, they would knock someone clean out.

I don't see anybody using body shots during standup (attempting, sometimes, but not effectively using). I will repeat the same bet: if somebody trained it well and tried it in the UFC, they would probably win themself a UFC match by knocking the wind out of an opponent. Video proof? I got none.


There is stuff out there in TMAs that if someone would give it a try could shake up the UFC/Pride/etc. world  and it doesn't have to be be eye gouging, crotch kicking, tiger clawing.

Anyway, its Friday night, work is over, and I have to go get some #2 white pine.

To put it in a nutshell: I'm not knocking MMA  I even like the idea of them playing a game in which ALL ranges of combat are fair game. And it IS fun to watch techniques (many of which I train, like armbar, rear naked choke, etc.) used in a pressure situation.

But I'm tired of MMA fans knocking TMAs as "ineffective" and trying to insult TMAists into a cage fight to "prove" on video that we ARE effective.

Ain't worth it. I like having my ears look pretty instead of a like a hunk of cauliflower. I like having my front teeth instead of a (another) partial bridge.

And I like not inflicting violence on other martial artists simply to entertain the masses and to prove my effectiveness to someone who probably would just call it a "fluke" even if I did!


----------



## matt.m

You know I have to agree with Scott.  The thing is this:  Why in the world would you want to go to the ground in a fight?  You are more likely to lose control if you do.  Plus, most fights I have been in involve multiple attackers.

I love watching MMA events, I think they are cool.  However, I don't think the recipe is the end all of end alls of the best of the best either.


----------



## exile

Once again, I think zDom and Matt have nailed the points exactly. A book I've been reading for the past little while puts it very nicely: MAists are all doing the same thing, but in different ways. If you're really good at your way, really master not just the kinematics of the techniques but the strategic plan of your art, and how that plan is realized tactically no matter what the situation is, then you're going to be a very capable fighter, period. But we keep coming back to the same point: it's what you train for that determines what you wind up being able to do, eh? If you train hard enough for the octagon you're going to do well in the octagon; if you train for Olympic sparring you're going to do well in that; if you train as realistically as possible for street nastiness and hang the legal consequences (`better to be judged by twelve than carried by six'), and really master the strategic/tactical interaction that your art expresses,  you're going to do well in that. I just don't see any point or usefulness trying to make any stronger claim than this on behalf of one or another fighting system...


----------



## Kensai

zDom said:


> Well said Andrew. Speaking just for myself (although I'm sure a lot of TMAists will agree) you are not the one I find myself disagreeing with.
> 
> _* But there are a couple of MMA enthusiasts (some of which, I understand, don't even TRAIN in MMA!) who will hold forth on things that I find hard not to take issue with.
> *_
> For example:
> 
>  The claim that MMAists have identified and practice the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE techniques known to mankind  and that those practiced by TMAs are INeffective because they are not proven on tape!
> 
> Absurd! Especially when we often are using/training the EXACT same techniques!
> 
> Why would an armbar (juji-gatame) as trained by a MMAist be any more effective than the very same armbar I train in hapkido?
> 
> What makes him think that a sprawl defense as trained in a MMA gym effective while the sprawl I train in hapkido isn't?
> 
>  The claim that the Muay Thai kicks (which these MMA fans claim is part of MMA and not really a TMA because they SAY it is!) are selected because they are the most effective kicks  more effective than the Korean TMA kicking I train.
> 
> Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps MMAists train that MT roundhouse kick, for example, because it is _easier_ to master the basics of than a Korean roundhouse?
> 
> Sure, it is effective enough: I see lotsa people in UFC knocked out with what I consider to be a sloppy, unrefined roundhouse.
> 
> Why do I consider it sloppy and unrefined? Well, because it is exactly how I see brand new students with NO kicking experience but sufficient flexibility kick!
> 
> But BETTER (the optimal!) than the roundhouse kick I have spent years refining? You gotta be KIDDING!
> 
> Lets hook up a force recording machine and I can SHOW them with objective data, or lets go rock a heavy bag (a bit subjective, but probably demonstrable).
> 
> Heck  there is even video proof: we have seen scores  maybe HUNDREDS  of MT roundhouse kicks thrown to the legs used to "weaken" the opponent with cumulative effect.
> 
> Then go look at the most recent pay-per-view UFC: somebody chambers and unleashes a roundhouse on someone's hip (i.e., using the quads instead of just the hip flexors as with the MT straight-leg roundhouse) and it DROPS the guy with a SINGLE KICK  a TKO from a LEG KICK!
> 
> 
> I could go on and on, but to wrap this up: I don't think the MMAist have found a list of OPTIMAL techniques so much as they have seen a recipe that works (for example, MT kicks + boxing hands + BJJ ground techs) and decide to train that recipe.
> 
> More power to 'em! I'm not casting stones their way  they found something that works, so go with it!
> 
> But to presume to tell TMAists that our techniques do NOT work because they are not listed among the ingredients of that particular recipe is, well offensive or comical, depending on your outlook on life.
> 
> Likewise, claiming that particular recipe is the "optimal" or "best way" because it has a "proven record on tape" is fallacious.
> 
> For example, I don't see anybody in the MMA using ridgehands. I don't have any taped proof they would work in the UFC, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if someone trained it and tried it, they would knock someone clean out.
> 
> I don't see anybody using body shots during standup (attempting, sometimes, but not effectively using). I will repeat the same bet: if somebody trained it well and tried it in the UFC, they would probably win themself a UFC match by knocking the wind out of an opponent. Video proof? I got none.
> 
> 
> There is stuff out there in TMAs that if someone would give it a try could shake up the UFC/Pride/etc. world  and it doesn't have to be be eye gouging, crotch kicking, tiger clawing.
> 
> Anyway, its Friday night, work is over, and I have to go get some #2 white pine.
> 
> To put it in a nutshell: I'm not knocking MMA  I even like the idea of them playing a game in which ALL ranges of combat are fair game. And it IS fun to watch techniques (many of which I train, like armbar, rear naked choke, etc.) used in a pressure situation.
> 
> But I'm tired of MMA fans knocking TMAs as "ineffective" and trying to insult TMAists into a cage fight to "prove" on video that we ARE effective.
> 
> Ain't worth it. I like having my ears look pretty instead of a like a hunk of cauliflower. I like having my front teeth instead of a (another) partial bridge.
> 
> And I like not inflicting violence on other martial artists simply to entertain the masses and to prove my effectiveness to someone who probably would just call it a "fluke" even if I did!



Righteous post Scott. \^^/ Not much further to add.


----------



## 7starmantis

Some really great posts here!! 
A few things....


Andrew Green said:


> Yes, fight the way you train, I agree to that fully. On that note do you subscribe to hard sparring as a regular part of training? I think the stop before a target method of sparring is probably one of the most counter productive activites you can do under this theory.
> 
> I also think that in order to fight the way you train, you have to be "fighting" in training, which means some form, or better yet many different forms of sparring.


Yes, very much so. In fact, if you read alot of my posts you will see I'm a huge proponent of hard "sparring" (I hate that word). Not everyone is interested in fighting or hard fighting, but if you are you must, must in my opinion, participate in hard fighting very often. There are great benefits in going slow to learn techniques and feel and such, in fact its a must, but just as important is full speed hard fighting.....if you want to be a fighter.



Andrew Green said:


> Of course MMA does not cover the full spectrum, nor does any other art. But it is a individual choice as too how wide of a piece of that spectrum they want to focus on. With that comes a trade off, the more stuff you focus on, the less you get to focus on the smaller pieces.


I'm probably offering a very unpopular view point, but I dont think I agree with the idea that no art can cover the full spectrum. So far I've heard no true explination of this mentality or really any source for this ideology. I think many times its used to say that no one art covers everything other arts do and I agree, but I think there are systems out there that cover the full spectrum, just not in the same way other arts would. There are complete systems out there and while they may not cover certain aspects of fighting like other systems, they do cover the full spectrum or aspects of fighting. Now its become popular for some reason to subscribe to the "no art covers it all" mentality almost like it become popular not to say Merry Christmas for fear of offending someone who doesn't practice Christmas. The problem is, I'm not saying your art, or any art for that matter is incomplete or lacking, but merely that there are systems that could be considered complete if your not holding specific curriculum for what you want complete to be. We must realize that there are many ways to address different issues or aspects of fighting, no one style has the market cornered even on small specific issues. Boxing doesn't have the market cornered for hand techniques, they are amazing at hand techniques, but its just another way to address hand techniques. Am I making any sense?



Andrew Green said:


> A wrestler and a MMA fighter will train takedown defences in basically the same way. A wrestling club will likely spend more time on it, go into more detail of it, and a MMA club will take more things into consideration (ex. punches) but for the most part, they are trained to do basically the same thing, and use the same sort of training methods to do it.


I agree. However you could substitue the word MMA in your statement with CMA and be correct as well. Thats my point. BAd training is bad and good training is good regardless of style or system. 



Andrew Green said:


> Where conflicts come up seems to be where one of two things happen:
> 
> 1) Someone tries to assert that certain things work / do not work within that MMA piece of the spectrum, something which people that train in MMA know to be false through experience. (ex. When mounted simply use tiger claw technique and finish him)
> 
> or
> 
> 2) Someone from within that spectrum tries to make claims about other pieces of it to those that specialize in training for those pieces.


Again, I agree. Yet, my point has been that the people (some of the people) who train in MMA are using someone elses experience to "know" it to be false. Also, it seems when someone from MMA standpoint talks about those techniques that dont work they can only seem to come up with hollywood and fantasy creations like the "tiger claw and finish him", "poison buddah palm" etc. A serious CMA fighter isn't going to be doing those fantasy gathering technqiues on you. Thats why I say its so dangerous to assume what does and doesn't work, or what will or will not be seen in a fight. Are there alot of fantasy gatherings refering to themselves as CMA schools, of course. Why, I'm not so sure, but its just as well with me, most people who I fight allready have some assumption as to how I will fight and it really gives me an extra edge 
See the thing alot of people dont understand is that many CMA systems aren't technique driven or confined. My system of fighting is based on fighting principles so you might very well see many different kinds of attacks, many very similar if not exactly the same as the MMA fighter would be using. Some may be very different, but the strategy may be very different. That make sense?



Andrew Green said:


> We are all martial artists, but we do different things. If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.


How so? While I agree we would be better if everyone understood that their way isn't the only way, but there are complete methods of training out there, at least I've yet to see any valid proof otherwise. The only thing I ever really get is the "burden of proof" argument and thats just a little trite. Accepting that what you do is only one way and not the way is great, but to say there are no complete methods of training out there is just not true. 



Andrew Green said:


> Similar to tradespeople. There are many types, they do different things. Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.
> 
> If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen. Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....


I see your point but I think the example is a bit flawed. I dont see what different styles are doing as so different as plumbing and electricity. Is the goal in self defense fighting not fighting to protect yourself? The whole sport/reality thing has been address (by you I thought) earlier where the person who chooses to compete under certain rules is not then bound by them? If you take a group of people who train for realistic self defense, all from different styles of fighting...are they really so different in specialization? Are they all really aiming for such different things? 

What if you were an electrician trying to fix your sink to leak so you could electricute the thief that breaks into your house? Would you still listen to him? See there are different reasons to do things. The problem comes in when the person training for sport (plumber) starts telling the self defense fighter (electrician) that what he's doing will get him electricuted and killed faster than he can say poison buddah palm. There is a level of understanding that must be considered when discussing such different things. The sports fighter (plumber) doesn't address death like the self defense fighter (electrician) does, why should he tell the electrician that what hes doing will get him killed and he needs to start using PVC pipe instead of copper wire. That distinction is valid and the level of force needed for each is different. However a fighter who trains for life or death self defense could most likely maintain control enough to compete in sport events, probably much less effective than the sport fighter, but its possible. However the gradient of force is moveing upward when taking the sport fighter and asking him to compete in a life or death situation. Could he do it, most likely would he be less effective than the self defense fighter, of course just like the other example. However, since the force gradient is moving up he would be in a much more precious disadvantage than the other way around. That make any sense?

7sm


----------



## exile

Another terrific post on this, 7sm.


----------



## xingyiquan

Compare CMA to MMA in UFC is like compare an orange to an apple, and say apple taste better. MMA is created for UFC, UFC is a sport, and there are rules, purpose is to win the fight and obey the rules. CMA was created from the military, and the only purpose was to kill your enemy, and there are no rules. I have to agree that ever since fire arm was invented, CMA has gradually lost its ground, the people with CMA skills now days are no where near the level when people trainning CMA because their life was depend on it hundred years ago.  The car analogy might be right, except people with CMA skills now days is really the 1920's car and people with CMA skills  a hundred year ago  is the million dollar fiberglass race car.


----------



## Rook

funnytiger said:


> Jason Delucia is on guy who faught under the style of "kung fu". He wasn't breaking any barriers, but he wasn't awful either.
> 
> Record: 33 - 20 - 1 (Win - Loss - Draw).
> 
> Eh... not bad... apparently he also had some grappling in his arsenal as well.


 
DeLucia started out a traditional kung fu guy, and ended up switching to more modern methods.... I believe he is belted in BJJ and has spent a great deal of time in MMA training halls.  If you watch his pancrase fights, he is by no means doing anything that looks dissimilar to normal MMA.


----------



## Rook

xingyiquan said:


> Compare CMA to MMA in UFC is like compare an orange to an apple, and say apple taste better. MMA is created for UFC, UFC is a sport, and there are rules, purpose is to win the fight and obey the rules. CMA was created from the military, and the only purpose was to kill your enemy, and there are no rules. I have to agree that ever since fire arm was invented, CMA has gradually lost its ground, the people with CMA skills now days are no where near the level when people trainning CMA because their life was depend on it hundred years ago. The car analogy might be right, except people with CMA skills now days is really the 1920's car and people with CMA skills a hundred year ago is the million dollar fiberglass race car.


 
Perhaps you didn't read the thread.  We discussed no rules fights at length.


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> Some really great posts here!!
> A few things....
> 
> Yes, very much so. In fact, if you read alot of my posts you will see I'm a huge proponent of hard "sparring" (I hate that word). Not everyone is interested in fighting or hard fighting, but if you are you must, must in my opinion, participate in hard fighting very often. There are great benefits in going slow to learn techniques and feel and such, in fact its a must, but just as important is full speed hard fighting.....if you want to be a fighter.


 
Agreed.  



> I'm probably offering a very unpopular view point, but I dont think I agree with the idea that no art can cover the full spectrum. So far I've heard no true explination of this mentality or really any source for this ideology. I think many times its used to say that no one art covers everything other arts do and I agree, but I think there are systems out there that cover the full spectrum, just not in the same way other arts would.


 
This one is easy to counter.  How many weapons can any system handle?  Can a propenent weild a Hungarian Axel Sword?  A Scottish Claymore?  A Chinese Broadsword?  A Japanese Katana?  A Russian AK-47?  A WWII combat knife?  A Spanish Short Mace?  A Zulu spear?  An Israeli throwing knife?  An American sniper .30 rifle?  Nobody learns all of them in one system.  No system covers all of these, and none could.  



> There are complete systems out there and while they may not cover certain aspects of fighting like other systems, they do cover the full spectrum or aspects of fighting. Now its become popular for some reason to subscribe to the "no art covers it all" mentality almost like it become popular not to say Merry Christmas for fear of offending someone who doesn't practice Christmas. The problem is, I'm not saying your art, or any art for that matter is incomplete or lacking, but merely that there are systems that could be considered complete if your not holding specific curriculum for what you want complete to be. We must realize that there are many ways to address different issues or aspects of fighting, no one style has the market cornered even on small specific issues. Boxing doesn't have the market cornered for hand techniques, they are amazing at hand techniques, but its just another way to address hand techniques. Am I making any sense?


 
Yep.  If you want to do something though, it is ussually best to find a specialist in it rather than someone who thinks they are some sort of universal martial arts savant who knows all aspects.  



> I agree. However you could substitue the word MMA in your statement with CMA and be correct as well. Thats my point. BAd training is bad and good training is good regardless of style or system.


 
I don't understand here.  CMA uses different takedowns and different takedown defenses from wrestling and trains them in a different method.  



> Again, I agree. Yet, my point has been that the people (some of the people) who train in MMA are using someone elses experience to "know" it to be false. Also, it seems when someone from MMA standpoint talks about those techniques that dont work they can only seem to come up with hollywood and fantasy creations like the "tiger claw and finish him", "poison buddah palm" etc. A serious CMA fighter isn't going to be doing those fantasy gathering technqiues on you. Thats why I say its so dangerous to assume what does and doesn't work, or what will or will not be seen in a fight.


 
We can really only go on what has been seen.  I realize that alot of people have traditions of other things, but we haven't seen them work very well, and hence don't consider them optimal.  For techniques that completely don't work, we ussually have to consult the internet (where there are lots of people who still believe in such nonsense - google Dim Mak and read what people think when they hear it - alot of it is pure nonsense - try qi blasts etc).  I think what we have is a set of 3 groups of practices

1.  Optimal techniques (in my mind this is MMA)
2.  Stuff that works, but there is a better way to do it (in my mind this is legitimate TMA)
3.  Stuff that is pure nonsense (in my mind this is stuff like qi-blasts etc)



> Are there alot of fantasy gatherings refering to themselves as CMA schools, of course. Why, I'm not so sure, but its just as well with me, most people who I fight allready have some assumption as to how I will fight and it really gives me an extra edge
> See the thing alot of people dont understand is that many CMA systems aren't technique driven or confined. My system of fighting is based on fighting principles so you might very well see many different kinds of attacks, many very similar if not exactly the same as the MMA fighter would be using. Some may be very different, but the strategy may be very different. That make sense?


 
Sure.  



> How so? While I agree we would be better if everyone understood that their way isn't the only way, but there are complete methods of training out there, at least I've yet to see any valid proof otherwise. The only thing I ever really get is the "burden of proof" argument and thats just a little trite. Accepting that what you do is only one way and not the way is great, but to say there are no complete methods of training out there is just not true.


 
I realize that the burden of proof thing is annoying, but it really is necessary to have something to compare.  We can discuss theory all day, but there are lots of theories that sound good but just don't work, or don't work as well as they say.  



> I see your point but I think the example is a bit flawed. I dont see what different styles are doing as so different as plumbing and electricity. Is the goal in self defense fighting not fighting to protect yourself? The whole sport/reality thing has been address (by you I thought) earlier where the person who chooses to compete under certain rules is not then bound by them? If you take a group of people who train for realistic self defense, all from different styles of fighting...are they really so different in specialization? Are they all really aiming for such different things?


 
Yes.  Different styles are very different in their approaches and sucess.  I am not one of the people that believes that all that matters is how much effort you put in.  



> What if you were an electrician trying to fix your sink to leak so you could electricute the thief that breaks into your house? Would you still listen to him? See there are different reasons to do things. The problem comes in when the person training for sport (plumber) starts telling the self defense fighter (electrician) that what he's doing will get him electricuted and killed faster than he can say poison buddah palm. There is a level of understanding that must be considered when discussing such different things. The sports fighter (plumber) doesn't address death like the self defense fighter (electrician) does, why should he tell the electrician that what hes doing will get him killed and he needs to start using PVC pipe instead of copper wire. That distinction is valid and the level of force needed for each is different. However a fighter who trains for life or death self defense could most likely maintain control enough to compete in sport events, probably much less effective than the sport fighter, but its possible. However the gradient of force is moveing upward when taking the sport fighter and asking him to compete in a life or death situation. Could he do it, most likely would he be less effective than the self defense fighter, of course just like the other example. However, since the force gradient is moving up he would be in a much more precious disadvantage than the other way around. That make any sense?
> 
> 7sm


 
I understand but that has been shown to be false so many times.  We have so many no rules fights, and NEVER do competent sports fighters lose to these tactics.  Hold back nothing outside the ring, but it still doesn't work as well.


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> We can really only go on what has been seen.  I realize that alot of people have traditions of other things, but we haven't seen them work very well, and hence don't consider them optimal.  For techniques that completely don't work, we ussually have to consult the internet (where there are lots of people who still believe in such nonsense - google Dim Mak and read what people think when they hear it - alot of it is pure nonsense - try qi blasts etc).  I think what we have is a set of 3 groups of practices
> 
> 1.  Optimal techniques (in my mind this is MMA)
> 2.  Stuff that works, but there is a better way to do it (in my mind this is legitimate TMA)
> 3.  Stuff that is pure nonsense (in my mind this is stuff like qi-blasts etc)
> 
> ....
> 
> I realize that the burden of proof thing is annoying, but it really is necessary to have something to compare.  We can discuss theory all day, but there are lots of theories that sound good but just don't work, or don't work as well as they say....Different styles are very different in their approaches and sucess.  I am not one of the people that believes that all that matters is how much effort you put in...I understand but that has been shown to be false so many times.  We have so many no rules fights, and NEVER do competent sports fighters lose to these tactics.  Hold back nothing outside the ring, but it still doesn't work as well.



Rook---

I think I understand what your angle on this is. And I read the following from Si-Je on the Sifu Emin Boztepe thread:



> What you have to stop focusing so much on is what the other guy is going to do. If you stick to your technique and follow WC/WT concepts and principles it won't matter much how your opponent attacks, for you intercept their intention and negate their intended technique before they get to finish their movement.
> Thus, it doesn't matter if they kick, punch, shoot in to grapple whatever, you focus on flowing with their force and deflecting it from you using it against them. Hence, a TKD attacker doesn't finish the kick, a boxer doesn't finish his/her boxing combo, a grappler isn't allowed to complete a take down or a arm bar. Because you have already executed WC technique to counter their attack from the moment they move.
> If your constantly worried about what the other guy is going to do to you you give them the chance to do it by anticipating the outcome, and if you don't stay open minded ready to adapt you play their game and lose.
> I've sparred TKD, MMA, and BJJ trained martial artists, and the trick is to stay true to what you train everyday and what you know, have confidence in it whatever art you study, and have faith in your ability to execute otherwise you will lose.
> WC's biggest advantage is "getting there first", the quickest way between two points, thus hit them first and follow up quickly and confidently. No time to worry about what the opponent wants to do to you. Only enough time to react.
> I've stopped fast and skilled kickers before they can stretch their leg out enough to kick me with WC, I've stopped boxers by intercepting their first jab and crowding their space so they can't follow up with a flurry of combo punching, I've initaiated attack against those that only faint a strike trying to find a "hole" in my guard, and I've stopped grapplers and BJJ/MMA fighters from finishing a takedown simply by strictly following WC concept and reaction.



What she's saying, if I read her right, is that she's fought MMA/BJJ grapplers, that the Wing Chung striking techniques she applies can be systematically and consistently applied to defeat them, and that therefore she's a living `existence proof' of the claim that MMA-type stragegic planning and tactical execution cannot be considered _intrinsically_ superior to TMA (at least the Wing Chun `flavor' of TMA). I actually don't have a horse in this particular race, because she also has indicated that WC principles, properly applied, are capable of defeating highly skilled TKD kickers and other kinds of karateka as well (I view TKD as Korean karate, and what she's saying here as applying to Shotokan, Goju-ryu etc.)

I don't think simply saying to her, well, you've never won in the ring (assuming that's true) would constitute an answer. The issue isn't the ring. She says she's done hard sparring against grapplers/BJJ fighters and beaten them, and I'm going to assume that she's telling the truth. If so, does that answer the part of your argument based on the fact that MMA trumps TMA because it consistently does so in the cage? Can both you be right and she be right at the same time? Hasn't she actually _met_ the burden proof you argue to be on the shoulders of TMAists? Or are you going to take the position that she hasn't, because she doesn't have video proof that these contests she's referring to ever took place? That's not meant at all sarcastically or as a rhetorical question---I'm genuinely _curious/I] as to how you see the argument going based on her post..._


----------



## Rook

exile said:


> Rook---
> 
> I think I understand what your angle on this is. And I read the following from Si-Je on the Sifu Emin Boztepe thread:
> 
> 
> 
> What she's saying, if I read her right, is that she's fought MMA/BJJ grapplers, that the Wing Chung striking techniques she applies can be systematically and consistently applied to defeat them, and that therefore she's a living `existence proof' of the claim that MMA-type stragegic planning and tactical execution cannot be considered _intrinsically_ superior to TMA (at least the Wing Chun `flavor' of TMA). I actually don't have a horse in this particular race, because she also has indicated that WC principles, properly applied, are capable of defeating highly skilled TKD kickers and other kinds of karateka as well (I view TKD as Korean karate, and what she's saying here as applying to Shotokan, Goju-ryu etc.)
> 
> I don't think simply saying to her, well, you've never won in the ring (assuming that's true) would constitute an answer. The issue isn't the ring. She says she's done hard sparring against grapplers/BJJ fighters and beaten them, and I'm going to assume that she's telling the truth. If so, does that answer the part of your argument based on the fact that MMA trumps TMA because it consistently does so in the cage? Can both you be right and she be right at the same time? Hasn't she actually _met_ the burden proof you argue to be on the shoulders of TMAists? Or are you going to take the position that she hasn't, because she doesn't have video proof that these contests she's referring to ever took place? That's not meant at all sarcastically or as a rhetorical question---I'm genuinely _curious/I] as to how you see the argument going based on her post..._


_

I see two problems with her arguement:

1.  She doesn't have proof that it happened as she said.  Honestly, while I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, when in comes to proving things, be the martial arts or otherwise, the evidence does matter.  Even assuming that the fight happens and that she is completely honest about it, what looks or feels like a stunning victory might look more like a draw to someone else.  Unless we have the record of the fight, we can't tell.  

2.  I don't know the level of the grapplers she faced.  Unfortunately, all styles have a whole spectrum of practitioners.  In MMA, there is a ranking system which compares the records of various fighters, but I am certain that she hasn't fought anyone ranked or probably with any professional record at all, and hence it is hard to tell how good the grappler was.  If we had the video, we might be able to give an educated guess.  An effective tactic should work with some consistancy even against higher-level fighters (ie wrestling sprawl stops takedowns even in the Olympics), and its sucess against people with little experiance themselves tells us nothing.

If she had PROVABLE and CONSISTANT sucess against HIGH-LEVEL practitioners, then there would be a very stong arguement for the equality of styles.  

At the dawn of popular MMA, people said that BJJ was the ultimate style.  It wasn't and isn't.  Judo fighters beat some of the best BJJ practitioners in the world, SAMBO fighters won UFC and PRIDE belts (and not a few back alley fights in Japan), Catch wrestlers won, shootfighters won, etc.  Its hard today to say that SAMBO, Judo, BJJ, Catch wrestling, etc all work and work well.  You might even say that they are equal - but they won that reputation through recorded fights and maintained it through consistant sucess.  If you look at the top five heavyweights in the world, they are Fedor (SAMBO champ), Mirko CC (kickboxing and BJJ), Josh Barnet (Catch Wrestling), Antonio Rodrigo Noguera (BJJ), and Sergi Karitonov (SAMBO).  Its hard to say that they don't all work.  

This is not dissimilar to the fighting for respect that happened in Hong Kong between Choy Lay Fat and Wing Chun in the 60s - in the end they had mutual respect, but it took alot of proof before people concluded that they were relatively equal.  In these modern days of lazy people and so forth, we often just want to skip the part where every style fights and go right to the part where they have mutual respect, but it just doesn't work, and it has been this hands off demeanor that has allowed the superfrauds (Ashida Kim, Frank Dux and their ilk) to proliferate.  It has been this attitude that also freezes the progress of many TMAs._


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> I see two problems with her arguement:
> 
> 1.  _She doesn't have proof that it happened as she said_.  Honestly, while I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, when in comes to proving things, be the martial arts or otherwise, the evidence does matter.  Even assuming that the fight happens and that she is completely honest about it, what looks or feels like a stunning victory might look more like a draw to someone else.  Unless we have the record of the fight, we can't tell.
> 
> 2.  _I don't know the level of the grapplers she faced_.  Unfortunately, all styles have a whole spectrum of practitioners.  In MMA, there is a ranking system which compares the records of various fighters, but I am certain that she hasn't fought anyone ranked or probably with any professional record at all, and hence it is hard to tell how good the grappler was.  If we had the video, we might be able to give an educated guess.  An effective tactic should work with some consistancy even against higher-level fighters (ie wrestling sprawl stops takedowns even in the Olympics), and its sucess against people with little experiance themselves tells us nothing.



OK, that seems a reasonable response. The business of the skill level of the opponent seems as if it's _always_ going to be there to bedevil this particular argument between the two perspectives... thanks for the reply!


----------



## zDom

Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).

It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.

Didn't you get the memo, exile?

.

.

.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).
> 
> It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.


 
Perhaps you should send some better ones.


----------



## grappling_mandala

... it's just that the brazilians had the best kung fu and no-one can pronounce it in Portugese! Just watch "Choke" a couple more times people. Do you really think Rickson isn't just completely fu'd out? He's more fu then fu folks are fu. It's the food beaches and surf brah.

-G.Mandala


----------



## exile

zDom said:


> Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).
> 
> It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.
> 
> Didn't you get the memo, exile?



Nah, I'm an insignificant brown belt---I barely exist! I'm not even on Their radar screen :wink1:...



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should send some better ones.



But I think this is just zDom's point, Kevinit's by no means clear that top TKD fighters, the Hee Il Chos of the current generation, are interested in the cage at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that no one at all in his right mind would want to street-fight Iain Abernethy, but by the same token, I'm also sure that IAthough it's clear from his newletter that he has MMAists and RBSD people in his research circle working on realistic kata bunkai interpretations and training methodsisn't interesting in ring/cage/octagon competition. He's really only interested in what Geoff Thompson, another member of that group and a feared fighter in the UK, calls `the pavement arena'.  

A consequence of this is that your argument about Si-Jewhich I think is valid in general:  you're right, the MMAists she's fought  may not have been particularly good exponents of the artalso applies to the argument that `we haven't seen it in the cage'. Tough TKDists and karateka are out there, but if they're not interested in cage competition, you can't predicate anything about MMA vs. TMA on the basis of those who _have_ shown up. If we had Hee Il Cho or Mas Oyama in their intimidating youth with us now, rarin' to go in UFC competition, then maybe something could be settled. But since we don't, the most you can say is that the TMA people who've competed in the cage haven't done as well as the MMA people. Since the TMA community, so far as I can tell, isn't particularly interested in proving anything to the MMA community, what reason do they have to stop working on their own program and get into ring competitions they have no stake or interest in?


----------



## grappling_mandala

Positional Dominance has proven itself again and again. It is not prejudice against style, but a ally of individuals. Gravity is your friend or worst enemy.

The person with the better position can launch any attacks he/she wants from their mothership into your deathstar. Get a grip on reality, it's not the tools, it's the launch platform. Once you got a mothership in orbit, it's not a matter of what you hit them with, just when.

The person with the better TRAINING METHODOLOGY wins. Then again, watch how Royler got knocked out by that Japanese striker when he went for a flying knee... KO'd by an overhand windmill punch to the chin. Very kung fu.


----------



## Rook

exile said:


> But I think this is just zDom's point, Kevinit's by no means clear that top TKD fighters, the Hee Il Chos of the current generation, are interested in the cage at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that no one at all in his right mind would want to street-fight Iain Abernethy, but by the same token, I'm also sure that IAthough it's clear from his newletter that he has MMAists and RBSD people in his research circle working on realistic kata bunkai interpretations and training methodsisn't interesting in ring/cage/octagon competition. He's really only interested in what Geoff Thompson, another member of that group and a feared fighter in the UK, calls `the pavement arena'.
> 
> A consequence of this is that your argument about Si-Jewhich I think is valid in general: you're right, the MMAists she's fought may not have been particularly good exponents of the artalso applies to the argument that `we haven't seen it in the cage'. Tough TKDists and karateka are out there, but if they're not interested in cage competition, you can't predicate anything about MMA vs. TMA on the basis of those who _have_ shown up. If we had Hee Il Cho or Mas Oyama in their intimidating youth with us now, rarin' to go in UFC competition, then maybe something could be settled. But since we don't, the most you can say is that the TMA people who've competed in the cage haven't done as well as the MMA people. Since the TMA community, so far as I can tell, isn't particularly interested in proving anything to the MMA community, what reason do they have to stop working on their own program and get into ring competitions they have no stake or interest in?


 
This is a very common arguement.  It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi.  As long as not every person is beaten, there is always a chance that there is some obscure person who could but for some reason chooses not to - however, I really don't consider this any more likely than believing in Atlantis just because we haven't seen the entire sea floor yet.  

I am digging through a logic textbook I have to see how it might be best to answer the arguement in a somewhat more serious manner that I started to above.  Aristotle's logic considers an appeal to ignorance to occur when a claim is made that something (either any case or all cases applying, it doesn't matter) is true because of a failure to prove the contrary, but makes an explicit exception for "fruitless search" - that is, when a search has been undertaken and the search is to no avail.  It is my personal opinion that MMA's open challenges constitute the "fruitless search" Aristotle spoke of, and that the TMA arguement that not all practitioners have been beaten constitutes an appeal to ignorance (ie "you don't know who is best, you have never faced Grandmaster Z").  

I don't know if that helps or not.  I hope it does.


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> It is my personal opinion that MMA's open challenges constitute the "fruitless search" Aristotle spoke of, and that the TMA arguement that not all practitioners have been beaten constitutes an appeal to ignorance (ie "you don't know who is best, you have never faced Grandmaster Z").
> 
> I don't know if that helps or not.  I hope it does.



Well, I think it does, in the sense that it crystalizes the core of your argument in terms of a familar paradigm, and as it happens, I'm not at all sure you _can_ interpret MMA's challenge to be a fruitless search. Aristotle's argument, so far as I can tell, is really an appeal to a kind of probablistic decision-making, a heuristic, not a strictly formal, way to choose between two possible states of affairs. It works like this: suppose we are playing a version of the nursery-level card game War, where each player turns over a card and the higher card allows the holder to take the lower card and add it to the latter's deck, and suppose we a playing a game in which ten thousand packs have been shuffled together. After playing for an hour or two, it dawns on the players that no aces have surfaced. They keep playing, but two hours after that pass, and still no aces have turned up. As time goes on, the normal statistical likelihood of finding an ace in a game of this kind where all the packs are normal becomes so overwhelming that the players begin to doubt the presence of any aces in any of the shuffled packs used in the game. Five hours later, still no aces. At this point, only an extraordinarily unlikely shuffling outcome could account for the fact that no aces have surfaced. Does this mean that we have a _proof_ that no aces have surfaced? No. But we've played long enough that the statistics require an absurdly unlikely outcome to give rise to the fact that in eight hours, no aces have surfacedon the assumption that the decks were normal. But if they were aceless to start with, then virtually nothing bizarre or grotesquely improbable has occurred. We don't have a forced result from a logical proof, but rather an empirically grounded inference increasingly strongly supported by the increasingly improbable shuffling accident which had to have happened to keep even a single ace from showing up after eight hours of play.

Your application of the `fruitless search' model takes the MMA challenge to be something like the game of War with thousands of decks that I described. But that's the problemyou have no reason to believe that what has occurred is a fruitless search of the assembled ranks of TMAists, from the bottom of the skill heap to the top. In order to invoke Aristotle's fruitless search model _in the first place_, you have to assume that an actual search has indeed been under way, that the pool of TMAists being `assessed' by the sheer existence of MMA competitions is a significant and representative fraction of TMAists. But you can't just go ahead and assume that! That's an empirical question, and you need to provided evidence to back it up before you can claim that there's justification for the fruitless search. And I think there's some excellent reason to believe that such an assumption isn't justified. 

Take TKD for example. My impression is that there are really two cohorts within TKD: those whose vision of the art coincides with Olympic sparring rules and ring competition success, with high spinning kicks and low hands, and those whose vision involves imposing armbars on obnoxious assailants and forcing their necks low enough that a hard knife-hand can be delivered to their throats, with a low sidekick to the side of one of their knees to blow out the joint and end the divergence of opinion right there. You won't get the first group to participate in MMA competition, because all their training is going in a totally different direction, with different scoring, rules and anything else you can think of. The second groupto which I myself belongwon't participate either, because they/we aren't interested in any kind of ring sport competition. We want to be prepared for unpredictable, hostile and pathologically violent would-be assailants whose loss, if it came to that, the world probably wouldn't mourn all that much. Training to fight a skilled and dedicated BJJ grappler, whose profile is probably as far from the assailant I just described as can be imagined, would be a waste of training time for us. So we're not waiting on line for our shot at the Shamrocks or Gracies or their inheritors. The thing is, we don't have an emotional stake in proving a point about MMA vs. TMA under MMA ring conditions. Our emotional stake is much more vested in knowing that we can impose at will any level of damage on a violent attacker whose strategy or tactics we have no way of knowing at the start of the fight.

This is why I don't think you can invoke the `fruitless search' argument along the lines I've sketched it above: becauseif I'm right about my fellow TMAistsmost TMA fighters _do not care what happens in MMA sport competition_ and will not be in the contestant pool.


----------



## dok

> This is a very common arguement. It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi. As long as not every person is beaten, there is always a chance that there is some obscure person who could but for some reason chooses not to - however, I really don't consider this any more likely than believing in Atlantis just because we haven't seen the entire sea floor yet.



Fact remains, many TMA'ists dont feel they have any incentive to compete in the UFC or Pride.  Same could be said for top flight pro boxers, but I dont think many believe Tim Sylvia would own Lennox Lewis.  

I'm only making a point - the situations are different.  Yes in fact MMA'ists do feel highly about boxing (and crosstrain in it) whereas many TMA's are derided.  Yes, pro boxers would never fight MMA because it simply doesnt make sense to take a 2000% paycut.  I'm also personally a huge fan of crosstraining, and IMHO the MMA vs. TMA argument (in general terms) is... well... open and shut.  

Thats only my opinion though, and I certainly respect certain TMA practicioners enough to have no problem believing there are some out there who could give pro MMA fighters a run for their money.  Not everybody has something to prove to the world, and thats just the way it is.


----------



## exile

dok said:


> Fact remains, many TMA'ists dont feel they have any incentive to compete in the UFC or Pride.  Same could be said for top flight pro boxers, but I dont think many believe Tim Sylvia would own Lennox Lewis...Not everybody has something to prove to the world, and thats just the way it is.



Dok---we are on exactly the same page in this. See my post just before yours...


----------



## grappling_mandala

A challenge is not the same as traveling to seek enlightenment. 

Turn off your TV and practice.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> This is a very common arguement.  It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi.



Kevin, get real. The TMAists here who waste our time interrupting your fanboi rants about the optimal techniques selected by your MMA heroes don't believe in Nintendo bursts of Ki any more than you do.

How about you trot out that argument about how the Rear Naked Chokes and Armbars trained in MMA gyms are superior to the (identical) RNCs and armbars practiced in TMA dojangs?

That one is more entertaining and slightly less insulting.


----------



## barnaby

grappling_mandala said:


> A challenge is not the same as traveling to seek enlightenment.
> 
> Turn off your TV and practice.


this quote I like.


----------



## matt.m

Gee, I have to go with Scott and Exile on this.  Let's see Jigoro Kano was teaching throws, arm bars, rear naked chokes etc. etc. etc. way before MMA and the UFC deemed them optimal.  I have a dan in Judo, I have competed in countless Judo competition.  For the love of God I represented the Marine Corps in Judo.  So I believe I may be marginally knowledgeable about the art and sport.

Now, we all know that BJJ is a TMA based on JJJ.  Afterall, Helio learned from a Japanese champion that taught Count someone or another.  By the way Kano taught the student that taught the guy that taught Helio. The history of BJJ was taught with minor modifications until one of Helio's son "Made it his own"  In the book they called the Gracie, "Frail and Sickly", whichever one is big on the "Gracie Diet".

So, in my line of thinking it seems that BJJ is based more on Judo the sport than art, so making a sport into a fighting art is ridiculous.  Afterall, MMA is a sport.  The UFC is sport based.  Dana White, Matt Hughes along with countless others have said it.  Look at Rodrigo Vaghi's website if anyone needs a reminder: http://www.submissionjiujitsu.com. 

Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Jiu Jutsu, etc. are TMA's.  MMA competitions are borrowing techniques that they like, say they are effective and then expect everyone to believe that if they didn't learn it in an MMA gym then it is ineffective?  Malarky.  By the way, just for arguments sake....I read the history of BJJ in the forewards of all three volumes of the Gracie JJ Encyclopedia.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Dana White has said that its direct competition is Pro Boxing, not the Kukkiwon.

Tae Kwon Do champs like Jason Hon don't feel the urge to go into the octogon,  I've not seen Mike Swain, Kurt Angle, Evander Hollyfield, Lennox Lewis, Ernie Reyes Jr., or Derek Panza (ISKA heavyweight Champ) or any other proven champs go to the Octogon because there is no incintive.  They don't care.  They are great at what they do, everyone knows it.  By the way, who in their right mind would start a fight with any of the above that I mentioned to prove otherwise?


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Kevin, get real. The TMAists here who waste our time interrupting your fanboi rants about the optimal techniques selected by your MMA heroes don't believe in Nintendo bursts of Ki any more than you do.
> 
> How about you trot out that argument about how the Rear Naked Chokes and Armbars trained in MMA gyms are superior to the (identical) RNCs and armbars practiced in TMA dojangs?
> 
> That one is more entertaining and slightly less insulting.


 
Explain why they can't use them with sucess.  I know all the same punches as Ali but I doubt I could beat the local club fighters, let alone a champion.  You may know all the same techniques as MMA fighters (and I very much doubt it) but the sucessful application of the against them is still lacking.  

How about instead of trading arguements you find some proof somewhere?  

I'm going to leave with an analogy and let it be.  

Let us imagine a foriegn car.  Let us suppose it is being advertised as one of (not necessarily THE but one of) the safest cars on the road.  Now, virtually every time one of the cars is crash tested at medium to high speeds, it explodes in a burst of flame.  However, the car company says that the car has been in production for several years, and since it was good enough for their customers then, and they still have customers now, they see no reason to take down their sign.  Beside, all the crash tested cars were probably coincidentally all lemons, and they have several people (all from the car company itself) that say they have witnessed the car survive very severe crashes.  Rather than providing a car that they are more assured will pass the test and correct lemon examples, they say they have nothing to prove to anyone.  Looking at the car, it doesn't seem to have the features that most of the cars that do get high ratings have - no airbags etc.  However, the salesman is keen to point out that it has a similar seatbelt design to that used in a recently 5-star rated car made by another company.  They also ignore people reporting that the car has served them poorly, and provide a variety of testimonials from people that can't seem to provide evidence that they were in a crash in the first place.  Would you buy such a car?  When a friend or for that matter a random person on the internet asks you for your opinion, what would you think?


----------



## Rook

matt.m said:


> Gee, I have to go with Scott and Exile on this. Let's see Jigoro Kano was teaching throws, arm bars, rear naked chokes etc. etc. etc. way before MMA and the UFC deemed them optimal. I have a dan in Judo, I have competed in countless Judo competition. For the love of God I represented the Marine Corps in Judo. So I believe I may be marginally knowledgeable about the art and sport.
> 
> Now, we all know that BJJ is a TMA based on JJJ. Afterall, Helio learned from a Japanese champion that taught Count someone or another. By the way Kano taught the student that taught the guy that taught Helio. The history of BJJ was taught with minor modifications until one of Helio's son "Made it his own" In the book they called the Gracie, "Frail and Sickly", whichever one is big on the "Gracie Diet".
> 
> So, in my line of thinking it seems that BJJ is based more on Judo the sport than art, so making a sport into a fighting art is ridiculous. Afterall, MMA is a sport. The UFC is sport based. Dana White, Matt Hughes along with countless others have said it. Look at Rodrigo Vaghi's website if anyone needs a reminder: http://www.submissionjiujitsu.com.
> 
> Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Jiu Jutsu, etc. are TMA's. MMA competitions are borrowing techniques that they like, say they are effective and then expect everyone to believe that if they didn't learn it in an MMA gym then it is ineffective? Malarky. By the way, just for arguments sake....I read the history of BJJ in the forewards of all three volumes of the Gracie JJ Encyclopedia.


 
Reread my posts from this thread.  I didn't question the efficacy of judo (a sports system) - in fact in one of my responses to MJS I pointed out that it has done well against other sports grappling systems.  Several top caliber Judoists have made a sucessful transition to MMA, although several have not.  



> Dana White has said that its direct competition is Pro Boxing, not the Kukkiwon.


 
Yep.  The venues are in Vegas, the money comes in from pay-per view - Boxing is the competitor.  



> Tae Kwon Do champs like Jason Hon don't feel the urge to go into the octogon, I've not seen Mike Swain, Kurt Angle, Evander Hollyfield, Lennox Lewis, Ernie Reyes Jr., or Derek Panza (ISKA heavyweight Champ) or any other proven champs go to the Octogon because there is no incintive. They don't care. They are great at what they do, everyone knows it. By the way, who in their right mind would start a fight with any of the above that I mentioned to prove otherwise?


 
Boxing has sent champs.  Eric Esch, an IBC superheavyweight champ has fought in MMA, as has Art Jimmerson (at the time ranked in the top ten heavyweights in the world) - both lost rather swiftly to much smaller grapplers in Genki Sudo and Royce Gracie respectively.  The videos from both fights are available on the net.  Esch is very much a proven champion at boxing - his professional fight record was 75-7-4 with 56 KOs and he had a similar amateur record.  

K-1 (the premier kickboxing org) sent Patrick Smith - who lost to Royce Gracie.  They did care and still do - Esch is now working on making a career of MMA, as Patrick Smith tried, even though it is a paycut for Esch.  

Incidentally, the Gracies have been challenging top boxers for years - taking out full page magazine ads - so as to your final question, the Gracies ARE trying.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Explain why they can't use them with sucess.  I know all the same punches as Ali but I doubt I could beat the local club fighters, let alone a champion.  You may know all the same techniques as MMA fighters (and I very much doubt it) but the sucessful application of the against them is still lacking.
> 
> How about instead of trading arguements you find some proof somewhere?



Yea  that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:

Ok, now I get to share an analogy!

Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.

One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.

The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)

The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.

The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.

He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football  and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!



Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Yea  that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:
> 
> Ok, now I get to share an analogy!
> 
> Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.
> 
> One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.
> 
> The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)
> 
> The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.
> 
> The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.
> 
> He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football  and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!


 
There was a removed video on youtube of a guy trying to challenge Lennox Lewis, who is surrounded by his entourage, to a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant.  He keeps screaming insults and yelling about how he can take him but eventually Lewis who has been ignoring him, leaves.  The guy filming the video starts making fun of the guy trying to pick the fight and eventually gets punched - the man screaming that he could have taken on Lewis.  It was a very funny video the first time I saw it.  

What is in question isn't whether you can beat me, or whether you can beat guys in a bar or on a streetcorner or in the subway.  What I am interested in are the pro MMA fighters.  I may be like the cameraman in the video, pointing out that you wouldn't win and just getting beat on myself for the trouble (although fortunately its only rep points and not a physical beating).  



> Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?


 
Nothing on video.  I'm not going to be drawn into a storytelling contest with you.  I never or rarely discuss personal experiance because it is easy for someone to simply make up a story to top anything.


----------



## Rook

.


----------



## matt.m

zDom said:


> Yea  that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:
> 
> Ok, now I get to share an analogy!
> 
> Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.
> 
> One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.
> 
> The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)
> 
> The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.
> 
> The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.
> 
> He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football  and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!
> 
> 
> 
> Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?


 
I have only one thing to say about this post......:roflmao: :highfive:


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> There was a removed video on youtube of a guy trying to challenge Lennox Lewis, who is surrounded by his entourage, to a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant.  He keeps screaming insults and yelling about how he can take him but eventually Lewis who has been ignoring him, leaves.  The guy filming the video starts making fun of the guy trying to pick the fight and eventually gets punched - the man screaming that he could have taken on Lewis.  It was a very funny video the first time I saw it. ... I may be like the cameraman in the video, pointing out that you wouldn't win and just getting beat on myself for the trouble (although fortunately its only rep points and not a physical beating).


 
No I'm not  I'm the guy who stands in the frozen food section and calls 911!  

( = a quote from Anger Management, for those of you who don't recognize it)



Rook said:


> Nothing on video.  I'm not going to be drawn into a storytelling contest with you.  I never or rarely discuss personal experiance because it is easy for someone to simply make up a story to top anything.



a) I get the feeling this is a roundabout way for you to call me a liar.

It is easy enough for people to be exposed as liars when they make things up. Maybe you should grab a camera crew and come do a documentary on me. Would be a nice keepsake for my children and grandchildren.

If anything, I kind of downplay things in my anecdotes. (You should hear the stories the way witnesses tell them  )

A more objective viewpoint would be refreshing.

b) I'll come out and SAY what I'm thinking: you don't share personal experiences because you don't HAVE any. All you have to go on is your (guessing here) two years of karate training and 10 years of sitting on the couch watching MMA fights on the couch. Am I in the ballpark on my guesses?



Rook said:


> What is in question isn't whether you can beat me, or whether you can beat guys in a bar or on a streetcorner or in the subway.  What I am interested in are the pro MMA fighters.



Yea, we know. That seems to be ALL you are interested in. And then you want to take that limited sampling of fighters and make sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of techniques.

I'll tell you what: I'm too old (and good looking ) to make it my Lifes Mission to prove things to you by quitting my job and dedicating my life to beating up people in NHB fights.

But I do have a couple of solutions so we can resolve his conclusively: 

Howabout you talk Dana White into paying me for three or four years to train my own little stable of UFC fighters using ONLY techniques I have learned through the TMAs. Give me a budget and some people who want to get into the ring and hurt people and we can do a little "TMA vs MMA in the UFC" reality show. Might be as fun to watch as the TUFC show 

(To bring this back "On Topic" we could have a CMA stylist do the same for TMA vs MMA Part II... give JMAs their chance in Part III, etc., )

Another alternative (given that we want to establish which techniques are "best" and/or effective) is we take an AMATEUR MMA stylist who only trains a total of about six or seven hours per week (without steroids *cough* ) in fighting techniques and put him up against a TMAist of my choosing.

No weightlifting involved. After all, we want this to be a comparison of TECHNIQUES, not techniques that require progressive resistance training and under 6-percent body fat to be effective.

Lets see if your theory is right  that MMA is the optimum set of techniques. Prove it to me.

The ways mentioned above are the only things that will prove it to me.

I don't believe in video tape anymore. I've seen Superman fly on videotape but I've never seen a man fly with my own two eyes


----------



## MJS

I'm still waiting for some answers to the questions I asked a few pages back.opcorn:


----------



## matt.m

Scott brings up a great point.  He is humble and down plays his accomplishments.  He does so where people don't even believe what he is saying.  I have known the guy for round about a decade and a half.  Just to tell you from recent events, I will use the May and October tournaments we had:  When Scott went to the breaking contest a good number of folks stopped what they were doing just to watch, the same with his sparring.

People like him draw an audience via talent and skill not self promotion.  Not a lot of folks in Moo Sul Kwan reach dan ranking in Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido.  Gee, really in hapkido 90% or above drop out after green belt and never make it to their blue belt test.

A thought process in the Marine Corps was that "If everyone compares themselves to you then you must be doing something correctly."


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> No I'm not  I'm the guy who stands in the frozen food section and calls 911!
> 
> ( = a quote from Anger Management, for those of you who don't recognize it)


 
Haven't seen it. 



> a) I get the feeling this is a roundabout way for you to call me a liar.


 
Nah, you just don't have proof.  I said the same thing about Si-Je and the rest of the people without video.  



> It is easy enough for people to be exposed as liars when they make things up. Maybe you should grab a camera crew and come do a documentary on me. Would be a nice keepsake for my children and grandchildren.
> 
> If anything, I kind of downplay things in my anecdotes. (You should hear the stories the way witnesses tell them )
> 
> A more objective viewpoint would be refreshing.


 
Some objective proof (ie some that doesn't come from you or your friends like a newreport or court documents or something) might be helpful although not absolute.  



> b) I'll come out and SAY what I'm thinking: you don't share personal experiences because you don't HAVE any. All you have to go on is your (guessing here) two years of karate training


 
Eight years.  



> and 10 years of sitting on the couch watching MMA fights on the couch. Am I in the ballpark on my guesses?


 
Less than ten years.  



> Yea, we know. That seems to be ALL you are interested in. And then you want to take that limited sampling of fighters and make sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of techniques.


 
Look, there are thousands apon thousands of gang members,  bouncers, security people, bikers etc across the world who manage to defend themselves (and attack others) very sucessfully with no formal training.  Some have literally hundreds of fights to their credit.  Sitting here, think, ok, they can beat the local town drunk, local tough guys, maybe even a couple of them at once.  Perhaps they are the biggest 
fish in their pond.  

Don't mistake this for being the best in the world.  I really don't care all that much about great sucess against unskilled opponents or supposedly skilled fighters that no one has heard of.  THe stuff I see from the great annals of the "streetfighters" consists of beating people of no real skill themselves and then thinking that they can do the same to anyone.  

What happens when they fight each other (a bunch of the middle UFCs were like this when the TMA masters got ditched for large streetfighters)? How do they do against TMAists?  How do they do against professional athletes?  What happens when we search for who does best?  Do patterns emerge?  Do these patterns mean anything?  



> I'll tell you what: I'm too old (and good looking ) to make it my Lifes Mission to prove things to you by quitting my job and dedicating my life to beating up people in NHB fights.
> 
> But I do have a couple of solutions so we can resolve his conclusively:
> 
> Howabout you talk Dana White into paying me for three or four years to train my own little stable of UFC fighters using ONLY techniques I have learned through the TMAs. Give me a budget and some people who want to get into the ring and hurt people and we can do a little "TMA vs MMA in the UFC" reality show. Might be as fun to watch as the TUFC show
> 
> (To bring this back "On Topic" we could have a CMA stylist do the same for TMA vs MMA Part II... give JMAs their chance in Part III, etc., )
> 
> Another alternative (given that we want to establish which techniques are "best" and/or effective) is we take an AMATEUR MMA stylist who only trains a total of about six or seven hours per week (without steroids *cough* ) in fighting techniques and put him up against a TMAist of my choosing.
> 
> No weightlifting involved. After all, we want this to be a comparison of TECHNIQUES, not techniques that require progressive resistance training and under 6-percent body fat to be effective.
> 
> Lets see if your theory is right  that MMA is the optimum set of techniques. Prove it to me.
> 
> The ways mentioned above are the only things that will prove it to me.
> 
> I don't believe in video tape anymore. I've seen Superman fly on videotape but I've never seen a man fly with my own two eyes


 
For the first method: Why would someone pay to redo what the first UFCs already covered?  I think Dana White and the rest have already seen what happens when TMA meets MMA and I doubt they will bother funding a repeat.  

For the second: Why would someone train in a handicapped manner?


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> I'm still waiting for some answers to the questions I asked a few pages back.opcorn:


 
Which ones?


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> Nah, you just don't have proof. I said the same thing about Si-Je and the rest of the people without video.
> 
> 
> 
> Some objective proof (ie some that doesn't come from you or your friends like a newreport or court documents or something) might be helpful although not absolute.


 
So basically anyone without this is a liar?





> Eight years.


 
I may have asked this, got an answer, but can't remember, or maybe I never got an answer at all. In any case, I'll ask again.  Aside from your 8 yrs. in Karate, what other training do you have that you can base all of these comments on? Do you engage in MMA fighting or training? Are you basing your opinions just going on what you've seen?




> Look, there are thousands apon thousands of gang members, bouncers, security people, bikers etc across the world who manage to defend themselves (and attack others) very sucessfully with no formal training. Some have literally hundreds of fights to their credit. Sitting here, think, ok, they can beat the local town drunk, local tough guys, maybe even a couple of them at once. Perhaps they are the biggest
> fish in their pond.
> 
> Don't mistake this for being the best in the world. I really don't care all that much about great sucess against unskilled opponents or supposedly skilled fighters that no one has heard of. THe stuff I see from the great annals of the "streetfighters" consists of beating people of no real skill themselves and then thinking that they can do the same to anyone.


 
What makes you think that the guy thats going to mug you, carjack you, break into your house at 2am, or one thats going to rape and kill your wife or girlfriend, is going to have the same skill as Royce Gracie? 




> What happens when they fight each other (a bunch of the middle UFCs were like this when the TMA masters got ditched for large streetfighters)? How do they do against TMAists? How do they do against professional athletes? What happens when we search for who does best? Do patterns emerge? Do these patterns mean anything?


 
I posted this a while back, never got a reply, so I'll post again:



> These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage. Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win." However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with. And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself. The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment. If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring? I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge. But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge. Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> Which ones?


 
Here


----------



## Xue Sheng

Rook said:


> Look, there are thousands apon thousands of gang members, bouncers, security people, bikers etc across the world who manage to defend themselves (and attack others) very sucessfully with no formal training. Some have literally hundreds of fights to their credit. Sitting here, think, ok, they can beat the local town drunk, local tough guys, maybe even a couple of them at once. Perhaps they are the biggest
> fish in their pond.
> 
> Don't mistake this for being the best in the world. I really don't care all that much about great sucess against unskilled opponents or supposedly skilled fighters that no one has heard of. THe stuff I see from the great annals of the "streetfighters" consists of beating people of no real skill themselves and then thinking that they can do the same to anyone.
> 
> What happens when they fight each other (a bunch of the middle UFCs were like this when the TMA masters got ditched for large streetfighters)? How do they do against TMAists? How do they do against professional athletes? What happens when we search for who does best? Do patterns emerge? Do these patterns mean anything?


 
Just as a note one of the scariest people I ever knew was, as you said, unskilled, biker and a street fighter. He also took on a beat 2 highly trained individuals and they had to call a 3rd to actually take him down.

The 3 trained individuals were Massachusetts State Police officers and he did end up going to jail for this. 

Sorry I cannot produce films of this or the police record but it really happened. 

Bottom-line tough is tough.

OK, I'm done carry on.


----------



## matt.m

In all honesty I sincerely believe that Gracie won in the beginning because of the following "Everyone more or less let him shoot on them without a punch or kick."  GSP beat Hughes with his hands and feet, period.  GSP's major training background is Karate, 10 yrs if I am not mistaken.

I was at UFC II, it reminded me of nothing more than unpolished judo randori.  It has gotten better and evolved into what it is today.  So it seems that some believe that the way people train and hold contest in the octagon is optimal.  That is ok, for the contest.  However, there are no multiple attackers.  

I don't know about everyone else's classroom environment but I will say that a strong proponent of MSK TKD and HKD is designed to cripple ones opponenet and to keep fighting because I know and say in all sincerity that you will not fight one on one with a ruleset and "The day you must fight will be the worst day of your life and you will still have to defend yourself."  It is true, I know from 1st hand from combat on three continents and one island while commanding jr. Marines.  When someone wants to hurt you they bring a friend to help with the festivities.

To call a sport a fighting art/style is ridiculous.  Judo and Tae kwon Do were martial arts way before they were olympic sports.  Judo and TKD the arts vs. the sports are two totally different animals, they are different in every application and should be different.  

Also, the last I checked there are no hapkido tournaments because hapkido is a crippling and maiming art designed to destroy an opponent quickly.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> The bold is mine. What you're describing is what works in the environment of the ring. There are many arts out there, all of which can prove effective. As I've said countless times, but don't seem to get a reply...we can sit and debate about tape, proof of this and proof of that, but the fact remains that there are many folks that have used TMA to defend themselves and there is no tape. This does not mean that its not effective.


 
I didn't say that it never worked, I said that it was not the optimal way to fight.  There are, as above, thousands of people who sucessfully defend themselves quite frequently without any martial arts training at all.  What I want to know is what happens when the "good" fighters, the people who are experianced and trained face off with each other instead of the local drunk.  Wild haymakers from a normal sized man in good shape who doesn't panic will chase off lots of attackers; try it against even a moderately competent hobbiest of a boxer and he'll get flattened.  



> Again, 2 people matched, in a controlled environment. The ring dictates what happens, what does not happen, weapons, etc. This is an apples to oranges debate.


 
I don't think it is.  Physics is physics.  The takedown defense that fails in the octagon will fail in the alley just as well.   

The weapons are a different debate.  There is not any solid evidence about best practices unarmed against armed attackers, and while periodic police studys recommend different tactics, I have no real evidence to suggest that the BJJ weapons defenses or the SAMBO or Bas Rutten's or Mark Hatmakers or Frank Shamrock's or Oleg Taktarov's weapons defenses are any better or worse than their TMA equivallents.  What we do know is how they fare against each other unarmed.  



> Sure, that is possible, against one person. I'm interested in hearing how this is done against 2, 3 or more?
> 
> Mike


 
How what is done?  Remain standing?  The same takedown defenses apply to multiples as to single opponents.  The same techniques to standup and to recover from positions.  SAMBO guys and sometimes other guys drill this.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Haven't seen it.



You should. I find it to be a very funny movie.




Rook said:


> Nah, you just don't have proof.  I said the same thing about Si-Je and the rest of the people without video.


 
Wrong. I don't have (readily available) anything meets YOUR criteria for proof.

Testimony and other forms of evidence have been enough for courts of law and historians for thousands of years and is STILL good enough for courts and historians.

Imagine how many psychopaths would be running the streets if the courts insisted on videotaped "proof" before making a determination.

Besides: there is plenty of videotape proof. But everytime you are presented with it, you redefine what you see to match your preconceptions.

GSP and Chuck Liddell are both examples of what happens if a TMAist decides to throw his hat into the UFC.

But because they began to train specifically for the event, you redefine them as "MMAists."

The Gracies wear judo uniforms, are an offshoot of Judo, use a colored/black belt system, have a "lineage" etc. &#8212; but you want them to be on the MMA side of the discussion so you declare they are, in fact, MMAists, and use them to back up your arguments.



Rook said:


> Some objective proof (ie some that doesn't come from you or your friends like a newreport or court documents or something) might be helpful although not absolute.



Contact: Mr. Don Davis Jr.
573-471-0043
Miletich Fighting Systems of Southeast Missouri
% Pitbull Jiu Jitsu & Combative Arts
1209 E. Malone Ave.
Sikeston, MO 63801
semomiletichfs@hotmail.com
http://mfs-missourise.tripod.com

(as per this link: http://www.mfselite.com/id26.html &#8212; they have Sikeston's ZIP code wrong, btw. Somebody should bring it to their attention).

Don is a friendly acquaintance, not exactly a "friend." He knows who I am, even spent some time working out with my instructor, Mstr. Mike Morton.

Feel free to contact him and get his opinion on Moo Sul Kwan HKD, Morton, me.





Rook said:


> Look, there are thousands apon thousands of gang members,  bouncers, security people, bikers etc across the world who manage to defend themselves (and attack others) very sucessfully with no formal training.  Some have literally hundreds of fights to their credit.  Sitting here, think, ok, they can beat the local town drunk, local tough guys, maybe even a couple of them at once.  Perhaps they are the biggest
> fish in their pond.



Ok.



Rook said:


> Don't mistake this for being the best in the world.  I really don't care all that much about great sucess against unskilled opponents or supposedly skilled fighters that no one has heard of.  THe stuff I see from the great annals of the "streetfighters" consists of beating people of no real skill themselves and then thinking that they can do the same to anyone.



The things I see on TV when it comes to MMA beating down TMA is MMA fighters facing unskilled TMAists &#8212; not top fighters 



Rook said:


> What happens when they fight each other (a bunch of the middle UFCs were like this when the TMA masters got ditched for large streetfighters)? How do they do against TMAists?  How do they do against professional athletes?  What happens when we search for who does best?  Do patterns emerge?  Do these patterns mean anything?



Too small of a sample to determine anything. Acceptable samples require thousands, not dozens or hundreds, of samples.

Nothing conclusive at this point. Although I'd like to point out that GSP and Liddell are doing pretty well.




Rook said:


> For the first method: Why would someone pay to redo what the first UFCs already covered?  I think Dana White and the rest have already seen what happens when TMA meets MMA and I doubt they will bother funding a repeat.



First UFCs covered TMAs vs TMAs. MMA, as you define it, didn't exist yet.



Rook said:


> For the second: Why would someone train in a handicapped manner?



So we could find out what the OPTIMUM techniques are. So you can control the experiment and conclusively determine what the deciding factors are (as opposed to level of conditioning, strength, age, etc.)


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> I didn't say that it never worked,


 
No?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but in a number of your posts, you make reference to TMAs not being on the same level as MMA.  




> I said that it was not the optimal way to fight. There are, as above, thousands of people who sucessfully defend themselves quite frequently without any martial arts training at all. What I want to know is what happens when the "good" fighters, the people who are experianced and trained face off with each other instead of the local drunk. Wild haymakers from a normal sized man in good shape who doesn't panic will chase off lots of attackers; try it against even a moderately competent hobbiest of a boxer and he'll get flattened.


 
This was what I quoted from you:




> Originally Posted by *Rook*
> 
> 
> _I think we've been here before, *but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it?* There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result._




_You're assuming that what works in the ring is always going to work outside of the ring._




> I don't think it is. Physics is physics. The takedown defense that fails in the octagon will fail in the alley just as well.


 
And you know this how?  Again, you're assuming that we're going to be facing someone who is highly skilled in takedowns.



> The weapons are a different debate. There is not any solid evidence about best practices unarmed against armed attackers, and while periodic police studys recommend different tactics, I have no real evidence to suggest that the BJJ weapons defenses or the SAMBO or Bas Rutten's or Mark Hatmakers or Frank Shamrock's or Oleg Taktarov's weapons defenses are any better or worse than their TMA equivallents. What we do know is how they fare against each other unarmed.


 
I beg to differ, but if thats what you want to think, I doubt I can change your mind.




> How what is done? Remain standing? The same takedown defenses apply to multiples as to single opponents. The same techniques to standup and to recover from positions. SAMBO guys and sometimes other guys drill this.


 
You said:



> A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


 
I'm not talking about someone trying to mount the person on the ground, I'm talking about 2, 3, 4, 5, or more people around the guy on the ground.  Sure, the legs can be used to fend off one person.  I've done this drill many times.  What I want to know is how the BJJ, Judo, Sambo guy is going to defend mult. attackers.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> No? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but in a number of your posts, you make reference to TMAs not being on the same level as MMA.


 
Correct.  I didn't say that TMAs did not work at all.  I said that MMA works much better and that a capable MMAist will normally beat his TMA equivalent.  



> This was what I quoted from you:


 
Yes.  Let me put it this way: legitimate TMA is an distinct improvement over untrained fighting, and MMA is a distinct improvement over TMA.  

_



			You're assuming that what works in the ring is always going to work outside of the ring.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
I don't seem much to indicate that it wouldn't.  Heck, if the octagon is far from the street, the dojo and for that matter the feudal japanese battlefield is a whole lot further.  



> And you know this how? Again, you're assuming that we're going to be facing someone who is highly skilled in takedowns.


 
I assumed the same two opponents facing off in a ring and then in an alley.  I think we are agreed that the average person one is likely to face in the street is much less capable than the ring-fighters, and is less likely to be capable at all manner of fighting, including takedowns.  



> I beg to differ, but if thats what you want to think, I doubt I can change your mind.


 
The best I have are the police studies.  They aren't the same level of proof as the cagefights are for unarmed tactics, but they paint a general picture of what works.  The conclusions just aren't as comprehensive as unarmed fighting, and so I don't argue that the tactics the Gracies, Ken and Frank Shamrock, et al etc etc are teaching police departments are any better or worse than the TMA stuff.  




> I'm not talking about someone trying to mount the person on the ground, I'm talking about 2, 3, 4, 5, or more people around the guy on the ground. Sure, the legs can be used to fend off one person. I've done this drill many times. What I want to know is how the BJJ, Judo, Sambo guy is going to defend mult. attackers.


 
You can stay off the ground.  Use the takedown defense to keep people from putting you down there, use standard fare to get up as quickly as possible if you end up down there for any reason, and use the strikes and throws.  You can drill kicks from the ground against multiple attackers too... I have done it a couple times and it is hard... definately just a stopgap until you can get back on your feet.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> You should. I find it to be a very funny movie.


 
Ok.  



> Wrong. I don't have (readily available) anything meets YOUR criteria for proof.
> 
> Testimony and other forms of evidence have been enough for courts of law and historians for thousands of years and is STILL good enough for courts and historians.
> 
> Imagine how many psychopaths would be running the streets if the courts insisted on videotaped "proof" before making a determination.
> 
> Besides: there is plenty of videotape proof. But everytime you are presented with it, you redefine what you see to match your preconceptions.


 
Its also given us all sorts of garbage about aliens, the Loch Ness monster, the daily Elvis-is-alive sightings, the chi powers of chinese masters, the bullet dodging abilities of Ueshiba, etc.  For fighting, when it is so easy to get video in any prearranged match, there is no reason why anyone and everyone claiming to be a great fighter themselves shouldn't have a video record.  



> GSP and Chuck Liddell are both examples of what happens if a TMAist decides to throw his hat into the UFC.


 
There isn't much TMA about Chuck Liddell.  He is an NCAA nationalist freestyle wrestler (not a TMA), a BJJ purplebelt (not a TMA), a kickboxer (not a TMA) and a kempoist (sortof, the hall is kempo only in name).  His training is very much a product of the MMA world around him.  



> But because they began to train specifically for the event, you redefine them as "MMAists."


 
I redefined nothing.  I doubt that Chuck Liddell, of all people, would deny training MMA and say he is a traditional martial artist, and I doubt you will find any traditional fighting system that turns out fighters that fight in the same manner as he does.  



> The Gracies wear judo uniforms, are an offshoot of Judo, use a colored/black belt system, have a "lineage" etc.  but you want them to be on the MMA side of the discussion so you declare they are, in fact, MMAists, and use them to back up your arguments.


 
The Gracies are the people who coined the term "mixed martial arts" in the context we know it today.  Their fighters were probably among the first crop of what we call MMA - groundsfighters who trained in boxing and kickboxing, people who absorbed what worked for them in the ring and tossed out the rest.  They have a lineage, yes, but that has never been the justification for their system.  



> The things I see on TV when it comes to MMA beating down TMA is MMA fighters facing unskilled TMAists  not top fighters


 
Its interesting that this keeps coming up.  I think everything that needs to be said on it has been.  I'll leave it here.  



> Too small of a sample to determine anything. Acceptable samples require thousands, not dozens or hundreds, of samples.


 
Nothing stops more people from trying.  In the absense of more TMAists, we have to go with the (rather consistant) proof we have to date.  



> Nothing conclusive at this point. Although I'd like to point out that GSP and Liddell are doing pretty well.


 
Not TMAists.  



> First UFCs covered TMAs vs TMAs. MMA, as you define it, didn't exist yet.


 
It was just being formed. At the begining, it was just BJJ with a little bit of standup, later became the "big four" hybrid we know today.  Boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, muay thai etc, btw, are ussually considered as sports systems rather than traditional systems - they take what works in the ring or competition floor and adapt to that, full speed full resistance training etc.  



> So we could find out what the OPTIMUM techniques are. So you can control the experiment and conclusively determine what the deciding factors are (as opposed to level of conditioning, strength, age, etc.)


 
Conditioning and strength matter, so do the rest.  Part of the reason those techniques are considered best is how they can be trained for - how well they are supplemented by modern sports training methods.  Part of the reason they are preferable is how they can be trained.


----------



## Doc

matt.m said:


> Gee, I have to go with Scott and Exile on this.  Let's see Jigoro Kano was teaching throws, arm bars, rear naked chokes etc. etc. etc. way before MMA and the UFC deemed them optimal.  I have a dan in Judo, I have competed in countless Judo competition.  For the love of God I represented the Marine Corps in Judo.  So I believe I may be marginally knowledgeable about the art and sport.
> 
> Now, we all know that BJJ is a TMA based on JJJ.  Afterall, Helio learned from a Japanese champion that taught Count someone or another.  By the way Kano taught the student that taught the guy that taught Helio. The history of BJJ was taught with minor modifications until one of Helio's son "Made it his own"  In the book they called the Gracie, "Frail and Sickly", whichever one is big on the "Gracie Diet".
> 
> So, in my line of thinking it seems that BJJ is based more on Judo the sport than art, so making a sport into a fighting art is ridiculous.  Afterall, MMA is a sport.  The UFC is sport based.  Dana White, Matt Hughes along with countless others have said it.


You know, not to many people knew this.


----------



## MJS

Rook said:


> Correct. I didn't say that TMAs did not work at all. I said that MMA works much better and that a capable MMAist will normally beat his TMA equivalent.


 
Actually, you said this:

_



*but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it?*

Click to expand...

_ 
This is a ring setting.  It is not taking into consideration any of the real world possibilities.  If you want to say that its the best, then I'd rephrase what you mean, and say that its the best in a controlled setting, not necessarily the best in every situation.







> Yes. Let me put it this way: legitimate TMA is an distinct improvement over untrained fighting, and MMA is a distinct improvement over TMA.


 
What determines legit TMA in your eyes?





> I don't seem much to indicate that it wouldn't. Heck, if the octagon is far from the street, the dojo and for that matter the feudal japanese battlefield is a whole lot further.


 
Unless you know how everyone trains, the above statement is moot.  





> I assumed the same two opponents facing off in a ring and then in an alley. I think we are agreed that the average person one is likely to face in the street is much less capable than the ring-fighters, and is less likely to be capable at all manner of fighting, including takedowns.


 
Ok.




> The best I have are the police studies. They aren't the same level of proof as the cagefights are for unarmed tactics, but they paint a general picture of what works. The conclusions just aren't as comprehensive as unarmed fighting, and so I don't argue that the tactics the Gracies, Ken and Frank Shamrock, et al etc etc are teaching police departments are any better or worse than the TMA stuff.


 
Like I said my friend, you're going to have your own thoughts and opinions, and I doubt that I can change them.  






> You can stay off the ground. Use the takedown defense to keep people from putting you down there, use standard fare to get up as quickly as possible if you end up down there for any reason, and use the strikes and throws. You can drill kicks from the ground against multiple attackers too... I have done it a couple times and it is hard... definately just a stopgap until you can get back on your feet.


 
Back at post #121, I quoted you as saying this:



> A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


 
The key words here are "try to stay off the ground."  Lets say that the MMA fighter is unable to maintain his balance and falls.  Now, you have him on the ground, with one person in front of his legs, behind his head and to the left and right of him.  My question:  How is he going to go about defending this?

Mike


----------



## dok

> The key words here are "try to stay off the ground." Lets say that the MMA fighter is unable to maintain his balance and falls. Now, you have him on the ground, with one person in front of his legs, behind his head and to the left and right of him. My question: How is he going to go about defending this?



how would _ anyone _ defend against this?  I dont see where you're goin.


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> Actually, you said this:


 
I don't think that in any way contradicted what I said above.  Each time MMA and TMA clash, MMA ends up coming out on top.  



> This is a ring setting. It is not taking into consideration any of the real world possibilities. If you want to say that its the best, then I'd rephrase what you mean, and say that its the best in a controlled setting, not necessarily the best in every situation.





I said that its the best at unarmed fighting, and that it came out on top each time its proponents faced off with others claiming to do better.  I didn't say it was the best in every situation, simply that it was the optimum method of fighting unarmed that is available.  



> What determines legit TMA in your eyes?


 
I said legitimate in the hope of distinguishing between the qi-peddlers and actual systems.  Lets say legitimate systems are those like TKD, karate in forms that were actually on Okinawa and Japan, CMA that has actually been heard of in China and that doesn't rely on qi-blasts etc.  Illegitimate will cover stuff like Wong Kit Kiew, Frank Dux, Ashida Kim, George Dillman... people like them and arts like their's - include any of the karate systems no one on Japan and Okinawa has heard of and things of that nature.  ZDom and MattM pointed out that I have a tendancy to mix the fake or borderline TMAists with the people who actually do train in a real system.  



> Back at post #121, I quoted you as saying this:
> 
> 
> 
> The key words here are "try to stay off the ground." Lets say that the MMA fighter is unable to maintain his balance and falls. Now, you have him on the ground, with one person in front of his legs, behind his head and to the left and right of him. My question: How is he going to go about defending this?
> 
> Mike


 
Get up as quickly as possible.  I've done this drill with three people wearing pads and one behind and one in front as a starting point means you're in pretty bad shape.


----------



## eyebeams

I practice kung fu and I train in grappling. Here are some insights:

1) Kung fu is a general name for a bunch of related cultural practices used to promote health, enact religious rituals and deal with civil and military violence. Different types have different emphases.

2) Most grappling methods are organized sports designed to achieve specific objectives in a sport arena, with complementary application outside of it.

3) Sports performance is testable across large samples and can be continually, reliably refined. That's a tremendous advantage. The conclusions in terms of training methods can't be ignored. Superior martial artists focus on athletic fitness and a few reliable techniques. These techniques are fairly consistent across arts; there's not really much new in the way of technique.

4) If you practice kung fu, you might train these core techniques with resistance -- but you might not. It depends on the purpose of the school. If you train in MMA, you *always* train this core.

5) Both methods have unlikely peripheral techniques. Take a look at GJJ's actual self-defense syllabus at some point.

6) Frankly, MMA supports proficient fighters and nurtures them in a way that most Chinese arts just don't. There's a culture devoted to finding and training the best and applying their lessons to everyone else.

7) Conversely, the yardstick in discussoons like this tends to be unbalanced. The average grappler is just some shmoe. A pro or veteran am MMA fighter will wipe the floor with a kung fu hobbyist, but with equal commitment things aren't really so assured. Over on BullyouknowwheredotCom, there was a rather infamous little vid where one of the site's main trash-talkers was nicely schooled by a Tai Chi guy. These were two guys with about equal commitment. You also have Asia from there using pure Baji to knock the crap out of someone. It didn't matter what the other guy trained it; Asia's a lifelong dedicated martial artist and the other was . . . average.

8) More martial artists really need to admit that they *are* hobbyists instead of part of a hierarchy that includes professional fighters. Very few people are meant to do the difficult, optimal training required of professional fighters.

9) But at the same time, every martial art should features training with dynamic resistance using small a set of reliable techniques and introduce peripheral specialties later.

10) Lastly, the average fight for the average person isn't really much like an MMA match. It's chaotic and a lot of crazy stuff that looks "low percentage" works at the right time and place. One example are wrist controls, which I've used with good effect even though they would never work in an MMA match. Conversely, I wouldn't want to DLT and choke somebody I actually want to persuade to leave the room. Taking somebody down to make them go away is kind of contradictory.


----------



## matt.m

I have always said, and will stand by this......"How, I trained and competed in Randori and sparring is absolutely nothing like I fight."  The above post is hitting the nail on the head in that regard.

Contest=Gym and ruleset.
Fight=Anywhere and anything goes.  Exile used one of the Marine Corps most admirable quotes among we the combat veterans. "It is better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6."


----------



## 7starmantis

I've been reading the last few pages of this thread. It seems there are a few issues still needing to be addressed, eyebeams post did a great job of it.


Unbalanced Training. Lets take the average MMA and CMA school and see which students walk out the most sweaty. Its obvious most MMAist train very hard with full power and intensity while most CMA hobbyist do not. Why in the world would anyone even consider comparing those two? I've said it before, the nature of most MMA techniques is they are basic techniques that are not extremely harmfull to the opponent and can thus be applied at full pwoer and speed without serious concern for safety. That type of training is going to excel above any type of training that half heartedly pulls punches, misses kicks on purpose, etc. We need to define the comparison here, or we just have a fruitless circular argument....much like the one going on now.
Observer Bias, meaning, what makes Kevin feel MMAist can....let me quote: 





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.


 Why does Kevin feel these attributes are effective for MMAist and not TMAist? I completely agree with this statement but change MMA to CMA in this quote and I would agree as well. Why does the fact that MMA can do something good negate that anything else can also do something good? 
Acceptable "Proof". Kevin contradicted himself on this point in this post: 





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Its also given us all sorts of garbage about aliens, the Loch Ness monster, the daily Elvis-is-alive sightings, the chi powers of chinese masters, the bullet dodging abilities of Ueshiba, etc. For fighting, when it is so easy to get video in any prearranged match, there is no reason why anyone and everyone claiming to be a great fighter themselves shouldn't have a video record.


 Speaking about video proof here we see Kevin explain why its  not a viable factual proof and then go on to say there is no excuse for not having it or relying on it. So why is video proof so neccessary when physical experience is so easy to be had?
Personal Experience. By this I mean the training habits and experiences of those posting. I thought I was debating with an active MMAist currently training for competition and now I understand that is not so? I would be interested to hear Kevin answer some of the questions on his training and what he has done since his karate. It seems everyone else contributing is more than willing to offer that type of "proof" if you will. 
Unrealistic Attribution. Saying a controlled environment with competent and sportsmanlike fighters is anything like a life or death situation is naive at best. While it does offer a sense of reality that does a great deal for realistic fighters it is simply not the uncontrolled environment and situation that a life or death struggle is. To ignore such proof as police reports and realistic "street fights" that happen everyday where peopel are killed and maimed in brawls for a controlled sporting event and then try to use that controlled environment to attribute training for the first is absurd. It seems the UFC champions are more in touch with the reality of what they do than the fans that sit home and act out the fights in their backyards. The fighters will tell you what they do and will not hold it for something its not. There are crossover skills of course, but they will tell you they aren't training to take out PCP influenced criminals seeking to kill them for the $5 in their pocket. Its a different skill set, one that any true "fighter" should be honest about and look at their own training and determine why they train and understand what it is they are actually doing. 

As far as sport fighting goes, I have yet to see Kevin answer any of my questions from pages back about what defines MMA and TMA. What training habits or methods are used in MMA that aren't in TMA? What makes this MMA person (superman) he keeps refering to different from the TMA (frail) person he speaks of? He keeps saying, "a good MMA fighter could..." but says, "a TMA person just couldn't..." Why is this? What seperates the two people you are talking about Kevin? Most of the techniques MMAist use in their training are techniques I use as well....so why the huge difference in skill or effectiveness? You have as of yet refused to explain your viewpoints on the advantages of MMA (whatever they may be) and the disadvantages of TMA (whatever they may be). I mean Matt Hughes seemed to be unabel to continue fighting from just one or two glancing kicks to the groin, but we are supposed to believe that a solid full power knee to the groin will be laughed off by serious MMAist or any male fighter for that matter? Sorry, medicine negates that theory, just look up medical examples of crushed testicles for your proof in that matter.  Explain to me why a groin kick or tear will work against the average Joe who attacks you but be laughed off by the MMAist who trains avoiding that type of contact and wears protective gear for any slight contact that may occur?

7sm


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> I've been reading the last few pages of this thread. It seems there are a few issues still needing to be addressed, eyebeams post did a great job of it.
> 
> Unbalanced Training. Lets take the average MMA and CMA school and see which students walk out the most sweaty. Its obvious most MMAist train very hard with full power and intensity while most CMA hobbyist do not. Why in the world would anyone even consider comparing those two? I've said it before, the nature of most MMA techniques is they are basic techniques that are not extremely harmfull to the opponent and can thus be applied at full pwoer and speed without serious concern for safety. That type of training is going to excel above any type of training that half heartedly pulls punches, misses kicks on purpose, etc. We need to define the comparison here, or we just have a fruitless circular argument....much like the one going on now.


The one I have run with is that of a medium to high quality professional MMA fighter against anyone TMAs can put against him.  Whether the argument is "our training methods are superior/different but equally good/the same" the proof required is the same - winning matches.  



> Observer Bias, meaning, what makes Kevin feel MMAist can....let me quote: Why does Kevin feel these attributes are effective for MMAist and not TMAist? I completely agree with this statement but change MMA to CMA in this quote and I would agree as well. Why does the fact that MMA can do something good negate that anything else can also do something good?


 
I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano.  How come I'm not as good?  Heck, there are people at a boxing gym a couple blocks away from where I live who train the same exact same punches and the exact same footwork on the same bags in the same manner in the same ratios for the same number of hours.  How come they aren't as good?  

We CANNOT and must not ASSUME equivalent ability based on similar or even seemingly identical training.  We assume equivalent ability based on equivalent actual performance - and NOTHING else - not lineage, not bag hitting, not hours of training, not theory.  



> Acceptable "Proof". Kevin contradicted himself on this point in this post: Speaking about video proof here we see Kevin explain why its not a viable factual proof and then go on to say there is no excuse for not having it or relying on it. So why is video proof so neccessary when physical experience is so easy to be had?


 
Where did I say video was not sufficient as factual proof?  I think that was ZDom discussing superman on the silver screen, not me. 



> Personal Experience. By this I mean the training habits and experiences of those posting. I thought I was debating with an active MMAist currently training for competition and now I understand that is not so? I would be interested to hear Kevin answer some of the questions on his training and what he has done since his karate. It seems everyone else contributing is more than willing to offer that type of "proof" if you will.


 
I'm not sure how that is directly relavent.  I have nowhere relied on personal experiance in my arguments and don't intend to.  I am still active in training karate, so I'm sure what you mean about "since" it.  



> Unrealistic Attribution. Saying a controlled environment with competent and sportsmanlike fighters is anything like a life or death situation is naive at best. While it does offer a sense of reality that does a great deal for realistic fighters it is simply not the uncontrolled environment and situation that a life or death struggle is. To ignore such proof as police reports and realistic "street fights" that happen everyday where peopel are killed and maimed in brawls for a controlled sporting event and then try to use that controlled environment to attribute training for the first is absurd. It seems the UFC champions are more in touch with the reality of what they do than the fans that sit home and act out the fights in their backyards. The fighters will tell you what they do and will not hold it for something its not. There are crossover skills of course, but they will tell you they aren't training to take out PCP influenced criminals seeking to kill them for the $5 in their pocket. Its a different skill set, one that any true "fighter" should be honest about and look at their own training and determine why they train and understand what it is they are actually doing.


 
I don't act out fights in my backyard and I resent the implication.   



> As far as sport fighting goes, I have yet to see Kevin answer any of my questions from pages back about what defines MMA and TMA. What training habits or methods are used in MMA that aren't in TMA? What makes this MMA person (superman) he keeps refering to different from the TMA (frail) person he speaks of? He keeps saying, "a good MMA fighter could..." but says, "a TMA person just couldn't..." Why is this? What seperates the two people you are talking about Kevin? Most of the techniques MMAist use in their training are techniques I use as well....so why the huge difference in skill or effectiveness? You have as of yet refused to explain your viewpoints on the advantages of MMA (whatever they may be) and the disadvantages of TMA (whatever they may be). I mean Matt Hughes seemed to be unabel to continue fighting from just one or two glancing kicks to the groin, but we are supposed to believe that a solid full power knee to the groin will be laughed off by serious MMAist or any male fighter for that matter?


 
You do realize there are lots of fighting tournaments that groin blows are allowed in?  This includes everything from Kyokushin and some muay thai to Finnfight, the early UFCs, most of the Vale Tudos, the AFCs and lots of other tournaments. Why don't you look at the outcomes of those fights instead of assuming what the outcome will be?  Fights have been ended by purposeful groin shots (Jon Son vs. Hackney), but the overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't.  



> Sorry, medicine negates that theory, just look up medical examples of crushed testicles for your proof in that matter. Explain to me why a groin kick or tear will work against the average Joe who attacks you but be laughed off by the MMAist who trains avoiding that type of contact and wears protective gear for any slight contact that may occur?
> 
> 7sm


 
You do realize that lots of people, including some MMAists, kyokushin karate, many muay thai people etc. do train with full power attacks to the groin fully allowed in their sparring?  You do realize it appears in competitions?


----------



## bushidomartialarts

has anybody else noticed the similarities between this thread and the one about religions going on elsewhere in the forum?


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano.  How come I'm not as good?



Some fighters are simply better than others. They know when to use which punch. Timing, instinct. Heart.

It's not a matter of being taught some "optimal" technique or some superior secret super training method. If only it was that easy.

And they are professional fighters, training as full time athletes as opposed to six to seven hour per week as hobbyist like you and I.

What you are seeing on TV are those who had some natural aptitude developed with a lot of sweat equity.


----------



## Flying Crane

Rook said:


> For fighting, when it is so easy to get video in any prearranged match, there is no reason why anyone and everyone claiming to be a great fighter themselves shouldn't have a video record.


 
Personally, I don't see any reason to have a video record of this.  Are you really advocating creating a video library of all of one's challenge fights, brawls, and whatnot?  Especially if they are not part of some big sanctioned event like the UFC, and instead are just the smalltime fights that you get into in your own neighborhood?  if someone actually did this, I for one would question their motivations and just what kind of a sick minded person they are.  It's just a little twisted to want to collect a bunch of video of yourself beating people up.  Not to mention the video evidence you are creating the first time someone decides to press criminal charges against you for assault and battery.  The very notion of expecting this expresses some pretty questionable morals and ethics...

my god, can't this thread die...


----------



## Rook

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I don't see any reason to have a video record of this. Are you really advocating creating a video library of all of one's challenge fights, brawls, and whatnot? Especially if they are not part of some big sanctioned event like the UFC, and instead are just the smalltime fights that you get into in your own neighborhood? if someone actually did this, I for one would question their motivations and just what kind of a sick minded person they are. It's just a little twisted to want to collect a bunch of video of yourself beating people up. Not to mention the video evidence you are creating the first time someone decides to press criminal charges against you for assault and battery. The very notion of expecting this expresses some pretty questionable morals and ethics...


 
I don't expect brawls in the neighborhood to count for a whole lot, and don't see much use in having videos of them.  Only people trying to claim significant fighting ability for themselves would have any need of it, and not for entertainment, but rather for being able to prove their case.  For instance, most professional fighters have a video record of each of their fights.  THe pro fights of most major boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions are available on DVDs.  The challenge matches of the Gracies are on tape.  If you're going to go around saying that "hey I personally can beat X" there should be some video that corraborates that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Rook said:


> I don't expect brawls in the neighborhood to count for a whole lot, and don't see much use in having videos of them. Only people trying to claim significant fighting ability for themselves would have any need of it, and not for entertainment, but rather for being able to prove their case. For instance, most professional fighters have a video record of each of their fights. THe pro fights of most major boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions are available on DVDs. The challenge matches of the Gracies are on tape. If you're going to go around saying that "hey I personally can beat X" there should be some video that corraborates that.


 
But very few people actually fight on an organized circuit of some sort.  There are far far far far far far more people who are tough fighters, than who fight on a ciruit.  By far, most people do not.  This does not take anything away from the fact that they are seriously tough fighters.  It just means they don't fight on a ciruit, and there is no video proof of them.  But the secret is, they don't care.  They don't care about these silly arguments over who is better, so they tend to not get involved.  They have no need to prove anything to anyone, and are pretty much content to sit back and let people think whatever they want.  But if you ever are foolish enough to tangle with them, you will be in for a big surprise.

This whole argument that happens here over and over is really pretty pointless and silly and ultimately, unprovable one way or the other.

There are MMA fighters who are extremely tough, and would stand up well whether in the ring or on the street.  There are also TMA people who are extremely tough, and would stand up very well on the street, even against another trained fighter, even if they may or may not do well in the ring.  When push comes to shove, unless you make your livlihood in the ring, it doesn't mean anything.  The only place it actually means something is on the street.


----------



## Rook

Flying Crane said:


> But very few people actually fight on an organized circuit of some sort. There are far far far far far far more people who are tough fighters, than who fight on a ciruit. By far, most people do not. This does not take anything away from the fact that they are seriously tough fighters. It just means they don't fight on a ciruit, and there is no video proof of them. But the secret is, they don't care. They don't care about these silly arguments over who is better, so they tend to not get involved. They have no need to prove anything to anyone, and are pretty much content to sit back and let people think whatever they want. But if you ever are foolish enough to tangle with them, you will be in for a big surprise.
> 
> This whole argument that happens here over and over is really pretty pointless and silly and ultimately, unprovable one way or the other.


 
If they aren't claiming to be fighters (ie they just don't care) and don't claim to teach other people to be fighters or to defend themselves, then I don't care.  What I see a problem with is people who care enough to make a claim and don't care to back it up with any evidence whatsoever, and then are insulted when anyone questions their claim, as though it is self-explanatory and self-proving.  

Don't fight, don't claim to be a fighter - ok.  
Fight, claim to be a fighter - ok
Don't fight, but claim to personally be a fighter - here we have a slight problem


----------



## Flying Crane

Rook said:


> Don't fight, but claim to personally be a fighter - here we have a slight problem


 
Don't fight_ in your venue_, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk.  Yup, they can fight.  Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).  

They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves.  If you have a problem, it is your own.

They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved.  They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people.  They don't even think about them.  They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.  

But trust me, they can fight.


----------



## matt.m

Flying Crane said:


> Don't fight_ in your venue_, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk. Yup, they can fight. Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).
> 
> They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves. If you have a problem, it is your own.
> 
> They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved. They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people. They don't even think about them. They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.
> 
> But trust me, they can fight.


 

Very well said Michael.


----------



## Rook

Flying Crane said:


> Don't fight_ in your venue_, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk. Yup, they can fight. Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).
> 
> They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves. If you have a problem, it is your own.
> 
> They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved. They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people. They don't even think about them. They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.
> 
> But trust me, they can fight.


 
There is no one I trust that much.  Not when there is so much contrary evidence.  Not when it would be so very easy to provide corraborating evidence.  Not when what little trust they might have gotten has been further compromised by all sorts of fraud and poor performance from the supposedly legitimate.


----------



## eyebeams

Rook said:


> [/list]The one I have run with is that of a medium to high quality professional MMA fighter against anyone TMAs can put against him.  Whether the argument is "our training methods are superior/different but equally good/the same" the proof required is the same - winning matches.


 
A pro or an amatuer who competes in an athletic organization will beat a non-pro in any combat sport. Most TMAers are not training at this level and have no intention of ever doing so. *Many* MMAers are *also* not training at this level, but the organizations make it more available and more likely.

I think a large part of this is sampling bias. How many people follow the Kuoshu or Sanda circuits? Many, many competitors in these circuits use their rules sets to fight using Chinese arts. It's worth noting that there are also people who train solely for competition, but as I said, kung fu's a diverse practice.



> I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano.  How come I'm not as good?  Heck, there are people at a boxing gym a couple blocks away from where I live who train the same exact same punches and the exact same footwork on the same bags in the same manner in the same ratios for the same number of hours.  How come they aren't as good?



Talent. Training uncovers talent, but it doesn't create it. Genes create it. Comparing martial arts isn't a matter of comparing genes.



> We CANNOT and must not ASSUME equivalent ability based on similar or even seemingly identical training.  We assume equivalent ability based on equivalent actual performance - and NOTHING else - not lineage, not bag hitting, not hours of training, not theory.


 
We ought not to assume it at all. Plenty of MMA fighters have a string of bad fights and washout due to a series of accidents or uncharacteristically dumb mistakes that just tend to stack up at the wrong time.


----------



## matt.m

I will use Judo and Tae Kwon Do to illustrate the following.  I have known people on the US Marine Corps Judo team that were outstanding at Judo, the sport not art, that lost horribly in fights at the NCO club.  Why?  The answer is simple....No ruleset.  The same goes with Tae Kwon Do, I was good friends with an outstanding olympic style point sparring champ that ran a school.  Guess what happened when he got in a fight with mulitple attackers?  He got beat down, the reason is simple again.  No ruleset.

Were these folks in outstanding shape?  Yep, you bet they were.  Did they get beat by Joe Average, Yep a group of them.   Fighting mulitple attackers will do that.

We used to do a drill in cammie pants, flak jacket and combat boots.  The combat instructor would put us on a huge area of sand and chat and told us to just fight.

Were people who were in judo, tae kwon do, karate better fighters?  Yes, they held out longer.  Also, let me be perfectly clear, it was cool to throw someone down....you are still in control....you got thrown on the ground, it was bad bad bad news.

The last I checked the Marine Corps is an elite fighting force and I know from being in combat on three continents and one island that you cannot just pull your firearm and just shoot someone because it would be the easier of the two options.


----------



## MJS

Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. There have been a number of great posts, however, responding to some...well, I just find that I'm spinning my wheels, because of the one sided views. My intention was never to change anyones views, but simply, to give another POV, in hopes that those that only want to see things their way, will perhaps, realize that there is more to the arts than what they think. I was going to reply to a few of the posts here, but as I said, I'd most likely end up spinning my wheels. 

As I have said many times, there are things from MMA that can be applied to TMA and vice versa. Unless we know how every single person trains, how can we honestly come up with an accurate idea of what will work and what will not? Sitting in front of the TV, watching MMA fights is not the answer. What works for one, may not work for the next person. 

I read a post, in which the person does not feel that answering certain questions or giving info about his training is important. Actually, while he may not think that, it is in fact important. This person on a regular basis, states that video proof is important. Well, I think that being able to say that you have done something is just as important. If someone has never engaged in MMA type training, but constantly states what will or will not work...well, how reliable of a source is that???? Not a very solid one IMO. 

As for video proof...I know a number of people who have used their MA skills, have no video of it, but have come out alive. Some of these folks are police officers, correction officers, and former bouncers. I guess that these people must suck because there is no proof though.

I've been training in the arts for a while now. There are things that I gain from my training that I personally do not feel that MMA can give me. Yet, I give credit where its due, and acknowledge that I have gained a number of things from MMA. The aliveness, resistance and the conditioning, on a lower level, are some of the things. While I look forward to every PPV UFC fight, I personally have no desire to enter the ring. I do however, tip my hat to those guys, for putting themselves through that. I do not brag about my training, I acknowledge that there is always someone better out there, and I don't run around with a camcorder, looking for fights. One of my goals in my training is self defense. Defending yourself can be termed a fight, so sure, I train to fight, but again, I'm not entering the ring. The handful of encounters that I've had, I've come out fine. If someone wants to think that my training is useless, thats fine. I know what I can and can't do, and thats all that matters to me. 

Again, this will be my last post in this thread. It certainly has provided me with alot to read, and I have enjoyed the viewpoints of everyone, and yes, that includes you Kevin. While I may not always agree with what has been said, its something to think about.

Mike


----------



## Rook

MJS said:


> Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. There have been a number of great posts, however, responding to some...well, I just find that I'm spinning my wheels, because of the one sided views. My intention was never to change anyones views, but simply, to give another POV, in hopes that those that only want to see things their way, will perhaps, realize that there is more to the arts than what they think. I was going to reply to a few of the posts here, but as I said, I'd most likely end up spinning my wheels.
> 
> As I have said many times, there are things from MMA that can be applied to TMA and vice versa. Unless we know how every single person trains, how can we honestly come up with an accurate idea of what will work and what will not? Sitting in front of the TV, watching MMA fights is not the answer. What works for one, may not work for the next person.
> 
> I read a post, in which the person does not feel that answering certain questions or giving info about his training is important. Actually, while he may not think that, it is in fact important. This person on a regular basis, states that video proof is important. Well, I think that being able to say that you have done something is just as important. If someone has never engaged in MMA type training, but constantly states what will or will not work...well, how reliable of a source is that???? Not a very solid one IMO.
> 
> As for video proof...I know a number of people who have used their MA skills, have no video of it, but have come out alive. Some of these folks are police officers, correction officers, and former bouncers. I guess that these people must suck because there is no proof though.
> 
> I've been training in the arts for a while now. There are things that I gain from my training that I personally do not feel that MMA can give me. Yet, I give credit where its due, and acknowledge that I have gained a number of things from MMA. The aliveness, resistance and the conditioning, on a lower level, are some of the things. While I look forward to every PPV UFC fight, I personally have no desire to enter the ring. I do however, tip my hat to those guys, for putting themselves through that. I do not brag about my training, I acknowledge that there is always someone better out there, and I don't run around with a camcorder, looking for fights. One of my goals in my training is self defense. Defending yourself can be termed a fight, so sure, I train to fight, but again, I'm not entering the ring. The handful of encounters that I've had, I've come out fine. If someone wants to think that my training is useless, thats fine. I know what I can and can't do, and thats all that matters to me.
> 
> Again, this will be my last post in this thread. It certainly has provided me with alot to read, and I have enjoyed the viewpoints of everyone, and yes, that includes you Kevin. While I may not always agree with what has been said, its something to think about.
> 
> Mike


 
Well, I've enjoyed talking with you MJS.  This has been an interesting thread, and I agree it has gotten rather circular.


----------



## Rook

eyebeams said:


> A pro or an amatuer who competes in an athletic organization will beat a non-pro in any combat sport. Most TMAers are not training at this level and have no intention of ever doing so. *Many* MMAers are *also* not training at this level, but the organizations make it more available and more likely.
> 
> I think a large part of this is sampling bias. How many people follow the Kuoshu or Sanda circuits? Many, many competitors in these circuits use their rules sets to fight using Chinese arts. It's worth noting that there are also people who train solely for competition, but as I said, kung fu's a diverse practice.


 
I don't follow the sanda circuits, but I am aware of them.  They provide a decent test of standup ability at the amateur and lower professional level. Several Sanda fighers (mostly Cung Le, who has only fought I believe twice, and that against against cans) have done ok in MMA and I have high hopes for the future of Sanda in MMA.  



> Talent. Training uncovers talent, but it doesn't create it. Genes create it. Comparing martial arts isn't a matter of comparing genes.


 
Thats true too.  But in order to find out who was and wasn't talented, we had to have a heck of a lot of fights, and even now we're not all that sure.  Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights.  Is he the best?  Is Ali the best?  Tyson?  Dempsey?  Louis?  I don't know, but I certainly know that it would be pretty funny to most boxers if you posted a video of some boxer, even a pretty proficient boxer, shadowboxing and proposed adding him to their company based on watching his technique.  Yet, TMAists do this all the time, watching forms done well and then sayind "oh yeah, great fighter" - huh?  



> We ought not to assume it at all. Plenty of MMA fighters have a string of bad fights and washout due to a series of accidents or uncharacteristically dumb mistakes that just tend to stack up at the wrong time.


 
Thats true too.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights.  Is he the best?  Is Ali the best?  Tyson?  Dempsey?  Louis?



"Best" is a transitory state.

People have peaks and valleys in performance. The results we get today could be very different if the very same fight was fought tomorrow or next week  or even five minutes apart.


----------



## eyebeams

Rook said:


> I don't follow the sanda circuits, but I am aware of them.  They provide a decent test of standup ability at the amateur and lower professional level. Several Sanda fighers (mostly Cung Le, who has only fought I believe twice, and that against against cans) have done ok in MMA and I have high hopes for the future of Sanda in MMA.


 
I think it'll depend on the incentive. Fighters' first priorities are to get paid and succeed in their base sport. FWIW, I think there are areas where Sanda's rules are actually superior for emulating streetfights, such as rules that forbid stalling. Consideraing that streetfights are usually extremely short, that's a good thing. MMA is starting to speed up as well, but there's still too much stalling that indulges guardwork and boxing.



> Thats true too.  But in order to find out who was and wasn't talented, we had to have a heck of a lot of fights, and even now we're not all that sure.  Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights.  Is he the best?  Is Ali the best?  Tyson?  Dempsey?  Louis?  I don't know, but I certainly know that it would be pretty funny to most boxers if you posted a video of some boxer, even a pretty proficient boxer, shadowboxing and proposed adding him to their company based on watching his technique.  Yet, TMAists do this all the time, watching forms done well and then sayind "oh yeah, great fighter" - huh?



Yeah, and that's no good. It used to be that being able to harvest detailed information from a forms performance was one of those legendary things a really good shifu could do. Thanks to the internet, every doorknob out there now claims this ability since it's the primary way online TMAers can see each other in action. Really, all you can tell is whether someone would be a *bad* fighter, not whether they would be a good one, if you understand the distinction.


----------



## Rook

eyebeams said:


> I think it'll depend on the incentive. Fighters' first priorities are to get paid and succeed in their base sport. FWIW, I think there are areas where Sanda's rules are actually superior for emulating streetfights, such as rules that forbid stalling. Consideraing that streetfights are usually extremely short, that's a good thing. MMA is starting to speed up as well, but there's still too much stalling that indulges guardwork and boxing.


 
I'm not sure I agree.  Streetfights have no rules, and I really see fewer rules, fewer restrictions as a good thing.  There is the much-mocked "ground=lava" and such... I don't think adding more rules makes something more realistic.  An ability to stall could work to your advantage anyway... it depends on who is likely to get help first - if your friends or the police will get involved before their friends.  



> Yeah, and that's no good. It used to be that being able to harvest detailed information from a forms performance was one of those legendary things a really good shifu could do. Thanks to the internet, every doorknob out there now claims this ability since it's the primary way online TMAers can see each other in action. Really, all you can tell is whether someone would be a *bad* fighter, not whether they would be a good one, if you understand the distinction.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> "Best" is a transitory state.
> 
> People have peaks and valleys in performance. The results we get today could be very different if the very same fight was fought tomorrow or next week  or even five minutes apart.


 
Thats why people considered "proven" fighters have lots and lots of proven fights... they establish their consistancy.


----------



## 7starmantis

Rook said:


> The one I have run with is that of a medium to high quality professional MMA fighter against anyone TMAs can put against him. Whether the argument is "our training methods are superior/different but equally good/the same" the proof required is the same - winning matches.


  So let me get this right, your saying: "A medium to high quality professional athlete who gets paid to train and has no other obligations will normally and consistently beat a non-professional athlete who has to work at the least 40 hours a week to make money, has many other obligations and interests outside of training and trains maybe 1/4 as much as the professional athlete if that". Is that about right? You my friend have an amazing point, youre absolutely right, I couldn't agree more with you. In fact I would say most medium to high level professional MMA fighters could most likely perform in other athletic events at a level at least equivalent to other non professional athletes in the same events. Whats your point? 

  As to the proof, youre incorrect. The proof required is living through someone else desperately trying to take your life. Lets look at how many professional MMA fighters have been shot, stabbed, clubbed, etc and attacked with the intent to kill and walked away. What about CMA fighters? Seems the scales tip a bit when using that criteria to judge "effectiveness". How many professional MMA fighters had the job of getting captured in Vietnam to gather intel, escape and bring back the information? How many professional MMA fighters were tortured during this process? How many professional MMA fighters were warlords of gangs in D.C for years, lived on the streets, have been shot 7 times? Your starting to loose your point here when you start saying things like the proof is the same when referring to professional (get paid to perform) and self defense (get to live to perform) fighters. Sorry. Oh, and why are you still practicing a TMA if MMA is so much better? 


Rook said:


> I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano. How come I'm not as good? Heck, there are people at a boxing gym a couple blocks away from where I live who train the same exact same punches and the exact same footwork on the same bags in the same manner in the same ratios for the same number of hours. How come they aren't as good?


  Wait. Youre saying basically that training has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are so much better than TMA fighters? So the manner in which they train, the time in which they spend training, the training of exactly the same techniques, all of that has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are better? So people who train in MMA are simply receiving some type of magical powers that TMAs dont have? I'm sorry, you've lost your point and your believability factor. You throw the same punches as Ali? Sorry, thats a surface understanding of a skill that you obviously dont train (you said so yourself). So what makes Ali better than you at boxing? I ask you. So your saying boxers train the same exact workout as Ali did and yet aren't as good because Ali had what exactly? Oh, youre saying Ali was better because he won matches and had video proof. See, you have things out of order there. As my grandfather used to say, you've poured the oil in without taking off the cap. (or something like that) 

    I'm with MJS on this one, you dont seem to really care about providing validity to your statements and I must excuse myself from the thread. You seem to be lacking true understanding of what youre arguing for and are making some statements that are just wrong. I mean what your saying is incorrect be it MMA or TMA your referring to. Training methods, time, work ethic, all these things matter. Youre contradicting your own posts and expecting us to listen to you. Youre making ridiculously unrealistic statements about something you have absolutely no personal experience with. Thats why the UFC is such a money maker, you have proven that for sure. 


Rook said:


> We CANNOT and must not ASSUME equivalent ability based on similar or even seemingly identical training. We assume equivalent ability based on equivalent actual performance - and NOTHING else - not lineage, not bag hitting, not hours of training, not theory.


  Ability is a personal thing. Individual fighters have different abilities. Youre absolutely wrong if you think training doesnt affect the ability of a fighter. There are two sides to assuming equivalency. If you dont assume your opponent is at least at if not above your level be it sport or self defense youre going to get your *** handed to you or killed. To assume someone is lesser skilled because of a lack of evidence is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically is saying that because there is no evidence that something is right means its wrong. Thats a logical fallacy and is simply incorrect. 

  Youre seriously saying that two fighters with no video history are going to fight. One who trains 8 hours a day, heavy cardio, lots of bags and lots of fighting. The other doesnt train cardio, little bags, and little fighting. You are seriously going to say you honestly give the same chance to both fighters? First, I dont believe you if you say yes. Second, your naïve and simply incorrect if you say yes. Training does have a lot to do with ability. Its not the only thing, but youre arguing against the one thing MMA has going for it, pure hard work. You began the discussion speaking of MMAs resistance training and full power and speed as its benefits and now say those things dont matter, only a winning record or video of winning a fight? Your pulling the old lineage is proof card only substituting wining record for good lineage. Ask any of your top professional MMA fighters they will all tell you that anyone can beat anyone on any given day. For you to think otherwise is simply inexperience. 


Rook said:


> Where did I say video was not sufficient as factual proof? I think that was ZDom discussing superman on the silver screen, not me.


 You said video was no valid in saying that it gives us .





			
				rook said:
			
		

> Its also given us all sorts of garbage about aliens, the Loch Ness monster, the daily Elvis-is-alive sightings, the chi powers of chinese masters, the bullet dodging abilities of Ueshiba, etc.





Rook said:


> I'm not sure how that is directly relavent. I have nowhere relied on personal experiance in my arguments and don't intend to. I am still active in training karate, so I'm sure what you mean about "since" it.


  Again, youre actively training in a TMA while holding a heated debate that TMAs are inferior to MMAs and that MMA is the best way to train. I dont understand your intentions or motives for this discussion. And while you may not have relied on personal experience this is not a discussion that can be made devoid of personal experiences. Thats what everyone here keeps telling you. Get out there, fight some skilled fighters both CMA and MMA, take video, and lets see the tell the tape makes after that. Thats the way to find out the truth, not sit back and make assumptions about things you see on TV without having personal experience in them. 


Rook said:


> You do realize there are lots of fighting tournaments that groin blows are allowed in? This includes everything from Kyokushin and some muay thai to Finnfight, the early UFCs, most of the Vale Tudos, the AFCs and lots of other tournaments. Why don't you look at the outcomes of those fights instead of assuming what the outcome will be? Fights have been ended by purposeful groin shots (Jon Son vs. Hackney), but the overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't.



Yes, I realize there are fighting tourneys that allow groin blows. I have participated in them for years.
No one is assuming anything here Kevin, I was using your own preferred method of proofvideo. Also, I was using my own personal experiences, something you have left out of this discussion so far and something you are admittedly lacking.
No one is talking about a fight ending groin shot, Kevin. As you have seen yourself, it happens like that sometimes, but sometimes not. What a solid shot to the groin does is initiate a reaction which can allow for the fight to be ended.



Rook said:


> You do realize that lots of people, including some MMAists, kyokushin karate, many muay thai people etc. do train with full power attacks to the groin fully allowed in their sparring? You do realize it appears in competitions?



Yes,      once again I know this is allowed in many people training, I allow it in      mine.
We      addressed the fact that I have personal experience with it being allowed      in competitions.
Youre      Point?
Kevin, without offering either a logical argument that solidifies MMAs superiority over CMAs, or providing personal experience of non-sport superiority of MMA over CMA, or providing proof (yes even video) of non-sport MMAs superiority over CMAs, you lack credibility and really believability in this discussion. The UFC proves many things, among them is not that MMA is better than CMA or TMA in non-sport fighting. Remember, sport vs. non-sport. Do you have video proof of non-sport MMA and non-sport CMA? 

  Again, I think Im out of this thread, so sad too.Im the one who started it! Sorry everyone. I thought we could have serious intelligent and logical discussions about specific abilities of MMA vs. CMA..I see thats not going to happen.

  7sm


----------



## Flying Crane

Rook said:


> There is no one I trust that much. Not when there is so much contrary evidence. Not when it would be so very easy to provide corraborating evidence. Not when what little trust they might have gotten has been further compromised by all sorts of fraud and poor performance from the supposedly legitimate.


 

Well, i don't see any way to bridge this divide, so I'm gonna leave it alone.  

I will restate what I stated a few posts back: There are MMA fighters who are extremely tough, and would stand up well whether in the ring or on the street. There are also TMA people who are extremely tough, and would stand up very well on the street, even against another trained fighter, even if they may or may not do well in the ring. When push comes to shove, unless you make your livlihood in the ring, it doesn't mean anything. The only place it actually means something is on the street

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due.  I don't dispute the abilities of the MMA competitors.  But I don't see a similar attitude from you.  I have been reluctant to take part in this thread because this always seems to be how they end up.  I've said it in other threads: I think the MMA and TMA crowds could learn a lot from each other if they would all just open their minds a bit.  

From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds.  They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have.  But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.  

Not only have I seen you state that you feel MMA is vastly superior to TMA (that's really understandable, as most people who lack maturity in the martial arts tend to single-mindedly believe that what they do is the absolute best and everyone else sucks; I went thru a phase like that myself when I was in junior high school and I was training kenpo, my first art; but most people eventually grow out of it), but you have even gone so far as to suggest and imply that the TMA have no value as fighting arts at all.  It's a basic close-mindedness, and it makes it impossible to have any really meaningful and insightful discussions.  All it does is make the other camp get defensive, and then everyone gets closed minded about it because it gets downright insulting.

I think it is that basic haughty position that makes these threads spiral downhill so rapidly.

So with that, i've given all I can to this one and I'm bowing out.  Anyone who feels the urge to continue on, have at it.

cheers, all.


----------



## matt.m

7starmantis,

I really like where you went with your last post.  I know from the stories of my GM, Old Gunny Sgt's that were in Vietnam etc. that the VC were scared of the U.S. Marine Corps and Army.  They were horrified of fighting the ROK Marines.  Let's ask the question why?  The answer has been stated millions of times.....they knew the ROK Marines were extremely proficient in Tae Kwon Do.

Along, the same lines but not exactly the same.  However, I really did like your post.​


----------



## matt.m

Flying Crane said:


> From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.


 

I could not have said this better.


----------



## eyebeams

Rook said:


> I'm not sure I agree.  Streetfights have no rules, and I really see fewer rules, fewer restrictions as a good thing.  There is the much-mocked "ground=lava" and such... I don't think adding more rules makes something more realistic.  An ability to stall could work to your advantage anyway... it depends on who is likely to get help first - if your friends or the police will get involved before their friends.



I'm thinking of things like counterpunching, sticking and moving with the jab and standing opponents in your open guard. The first two tend to get overwhelmed by the pace and intensity of a brawler who isn't think about picking his shots later in the round. The third is one of those situations that work well, when both fighters have a common objective in the ring, but not in other situations. A striker standing in somebody's open guard has an advantage in MMA because he can drop bombs, but it's the best way for the guy on the ground to protect himself with his legs and move things along. But if the striker's goal is to knock you down and get away, he's just "won." If my goal on my back is to keep this guy from getting away, then I'm screwed. This means that I want to change my strategy for guard and I want to train to better choose my own positioning for the situation.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that MMA makes you a robot designed for that rules set alone, but that different rules impose different conditions. You fight how you train, so you want to train (always with live resistance) for these different situations. Sanda's charms are that it rewards some activities tha translate to self-protection quite well, such as staying standing and employing a very fast pace. This is no substitute for rolling, but I think that if MMA scoring rewarded clean throws and did something to encourage faster pacing it would lead some some exciting action *and* emphasize practical skills. I don't like breaking the clinch too often as they do in Sanda, but some changes in scoring (point deductions for the last scorer in clinches or non-engagement lasting more than 8 seconds extra points for throws where one fighter remains standing while the throwee makes contact) might do it.

This reminds me of a thought experiment I had about "full contact aikido," actually. You'd score hand blows and clean throws, but nothing else, with bonus points for a blow followed by a throw. These kinds if specialized rules  sets would be great for developing specialties within various arts, though you'd naturally want to bring them back to a more open venue later.


----------



## Andrew Green

Flying Crane said:


> From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds.  They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have.  But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.



I'm gonna disagree... a little...

I think both sides are equally as self-righteous.

For as many MMA supporters who completely reject Traditional styles, there are Traditional stylists claiming the opposite.

The thing that frustrates me in these arguments is almost always that everyone tries to use the same metric for the comparison.  And that, is MMA.  Ok, not everybody, but there are more then enough examples of traditional stylists that have never even sparred with intentional contact to the face telling everyone how there stuff is superior, and a elbow to the back will KO a wrestler as they shoot, or some such nonsense.  Often with pictures or video as well, with the "MMA guy" being played by someone who, from there technique, has apparently never even seen a takedown done.

I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded.  But, it takes more convincing.  You got to get on the mat and show us that it works, on a live person, in a live situation, otherwise skeptisism kicks in and it gets tossed over in the pile with the No touch chi KO.

Where as a lot of traditional stylists are more willing to believe in something not because of the demonstration against a live person, but rather the history behind it, or the lineage of the teacher.

Both sides are equally wrong IMO, but different people will see it different, because lets face it, we are all biased towards the way we do things, and the way we think they "should" be done.


----------



## Flying Crane

Andrew Green said:


> I'm gonna disagree... a little...
> 
> I think both sides are equally as self-righteous.
> 
> For as many MMA supporters who completely reject Traditional styles, there are Traditional stylists claiming the opposite.
> 
> The thing that frustrates me in these arguments is almost always that everyone tries to use the same metric for the comparison. And that, is MMA. Ok, not everybody, but there are more then enough examples of traditional stylists that have never even sparred with intentional contact to the face telling everyone how there stuff is superior, and a elbow to the back will KO a wrestler as they shoot, or some such nonsense. Often with pictures or video as well, with the "MMA guy" being played by someone who, from there technique, has apparently never even seen a takedown done.
> 
> I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded. But, it takes more convincing. You got to get on the mat and show us that it works, on a live person, in a live situation, otherwise skeptisism kicks in and it gets tossed over in the pile with the No touch chi KO.
> 
> Where as a lot of traditional stylists are more willing to believe in something not because of the demonstration against a live person, but rather the history behind it, or the lineage of the teacher.
> 
> Both sides are equally wrong IMO, but different people will see it different, because lets face it, we are all biased towards the way we do things, and the way we think they "should" be done.


 

Fair enough, I think you have some good points.  

I think in these discussions it is really incredibly easy for one side or the other to feel like their method is being attacked and dismissed outright, and that causes them to immediately circle the wagons and start shooting back in return.  From then on both sides start making unrealistic claims about their own method, and unreasonable criticisms of the other's.  At that point any chance at real dialog is already lost.

People need to back off a bit and have some real dialog, get off their own high horse and concede once in a while that just maybe the other guy actually knows what he is talking about and maybe if they tear down the wall a bit they just might learn something from what the other guy has to say.

You and I, Andrew, have discussed this before and I think overall we are probably pretty much on the same page, or at least somewhere in the same chapter.

Good point about everybody trying to use the same metric.  It isn't realistic for everyone.

The one point that seems to be pushed over and over by certain MMA proponents is the requirement for video proof or some kind of fighting "record" before they are willing to admit that just maybe, possibly, Joe TMA has some fighting skills and can handle himself on the street.  The expectation of that kind of "proof" is completely unrealistic, as most of the world just doesn't operate that way.

Anyway, absent any other intelligent input in this thread, I will back out now.


----------



## matt.m

You know, Andrew has once again been a great voice of reason for the MMA camp.  See, I look at hapkido as a Mixed Martial Art because it is an all encompassing art.  No holes at all, at least the way that Won-Kwang Wha taught Lee H. Park and Lee passed it to Charles Hildebrand, Rick Schutt and my dad.

I guess because of my background of wrestling, judo, hapkido, and tae kwon do I see MMA looking more like it is evolving into a TMA style of teaching.

The reason I say this is because all the guys learn a little muay thai, a little bjj, they have some wrestling skills etc.  It just seems that if you don't "Learn" a certain set then you will not do well in the contest.

The thing I have, will, and always say is "In the circuits they are in contest and no mulitple attackers.  There are rules for safety.  Also the main difference is to train for contest.  In arts like Tae Kwon Do, Judo etc. they are arts that dumb down the art to let people contest if they desire."

See, I don't need a video tape to know what works.  I have participated in hand to hand combat oversees.  I also have 51 gold medals from Greco Wrestling and Judo Randori on the international level, while representing the Marines.  You can tell the outcome by reading the paper to see how we did.  While in the Marines we didn't want cameras around, they got in our way.  I know that hapkido cane, judo throws, hapkido/tae kwon do kicking are extremely effective when you have to use it.  I have 5 rows of ribbons and medals on my dress blue uniform to prove it.  Having a combat action ribbon with 2 stars is a good quantifier in my opinion.


----------



## Rook

7starmantis said:


> So let me get this right, your saying: "A medium to high quality professional athlete who gets paid to train and has no other obligations will normally and consistently beat a non-professional athlete who has to work at the least 40 hours a week to make money, has many other obligations and interests outside of training and trains maybe 1/4 as much as the professional athlete if that". Is that about right? You my friend have an amazing point, you&#8217;re absolutely right, I couldn't agree more with you. In fact I would say most medium to high level professional MMA fighters could most likely perform in other athletic events at a level at least equivalent to other non professional athletes in the same events. What&#8217;s your point?


 
I think we are on the same page here.  Thats good.   



> As to the proof, you&#8217;re incorrect. The proof required is living through someone else desperately trying to take your life.


 
Surviving against the local street punks and winning against a professional fighter are two different things.  In light of what you said just in the last paragraph, I would think that would be clearly apparent to you.  I have seen people win streetfights, even against multiple larger opponents, with nothing but wild haymakers.  Try that against any professional boxer, kickboxer, grappler, MMAists etc, and it won't fly very far at all.  I find it hard to believe that people can conflate fighting off untrained nobodies with being able to beat serious professionals. It bogles the mind.  



> How many professional MMA fighters had the job of getting captured in Vietnam to gather intel, escape and bring back the information? How many professional MMA fighters were tortured during this process?


 
This doesn't have alot to do with proving hand to hand fighting ability.  It has alot to do with other things, but I don't see what it has to do with proving the efficacy of an unarmed fighting system.  



> How many professional MMA fighters were warlords of gangs in D.C for years, lived on the streets, have been shot 7 times? Your starting to loose your point here when you start saying things like the proof is the same when referring to professional (get paid to perform) and self defense (get to live to perform) fighters. Sorry. Oh, and why are you still practicing a TMA if MMA is so much better?
> 
> Wait. You&#8217;re saying basically that training has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are so much better than TMA fighters? So the manner in which they train, the time in which they spend training, the training of exactly the same techniques, all of that has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are better? So people who train in MMA are simply receiving some type of magical powers that TMAs don&#8217;t have? I'm sorry, you've lost your point and your believability factor.


 
No.  Absolutely not.  You have completely missed my point.  



> You throw the same punches as Ali? Sorry, thats a surface understanding of a skill that you obviously don&#8217;t train (you said so yourself). So what makes Ali better than you at boxing? I ask you. So your saying boxers train the same exact workout as Ali did and yet aren't as good because Ali had what exactly? Oh, you&#8217;re saying Ali was better because he won matches and had video proof. See, you have things out of order there. As my grandfather used to say, you've poured the oil in without taking off the cap. (or something like that)


 
Ali's training schedule is available; I have seen boxers with a copy of it trying to emulate his schedule.  The point is that they may have the same punches, the same equiptment and be training the same style, but they don't have the same training partners, the same coaches, the same genetics, the same intangible factors, the same motivations, the same opponents and so forth as he did.  For ZDom to say, especially of something like grappling, which is much more of an exercise in technical precision, that he trains the "same" techniques the same amount of time, so he MUST be just as good - well I wonder where the proof for that is.  

The bigger issue is the we don't know how good someone is until the get a record.  The best example, and one that I am suprised I didn't think of early, is the Nogueira twins, better known as "Big Nog" and "little Nog."  Despite being identical twins, who train in the same style at the exact same gym at the same time with the same training partners for the same team and fight for the same promotion, their abilities are very different.  One might be forgiven for assuming that with everything the same like that, that they would be completely and utterly equivallent as fighters, but they are not.  We wouldn't know that, of course, if they didn't step into the ring and show us.  



> I'm with MJS on this one, you don&#8217;t seem to really care about providing validity to your statements and I must excuse myself from the thread. You seem to be lacking true understanding of what you&#8217;re arguing for and are making some statements that are just wrong. I mean what your saying is incorrect be it MMA or TMA your referring to. Training methods, time, work ethic, all these things matter. You&#8217;re contradicting your own posts and expecting us to listen to you. You&#8217;re making ridiculously unrealistic statements about something you have absolutely no personal experience with. That&#8217;s why the UFC is such a money maker, you have proven that for sure.


 
I think you need to look at my comments earlier in the thread about training methods.  You seem to have confused my explanation to ZDom with some sort of condemnation of training in general, and I can't figure out where you would get that idea from.  



> Ability is a personal thing. Individual fighters have different abilities. You&#8217;re absolutely wrong if you think training doesn&#8217;t affect the ability of a fighter. There are two sides to assuming equivalency. If you don&#8217;t assume your opponent is at least at if not above your level be it sport or self defense you&#8217;re going to get your *** handed to you or killed.


 
See above.  



> To assume someone is lesser skilled because of a lack of evidence is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically is saying that because there is no evidence that something is right means it&#8217;s wrong. That&#8217;s a logical fallacy and is simply incorrect.


 
I think I covered this already with Exile, but I'll rehash. 

"X hasn't been found, therefore it doesn't exist" - technically a fallacy.  
"X has been searched for, has not been found" - NOT a fallacy.  Aristotle describes what is called the "fruitless search" exception, in which a search has been carried out and comes up empty.  In this case, he says, it is appropriate to declare the thing in question to not exist.  I contend, and I find it difficult to see how it could be disputed, that MMAists and grapplers have gone a great deal out of their way to give people an ample opportunity to demonstrate their skills.  The search for a TMAist that can beat even the no longer even ranked Gracies has gone on long enough that it could be aptly described as "fruitless."



> You&#8217;re seriously saying that two fighters with no video history are going to fight. One who trains 8 hours a day, heavy cardio, lots of bags and lots of fighting. The other doesn&#8217;t train cardio, little bags, and little fighting. You are seriously going to say you honestly give the same chance to both fighters? First, I don&#8217;t believe you if you say yes. Second, your naïve and simply incorrect if you say yes.


 
No.  That is NOT AT ALL what I am saying.  I think you need to look at what I have already said about training methods, because somehow you seem to have forgotten everything I said prior to the post you responded to.  



> Training does have a lot to do with ability. It&#8217;s not the only thing, but you&#8217;re arguing against the one thing MMA has going for it, pure hard work. You began the discussion speaking of MMA&#8217;s resistance training and full power and speed as its benefits and now say those things don&#8217;t matter, only a winning record or video of winning a fight?


 
Thats not what I said.  I said that a training schedule is not a substitute for a fight record.  It is necessary to train in order to be at a level to produce a fight record, but it doesn't prove a whole lot in and of itself.  



> Your pulling the old lineage is proof card only substituting wining record for good lineage.


 
No.  Lineage is discussing someone else's fighting ability.  Record implies your own.  Lineage would be "A fights well.  A trains B.  B trains C.  C trains D.  D trains F.  Therefore, F fights well."  Record is "F fights well, here are the fights to prove it."  No mention in record of the fighting ability of teachers and system founders.  



> Ask any of your top professional MMA fighters they will all tell you that anyone can beat anyone on any given day. For you to think otherwise is simply inexperience.


 
Upsets happen.  That is not the same as saying that everyone is on the same level or that all their training is irrelavent.  



> You said video was no valid in saying that it gives us &#8230;.


 
Read again.  It refers to the eyewitness accounts ZDom is touting.  I haven't seen clear video proof of Elvis or the LochNess monster or Alien.   I have heard an aweful lot of people say that they saw them.  



> Again, you&#8217;re actively training in a TMA while holding a heated debate that TMA&#8217;s are inferior to MMAs and that MMA is the best way to train. I don&#8217;t understand your intentions or motives for this discussion.


 
I didn't think it would be that difficult to understand.  I train karate for my entertainment, I have friends there, its not expensive, it works ok for sparring.  If all I cared about was fighting, I certainly would not be there.  I absolutely would not.  I don't find that any more mind-bending then saying that the car that I drive is not the fastest in the world (I drive a pontiac, not a drag racer).  I would look at anyone who said that a car like mine is really the fastest on earth like that were crazy, and if pushed, probably have a good long argument explaining why my car is slow compared to some other cars.  Its fast enough for my needs, but I would be crazy to call it faster than, say, any NASCAR vehicle.  



> And while you may not have relied on personal experience this is not a discussion that can be made devoid of personal experiences. That&#8217;s what everyone here keeps telling you. Get out there, fight some skilled fighters both CMA and MMA, take video, and lets see the tell the tape makes after that. That&#8217;s the way to find out the truth, not sit back and make assumptions about things you see on TV without having personal experience in them.
> 
> Yes, I realize there are fighting tourneys that allow groin &#8220;blows&#8221;. I have participated in them for years.
> No one is assuming anything here Kevin, I was using your own preferred method of proof&#8230;video. Also, I was using my own personal experiences, something you have left out of this discussion so far and something you are admittedly lacking.
> No one is talking about a fight ending groin shot, Kevin. As you have seen yourself, it happens like that sometimes, but sometimes not. What a solid shot to the groin does is initiate a reaction which can allow for the fight to be ended.


Ok.  


> Yes, once again I know this is allowed in many people training, I allow it in mine.
> We addressed the fact that I have personal experience with it being allowed in competitions.
> You&#8217;re Point?
> Kevin, without offering either a logical argument that solidifies MMA&#8217;s superiority over CMA&#8217;s, or providing personal experience of non-sport superiority of MMA over CMA, or providing proof (yes even video) of non-sport MMA&#8217;s superiority over CMA&#8217;s, you lack credibility and really believability in this discussion. The UFC proves many things, among them is not that MMA is &#8220;better&#8221; than CMA or TMA in non-sport fighting. Remember, sport vs. non-sport. Do you have video proof of non-sport MMA and non-sport CMA?


 
There is no such system as "non-sport" MMA.  MMA is by definition a sports system and if it were trained in a non-sports manner, it wouldn't be MMA anymore.  



> Again, I think I&#8217;m out of this thread, so sad too&#8230;.I&#8217;m the one who started it! Sorry everyone. I thought we could have serious intelligent and logical discussions about specific abilities of MMA vs. CMA&#8230;..I see that&#8217;s not going to happen.
> 
> 7sm


 
I'm sorry to see you go.


----------



## funnytiger

Andrew Green said:


> I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded. But, it takes more convincing.


 
Isn't this a contradicting statement?

By definition being open-minded means, "having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments."  

Open-minded, but you have to prove it to them first?? 



> _From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have._




Also, this statement would be completely true if we were to use this very thread as an example of proof. I haven't seen anyone but the people who represent the MMA side of the argument cast a disparaging light on the TMAists. Not the other way around. 

Just some observations from Switzerland... back to making chocolate and watches!


----------



## Rook

funnytiger said:


> Isn't this a contradicting statement?
> 
> By definition being open-minded means, "having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments."
> 
> Open-minded, but you have to prove it to them first??
> 
> [/i]


 

Receptive to arguments with proof, yes.  Receptive to arguments with no proof?  No.  We'll believe whatever you can prove, and if someone starting winning fights in the UFC with traditional kung fu tomorrow, we'd have to grossly change our perspective.  (Unlike kung fu practitioners, to whom no number of losses will make the slightest difference in their opinion.)


----------



## funnytiger

Rook said:


> Receptive to arguments with proof, yes. Receptive to arguments with no proof? No. We'll believe whatever you can prove, and if someone starting winning fights in the UFC with traditional kung fu tomorrow, we'd have to grossly change our perspective. (Unlike kung fu practitioners, to whom no number of losses will make the slightest difference in their opinion.)


 
I think the fact that you are demanding "proof" is a direct contradiction to the term "open-minded". This much time has been spent by (mostly) the MMA people bashing TMAists and then they attempt to claim to be "open-minded".

LOL You're funny...


----------



## Rook

funnytiger said:


> I think the fact that you are demanding "proof" is a direct contradiction to the term "open-minded". This much time has been spent by (mostly) the MMA people bashing TMAists and then they attempt to claim to be "open-minded".
> 
> LOL You're funny...


 
There is a difference between being open minded and being entirely uncritical.  There are close-minded people - they say talk about the theory and nothing and no one will change their mind.  A common example of this is wing chun people with the efficiency of their attack; no amount of people losing fights will convince them otherwise, they just believe it on a sort of blind faith the ussually is reserved for religion.  I'm willing to change my mind, but not because someone tells me to.  Show me proof to the contrary and I will revise my opinions.  When I make any statement, if you can find proof that it isn;t so, bring it up and I'll change views.  "Trust me" isn't proof though.


----------



## funnytiger

Rook said:


> There is a difference between being open minded and being entirely uncritical.  There are close-minded people - they say talk about the theory and nothing and no one will change their mind.  A common example of this is wing chun people with the efficiency of their attack; no amount of people losing fights will convince them otherwise, they just believe it on a sort of blind faith the ussually is reserved for religion.  I'm willing to change my mind, but not because someone tells me to.  Show me proof to the contrary and I will revise my opinions.  When I make any statement, if you can find proof that it isn;t so, bring it up and I'll change views.  "Trust me" isn't proof though.



Well... "open-minded" and "uncritical" aren't synonyms...

*Synonyms* for open-minded would be words such as tolerant, unbiased and inclusive; *Antonyms* would be biased, narrow-minded, and prejudiced.

Based on your reply and the example you attempted to illustrate, unfortunately, I think the latter rather than the former better describes the MMA argument thus far...

I'm not trying to change your argument which is obvious something you strongly believe in. I'm just trying to make you aware that your reasonings behind your argument are anything but "open-minded".

cheers!


----------



## Jade Tigress

*Mod Note

Attention All Users:
Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator *


----------



## grappling_mandala

I think, generally speaking MMA fighters are in better shape w/ their cardio then TMA fighters. Ultimately the one who trains closest to the way they fight will not meet unexpected results when they come into contact w/ another fighting human.


----------



## centerline

If The Kung fu style such as wing chun is used in a UFC fight it wouldn't be a UFC fight. It would start and end with eye and groin attacks. If you train in BJJ, I do, and stand up name the style. and you add eye strikes that snap out and back, with kicks to the groin the same, your healthy and train daily for the rest of your life. You will beat 80% of the people I train with. Kung fu is more than who can beat who. The trick to all martial arts, are to train them, switch them, change as you age.
Use them only if you have to in combat, and most of all drive through your aponant.


----------



## Rook

centerline said:


> If The Kung fu style such as wing chun is used in a UFC fight it wouldn't be a UFC fight. It would start and end with eye and groin attacks. If you train in BJJ, I do, and stand up name the style. and you add eye strikes that snap out and back, with kicks to the groin the same, your healthy and train daily for the rest of your life. You will beat 80% of the people I train with. Kung fu is more than who can beat who. The trick to all martial arts, are to train them, switch them, change as you age.
> Use them only if you have to in combat, and most of all drive through your aponant.


 
Did you read any of the thread?


----------



## brothershaw

1-Very quickly the mma guys found what worked best for the ufc cage environment and stuck to it until now they have it down to a science PERIOD.  (jujitsu, and limited stand up striking)
2- Many if not most of the mma guys could not hold thier own in a professional boxing match or muay thai match and vice versa (funny you dont see any mma guys going for the heavyweight boxing title ) 
3- If the rules changed to allow knifes the mma guys would be a lot more hesisitant try and grapple and would add sayoc or pekiti or some other fma to thier repotoire (the rules dictate the competition as in any game or sport unless you cheat)
4- any martial artist mma or tma may win, lose or get killed on the street depending on the circumstance (weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc  when there is no referree to stop the action)
5- tma people in general need to train harder , but the tma training isnt geared towards success in ufc, it MAY help on the street where you can do whatever and MIGHT be fighting for your life
6- if ufc were truly fighting not sport when they get the arm bar they wouldnt stop at a tap they would break the arm, however in sports even boxing and football you try not to cause permanent damage where as when you are really FIGHTING for you or your families LIFE you would break the arm, gouge out an eye or use a knife , which are against the rules of any sport


----------



## Rook

brothershaw said:


> 1-Very quickly the mma guys found what worked best for the ufc cage environment and stuck to it until now they have it down to a science PERIOD. (jujitsu, and limited stand up striking)


 
Really, its four arts (boxing, MT, western wrestling, BJJ) or any combination that gives similar techniques and practices.  You will find few people who are pure JJ with little striking; even Big Nog and Royce have standup training.  



> 2- Many if not most of the mma guys could not hold thier own in a professional boxing match or muay thai match and vice versa (funny you dont see any mma guys going for the heavyweight boxing title )


 
Of course not.  They are more specialized activities and few MMAists would do well in pure boxing.  Also, boxing requires heavier gloves and which change which punches are effective.  Boxing is only one of the four arts, and comprises less than 20% of a normal MMAists training schedule.  



> 3- If the rules changed to allow knifes the mma guys would be a lot more hesisitant try and grapple and would add sayoc or pekiti or some other fma to thier repotoire (the rules dictate the competition as in any game or sport unless you cheat)


 
Thats why we speak of MMA as a test for unarmed fighting skill, not for the totality of possible skills.  Also, I suspect that the addition of knives would cause a higher practice of existing BJJ, MMA, and SAMBO knife defenses rather than a different art.  



> 4- any martial artist mma or tma may win, lose or get killed on the street depending on the circumstance (weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc when there is no referree to stop the action)


 
True enough.  



> 5- tma people in general need to train harder , but the tma training isnt geared towards success in ufc, it MAY help on the street where you can do whatever and MIGHT be fighting for your life


 
More "street vs. sport" eh?



> 6- if ufc were truly fighting not sport when they get the arm bar they wouldnt stop at a tap they would break the arm, however in sports even boxing and football you try not to cause permanent damage where as when you are really FIGHTING for you or your families LIFE you would break the arm,


 
People don't break arms because it is ussually unnecessary.  When the opponent does not promtly tap out, then the arm will be broken.  THere are plenty of videos of this happening.  



> gouge out an eye


 
Consider looking to no-rules challenges and early tournaments (legal in the early Vale Tudos and the AFCs, only a fine in the early UFCs, Combat SAMBO total etc).  



> or use a knife , which are against the rules of any sport


 
Outside the immediate scope of evaluating unarmed fighting.  It could be evaluated in another context.


----------



## grydth

If an average guy like me is set upon by a gigantic trained fighter a foot taller, a hundred pounds heavier and a generation younger.....he is likely going to die no matter what he practices. This result doesn't prove anything about kunf fu, tai chi, MMA or anything else.....

Of course, this is why for many years, I have pursued knowledge of 2 uniquely American martial arts - fire arms training and legal knowledge. Even on the off chance Mr MMA survives the 3 exploding rounds to the body, he will think the legal Hell worse than the religious one by the time I'm done.

Have a nice day everyone.


----------



## Gufbal1982

Considering that kung fu means hard work...it can be applied to anything...to cooking, painting, martial arts, whatever.  Anyone that wins in a MMA match displays kung fu.  They won by working hard.  So, what you really are debating is TCMA...


----------



## Andrew Green

Gufbal1982 said:


> Considering that kung fu means hard work...it can be applied to anything...to cooking, painting, martial arts, whatever.  Anyone that wins in a MMA match displays kung fu.  They won by working hard.  So, what you really are debating is TCMA...




Yes, and Arena means "Sand" which really makes those Hockey players even more impressive, not many people can skate on sand.

Word meaning changes over time, and when migrating languages.  "Kung Fu" in the context of this thread, does not mean "Hard Work."


----------



## Odin

grydth said:


> If an average guy like me is set upon by a gigantic trained fighter a foot taller, a hundred pounds heavier and a generation younger.....he is likely going to die no matter what he practices. This result doesn't prove anything about kunf fu, tai chi, MMA or anything else.....
> 
> Of course, this is why for many years, I have pursued knowledge of 2 uniquely American martial arts - fire arms training and legal knowledge. Even on the off chance Mr MMA survives the 3 exploding rounds to the body, he will think the legal Hell worse than the religious one by the time I'm done.
> 
> Have a nice day everyone.


 
What if you were attacked in England where carrying firearms is illegal, or maybe you left you gun in your other pants thats day?, putting all your faith in a 'tool' is not wise.

lol @ firearms being a ''uniquely american martial art'' thats funny in so many levels.


----------



## Gufbal1982

Andrew Green said:


> Yes, and Arena means "Sand" which really makes those Hockey players even more impressive, not many people can skate on sand.
> 
> Word meaning changes over time, and when migrating languages.  "Kung Fu" in the context of this thread, does not mean "Hard Work."



Um, ok...so arena means sand.  Then all sports that are played in an arena mean they are played in the sand.  It's not the same thing.  The use of the term kung fu is being used as a generalization.  It's not a true style.  To be completely honest, I just want to point out two people, since we are using generalizations, GSP and Chuck.  They study TMA...have black belts in traditional arts and they filled in the blanks with wrestling, kickboxing, BJJ and more.  How is what they do not kung fu?


----------



## grydth

Odin said:


> What if you were attacked in England where carrying firearms is illegal, or maybe you left you gun in your other pants thats day?, putting all your faith in a 'tool' is not wise.
> 
> lol @ firearms being a ''uniquely american martial art'' thats funny in so many levels.



Anyone who leaves guns laying around, especially in dirty clothes, deserves the Darwinesque reward awaiting them.

I never said I put all my faith in a tool... that quote is your invention.

Laugh all you want... you people are giving away your right to self defense. We will not. Your guns are already gone... soon your martial arts and weapons will be gone, too. 

Yeah, unique - here we don't have to wait in our own home like sheep to be slaughtered. We have a saying about such "tools" - better to have and not need, than need and not have.


----------



## Andrew Green

Gufbal1982 said:


> Um, ok...so arena means sand.  Then all sports that are played in an arena mean they are played in the sand.  It's not the same thing.  The use of the term kung fu is being used as a generalization.  It's not a true style.  To be completely honest, I just want to point out two people, since we are using generalizations, GSP and Chuck.  They study TMA...have black belts in traditional arts and they filled in the blanks with wrestling, kickboxing, BJJ and more.  How is what they do not kung fu?



I'm pretty sure neither of them still do.


----------



## shesulsa

grydth said:


> If an average guy like me is set upon by a gigantic trained fighter a foot taller, a hundred pounds heavier and a generation younger.....he is likely going to die no matter what he practices. This result doesn't prove anything about kunf fu, tai chi, MMA or anything else.....
> 
> Of course, this is why for many years, I have pursued knowledge of 2 uniquely American martial arts - fire arms training and legal knowledge. Even on the off chance Mr MMA survives the 3 exploding rounds to the body, he will think the legal Hell worse than the religious one by the time I'm done.
> 
> Have a nice day everyone.



I'm amused that you feel that legal knowledge is a "uniquely American art." 

I'm also amused that you feel that the fella you put "three exploding rounds" into is going to find his "legal hell worse than the religious one."  Three exploding rounds sounds excessive and while I like my right to own firearms, we always must be careful how much we extend ourselves, else we might find ourselves right side along the very one we put down.

Good luck with those American Arts.


----------



## Carol

If firearms training is a uniquely American art, then why are the pistols that I like from German-speaking countries?


----------



## brothershaw

Rook said:


> Really, its four arts (boxing, MT, western wrestling, BJJ) or any combination that gives similar techniques and practices. You will find few people who are pure JJ with little striking; even Big Nog and Royce have standup training.
> 
> my point-compared to boxers or muay thai you dont see the same level of skill in striking
> 
> 
> Of course not. They are more specialized activities and few MMAists would do well in pure boxing. Also, boxing requires heavier gloves and which change which punches are effective. Boxing is only one of the four arts, and comprises less than 20% of a normal MMAists training schedule.
> 
> my point- they specialized thier training to match the rules of UFC
> and increase thier chance of winning
> 
> Thats why we speak of MMA as a test for unarmed fighting skill, not for the totality of possible skills. Also, I suspect that the addition of knives would cause a higher practice of existing BJJ, MMA, and SAMBO knife defenses rather than a different art.
> 
> my point- they would gravitate to arts that have expertize in knife work for example, i would go to the fmas before sambo for that just like you might go to bjj or sambo for ground fighting, also UFC is a test for unarmed fighting skill within the confines of its RULES, boxing is also a test of unarmed fighting skills within the context of the RULEs of boxing
> 
> 
> 
> True enough.
> 
> 
> 
> More "street vs. sport" eh?
> my point- was not street vs sport,
> 
> 
> People don't break arms because it is ussually unnecessary. When the opponent does not promtly tap out, then the arm will be broken. THere are plenty of videos of this happening.
> 
> my point- in a "real" life and death fight you probably will break the arm immediately or choke out to death and not give a damn about a "tap" not necessarily just go until the other person quits or the ref ends it
> 
> 
> 
> Consider looking to no-rules challenges and early tournaments (legal in the early Vale Tudos and the AFCs, only a fine in the early UFCs, Combat SAMBO total etc).
> 
> 
> 
> Outside the immediate scope of evaluating unarmed fighting. It could be evaluated in another context.


 
I am not arguing against the usefulness of mma or its value, its just that it is taken out of context, alot of the mma guys are PROFESSIONAL, and semi- pro athletes competing within the defined rules of thier sport, i am sure most of them or any other professional athlete can kick some butt on the street , but it is now a defined sport


----------



## grydth

shesulsa said:


> I'm amused that you feel that legal knowledge is a "uniquely American art."
> 
> I'm also amused that you feel that the fella you put "three exploding rounds" into is going to find his "legal hell worse than the religious one." Three exploding rounds sounds excessive and while I like my right to own firearms, we always must be careful how much we extend ourselves, else we might find ourselves right side along the very one we put down.
> 
> Good luck with those American Arts.



Many people are taught to shoot in 3 round groups when using a semi automatic firearm. There is no guarantee with only one shot in a life or death situation that you are going to strike a vital area, or even hit at all. Where one runs a risk, as a matter of law, is when you drop an assailant with two and put the third into the head or back of a prone and incapacitated individual.

I strongly believe more victims should follow the example of Mr Goldman's father - that being the dad of the guy OJ knifed. He has hounded OJ in the courts for years. Even without that extent, the legal system has become the primary means in America by which people attack and defend and deal with enemies. 

Yes, I do think guns are to Americans as family blades were to Japanese.

I'm glad I can amuse the folks here. Seriously, I've never been one who cared an ounce what others think of me. Not going to start now.


----------



## grydth

Carol Kaur said:


> If firearms training is a uniquely American art, then why are the pistols that I like from German-speaking countries?



While I can't account for your preferences in anything, that was spectacularly poor phrasing on my part. Especially from a guy who enjoyed using a Walther P-38, at regular outings at a German shooting club, while in the Army.

Firearms training should instead have read firearms culture in America. While a number of Germans do love to shoot - many I knew loved American revolvers, go figure - I never have been in another country like the USA. My perception is that firearms are ingrained much more deeply in our history and culture than most anyplace else.... most especially as individuals and families.


----------



## Carol

grydth said:


> My perception is that firearms are ingrained much more deeply in our history and culture than most anyplace else.... most especially as individuals and families.


 
Ahh cool!  That's fair  

I've haven't had enough interaction with German folks to know how deep firearms and marksmanship is engrained in to their culture.  But, it was difficult for me to imagine such fine German engineering on a product they didn't enjoy.  Thanks!


----------



## grydth

I hope you get a chance to visit - great country and great folks. Also, a much older culture so there's an affinity for the old arms + armor across Europe. Terrific museums and fencing has long been popular.


----------



## Tames D

Carol Kaur said:


> Ahh cool! That's fair
> 
> I've haven't had enough interaction with German folks to know how deep firearms and marksmanship is engrained in to their culture. But, it was difficult for me to imagine such fine German engineering on a product they didn't enjoy. Thanks!


Being German, I can tell you that firearms are *very* popular with me and my relatives here in the United States and Germany.


----------



## Hand Sword

I guess that the real answer to this thread! It's not UFC, or any other art that proves KF useless. It's firearms, and the real application of them,  that rendor them all useless!


----------



## shesulsa

Hand Sword said:


> I guess that the real answer to this thread! It's not UFC, or any other art that proves KF useless. It's firearms, and the real application of them,  that rendor them all useless!


Guns are not a panacea (as you knew I'd say from my previous arguments here), nor are their users infallible nor unbeatable.  To think so is dangerous thinking - just as dangerous as thinking that guns are never, ever necessary in civilian hands.

Ah the full circle yet again!


----------



## Hand Sword

just adding some humor to what was being discussed. I agree with those statements, but.....Nah, not enetring that circle 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## shesulsa

Hand Sword said:


> just adding some humor to what was being discussed. I agree with those statements, but.....Nah, not enetring that circle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Heh - I missed my smiley there ...  ... too tired.  G'night!


----------



## Odin

grydth said:


> Anyone who leaves guns laying around, especially in dirty clothes, deserves the Darwinesque reward awaiting them.
> 
> I never said I put all my faith in a tool... that quote is your invention.
> 
> Laugh all you want... you people are giving away your right to self defense. We will not. Your guns are already gone... soon your martial arts and weapons will be gone, too.
> 
> Yeah, unique - here we don't have to wait in our own home like sheep to be slaughtered. We have a saying about such "tools" - better to have and not need, than need and not have.


 
Read your post, you said if a mucles bound MMA approached you you would unload your gun on him?what if you didnt have a gun? wouldnt the base of your attack then be gone?so would that then mean your puttting your best chances on survial on a peice of metal?

We're not giving away our right to self defence we're giving away the right to kill, please tell me why do I need to kill a guy to defend myself??

The more guns you allow people to have in your country the more people will use them for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Jade Tigress

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator *


----------



## Gufbal1982

Andrew Green said:


> I'm pretty sure neither of them still do.


 
Actually, Chuck still does.  He trains with his instructor for all of his fights.  GSP I'm not so sure about, but I know he at least has a black belt and filled in the gaps.


----------



## kidswarrior

7starmantis said:


> It seems the consensus of even this thread is that Kung Fu (or TMA as a whole) is lacking in reality of dealing with grapplers or ground game. Is that really so? Why is that? Did fights never end up on the ground 300 years ago? Is grappling such a new thing? Did the ancient civilizations not learn and even compete in wrestling? Maybe is a modern thing that leaves dealing with the ground game out of TMA teachings. Of course fighting in certain rules, the one who trains those rules will always win, but what about self defense? What about reality fighting using the modern MMA methods or the traditional methods of systems like kung fu?


 
No, I believe my kung fu would do fine on the ground, but I would have to use techniques that would be 'cheating' in any sport situation, as the window for defense would be very short and dangerous (i.e., kung fu is not really designed as a sport--so at a disadvantage when constrained by rules)




> Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the seriousness of kung fu techniques or principles?


 
No, just intensifies the time frame--pinch, bite, break bones/joints through small circle chin na, gouge, etc.--NOW. Talk about not playing around with a fight.:jediduel: 




> I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didnt mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?
> 7sm


 
Nothing is missing, but there is certainly room to cross train in other arts (I tell my students I don't mind this, but please wait a couple of years so as to get well grounded in my system). I believe I myself have benefitted from cross training, but all have been street (actual self-defense) arts, not sport or point fighting.


----------



## evenflow1121

I think there is a general misconception with respect to wu shu or any other traditional arts being ineffective when compared to UFC.  UFC fights are great, but they are done in a controlled environment. Yes they are great, they are brutal, and perhaps violent even, but it is not a street fight.  They are great fights, with excellent and very talented fighters, but once again not a street fight.  I dont think UFC proves anything to that sort, UFC is great to watch but I would not go as far as saying that it proves KF useless.


----------



## Andrew Green

kidswarrior said:


> No, just intensifies the time frame--pinch, bite, break bones/joints through small circle chin na, gouge, etc.--NOW. Talk about not playing around with a fight.:jediduel:



I have two problems with this line of thinking.

1)  Most people that express it spend absolutely no time training these things on the ground, and esspetially not against someone that sort of knows what they are doing.

2)  As soon as you do it, you open the door for the other guy too.  If he is better at controlling position on the ground you will regret it.  Us folks that like to grapple understand that those attacks are there, and we tend to protect ourselves against them.


----------



## 14 Kempo

evenflow1121 said:


> I think there is a general misconception with respect to wu shu or any other traditional arts being ineffective when compared to UFC. UFC fights are great, but they are done in a controlled environment. Yes they are great, they are brutal, and perhaps violent even, but it is not a street fight. They are great fights, with excellent and very talented fighters, but once again not a street fight. I dont think UFC proves anything to that sort, UFC is great to watch but I would not go as far as saying that it proves KF useless.


 
I agree here, UFC is a controlled environment with professional athletes at the helm ... if we follow the lines that UFC proves KF useless, do we not then have to say that UFC, Matt Hughes in particular, proved pure Gracie Jujitsu useless? Royce Gracie surely looked useless in thier fight, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the art is useless. There is nothing that says having KF training harms a person in the ring, in fact I would venture to say it sure as heck couldn't hurt. UFC, afterall, is a mixed martial art and I believe it has been proven that you need to be well rounded to survive. More and more we see that pure arts won't hold up when up against a fighter cross trained in many arts.


----------



## zDom

14 Kempo said:


> More and more we see that pure arts won't hold up when up against a fighter cross trained in many arts.



I think you are going too far in this conclusion.

While this may be true at the very top of the MMA sport world, it doesn't necessarily prove true at other levels below the top competitive level.

There are many other factors involved other than the selection of a training curriculum. For example, there are several guys here in my town who have gone the MMA route &#8212; some weightlifting, some grappling, some kicking, some boxing &#8212; for at least as long as I have trained traditional martial arts  (some even longer) who will tell you they don't want to get in a ring with me.

Furthermore, all those interested in reaching the top in the MMA sport world are taking the path that has been demonstrated to work. While they may have started purely in one system, they (rightfully) conclude that to reach the top levels, they need some crosstraining.

But it is possible that someone training purely in one of the traditional mixed martial art systems that cover the full range of fighting ranges &#8212; say, Jeet Kune Do or hapkido, for example &#8212; could conceivably do just as well as those who are taking the typical modern MMA path.

Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that someone with the ability to do so hasn't given it a shot yet.

For thousands and thousands of years it was proven that man can't fly. Lots of people tried, failed, even died trying. 

Then, about 100 years ago, someone proved that we CAN.

Up until that point, most people figured they should stick with the proven, the tried and true, methods of travel: motorcars, horses, ships...


----------



## 14 Kempo

Thank you, you made my point ... you say it clearly within your remarks ...



zDom said:


> But it is possible that someone training purely in one of the *traditional mixed martial art systems* that cover the full range of fighting ranges  say, Jeet Kune Do or hapkido, for example  could conceivably do just as well as those who are taking the typical modern MMA path.


 
... my comments were ...



14 Kempo said:


> More and more we see that *pure arts* won't hold up when up against a fighter cross trained in many arts.


 
... examples of pure martial arts, to me, would be: Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan, Judo, Karate, Kung Fu, Jujitsu, etc. Arts that stress a single way of fighting, whether it be stand up, take down or grappling.


----------



## dmax999

14 Kempo said:


> ... examples of pure martial arts, to me, would be: Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan, Judo, Karate...


 
Ugg, I thought this was a discussion about Kung Fu and MMA? I wouldn't dare to use those styles vs MMA as any kind of example of Kung Fu against MMA. Kung Fu encompasses much much more then any one of those styles. While I'm sure the ones I've included in the quote are quite good at what they are intended for, they have nothing on the range of applications almost any kung fu style has.


----------



## Rook

kidswarrior said:


> No, I believe my kung fu would do fine on the ground, but I would have to use techniques that would be 'cheating' in any sport situation, as the window for defense would be very short and dangerous (i.e., kung fu is not really designed as a sport--so at a disadvantage when constrained by rules)
> 
> No, just intensifies the time frame--pinch, bite, break bones/joints through small circle chin na, gouge, etc.--NOW. Talk about not playing around with a fight


 
1.  Can you give even one example when a competent sports grappler or MMAist was defeated by a TMAist?  
2.  Can you give even one example of when a competent sports grappler or MMAist was stopped or defeated through any of the tactics you have described?  
3.  Have you ever actually tried to use these techniques on anyone with real training in sports grappling or MMA?  Video?  
4.  Did you actually read any of the thread?


----------



## Rook

14 Kempo said:


> I agree here, UFC is a controlled environment with professional athletes at the helm ... if we follow the lines that UFC proves KF useless, do we not then have to say that UFC, Matt Hughes in particular, proved pure Gracie Jujitsu useless? Royce Gracie surely looked useless in thier fight, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the art is useless. There is nothing that says having KF training harms a person in the ring, in fact I would venture to say it sure as heck couldn't hurt. UFC, afterall, is a mixed martial art and I believe it has been proven that you need to be well rounded to survive. More and more we see that pure arts won't hold up when up against a fighter cross trained in many arts.


 
I suspect that pure GJJ was dismissed as the optimum form of fighting a long time before Hughes beat Royce.  In point of fact, Hughes and Royce are both technically more MMAists than practioners of one pure art - both trained in all of the big four arts prior to the match, and Hughes proved to be better in all parts of the game than Royce was.


----------



## matt.m

was helio not defeated by kimura?  Also, the Gracies are not good against Judo players as well.  From my understanding they do a good job of losing to them.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Just a note:

My late Tai Chi instructor, Mr. Tri of Sacramento, studied and taught Praying Mantis for 50 years and I think he, in both manner (disposition) and abilities, demonstrated the "usefullness" of Kung Fu. I do know that in a demonstration during class (when I was early twenties and could do all manner of TKD kicks quickly and crisply), he deflected my kicks and put me off of balance as easily as a BJJ expert of today would have.


----------



## Andrew Green

Kimura also had a huge weight (50lbs?) advantage over Helio, so I'm not sure that is the best example to make that point.

The Gracie's have done very well against Judo fighters, there are a few videos of them visiting Judo schools around, even playing by Judo rules.  

But, Judo has been a international sport for a lot longer, it is an olympic event, and there are a lot more people doing it, and with a lot higher competition.

Royce vs Yoshida is a interesting match up though.  Yoshida is a Olympic Gold medalist, so he knows what he is doing.  The first match which I beli8eve was grappling only ended in a controversal win for Yoshida, although he very clearly was dominating, there is doubt as to whether Royce was actually "out"

2nd fight was MMA, and was a draw as it was decided that if no one won, then no one won.  No judges decission.  While a draw, Royce definately dominated the fight.

Rules make the fights, I have no doubt that under Judo rules, Judo has an advantage, under BJJ rules, BJJ has an advantage, under MMA a MMA fighter has an advantage.  

Truth is no BJJ fighter is going to get to the top of the Judo latter,  and no Judo fighter is going to get to the top of the BJJ ladder.  In MMA both have shown effectiveness, but there are very few Judo fighters that are successful in MMA.


----------



## kidswarrior

Rook said:


> 1. Can you give even one example when a competent sports grappler or MMAist was defeated by a TMAist?


 
'Give an example', as in a documented fight, with spectators and a referee? MMA/sports are intended to be watched, and therefore by nature automatically documented. Self defense situations often go unreported--especially if the winner wishes to avoid legal troubles.



> 2. Can you give even one example of when a competent sports grappler or MMAist was stopped or defeated through any of the tactics you have described?


 
What I've described are for emergencies, not to be entertainment or a competitive spectacle, so there's often (in my experience) no reliable crowd to observe/document the event. If there is a crowd, it's usually the other guy's friends.



> 3. Have you ever actually tried to use these techniques on anyone with real training in sports grappling or MMA? Video?


 
Anyone who uses a technique which could be considered as falling under the category of maiming by law enforcement (biting, gouging to soft tissue, deliberately hyperextending joints, and even groin strikes now in California), is risking almost certain incarceration and civil litigation. Who would admit such a thing, much less document it? 



> 4. Did you actually read any of the thread?


 
Thread is MMA vs. Kung Fu for reality of self defense, correct? How does my post veer from that? 

I am not saying grappling/MMA is not effective for fighting, either sport or street. But I am taking exception to putting the dialogue into an either/or comparison with kung fu, which until very recently (competition wu shu) was for self defense and had no sport component.

Best to you in your chosen martial training.


----------



## kidswarrior

MJS said:


> I do not train in, or know much about CMAs, so I'll refrain from comment on whats incorporated into their material. I can comment though on the arts that I train in. As I've said every time this debate comes up, I personally feel that there is something that can be gained from both the MMA and TMA style of fighting. I've 'borrowed' a number of things from the MMA school of thought, and added it into my own workouts.
> 
> I'd like to post this, for discussion.
> 
> Quote:
> 1. Butting with the head.
> 2. Eye gouging of any kind.
> 3. Biting.
> 4. Hair pulling.
> 5. Fish hooking.
> 6. Groin attacks of any kind.
> 7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
> 8. Small joint manipulation.
> 9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
> 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
> 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
> 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
> 13. Grabbing the clavicle.
> 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
> 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
> 16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
> 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
> 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
> 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
> 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
> 21. Spitting at an opponent.
> 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
> 23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
> 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
> 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
> 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
> 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
> 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
> 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
> 30. Interference by the corner.
> 31. Throwing in the towel during competition.
> 
> These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage. Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win." However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with. And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself. The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment. If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring? I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge. But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge. Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.
> 
> Mike


 
Yes, exactly: the list of fouls in the rulebook are some of the best tools in the 'emergency kit' available on the street.

Maybe I've been seeing this all wrong and should heed my own advice: it's not either one, or the other. It's taking my base art and adding from the other to fill perceived gaps for the 21st century streets. And, it's training in these anti-rule tactics so I won't have to think about it when the time comes.

Thanks, Mike, for adding fresh perspective.


----------



## kidswarrior

brothershaw said:


> 1-Very quickly the mma guys found what worked best for the ufc cage environment and stuck to it until now they have it down to a science PERIOD. (jujitsu, and limited stand up striking)
> 2- Many if not most of the mma guys could not hold thier own in a professional boxing match or muay thai match and vice versa (funny you dont see any mma guys going for the heavyweight boxing title )
> 3- If the rules changed to allow knifes the mma guys would be a lot more hesisitant try and grapple and would add sayoc or pekiti or some other fma to thier repotoire (the rules dictate the competition as in any game or sport unless you cheat)
> 4- any martial artist mma or tma may win, lose or get killed on the street depending on the circumstance (weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc when there is no referree to stop the action)
> 5- tma people in general need to train harder , but the tma training isnt geared towards success in ufc, it MAY help on the street where you can do whatever and MIGHT be fighting for your life
> 6- if ufc were truly fighting not sport when they get the arm bar they wouldnt stop at a tap they would break the arm, however in sports even boxing and football you try not to cause permanent damage where as when you are really FIGHTING for you or your families LIFE you would break the arm, gouge out an eye or use a knife , which are against the rules of any sport


 
Nice summary or the differences between any sport and street survival. On the street, there are no kudos for sportsmanship.


----------



## 14 Kempo

I guess someone should add: UFC proves KF useless "in a sanctioned cage fight" to the title of this thread ... LOL


----------



## Rook

matt.m said:


> was helio not defeated by kimura? Also, the Gracies are not good against Judo players as well. From my understanding they do a good job of losing to them.


 
With the modern grappling scene the way it is, every major sports grappling art has plenty of losses to every other major sports grappling art.  If you go to the forums where people discuss such things, you could probably get a 100 page list of catch fighters beating shootfighters or Judoists beating BJJ or BJJ beating Judo.  

Kimura was the most sucessful Judo competitor in the history of the sport and had a nearly 50 lb weight advantage over Helio.  Kimura was a natural athlete while Helio had been taken out of school and barred from exercise because of dizy spells.  Kimura trained with the creme de la creme of the Judo world while Helio trained with his brother.  The list could easily go on.  Its hardly a match that woiuld prove the superiority of Judo.


----------



## DrJBN

Ok, I get a little long here, but its my first post.

A neural network is a mathematical model designed to represent the function of some area of the brain or learning mechanism.  Most, but not all, use a variant of error correction where something is input to the model, it makes a prediction, that prediction is compared to reality, and the mathematics in the model are updated to reduce the error in the prediction.  (stay with me, this gets betterI think).

Many of these models follow a gradient descent on error.  That is, they start off making big mistakes, the math in the model is updated, and those mistakes get smaller and smaller until there is no more error.  Now, the algorithm used is important.  Think about that error as a big hill with the top being the most error and the bottom the least.  The model starts at the top of the hill and wants to get to the bottom.  How it progresses is determined by the particular algorithm.  Suppose, to anthropomorphize further,  the algorithm says, Step north, A: look around, B: find downward slope, C: step that directiongoto A:  That will get to the bottom of the hill, most of the time.  

The problem is that the steepest path observable at the top of the hill doesnt always lead to the bottom.  It might just go to a hole or valley in the side.  The model will walk into that hole because the algorithm tells it to look for a downward slope and all around it is uphill. It is stuck.  It cant move.  It has found a local minimum and believes it to be the global minimum.  Problems with local minima are issues in neural computationand in martial arts.

View traditional martial arts and MMA/UFC/PRIDE (insert favorite group here) from that viewpoint.  Becoming the most effective fighter possible is the bottom of the hill.  Some use the traditional route as their algorithm, others take the MMA route.  The MMA route is a much steeper route, your skill in defense increases much faster than in a traditional art where the path is much less steep.  This rapid progress gives the illusion of the overall superiority.   Indeed, all things being equal in terms of effort from the practitioner, the steeper route will get you down the hill faster.  

But, I do not believe it leads to the bottom of the hill.  The traditional route may never get one as far down the hill as the mma route either because the slope could be too lean and there isnt enough time.  What I think is needed for optimum progress is crossover.  In my situation, I was traditional for years, then made lots of progress when I moved into mma settings, but later that progress slowed.  I then found could progress again as I went back into my traditional training with an eye toward practicality garnered from experience.  Consider the background of the founders of our modern traditional arts and they had probably proceeded further down the hill than most of us when they started their art.  In our times, we dont have that background and we start further up the hill, making slow progress unless we try something more brutal (for lack of a better term) for a bit.

I strongly suspect that MMA/UFC/PRIDE type fighting will begin to start to show technique and form more similar to traditional martial arts.  It is simply necessary for progress.  Consider that championships turn over every almost every 2 fights.  That indicates a group of people who are all piled in the hole.. gone about as far as a particular path can take them and of equal ability, separated mostly by the luck of the night.

Now look at fighters, current ones, who can hang on to their titles like Liddell for instance.  Am I the only one who noticed that he was fighting Ortiz in their last bout out of what was essentially a sloppy horse stance?   Hughes lost to Georges St. Pierre and Georges was almost (from a matter of perspective) fighting and old-style point game with power. I think MMA will evolve in the next 5 to 10 years and we will begin to see traditional martial arts being used as they were intended, not as they are often taught or practiced.

Just an opinion,
DrJBN


----------



## zDom

Great post, DrJBN.

Definately some food for thought that I will mull over  but I think I agree, very much. You have stated well some of the opions that have been rolling around in my head for some time.

And welcome to MT  

(Heckuva first post )


----------



## kidswarrior

Welcome, DrJBN! Certainly a closely reasoned first post.


----------



## evenflow1121

That is a very good post indeed, one of the best in this thread if not the best and very well argued, though I do agree that MMA will continue to evolve, I dont really see forms in the evolution of MMA.  In fact, to an extent forms or kata would go contrary to a lot of MMA practitioners.


----------



## DrJBN

evenflow1121 said:


> That is a very good post indeed, one of the best in this thread if not the best and very well argued, though I do agree that MMA will continue to evolve, I dont really see forms in the evolution of MMA. In fact, to an extent forms or kata would go contrary to a lot of MMA practitioners.


 

Thanks for the fine words on my post.  By "forms" I simple meant "shape", e.g., similarity in posture etc.. not kata.

Byron
DrJBN


----------



## James Kovacich

matt.m said:


> was helio not defeated by kimura? Also, the Gracies are not good against Judo players as well. From my understanding they do a good job of losing to them.


Not so true. When Gracie Ju Jitsu was new to the public, the Judo players fell "nearly" as fast as Karate players. Judoists evolved as did the MMA'ers did that they "now" know how to combat BJJ. 

Hers a twist. Why not train MMA first for a solid base and then figure which direction to pursue as a specialty?


----------



## Flying Crane

DrJBN said:


> Ok, I get a little long here, but its my first post...
> 
> Just an opinion,
> DrJBN


 
As others stated, excellent post.


----------



## zDom

akja said:


> Not so true. When Gracie Ju Jitsu was new to the public, the Judo players fell "nearly" as fast as Karate players. Judoists evolved as did the MMA'ers did that they "now" know how to combat BJJ.



I would say, know how to combat BJJ *again* as in, they once knew but had lately forgotten as they became focused on the sport and scoring "ippons."

I believe combat styles are cyclical, as someone opined on MT somewhere along the line.


----------



## Danny2712

well UFC guys go in no holds barred try to knock-out or knock down as quickly as possible because, lets face it, theyre afraid. we all are if we go into a fight whether controlling the fear or not. But MA guys/girls go in with a technique theyve learned and dont compensate for the brawling style used in UFC fights...theres no time for technique unless you train specially. Its not like you do your telegraphic training watching many UFC fights but maybe its a good idea seeing as thats how most streetfighters would strike.

I thought wing chun would do well as you use the other persons strength against them


----------



## Andrew Green

I think you are greatly underestimating the skill involved in MMA fights, it is not (for all but a few lower end fighters) a brawling style.  It is very highly technical, but like everything, if you don't understand it, you won't see it.


----------



## kung fu fighter

dmax999 said:


> Traditional CMA were originally designed to teach soldiers to use spears.  Not much use for ground fighting in those conditions.  I believe TMAs have been modified since those times to focus on empty hand techniques since then, but its roots are definitaly based on the use of weapons first.



I agree with this statement, it would not be practical to grapple with one enemy on the ground on the battle field when the others were all armed waiting to chop your head off or stab you. this would expaln why TCMA did not focus on ground grappling, I believed it was assumed if you were on the ground you were already dead.



7starmantis said:


> I completely disagree that a person needs to go study bjj or wrestling to be able to effectively defend against a grappler, they need to study their style of fighting and methods of training to see if its realistic enough to handle this type of fighting.



I also agreed with this statement, I am a wing chun stylist and have sparred with some Pro MMA fighters at Randy couture's gym. I was able to completely control and dominate them in the stand up component because my style was very alien to them, and they were not able to take me down due to my wing chun structure. However if we chosed to start from the ground, the tables were turned and they dominated me.

"What you have to stop focusing so much on is what the other guy is going to do. If you stick to your technique and follow WC/WT concepts and principles it won't matter much how your opponent attacks, for you intercept their intention and negate their intended technique before they get to finish their movement.
Thus, it doesn't matter if they kick, punch, shoot in to grapple whatever, you focus on flowing with their force and deflecting it from you using it against them. Hence, a TKD attacker doesn't finish the kick, a boxer doesn't finish his/her boxing combo, a grappler isn't allowed to complete a take down or a arm bar. Because you have already executed WC technique to counter their attack from the moment they move.
If your constantly worried about what the other guy is going to do to you you give them the chance to do it by anticipating the outcome, and if you don't stay open minded ready to adapt you play their game and lose.
I've sparred TKD, MMA, and BJJ trained martial artists, and the trick is to stay true to what you train everyday and what you know, have confidence in it whatever art you study, and have faith in your ability to execute otherwise you will lose. 
WC's biggest advantage is "getting there first", the quickest way between two points, thus hit them first and follow up quickly and confidently. No time to worry about what the opponent wants to do to you. Only enough time to react. 
I've stopped fast and skilled kickers before they can stretch their leg out enough to kick me with WC, I've stopped boxers by intercepting their first jab and crowding their space so they can't follow up with a flurry of combo punching, I've initaiated attack against those that only faint a strike trying to find a "hole" in my guard, and I've stopped grapplers and BJJ/MMA fighters from finishing a takedown simply by strictly following WC concept and reaction."

Not sure who said the above quote, But they are spot on. Often times I don't even know what style my opponent is doing using because he never got a chance to show it.  Our strategy is to shut them down and take control. In wing chun if you see you opponent's style it's already too late.

Here is a hung Ga kung fu stylist that won in the UFC using a tiger claw technique from his TCMA style


----------



## kung fu fighter

Thai boxing proves boxing useless


----------



## drop bear

kung fu fighter said:


> I agree with this statement, it would not be practical to grapple with one enemy on the ground on the battle field when the others were all armed waiting to chop your head off or stab you. this would expaln why TCMA did not focus on ground grappling, I believed it was assumed if you were on the ground you were already dead.
> 
> 
> 
> I also agreed with this statement, I am a wing chun stylist and have sparred with some Pro MMA fighters at Randy couture's gym. I was able to completely control and dominate them in the stand up component because my style was very alien to them, and they were not able to take me down due to my wing chun structure. However if we chosed to start from the ground, the tables were turned and they dominated me.
> 
> "What you have to stop focusing so much on is what the other guy is going to do. If you stick to your technique and follow WC/WT concepts and principles it won't matter much how your opponent attacks, for you intercept their intention and negate their intended technique before they get to finish their movement.
> Thus, it doesn't matter if they kick, punch, shoot in to grapple whatever, you focus on flowing with their force and deflecting it from you using it against them. Hence, a TKD attacker doesn't finish the kick, a boxer doesn't finish his/her boxing combo, a grappler isn't allowed to complete a take down or a arm bar. Because you have already executed WC technique to counter their attack from the moment they move.
> If your constantly worried about what the other guy is going to do to you you give them the chance to do it by anticipating the outcome, and if you don't stay open minded ready to adapt you play their game and lose.
> I've sparred TKD, MMA, and BJJ trained martial artists, and the trick is to stay true to what you train everyday and what you know, have confidence in it whatever art you study, and have faith in your ability to execute otherwise you will lose.
> WC's biggest advantage is "getting there first", the quickest way between two points, thus hit them first and follow up quickly and confidently. No time to worry about what the opponent wants to do to you. Only enough time to react.
> I've stopped fast and skilled kickers before they can stretch their leg out enough to kick me with WC, I've stopped boxers by intercepting their first jab and crowding their space so they can't follow up with a flurry of combo punching, I've initaiated attack against those that only faint a strike trying to find a "hole" in my guard, and I've stopped grapplers and BJJ/MMA fighters from finishing a takedown simply by strictly following WC concept and reaction."
> 
> Not sure who said the above quote, But they are spot on. Often times I don't even know what style my opponent is doing using because he never got a chance to show it.  Our strategy is to shut them down and take control. In wing chun if you see you opponent's style it's already too late.
> 
> Here is a hung Ga kung fu stylist that won in the UFC using a tiger claw technique from his TCMA style



who were the pro fighters you sparred?


----------



## kung fu fighter

drop bear said:


> who were the pro fighters you sparred?


Eon Shirley, and some others whom I can't remember their names at the moment. One of them was an
Albanian Olympic wrestler named Luan whom out wrestled Randy couture himself, Randy was trying to get him to fight in the UFC, but he was already in his late 30's so not sure how that went.


----------



## Hanzou

8 years after the OP, and still no Kung Fu in MMA.

It's very interesting, considering the scope and depth of the Chinese family of martial arts. Some of which are highly external systems that aren't that different from Karate and TKD, both of which have made inroads into the MMA world.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> 8 years after the OP, and still no Kung Fu in MMA.
> 
> It's very interesting, considering the scope and depth of the Chinese family of martial arts. Some of which are highly external systems that aren't that different from Karate and TKD, both of which have made inroads into the MMA world.


How about:
Bao Li Gao, Kung fu MMA and Sanshou. 
Liu Hailong, Kung fu and Sanshou.
Marvin Perry, Kung fu, Wushu 
Pat Barry, Wushu
Zhang Tiequan,  Kung fu, Sanshou
all have done well in mma.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:


> How about:
> Bao Li Gao, Kung fu MMA and Sanshou.
> Liu Hailong, Kung fu and Sanshou.
> Marvin Perry, Kung fu, Wushu
> Pat Barry, Wushu
> Zhang Tiequan,  Kung fu, Sanshou
> all have done well in mma.


Don't forget Cung Le.


----------



## Danny T

Tony Dismukes said:


> Don't forget Cung Le.


Cung Le trained in Karate and TKD prior to Sansho so I didn't use him as a kung fu practitioner.


----------



## Hanzou

I just looked up all of their MMA profiles, and all of them trained in Chinese kickboxing with some also training in Muay Thai, and Bjj.  Where's arts like Choy li Fut, Wing Chun, Praying Mantis, Crane Style, Hung Gar, Tai chi, Xingyiquan, etc?

We don't consider kickboxing to be synonymous with Karate.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I just looked up all of their MMA profiles, and all of them trained in Chinese kickboxing with some also training in Muay Thai, and Bjj.  Where's arts like Choy li Fut, Wing Chun, Praying Mantis, Crane Style, Hung Gar, Tai chi, Xingyiquan, etc?
> 
> We don't consider kickboxing to be synonymous with Karate.


Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but Chinese kickboxing could mean anything.  It's a generic term.  

And every MMAist trains in multiple arts in order to be competitive in the cage. Why would Kung fu be different?   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but Chinese kickboxing could mean anything.  It's a generic term.
> 
> And every MMAist trains in multiple arts in order to be competitive in the cage. Why would Kung fu be different?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Yes, but Sanshou and Sanda are very specific, very modern arts. They're definitely not traditional Chinese MA, which is what this thread is referring to.

I definitely do agree that every MMAist trains in multiple arts, but I have yet to see someone breaking out a crane stance, a Bagua palm strike, or a one-inch pinch in the Octagon.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> 8 years after the OP, and still no Kung Fu in MMA.
> 
> It's very interesting, considering the scope and depth of the Chinese family of martial arts. Some of which are highly external systems that aren't that different from Karate and TKD, both of which have made inroads into the MMA world.


Guess we found his next victim


----------



## clfsean

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but Sanshou and Sanda are very specific, very modern arts. They're definitely not traditional Chinese MA, which is what this thread is referring to.



No it's not a modern art. It's a modern take on a specific aspect of TCMA. It's the fighting side of modern Wushu. 

You can't have a TCMA without sanda. If it's a "real" TCMA then they're fighting & lots of it. If it's a CMA that professes sanda but is really "fa kuen sow toi" then no, there's not any fighting.



Hanzou said:


> I definitely do agree that every MMAist trains in multiple arts, but I have yet to see someone breaking out a crane stance, a Bagua palm strike, or a one-inch pinch in the Octagon.



And you won't either, but you do anyway. Stances are transitory & are never fixed. But when you kick or lift a leg to block/avoid a low kick or sweep... Crane stance ala Daniel-san for all it's worth. You won't see any palms in sanda because they're not allowed by competitive ruleset. But if somebody plays Bagua & gets in the ring you'll see plenty of punches... which are spear fingers or palms, just with the knuckle of the glove.


----------



## Hanzou

clfsean said:


> No it's not a modern art. It's a modern take on a specific aspect of TCMA. It's the fighting side of modern Wushu.



Wouldn't that make it a modern art?



> You can't have a TCMA without sanda. If it's a "real" TCMA then they're fighting & lots of it. If it's a CMA that professes sanda but is really "fa kuen sow toi" then no, there's not any fighting.
> 
> And you won't either, but you do anyway. Stances are transitory & are never fixed. But when you kick or lift a leg to block/avoid a low kick or sweep... Crane stance ala Daniel-san for all it's worth. You won't see any palms in sanda because they're not allowed by competitive ruleset. But if somebody plays Bagua & gets in the ring you'll see plenty of punches... which are spear fingers or palms, just with the knuckle of the glove.



And for all intents and purposes its modern kickboxing with a Chinese twist. When people say Kung Fu in MMA they're looking for the old school stuff, like Drunken or Tiger Style.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that make it a modern art?
> 
> 
> 
> And for all intents and purposes its modern kickboxing with a Chinese twist. When people say Kung Fu in MMA they're looking for the old school stuff, like Drunken or Tiger Style.


I think you're picking nits.   Bjj is modern judo, which was at that time modern jujutsu.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## tshadowchaser

can't use tiger or a lot of it clawing is not allowed. Tiger styles do use punching and kicking so you may be seeing it and not know it
AS for drunken well truly do not believe most traditional styles actually have much drunken  movements it is more of a MOVIE style.  Although I do know some drunken forms are in hung gar and maybe a few in other styles but it is still not an actual style in and of itself


----------



## clfsean

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that make it a modern art?



No. Because it's not an art unto itself. It's an aspect of TCMA, just like the term "Modern Wushu" is used to notate the form performance only & athletic expression of TCMA.



Hanzou said:


> And for all intents and purposes its modern kickboxing with a Chinese twist. When people say Kung Fu in MMA they're looking for the old school stuff, like Drunken or Tiger Style.



You're not going to find a Shaw Brothers resemblance in any serious TCMA school. You should find two people squaring off & the clashing with one person ending up on the ground after a quick exchange. No poses, no animal noises, no swearing vengeance for the dishonor brought to their teacher or temple... just a quick exchange & then somebody is down. Reset & repeat. The great showy "kung fu" moves are distilled down to essence & applied. Mechanics, intention, set up for take downs, methodologies, etc... that's what make it "kung fu", not the trappings.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I think you're picking nits.   Bjj is modern judo, which was at that time modern jujutsu.



Not at all. If someone is saying that there's traditional Kung Fu in MMA, and the only thing they're displaying is modern Chinese Kickboxing, I simply can't agree with that argument.


----------



## Mephisto

Haven't read the last 15 pages but jumping in late, my thoughts relating to the op are: Kung fu had had success in K1 and San shou to my understanding but I don't really follow sports closely so feel free to chime in. It seems that currently MMA draws from established martial sports. Sports such as judo, Muay thai, boxing, bjj, wrestling all have many generations of refinement. The benefit of sportive martial arts is that they can be safely trained to a high level of performance. Arts that are too dangerous to apply to a fully resisting opponent actually do themselves a disservice because valuable refinement is lacking. Both "deadly" street and sport techniques are beneficial in my opinion but a solid base built in resistance training and sport makes a solid fighter. 

One solution is to create a sport event that caters to your particular art. BJJ found a niche within vale tudo and exploited a lack of penalties for prolonging ground grappling. Judo has taken precautions to keep judo comps about judo and restrict BJJ players that might enter judo comps. Boxing favors its skillset as well. If a rule set were created to favor a school in Kung fu given generations of refinement we might find a striking or grappling system strong enough to withstand the rigors of the ring. in not saying there aren't arts ready for the ring now but popularity within a sports community would help others realize an arts practicality. However we have the example of Olympic tkd which is too specialized to be readily applicapable to MMA or a sport where hand strikes and grappling are allowed. We have seen some tkd in MMA but these guys also seem to have a strong Muay thai game as well and add tkd kicks as an unexpected novelty.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> I definitely do agree that every MMAist trains in multiple arts, but I have yet to see someone breaking out a crane stance, a Bagua palm strike, or a one-inch pinch in the Octagon.


And one won't see it in fight either unless one knows and understands what one is looking for.
Postures are for form not fighting. Postures whether it be stance, body, arms, or hands are but moments in time. A snap shot if you will not for freezing in for all to admire. I use the inch punch; Often. I doubt you know what it is or how it is applied other than what you have seen in a demonstration showing the force displayed which is not how it is used. Same with the crane stance. Have use it many times sparring but again when one doesn't know what one is looking for one will never see it hidden in plain view.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Not at all. If someone is saying that there's traditional Kung Fu in MMA, and the only thing they're displaying is modern Chinese Kickboxing, I simply can't agree with that argument.


how much do you know about Chinese kickboxing?   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I think you're picking nits.   Bjj is modern judo, which was at that time modern jujutsu.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



BJJ=*B*asically *J*ust *J*udo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





(Sorry, Steve, I just can't help myself, sometimes! Merry Christmas!)


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> how much do you know about Chinese kickboxing?



That this;






Looks far different than this;


----------



## clfsean

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA ... you picked Jake Mace?? For Real???? OK... sorry for the laughter, but he wouldn't know TCMA if it slapped him & introduced itself.

The first video was a lesson on kick catches & sweeps. So Toi, Pek Toi along with the hands that set the up, off balance & counter/assist on the take down. 

Here's basic sanda from my teacher's teacher. Don't know if it will matter or not since honestly I feel you're trying so hard to pigeon hole what you perceive it to be as opposed to what it actually is, but anyway ... the vids below are what he learned from his teacher Chan Tai San. Among other things, Chan Tai San was a WWII Peasant's Division member & then later, boxing/hand to hand combat teacher in the PLA & then sanda coach for the Guangdong provincial wushu team.


----------



## Hanzou

clfsean said:


> Don't know if it will matter or not since honestly I feel you're trying so hard to pigeon hole what you perceive it to be as opposed to what it actually is



Not really. I'm pointing out that when I think of Kung Fu, I'm thinking of this;














Not kickboxing.

Also palm strikes may be illegal in Sanshou, but they're perfectly legal in MMA.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Not really. I'm pointing out that when I think of Kung Fu, I'm thinking of this;


Thank you. This is very telling of you have an Extremely Limited view of Kung Fu.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Not really. I'm pointing out that when I think of Kung Fu, I'm thinking of this;
> 
> [
> Not kickboxing.
> 
> Also palm strikes may be illegal in Sanshou, but they're perfectly legal in MMA.



So, what you're saying-_again_-is that if it doesn't look like what you think it should look like, then it must be something else. Like if karate has grappling, or if judo has strikes, they must have come from somewhere else.....I don't know why we even bother......all this, for a thread that was dead for eight years....(and the old "rolleyes" smiley was a lot more effective than this guy)


----------



## clfsean

Hanzou said:


> Not really. I'm pointing out that when I think of Kung Fu, I'm thinking of this;
> 
> Not kickboxing.



Then yeah, DannyT hit it on the head. Your experience with TCMA is limited. 



Hanzou said:


> Also palm strikes may be illegal in Sanshou, but they're perfectly legal in MMA.



That's awesome. But that's not where this was going.

Anyway, I'm done. Enjoy your holidays.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Thank you. This is very telling of you have an Extremely Limited view of Kung Fu.



Actually, I have a very expansive view of Kung fu. Sanshou which clearly incorporates modern boxing, and several techniques from Muay Thai kickboxing is definitely not traditional CMA. When people wonder why KF isn't in MMA, they're not thinking of kickboxing, their thinking of traditional Kung Fu.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> So, what you're saying-_again_-is that if it doesn't look like what you think it should look like, then it must be something else. Like if karate has grappling, or if judo has strikes, they must have come from somewhere else.....I don't know why we even bother......all this, for a thread that was dead for eight years....(and the old "rolleyes" smiley was a lot more effective than this guy)



So you're saying that you can't tell the difference between traditional CMA and a kickboxing style?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that you can't tell the difference between traditional CMA and a kickboxing style?


No, I'm saying that *you* can't, apparently. 





Hanzou said:


> Actually, I have a very expansive view of Kung fu. Sanshou which clearly incorporates modern boxing, and several techniques from Muay Thai kickboxing is definitely not traditional CMA. When people wonder why KF isn't in MMA, they're not thinking of kickboxing, their thinking of traditional Kung Fu.


 
Sanshou *doesn't* clearly incorporate modern boxing or several techniques from Muay Thai-it was originally entirely derived from TCMA.

What individual practitioners may or may not do is another matter.

Take away the kicking and wing chun-and a few other styles-can look an awful lot like modern boxing to an untrained eye....._like yours_.


----------



## elder999

Here, from this website:



> In 1924, the Guomindang (Chinese Nationalist Party) established the Whampoa Military Academy in Guangdong (Canton) province, Southern China in order to train the party’s leadership and create a modern military force. Having formed a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union in January 1923, the academy utilized Soviet methods of establishing party discipline, political indoctrination and training of military personnel. As Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, leader of the Guomindang said in 1923 "Since we wish to learn their (the Soviet Union’s) methods, I have asked (Soviet advisor) Mr. (Michael) Borodin to be director of training of our Party." More Soviet advisors arrived in China in 1924, particularly to assist in military training. Of course, the military training is what is of significance to San Shou.
> During the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), Russian forces had experienced heavy losses in close quarters combat with the Japanese. As a result of these losses, several movements sprung up in Russia concerned with developing better methods of training the military for close quarters combat (CQC). These movements were later unified and the project made official under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) upon their assumption of power in 1917. The result of this project is what is today known as Sambo.
> While Sambo was designed to prepare Soviet military and national security forces for real CQC including the use of and defense against bladed weapons and firearms, its creators also felt that a sport form which could be safely practiced on a regular basis was an essential part of the program. Why was a sporting adaptation considered essential to the training?
> The ability to use your methods in a real situation is dependent upon a number of factors. First, one must have the tools, offensive and defensive, to get the job done. This is the importance of offering a complete training program under the guidance of a skilled coach. However, the rest of the variables are less obvious but no less important.
> Does one have the ability to use these techniques upon an opponent who is knowledgeable of the techniques, resisting them and also attempting to launch their own attack? This requires not only perfecting the technique but developing your sense of space and range, the ability to see openings, reaction time and personal strategy. Include into this equation the possibility that the opponent may be using techniques and strategies different than your own.
> Furthermore, does one have both the physical and mental condition to engage in a struggle such as this? Does one have the strength, endurance, flexibility? The determination? Will they fall apart under the stress and adrenaline rush, freeze and forget everything they have learned? It has certainly happened in the past to many practitioners. Remember, if you have not been hit or thrown full power (slamming into the ground) you don’ know how you will react to conditions such as these.
> A boxer has been punched so many times that he no longer freezes when a blow connects. A wrestler or Judo fighter has been thrown to the ground many times and is accustomed to it. These three individuals are also used to exchange, working with an opponent who is both defending and attacking. They are also used to performing under high stress conditions, with large audiences and for extended periods of time. They benefit from experience gained by competition, i.e. sporting adaptations of what were once strictly combat/self-defense methods. Thus, combat sports allow the student to develop the "attributes" of a warrior, including the appropriate mental attitude, "ruthlessness".
> Under the tutelage of Soviet advisors, the Chinese endeavored to create a similar method of training their military forces in CQC. In the case of the Chinese, who lacked an industrial base and access to most modern warfare technology, this program seemed perhaps even more important than in the Russian case. The Whampoa military instructors studied the existing Chinese martial arts traditions and created San Shou. The military San Shou curriculum, designed to prepare military personnel for CQC, addressed what the Chinese had long considered the four basic martial arts skills;
> "Da" (Striking) use of fist, open hand, elbow, fingers, head
> "Ti" (Kicking) kicking, sweeping, kneeing, stomping
> "Shuai" (Throw) wrestling, throwing, takedowns
> "Na" (Seizing) joint locks and chokes, i.e. submissions
> In establishing a sport version of San Shou, which could be practiced in relative safety on the frequent basis necessary for the development of the basic skills and attributes, the decision was made to use a kickboxing like format. Whether you are verbally harassed, a strike or kick is thrown, you are grabbed or threatened with a weapon, most self-defense situations are initiated while you are standing. Furthermore, being on the ground for any length of time is not advisable both because you are more vulnerable to attack and because the surface itself may present numerous dangers. For these reasons, you should always concentrate on remaining standing and the primary course of study in San Shou addresses the essential elements of a standing fight.
> Amateur San Shou
> Sport San Shou utilizes striking, kicking and wrestling but not "submission" ("Na") and/or ground grappling. Originally, elbows and knees were utilized in inter-military San Shou competition but they have been removed from the international sport version which was established in 1991 with the first world championships.


 
No "modern boxing." No Muay Thai.

A little advice: human beings are articulated and move pretty much the same all over the world, and for all of human history. Round kicks in Scotland are gonna look like round kicks from Thailand or France......just sayin'. I've been all over the world, and just because it's a sandwich made with grilled ground meat, doesn't make it an _American_ hamburger, no matter how much it looks like one-but if you eat it, odds are good you won't be hungry any more.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Here, from this website:
> 
> No "modern boxing." No Muay Thai.



You do know that modern boxing predates the 1920s by a pretty significant margin right? Further, you'd have to be pretty daft to ignore Muay Thai's clear influence on Sanshou in recent years.



> A little advice: human beings are articulated and move pretty much the same all over the world, and for all of human history. Round kicks in Scotland are gonna look like round kicks from Thailand or France......just sayin'. I've been all over the world, and just because it's a sandwich made with grilled ground meat, doesn't make it an _American_ hamburger, no matter how much it looks like one-but if you eat it, odds are good you won't be hungry any more.



And again, there's a clear difference between a modern kickboxing style and traditional CMAs. We don't point to Bjj when someone asks if there's traditional Japanese Jujutsu in MMA do we?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> You do know that modern boxing predates the 1920s by a pretty significant margin right? .


 
Not in China, it doesn't. "Western boxing," as it was called in Asia then, was introduced in Shanghai-mostly in Westerner rental districts, by American and European sailors and the like-in the late 1920s, along with a translation of the book "The Technique of Western Boxing."  It didn't really spread much until the late 30's, just before the start of WWII, when it was being taught in Western run schools, and 2 Chinese competed in boxing at the 1936 Olympiad. It wasn't until after WWII that what you call "modern boxing"  began to take hold in China, though it was later banned for a time for having "inherent capitalist virtues," like "ruthlessness and brutality. "

So the development of sanshou took place with little or no influence from Western Boxing, in Canton some 700 odd miles (no small distance in China at that time) from Shanghai, and slightly before the introduction of western boxing took place there.





Hanzou said:


> . We don't point to Bjj when someone asks if there's traditional Japanese Jujutsu in MMA do we?


 
No, we point to it when someone asks if there's _judo_ in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Not in China, it doesn't. "Western boxing," as it was called in Asia then, was introduced in Shanghai-mostly in Westerner rental districts, by American and European sailors and the like-in the late 1920s, along with a translation of the book "The Technique of Western Boxing."  It didn't really spread much until the late 30's, just before the start of WWII, when it was being taught in Western run schools, and 2 Chinese competed in boxing at the 1936 Olympiad. It wasn't until after WWII that what you call "modern boxing"  began to take hold in China, though it was later banned for a time for having "inherent capitalist virtues," like "ruthlessness and brutality. "
> 
> So the development of sanshou took place with little or no influence from Western Boxing, in Canton some 700 odd miles (no small distance in China at that time) from Shanghai, and slightly before the introduction of western boxing took place there.



An irrelevant argument, because at this point the influence of western boxing and Muay Thai on modern Sanshou is pretty obvious. A person praciticing Sanshou today is practicing Sanshou under the influence of those outside influences. This is compounded on the fact that Sanshou isn't traditional CMA in the first place, which is the point of the OP.



> No, we point to it when someone asks if there's _judo_ in MMA.



The same applies to Judo. When we discuss if there are traditional Japanese Jujutsu in MMA, we wouldn't point to Judo either. Sanshou is clearly a modern sport form of CMAs, just like Judo is a modern sport form of traditional Jujutsu.


----------



## Mephisto

clfsean said:


> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA ... you picked Jake Mace?? For Real???? OK... sorry for the laughter, but he wouldn't know TCMA if it slapped him & introduced itself.
> 
> The first video was a lesson on kick catches & sweeps. So Toi, Pek Toi along with the hands that set the up, off balance & counter/assist on the take down.
> 
> Here's basic sanda from my teacher's teacher. Don't know if it will matter or not since honestly I feel you're trying so hard to pigeon hole what you perceive it to be as opposed to what it actually is, but anyway ... the vids below are what he learned from his teacher Chan Tai San. Among other things, Chan Tai San was a WWII Peasant's Division member & then later, boxing/hand to hand combat teacher in the PLA & then sanda coach for the Guangdong provincial wushu team.



I don't know much about the guy in the video but it's common for TMAers to scoff at practitioners that try to liven up a dead art. I'm not necessarily saying that's what's happening here but I've seen it other systems like wc. A guy starts working the traditional techniques with a resisting partner, it's not Immediately impressive to fighters outside the traditional community because what the traditionalist is doing lacks the refinement of generations of application. It just looks like a sloppy unorthodox kickboxing style. On top of that the other traditionalists within the forward thinking guys system deride the guy and label him as unauthentic and stick with their dead patterns. Rather than challenge or show that their "authentic" style is superior they continue doing things the same old way. It would be good for those within the traditional community to prove their art's relevance to modern fighting. Even if some of the traditional stuff applied to a kickboxing or boxing format looks sloppy multiple schools within a system should be able to refine the style to accomodate the kb format over time.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> An irrelevant argument, because at this point the influence of western boxing and Muay Thai on modern Sanshou is pretty obvious.


 
*No*, it isn't "obvious" at all-they may or may not be, as individuals or teams, utilizing some western boxing or Muay Thai methodology, but-unless you watch them train-you really can't tell from the fights, anyway: they may be training in wing chun for their "boxing," and grappling. Or tai chi for both Or some shuai chao and some Fukien style (that looks a lot like that _kurotty_ stuff...


 )



Hanzou said:


> A person praciticing Sanshou today is practicing Sanshou under the influence of those outside influences.


 
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't-one could argue that person practicing *any* martial art today is practicing under the influence of outside arts:the conditioning methods of western boxing are excellent for all forms of sport-combat, and all it would take for some (like you!) is to see a jump rope and say, _Ooh,ooh, oohh, western boxing!_





Hanzou said:


> This is compounded on the fact that Sanshou isn't traditional CMA in the first place, which is the point of the OP.


 
Didn't see anything I'd remember in the OP about Sanshou-of course, that was *eight* years ago, so maybe I should take another look. 




.


Hanzou said:


> Sanshou is clearly a modern sport form of CMAs, just like Judo is a modern sport form of traditional Jujutsu.


And because it's a "modern sport form of" *Chinese Martial Arts*, it has to be influenced by Muay Thai and western boxing????

Rii-iiight,,,,


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but Chinese kickboxing could mean anything.  It's a generic term.
> 
> And every MMAist trains in multiple arts in order to be competitive in the cage. Why would Kung fu be different?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



how would you present to a mma club it works?

ok say you are a gun bjjer. You walk into a mma club and tell them how good you are.

the first thing they are going to ask is to show them. Now you can qualify with a specific skill set. So you would probably roll submit everybody and from then on your bjj would become a basic part of their mma.

from a specific example Wayne parr sparrs stand up with gsp. Not because his mma is great. But his muay Thai is.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> *No*, it isn't "obvious" at all-they may or may not be, as individuals or teams, utilizing some western boxing or Muay Thai methodology, but-unless you watch them train-you really can't tell from the fights, anyway: they may be training in wing chun for their "boxing," and grappling. Or tai chi for both Or some shuai chao and some Fukien style (that looks a lot like that _kurotty_ stuff...



Do I really need to watch them training when the finished product looks almost exactly like other kickboxing styles while traditional CMA looks highly distinct from any other MA forms in the world?



> Maybe they are, maybe they aren't-one could argue that person practicing *any* martial art today is practicing under the influence of outside arts:the conditioning methods of western boxing are excellent for all forms of sport-combat, and all it would take for some (like you!) is to see a jump rope and say, _Ooh,ooh, oohh, western boxing!
> 
> And because it's a "modern sport form of" *Chinese Martial Arts*, it has to be influenced by Muay Thai and western boxing????
> 
> Rii-iiight,,,,_


_

_
Traditional arts tend to avoid influence from outside styles. That's the difference. Sanshou is essentially a modern eclectic fighting style. Mantis Kung Fu isn't under the influence of western boxing, and other modern, competing styles, yet Sanshou clearly is. Why? Because Sanshou exponents have to fight against western boxing and other forms of kickboxing, thus they all rub off on each other. It's no different than Wrestling's influence on Judo and later Bjj, and is a big reason those two modern arts are very different than their parent styles within traditional Japanese Jujutsu.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> _
> 
> _
> Traditional arts tend to avoid influence from outside styles.


You know this for a fact?  More silly stuff, sir.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> You know this for a fact?  More silly stuff, sir.



I said tend to, not always.


----------



## Vajramusti

A silly thread. Merry Christmas.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Do I really need to watch them training when the finished product looks almost exactly like other kickboxing styles while traditional CMA looks highly distinct from any other MA forms in the world?


 
Yes, Hattori, apparently, *you do*







Hanzou said:


> Traditional arts tend to avoid influence from outside styles. That's the difference.


 
No, "traditional arts" tend to be born from outside styles, or combinations of outside styles, or started by someone from another style, back when they were contemporary (modern) arts-and the trend tends to continue. Historically, pakua and hsing I chuan are taught together, and often enough with tai chi and shuai chao included in the mix-in fact, most of shuai chao can be found in tai chi-did you know tai chi has grappling? 

 No, really-it does, and it's there for everyone who has eyes to see it.



Hanzou said:


> Sanshou is essentially a modern eclectic fighting style.


 
Sanshou as you understand it is, perhaps, but it grew out of a long tradition of free-fighting on the lai tei that included weapons, duels, and the more than occasional death.



Hanzou said:


> Mantis Kung Fu isn't under the influence of western boxing, and other modern, competing styles, yet Sanshou clearly is.


 
It's only clear to  *you* 





Hanzou said:


> Why?


 
Because you keep insisting on maintaining knowledge of something you apparently know nothing about?



Hanzou said:


> Because Sanshou exponents have to fight against western boxing and other forms of kickboxing, thus they all rub off on each other.


 
If that's happened, it didn't happen until the 80's or 90's, more than 50 years after the development of "modern" sanshou.



Hanzou said:


> It's no different than Wrestling's influence on Judo and later Bjj, and is a big reason those two modern arts are very different than their parent styles within traditional Japanese Jujutsu.


 
In spite of what Dr. Kano wrote about _kata guruma_, there's some doubt about "wrestling's influence on judo," given that the technique already existed in _tenshin shinyo ryu _, which Kano studied for quite some time before formulating judo-in fact, one of the stories, likely false, is that he got kata garuma from a book on western wrestling, and used it do defeat one of his seniors. Kata guruma, of course, is not banned, but grabbing the leg is, so the technique is rarely seen in competitive judo, which is, from what I've seen, the only kind you believe to exist....


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> No, "traditional arts" tend to be born from outside styles, or combinations of outside styles, or started by someone from another style, back when they were contemporary (modern) arts-and the trend tends to continue. Historically, pakua and hsing I chuan are taught together, and often enough with tai chi and shuai chao included in the mix-in fact, most of shuai chao can be found in tai chi-did you know tai chi has grappling?



When I say outside styles, I'm talking about styles outside their country of origin. I.e. Western wrestling influencing Japanese Judo. Western Boxing influencing Asian kickboxing styles.



> Sanshou as you understand it is, perhaps, but it grew out of a long tradition of free-fighting on the lai tei that included weapons, duels, and the more than occasional death.



Which is pretty irrelevant to the conversation. What Sanshou emerged from matters little to what it is now, or why someone going into MMA would train in it over traditional CMA.



> Because you keep insisting on maintaining knowledge of something you apparently know nothing about?



You clearly missed the context of "why" in that statement.



> If that's happened, it didn't happen until the 80's or 90's, more than 50 years after the development of "modern" sanshou.



Which is exactly what we're talking about, since the MMA fighters in question are in their 20s and 30s.



> In spite of what Dr. Kano wrote about _kata garuma_, there's some doubt about "wrestling's influence on judo," given that the technique already existed in _tenshin shinyo ryu _, which Kano studied for quite some time before formulating judo-in fact, one of the stories, likely false, is that he got kata garuma from a book on western wrestling, and used it do defeat one of his seniors. Kata garuma, of course, is not banned, but grabbing the leg is, so the technique is rarely seen in competitive judo, which is, from what I've seen, the only kind you believe to exist....



So we're even going to doubt Kano himself when he says that the style HE created was influenced by western wrestling?

Wow.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> I said tend to, not always.


You believe that too?


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Actually, I have a very expansive view of Kung fu. Sanshou which clearly incorporates modern boxing, and several techniques from Muay Thai kickboxing is definitely not traditional CMA. When people wonder why KF isn't in MMA, they're not thinking of kickboxing, their thinking of traditional Kung Fu.


And the videos you showed as being what you think of as being Kung Fu are but a 'very limited view of Kung Fu'. There is far more to KF than what you showed. 

As to Sanshou many of the participants of sanshou competitions have added boxing, muay thai, shooto, and even bjj to their skill sets. Sanshou is composed of Chinese kung fu martial arts applications including most aspects of combat including striking and grappling and was used by the Kuomintang (the military) at the first modern military academy in the 1920s; later it was also adopted as a method by the People's liberation Army of China. Sanshou was an unrestricted bareknuckle martial training system with no rules. As sanshou has grown into having a competitive sport aspect, many fighters now also compete in non-Chinese or mixed combat sports, including Boxing, Kickboxing, Shooto wrestling, wrestling, judo, bjj, and Mixed Martial Arts and tactics from those competitions are now utilized by many sport fighters within sanshou. The military version of sanshou has a more define curriculum and methodology based upon their intense study of traditional martial arts such as traditional Kung Fu, Shuai Jiao & Chin Na.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> So we're even going to doubt Kano himself when he says that the style HE created was influenced by western wrestling?
> 
> Wow.


 
Not really. The story goes that Kano couldn't defeat one man at the tenshin shinyo ryu dojo he was studying at-apparently, he was quite large for a Japanese. Kano consulted a sumo wrestler, several other people, and found a technique in a book on western wrestling he thought might work, the fireman's carry. The fact that similar techniques existed-independent of "outside influence"(see previous post in re: human articulation and technique development)-in medieval European martial arts, Indian martial arts,* sumo*,. as well as several Japanese koryu jujutsu ryuha, _including tenshin shinyo ryu, the very style Kano was studying_ doesn't make the story doubtful-but it does make the "influence" doubtful, and it is, as far as I can recall, the only place where he makes any mention of western wrestling prior to the development of judo. Later on, of course, as it became a _sport_, western wrestling had an influence on judo, especially (as I've said elsewhere) in the development of weight classes-these were, of course, post WWII developments-though, perhaps, he knew something of scholastic wrestling as an educator, and modeled some of judos structure on this-who can say? He certainly didn't-in fact, while he studied western wrestling and boxing, he made some rather negative comments on the (later) influence of western wrestling on judo randori...


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> When I say outside styles, I'm talking about styles outside their country of origin. I.e. Western wrestling influencing Japanese Judo.


So?


----------



## clfsean

Mephisto said:


> I don't know much about the guy in the video but it's common for TMAers to scoff at practitioners that try to liven up a dead art. I'm not necessarily saying that's what's happening here but I've seen it other systems like wc. A guy starts working the traditional techniques with a resisting partner, it's not Immediately impressive to fighters outside the traditional community because what the traditionalist is doing lacks the refinement of generations of application. It just looks like a sloppy unorthodox kickboxing style. On top of that the other traditionalists within the forward thinking guys system deride the guy and label him as unauthentic and stick with their dead patterns. Rather than challenge or show that their "authentic" style is superior they continue doing things the same old way. It would be good for those within the traditional community to prove their art's relevance to modern fighting. Even if some of the traditional stuff applied to a kickboxing or boxing format looks sloppy multiple schools within a system should be able to refine the style to accomodate the kb format over time.



No sorry. There's a whole soap opera around Jake Mace & for the record, he's NOT TCMA by any definition.


----------



## clfsean

*sigh*

Sanda is to CMA what Randori is to JJJ.


----------



## elder999

clfsean said:


> No sorry. There's a whole soap opera around Jake Mace & for the record, he's NOT TCMA by any definition.


 
 Wasn't he a student of this wanker?













Ran into a few of this lot when I first got to New Mexico...hehe....


----------



## clfsean

Elder wins the internets!


----------



## elder999

clfsean said:


> Elder wins the internets!


Nah. They had-or used to have-a school in Albuquerque, and we came across each other in a park my second summer in New Mexico, I think in '94, anyway, when I was a much less _temperate_ man in my 30's......then I ran across some of the same people from another school in Denver.....in 2007.....they had some idea of who I was, and they introduced themselves, told me where their school was in Denver and asked me to leave them alone!! 

 (Actually, they said something like, _You're not planning on visiting *our* school, are you? Because you don't have to do that!_ nice people.....


  with no root [URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

 no power 


 no real speed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 no balance 


 and no fighting ability beyond delusions of competence 

)[/URL]


----------



## tshadowchaser

please tell me those 2 in the last segment of the last video where not wearing black belts.
I'm reading the Shao-lin and seeing the title grandmaster  tell me there is o connection to anything remotely connected to the people in China


----------



## elder999

tshadowchaser said:


> please tell me those 2 in the last segment of the last video where not wearing black belts.
> I'm reading the Shao-lin and seeing the title grandmaster  tell me there is o connection to anything remotely connected to the people in China


 
There is next to no connection to anything remotely connected to the people in China.

Sin Kwang The has admitted in court that he made the whole thing up from books that he read.Made him a fine bucket of money and a herd of Kool-Aid drinkers as well....


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> And the videos you showed as being what you think of as being Kung Fu are but a 'very limited view of Kung Fu'. There is far more to KF than what you showed.



I showed traditional Kung Fu styles. Clearly there's no way for me to show all of them. The OP is talking about traditional CMA, not modern eclectic styles like Sanshou.



> As to Sanshou many of the participants of sanshou competitions have added boxing, muay thai, shooto, and even bjj to their skill sets. Sanshou is composed of Chinese kung fu martial arts applications including most aspects of combat including striking and grappling and was used by the Kuomintang (the military) at the first modern military academy in the 1920s; later it was also adopted as a method by the People's liberation Army of China. Sanshou was an unrestricted bareknuckle martial training system with no rules. As sanshou has grown into having a competitive sport aspect, many fighters now also compete in non-Chinese or mixed combat sports, including Boxing, Kickboxing, Shooto wrestling, wrestling, judo, bjj, and Mixed Martial Arts and tactics from those competitions are now utilized by many sport fighters within sanshou. The military version of sanshou has a more define curriculum and methodology based upon their intense study of traditional martial arts such as traditional Kung Fu, Shuai Jiao & Chin Na.



That's great, but I seriously doubt those MMA fighters are practicing military Sanshou, and even if they were, that isn't the style the OP is talking about when they're discussing the lack of Kung Fu in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Not really. The story goes that Kano couldn't defeat one man at the tenshin shinyo ryu dojo he was studying at-apparently, he was quite large for a Japanese. Kano consulted a sumo wrestler, several other people, and found a technique in a book on western wrestling he thought might work, the fireman's carry. The fact that similar techniques existed-independent of "outside influence"(see previous post in re: human articulation and technique development)-in medieval European martial arts, Indian martial arts,* sumo*,. as well as several Japanese koryu jujutsu ryuha, _including tenshin shinyo ryu, the very style Kano was studying_ doesn't make the story doubtful-but it does make the "influence" doubtful, and it is, as far as I can recall, the only place where he makes any mention of western wrestling prior to the development of judo. Later on, of course, as it became a _sport_, western wrestling had an influence on judo, especially (as I've said elsewhere) in the development of weight classes-these were, of course, post WWII developments-though, perhaps, he knew something of scholastic wrestling as an educator, and modeled some of judos structure on this-who can say? He certainly didn't-in fact, while he studied western wrestling and boxing, he made some rather negative comments on the (later) influence of western wrestling on judo randori...



Whether or not Kano was influenced by western wrestling is pretty irrelevant to the overall point; Judo has been influenced by western wrestling throughout its history and its still Judo. Please point out the classical Kung Fu or Karate style that has been influenced by Western Boxing or Wrestling and has still maintained its identity. You won't find one.

Further, you can't point to Judo and say that it's an example of classical Japanese Jujutsu in MMA. Just like you can't point to Sanshou and say that its an example of classical Kung fu in MMA.

Anyway, this discussion has run its course. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> I showed traditional Kung Fu styles. Clearly there's no way for me to show all of them. The OP is talking about traditional CMA, not modern eclectic styles like Sanshou.


 Don't expect you to show everything but whether you will admit it or not the fact remains what you showed as and stated is what you view as kung fu reveals You, Hanzou, the person have a very limit view of kung fu.
If I presented a few videos of someone slowly shadowboxing in a mirror working on form and presentation, then working on a speed bag, and finally working footwork drills in a ring working off ropes and in & out of the corner stating this is what I think of as Boxing I would be presenting a very limited view of boxing.





Hanzou said:


> That's great, but I seriously doubt those MMA fighters are practicing military Sanshou, and even if they were, that isn't the style the OP is talking about when they're discussing the lack of Kung Fu in MMA.


Now you bring an interesting point to view. Why has military Sanshou (original Sanshou) been maintained and Sport Sanshou has become an eclectic version? If MMA is the standard by which so many now espouse as being the best why is traditional kung fu within Sanshou still utilized by the military?


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Whether or not Kano was influenced by western wrestling is pretty irrelevant to the overall point; Judo has been influenced by western wrestling throughout its history and its still Judo. Please point out the classical Kung Fu or Karate style that has been influenced by Western Boxing or Wrestling and has still maintained its identity. You won't find one.
> 
> Further, you can't point to Judo and say that it's an example of classical Japanese Jujutsu in MMA. Just like you can't point to Sanshou and say that its an example of classical Kung fu in MMA.
> 
> Anyway, this discussion has run its course. Feel free to have the last word.



And I'm pretty sure if asked, many here would agree with you that classical jujutsu, and many other styles are ill suited for MMA.   But when you take classical jujutsu and adapt it to a competitive format, it magically transforms into judo.   Same thing happens to classical cma...  Voila! San shou.  

Dude, judo doesn't even look like judo in MMA.  Bjj doesn't look the same in MMA.  Every style must adapt and synthesize with others.   Why the reluctance to accept that Kung fu is represented when the evidence is so clear?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Whether or not Kano was influenced by western wrestling is pretty irrelevant to the overall point; Judo has been influenced by western wrestling throughout its history and its still Judo. Please point out the classical Kung Fu or Karate style that has been influenced by Western Boxing or Wrestling and has still maintained its identity. You won't find one.



Actually, it REALLY depends on what you're calling "classical Kung Fu or Karate style." AND what you're calling "influence."

Kyokushin, for instance, my style, was influenced from its inception by western boxing, and later influenced by Muay Thai. The first, before I was born, the second I got to see up close and personal the first day a guy from Japan kicked me in the leg in White Plains, NY-I was 15 years old, and I was  like to get sick to my stomach. For some reason, it took 11 or 12 years from the "karate vs. muay thai" fights of 1963 for Oyama to okay leg kicks, but once he did, they were on-and we found out when the visiting Japanese started kicking us in the legs!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And there really is very little "classical karate" to be had out there-even the Okinawan forms that could be called purely Okinawan, were mostly codified and organized in the early to mid 20th century-what existed before was a loose conglomeration of various regional methodologies: it wasn't uncommon for some people's practice to consist of a lifetime of one kata.

Some argue that wing chun has been influenced by western boxing-that it's China's *answer* to western boxing. Back in New York, in the 70's and 80's, I regularly went up  against Jow Ga and Fu Jow Pai people (nice people!) in full-contact matches,   who "clearly" had practiced  western boxing-the leading Jow Ga exponent, Dean Chin (Chin Duk Yun?), practiced Muay Thai, as well as a few other things...those Jow Ga guys hit pretty hard, too!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Ohtzuka claimed Wado Ryu sparring was influenced by western boxing-he made this claim during a visit to England.

So, again, what you've posted is clearly negated by real facts, and a continuing display of speaking about things you don't know about.



Hanzou said:


> Further, you can't point to Judo and say that it's an example of classical Japanese Jujutsu in MMA. Just like you can't point to Sanshou and say that its an example of classical Kung fu in MMA.



Didn't I-and others-already do that? Clearly, then, we can-I mean, it's not as though we can't just because you say we can't, Hattori- we don't even know who you are.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Hanzou said:


> Anyway, this discussion has run its course. Feel free to have the last word.



Oh, yeah, like I believe that one. 

"THis discussion is over for me, go on and talk among yourselves," said no agenda-troll, *ever
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Don't expect you to show everything but whether you will admit it or not the fact remains what you showed as and stated is what you view as kung fu reveals You, Hanzou, the person have a very limit view of kung fu.
> If I presented a few videos of someone slowly shadowboxing in a mirror working on form and presentation, then working on a speed bag, and finally working footwork drills in a ring working off ropes and in & out of the corner stating this is what I think of as Boxing I would be presenting a very limited view of boxing.



So would you consider Sanshou a traditional CMA style considering that it was first created in the 1920s,  and is a combination of several KF styles, and western styles?



> Now you bring an interesting point to view. Why has military Sanshou (original Sanshou) been maintained and Sport Sanshou has become an eclectic version? If MMA is the standard by which so many now espouse as being the best why is traditional kung fu within Sanshou still utilized by the military?



I would consider the military version eclectic as well. Just like the Russian art Sombo from which the Chinese first got the idea to create a modern military art for their troops.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> And I'm pretty sure if asked, many here would agree with you that classical jujutsu, and many other styles are ill suited for MMA.   But when you take classical jujutsu and adapt it to a competitive format, it magically transforms into judo.   Same thing happens to classical cma...  Voila! San shou.



The only classical JJJ fighter I'm aware of was a Ninjutsu practitioner in early UFC who got smashed in a matter of seconds. He certainly didn't resemble Ronda Rousey or Karo Parisyan.

Additionally, if someone is trained i a classical KF style, why would they say they're Sanshou when they're Traditional CMA? The few WC practitioners who have entered MMA (and got demolished) for example never stated they were Sanshou. They stated they were Wing Chun.




> Dude, judo doesn't even look like judo in MMA.



I disagree;

UFC 168 Rousey 8211 Tate Judo Throw Highlights GIFs Art of Grappling


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> And I'm pretty sure if asked, many here would agree with you that classical jujutsu, and many other styles are ill suited for MMA.



I'd be among the first to agree with that.



Steve said:


> But when you take classical jujutsu and adapt it to a competitive format, it magically transforms into judo.   Same thing happens to classical cma...  Voila! San shou.



Yeppers.



Steve said:


> Dude, judo doesn't even look like judo in MMA.  Bjj doesn't look the same in MMA.  Every style must adapt and synthesize with others.   Why the reluctance to accept that Kung fu is represented when the evidence is so clear?



Because some people are gonna "know" what they insist on knowing....whether it's true or not...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Note, too, that the one who gave up on this discussion, and ceded "the last word," has posted...........
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd say, Steve, that when we've seen judo in MMA, it didn't *always* look like judo....sometimes, though, it does-just as a guy can wind up winning with a "showtime" kick, that looks like something from a movie...


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> The only classical JJJ fighter I'm aware of was a Ninjutsu practitioner in early UFC who got smashed in a matter of seconds. He certainly didn't resemble Ronda Rousey or Karo Parisyan.pling



Actually, there were two Robert Bussey students in the early UFCs. While they may have considered themeselves "ninjutsu practitioners," they really weren't. In any case, Steve  Jennum won UFC 3 as an alternate. I think you're remembering Scott Morris, from UFC 2, who was a student of Robert Bussey's brother Michael, and I seem to remember him winning his first bout......

Of course, UFC 2 was probably televised after your bedtime, back in  1994...else., you'd remember it also featured 5 animals gung fu stylist Jason Deluca, and wing chun stylist David Levicki.....


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Don't expect you to show everything but whether you will admit it or not the fact remains what you showed as and stated is what you view as kung fu reveals You, Hanzou, the person have a very limit view of kung fu.
> If I presented a few videos of someone slowly shadowboxing in a mirror working on form and presentation, then working on a speed bag, and finally working footwork drills in a ring working off ropes and in & out of the corner stating this is what I think of as Boxing I would be presenting a very limited view of boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you bring an interesting point to view. Why has military Sanshou (original Sanshou) been maintained and Sport Sanshou has become an eclectic version? If MMA is the standard by which so many now espouse as being the best why is traditional kung fu within Sanshou still utilized by the military?



less injuries. And less importance on hand to hand because of the guns?

why the military does and does not choose style a for defence training is quite often complicated. And not a good test of the legitimacy of a martial art.


----------



## tkdwarrior

First off the UFC and MMA sold a myth. That grappling and not stand up fighting is more effective than the striking arts. Eventually the strikers evolved and learned to counter these grapplers. Now you see more knockouts from strikes more than you see losses due to submissions.


----------



## Hanzou

tkdwarrior said:


> First off the UFC and MMA sold a myth. That grappling and not stand up fighting is more effective than the striking arts. Eventually the strikers evolved and learned to counter these grapplers. Now you see more knockouts from strikes more than you see losses due to submissions.



Strikers "evolved" by learning grappling, specifically Bjj. You can take a variety of striking arts and be effective, but all MMA fighters pretty much learn Bjj before they step into the cage. So I'm hesitant to call what the Gracies claimed to be a myth. If it is, then its a myth that's held up by quite a bit of fact and 2 decades of MMA competition.


----------



## Steve

tkdwarrior said:


> First off the UFC and MMA sold a myth. That grappling and not stand up fighting is more effective than the striking arts. Eventually the strikers evolved and learned to counter these grapplers. Now you see more knockouts from strikes more than you see losses due to submissions.


I think we need to be careful with this, too.   Striking is encouraged in the ufc, and rules are in place that favor the striker.   Yet we still see submissions about once out of every three bouts, on average.  That's still very common.  

Also, the strikers learned grappling, and there are now, appropriately, no pure stylists any more.   While each athlete has areas of strength and weakness, they are all well rounded.  This is particularly true at the elite level.   They're all competent strikers and grapplers.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> less injuries. And less importance on hand to hand because of the guns?
> 
> why the military does and does not choose style a for defence training is quite often complicated. And not a good test of the legitimacy of a martial art.


Can't realistically grapple or go one on one against multiple opponents with a combat pack on your back. So for reality of combat it is a very low level option. Funny thing is the US military has a very strong grappling/mma aspect. I train some units several times a year and actually watch many immediately wanting to tackle and go to the ground because of their training in the military mma combatives program.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> So would you consider Sanshou a traditional CMA style considering that it was first created in the 1920s,  and is a combination of several KF styles, and western styles?


Why are you deflecting?

Let's define traditional first.
: a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time
*:*  a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted though not necessarily verifiable
*:*  the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

Good question. Can Sanshou be considered traditional? 

(maybe a long time needs to be defined also. Is it within a year or two, a decade or two, one's lifetime or is it a greater period?)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> So would you consider Sanshou a traditional CMA style ...?


Sanda/Sanshou is a Chinese MMA without the ground game. When you train Sanda/Sanshou, you "don't care about" the individual CMA styles.

In the following clips, you don't know what style that they may train.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Good question. Can Sanshou be considered traditional?



I wouldn't.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't.


???
Based upon what definition?


----------



## tkdwarrior

As I said the strikers learned. They learned to grapple, wrestle or whatever and they learned how to defend against these types of attacks and developed tactics and strategies to counter these types of attacks thereby increasing their chances of winning matches.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Strikers "evolved" by learning grappling, specifically Bjj. You can take a variety of striking arts and be effective, but all MMA fighters pretty much learn Bjj before they step into the cage.



BJJ? Or American JJ? Or Japanese JJ? Or some other form of grappling? Or maybe they pick it up along the way? I mean, where's your statistical support. Let's take a look at some of the top ranked people's backgrounds, shall we?


1. Cain Velasquez (13-1)
2x NCAA Division 1 All-American wrestler in folkstyle. Junior National champion in freestyle, 3rd place in Greco. Placed at senior nationals in Freestyle.

2. Junior dos Santos (16-3)
Started BJJ at 21. After 6 months of BJJ he started training MMA/boxing under his head trainer who has a background in boxing.

3. Fabricio Werdum (18-5-1)
BJJ World Champion, ADCC champion, blackbelt in BJJ and Judo.

4. Antonio Silva (18-5, 1 NC)
Trained Karate for 13 years before starting BJJ. Blackbelt in Judo and BJJ.

5. Travis Browne (16-2-1)
Started with Muay Thai. Former basketball player.

6. Josh Barnett (33-7)
High school folkstyle wrestler and later a catch wrestler. Awarded a BJJ black belt with 0 gi training. No-Gi World Champion at black belt and defeated Otavio Souza (a black belt world champion) by submission in a gi.

7. Alistair Overeem (37-13, 1 NC)
Started with no-gi grappling before kickboxing and MMA.

8. Stipe Miocic (11-1)
Folkstyle wrestler at the Division 1 level at Cleveland State. Also a star baseball player.

9. Mark Hunt (9-8-1)
Kickboxer.

10. Roy Nelson (20-9)
Wrestled folkstyle in high school before starting Kung Fu and later BJJ. BJJ black belt.

---------------------------

1. Jon Jones (20-1)
NJCAA national champion in folkstyle wrestling. 5th place in nationals for Greco at the Cadet (age 16) age level.

2. Alexander Gustafsson (16-2)
Amateur boxer since age 10. Swedish Boxing champion.

3. Rashad Evans (19-3-1)
NJCAA champion, NCAA D1 folkstyle college wrestler. BJJ blackbelt.

4. Glover Teixeira (22-3)
Started with Boxing and Track before BJJ/MMA. BJJ blackbelt.

5. Anthony Johnson (17-4)
NJCAA Champion in folkstyle.

6. Dan Henderson (30-11)
Division 1 Folkstyle wrestler and multiple time Greco Roman national champion, Pan American Games Champion, Olympian.

7. Phil Davis (12-2, 1 NC)
4x NCAA Division 1 All American and 1x National Champion in Folkstyle wrestling. Nogi BJJ world champ at blue belt.

8. Ryan Bader (16-4)
2x NCAA Division 1 All-American in Folkstyle wrestling.

9. Emanuel Newton (23-7-1)
High school folkstyle wrestler.

10. Chael Sonnen (28-14-1)
NCAA Division 1 All-American in folkstyle. Silver medalist at University Worlds for Greco. University Nationals freestyle runner up.

--------------------

1. Chris Weidman (11-0)
2x NJCAA All-American and 2x NCAA Division 1 All-American in folkstyle wrestling. Attempted to make the Olympic team in Freestyle wrestling. ADCC competitor.

2. Anderson Silva (33-6)
Started training at age 12 in Taekwondo. TKD black belt, Muay Thai 'black belt', BJJ blackbelt, Judo blackbelt. Some professional boxing and muay thai experience.

3. Vitor Belfort (24-10)
Originally billed as Vitor Gracie, BJJ blackbelt and ADCC bronze medalist. 1 Pro boxing fight.

4. Ronaldo Souza (20-3, 1 NC)
Started with Judo. BJJ and Judo blackbelt, multiple time BJJ world champion, ADCC champion.

5. Lyoto Machida (21-4)
Shotokan Karate background with competitive Sumo wrestling experience. BJJ black belt.

6. Luke Rockhold (12-2)
High school folkstyle wrestler with some junior college wrestling experience. BJJ world champion at blue/purple. BJJ black belt. High level surfer.

7. Tim Kennedy (18-4)
High school folkstyle wrestling background. Black belt in Japanese Ju Jitsu and Army Combatives.

8. Yushin Okami (30-8)
Judo blackbelt.

9. Michael Bisping (24-6)
Japanese Ju Jitsu and kickboxing background.

10. Mark Munoz (13-4)
2x NCAA Division 1 All-American and 1x Champion in folkstyle wrestling. Junior World Freestyle silver medalist.

---------

1. Johny Hendricks (16-2)
4x NCAA D1 All-American, 2x Champ in folkstyle wrestling. 2x Junior National Freestyle champ.

2. Robbie Lawler (22-10, 1 NC)
High school folkstyle wrestling background.

3. Tyron Woodley (13-2)
2x NCAA D1 All-American in folkstyle wrestling. Runner up for freestyle wrestling at University Nationals. BJJ Brown Belt.

4. Carlos Condit (29-8)
Started MMA at 15. BJJ black belt.

5. Hector Lombard (34-4-1, 1 NC)
Olympian and multiple time national champion in Judo for Cuba. BJJ blackbelt.

6. Rory MacDonald (16-2)
Started MMA as a teenager. "No Gi" BJJ Blackbelt under Toshido gym.

7. Ben Askren (12-0)
4x NCAA D1 All-American, 4x Finalist, 2x Champion in folkstyle wrestling. National champion, Pan Ams Champion and Olympian in Freestyle wrestling. ADCC competitor and BJJ borwn belt.

8. Jake Shields (29-7-1, 1 NC)
2x Junior College All-American in folkstyle wrestling. Division 2 college wrestler. ADCC bronze medalist and Pan Ams champion (Purple Belt, Gi) despite never training in a gi. BJJ black belt.

9. Demian Maia (18-5)
Did Judo, Kung Fu, and Karate as a child. BJJ black belt and world champion. ADCC champion.

10. Jake Ellenberger (29-7)
High school swimmer, no high school wrestling. Started folkstyle wrestling in college at the division 2 level.

---------

1. Anthony Pettis (17-2)
Taekwondo background. TKD black belt and BJJ purple belt.

2. Benson Henderson (20-2)
2x NAIA All-American in folkstyle college wrestling. TKD and BJJ black belt. 3rd place in World Championships (Gi, Brown Belt) for BJJ.

3. Gilbert Melendez (21-3)
Division 2 folkstyle college wrestler. BJJ blackbelt, does not train in a gi.

4. T.J. Grant (21-5)
High school freestyle wrestling background (Canada, not US). BJJ brown belt.

5. Eddie Alvarez (25-3)
High school 'prep' All-American in folkstyle wrestling.

6. Michael Chandler (12-1)
NCAA D1 All-American in folkstyle college wrestling.

7. Josh Thomson (20-6, 1 NC)
Junior College folkstyle wrestler. Blackbelt in Guerilla Jiu Jitsu (Camarillo BJJ/Judo).

8. Khabib Nurmagomedov (22-0)
Started with Freestyle wrestling for 5 years before switching to Judo after "poor results" in wrestling. International Master of Sports in Sambo, Black Belt in Judo, International Master of Sports in Pankration, International Master of Sports in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

9. Nate Diaz (17-9)
BJJ black belt. Has a personal Sambo coach and a personal Boxing coach.

10. Rafael dos Anjos (20-6)
BJJ black belt. Purple Belt world champ.

-------------

1. Jose Aldo (24-1)
Started with capoeira. BJJ black belt. World Cup champion at brown belt.

2. Chad Mendes (16-1)
2x NCAA D1 All-American folkstyle college wrestler, 1x runner up.

3. Ricardo Lamas (13-3)
NCAA D3 All-American folkstyle college wrestler.

4. Cub Swanson (20-5)
Started with BJJ before MMA. BJJ black belt.

5. Frankie Edgar (16-4-1)
NCAA D1 All-American folkstyle college wrestler. BJJ black belt.

6. Jeremy Stephens (23-9)
High school folkstyle wrestler. BJJ black belt.

7. Nik Lentz (24-6-2, 1 NC)
NCAA D1 folkstyle college wrestler. BJJ purple belt.

8. Chan Sung Jung (13-4)
Started Hapkido (a hybrid of TKD and Judo) as a child. Black belt in Hapkido, Black belt in Taekwondo, Green belt in Judo, Blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

9. Dustin Poirier (16-3)
Started with boxing and MMA. BJJ Brown belt.

10. Pat Curran (20-5)
High school folkstyle wrestling background.

----------


1. Renan Barao (32-1, 1 NC)
Father was a boxer and Barao started boxing as a child. Started BJJ at 14. BJJ black belt.

2. Urijah Faber (30-7)
NCAA D1 folkstyle college wrestler. BJJ Brown belt.

3. Michael McDonald (16-3)
Started kickboxing at age 10. BJJ Brown Belt.

4. Eddie Wineland (21-9-1)
High school folkstyle wrestling background. BJJ blue belt.

5. Raphael Assuncao (22-4)
BJJ blackbelt. Shotokan Karate background.

6. Eduardo Dantas (16-3)
MMA, "prefers striking"

7. T.J. Dillashaw (9-2)
NCAA D1 folkstyle college wrestler.

8. Marlon Moraes (13-4)
Started Muay Thai at age 7. National level Muay Thai fighter. BJJ brown belt.

9. Takeya Mizugaki (19-7-2)
Judo background. Started MMA after high school.

10. Iuri Alcantara (29-5, 1 NC)
"Marajoara Luta" folk wrestling background. It is a type of native folk wrestling where Alcantara grew up. BJJ black belt.

--------

1. Demetrious Johnson (19-2-1)
High school folkstyle wrestler.

2. Joseph Benavidez (20-4)
NAIA folkstyle college wrestler.

3. John Dodson (15-6)
High school folkstyle wrestler.

4. Ali Bagautinov (13-2)
International Master of Sports in Sambo, Master of Sports in Freestyle Wrestling, International Master of Sports in Pankration, Master of Sports in Hand-to-hand combat, Master of Sports in Greco-Roman Wrestling. Combat Sambo World Champion. Russian Champion for BJJ and Grappling and Pankration.

5. Ian McCall (12-4-1)
Junior college folkstyle wrestler.

6. Zach Makovsky (18-4)
NCAA D1 college folkstyle wrestler.

7. Jussier da Silva (16-3)
Started Judo at age 8. Judo and BJJ blackbelt.

8. John Lineker (23-7)
Started with MMA and Boxing.

9. John Moraga (14-2)
NCAA D1 college folkstyle wrestler. University freestyle wrestling champion.

10. Justin Scoggins (9-0)
Started Karate at age 3. Blackbelt in Kenpo Karate.

So, break it down, and it looks like...

Fighters who started their training in BJJ:
Junior dos Santos, Werdum, Belfort, dos Anjos, Swanson, Nate Diaz, Assuncao (?? it isn't clear from his wikipedia/UFC page/interviews)

6/80 = 7.5%

Fighters whose MMA games seem to be very  BJJ based:
Fabricio Werdum, Rafael dos Anjos, Raphael Assuncao, Demian Maia, Iuri Alcantara, John Lineker, Renan Barao, Nate Diaz, Souza

9/10 = 11.25%

Fighters with a catch or  folkstyle wrestling base:
Velasquez, Barnett, Miocic, Nelson, Jones, Evans, Johnson, Henderson, Davis, Bader, Newton, Sonnen, Weidman, Rockhold, Kennedy, Munoz, Hendricks, Lawler, Woodley, Askren, Shields, Ellenberger, Henderson, Melendez, Alvarez, Chandler, Thomson, Mendes, Lamas, Edgar, Stephens, Lentz, Curran, Faber, Wineland, Dillashaw, Johnson, Benavidez, Dodson, McCall, Makovsky, Moraga

42/80 = 52.5%

Fighters with some some sort of standup grappling base (catch, freestyle, judo, sambo):
Velasquez, Barnett, Miocic, Nelson, Jones, Evans, Johnson, Henderson, Davis, Bader, Newton, Sonnen, Weidman, Rockhold, Kennedy, Munoz, Hendricks, Lawler, Woodley, Askren, Shields, Ellenberger, Henderson, Melendez, Alvarez, Chandler, Thomson, Mendes, Lamas, Edgar, Stephens, Lentz, Curran, Faber, Wineland, Dillashaw, Johnson, Benavidez, Dodson, McCall, Makovsky, Moraga, Baguatinov, Alcantara, Mizugaki, Nurmagomedov, Grant, Maia, Lombard, Okami, Souza

51/80 = 63.75%

You can say what you want about statistics, but math doesn't lie.....on the other hand, it seems that every time you set your fingers to the keyboard, Hanzou (yeah, I'm talkin' to you!) something less than true winds up on our screens....I'm not calling you a liar, or anything else-but there is a word for someone who says things they believe to be true that clearly are not.....


----------



## ballen0351

Game set match.  That's all folks thanks for playing


----------



## Tez3

Bisping didn't start with BJJ although he trained it later, he began training in a traditional form of jiujitsu known as Yawara Ryu under Paul Lloyd Davies.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> BJJ? Or American JJ? Or Japanese JJ? Or some other form of grappling? Or maybe they pick it up along the way? I mean, where's your statistical support. Let's take a look at some of the top ranked people's backgrounds, shall we?
> 
> You can say what you want about statistics, but math doesn't lie.....on the other hand, it seems that every time you set your fingers to the keyboard, Hanzou (yeah, I'm talkin' to you!) something less than true winds up on our screens....I'm not calling you a liar, or anything else-but there is a word for someone who says things they believe to be true that clearly are not.....



You do understand that you got "base" confused with "trained in" right? I never said that every fighter in MMA has a *base* in Bjj or even a high rank in Bjj, I said every fighter in MMA trains in Bjj before they step into the cage. This includes people who train in MMA gyms, since Bjj is an integral part of MMA itself. In other words, you wouldn't be caught dead in the cage without at least a rudimentary knowledge of Bjj, and *all* of the fighters you listed have at least that level of knowledge.

However, I do appreciate the ridiculous amount of time and effort that went into your post. Too bad it turned out to be completely irrelevant to the point I made.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> ???
> Based upon what definition?



Based on the fact that Sanshou is a relatively young art and that its rapidly evolving as it absorbs more styles into its curriculum. That's the antithesis of a traditional martial art.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You do understand that you got "base" confused with "trained in" right? I never said that every fighter in MMA has a *base* in Bjj or even a high rank in Bjj, I said every fighter in MMA trains in Bjj before they step into the cage. This includes people who train in MMA gyms, since Bjj is an integral part of MMA itself. In other words, you wouldn't be caught dead in the cage without at least a rudimentary knowledge of Bjj, and *all* of the fighters you listed have at least that level of knowledge.
> 
> However, I do appreciate the ridiculous amount of time and effort that went into your post. Too bad it turned out to be completely irrelevant to the point I made.



i would say bjj techniques which is an important distinction. None of us do bjj really. In that we have no affiliation with a bjj club and our coaches blue belt is a pretty nominal one.

submission wrestling would be more accurate.

to say a guy was bjj. I think he would have to grade have some sort of linage and train in a gi.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> i would say bjj techniques which is an important distinction. None of us do bjj really. In that we have no affiliation with a bjj club and our coaches blue belt is a pretty nominal one.



That's quite an interesting distinction. You don't do Bjj but you do Bjj techniques? Wouldn't performing Bjj techniques constitute doing Bjj?



> submission wrestling would be more accurate.



Bjj forms the core of submission wrestling as well.



> to say a guy was bjj. I think he would have to grade have some sort of linage and train in a gi.



Again, no one is saying anyone is Bjj exclusively. I said that no one goes into MMA without learning Bjj. Its a requirement to have any success in the sport. There's also plenty of nogi Bjj schools out there.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> That's quite an interesting distinction. You don't do Bjj but you do Bjj techniques? Wouldn't performing Bjj techniques constitute doing Bjj?
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj forms the core of submission wrestling as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one is saying anyone is Bjj exclusively. I said that no one goes into MMA without learning Bjj. Its a requirement to have any success in the sport.



well i would be miss representing bjj. If i said i did. If that makes sense.

the reverse would be can i start handing out belts in bjj. Just because I can submit bjj players?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> well i would be miss representing bjj. If i said i did. If that makes sense.



Not really, many people consider submission wrestling simply Bjj w/o a gi.



> the reverse would be can i start handing out belts in bjj. Just because I can submit bjj players?



Well if Josh Barnett started handing out Bjj belts, I don't think too many people in the submission wrestling, or sport bjj realm would complain too much. Despite the fact that he received an honorary BB in Bjj, most people consider him and his belt legit. In my experience, the Bjj world revolves around effectiveness plain and simple. If you're subbing black belts, you deserve a black belt.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Not really, many people consider submission wrestling simply Bjj w/o a gi.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Josh Barnett started handing out Bjj belts, I don't think too many people in the submission wrestling, or sport bjj realm would complain too much. Despite the fact that he received an honorary BB in Bjj, most people consider him and his belt legit. In my experience, the Bjj world revolves around effectiveness plain and simple. If you're subbing black belts, you deserve a black belt.



you would be one of a very select group that would go for that.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> That's quite an interesting distinction. You don't do Bjj but you do Bjj techniques? Wouldn't performing Bjj techniques constitute doing Bjj?
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj forms the core of submission wrestling as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one is saying anyone is Bjj exclusively. I said that no one goes into MMA without learning Bjj. Its a requirement to have any success in the sport. There's also plenty of nogi Bjj schools out there.


Fwiw, some such as josh Barnett would argue that submission wrestling exists alongside and independent of Bjj.    And there are plenty of tournaments such as the adcc which have no connection to Bjj at all.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Not really, many people consider submission wrestling simply Bjj w/o a gi.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Josh Barnett started handing out Bjj belts, I don't think too many people in the submission wrestling, or sport bjj realm would complain too much. Despite the fact that he received an honorary BB in Bjj, most people consider him and his belt legit. In my experience, the Bjj world revolves around effectiveness plain and simple. If you're subbing black belts, you deserve a black belt.


He essentially received his black belt so that he could compete in the nogi worlds.   Nogi, he's probably top tier.  But I would expect his Gi game to suck ***.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Some resistance to the no gi black belt idea.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> He essentially received his black belt so that he could compete in the nogi worlds.   Nogi, he's probably top tier.  But I would expect his Gi game to suck ***.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 

Remember my post:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> 6. Josh Barnett (33-7)
> High school folkstyle wrestler and later a catch wrestler. Awarded a BJJ black belt with 0 gi training. No-Gi World Champion at black belt and* defeated Otavio Souza (a black belt world champion) by submission in a gi*.


 
Doesn't suck so bad........


----------



## drop bear

Sub wrestlers do bjj competitions because that is where the good grappler's are.

to fight you have to fight good fighters.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> That's quite an interesting distinction. You don't do Bjj but you do Bjj techniques? Wouldn't performing Bjj techniques constitute doing Bjj?
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj forms the core of submission wrestling as well.


 
Judo forms the core of BJJ

Jujutsu forms the core of Judo.

Frankly, if someone trains to do techniques, they aren't training the form. There *is* a distinction.

And what you're saying: it's kind of like saying that Ronda Rousey trained BJJ before she entered MMA.....'cause* she didn't*.....it's, you know, that thing where you put your fingers to the keyboard and our monitors are filled with complete and utter nonsense? 



Hanzou said:


> I said that no one goes into MMA without learning Bjj. Its a requirement to have any success in the sport. There's also plenty of nogi Bjj schools out there.


 
And plenty of bollocks right here.....


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Fwiw, some such as josh Barnett would argue that submission wrestling exists alongside and independent of Bjj.    And there are plenty of tournaments such as the adcc which have no connection to Bjj at all.



I'm sure he would. He's made it a personal goal of his to separate himself from his Bjj background in order to more effectively market himself. I don't think you can really separate submission wrestling from Bjj. The two are intrinsically connected on many levels because Bjj is the most popular form of it.



drop bear said:


> you would be one of a very select group that would go for that.



 Go for what?


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Judo forms the core of BJJ
> 
> Jujutsu forms the core of Judo.



Not in the modern era.



> And what you're saying: it's kind of like saying that Ronda Rousey trained BJJ before she entered MMA.....'cause* she didn't*.....it's, you know, that thing where you put your fingers to the keyboard and our monitors are filled with complete and utter nonsense?



She made her MMA debut in late 2010. She was training with Eddie Bravo and others before that time. Last I checked, Bravo was a Bjj instructor.



> And plenty of bollocks right here.....



Yeah, because you've been sooooo right up to this point.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> She made her MMA debut in late 2010. She was training with Eddie Bravo and others before that time. Last I checked, Bravo was a Bjj instructor.


 
She's always been part of the Hayastan team. Appearing on an Eddie Bravo podcast doesn't constitute training with him-although, for you it might....



"10th Planet..." that's ironic.....


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> She's always been part of the Hayastan team. Appearing on an Eddie Bravo podcast doesn't constitute training with him-although, for you it might....



Yes, and Hayastan is a MMA team. Do you honestly think she got no Bjj training out of an MMA team?


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Based on the fact that Sanshou is a relatively young art and that its rapidly evolving as it absorbs more styles into its curriculum. That's the antithesis of a traditional martial art.


Based upon that what do you consider Shotokan and several of the other Karate systems that have come about in the early to mid 1900's and have evolved since. How about Muay Thai or Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, traditional or no?

[QUOTE="Hanzou]You don't do Bjj but you do Bjj techniques? Wouldn't performing Bjj techniques constitute doing Bjj?[/QUOTE]
Someone performs a roundhouse kick contacting with their shin are they doing muay thai or Munda Muda or is it pekiti-tirsia or something else? Someone does a hip throw is it Dumog or is it Judo or JJ. Someone performs a shoulder lock are the doing BJJ or Wing Chun, or pekiti-tirsia, or Dumog or Silat, or maybe they are doing Pankration.
Just curious.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Yes, and Hayastan is a MMA team. Do you honestly think she got no Bjj training out of an MMA team?


 
The  Hayastan system is a blend of judo, sambo,  catch/Greco-Roman/ and freestyle wrestling.

It doesn't need BJJ, because it has Judo.

Again, the irony is hilarious. You telling me what the training under Gene LeBell  and Gokor consists of...


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I'm sure he would. He's made it a personal goal of his to separate himself from his Bjj background in order to more effectively market himself. I don't think you can really separate submission wrestling from Bjj. The two are intrinsically connected on many levels because Bjj is the most popular form of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Go for what?



the no gi black belt. Check out the video. A lot of traditional bjjers hate the idea.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Based upon that what do you consider Shotokan and several of the other Karate systems that have come about in the early to mid 1900's and have evolved since. How about Muay Thai or Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, traditional or no?



Shotokan is a modern style of karate. Muay Thai is a modern MA as well.



> Someone performs a roundhouse kick contacting with their shin are they doing muay thai or Munda Muda or is it pekiti-tirsia or something else? Someone does a hip throw is it Dumog or is it Judo or JJ. Someone performs a shoulder lock are the doing BJJ or Wing Chun, or pekiti-tirsia, or Dumog or Silat, or maybe they are doing Pankration.
> Just curious.



I would need to see the technique being performed to know for sure. For example, you say "shoulder lock", are they performing a shoulder lock like this;







Or are they performing a shoulder lock like this;






In any case if someone is telling me they're doing Bjj techniques, I'll assume they're doing Bjj.


----------



## qianfeng

Hanzou why do you have to find the most retarded videos of tma?
Is it really that hard to find something better than jake mace?

Choy lee fut vs seven star praying mantis


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> The  Hayastan system is a blend of judo, sambo,  catch/Greco-Roman/ and freestyle wrestling.
> 
> It doesn't need BJJ, because it has Judo.
> 
> Again, the irony is hilarious. You telling me what the training under Gene LeBell  and Gokor consists of...



Judo+Sambo+Catch= Bjj.

I suppose that even that wasn't enough for Ronda though, since she also went to Eddie Bravo, the Menedes Bros, and then the Gracies for further Bjj training.

Yes, quite ironic.


----------



## Hanzou

qianfeng said:


> Hanzou why do you have to find the most retarded videos of tma?
> Is it really that hard to find something better than jake mace?



I really didn't know that Jake Mace was such a terrible example. My mistake. 

I do find that video very interesting though.


----------



## qianfeng

Hanzou said:


> I really didn't know that Jake Mace was such a terrible example. My mistake.
> 
> I do find that video very interesting though.



Haha it's alright if u didn't know about jake mace, I don't know how he gets so many views...
If read the comments people who actually practice the style in his video they call him out for his terrible imitations of said style but still people watch and believe...


----------



## Tez3

I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with me about Bisping, it's on his OWN website lol. I also know because he told us because he had his pro debut on one of our shows and we needed to know what his experience was before we matched him. And here's the video of a very young Bisping.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Judo+Sambo+Catch= Bjj.


 
And there it is, for everyone to see-Hanzou makes one and one and one into *five*, not three! 





Hanzou said:


> I suppose that even that wasn't enough for Ronda though, since she also went to Eddie Bravo, the Menedes Bros, and then the Gracies for further Bjj training.


 
Here's a tip for you: some martial artists actually enjoy getting together and training with others, from time to time-doesn't mean they're "training" or "getting further training," just that they're rolling around and having some fun.

I mean, really.





 
and pay attention to what Cesar Gracie says here at 1:10





 


Hanzou said:


> Yes, quite ironic.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tez3 said:


> Bisping didn't start with BJJ although he trained it later, he began training in a traditional form of jiujitsu known as Yawara Ryu under Paul Lloyd Davies.



Er…



Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with me about Bisping, it's on his OWN website lol. I also know because he told us because he had his pro debut on one of our shows and we needed to know what his experience was before we matched him. And here's the video of a very young Bisping.



Not wanting to speak for Michael, but I think the question isn't whether or not Bisping trained with "Yawara Ryu", it's the idea that it's a "traditional form of jujutsu"… it ain't. The name alone gives away that it's got little to do with anything traditionally Japanese (despite the idea of them teaching the "traditional Yawara Ryu techniques" etc)… in essence, it's a modern, Western eclectic system based dominantly in early Judo (although the connection is, well, not so easy to determine… lots of name dropping, but that's it… no actual connection to the group, especially considering the decades between the people named dying and the founder being born…), a whole lot of other methods (Ryukyu Kobudo) with no mention of where the methods come from, a Ryu-ha, a lineage, or anything tangible, as well as the ludicrous photo of "sword training", showing the most amateurish "demo" technique that no credible system even considers, and the usage of a Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu video to show "sword techniques" on their webpage, something to which they have no right to claim association.



Hanzou said:


> In any case if someone is telling me they're doing Bjj techniques, I'll assume they're doing Bjj.



Here's a quick question for you, then… what are BJJ techniques? Is a Kimura a BJJ technique? Or an Omoplata? How about an Americana? RNC?


----------



## Tez3

Chris however, whatever it is it isn't BJJ, that was my point. I don't really care what it is but it ain't BJJ specifically coming from Brazil with the Gracie name or any other Brazilian instructor.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tez3 said:


> Chris however, whatever it is it isn't BJJ, that was my point. I don't really care what it is but it ain't BJJ specifically coming from Brazil.



Sure, and no argument that it wasn't BJJ… but it's also not what it says on the tin, as you say…


----------



## elder999

Chris Parker said:


> Er…
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to speak for Michael, but I think the question isn't whether or not Bisping trained with "Yawara Ryu", it's the idea that it's a "traditional form of jujutsu"… it ain't. The name alone gives away that it's got little to do with anything traditionally Japanese (despite the idea of them teaching the "traditional Yawara Ryu techniques" etc)… in essence, it's a modern, Western eclectic system based dominantly in early Judo (although the connection is, well, not so easy to determine… lots of name dropping, but that's it… no actual connection to the group, especially considering the decades between the people named dying and the founder being born…), a whole lot of other methods (Ryukyu Kobudo) with no mention of where the methods come from, a Ryu-ha, a lineage, or anything tangible, as well as the ludicrous photo of "sword training", showing the most amateurish "demo" technique that no credible system even considers, and the usage of a Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu video to show "sword techniques" on their webpage, something to which they have no right to claim association.


 
Pretty much ignored this.....cause I knew you wouldn't!







Chris Parker said:


> Here's a quick question for you, then… what are BJJ techniques? Is a Kimura a BJJ technique? Or an Omoplata? How about an Americana? RNC?


 
Omoplata? Sounds like a kid's breakfast cereal!

 Dontcha mean _ashi sankaku garami_ ?That's what we call it in-*gasp!*-JUDO!!

Kimura? Don't we call that _gyaku ude garami_....in-*gasp!*-JUDO?

Americana??? Looks like _ude garami_ again....at least, that's what we call it in-*gasp!*-JUDO!!


[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

[URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'][URL='http://www.sherv.net/'] 
RNC? _Rear Naked Choke??_ Pretty sure *that* name comes directly from the Japanese, right? _Hadaka jime..."Naked Choke"....at least, that's what we call it in -*gasp!!shudder!!* JUDO !!  



Yeah...Ronda Rousey needed some BJJ training....oh, that's right, she'd been doing Basically Just Judo all her life].

_[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, don't ruin it, Elder… I was waiting for Hanzou to reply so I could show all the various appearances in all these other systems… ha!

For the record, we use names like Oni Kudaki, Ude Ori, Gyaku Oni Kudaki, Musha Dori, Muso Dori, Sankaku Jime…


----------



## elder999

elder999 said:


> Pretty much ignored this.....cause I knew you wouldn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omoplata? Sounds like a kid's breakfast cereal!





Chris Parker said:


> Ah, don't ruin it, Elder… I was waiting for Hanzou to reply so I could show all the various appearances in all these other systems… ha!
> 
> For the record, we use names like Oni Kudaki, Ude Ori, Gyaku Oni Kudaki, Musha Dori, Muso Dori, Sankaku Jime…


 
Yeah, I know that...knew those names from Bujinkan guys, too, back before they were the Bujinkan, anyway....


----------



## Tez3

Chris Parker said:


> Sure, and no argument that it wasn't BJJ… but it's also not what it says on the tin, as you say…




You should have seen his first pro fight lol



to be honest I don't think Bisping is all that it says on the tin either lol.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Here's a quick question for you, then… what are BJJ techniques? Is a Kimura a BJJ technique? Or an Omoplata? How about an Americana? RNC?



Bjj techniques are techniques within the art of Brazilian Jiujitsu. All of those techs you mentioned are Bjj techniques.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Chris however, whatever it is it isn't BJJ, that was my point. I don't really care what it is but it ain't BJJ specifically coming from Brazil with the Gracie name or any other Brazilian instructor.



Yes, but its quite clear that Bisping trained in Bjj early in his MMA career. Again, the difference between base art, and art you train in.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> Bjj techniques are techniques within the art of Brazilian Jiujitsu. All of those techs you mentioned are Bjj techniques.



Well, that's the thing… in a way, no, they're not. They're a collection of mechanical actions that are found in myriad arts… it's the way they're trained and applied that makes them "BJJ techniques"… not the techniques themselves. Which was kinda the point…


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Here's a tip for you: some martial artists actually enjoy getting together and training with others, from time to time-doesn't mean they're "training" or "getting further training," just that they're rolling around and having some fun.



Except in those cases Rousey specifically states that she is training in Bjj to improve her ground game in upcoming fights.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Well, that's the thing… in a way, no, they're not. They're a collection of mechanical actions that are found in myriad arts… it's the way they're trained and applied that makes them "BJJ techniques"… not the techniques themselves. Which was kinda the point…



That's fine. The statement you quoted came from a context where it was very clear what the individual was practicing. My argument was never that Bjj is the only art that houses shoulder locks, armlocks, or chokes. However, the entry point and execution of those techniques tend to be different. For example, while there are shoulder locks in kung fu, very few kung fu styles would execute a shoulder lock from the guard position on their back.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> I would need to see the technique being performed to know for sure. For example, you say "shoulder lock", are they performing a shoulder lock like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are they performing a shoulder lock like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case if someone is telling me they're doing Bjj techniques, I'll assume they're doing Bjj.


Nice pictures. Thanks.
Have done both methods in my training in shotokan, pekiti, and CSW; the lower one in TKD, WC, Silat, and Tai Chi. The upper in wrestling and of course the little BJJ I've done. It is also from a standing position as well from WC and Pekiti. Was first taught both in my shotokan training with the first example being from a standing position and crossbody position. I'm sure there are a few nuances that maybe a different like we control the base of the palm in the v-armlock vs the wrist for example.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Bjj forms the core of submission wrestling as well.





Hanzou said:


> In any case if someone is telling me they're doing Bjj techniques, I'll assume they're doing Bjj.





Hanzou said:


> Judo+Sambo+Catch= Bjj.



It _is_ true that as a BJJ practitioner I am more than happy to steal any technique that works for me and isn't red hot or nailed down, then saying "it's part of BJJ now!" That _doesn't_ mean that other people who learned the same techniques as part of a different art are actually BJJ practitioners.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I think we need to be careful with this, too.   Striking is encouraged in the ufc, and rules are in place that favor the striker.   Yet we still see submissions about once out of every three bouts, on average.  That's still very common.
> 
> Also, the strikers learned grappling, and there are now, appropriately, no pure stylists any more.   While each athlete has areas of strength and weakness, they are all well rounded.  This is particularly true at the elite level.   They're all competent strikers and grapplers.



You can't make statements like that. It could lead to the end arguing!

Great post.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Except in those cases Rousey specifically states that she is training in Bjj to improve her ground game in upcoming fights.




Do tell?

Show a link to where she specifically said this-strategically, I could believe it, but I've never heard or read as much, and find it hard to believe that her ground game needs-or needed- any "improvement" from BJJ-or that any "tweaks" that might be perceived as needed couldn't be provided by her home camp. Hell, the improvement in her striking game just in the last year-something she *did* need to focus on- is scary. 

So, yeah, show me where she said that-I could believe it, but not from you.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> It _is_ true that as a BJJ practitioner I am more than happy to steal any technique that works for me and isn't red hot or nailed down, then saying "it's part of BJJ now!" That _doesn't_ mean that other people who learned the same techniques as part of a different art are actually BJJ practitioners.



My point is that Bjj forms the core of MMA and submission wrestling/grappling. Through that, techniques get siphoned from Bjj and into Bjj in a constant give and take. So much so, that at this point the only thing that truly separates competitive grappling these days are the rule sets in their respective competitive sports. I think its a wonderful thing that Wrestlers, Judokas, Jiujiteiros, Somboists, MMA grapplers, etc. can all exchange techniques with each other in order for everyone to improve.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> My point is that Bjj forms the core of MMA and submission wrestling/grappling. Through that, techniques get siphoned from Bjj and into Bjj in a constant give and take. So much so, that at this point the only thing that truly separates competitive grappling these days are the rule sets in their respective competitive sports. I think its a wonderful thing that Wrestlers, Judokas, Jiujiteiros, Somboists, MMA grapplers, etc. can all exchange techniques with each other in order for everyone to improve.



has influenced grappling. More than kung fu has influenced striking. Yeah that would be pretty sound.


----------



## Danny T

Tony Dismukes said:


> It _is_ true that as a BJJ practitioner I am more than happy to steal any technique that works for me and isn't red hot or nailed down, then saying "it's part of BJJ now!" That _doesn't_ mean that other people who learned the same techniques as part of a different art are actually BJJ practitioners.



It is true as a martial artist I am more than happy to steal any movement, application, or action that works for me saying it is a part of what I do now. Doesn't mean I'm doing the art or the system or style from where I took it. I'm more than happy to acknowledge where I got it from and I am merely doing that particular action. There is far more to any art than just doing an action from it.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> My point is that Bjj forms the core of MMA and submission wrestling/grappling. Through that, techniques get siphoned from Bjj and into Bjj in a constant give and take. So much so, that at this point the only thing that truly separates competitive grappling these days are the rule sets in their respective competitive sports. I think its a wonderful thing that Wrestlers, Judokas, Jiujiteiros, Somboists, MMA grapplers, etc. can all exchange techniques with each other in order for everyone to improve.


I would agree completly with this if you had stated Bjj is one of several grappling systems that form the core of MMA and submission wrestling. Bjj alone is not the core.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Except in those cases Rousey specifically states that she is training in Bjj to improve her ground game in upcoming fights.


In fact, oddly, back in July of this year, Ronda said here:



			
				Ronda Rousey said:
			
		

> "judo fighters that are good on the ground never really got the respect they deserved" and that she "*can beat any BJJ girl in the world, gi or no-gi, any weight division, black belt all the way in any rule setting."*




And, back in Nov of 2011, she said this:


			
				Rowdy Ronda said:
			
		

> *I see no big difference between BJJ and judo*. When people compliment me on my BJJ, I tell them I am a BJJ white belt, because it’s true. I* believe BJJ and judo are the same sport with different emphasis.* BJJ is 20% standing and 80% on the ground, whereas judo is 80% standing and 20% on the ground. *It’s all the same to me*.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> In fact, oddly, back in July of this year, Ronda said here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, back in Nov of 2011, she said this:



Ronda Rousey Training For UFC168 - BJJ Today

and yet regards it seriously enough to turn up and train in bjj schools.

so why isn't she doing kung fu?


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> Ronda Rousey Training For UFC168 - BJJ Today
> 
> and yet regards it seriously enough to turn up and train in bjj schools.
> 
> so why isn't she doing kung fu?


 
Because BJJ is, most likely, what she's facing-you don't beat BJJ people by rolling with kung fu practitioners, you do it by rolling with BJJ people and understanding how to beat their game with yours. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?

1) KOTC-Opponent, Ediane Gomez, *Brazilian MMA* fighter-win by armbar
2) Strikeforce-Opponent, Sarah D'Alelio*, Brazilian jiujitsu based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
3) Strikeforce-Opponent, Julia Budd, Muay Thai based MMA figher-win by armbar
4) Strikeforce-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based*/ground-centric (wrestling, etc.) MMA fighter-win by armbar, SF championship
5) Strikeforcce-Opponent, Sarah Kaufman, *BJJ brown belt* MMA fighter-win by armbar
6) UFC-Opponent, Liz Carmouche,* BJJ based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
7) UFC-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based* MMA fighter- win by armbar
8) UFC-Opponent, Sarah McCann, Olympic wrestling based MMA fighter-win by TKO
9) UFC- Opponent, Alexis Davis,* BJJ* and JJJ *black belt* MMA fighter-win by KO

Of course, when you roll with guys almost all the time, have world-class skills, and they've been developed in Judo, where a fast ground game is the rule, not the exception, and have the right kind of coaching and strategizing, then of course you don't-as she said-need anything from BJJ, except to learn their strategies so you can develop counters to them, or traps for them......they are, though, apparently going to be the base/background of most of her opponents.

I mean, it's not as though they're going to teach her how to throw a person, or control them on the ground, or armbar them-is it? 

 Of course, it could be just as the Gracie's said in the video-she does have to overcome that "bottom=*losing*" mentality from a lifetime of Judo.

Or it could just be to make videos like that one, so BJJ fanboys like_ Xebecheh_ Hanzou can keep their worldview...





drop bear said:


> so why isn't she doing kung fu?


 
What makes you so sure she isn't?






(That's one of her striking coaches, Edmond Tarveydan....she really could be doing some gung fu!)


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Because BJJ is, most likely, what she's facing-you don't beat BJJ people by rolling with kung fu practitioners, you do it by rolling with BJJ people and understanding how to beat their game with yours. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?
> 
> 1) KOTC-Opponent, Ediane Gomez, *Brazilian MMA* fighter-win by armbar
> 2) Strikeforce-Opponent, Sarah D'Alelio*, Brazilian jiujitsu based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 3) Strikeforce-Opponent, Julia Budd, Muay Thai based MMA figher-win by armbar
> 4) Strikeforce-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based*/ground-centric (wrestling, etc.) MMA fighter-win by armbar, SF championship
> 5) Strikeforcce-Opponent, Sarah Kaufman, *BJJ brown belt* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 6) UFC-Opponent, Liz Carmouche,* BJJ based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 7) UFC-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based* MMA fighter- win by armbar
> 8) UFC-Opponent, Sarah McCann, Olympic wrestling based MMA fighter-win by TKO
> 9) UFC- Opponent, Alexis Davis,* BJJ* and JJJ *black belt* MMA fighter-win by KO
> 
> Of course, when you roll with guys almost all the time, have world-class skills, and they've been developed in Judo, where a fast ground game is the rule, not the exception, and have the right kind of coaching and strategizing, then of course you don't-as she said-need anything from BJJ, except to learn their strategies so you can develop counters to them, or traps for them......they are, though, apparently going to be the base/background of most of her opponents.
> 
> I mean, it's not as though they're going to teach her how to throw a person, or control them on the ground, or armbar them-is it?
> 
> Of course, it could be just as the Gracie's said in the video-she does have to overcome that "bottom=*losing*" mentality from a lifetime of Judo.
> 
> Or it could just be to make videos like that one, so BJJ fanboys like_ Xebecheh_ Hanzou can keep their worldview...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so sure she isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (That's one of her striking coaches, Edmond Tarveydan....she really could be doing some gung fu!)





elder999 said:


> Because BJJ is, most likely, what she's facing-you don't beat BJJ people by rolling with kung fu practitioners, you do it by rolling with BJJ people and understanding how to beat their game with yours. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?
> 
> 1) KOTC-Opponent, Ediane Gomez, *Brazilian MMA* fighter-win by armbar
> 2) Strikeforce-Opponent, Sarah D'Alelio*, Brazilian jiujitsu based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 3) Strikeforce-Opponent, Julia Budd, Muay Thai based MMA figher-win by armbar
> 4) Strikeforce-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based*/ground-centric (wrestling, etc.) MMA fighter-win by armbar, SF championship
> 5) Strikeforcce-Opponent, Sarah Kaufman, *BJJ brown belt* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 6) UFC-Opponent, Liz Carmouche,* BJJ based* MMA fighter-win by armbar
> 7) UFC-Opponent, Meisha Tate, *BJJ based* MMA fighter- win by armbar
> 8) UFC-Opponent, Sarah McCann, Olympic wrestling based MMA fighter-win by TKO
> 9) UFC- Opponent, Alexis Davis,* BJJ* and JJJ *black belt* MMA fighter-win by KO
> 
> Of course, when you roll with guys almost all the time, have world-class skills, and they've been developed in Judo, where a fast ground game is the rule, not the exception, and have the right kind of coaching and strategizing, then of course you don't-as she said-need anything from BJJ, except to learn their strategies so you can develop counters to them, or traps for them......they are, though, apparently going to be the base/background of most of her opponents.
> 
> I mean, it's not as though they're going to teach her how to throw a person, or control them on the ground, or armbar them-is it?
> 
> Of course, it could be just as the Gracie's said in the video-she does have to overcome that "bottom=*losing*" mentality from a lifetime of Judo.
> 
> Or it could just be to make videos like that one, so BJJ fanboys like_ Xebecheh_ Hanzou can keep their worldview...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so sure she isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (That's one of her striking coaches, Edmond Tarveydan....she really could be doing some gung fu!)



nice find.

that closes one door while opening another. Which is the idea that nobody mma understands kung fu.

and given mma guys can kung fu. Why can't kung fu guys mma.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> nice find.
> 
> that closes one door while opening another. Which is the idea that nobody mma understands kung fu.
> 
> and given mma guys can kung fu. Why can't kung fu guys mma.


 
Roy "Big Country" Nelson trains in Shaolin. There's a few others-of course, then it becomes a question of which came first, the gung fu or the mma....they come and go, y'know? Sam Bieri, Luke Cummo and Jerome Lebanner all trained in wing chun or some other Chinese form.

 Jason Delucia (Five Animals)  actually did pretty well in MMA, back in its bad, bad heyday, in spite of losing to Royce Gracie in UFC 2, and being Bas's ***** at Pancrase, he went something like 33-21 for his career..


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Roy "Big Country" Nelson trains in Shaolin. There's a few others-of course, then it becomes a question of which came first, the gung fu or the mma....



i would have assumed kung fu came first. And that there are fighters who use it.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> i would have assumed kung fu came first. And that there are fighters who use it.


 In Roy Nelson's case, sure-he started training in his sifu's garage when he (Nelson) was in high school......


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> nice find.
> 
> that closes one door while opening another. Which is the idea that nobody mma understands kung fu.
> 
> and given mma guys can kung fu. Why can't kung fu guys mma.


 
And, of course, all the other arguments: the learning curve for all but a few forms of gung fu is pretty steep for someone who wants to be an MMA fighter. The rules of MMA don't really suit most forms of gung fu. Etc., etc., etc.-MMA just may not be attractive to a lot of gung fu folk in the west. In China, of course, the two MMA organizations that I know of have several fighters from gung fu backgrounds, but that's as one would expect....


----------



## kung fu fighter

elder999 said:


> Sam Bieri, Luke Cummo and Jerome Lebanner all trained in wing chun or some other Chinese form.



which one of them was trained in wing chun?


----------



## elder999

kung fu fighter said:


> which one of them was trained in wing chun?


 Jerome Lebanner and Sami Berik


----------



## nicos

[


7starmantis said:


> I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?
> 
> What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?
> 
> 
> 7sm


I often wonder why its just the chinese arts being questioned and not the other traditional arts such as Filipino stick fighting, silat, European sword fighting, jousters, fencers, African stick fighters,Persian wrestlers. it sounds silly but every time someone asks the why no  kung fu in mma there is a subtle silly ring to it. MMA is exactly what it is very competitive freestyle fighting not for the not very well conditioned fighter who can't take a good few gut punches without wanting to puke. if you've taken a few longfist classes in your lifetime an maybe mixed 1 or two years of chin na training or something more "revered" like Krav maga classes i dont think you should find yourself in an mma ring, boxing ring, or even a wwe ring ,cuz you have no or little training in any of these things. MMA is believed by many now as a "no ********, hardcore, the real thing, practical, (lots of testosterone and ego and men hugging men) my style is better than yours cuz i can beat you in the octagon" kind of thing. especially with the commercialization of it and all. its not bad I like any sport that promotes good competition. what i'm about to say you can believe or not I know what i've seen- few Chinese martial artist who are very good will take part in octagon fighting. the very background of most of the Chinese arts are based on self development and not beating people up. there is a plus and a minus in this cuz now you have certain schools that say "oh were not into the fighting aspect of things" and totally exclude fighting or just water it down thus loosing a certain understanding of what they do. but there are some who have still kept on to the "hard"parts of the art and even promote good competition  you will find few or none on you tube but i can still name some a few like _Hisham Al_-_Haroun_  you might get something on him believe it or not he's a master of monkey gong fu not bjj or any of the common mma base styles, then there's Sifu Phu ngo who just sometime ago posted some grappling on you tube and if this doesn't convince you then nobody cares. The thing is there's nothing new under the sun, Chinese martial arts always had stand up fighting, throwing, grappling, joint lock manipulation, acupuncture and pressure, along with internal and external conditioning and meditation, all this made a complete fighter. today you see some of this (mostly stand up and throwing along with some conditioning in Sanda which is COMPETITION and shuia jiao which is COMPETITION. Military and police sanda is a whole nother story by the way, which is far deadlier than any  MMA youve ever seen (naturally so), and also  Russian Sambo and systema are very "ring formidable" but not as common as Bjj and "muy thai" and all that stuff in today's mma Why? because MMA is undeniably a western Sport Japanese martial arts and naturally it's Brazilian offshoot were always more known than the Chinese and other Asian ones in the west, (you would argue that Muy thai is the bees knees in MMA today i say Muy thai was pushed as a sport from 1920 something and recognized by the olympic council of asia since the 90s)  if it wasn't for certain Chinese figures, kung fu would still be a secretly practiced art in the backstreets of Chinatown.  but gradually we see Sanda and other previously unknown of eastern, middle eastern, and even European arts finding there way to the west and gradually  western competition. in wrapping up I'm going to say that there are seasoned street brawlers who can probably throw down some mixed martial artist in a fistfight.


----------



## kung fu fighter

elder999 said:


> Jerome Lebanner and Sami Berik



Thanks! Jerome Lebanner hits like a truck, but has a glass chin. Sami Berik has great footwork


----------



## Tez3

kung fu fighter said:


> Thanks! Jerome Lebanner hits like a truck, but has a glass chin. Sami Berik has great footwork



Sami is a great guy, I posted up about him on another thread but was shouted down about him as he was a 'loser' in some people's eyes, however he had fought some of the best who have gone on to the UFC, he's not afraid to take a fight on and he's not afraid to experiment as well as use what he knows from WC. He fought and beat Abdul Mohamed a hugely strong wrestler. Sami's record really does belie his achievements and I am so pleased that these are appreciated by those that understand, so thank you so much for this.


----------



## kung fu fighter

Tez3 said:


> Sami is a great guy, I posted up about him on another thread but was shouted down about him as he was a 'loser' in some people's eyes, however he had fought some of the best who have gone on to the UFC, he's not afraid to take a fight on and he's not afraid to experiment as well as use what he knows from WC. He fought and beat Abdul Mohamed a hugely strong wrestler. Sami's record really does belie his achievements and I am so pleased that these are appreciated by those that understand, so thank you so much for this.



You're welcome! what I like about Sami is how he uses his footwork to apply distancing with intercepting timing. This is the same strategy that Lyoto Machida uses. This is what sets him apart from most MMA fighers who all do the same things in the same way, which makes it boring to watch.


----------



## ALEX WHITE

7starmantis said:


> I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?
> 
> What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?
> 
> 
> 7sm




I personally have heard this story a billion times over, but it is not the style it is the practitioner and the setting, I know for sure I wouldn't be able to get in to the UFC or Bellator, for one reason, my particular art is used for trapping, rapid strikes and close range combat, ON THE STREETS!
Kung Fu was designed where there was no rules what so ever, monks could defend themselves, not play by rules and win titles. I classify martial arts in to 3 families, Self Defence Arts (Wing Chun, Hapkido, etc.), War Arts (Krav Maga, CQB, etc.), Sport Arts (MMA, Boxing, Wrestling, etc.).
but don't get me wrong you can use mma on the street but you would not be able to deflect the wild "thugaroo" haymakers that people can witness at just about any barroom brawl thrown by people that know absolutely NOTHING., but as I stated in the beginning, styles are not the determining factor of the fight as in there is no style vs style, just really good practitioner of one art vs another really good practitioner of another art. certain arts fit certain people well, I do Wing Chun, that's my philosophy & opinion on this topic...


----------



## Tez3

ALEX WHITE said:


> but don't get me wrong you can use mma on the street but you would not be able to deflect the wild "thugaroo" haymakers that people can witness at just about any barroom brawl thrown by people that know absolutely NOTHING



Actually there's no reason to think that someone who trains MMA wouldn't be able to deflect these punches anymore than any other martial artist or even non martial artist. I agree it's the practitioner rather than the actual art but most MMA fighters have a core art if not more than one in what you call 'self defence' arts. A good many of them aren't, here at least, unaware or inexperienced in what you call 'the street' though to be honest that always sounds a bit over dramatic. This is two MMA fighters from here, good fighters in competition and out on the street literally ( it was a mate's stag night which is why they were dressed as females)


----------



## ALEX WHITE

Tez3 said:


> Actually there's no reason to think that someone who trains MMA wouldn't be able to deflect these punches anymore than any other martial artist or even non martial artist. I agree it's the practitioner rather than the actual art but most MMA fighters have a core art if not more than one in what you call 'self defence' arts. A good many of them aren't, here at least, unaware or inexperienced in what you call 'the street' though to be honest that always sounds a bit over dramatic. This is two MMA fighters from here, good fighters in competition and out on the street literally ( it was a mate's stag night which is why they were dressed as females)



never knew that they have a core art, I thought mma was muay thai and brazillian jiu jitsu. interesting video too


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ALEX WHITE said:


> never knew that they have a core art, I thought mma was muay thai and brazillian jiu jitsu. interesting video too


Muay Thai and BJJ are two of the more common core arts used by MMA fighters, but not the only ones. Both of those arts do have tools which are more than adequate for dealing with wild haymakers.

For that matter, any pro MMA fighter will have experience dealing with those kind of haymakers. That's because at the amateur level where they start out fights often devolve into wild slugfests. The reason you don't see the sloppy haymakers at the pro level is that the fighters have reached the level where those sorts of tactics don't work any more.


----------



## ALEX WHITE

Tony Dismukes said:


> Muay Thai and BJJ are two of the more common core arts used by MMA fighters, but not the only ones. Both of those arts do have tools which are more than adequate for dealing with wild haymakers.
> 
> For that matter, any pro MMA fighter will have experience dealing with those kind of haymakers. That's because at the amateur level where they start out fights often devolve into wild slugfests. The reason you don't see the sloppy haymakers at the pro level is that the fighters have reached the level where those sorts of tactics don't work any more.




that awnsers essentially all of my questions about mma, Thank you


----------



## drop bear

ALEX WHITE said:


> I personally have heard this story a billion times over, but it is not the style it is the practitioner and the setting, I know for sure I wouldn't be able to get in to the UFC or Bellator, for one reason, my particular art is used for trapping, rapid strikes and close range combat, ON THE STREETS!
> Kung Fu was designed where there was no rules what so ever, monks could defend themselves, not play by rules and win titles. I classify martial arts in to 3 families, Self Defence Arts (Wing Chun, Hapkido, etc.), War Arts (Krav Maga, CQB, etc.), Sport Arts (MMA, Boxing, Wrestling, etc.).
> but don't get me wrong you can use mma on the street but you would not be able to deflect the wild "thugaroo" haymakers that people can witness at just about any barroom brawl thrown by people that know absolutely NOTHING., but as I stated in the beginning, styles are not the determining factor of the fight as in there is no style vs style, just really good practitioner of one art vs another really good practitioner of another art. certain arts fit certain people well, I do Wing Chun, that's my philosophy & opinion on this topic...



i thought it wasn't the style?


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Muay Thai and BJJ are two of the more common core arts used by MMA fighters, but not the only ones. Both of those arts do have tools which are more than adequate for dealing with wild haymakers.
> 
> For that matter, any pro MMA fighter will have experience dealing with those kind of haymakers. That's because at the amateur level where they start out fights often devolve into wild slugfests. The reason you don't see the sloppy haymakers at the pro level is that the fighters have reached the level where those sorts of tactics don't work any more.








they become overhands. And the we move into a discussion as to why a pro fighters round punch works and a street fighters not so much. But the simple answer is the pro fighter throws them better.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> they become overhands. And the we move into a discussion as to why a pro fighters round punch works and a street fighters not so much. But the simple answer is the pro fighter throws them better.


It's a punch that works well 'if' it connects because of how committed a punch it is. The reason is can work well by high level amateurs and pros is being able to set the opponent up. Seldom does it work when just thrown as a wild overhand in the higher levels.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> It's a punch that works well 'if' it connects because of how committed a punch it is. The reason is can work well by high level amateurs and pros is being able to set the opponent up. Seldom does it work when just thrown as a wild overhand in the higher levels.


agree
and boils down to kung fu and mma a bit defending an overhand from your friend in your club is one thing defending Adrian  pang is another.

you have to be exposed to great fighters to be a great fighter.


----------



## Thunder Foot

In my opinion the reason why MMA fighters are successful in their competitions and KF is not is due to the fact that the sport is not lucrative enough to draw the attention of practitioners who will devote themselves to a fanatical training regime for pennies to the dollar.  It's a known statement that MMA fighters don't really make much money, especially given the toll on the body. 99% of pro fighters are driven by money, and the efforts of potential talent are better spent in boxing or kickboxing... where the international influence is greater, thus income potential is also greater.


----------



## Tez3

Thunder Foot said:


> In my opinion the reason why MMA fighters are successful in their competitions and KF is not is due to the fact that the sport is not lucrative enough to draw the attention of practitioners who will devote themselves to a fanatical training regime for pennies to the dollar.  It's a known statement that MMA fighters don't really make much money, especially given the toll on the body. 99% of pro fighters are driven by money, and the efforts of potential talent are better spent in boxing or kickboxing... where the international influence is greater, thus income potential is also greater.




I wouldn't say so many fighters are driven by money, for many it's the drive to be the best and to push themselves to see how far they can go. If it were about money you wouldn't have any fighters because as you said there's not that much in MMA. Boxing doesn't interest many martial arts in a competitive way and the money isn't much better unless you mange to get to the top. Kick boxing is the same. The money in these sports is in sponsorship and advertising etc.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Thunder Foot said:


> In my opinion the reason why MMA fighters are successful in their competitions and KF is not is due to the fact that the sport is not lucrative enough to draw the attention of practitioners who will devote themselves to a fanatical training regime for pennies to the dollar.  It's a known statement that MMA fighters don't really make much money, especially given the toll on the body. 99% of pro fighters are driven by money, and the efforts of potential talent are better spent in boxing or kickboxing... where the international influence is greater, thus income potential is also greater.



I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that Kung Fu based fighters are less likely to devote themselves to a demanding but poorly paid sport than fighters with a foundation in boxing/wrestling/BJJ/judo/Muay Thai/karate/etc? Why would that be? I've never heard anyone claim that Kung Fu practitioners are more mercenary than other martial artists.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Well let me start with saying that it is a bit of an enigma to attempt explanation of such a generalization with why no Kung Fu contenders are in MMA. But when I consider the possibilities, I believe a contributing factor may be that the MMA culture in China (where Kung Fu has widely been culturally identified) hasn't gained the needed momentum as in other countries. If you've had the pleasure of visiting China within the past few years, you might be surprised to see a new trend of excitement and promotion in the sport of Boxing nationally as well as furthered Sanda/Sanshou promotion. Why that is remains up for debate, but my opinion on it is because the recognition and jointly the income potential of boxing far exceeds that of MMA. Boxing is an Olympic Sport, so the potential of all this to me begins and expands from that point.

As far as the Fighters and their training, I'll give everyone a fair look and say that they are all devoted. But going Pro is not a part-time thing as you sign into a contract binding fighting agreement. Training then becomes a full-time job and operating/living expenses become a harsh reality. Some things to consider... To take it a step further we could ask a parallel of the question in, why haven't any real boxing based  fighters (save one in Ray Mercer) competed in MMA? And jointly, does that prove that boxing is useless? Just my $0.02


----------



## drop bear

Thunder Foot said:


> Well let me start with saying that it is a bit of an enigma to attempt explanation of such a generalization with why no Kung Fu contenders are in MMA. But when I consider the possibilities, I believe a contributing factor may be that the MMA culture in China (where Kung Fu has widely been culturally identified) hasn't gained the needed momentum as in other countries. If you've had the pleasure of visiting China within the past few years, you might be surprised to see a new trend of excitement and promotion in the sport of Boxing nationally as well as furthered Sanda/Sanshou promotion. Why that is remains up for debate, but my opinion on it is because the recognition and jointly the income potential of boxing far exceeds that of MMA. Boxing is an Olympic Sport, so the potential of all this to me begins and expands from that point.
> 
> As far as the Fighters and their training, I'll give everyone a fair look and say that they are all devoted. But going Pro is not a part-time thing as you sign into a contract binding fighting agreement. Training then becomes a full-time job and operating/living expenses become a harsh reality. Some things to consider... To take it a step further we could ask a parallel of the question in, why haven't any real boxing based  fighters (save one in Ray Mercer) competed in MMA? And jointly, does that prove that boxing is useless? Just my $0.02



more money in boxing


----------



## Tez3

As with many sports, MMA has a top layer of professionals and a large base of amateurs who train and fight because they enjoy it. When people say 'oh X style doesn't have anyone in MMA' what they mean is they don't know anyone who is on that top layer of elite professionals, this disregards all the amateurs who do MMA. The top layer again like other sports, is made up of a relatively small amount of people and to base your views on such a small amount will skew the reality of just who is training MMA. Boxing is a hugely popular sport we have thousands of amateur boxers in the UK, most of whom have no intentions of ever going pro, likewise MMA.
MMA is still a very small sport, it's professionals in the world number in the hundreds only. It's not to say that KF doesn't work, it means that MMA more likely hasn't attracted enough people to it yet.

The UFC isn't MMA, it's a very large, very successful entertainment company, it takes fighters who will sell tickets and television time, that doesn't necessarily mean the very best fighters but the most popular ones ie local to where the show is held, well known through advertising and sponsorship. The UFC is for making money, nothing wrong with that of course, but even as a big company they only use a relatively few fighters, mostly home grown because that's what sells the tickets, that system works everywhere, it's a tried and tested formula, they'd be foolish not to. When they come to the UK they use UK fighters as much as possible.

 However in the UK certainly and I would also think the US there isn't the amount of KF you would find in Asia so the fighters will comes from backgrounds that are more common. In the UK I know we have more fighters coming from TKD and karate than the US does, more of their fighters come from wrestling than in the UK because wrestling is very big in the US, our fighters base tends to be more Judo and BJJ. All these things don't mean one style is better than another in MMA, it means there is a bigger base for fighters to come from. If the UFC make it to China or there is a very big MMA promotion that runs fight nights there,( I believe there are some MMA fight shows there), I would expect to see a large proportion of KF fighters in there doing well. It will depends on how popular MMA becomes, it's still a very small sport in the USA which has the biggest promoters, it's still a small sport in Europe where we have quite a few promotions that while not as big as the UFC are nearly so. Judging whether a style is successful or not in MMA is much harder than you think with such small numbers to judge by. You also need to look at the larger amateur base which is very difficult before you deem a style ineffective.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Thunder Foot said:


> To take it a step further we could ask a parallel of the question in, why haven't any real boxing based fighters (save one in Ray Mercer) competed in MMA? And jointly, does that prove that boxing is useless?



A high percentage (possibly a majority) of professional MMA fighters _do_ train boxing and it makes up a substantial portion of their training. It's definitely not accurate to say that there are no boxing based fighters competing in MMA. (There have also been more professional boxers than Mercer who have given MMA a try.)

I suspect you mean that there are no fighters who are simultaneously active competing in boxing and MMA at a high level. The reasons for that are partially monetary, but also due to the fact that it's difficult to train for both at a high level at the same time*. If you train your punching enough to be competitive in boxing, then you are neglecting the grappling you need for MMA. If you train your grappling enough to be competitive in MMA, then you aren't spending enough time on punching for your boxing career.

*(I'm speaking of the higher levels of competition. You could train MMA and possibly fight boxing at the lower levels or vice versa.)

Regarding the original claim concerning CMA practitioners, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of MMA fighters do not train in Kung Fu or have a Kung Fu background. Even for those fighters who do have a CMA background, I'm not sure whether many of them still use their classical Kung Fu forms as a major component of training. (They might. I know Lyoto Machida still practices his karate kata, though I'm not sure what percentage of his training he devotes to that.)

That doesn't mean Kung Fu is useless (as the OP suggested), of course. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it is useless for MMA. It may just mean that no one has yet figured out the best way to adapt traditional CMA to an MMA environment.


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> *(I'm speaking of the higher levels of competition. You could train MMA and possibly fight boxing at the lower levels or vice versa.)



I agree with what you are saying, I know a good many amateur fighters who also compete in boxing, kick boxing, karate, Judo and BJJ competitions. There's no reason they shouldn't compete in MMA as well as any style they are competent in, as you say the elite fighters can't do this however the grass roots can and does.
The interest has to be there for KF people to want to train to fight MMA, it may well not be. It can be as simple as that, that the majority of KF people aren't interested in MMA any more than they are interested in karate competitions.


----------



## clfsean

Tez3 said:


> The interest has to be there for KF people to want to train to fight MMA, it may well not be. It can be as simple as that, that the majority of KF people aren't interested in MMA any more than they are interested in karate competitions.



oooohhhhhh... you might be on to something ...


----------

