# JKD vs. MMA



## Gruenewald

Classic topic of debate, but in my opinion it's not really a debate at all. Let's discuss both the similarities and differences between Jeet Kune Do (founded in 1967 by Bruce Lee) and Mixed Martial Arts (could be considered founded in 1993 with UFC 1, although it has roots quite far back in history).

In 2004, UFC President Dana White was quoted as saying that Bruce Lee is the "father of mixed martial arts." From this we can make the assumption that Modern MMA was heavily influenced by one of the principle concepts of JKD, which is to "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective". However, while the first few UFC tournaments were "no-holds barred", more recent rules have limited contestants in order to prevent death or serious injury from occuring; MMA has taken the shape of a bona fide sport, which in many ways contradicts JKD's philosophies against limitations. Also, a lot of people tend to think of the two as being the same thing, and use them pretty much interchangeably.

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?


----------



## Omar B

Wow, a style versus style thread, this won't get ugly.


----------



## Gruenewald

Well as mentioned in the op, it's more of a discussion of differences and similarities. Plus JKD isn't a style. Nor is MMA, some would argue.


----------



## ap Oweyn

How different would you say MMA is from JKD's sparring platform?  It's all well and good to say that JKD allows this and that.  But in terms of what people can actually perform on one another in a reasonably polite society, I think the differences decrease considerably.  What we could do to one another in theory is just that.  Theory.  And Lee wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory either.


----------



## sgtmac_46

In effect, aren't these just two names for the same general concept.......applying what is useful in a given framework and situation?


----------



## Tez3

OP, no its not a debate, it's been covered several times on this board for a start, look over old threads and posts then don't be surprised when you don't like postsd that come on this one and the thread gets locked.

Anything that has the title ......v....... never ends well and is pointless.


----------



## Gruenewald

Well I think you're missing the point, vs. is just an eyecatcher... as explained above it's not the literal purpose of the thread (controversy will always garner the most attention and online forums are no exception). But if people feel that this has been discussed in every possible facet and that there is absolutely nothing more to contribute to the subject then locked it shall be. I still think that intelligent discussion is imminent if people chose to participate, though.

There is this existing thread on the subject, but most forums don't take kindly to people (especially newbies) necro'ing two-year-old threads.


----------



## Tez3

Gruenewald said:


> Well I think you're missing the point, vs. is just an eyecatcher... as explained above it's not the literal purpose of the thread (controversy will always garner the most attention and online forums are no exception). But if people feel that this has been discussed in every possible facet and that there is absolutely nothing more to contribute to the subject then locked it shall be. I still think that intelligent discussion is imminent if people chose to participate, though.
> 
> There is this existing thread on the subject, but most forums don't take kindly to people (especially newbies) necro'ing two-year-old threads.


 
Sigh. . . . . no I haven't missed the point, style versus style threads are combatorial by their nature, the 'versus' bit does that. But hey if you know better you carry on.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Historically speaking as it applies to Chinese Martial Arts it is not uncommon to claim association with a famous person, who is dead, to gain legitimacy for your new style whether or not there is any true association what-so-ever

It would appear to me that MMA has all the legitimacy it needs without trying to claim connections to Bruce Lee whether one exists or not

Just my 2 Cents

And I am with tez on this. With any style v style titled thread )and there has been a lot of them) I generally say this wont end well.

May have been taken better on MT if it was titled is there a connection between JKD and MMA


----------



## K831

Gruenewald said:


> In 2004, UFC President Dana White was quoted as saying that Bruce Lee is the "father of mixed martial arts."



I think there are far too many that had the same ideas long before Bruce, but I take his point. Kajukenbo blended what they felt was "most useful" from multiple styles a good 20 years before Bruce's JKD. I suppose that Kaju became a more "structured" style than JKD was ever intended to. While MMA (in terms of UFC type competitions) is similar to JKD in that it hasn't become a structured style, there does seem to be a pattern emerging; the vast majority of gyms focus on Muay Thai/boxing/bjj and maybe wrestling. Most people think of that blend when they think of MMA. It is nice to see fighters here and there adding in their TMA and looking to other sources to improve (Anderson doing Akido with Segal for example). 



Gruenewald said:


> "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective".



This is where MMA and JKD are both very similar, and very different. Similar in that both strive to use only what is useful, but the context of that is quite different. 

I have gotten plenty of blank stares in MMA gyms when I asked "would that approach work well if the guy had a knife?" etc etc... they don't care, because they are choosing an approach that works in their competitive context, and it is specialized such that often the context isn't just competition, but dialed in to the specific fighter they are competing against next. Whereas, my FMA class (which is very JKDish in terms of simplifying techs and dropping the ineffective/unnecessary) is blade based, so we don't mess with anything that would put us in a compromised situation if the attacker had a knife. That means we cut out a lot of what an MMA competitor would train to do. I like that, I want techniques that are applicable to empty hand / knife / club / multiple attackers... I don't want to adjust techniques on the fly any more than absolutely necessary.

The point I am driving at is that there are many styles/schools/instructors who use and apply the notion that Bruce did  





Gruenewald said:


> "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective".


 however, what is "effective" proves to be subjective and contextual. I think Bruce would be an avid MMA fan, but I believe there are some techniques and practices in MMA (competition) that he would have cut from his own training and system, as they are highly "effective" in the cage... dangerous elsewhere. 

I had the opportunity to train with a Muay Boran fella.. he constantly pointed out the differences between "competition" MT and old style... it was fascinating to see how the MT we see in MMA evolved from the more SD oriented MT... and the evolution was based on "taking what is effective" but in two different contexts.


----------



## Tez3

If you are going to maintain that MMA started with UFC1 you need to have at a look at your history and not the ancient type either. It was around in the 1900s,has never gone away plus *Japan had it* *before UFC* and we've had MMA fights here before UFC1. History does not start with the UFC.


----------



## K831

Xue Sheng said:


> And I am with tez on this&#8230;. With any style v style titled thread )and there has been a lot of them) I generally say&#8230; this won&#8217;t end well.
> May have been taken better on MT if it was titled is there a connection between JKD and MMA



May have been. But aren't we capable of reading the rest of his question and seeing that this is what he meant anyways, overlooking the "vs" and shaping the conversation ourselves by discussing the differences and similarities in a mature manner? 

Or we could walk on egg shells, and lecture each other on how "vs" threads are naughty, further perpetuating the problem with a self-righteous tone... but I think that is even worse than the dreaded "vs" thread. TS asked for thoughts an opinions... anyone who loath "vs" threads can simply avoid it, or take an active role in shaping a positive conversation. I'm not with Tez on this one... members popping in long enough to shake ones finger at another doesn't help. 

Back to the thread, I think this was a great point; 



Xue Sheng said:


> Historically speaking as it applies to Chinese Martial Arts it is not uncommon to claim association with a famous person, who is dead, to gain legitimacy for your new style whether or not there is any true association what-so-ever



Likely why he invoked the name "Bruce Lee" as the father of MMA, without naming the earlier "fathers and mothers" of MMA. (Wasn't Wing Chun started by a woman searching to take only what was most effective, specifically for smaller individuals?)


----------



## Tez3

K831 said:


> May have been. But aren't we capable of reading the rest of his question and seeing that this is what he meant anyways, overlooking the "vs" and shaping the conversation ourselves by discussing the differences and similarities in a mature manner?
> 
> Or we could walk on egg shells, and lecture each other on how "vs" threads are naughty, further perpetuating the problem with a self-righteous tone... but I think that is even worse than the dreaded "vs" thread. TS asked for thoughts an opinions... anyone who loath "vs" threads can simply avoid it, or take an active role in shaping a positive conversation. I'm not with Tez on this one... *members popping in long* *enough to shake ones finger at another doesn't help.*
> 
> Back to the thread, I think this was a great point;
> 
> 
> 
> Likely why he invoked the name "Bruce Lee" as the father of MMA, without naming the earlier "fathers and mothers" of MMA. (Wasn't Wing Chun started by a woman searching to take only what was most effective, specifically for smaller individuals?)


 

Well thats not anyone whos on here now. I'll tell you why I hate the  'v' threads...because when they involve MMA they invariably turn into and despite what you think they could be, a let's bash MMA/TMA thread. You may consider yourself mature enough to resist this argument but I'll bet you it comes along soon enough.
1. someone is going to post MMA isn't any good for self defence
2. someone is going to post about the fanboys and yobs in MMA
3. someone is going to post up that there's rules in MMA and fighters are stuck with those rules and can't do it one the street.
4. someone is going to post up that Bruce Lee would have/havent done well in the UFC.

Etc etc etc.


Bruce Lee can hardly be considered the father of MMA when it was going well before he was born, people think he was because he was within living memory for most of us, recent history for many others ( there, nowI feel old!). Before him though there was Vale Tudo and Sambo.


----------



## ap Oweyn

Dana White citing Bruce Lee has at least as much to do with White's efforts to bring MMA back from the brink of extinction as much as anything else.  Historically, the MMA format is older than Lee by a handful of centuries.  Fighters crosstrained in boxing and wrestling, competing for trophies, titles, and cash prizes, in front of an adoring throng.  Pankration.

But Gruenewald, you made the point that there's much to discuss, and yet you've only replied to complaints that it's all been done before.  Ignoring my attempt to actually discuss.  So whaddya say to my earlier post?

Not trying to start static.  But I'm trying to discuss, despite the fact that this has been covered before.  


Stuart


----------



## sgtmac_46

Tez3 said:


> If you are going to maintain that MMA started with UFC1 you need to have at a look at your history and not the ancient type either. It was around in the 1900s,has never gone away plus *Japan had it* *before UFC* and we've had MMA fights here before UFC1. History does not start with the UFC.


 
If you're going to look at the history, you might want to look at the ancient greek sport that is identical to the rules and, in all likelihood, many of the techniques of modern sport MMA......which itself evolved from battlefield combatives.

And even UFC1 was a direct result of the Vale Tudo that the Gracies were familiar with. 

Everything old is new again.


----------



## sgtmac_46

ap Oweyn said:


> Dana White citing Bruce Lee has at least as much to do with White's efforts to bring MMA back from the brink of extinction as much as anything else. Historically, the MMA format is older than Lee by a handful of centuries. Fighters crosstrained in boxing and wrestling, competing for trophies, titles, and cash prizes, in front of an adoring throng. Pankration.
> 
> But Gruenewald, you made the point that there's much to discuss, and yet you've only replied to complaints that it's all been done before. Ignoring my attempt to actually discuss. So whaddya say to my earlier post?
> 
> Not trying to start static. But I'm trying to discuss, despite the fact that this has been covered before.
> 
> 
> Stuart


 

It would be most accurate to say that MMA, JKD, Pankration, Vale Tudo, etc, etc, all represent the same concept......which is the individual development of martial skill taking useful concepts from as wide a cross section of disciplines as available in order to create a useful personal style.

That is in contrast to the dogmatic systems where some esteemed master has determined that these set of skills, in this combination, is the pentacle of fighting, and must be transmitted in exactly this fashion and performed in exactly this way.


----------



## geezer

sgtmac_46 said:


> It would be most accurate to say that MMA, JKD, Pankration, Vale Tudo, etc, etc, all represent the same concept......which is the individual development of martial skill taking useful concepts from as wide a cross section of disciplines as available in order to create a useful personal style.
> 
> That is in contrast to the dogmatic systems where some esteemed master has determined that these set of skills, in this combination, is the pentacle of fighting, and must be transmitted in exactly this fashion and performed in exactly this way.



I think I agree. BTW, in discussing dogmatic TMA systems I assume you mean "the _pinnacle_ of fighting". _Pentacles_ are magical symbols such as pentagrams and hexagrams... although _that_ would make sense too, as some traditional systems have and almost cultish faith in the quasi-magical powers their training methods are believed to impart. LOL 

Anyway, to get back to the OP, JKD and similar eclectic, pragmatic martial disciplines differ from MMA mainly in _objective_. The objective of MMA is to best a competitor of similar weight in "fair" competition according to an established set of rules. By contrast, as _K831_ pointed out, JKD and other eclectic martial or combat training has the objective of self-defense against whatever you encounter. That could be a much larger, stronger person, an armed person, or multiple attackers. That changes the equation and the approach to training. Keep in mind, as _Tez_ noted, many of the techniques trained in MMA as well as the phenomenal conditioning are pretty effective at achieving both objectives. So to my way of thinking, there is considerable overlap between these two branches, and I'd be very surprised to find that any good MMA competitor couldn't also handle himself well in a "street fight"!

 OK, lets grant that MMA with a little common sense "modification" will work for self defense. But is it the best choice for all kinds of people? One thing that I think about quite a bit is how some martial arts can provide a good self-defense foundation for people who physically could not do well at Muay Thai, Boxing, BJJ, Wrestling and the other components of MMA. I'm thinking of smaller, older, weaker or even disabled individuals. These people may never succeed in the arena of MMA competition, but could benefit from other types of martial arts training, including eclectic or mixed arts. Do some MMA gyms also offer classes directed to such individuals? I don't see why not. What about your gym, _Tez?_


----------



## ap Oweyn

geezer said:


> So to my way of thinking, there is considerable overlap between these two branches, and I'd be very surprised to find that any good MMA competitor couldn't also handle himself well in a "street fight"!


 
And, as an extension of that logic, for those things that MMA doesn't cover, its fundamental training principles can still be applied.  For instance, knife defense.  I would back the guy who geared up with the appropriate protective gear and padded weapons and then went at it long before I'd back the guy who's training primarily consisted of one- and/or two-person knife forms work.

The underlying logic carries over to content that's not necessarily covered in the sports format.


Stuart


----------



## geezer

ap Oweyn said:


> And, as an extension of that logic, for those things that MMA doesn't cover, its fundamental training principles can still be applied...The underlying logic carries over to content that's not necessarily covered in the sports format.Stuart



I put more stock in people who have a solid grasp of basic principles and concepts of combat and some experience getting knocked about over abstract and possibly unrealistic training. Principles and concepts translate readily to new situations, stilted training doesn't. BTW Stuart, I got that from and old FMA instructor!


----------



## ElfTengu

I'm going to stick my neck out as a JKD newbie (my history is more with the ninjer crowd, in which I am still a participant), and say quite simply, and not be the first person to do so, that JKD surely *is* MMA.

It obviously does not have the same largely sporting focus of what we tend to label MMA, and perhaps a larger proportion of training is spent on learning techniques and minutiae than sparring or rolling, and more  on stand-up than groundwork, plus all the FMA that fall within the larger JKD picture, stickwork, knife defence etc, but overall is based on the same concepts of taking the best from various arts and systems and amalgamating them into one generic yet ever expanding holistic toolbox, but that this could apply as much to individuals and training groups as to the art itself.

And although I am still coming to grips as to what the principal differences actually are between the two main JKD 'camps', would it make a difference if you were talking about Jun Fan JKD.Gungfu or JKD Concepts when comparing with modern MMA?

Or maybe it is the Wing Chun and FMA aspects that are the main difference. These are without doubt excellent in close quarters self defence, but you just don't see the trapping, sticking/pushing hands, vertical fist punches and short range kicks in MMA competitions, but perhaps this is because they are limited against a sweaty oiled up  opponent.

I think that more and more, because of the impact and effectiveness of the grappling aspects of MMA, something will have to give because there are only so many hours in the day and only so many areas in which you can specialise without becoming a jack of all trades and master of none. It seems, looking at mainstream martial arts magazines, that JKD schools are spending much more time on MMA compatible aspects, so my question is, what are they sacrificing in order to do so?

There is very little footage of Bruce grappling compared to in the free movement stand-up area, but I'm sure no one will argue that he would have taken the rise of modern MMA very seriously and driven some kind of shift to anticipate this himself, even if we cannot say for certain what that would have been.

Finally, we must remember, without re-opening the same wounds and sores that have been argued to death, that Jeet Kune Do, whilst it's practitioners do compete in the open arena of MMA and other martial sports, is primarily for real fighting and not sport fighting. An MMA or BJJ athlete (for that is what they are, and impressively so), does not tend to spare a millisecond's thought for the possibility that whilst in the opponent's guard, the opponent may have taken a blade or firearm from a pocket, sock or waistband and is about to bring the confrontation to a very abrupt conclusion, without technique or superior 'unarmed combat' ability. Or the age old (it seems) consideration of multiple assailants etc.

But, should you train with MMAist and BJJ stylists? Of course you should, they are the best in certain aspects of fighting, notwithstanding my comments in the previous paragraph, just as you would go to a boxing, Wing Chun, Muay Thai to work on those areas. I have already been to a local boxing club with my JKD instructor and fellow students, and it really was an eye opener. My instructor is almost certainly a better all-rounder than the boxing coach, but thought that he believe we would benefit from the experience of a better boxer (and to get us beasted without being able to blame him directly!)

I hope this first post in the JKD section was not too naive and ignorant, and look forward to returning more frequently as I progress in your art.


----------



## Gruenewald

ap Oweyn said:


> But Gruenewald, you made the point that there's much to discuss, and yet you've only replied to complaints that it's all been done before.  Ignoring my attempt to actually discuss.  So whaddya say to my earlier post?
> 
> Not trying to start static.  But I'm trying to discuss, despite the fact that this has been covered before.
> 
> Stuart


Sorry, I was gone all day yesterday. Thanks for the good points everybody, however I'll respond to you specifically since you addressed me. =)



ap Oweyn said:


> How different would you say MMA is from JKD's  sparring platform?  It's all well and good to say that JKD allows this  and that.  But in terms of what people can actually perform on one  another in a reasonably polite society, I think the differences decrease  considerably.  What we could do to one another in theory is just that.   Theory.  And Lee wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory  either.


I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here. It seems as though you're arguing that human morals limit our actions in a real fight, which takes a bit away from the "do whatever works" attitude of JKD, that it is a theoretical attitude that one may not actually follow through with in the heat of battle However you also point out that that theoretical ability to do anything is supported by Bruce, who "wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory". So... it seems like you're arguing both sides to me. Care to clear this up?



ap Oweyn said:


> Dana White citing Bruce Lee has at least as much  to do with White's efforts to bring MMA back from the brink of  extinction as much as anything else.


While I disagree with the statement that MMA was on "the brink of  extinction" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear as though MMA was just rolling into the public eye around 2004 when he said that, with the first season of "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show just about to hit the air early next year), you are most certainly correct about the thinly veiled intent of publicity behind his statement. My op was more or less asking for justification of that statement, however (do you believe he's right about Bruce Lee being the father of MMA?). The point has already been addressed by others, but yeah.



ap Oweyn said:


> Historically, the MMA format is  older than Lee by a handful of centuries.  Fighters crosstrained in  boxing and wrestling, competing for trophies, titles, and cash prizes,  in front of an adoring throng.  Pankration.


I understand what you mean by the "MMA format" (mixed styles), but in Pankration I believe I heard that it was more about proving that the athletes from each area was the best, which far less emphasis on which style is the best (they accepted every style as being equally effective), which is interesting when compared to the almost smug attitude of today's MMA fighters in trying to prove that their style is most effective (remembering that that was the actual purpose of UFC 1). Mind you I don't believe that that's as true today. It's interesting nonetheless to compare the intents of historic MMA and modern MMA.

Also I do believe I specified in my op that "Modern MMA" was influenced heavily by the concepts of JKD, specifically when it comes to taking what's effective from a variety of different styles and applying them. However you are all of course correct about Sambo and Vale Tudo etc., they were all certainly precursors to the sport we now call MMA.


----------



## ap Oweyn

Gruenewald said:


> Sorry, I was gone all day yesterday. Thanks for the good points everybody, however I'll respond to you specifically since you addressed me. =)


 
No worries. And don't think I was "calling you out." I just wanted to make sure that the discussion didn't get lost amidst the "vs" debate.



> I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here.


 
You are, yeah. But that's not your fault. I didn't communicate it very clearly.



> It seems as though you're arguing that human morals limit our actions in a real fight, which takes a bit away from the "do whatever works" attitude of JKD, that it is a theoretical attitude that one may not actually follow through with in the heat of battle However you also point out that that theoretical ability to do anything is supported by Bruce, who "wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory". So... it seems like you're arguing both sides to me. Care to clear this up?


 
My comment on polite society refers to the constraints of training. Not actual life-or-death struggle. Obviously, actual defense legitimates a lot of things that training doesn't.

One of the chief counterarguments to MMA is that the sport has constraints on it that self defense does not. You can't gouge eyes or kick someone in the cash-and-prizes (anymore). You can't bite him or punch him in the throat.

Now here's the question again: How many of those things can you actually do _in training_? You can find various ways to simulate those things in training. You can put on lab goggles and spar with eye jabs. You can put on a redman suit and have a guy kick you in the jumblies. You can mimic biting someone during grappling. But at the end of the day, you haven't actually _done_ those things anymore than the MMA guy has. Not unless you've actually been in a serious scrap. And JKD doesn't have a monopoly on that.

_All training is an abstraction._ Our goal, then, is to use enough abstractions to _triangulate_ reality, understanding that no training method is ever going to land squarely _on_ reality. It's no smaller leap for a guy trained in biting and eye gouging to actually follow through and do those things than it is for a guy who's thoroughly trained in punching people full contact in the face to aim a couple of inches lower and hit the adam's apple. 

So my question was how different the MMA format is from JKD _as it can actually be performed in training_? Philosophically and theoretically, there are clear differences. But when it comes to operationalization, I think many of those differences fade a bit.



> While I disagree with the statement that MMA was on "the brink of extinction" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear as though MMA was just rolling into the public eye around 2004 when he said that, with the first season of "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show just about to hit the air early next year)


 
Now consider that the UFC began a full _decade_ prior to 2004. And that it had existed solely as a pay-per-view event. And had been banned in many states. And was under constant scrutiny (if not outright barrage) by politicians looking for an easy mark.

I may not care much for Dana White's personality. But the UFC (and therefore MMA in the States) was in real trouble before he took the helm. Otherwise, the original owners wouldn't have sold it to White and his partners in the first place.



> you are most certainly correct about the thinly veiled intent of publicity behind his statement. My op was more or less asking for justification of that statement, however (do you believe he's right about Bruce Lee being the father of MMA?). The point has already been addressed by others, but yeah.


 
I don't believe Lee is the father of MMA, no. I believe he's a highly visible icon. And I agree that his views were very consistent with MMA. I expect he'd love the stuff if he were still around. But there were people before Lee who subscribed to this same basic framework. Throughout history, really. But Lee is a household name. My mum has heard of Bruce Lee. Jigoro Kano, not so much.



> I understand what you mean by the "MMA format" (mixed styles), but in Pankration I believe I heard that it was more about proving that the athletes from each area was the best, which far less emphasis on which style is the best (they accepted every style as being equally effective), which is interesting when compared to the almost smug attitude of today's MMA fighters in trying to prove that their style is most effective (remembering that that was the actual purpose of UFC 1). Mind you I don't believe that that's as true today. It's interesting nonetheless to compare the intents of historic MMA and modern MMA.


 
You're saying "today's MMA fighters" but describing MMA in the mid 90s. I don't know precise dates, but it's been a very long time since style has been listed in a fighter's stats in the UFC. Because that information is now largely irrelevant. Experience and distillation has shown us that it's not really a question of styles. It's a question of mastering certain skill sets, using whatever training opportunities fit the bill. You need submissions experience. Whether you get it from BJJ, sambo, shooto, or whatever is less important than the degree to which you internalize its lessons.

Now, it's more about the individual fighters and their camps, making it pretty analogous to the original model.



> Also I do believe I specified in my op that "Modern MMA" was influenced heavily by the concepts of JKD, specifically when it comes to taking what's effective from a variety of different styles and applying them. However you are all of course correct about Sambo and Vale Tudo etc., they were all certainly precursors to the sport we now call MMA.


 
Um... I'm not arguing that there's no influence. In fact, I'm arguing to _minimize_ the differences between MMA and JKD by pointing out that JKD _training_ offers fewer differences from MMA than does JKD theory and philosophy. 

Anything else I've said about MMA was simply to clear up what I regard as misunderstandings about MMA. Not to establish a clear difference between it and JKD. I personally think that the fundamental approach of MMA and that of JKD _should_ be very similar.


Stuart


----------



## ap Oweyn

geezer said:


> I put more stock in people who have a solid grasp of basic principles and concepts of combat and some experience getting knocked about over abstract and possibly unrealistic training. Principles and concepts translate readily to new situations, stilted training doesn't. BTW Stuart, I got that from and old FMA instructor!


 
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.  

I think that this "take what's useful" philosophy has been prevalent in certain cultures for a good long while.  If you look at GM Ciriacio Canete's training experience, for instance, you find boxing, Kodokan judo, aikido, competitive wrestling, karate, and jiujutsu, in addition to eskrima.  (I use GM Cacoy because I interviewed him years ago and know his story better than I know most others' stories.)

I think there's good reason for the close association between FMA and JKD, above and beyond the obvious common denominators of Dan Inosanto and Richard Bustillo.


Stuart


----------



## Xue Sheng

K831 said:


> May have been. But aren't we capable of reading the rest of his question and seeing that this is what he meant anyways, overlooking the "vs" and shaping the conversation ourselves by discussing the differences and similarities in a mature manner?
> 
> Or we could walk on egg shells, and lecture each other on how "vs" threads are naughty, further perpetuating the problem with a self-righteous tone... but I think that is even worse than the dreaded "vs" thread. TS asked for thoughts an opinions... anyone who loath "vs" threads can simply avoid it, or take an active role in shaping a positive conversation. I'm not with Tez on this one... members popping in long enough to shake ones finger at another doesn't help.
> 
> Back to the thread, I think this was a great point;


 
Of course we could discuss this, even though it has been done to death on MT. But I am old and jaded and have little faith in humanity so although the discussion so far is fine I am again 100%with tez in this post





Tez3 said:


> Well thats not anyone whos on here now. I'll tell you why I hate the 'v' threads...because when they involve MMA they invariably turn into and despite what you think they could be, a let's bash MMA/TMA thread. You may consider yourself mature enough to resist this argument but I'll bet you it comes along soon enough.
> 
> 1. someone is going to post MMA isn't any good for self defence
> 
> 2. someone is going to post about the fanboys and yobs in MMA
> 
> 3. someone is going to post up that there's rules in MMA and fighters are stuck with those rules and can't do it one the street.
> 
> 4. someone is going to post up that Bruce Lee would have/havent done well in the UFC.


 

I hope the discussion goes well, it would be a refreshing change from what has gone on in the past but like I said I am old and jaded and doubt that it will go that way in the long run




K831 said:


> Likely why he invoked the name "Bruce Lee" as the father of MMA, without naming the earlier "fathers and mothers" of MMA. (Wasn't Wing Chun started by a woman searching to take only what was most effective, specifically for smaller individuals?)


 
Well, here we are at the CMA claiming associations again that may or may not be true. Even Ip Chun questions this story these days.


----------



## ap Oweyn

ElfTengu said:


> I hope this first post in the JKD section was not too naive and ignorant, and look forward to returning more frequently as I progress in your art.


 
I thought it was really very good myself.


----------



## Tez3

It's been called semantics before but I'll say it again, over here in Europe, MMA is the stuff you do in the cage/ring etc. If you do more than one art it's cross training not MMA and styles are styles, JKD being a style. Now this may not correspond with what your experience is but here it makes life simple.
Geezer, we are a martial arts club which means we cover a lot of different things including training in MMA for fights and doing self defence. We have students from many different styles in the club including one from JKD, his style seems quite different from what we do, having CMA type stances, no grappling and quite different punching from our MT/boxing/karate type. We are based in an army barracks so our students are predominantly fit and strong, the self defence we do is focused more on control and restraint plus riot type control rather than attacks on a person, our students seem to manage that quite well all on their own lol! 
The UFC is biggest in the States, it's never been as relevant to the rest of the world and MMA certainly wasn't dying anywhere other than the States if it was.


----------



## ap Oweyn

Tez3 said:


> It's been called semantics before but I'll say it again, over here in Europe, MMA is the stuff you do in the cage/ring etc. If you do more than one art it's cross training not MMA and styles are styles, JKD being a style. Now this may not correspond with what your experience is but here it makes life simple.


 
That's actually how I prefer to view MMA as well.  I don't like the really broad definition of MMA as being anything involving a mix of styles.  It's too broad to be useful.  And, while it may work literally, we all know that terms hold particular meanings, even if you can dissect it into individual components and then apply the meaning differently. 

The sports guys got that phrase first.  "Eclectic" and "hybrid" are still on the table.



> The UFC is biggest in the States, it's never been as relevant to the rest of the world and MMA certainly wasn't dying anywhere other than the States if it was.


 
From _Entrepreneur_ magazine's online edition:

"Even in 1993, the year Semaphore Entertainment Group (SEG) created the UFC, the first event broadcast on pay-per-view was a smash hit. While the events grew in popularity, SEG was marketing the sport as a human cockfight, which drew criticism and restrictions and drove the company to the brink of bankruptcy. That's when current UFC president Dana White and brothers and casino moguls Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta purchased the UFC in 2001 as Zuffa LLC.

Here, White talks about how they resurrected the UFC and are bringing the sport of MMA to prominence..."

(Full story: http://www.entrepreneur.com/ufc)

Now, I know there were other MMA venues, particularly in Japan and Brazil.  And perhaps I should have said that the UFC was on the brink of extinction.  But I think it's fair to say that the UFC represents a fairly large part of the MMA movement.


Stuart


----------



## Tez3

The human cockfighting comment always makes me laugh albeit with gritted teeth. When we watch athletics do we watch human greyhound racing when the sprints are on?

I think the UFC to Europeans at least, can't speak for the Japanese, is something we watch on the television after coming in late after a night on the pop, it's like the big American Football finals they put on our television in the early hours of the morning (its live), it's interesting but nothing like our our matches. We have a fair few promotions in this country which are doing well and that's where the focus is on for the majority of people. Brits in the UFC are supported in public ( well, we all want 'our' guys to win against 'their' guys) but aren't actually thought much of in private. We tend to lose interest in fighters once they've gone to America.  

The labelling of MMA can be a marketing tool to get paying customers, that's something it has in common with JKD,'train like Bruce Lee' and of course kickboxing ie I'm hard! 


The limited experience I've had of JKD is that while the concept might be the same as MMA....using anything thats works, the actual techniques are very much in the Chinese tradition rather than the Japanese/Thai/Korean.


----------



## James Kovacich

The relation of JKD and "anything that works" is a false and misleading prophecy. Whoever started it was wrong. Look to the best sources. 
http://thejkdbrotherhood.com/page167/page167.html

The "concepts," plural, not "concept," are not MMA. A JKD fighter can train to do MMA but if he was serious, he'd be crazy to not train or atleast crosstrain in an MMA gym. An MMA'er can learn JKD but he does not already "know it" just because he's an MMAer.

JKD is both a style and philosophy but the concepts are nothing without the style and vice versa. Today both JKD and MMA are capitalizing on eachother with the "misleading" connection, but in reality they are more differant than alike.

I'd say look to the best sources for a better understanding of "what is and isn't" and forget what the general martial art public believes "because they read it". Draw an educated opinion from experience and leave the talk for "talkers."

My opinion from experience. :asian:


----------



## Tez3

James Kovacich said:


> The relation of JKD and "anything that works" is a false and misleading prophecy. Whoever started it was wrong. Look to the best sources.
> http://thejkdbrotherhood.com/page167/page167.html
> 
> The "concepts," plural, not "concept," are not MMA. A JKD fighter can train to do MMA but if he was serious, he'd be crazy to not train or atleast crosstrain in an MMA gym. An MMA'er can learn JKD but he does not already "know it" just because he's an MMAer.
> 
> JKD is both a style and philosophy but the concepts are nothing without the style and vice versa. Today both JKD and MMA are capitalizing on eachother with the "misleading" connection, but in reality they are more differant than alike.
> 
> I'd say look to the best sources for a better understanding of "what is and isn't" and forget what the general martial art public believes "because they read it". Draw an educated opinion from experience and leave the talk for "talkers."
> 
> My opinion from experience. :asian:


 

Tbh I've never heard anyone here making a connection with JKD and MMA, I think, again, this is a publicity thing done by the UFC company. As far as I know and can see JKD is regarded here as a style of martial arts connected to or made famous by Bruce Lee. It's not been connected to MMA at all. We have one fighter in our club who has a JKD background but his instructor said if he wants to fight MMA he'd have to train with us first as he doesn't have the experience to teach him what he needs for the cage. He's a very good instuctor and does Defendo for the SD stuff not JKD. I don't know the ins and outs of that though just that he does.


----------



## Xue Sheng

> Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.  Bruce Lee




:asian:


----------



## ElfTengu

I think the danger is in looking at the nomenclature almost as brand names. JKD appears to be more selective in what its senior practitioners take from other arts and methods, in fact I would venture that not just 'anyone' can take something from elsewhere and still call their JKD 'JKD', because 'something' still has to define JKD as JKD and set it apart from other modern arts.

Also, whilst MMA overwhelming screams 'SPORT', it is not as simple as that. Looking at interviews with the UK and rest of worlds top martial arts teachers, there seem to be a lot of them who teach what they now call MMA, regardless of what the original background was, but that they tailor the material and training methodolgy depending upon what the student wants from their training, and will adapt to the professional cage fighter, law enforcement professional, military personnel, and those simply looking for 'high percentage' (of success in application) self defence methods.

It is also true that not only are individuals seeking out this kind of approach, but also, probably because of the high public exposure of cage fighting, so are professional bodies. And because more and more young men will be seeking to emulate their UFC heroes late on a Friday night whilst full of beer, cocaine and bravado, it isn't such a bad idea for the police and those of us who venture out as civilians, to know how to deal with double leg takedowns and being ground and pounded, (to use their parlance).

You could (and I believe I did) argue that the FMA aspects highlight most of the differences between what is [generally] defined as JKD or MMA, but then we have the Dog Bros, who mix it all up and confuse matters even further. It occurs to me that JKD practioners have a venue with Dog Bros, which may mean that they really need not hold back on much of their material and still test it in a live, fairly dangerous but rarely seriously injurious, manner. And it is not necessarily a young man's game either, looking at some of the participants, including the Bros themselves, and this is another important factor in the 'Vs' argument. Sports martial arts are almost entirely the domain of young strong fit able bodies males, whereas martial arts for self preservation are often sought and practiced by those who do not fall into this category but don't want to curl up and hope for the best if they are assaulted on the street. 

Not going down the old argument route of MMA sports not allowing eye gouging etc, because an MMAist is more than capable of throwing the rulebook out when need be, and many will not be dissuaded by a poke in the eye in any case, but it is the nastiness of real martial methods for use in life threatening situations, that even up the odds and make the difference between sport and combat arts, even though there are people who would do well in either camp. Real martial arts is about doing whatever is necessary and escalating the level of violence to negate the threat, and staying ahead of the game by learning to deal with whatever is currently 'popular' in a simple effective manner. Most of the time, looking at some of these MMA guys, my method will involve apologising profusely, offering to buy them a drink, and then disappearing as quickly as possible, probably without buying that drink.


----------



## Tez3

As has always happened there are people who are wannabes, and its them not the MMA people themselves who are more liable to cause problems with fighting on 'on the street'. It's not a new thing, I remember the kickboxing phase, where everyone was a kickboxer, I remember too the kungfu phase. It's these wannabes who will be drunk, drugged etc and wanting to emulate their UFC 'heroes' not the MMA fighters themselves. To label all of us MMAers as potential thugs is harsh. The chances of these people who look to do takedowns etc in a street situation being actually in training is very low, they see it on the television and think they can do it. No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition.


----------



## Gruenewald

Tez3 said:


> The chances of these people who look to do takedowns etc in a street situation being actually in training is very low, they see it on the television and think they can do it. No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition.


Are you insinuating that _all_ takedowns are useless in a "street" scenario?


----------



## ElfTengu

We have something in England (and five other nations) called a Rugby Tackle, it is similar to something you might see in American Football but without the padding or helmets, although the players are of comparable size and strength to their US counterparts (although far uglier, but that's due to not wearing a helmet!)

The Rugby Tackle is very common in street altercations, often delivered from the side or rear, as in the game in which it is employed, and which is very difficult to defend against, and is arguably as effective as any martial arts takedown.

Worth thinking about perhaps.


----------



## MASponge1

Hello Everyone,

Bruce Lee is considered the Father of MMA because he advocated a number things that would later make up his JKD. Some of these things were borrowed by MMA practitioners. 

Bruce advocated - Fighting in all ranges. 
Many systems years ago were specialists in 1 or 2 ranges. Some Styles were great at long range with kicks, Some were good at the punching or mid range, some at close range and others excelled at ground work. Some were good at punching and kicking, some at punching and close range and some at close range or grappling range. 
MMA has looked to kicking arts like Muy Thai for long range techniques, boxing for punching range, originally Wing Chun for the trapping or close range (but this has largely been dropped) and BJJ for the grappling range. No on prior to Bruce was doing this far as I know. Then again maybe someone was already head of the game but didn't have Bruce's notoriety.

Bruce advocated - Making trainings alive and emphasized sparring so that practitioners would learn to apply their techniques in a more realistic fashion against a non cooperative opponent. In this way you can try your art under pressure, learn and work on distance & timing, etc. 

Bruce advocated - absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless.  This however is largely misunderstood. Many think this mean take any technique and combine it how you like and if you like it and if you can make it work for you then great. This however will not make what you do JKD. It might make it MMA but not JKD. First how do you determine what to absorb and what to discard? That's the missing key. Yes Bruce researched many styles but he didn't take just anything. He researched many arts and ran them through a filter, to remove what was useless. That filter is 4 main principles of JKD which are Simple Direct Economical & Non Telegraphic. If you what you abosrb from other systems does not follow these 4 principle as a guide it is not JKD.


----------



## Tez3

Gruenewald said:


> Are you insinuating that _all_ takedowns are useless in a "street" scenario?


 


Oh do read my words. 
I said the people who will try takedowns on the street as a first line thing won't be people who train martial arts as they know that they don't want to go to the ground if they can help it. As Elftengu correctly says a lot of the 'takedowns' here will be the rugger tackle. Takedowns aren't useless if you mean do they work, of course they do but they aren't what you want if you can avoid it. Rolling around on the floor leaves you open to being kicked in the head by 'spectators' etc, as well as rolling around in blood, snot, stale booze, dog mess, broken glass, etc etc. If you can, you want to be standing up, if you can put someone on the floor without going down yourself which being small hardly ever happens for me then take them down but otherwise stay up or preferably get the hell out.

Please don't use the word insinunating to me as I always say what I mean, often to others discomfort but I don't insinuate anything.


MAsponge, you may consider Bruce Lee the father of MMA but we don't, not putting him down but there was MMA/Vale Tudo long before he was born and the idea of mixing martial arts to be effective didn't come with him either. MMA has many karateka as well as TKD in it for the kicking and punching in it not just MT, it also has Judo, Juijitsu and wrestling as well as BJJ. There has been much down before Bruce to put 'aliveness' into martial arts, he was good but not the first.


----------



## sgtmac_46

ElfTengu said:


> We have something in England (and five other nations) called a Rugby Tackle, it is similar to something you might see in American Football but without the padding or helmets, although the players are of comparable size and strength to their US counterparts (although far uglier, but that's due to not wearing a helmet!)
> 
> The Rugby Tackle is very common in street altercations, often delivered from the side or rear, as in the game in which it is employed, and which is very difficult to defend against, and is arguably as effective as any martial arts takedown.
> 
> Worth thinking about perhaps.


 
Having grown up in a lower middle class rural area dominated by highschool American football, and having been the unfortunate participant in a few brawls as a youth, and a more fortunate observer of far more, I can assure you that method of fighting is pretty much the same here, and I can vouch for it's effectiveness...........broadside and drive in to the ground, then pound accordingly.


----------



## Tez3

sgtmac_46 said:


> Having grown up in a lower middle class rural area dominated by highschool American football, and having been the unfortunate participant in a few brawls as a youth, and a more fortunate observer of far more, I can assure you that method of fighting is pretty much the same here, and I can vouch for it's effectiveness...........broadside and drive in to the ground, then pound accordingly.


 
Yeah, great fun 

Mind, what I can't stand dealing with is drunken women! I'd rather deal with a drunk guy anytime. They don't alternatively try to hit you then cry all over you then try to rake you with their nails nor do men scream at you in that drunk high pitched voice. And somehow men swearing at you while still offensive is never as bad as a woman using the 'c' word etc.

Anyway, I still maintain that on the ground ain't where you want to be if you can help it. Trouble is fights are never 'ideal' lol so you have to deal with whatever comes up. Here MMa helps as you have so many techniques your opponent can use, ground, floor locks etc that it does keep you using your mind, I've heard MMA being described as physical chess, thinking under pressure, got to be good.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Tez3 said:


> Yeah, great fun
> 
> Mind, what I can't stand dealing with is drunken women! I'd rather deal with a drunk guy anytime. They don't alternatively try to hit you then cry all over you then try to rake you with their nails nor do men scream at you in that drunk high pitched voice. And somehow men swearing at you while still offensive is never as bad as a woman using the 'c' word etc.
> 
> Anyway, I still maintain that on the ground ain't where you want to be if you can help it. Trouble is fights are never 'ideal' lol so you have to deal with whatever comes up. Here MMa helps as you have so many techniques your opponent can use, ground, floor locks etc that it does keep you using your mind, I've heard MMA being described as physical chess, thinking under pressure, got to be good.


 
I will say that quite often you want to avoid the ground if you can.

I do find that taking suspects to the ground to restrain and control them is quite effective, when I decide to initiate the takedown.....but one does want to have the presence of backup, especially if there are other subjects standing around, because you're very vulnerable to interested third parties while on the ground, obviously.

The pluses to being on the ground in that context is that most folks, even those who follow combat sports, are really clueless on the ground, and fairly easily controlled.  Even the MMA guys I know who actually compete I can fairly easily control on the ground, as most of them have limited ground skills picked up after about 6 months of very basic BJJ.  

It's just not an area most folks are competent in, even those who are familiar with the fact that there are ground techniques.  Knowing those techniques exist, and even what some of them are, are not match for knowing how to distribute your weight and leverage on the ground, and you only get that by grappling experience.

But your point is still valid, that it should be avoided, generally, due to the vulnerability to third parties and environmental concerns.


----------



## ap Oweyn

MASponge1 said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Bruce Lee is considered the Father of MMA because he advocated a number things that would later make up his JKD. Some of these things were borrowed by MMA practitioners.


 
As Tez pointed out, there are some flaws in this idea.  And I don't think it's accurate to say that MMA borrowed these ideas.  Nobody had a monopoly on them.  Lee definitely swam against the tide, but he certainly wasn't the only one.  



> Bruce advocated - Fighting in all ranges.


 
As has been brought up before, Greek pankration (as just one example) was doing kicking, punching, and grappling long, long before Lee started talking about it.  Champions were crosstrained in wrestling and boxing.



> Many systems years ago were specialists in 1 or 2 ranges. Some Styles were great at long range with kicks, Some were good at the punching or mid range, some at close range and others excelled at ground work. Some were good at punching and kicking, some at punching and close range and some at close range or grappling range.


 
And many at least paid lip service to most of the above.  



> MMA has looked to kicking arts like Muy Thai for long range techniques, boxing for punching range, originally Wing Chun for the trapping or close range (but this has largely been dropped) and BJJ for the grappling range. No on prior to Bruce was doing this far as I know. Then again maybe someone was already head of the game but didn't have Bruce's notoriety.


 
MMA has never, in my view, looked to wing chun for trapping.  There have been one or two wing chun-trained fighters in MMA events.  Particularly early on.  But, having only seen their appearances in early UFC, they didn't make a favourable impression.  Interpret that however you will.



> Bruce advocated - Making trainings alive and emphasized sparring so that practitioners would learn to apply their techniques in a more realistic fashion against a non cooperative opponent. In this way you can try your art under pressure, learn and work on distance & timing, etc.


 
Boxers, wrestlers, savateurs, fencers... were already doing that.  



> Bruce advocated - absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless. This however is largely misunderstood. Many think this mean take any technique and combine it how you like and if you like it and if you can make it work for you then great. This however will not make what you do JKD. It might make it MMA but not JKD. First how do you determine what to absorb and what to discard? That's the missing key. Yes Bruce researched many styles but he didn't take just anything. He researched many arts and ran them through a filter, to remove what was useless. That filter is 4 main principles of JKD which are Simple Direct Economical & Non Telegraphic. If you what you abosrb from other systems does not follow these 4 principle as a guide it is not JKD.


 
This I mostly agree with.  You did say "if you can make it work... " And I think that's the built-in filter of MMA.  If you can make it work in a bout, then good on you.  That doesn't necessarily mean it will become a standard part of any "standard MMA curriculum."  We've seen fighters like Cung Le and George St. Pierre pull off spinning back kicks in the ring lately.  But I don't see those catching on as a standard part of MMA training.

I do think that something needs to fit within a conceptual framework to be called JKD.  It's not enough to simply say "I've absorbed this from my studies of X, therefore it's part of my JKD."  That said, the principles and concepts are broad reaching and flexible enough that there's still a fair amount of room for debate about how those concepts are applied in making determinations.


Stuart


----------



## Tez3

Reading Iain Abernethy's book  'Throws for Strikers' I was surprised to learn that boxing before the Queensberry rules had throws, kicks and some groundwork in. I think human nature tells us that fighters must have been doing all this since fighting began. There's nothing new under the sun so I'd be very surprised if no one had done standup, groundwork etc all in one fight before Bruce Lee came along. 

I don't do JKD but am I correct in thinking it's stances are those of CMA, toes turned more inward than the 'boxing' or karate stances? The punching I think too seems different, fists with thumbs on top that type of thing?


----------



## MASponge1

Hey You guys are absolutely right. 
I don't care if Bruce is the father of MMA or not. Dana White said he was. Some agree, some don't. I was just stating why some, who believe this, think this. 

Yep there were other systems long before Bruce that fought in the ranges. However during his time period where he lived, the popular systems of the day, according to him didn't. So he spoke up and said something about it. 
Also Bruce has often said what he does is nothing new. 

It's good you guys have brought these things to light.


----------



## Nolerama

Wow. Off this forum for a while now. It's like I haven't left!

How's everything guys and gals?


----------



## Gruenewald

Tez3 said:


> Oh do read my words.
> I said the people who will try takedowns on the street as a first line thing won't be people who train martial arts as they know that they don't want to go to the ground if they can help it. As Elftengu correctly says a lot of the 'takedowns' here will be the rugger tackle. Takedowns aren't useless if you mean do they work, of course they do but they aren't what you want if you can avoid it. Rolling around on the floor leaves you open to being kicked in the head by 'spectators' etc, as well as rolling around in blood, snot, stale booze, dog mess, broken glass, etc etc. If you can, you want to be standing up, if you can put someone on the floor without going down yourself which being small hardly ever happens for me then take them down but otherwise stay up or preferably get the hell out.
> 
> Please don't use the word insinunating to me as I always say what I mean, often to others discomfort but I don't insinuate anything.


Sorry, but straight shooters are hard to come by. I read your first statement about people who aren't trained trying to do techniques that will obviously fail in a street scenario due to their inexperience, but it was mainly the part where you said "No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition" that I was responding to. I know what you mean about not taking people to the floor, but I wasn't sure if by "taking to the floor" you meant any throw that involved the opponent ending on the ground. Because there are a good number of throws that end in a very strong position (often with follow-ups into submissions/striking opportunities to vitals such as the throat).


----------



## Robert Lee

Clearly this debate can go on forever. Ones input is there belief. Bruce did help many change there views on how one can train. And how one trains is there choice and there life. An open door can come from justtrying If Bruce helped people so be it Just as is MMA helping people so be it. Why worry and try to name the Father of MMA. Just train and live on.


----------



## Tez3

Gruenewald said:


> Sorry, but straight shooters are hard to come by. I read your first statement about people who aren't trained trying to do techniques that will obviously fail in a street scenario due to their inexperience, but it was mainly the part where you said "No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition" that I was responding to. I know what you mean about not taking people to the floor, but I wasn't sure if by *"taking to the floor" you meant any* *throw that involved the opponent ending on the ground.* Because there are a good number of throws that end in a very strong position (often with follow-ups into submissions/striking opportunities to vitals such as the throat).


 

I meant taking the fight to floor if that sounds better? . If I'm working we put people on the floor but I wouldn't do it by myself. Out of work and I got involved in something I wouldn't take the fight to the floor nor would I want to take them down with throws. Although my throws are respectable, being small means that while I can throw them often if they are bigger than me I end up going down too, I've developed landing on people with my elbows just for this lol! With the guys yes, throws then a submission are good. I'm guessing my idea of a 'serious' fight outside is probably different from what others mean too. I'm used to all sorts of scuffles and drunken brawls, serious fights such as the football firm's ones are different.


Nolerama! Nice to see you back, nah nothing's changed 

Gruenewald, you do know a lot of us are contempory to Bruce don't you? A lot of us were in training then too!

Oh and scrub that remark of mine about not doing JKD, did first class last night! Good training and I intend to carry on too!


----------



## Gruenewald

Yeah, that's very true; the effectiveness of a technique is usually subjective to the individual who is using it. What functions as an invaluable method of attack/defense for one person may not work for another due to a variety of different reasons. I've got to remember that...



Tez3 said:


> Gruenewald, you do know a lot of us are contempory to Bruce don't you? A lot of us were in training then too!


Hehe, yeah that's why I'm so excited to be here and absorb as much as I can from more experienced martial artists.


----------



## Xael

Gruenewald said:


> Classic topic of debate, but in my opinion it's not really a debate at all. Let's discuss both the similarities and differences between Jeet Kune Do (founded in 1967 by Bruce Lee) and Mixed Martial Arts (could be considered founded in 1993 with UFC 1, although it has roots quite far back in history).
> 
> In 2004, UFC President Dana White was quoted as saying that Bruce Lee is the "father of mixed martial arts." From this we can make the assumption that Modern MMA was heavily influenced by one of the principle concepts of JKD, which is to "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective". However, while the first few UFC tournaments were "no-holds barred", more recent rules have limited contestants in order to prevent death or serious injury from occuring; MMA has taken the shape of a bona fide sport, which in many ways contradicts JKD's philosophies against limitations. Also, a lot of people tend to think of the two as being the same thing, and use them pretty much interchangeably.
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?


 
I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.

First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's. Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up. Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.

Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then. 

MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber. 
MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.

MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.

I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed?  Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.


----------



## Tez3

Xael said:


> I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.
> 
> First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's. Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up. Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.
> 
> Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then.
> 
> MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber.
> MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.
> 
> MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.
> 
> I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed? Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.


 
Whoa, hold on there sunshine before ripping MMA to pieces!

You need also to get some facts right. MMA is what it says it is, a great many experienced martial artists compete in MMA and they have great skills in Karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Judo,WC and Aikido among other arts. they do not have 'crappy' stand up skills! You have been watching far too much UFC and have little knowledge of what's out there beyond that. UFC is not the be all and end all of MMA, it's American money and showing offness! A great many of us are serious martial artists who take MMA seriously. don't judge us by an American TV show!


----------



## James Kovacich

Tez3 said:


> Whoa, hold on there sunshine before ripping MMA to pieces!
> 
> You need also to get some facts right. MMA is what it says it is, a great many experienced martial artists compete in MMA and they have great skills in Karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Judo,WC and Aikido among other arts. they do not have 'crappy' stand up skills! You have been watching far too much UFC and have little knowledge of what's out there beyond that. UFC is not the be all and end all of MMA, it's American money and showing offness! A great many of us are serious martial artists who take MMA seriously. don't judge us by an American TV show!


It must be so much better in your little country. :erg: Your various posts hold a bit of anti-American tone to them. I don't see us bashing your country. Whats wrong with you?


----------



## Tez3

James Kovacich said:


> It must be so much better in your little country. :erg: Your various posts hold a bit of anti-American tone to them. I don't see us bashing your country. Whats wrong with you?


 

Anti American? have you always been this paranoid?

No it's not being being anti American, I'm not by the way, after all, you can't hate your own invention. I'm anti  UFC and the way it's run, the way it's advertised and the way people think it's the be all and end of of MMA, I'm tired of people thinking MMA was invented by an America company and I'm tired of people judging MMA by what they see on an American television programme. I'm angry that Dana White won't allow women to fight on the UFC and I'm tired of all the anti MMA comments that get posted because the poster thinks the UFC and TUF are all there is to MMA. You can't deny that the UFC is an American company.

Don't bother making snide comments about my country, it bores me. I've made none about your country only about one company.


----------



## James Kovacich

Tez3 said:


> Anti American? have you always been this paranoid?
> 
> No it's not being being anti American, I'm not by the way, after all, you can't hate your own invention. I'm anti UFC and the way it's run, the way it's advertised and the way people think it's the be all and end of of MMA, I'm tired of people thinking MMA was invented by an America company and I'm tired of people judging MMA by what they see on an American television programme. I'm angry that Dana White won't allow women to fight on the UFC and I'm tired of all the anti MMA comments that get posted because the poster thinks the UFC and TUF are all there is to MMA. You can't deny that the UFC is an American company.
> 
> Don't bother making snide comments about my country, it bores me. I've made none about your country only about one company.


 
I don't know why you would make a comment about my post about you and your country when it was you that wrote above "it's American money and showing offness! "  From my American opinion, thats taking a shot at Americans and their martial arts. My opinion, I'm entitled to it.

But I may be just reading you wrong. Can you post some links to the non American MMA you'd like to be judged by?


----------



## jks9199

Hey, let's try not to bash either countries or sporting businesses, huh?  There's plenty of room to disagree and still be polite about it!


----------



## Tez3

James Kovacich said:


> I don't know why you would make a comment about my post about you and your country when it was you that wrote above "it's American money and showing offness! " From my American opinion, thats taking a shot at Americans and their martial arts. My opinion, I'm entitled to it.
> 
> But I may be just reading you wrong. Can you post some links to the non American MMA you'd like to be judged by?


 

Okay let me put the sentence around the other way "it's showing offness and American money". Theres no arguing that there's more money in America than the rest of the world to put into things like this and that money talks. 


from London Shootfighters




 
Sami Berik v Abdul Mohamed. Sami's background is CMA, Abdul's is Olympic wrestling. Abdul is trained by Ian 'The Machine' Freeman who beat Frank Mir very convincingly in the UFC, you can see him cornering Abdul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyrv7mUyc50&feature=related

I have loads more but I also have to go to work lol. I hope the first one goes someway to show that MMA fighters don't have bad stand up skills. Most of our fighters come from a TMa background. Abdul came here from Afghanistan a long time ago, he was in their Olympic wrestling team. He's a nice guy though, Sami is brilliant, has a wicked website if you want to look, is very into his Chinses martial arts. His sister also fights.


----------



## Tez3

From my fone.

don't forget too how many othr promotions there are in America never mind around the world.


----------



## ap Oweyn

Xael said:


> I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.


 
This is just my opinion, but what you posted doesn't clear anything at all up.



> First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's.


 
Agreed.



> Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up.


 
Disagreed.  I think this is one of those cases where the term is being applied so liberally as to make it utterly useless.  It's not a language breakthrough to say that terms made up of several words carry a meaning slightly different from the literal interpretation of each of those words.

In other words "mixed martial arts" isn't "mixed" + "martial" + "arts."  Taken that literally, _every_ martial art is a mixed martial art.  Everything has hybridized _something_.  That term didn't come into existence until the sport format adopted it (after it was correctly pointed out that "no holds barred" or "NHB" wasn't really accurate).

Retrofitting everything into that term does absolutely nothing to clarify things.



> Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.


 
I'm not sure that "victim" was the word you were looking for there, but if it was, I'd be curious to know why you feel that way.  And, while we're at it, why you think that Lee's "victimization" was the best.



> Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then.


 
I doubt I'd get along with Dane White personally.  But a "muppet"?  The guy has been instrumental in elevating MMA to a widely recognized and appreciated sport, versus the bloodsport it was thought to be (and disdained for by many) beforehand.  You may not like the direction that White took, but he drove that change.  That's no muppet.



> MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber.


 
Nonsense.  It's a distillation.  And the reason that the striking looks the way it does is that it has to be performed in a very different context to the striking that most of us are used to seeing.  Boxing and kickboxing can look the way they do precisely because the competitors don't have to be prepared for certain eventualities.  Striking in the early UFCs had yet to adapt to this new context, and strikers often paid the price.  Now, fighters have a much better sense of the timing, angles, and setups required to successfully land strikes when grappling is a possibility.  That this would look different from other striking venues isn't just plausible, it's common sense.



> MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.


 
"Versus the purity of whatever it is _I_ do."  You can say it.  

MMA is not everyone's cup of tea.  But you're making a very lazy analysis of it right now.  I hope that, in analyzing _your practice_, any critic would take more effort to be balanced and fair.



> MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.


 
If the line between success and failure is the availability of the finger jab, it's time to seriously reconsider your arsenal.  No serious fighter is that reliant on one tool.  And, in the (paraphrased) words of a very wise man, "what makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers, if you haven't proven you can hit my head with a boxing glove?"



> I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed? Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.


 
It's only clear as day because you're dealing in caricatures.  


Stuart


----------



## Xael

First off, I should have proofed this after a nights sleep. My apologies, I have not slept in a few days. I will explain what I meant in my response. 



ap Oweyn said:


> Disagreed. I think this is one of those cases where the term is being applied so liberally as to make it utterly useless. It's not a language breakthrough to say that terms made up of several words carry a meaning slightly different from the literal interpretation of each of those words.
> 
> In other words "mixed martial arts" isn't "mixed" + "martial" + "arts." Taken that literally, _every_ martial art is a mixed martial art. Everything has hybridized _something_. That term didn't come into existence until the sport format adopted it (after it was correctly pointed out that "no holds barred" or "NHB" wasn't really accurate).
> 
> Retrofitting everything into that term does absolutely nothing to clarify things.


 
Contextually in my response to OP, it does make sense retrofitting the term "mma" in conjunction with what I said. I was simply countering the OP's statement that the idea of MMA was founded with the UFC in the 90s although it has roots quite far back in history. Depending on the context of "mma" it could mean combining and training in a variety of styles, or it could mean an event of different styles pitted against each other, or it could even mean the hodge-podge style that a lot of people are training in. All are correct in their own context. 



> I'm not sure that "victim" was the word you were looking for there, but if it was, I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. And, while we're at it, why you think that Lee's "victimization" was the best.


 
You are right, victim was definitely a poor choice in words. You are curious why I said I felt Lee was the best at it? Well for starters I think he understood striking and delivery better than most. Especially in punching. I have yet to see anyone come close. Furthermore the JKD package was a very good nucleus for any style one could adapt or flow into. Lee also promoted fitness and lifestyle much more than the other arts. 



> I doubt I'd get along with Dane White personally. But a "muppet"? The guy has been instrumental in elevating MMA to a widely recognized and appreciated sport, versus the bloodsport it was thought to be (and disdained for by many) beforehand. You may not like the direction that White took, but he drove that change. That's no muppet.


 
Dana White is a network muppet. I did mean that. Sure he has endlessly promoted the UFC and done tons for "mma" going public and being successful. That means very little considering the things he has said over the years regarding martial arts and other people. One can still be a muppet and a marketing genius. I can care less of what Zuffa and White did to the UFC. I was never a huge fan of the UFC or these "mma" tournaments. He is not a fighter, he is a promoter and businessman. He still belongs to Zuffa and what he does lines their pockets.





> Nonsense. It's a distillation. And the reason that the striking looks the way it does is that it has to be performed in a very different context to the striking that most of us are used to seeing. Boxing and kickboxing can look the way they do precisely because the competitors don't have to be prepared for certain eventualities. Striking in the early UFCs had yet to adapt to this new context, and strikers often paid the price. Now, fighters have a much better sense of the timing, angles, and setups required to successfully land strikes when grappling is a possibility. That this would look different from other striking venues isn't just plausible, it's common sense.


 
Distillation? Absolutely ridiculous. I am not a protectionist, I do not feel the need to not call something what it is. Most of these men and women in the mma are jack of all trades master of none. Emphasis on the word most, as I have seen some quite gifted wrestlers, judokas and juijitsu practitioners. Either way, swinging at the fences with haymakers, poor footwork and telegraphic punches does not excuse the fact that they are trying to prepare for being shot upon, kicked, grabbed or thrown. When studying certain arts, particularly those that understand striking and the different ranges of combat, you will learn to defend against those various attacks without becoming sloppy and predictable. 

You talk about the evolution through the UFC in conjunction with the strikers that were getting manhandled by wrestlers and grapplers and act as if this represents all and or good strikers. I remember those mma days well. I also remember thinking the same way I do now "Their standup needs serious work." Sitting in fixed positions and firing off strikes from these fixed positions or from bad footwork leaves a person wide open for such things as you mention. You further argue that these fighters now have a better sense of timing and setups and angles for landing strikes, well this is all fine and grand when you are fighting the same type of opponent. Ever see an amateur boxer in a tough man competition? He usually looks supreme compared to the average untrained Joe's he fights. Your statement makes me question your understanding of striking. 




> "Versus the purity of whatever it is _I_ do." You can say it.
> 
> MMA is not everyone's cup of tea. But you're making a very lazy analysis of it right now. I hope that, in analyzing _your practice_, any critic would take more effort to be balanced and fair.


 
Actually I am not comparing it to what I do. Do not ad hominem me for the sake of ignoring what I am saying. MMA is a hype train and hardly represents martial arts. Most people can honestly admit MMA is a quite popular bar, winghouse, hooters, saturday night event with tons of mobs hollering while guzzling beer. It most definitely caters to mob mentality. Especially when you realize a lot of bar-like establishments host these as free ppv events.
What I do and what is done in MMA is night and day. I train to defend myself and utterly destory an opponent. I do not fight for pride or some kind of prize purse like a gladiator. I fight to stay alive and keep those alive I am protecting. If I make a mistake, I go to the morgue not a locker room.



> If the line between success and failure is the availability of the finger jab, it's time to seriously reconsider your arsenal. No serious fighter is that reliant on one tool. And, in the (paraphrased) words of a very wise man, "what makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers, if you haven't proven you can hit my head with a boxing glove?"


 
Why do you even bring this up? This is a complete strawman and neither here nor there. I was making a point about NHB. Have you ever been in a real fight before? If so you should be able to testify that you do what you need to do to walk away. If this means punching the throat, liver, groin shots, gouging the eyes, biting, you do what you need to do. This is NHB. Saying MMA is NHB is a lie, and that is exactly what I said in my original statement " MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar."

Your choice quote paraphrase really has no bearing here. There is no argument about what I can do with your head while I am wearing a glove or anyone elses in this hypothetical situation. The argument is whether or not something is NHB when tools are stripped away and not allowed. Anything else is moot and a diversion. 

Regarding the intent of all of this in light of the OP, JKD and modern "mma" are night and day. I do not even know why this was ever up for discussion unless you do not practice JKD.


----------



## ap Oweyn

Xael said:


> First off, I should have proofed this after a nights sleep. My apologies, I have not slept in a few days. I will explain what I meant in my response.




Ugh.  A few days?!  I would be completely incoherent.  My sympathies.




> Contextually in my response to OP, it does make sense retrofitting the term "mma" in conjunction with what I said. I was simply countering the OP's statement that the idea of MMA was founded with the UFC in the 90s although it has roots quite far back in history. Depending on the context of "mma" it could mean combining and training in a variety of styles, or it could mean an event of different styles pitted against each other, or it could even mean the hodge-podge style that a lot of people are training in. All are correct in their own context.


 
Yep, fair enough.  I usually use pankration as my example in those situations.  Ancient, but also competition based, combining boxing and wrestling, and from the Western tradition.  But I see your point.





> You are right, victim was definitely a poor choice in words. You are curious why I said I felt Lee was the best at it? Well for starters I think he understood striking and delivery better than most. Especially in punching. I have yet to see anyone come close. Furthermore the JKD package was a very good nucleus for any style one could adapt or flow into. Lee also promoted fitness and lifestyle much more than the other arts.


 
I don't disagree.  I was just confused by the "victim" label.




> Dana White is a network muppet. I did mean that. Sure he has endlessly promoted the UFC and done tons for "mma" going public and being successful. That means very little considering the things he has said over the years regarding martial arts and other people. One can still be a muppet and a marketing genius. I can care less of what Zuffa and White did to the UFC. I was never a huge fan of the UFC or these "mma" tournaments. He is not a fighter, he is a promoter and businessman. He still belongs to Zuffa and what he does lines their pockets.


 
Fair enough.  I translated "muppet" into "puppet."  And he seems like a pretty self-directed dude to me.  But if you don't like the direction he goes, then I guess "muppet" works as well as any other insult. I doubt I'd like him much either.  But I do appreciate the format if nothing else.




> Distillation? Absolutely ridiculous. I am not a protectionist, I do not feel the need to not call something what it is. Most of these men and women in the mma are jack of all trades master of none. Emphasis on the word most, as I have seen some quite gifted wrestlers, judokas and juijitsu practitioners. Either way, swinging at the fences with haymakers, poor footwork and telegraphic punches does not excuse the fact that they are trying to prepare for being shot upon, kicked, grabbed or thrown. When studying certain arts, particularly those that understand striking and the different ranges of combat, you will learn to defend against those various attacks without becoming sloppy and predictable.


 
There are poor strikers and good strikers.  I could rattle off some examples of very talented strikers in MMA.  If you're looking at the wrestlers who are learning just enough muay thai not to get demolished before they can shoot in, then yeah it's going to seem pretty lackluster.  But watch George St. Pierre or Anderson Silva flow effortlessly between grappling and striking and I think the impression is vastly different.





> You talk about the evolution through the UFC in conjunction with the strikers that were getting manhandled by wrestlers and grapplers and act as if this represents all and or good strikers. I remember those mma days well. I also remember thinking the same way I do now "Their standup needs serious work." Sitting in fixed positions and firing off strikes from these fixed positions or from bad footwork leaves a person wide open for such things as you mention. You further argue that these fighters now have a better sense of timing and setups and angles for landing strikes, well this is all fine and grand when you are fighting the same type of opponent. Ever see an amateur boxer in a tough man competition? He usually looks supreme compared to the average untrained Joe's he fights. Your statement makes me question your understanding of striking.


 
Their striking has evolved (in many cases) to suit their needs.  It's as simple as that.  Take that amateur boxer who cleans up in a toughman contest.  I give him about a minute against a well-rounded MMA fighter _in that context_.




> Actually I am not comparing it to what I do. Do not ad hominem me for the sake of ignoring what I am saying. MMA is a hype train and hardly represents martial arts. Most people can honestly admit MMA is a quite popular bar, winghouse, hooters, saturday night event with tons of mobs hollering while guzzling beer. It most definitely caters to mob mentality. Especially when you realize a lot of bar-like establishments host these as free ppv events.


 
I think you have to divorce, to some extent, the practice of MMA from the spectatorship of MMA.  Just as you do with boxing or any other combat sport.

But I could have been more diplomatic.  Apologies.




> What I do and what is done in MMA is night and day. I train to defend myself and utterly destory an opponent. I do not fight for pride or some kind of prize purse like a gladiator. I fight to stay alive and keep those alive I am protecting. If I make a mistake, I go to the morgue not a locker room.


 
You say "I fight" as though it were a regular occurrence.  Is it?  How many life-or-death encounters are you getting into? 




> Why do you even bring this up? This is a complete strawman and neither here nor there.


 
How is it a strawman?  You said that taking the eye jab away "put the fighter in a glass jar."  I simply pointed out that taking away _one tool_ shouldn't incapacitate a fighter (unless that's not what "put in a jar" means).




> I was making a point about NHB.


 
Well, clearly MMA isn't really, literally NHB.  Presumably why they don't use that label anymore.




> Have you ever been in a real fight before?


Nope.  And I'm not ashamed of that.  Never claimed to be any sort of expert on streetfighting.




> If so you should be able to testify that you do what you need to do to walk away. If this means punching the throat, liver, groin shots, gouging the eyes, biting, you do what you need to do. This is NHB.


 
Sure.  But how does this relate to anything I said?  I simply pointed out that ruling out the eye jab doesn't completely disarm someone not trained for sport.  The mechanics of landing an eye jab aren't so very different from punching someone in the nose.  Which is perfectly legal.

The dispute over what's "fair game" in a streetfight wasn't any part of my post.




> Saying MMA is NHB is a lie, and that is exactly what I said in my original statement " MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed.


Did I say otherwise?






> Regarding the intent of all of this in light of the OP, JKD and modern "mma" are night and day. I do not even know why this was ever up for discussion unless you do not practice JKD.


 
I think you've misunderstood the point I was making.  I could have been more delicate.  At the same time, I'm not going to take flak for arguments I didn't actually make.


Stuart


----------



## Xael

Hey Stuart, not all of this was a retaliation to your statements, though I used your quotes to set them up. Some of it was oveflow from my original post on here that was directed to the starter of this thread. For example the NHB / MMA argument. I wanted to restate a lot of what I originally intended so people including yourself would understand what I was trying to say. Sometimes I have the habit of not proofing my posts, bad habit i know 

Yes I mentioned "I fight" and it used to happen quite a bit. I am not a trouble maker, but trouble had a way of finding me, mostly due to the area I lived in and the work I did. I got to test my JKD and other arts I trained in. I am very thankful for the training I have done. I think if I had gone with the MMA style of fighting I would have been killed. I love JKD and I have used that and Kenpo a dozen times over... but Silat and FMA are total lifesavers. I suppose it is exposure to these things that creates my stance on mma and sport related martial arts.

Also, the finger eye jab is perhaps the fastest attack possible a man can make, short of quickdraw with a revolver. I would not say my analogy is perfectly fitting as I can see that the jar idea favors completely disabled. The point was that you do definitely limit and whither down a person once you start taking away tools. This original statement however in response to the person who started the thread. The purpose of course being that mma is no way or no how JKD and definitely far from nhb.

You mentioned Pankration, that stuff might be antiquated, but it sure is awesome, especially if it is the real deal. I almost got a chance to learn that and Dumog from a guy I met some years back. It was disappointing when I found out he was incarcerated for something and my chances were shot.


----------



## Tez3

Xael, you've seen every single MMA fighter in the world then to be able to announce that MMA fighters stand up is poor? Most of these men and women in MMA are actually masters in their own right, most I know have Dan grades in a TMA, you can't judge the thousands of MMA fighters there are by a few you have seen. Btw that includes Americans like Chuck Lidell as well as Europeans and Asians. The myth that people wander into an MMA gym and after 6 months come out as fighters is just that, a myth. Most fighters I know and know of have spent years training.

Again though the idea that MMA people can't translate their skills into SD is being touted, this is incorrect, we can fight no rules just the same as anyone. We can do eye gouges as good as the next person, if that's what is called for. We don't have to stop doing a techniques just because usually in  the cage the ref will stop it if it becomes too much, we can carry it through when needed, we can adapt techniques for the 'street' as well as anyone else can. 

Please do your research before rubbishing MMA, actually look at what people train before repeating the insulting statement that MMA fighters are jacks of all trades. It's not true and it is insulting.


----------



## James Kovacich

Tez3 said:


> Okay let me put the sentence around the other way "it's showing offness and American money". Theres no arguing that there's more money in America than the rest of the world to put into things like this and that money talks.
> 
> 
> from London Shootfighters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sami Berik v Abdul Mohamed. Sami's background is CMA, Abdul's is Olympic wrestling. Abdul is trained by Ian 'The Machine' Freeman who beat Frank Mir very convincingly in the UFC, you can see him cornering Abdul.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyrv7mUyc50&feature=related
> 
> I have loads more but I also have to go to work lol. I hope the first one goes someway to show that MMA fighters don't have bad stand up skills. Most of our fighters come from a TMa background. Abdul came here from Afghanistan a long time ago, he was in their Olympic wrestling team. He's a nice guy though, Sami is brilliant, has a wicked website if you want to look, is very into his Chinses martial arts. His sister also fights.


 
I'm sorry but I didn't see the superiority from your clips that I'm thinking you expected me to see. MMA today versus the early days is a very level playing field. I'm thinking for some reason you just have issues with MMA in the USA.

My opinion and you could ignore it. There isn't anything to prove either way.


----------



## Tez3

James Kovacich said:


> I'm sorry but I didn't see the superiority from your clips that I'm thinking you expected me to see. MMA today versus the early days is a very level playing field. I'm thinking for some reason you just have issues with MMA in the USA.
> 
> My opinion and you could ignore it. There isn't anything to prove either way.


 
It's your opinion and you're wrong especially as I've told you I don't like the UFC. I have several friends who have fought on promotions in the USA, big shows at that and there's no problem with those promotions. I have firends who have fought on the UFC and they share my opinion. One of the issues I have with the UFC is that there's no female fights on them.
I wasn't posting the clips up to prove anything, you seem to think this is some sort of contest and I'm saying British and European fights are better. I'm not, I'm saying for the umpteenth time I don't like the UFC and what its doing. The clips you wanted to see and for one thing perhaps I did hope to prove, not to you, was that MMA fighters do have the good stand up skills some have said they haven't. All I'm saying is that there good MMA all around the world and the majority of whats on UFC isn't good MMA.

I don't know why you persist in making this about me and America, perhaps you're hoping to draw some sort of hate posts towards me, but I will keep repeating I dislike the UFC and I dislike the way it's taking MMA, I also dislike the idea of MMA that people get from _only_ seeing the UFC. Perhaps you could disengage the idea from your brain that the UFC and America is the same thing and I'm not anti American when I say I hate the UFC and TUF or perhaps thats it? It _is_ American and to hate one thing American is to hate America.


----------



## James Kovacich

it's American money and showing offness! 

Thats why. You said it, not me and you tried to turn the table by saying it was an American company. If you would of never said that I probably wouldn't of said anything at all.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> One of the issues I have with the UFC is that there's no female fights on them.



Yeah, I can dig that.  I think Dana White is a misogynist and is turning off a potential market when it comes to MMA.  Apparently, according to his business plan, only young men full of testosterone like to fight, therefore he relegates women to bikinis and number placards.

That's a a load of rubbish.


----------



## dancingalone

maunakumu said:


> Yeah, I can dig that.  I think Dana White is a misogynist and is turning off a potential market when it comes to MMA.  Apparently, according to his business plan, only young men full of testosterone like to fight, therefore he relegates women to bikinis and number placards.
> 
> That's a a load of rubbish.



White and his Zuffa bosses are in it to make money.  He's said multiple times that there is no money in women's fights, that he would have a female division if the numbers justified it.  

I'll accept what he says at face value.  It's true enough that women's sports outside of tennis just aren't cash cows, and many are in fact money losers.  We only have to look at the shrinkage of the WNBA in the US, a league that the NBA pumped millions of dollars into in vain.  Many LPGA tournaments have folded recently, and even today ladies boxing lags in popularity behind men's.


----------



## Makalakumu

dancingalone said:


> White and his Zuffa bosses are in it to make money.  He's said multiple times that there is no money in women's fights, that he would have a female division if the numbers justified it.
> 
> I'll accept what he says at face value.  It's true enough that women's sports outside of tennis just aren't cash cows, and many are in fact money losers.  We only have to look at the shrinkage of the WNBA in the US, a league that the NBA pumped millions of dollars into in vain.  Many LPGA tournaments have folded recently, and even today ladies boxing lags in popularity behind men's.



I see plenty of women in the crowd and at the pub viewing these events.  This IS a lot different from a team sport.  You get some good females with honest talent and put them up on the PPV and you are going to capture a lot of new fans.  I think about the girls out here in Hawaii and about how many of these titas are training in MMA gyms and fighting in small productions.  It's just another glass ceiling folks. 

We need a legitimate organization to compete with the UFC and show just how much talent these women have.  Dana White can eat crow.


----------



## Tez3

James Kovacich said:


> it's American money and showing offness!
> 
> Thats why. You said it, not me and you tried to turn the table by saying it was an American company. If you would of never said that I probably wouldn't of said anything at all.


 

So it's just about where words are placed in a sentence? good grief, if we have to watch our spelling, punctuation and grammar a lot of us will never post. So a an adjective and noun was put the wrong way round and you took it personally? Still if you want to take it that way and are going to cry insult whatever I write, there is a lot of American showing offness in the UFC, America invented the advertising industry so showing off is just part of that. It does scream at you its the best in the world etc etc and while it's plainly not it is perhaps the biggest now Pride has gone. The UFC is the same as the professional wrestling circuit, lots of money and lots of show business.

On the subject of women Dana White has also said that women will never fight on the UFC as he doesn't want to see women fighting, it has little to do with money. He's a business man and there's a lot of very good women fighters, look at the sheer amount Japan has but he has tapped into a certain audience who are willing not just to pay to watch the fights but to buy all the merchandise, it's this same audience that annoys so many TMA people with their macho posturing and fanboy smack talk leading many to believe that this is what MMA is all about, it isn't, it's what UFC is all about. The smaller shows in the UK and Europe as well as in the States don't get their audiences off the UFCs back, they get them because they have local fighters with support. The UFC has done little for grass roots MMA and competition, it doesn't encourage young fighters, the TUF is a farce, a reality show for television addicts. 

I would love someone to come along with a big serious promotion where women aren't reduced to dolls and the fighters are the best along with encouragement for up and coming fighters.


----------



## dancingalone

maunakumu said:


> We need a legitimate organization to compete with the UFC and show just how much talent these women have.  Dana White can eat crow.



I just don't see it.  Everyone likes money right?  Why is this idea an untapped one if it is such a sure thing?  In the US, there is NO draw at all for women's boxing or women's kickboxing.  Why would women's MMA be any different?

For whatever reason, whether it be sexism or not, Americans aren't rushing out to watch ladies' sports.  Tennis is the sole exception I can think of where the women's tour rivals the men's.


----------



## Makalakumu

dancingalone said:


> I just don't see it.  Everyone likes money right?  Why is this idea an untapped one if it is such a sure thing?  In the US, there is NO draw at all for women's boxing or women's kickboxing.  Why would women's MMA be any different?
> 
> For whatever reason, whether it be sexism or not, Americans aren't rushing out to watch ladies' sports.  Tennis is the sole exception I can think of where the women's tour rivals the men's.



When you watch a MMA PPV, do you turn off the fight when women fight?  I don't think anybody does.  This isn't part of Dana White's business plan because he has stated that he simply doesn't want to see women fight.  It's not a money thing.

I don't think anyone should force him to change, but I think a competitor could run some women's fights and be just as popular as the UFC.


----------



## Tez3

The USA has a great many talented female athletes, they are obvious in the Olympics and the World Championships aren't they watched? We have them over in Europe a lot for various track meetings and are well known to us. You also have good showjumpers and eventers. The national womens soccer team does very well. The gymnasts and swimmers do well. Surely someone must watch them other than us outside the USA?


----------



## dancingalone

maunakumu said:


> When you watch a MMA PPV, do you turn off the fight when women fight?  I don't think anybody does.  This isn't part of Dana White's business plan because he has stated that he simply doesn't want to see women fight.  It's not a money thing.
> 
> I don't think anyone should force him to change, but I think a competitor could run some women's fights and be just as popular as the UFC.



White may have personal reasons to not want to watch women's MMA.  I still argue that if there was financial reason for the UFC adding a women's division, he would, regardless of his personal feelings.

And I believe some of the smaller promotions in the US do show a women's fight from time to time.  It would be interesting to measure what marginal value in dollars such fights add, if any at all. 

As I said, there aren't many examples of successful professional women's sports.  I see no reason to chide White and the UFC for this.


----------



## dancingalone

Tez3 said:


> The USA has a great many talented female athletes, they are obvious in the Olympics and the World Championships aren't they watched? We have them over in Europe a lot for various track meetings and are well known to us. You also have good showjumpers and eventers. The national womens soccer team does very well. The gymnasts and swimmers do well. Surely someone must watch them other than us outside the USA?



Gymnastics gets relatively good TV ratings, particular around Olympics time.  The other sports you mention are ratings losers.  Sports networks air them as cheap 'filler' programming.  Even sports news programs like 'ESPN Sportscenter' get much better ratings than live casts of things like track and field.


----------



## ElfTengu

James Kovacich said:


> I don't know why you would make a comment about my post about you and your country when it was you that wrote above "it's American money and showing offness! " From my American opinion, thats taking a shot at Americans and their martial arts. My opinion, I'm entitled to it.


 
Sorry old chap (or 'dude' if you prefer).

You just have to realise that what we Brits and Eupopeans get to see of your wonderful country consists largely of plastic golden-arched burger franchises being dumped in the middle of picturesque English country villages, and TV shows about Paris Hilton looking for a new best friend.

And as far as American martial arts, it is simply that you are better at hype and promotional frenzy than the rest of the world, and that many of us have images of stars 'n' stripes satin karate gis, 'kata' cometitions where teenage acrobats somersault at lightning speed with aluminium/plastic weapons using non-existent (in real oriental arts) teachniques and movements, and that old guy who looks like a kid in those old movies standing on a pole in a 'crane' stance and dropping all comers with the world's worst drop kick.

And you seem to have more fat people and frauds than anywhere else, but this is obviously because you are the largest English-speaking (and that was difficult for me to admit ) country and are bound to have more of the bad as well as the good.

So if you occasionally get judged harshly or flippantly, blame the media for not letting us see the 'real America' often enough to alter general perception of your country.

Anyhow, I must go, Family Guy is on TV and I need to learn more about your fascinating culture.:knight2:


----------



## Xue Sheng

ElfTengu said:


> Sorry old chap (or 'dude' if you prefer).
> 
> You just have to realise that what we Brits and Eupopeans get to see of your wonderful country consists largely of plastic golden-arched burger franchises being dumped in the middle of picturesque English country villages, and TV shows about Paris Hilton looking for a new best friend.
> 
> And as far as American martial arts, it is simply that you are better at hype and promotional frenzy than the rest of the world, and that many of us have images of stars 'n' stripes satin karate gis, 'kata' cometitions where teenage acrobats somersault at lightning speed with aluminium/plastic weapons using non-existent (in real oriental arts) teachniques and movements, and that old guy who looks like a kid in those old movies standing on a pole in a 'crane' stance and dropping all comers with the world's worst drop kick.
> 
> And you seem to have more fat people and frauds than anywhere else, but this is obviously because you are the largest English-speaking (and that was difficult for me to admit ) country and are bound to have more of the bad as well as the good.
> 
> So if you occasionally get judged harshly or flippantly, blame the media for not letting us see the 'real America' often enough to alter general perception of your country.
> 
> Anyhow, I must go, Family Guy is on TV and I need to learn more about your fascinating culture.:knight2:


 
Nothing Tez has said bothered me but for the first time reading this thread I find as an American I'm insulted, 

So what you are saying is that you believe every stereotype, cartoon and sensationalized view you see is that it.

If I were to judge Brittan by what I see on TV you would then mostly be like Benny Hill and Monty Python...or on occasion James Bond.... but be assured I do not judge anyone by what I see on TV since I tend to realize much if that is a stereotype and/or sensationalized. As for cartoons, just so you know, Superman is a fictioanl character... to be honest all the super heros you see in cartoons... are... well... fictional.


I hope that did not come as to much of a shock to you dude...or should I say old chap.


And for the record, I hate the word dude


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Nothing Tez has said bothered me but for the first time reading this thread I find as an American I'm insulted,
> 
> So what you are saying is that you believe every stereotype, cartoon and sensationalized view you see is that it.
> 
> If I were to judge Brittan by what I see on TV you would then mostly be like Benny Hill and Monty Python...or on occasion James Bond.... but be assured I do not judge anyone by what I see on TV since I tend to realize much if that is a stereotype and/or sensationalized. As for cartoons, just so you know, Superman is a fictioanl character... to be honest all the super heros you see in cartoons... are... well... fictional.
> 
> 
> I hope that did not come as to much of a shock to you dude...or should I say old chap.
> 
> 
> And for the record, I hate the word dude


 
Nothing I have said was intended as as insult but now I know what insults you...............

it's Great Britain btw


No I wouldn't insult you, I don't intend to insult anyone in fact. It just that on the internet people find meanings where there are none and find insult where there is none intended. sometimes someones online personality grates on another which is what I think mine does to James K which is why he is intend on taking insult.
anyway I've just come in from my second class of JKD and have had a great time so I'm unupsettable at the moment lol!


----------



## ElfTengu

Xue Sheng said:


> Nothing Tez has said bothered me but for the first time reading this thread I find as an American I'm insulted,
> 
> So what you are saying is that you believe every stereotype, cartoon and sensationalized view you see is that it.
> 
> If I were to judge Brittan by what I see on TV you would then mostly be like Benny Hill and Monty Python...or on occasion James Bond.... but be assured I do not judge anyone by what I see on TV since I tend to realize much if that is a stereotype and/or sensationalized. As for cartoons, just so you know, Superman is a fictioanl character... to be honest all the super heros you see in cartoons... are... well... fictional.
> 
> 
> I hope that did not come as to much of a shock to you dude...or should I say old chap.
> 
> 
> And for the record, I hate the word dude


 


At least I spelled the name of your country correctly. 

Of course I don't believe in stereotyping, even though you are uncannily accurate if you imagine me to be a cross between a Monty Python character and James Bond, and I am chased around by large groups of scantily clad women like Benny Hill on a daily basis.

I was just poking fun, forgive me. It is something we do a lot in *Britain*.


----------



## Robert Lee

ElfTengu said:


> Sorry old chap (or 'dude' if you prefer).
> 
> You just have to realise that what we Brits and Eupopeans get to see of your wonderful country consists largely of plastic golden-arched burger franchises being dumped in the middle of picturesque English country villages, and TV shows about Paris Hilton looking for a new best friend.
> 
> And as far as American martial arts, it is simply that you are better at hype and promotional frenzy than the rest of the world, and that many of us have images of stars 'n' stripes satin karate gis, 'kata' cometitions where teenage acrobats somersault at lightning speed with aluminium/plastic weapons using non-existent (in real oriental arts) teachniques and movements, and that old guy who looks like a kid in those old movies standing on a pole in a 'crane' stance and dropping all comers with the world's worst drop kick.
> 
> And you seem to have more fat people and frauds than anywhere else, but this is obviously because you are the largest English-speaking (and that was difficult for me to admit ) country and are bound to have more of the bad as well as the good.
> 
> So if you occasionally get judged harshly or flippantly, blame the media for not letting us see the 'real America' often enough to alter general perception of your country.
> 
> Anyhow, I must go, Family Guy is on TV and I need to learn more about your fascinating culture.:knight2:


 We have gone from JKD MMA to bashing countries. Why would you insult america When no one has insulted your country.  And then to get thanked for what you said by another person from your country.  I would think If someone bashed your country and its people you would think that was rude. So do you think it not rude to BASH the U S A. Perhaps you could  stay on subject Not insult. Your country And The U S has so many bonds that help this world lets respect that.


----------



## ElfTengu

Robert Lee said:


> We have gone from JKD MMA to bashing countries. Why would you insult america When no one has insulted your country. And then to get thanked for what you said by another person from your country. I would think If someone bashed your country and its people you would think that was rude. So do you think it not rude to BASH the U S A. Perhaps you could stay on subject Not insult. Your country And The U S has so many bonds that help this world lets respect that.


 
I think it is equally important not to let our sense-of-humour-override kick in, a lot of what has been said has been tongue in cheek, and in any case as martial artists, namecalling should be something we can shrug off with impunity surely?

What happened was basically that it was pointed out that the trashier glitzy sensationalised side of martial arts are more prominent in the US than most other nations, although to be fair a lot are catching up. What is not fair however, is for all American martial arts to be tarred with the same brush, and of course we are all aware that on  the other side of the coin the majority of the world's most respected MAists, in MMA and JKD in particular (to remain on topic), are American. JKD could now be said to be virtually 100% American as most of its top practitioners are native (in the born sense rather than the indigenous sense) or naturalised Americans, or like Bruce himself, a virtual ex-pat who became resident in the US. And the golden age of what is now known as MMA, has taken place largely in America, even if it was driven by Brasilians in the early days of UFC.So bashing the home of our art would just be silly.

No one is seriously bashing anyone else, so just lighten up guys eh?


----------



## Carol

Trouble is, tonality easily gets lost in web discussions.  That's the main reason why web admins like Bob added a whole host of smilies, to help communicate when someone is really being sarcastic, or whether they are taking a shot at someone, or just goofing around. I say this as a very sarcastic person myself....had it not been for smilies I prolly would have gotten myself banned a long time ago.   

This board has seen plenty of the mean and the silly...including a lot of posts that, intentionally or unintentionally, devolved in to Americans taking potshots at the UK for some reason or another, usually over SD laws, instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to have an intellectual discussion over the differences.  

We DO have a sense of humor over here :lol: ... but we're a pretty serious lot.  So please...let us know you're joking so we don't file you with all the other America-bashers out there.  Hype the humor!


----------



## Steve

It's okay, guys.  It's pretty well established that the Brits are funnier in theory than in practice.  

Except for Monty Python.  That's funny stuff.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Nothing I have said was intended as as insult but now I know what insults you...............
> 
> it's Great Britain btw
> 
> 
> No I wouldn't insult you, I don't intend to insult anyone in fact. It just that on the internet people find meanings where there are none and find insult where there is none intended. sometimes someones online personality grates on another which is what I think mine does to James K which is why he is intend on taking insult.
> anyway I've just come in from my second class of JKD and have had a great time so I'm unupsettable at the moment lol!


 
Nothing you said upset me in the least (as I said in my previous post to ElfTengu); I was however a bit bothered by what ElfTengu said due to the stereotyping and generalizations which tends to bother me a bit no matter who you or what one is talking about 

And to be honest, no, no you don't really know what insults me.



ElfTengu said:


> At least I spelled the name of your country correctly.
> 
> Of course I don't believe in stereotyping, even though you are uncannily accurate if you imagine me to be a cross between a Monty Python character and James Bond, and I am chased around by large groups of scantily clad women like Benny Hill on a daily basis.
> 
> I was just poking fun, forgive me. It is something we do a lot in Britain.


 
Things in type and posted to the web can be easily misunderstood, and that very same thing said face to face would not be an issue at all.


As to my misspelling of Britain, all I can say is "damn spell check" and never post anything when you are pressed for time and can&#8217;t proof read it 

My sincerest apologies to all from the UK :asian:.


----------



## ElfTengu

I guess that forums like this are a lot of different things to different people.

Whilst some people, usually younger members (and not necessarily American) will say things that they would never dare to say face to face to people on forums, some of us have the kind of integrity that means that we are the same person online as we would be face to face and in person, and I apologise if I treated this thread like a ribald locker room for a few posts, but please take it as a compliment if I insult you, it means I like and accept you and hope that you will return the compliment by insulting me in kind. A year ago I moved from an office based white collar Learning & Development role, into a blue collar factory plant role (of far less prestige but more money and time off), and basically it is the kind of place where you aren't accepted until you are able to give and receive a coinsiderable degree of well intended light hearted abuse and are able to fart and /cussswear with the best of them. The people I work with now would have taken the various instance of offence being taken on this forum as some kind of weakness and would have turned up the heat rather than apologise because such confilict is a source of considerable amusement in a job as repetitive and mundane as ours can be. It has been an interesting year and I am now fully assimilated with the blue collar borg, but I realise that not everyone will be coming from a similar perspective.

 And because I am generally more active in the ninjutsu sections I guess I assumed that the same sensibilities would apply in the JKD section.

I will behave myself in future I promise. 

Now can we get back to the discussion? Where were we?


----------



## Xue Sheng

No worries

Likely I took it more personally than I should of.


----------



## Tez3

Elftengu is right you know, we do tend to be very polite with people we don't like and insult our mates. Not only insults but some of the most appalling practical jokes you can imagine, and nicknames, ah the nicknames!


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Elftengu is right you know, we do tend to be very polite with people we don't like and insult our mates. Not only insults but some of the most appalling practical jokes you can imagine, and nicknames, ah the nicknames!


I don't think it's any different in America.  But if you try to get too chummy with someone who doesn't know you're joking, things go south fast.

For what it's worth, I'm ready and willing to get into a detailed discussion of everything wrong with Britain.  That sounds fun and there's certainly plenty to talk about!


----------



## James Kovacich

ElfTengu said:


> .
> 
> 1) JKD could now be said to be virtually 100% American
> 
> 2) No one is seriously bashing anyone else, so just lighten up guys eh?


 
1) JKD's seeds were planted in Seattle, nurtured in Oakland and fertilized in Los Angeles by a born American in America. So yes JKD is 100% American martial art, offspring of Chinese Gung Fu to what "it is now."

2) Agreed, but you are wrong about summarizing Americans.


----------



## ElfTengu

James Kovacich said:


> 2) Agreed, but you are wrong about summarizing Americans.


 
I'm never wrong, I'm British! 

I do worry that not everyone shares our sense of humour though, look at the attached clip of Britain's most popular TV driving show, in fact, probably Britain's best show regardless of subject matter, and see what happened down South. You may have to look at more than one Part, especially from halfway through Part 5, but it's worth it.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> I don't think it's any different in America. But if you try to get too chummy with someone who doesn't know you're joking, things go south fast.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm ready and willing to get into a detailed discussion of everything wrong with Britain. That sounds fun and there's certainly plenty to talk about!


 
Ah but you'd have to get into the North/south divide, the Scots v the English, the Welsh v the English, the Cornish v the English, the Irish v the English, the Shetlanders v the Scots, all of us against the Scousers and Geordies, Scousers agiainst the world etc etc before you even got to what was wrong about Britain though you'd have to decide whether you were discussing Britain, the UK or just a particular country as what pertains to one country won't pertain to all! The UK and Great Britain contain different parts such as the Isla of Man and the Channel Islands where France comes into play there.
 Confused? You will be! 

I think I left out the Brums too and the tykes.


----------



## pmosiun1

Gruenewald said:


> Let's discuss both the similarities and differences between Jeet Kune Do and Mixed Martial Arts.



There is no similarity.



Gruenewald said:


> In 2004, UFC President Dana White was quoted as saying that Bruce Lee is the "father of mixed martial arts."



Dana White is a businessman. He will say anything to sell his product.



Gruenewald said:


> From this we can make the assumption that Modern MMA was heavily influenced by one of the principle concepts of JKD, which is to "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective".



The thing is you can tell which is effective and which is not by sparring. If the technique is effective, it will work in a pressure testing environment against a resisting opponent.



Gruenewald said:


> However, while the first few UFC tournaments were "no-holds barred", more recent rules have limited contestants in order to prevent death or serious injury from occuring; MMA has taken the shape of a bona fide sport, which in many ways contradicts JKD's philosophies against limitations.



We all have two arms, two legs. We all have the same body posture to relay force.

Unless there is a human being with four legs and three arms. We all will, in many ways, fight the same way. 



Gruenewald said:


> Also, a lot of people tend to think of the two as being the same thing, and use them pretty much interchangeably.
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?



It is not, a lot of people say they know that MMA and JKD is the same but they all say that because they misunderstood a book called the Tao of Jeet Kune Do.

However, if you look at other of the Bruce Lee books, Tao of Gung Fu and Jeet Kune Do: Bruce Lee's Commentaries on the Martial Way. It indicates that the two is not the same.


----------



## Xael

Tez3 said:


> Xael, you've seen every single MMA fighter in the world then to be able to announce that MMA fighters stand up is poor? Most of these men and women in MMA are actually masters in their own right, most I know have Dan grades in a TMA, you can't judge the thousands of MMA fighters there are by a few you have seen. Btw that includes Americans like Chuck Lidell as well as Europeans and Asians. The myth that people wander into an MMA gym and after 6 months come out as fighters is just that, a myth. Most fighters I know and know of have spent years training.
> 
> Again though the idea that MMA people can't translate their skills into SD is being touted, this is incorrect, we can fight no rules just the same as anyone. We can do eye gouges as good as the next person, if that's what is called for. We don't have to stop doing a techniques just because usually in the cage the ref will stop it if it becomes too much, we can carry it through when needed, we can adapt techniques for the 'street' as well as anyone else can.
> 
> Please do your research before rubbishing MMA, actually look at what people train before repeating the insulting statement that MMA fighters are jacks of all trades. It's not true and it is insulting.


 
I do not need to see every single MMA fighter in the world. I have seen hundreds and that's a pretty good number. Do I need to see every drunk driver to make the judgment call that driving drunk is stupid? Use common sense here.
Most of these MMA fighters are not masters. That is a joke. I love what King  Mo said regarding MMA fighters. He is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Most of MMA is purely marketing, for example take the way people build up fighters. They say, "Anderson Silva is a world class boxer/kickboxer.." and here is the problem that King Mo points out. When did Anderson ever compete in world class boxing/kickboxing? He did not. So stop saying he is something that he isnt. Furthermore it is not saying that he does not have the skills, I for one think he would do well in kickboxing, but calling him world class when he has never even competed like that is a falsehood. Most people that follow and watch MMA are caught up on the hype train that feeds you info regarding these fighters.
There are quite a few masters of Judo and BJJ out there, even wrestling. I have nothing but respect for them, but I am talking about standup.
TMA = ? SD =?  Sorry do not know what that is.
You accuse me of not doing research, re-read what I wrote in page 4 of this thread before making these claims. I can tell my comments about striking and proper punching techniques went over your head. You really have no idea what you are talking about here. I am sorry you are insulted but because you get a blackbelt in an art that mass produces black belts like they are going out of style does not mean squat. Having a blackbelt in a korean art like TKD/TSD or regular karate hardly makes you a striker.


----------



## Tez3

Xael said:


> I do not need to see every single MMA fighter in the world. I have seen hundreds and that's a pretty good number. Do I need to see every drunk driver to make the judgment call that driving drunk is stupid? Use common sense here.
> Most of these MMA fighters are not masters. That is a joke. I love what King Mo said regarding MMA fighters. He is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Most of MMA is purely marketing, for example take the way people build up fighters. They say, "Anderson Silva is a world class boxer/kickboxer.." and here is the problem that King Mo points out. When did Anderson ever compete in world class boxing/kickboxing? He did not. So stop saying he is something that he isnt. Furthermore it is not saying that he does not have the skills, I for one think he would do well in kickboxing, but calling him world class when he has never even competed like that is a falsehood. Most people that follow and watch MMA are caught up on the hype train that feeds you info regarding these fighters.
> There are quite a few masters of Judo and BJJ out there, even wrestling. I have nothing but respect for them, but I am talking about standup.
> TMA = ? SD =? Sorry do not know what that is.
> You accuse me of not doing research, re-read what I wrote in page 4 of this thread before making these claims. I can tell my comments about striking and proper punching techniques went over your head. You really have no idea what you are talking about here. I am sorry you are insulted but because you get a blackbelt in an art that mass produces black belts like they are going out of style does not mean squat. Having a blackbelt in a korean art like TKD/TSD or regular karate hardly makes you a striker.


 

Of course you're right, why wouldn't you be. And now you've managed to insult everyone here with a belt in a Korean and Japanese style. There's little point in debating anything with people like you, you know it all obviously. Thank you so much for your imput. It says far more about you than it does me.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Elftengu is right you know, we do tend to be very polite with people we don't like and insult our mates. Not only insults but some of the most appalling practical jokes you can imagine, and nicknames, ah the nicknames!


 
Not much different here based on my experience... except for the practical joke bits, those I don't do.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Not much different here based on my experience... except for the practical joke bits, those I don't do.


 
I don't mind some practical jokes if they are harmless and don't humiliate anyone but theres a tendency in factories and places like that for them to be very cruel.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Xael said:


> Having a blackbelt in a korean art like TKD/TSD or regular karate hardly makes you a striker.


 
Nor does it mean you are not.

And just a bit of advice, the font size you tend to use is rather large and unless you are trying to come off as yelling at someone you might want to use the standard font size of MT - Verdana 2


----------



## Steve

Xael said:


> I do not need to see every single MMA fighter in the world. I have seen hundreds and that's a pretty good number. Do I need to see every drunk driver to make the judgment call that driving drunk is stupid? Use common sense here.
> Most of these MMA fighters are not masters. That is a joke. I love what King Mo said regarding MMA fighters. He is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Most of MMA is purely marketing, for example take the way people build up fighters. They say, "Anderson Silva is a world class boxer/kickboxer.." and here is the problem that King Mo points out. When did Anderson ever compete in world class boxing/kickboxing? He did not. So stop saying he is something that he isnt. Furthermore it is not saying that he does not have the skills, I for one think he would do well in kickboxing, but calling him world class when he has never even competed like that is a falsehood. Most people that follow and watch MMA are caught up on the hype train that feeds you info regarding these fighters.
> There are quite a few masters of Judo and BJJ out there, even wrestling. I have nothing but respect for them, but I am talking about standup.
> TMA = ? SD =? Sorry do not know what that is.
> You accuse me of not doing research, re-read what I wrote in page 4 of this thread before making these claims. I can tell my comments about striking and proper punching techniques went over your head. You really have no idea what you are talking about here. I am sorry you are insulted but because you get a blackbelt in an art that mass produces black belts like they are going out of style does not mean squat. Having a blackbelt in a korean art like TKD/TSD or regular karate hardly makes you a striker.


What sort of striking experience do you think would qualify someone as a, let's say, competent striker? Let's not even get into "world class." Are you a competent striker?

And just for what it's worth, unless you're suggesting that striking is stupid, your analogy is pretty... well, it doesn't work.


----------



## Tez3

Not every single MMA fighter is 'brilliant', not every single boxer is either. many in martial arts aren't fantastic fighters but to make such a blanket statement that MMA fighters aren't strikers is odd to say the least. I have seen hundreds of fighters too all over Europe, live not on the television, I haven't counted those, have promoted over thirty fight nights, have refereed plenty of MMA pro rules fights as well as corner several pro fighters and many of those strikers would give a pro boxer a run for their money if not KO them.
Many MMA fighters I know also compete in K1 kickboxing, in the Netherlands especially there is a strong tradition of kickboxing with MMA fighters coming from that background Alistair Overreem comes to mind here as well as Melvin Manhoef. Antoni Hardonk trains under legend Ernesto Hoost. Here we have Gary Turner, who has two K1 titles to his name as well as runner up in European K1.  
I didn't mention Anderson Silva at all, not sure why he came up in conversation and nor why I should stop mentioning him?


Having a black belt for me meant fighting for it, we are expected to in our club, fight, not spar actually fight. We dont belong to any organisation and mine is only the second black belt earned in eleven years we've been going. We train professional MMA fighters as well as promote fight nights, my instructor is  a damn good striker who comes from a Judo and Shotkan full contact background. The karate full contact competitions here as I imagine they are in most places are hard and not for wimps. The striking there is excellent. I've just started JKD as well and I'm impressed with the striking I see there as well because believe it or not I do know about punching and striking, in fact I know quite a bit about the game of MMA. I've had very good instructors including Ian 'The Machine' Freeman, UFC veteran as well as others.


----------



## ElfTengu

I have no doubt that traditional martial arts (TMA) can beat MMA, as long as some simple criteria are in place, as follows:

1. The TMA practitioner would have to spend the same amount of time and effort on their 'martial' training and also on their fitness and stamina training as the MMAist.

2. The TMA practitioner would have to have a training methodology that included frequent pressure training against other fighting styles including all arts that are popularly incorporated into MMA, e.g. Muay Thai, BJJ, Greco Roman, Boxing etc.

3. Any such pressure training would have to be against someone who is a currently active and accomplished MMAist themselves, to 'keep it real'.

4. The TMA practitioner must know from actual experience what it is like to be punched repeatedly about the head and body, and kicked, slammed and mounted by a strong person without losing their head or will to fight.

5. To enable the TMA practitioner to obey rule No.1 of self defence and to run away from the encounter if at all possible, the TMA practitioner must be able to outrun most MMAists over a straight mile, including parkour-esque negotiation of obstacles.

The question is, how many of you or the people you train with, satisfy these criteria? Not many I bet.


----------



## Tez3

ElfTengu said:


> I have no doubt that traditional martial arts (TMA) can beat MMA, as long as some simple criteria are in place, as follows:
> 
> 1. The TMA practitioner would have to spend the same amount of time and effort on their 'martial' training and also on their fitness and stamina training as the MMAist.
> 
> 2. The TMA practitioner would have to have a training methodology that included frequent pressure training against other fighting styles including all arts that are popularly incorporated into MMA, e.g. Muay Thai, BJJ, Greco Roman, Boxing etc.
> 
> 3. Any such pressure training would have to be against someone who is a currently active and accomplished MMAist themselves, to 'keep it real'.
> 
> 4. The TMA practitioner must know from actual experience what it is like to be punched repeatedly about the head and body, and kicked, slammed and mounted by a strong person without losing their head or will to fight.
> 
> 5. To enable the TMA practitioner to obey rule No.1 of self defence and to run away from the encounter if at all possible, the TMA practitioner must be able to outrun most MMAists over a straight mile, including parkour-esque negotiation of obstacles.
> 
> The question is, how many of you or the people you train with, satisfy these criteria? Not many I bet.


 

I have just the MMA fighter for this challenge, he's called James Saville, has a TKD black belt and is one of the best MMA fighters I know, he's quite young still not 20 yet but is also amazing at parkour. Have a look on You Tube for him.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I have just the MMA fighter for this challenge, he's called James Saville, has a TKD black belt and is one of the best MMA fighters I know, he's quite young still not 20 yet but is also amazing at parkour. Have a look on You Tube for him.


If I'm getting ElfTengu's post, I think he's suggesting that there are some but not many. Taking it a step further, it looks like James Saville trains at least some BJJ, too. Won a couple of fights by submission. 

As I said, if I'm understanding ElfTengu (and I might not be), he's suggesting that most traditional training doesn't include the things he listed that he considers the keys to being effective. But martial artists in TMA styles who do these things CAN make it work.   If I'm getting it right, I can agree.  I might not agree entirely with his specific criteria, but I've said many times that it's not the techniques, but the training methods that I think are the problem.  And just recently in another thread, I said that I believe that most styles have internalized training philosophies.  Some bad and some good.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> If I'm getting ElfTengu's post, I think he's suggesting that there are some but not many. Taking it a step further, it looks like James Saville trains at least some BJJ, too. Won a couple of fights by submission.
> 
> As I said, if I'm understanding ElfTengu (and I might not be), he's suggesting that most traditional training doesn't include the things he listed that he considers the keys to being effective. But martial artists in TMA styles who do these things CAN make it work.  If I'm getting it right, I can agree. I might not agree entirely with his specific criteria, but I've said many times that it's not the techniques, but the training methods that I think are the problem. And just recently in another thread, I said that I believe that most styles have internalized training philosophies. Some bad and some good.


 

James does more than train 'some' BJJ, he trains MMA with Caged Steel, a very good MMA gym. Ross Pearson is out of there, and they have two UFC vets Ian Freeman and Leigh Remedious.
 James' Jits is awsome actually. He's also part monkey! I've known him since he was 14,watched his training and his first fights and he's one of the most talented young fighters going. He actually built a cage in his garden when he was 15 which was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. James is a good example of the fighters we see here, well rounded, well trained and supported with good skills on the ground and standing. He's fit, yes and he's entertaining all things that you'd want in an MMA fighter. He started in TKD and has added groundwork, boxing, Muay Thai and wrestling to his skill set as do all the fighters I know. He's been training for years now. Like most of us he's down to earth, theres little money in MMA in the UK, only a couple of fighters earn enough to live on and they went to America for that, we don't get hyped up  about the info these fighters give us, we know them, know where they train and who they are trained by and in many cases have trained with them. Many of us train at other gyms and we have frequent 'open mats' usually for charity where we all train together, it is actually very 'homely' and small time. Proper MMA one could call it, the grass roots, people doing it because they love it sort of MMA.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> James does more than train 'some' BJJ, he trains MMA with Caged Steel, a very good MMA gym. Ross Pearson is out of there, and they have two UFC vets Ian Freeman and Leigh Remedious.
> James' Jits is awsome actually. He's also part monkey! I've known him since he was 14,watched his training and his first fights and he's one of the most talented young fighters going. He actually built a cage in his garden when he was 15 which was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. James is a good example of the fighters we see here, well rounded, well trained and supported with good skills on the ground and standing. He's fit, yes and he's entertaining all things that you'd want in an MMA fighter. He started in TKD and has added groundwork, boxing, Muay Thai and wrestling to his skill set as do all the fighters I know. He's been training for years now. Like most of us he's down to earth, theres little money in MMA in the UK, only a couple of fighters earn enough to live on and they went to America for that, we don't get hyped up about the info these fighters give us, we know them, know where they train and who they are trained by and in many cases have trained with them. Many of us train at other gyms and we have frequent 'open mats' usually for charity where we all train together, it is actually very 'homely' and small time. Proper MMA one could call it, the grass roots, people doing it because they love it sort of MMA.


Right.  He's not just a TKD guy, in spite of what your first post implied.  That's my entire point.  Your first post about him made hiim sound like some guy who stepped right out of the dojang and into the cage.  Of course, that's not going to happen.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> Right. He's not just a TKD guy, in spite of what your first post implied. That's my entire point. Your first post about him made hiim sound like some guy who stepped right out of the dojang and into the cage. Of course, that's not going to happen.


 
Er no, I don't think so. I said he was an *MMA fighter* with a TKD BB.  It didn't imply anything about him stepping out of anywhere and fighting. If he's MMA of course he's not just stepped out of a Dojang and of course he's got ground skills, wouldn't be an MMA fighter else.

Quote
* I have just the MMA fighter for this challenge, he's called James Saville, has a TKD black belt and is one of the best MMA fighters I know, he's quite young still not 20 yet but is also amazing at parkour. Have a look on You Tube for him*. Unquote


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Er no, I don't think so. I said he was an *MMA fighter* with a TKD BB. It didn't imply anything about him stepping out of anywhere and fighting. If he's MMA of course he's not just stepped out of a Dojang and of course he's got ground skills, wouldn't be an MMA fighter else.
> 
> Quote
> *I have just the MMA fighter for this challenge, he's called James Saville, has a TKD black belt and is one of the best MMA fighters I know, he's quite young still not 20 yet but is also amazing at parkour. Have a look on You Tube for him*. Unquote


You said it in response to ElfTengu's post, in which he said that any one who trains  in a TMA would be successful if they did x, y, and z.  Whether you or I agree with his specific critieria or not, you said... exactly what you said above.  I was pointing out that, in spite of what your post implies (whether intentional or not), your guy doesn't just train in TKD.  You agreed with me, although you seemed to think otherwise, when you said that he's awesome on the ground, and also trains in greco roman wrestling, boxing and muay thai.  Sounds like a busy guy.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> You said it in response to ElfTengu's post, in which he said that any one who trains in a TMA would be successful if they did x, y, and z. Whether you or I agree with his specific critieria or not, you said... exactly what you said above. I was pointing out that, in spite of what your post implies (whether intentional or not), your guy doesn't just train in TKD. You agreed with me, although you seemed to think otherwise, when you said that he's awesome on the ground, and also trains in greco roman wrestling, boxing and muay thai. Sounds like a busy guy.


 

Greco Roman wrestling? No, I didn't say that, I said wrestling as in wrestling. 
I put Scraps up there for the MMA part of the challenge not the TMA part, that's why I said put he's an MMA fighter. A pro fighter from one of the best gyms in the country, I put him in there because he does free running not because he was just an MMA fighter, I was waiting for the TMA people to come up with a challenger or at least someone who can meet the same standards. I was agreeing with ElfTengu and putting forward the person that met his criteria.


----------



## ElfTengu

I gues that what I was getting at is that it is not the art(s) studied that makes the better fighter/combatant, and it is definitely not the grade or belt achieved, but all the additional aspects that need to be in place to overcome this new phenomenon of MMA, where there are no principles, no founder, no grandmaster, no tradition, no etiquette, just hard work and sports science.

There is no point getting into a 'what would Bruce do' debate, any more than there is with any other deceased martial arts masters, but Guro Inosanto seems to take MMA seriously, and so does my teacher's teacher Bob Breen.

If anything, MMA makes the 'absorb what is useful and discard the rest' guiding principle of JKD even easier, because the top exponents and trainers/coaches of MMA have already sorted the wheat from the chaff of many systems that we might not otherwise look to, especially in terms of modern approaches to diet, weight training, high percentage techniques etc. It is probably preferable to looking at raw Thai boxing and judo as Bruce did, because things have moved on. Can anyone tell me if Bruce looked at BBJ, because it was certainly around then, but also there were other arts in their early stages such as Krav Maga etc at the time, and obscure Japanese arts like Koryu Jujutsu and Ninpo Taijutsu. Despite not knowing what Bruce would do today, it is likely that BJJ would have largely supplanted Judo as a source for grappling and groundfighting, but of course this is mere conjecture and supposition, and judo still has a lot to offer, which is why my current teacher cross trains in judo.

Another thing worth discussing in the sports versus real debate, is the fact that we all know that the Wing Chun aspects of JKD really work in a close quarters situation, but you just don't see them in MMA competition and in the early days of UFC, they just didn't get their practitioners past the preliminaries, and the JKD fighters seemed to drop those apsects in the ocatagon. Is it the sweat? Is it that the Muay Thai approach to controlling the distance and the fact that they go to a clinch/grapple as soon as possible rather than fight like boxers or wing chun practitioners up close.

And lastly, back to my earlier points that have been discussed since, it is a lot about the individual and their background, the nastier and tougher the upbringing, the greater inherent ability to overhwhelm an opponent with sheer aggression and psychological aspects. Like some of the British MMA comentators say to the extent that it has become something of a cliché, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".


----------



## Tez3

ElfTengu said:


> And lastly, back to my earlier points that have been discussed since, it is a lot about the individual and their background, the nastier and tougher the upbringing, the greater inherent ability to overhwhelm an opponent with sheer aggression and psychological aspects.* Like some of the British MMA comentators say to the extent that it has become something of a cliché, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in* *the dog*".


 

Ian Butlin or Leigh Remedious?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Ian Butlin or Leigh Remedious?


 
Actually Mark Twain said it first


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually Mark Twain said it first


 
Of course but like all wise sayings it bears repeating! Both Ian and Leigh (the latter almost indecently so lol) are very well educated so would know the origins of the saying.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Greco Roman wrestling? No, I didn't say that, I said wrestling as in wrestling.
> I put Scraps up there for the MMA part of the challenge not the TMA part, that's why I said put he's an MMA fighter. A pro fighter from one of the best gyms in the country, I put him in there because he does free running not because he was just an MMA fighter, I was waiting for the TMA people to come up with a challenger or at least someone who can meet the same standards. I was agreeing with ElfTengu and putting forward the person that met his criteria.


Come on, Tez.  You're doing it again.  Who gives a crap whether it was greco roman or just regular wrestling?  By fixating on that, you're missing the point, which is that you're agreeing with me, and I'm agreeing with ElfTengu.   The only reason I posted in response to you at all is that you implied (again, whether you meant to or not) that your guy was a strict TKD black belt by omitting any of his other training and mentioning only his TKD training.  I pointed out that he clearly isn't training _just_ TKD anymore, if he trains TKD anymore at all.  And you got your hackles up, even though you agree with me.  And then we go through 6 or 8 posts where I tell you repeatedly that you're parroting my point but doing so as though you're correcting me.

If you were, as you say now, putting him out there as an MMA fighter and waiting for an equally competent TMA guy to be nominated, why did you mention his TKD BB at all?  It only confused the issue. 



ElfTengu said:


> I gues that what I was getting at is that it is not the art(s) studied that makes the better fighter/combatant, and it is definitely not the grade or belt achieved, but all the additional aspects that need to be in place to overcome this new phenomenon of MMA, where there are no principles, no founder, no grandmaster, no tradition, no etiquette, just hard work and sports science.
> 
> There is no point getting into a 'what would Bruce do' debate, any more than there is with any other deceased martial arts masters, but Guro Inosanto seems to take MMA seriously, and so does my teacher's teacher Bob Breen.
> 
> If anything, MMA makes the 'absorb what is useful and discard the rest' guiding principle of JKD even easier, because the top exponents and trainers/coaches of MMA have already sorted the wheat from the chaff of many systems that we might not otherwise look to, especially in terms of modern approaches to diet, weight training, high percentage techniques etc. It is probably preferable to looking at raw Thai boxing and judo as Bruce did, because things have moved on. Can anyone tell me if Bruce looked at BBJ, because it was certainly around then, but also there were other arts in their early stages such as Krav Maga etc at the time, and obscure Japanese arts like Koryu Jujutsu and Ninpo Taijutsu. Despite not knowing what Bruce would do today, it is likely that BJJ would have largely supplanted Judo as a source for grappling and groundfighting, but of course this is mere conjecture and supposition, and judo still has a lot to offer, which is why my current teacher cross trains in judo.
> 
> Another thing worth discussing in the sports versus real debate, is the fact that we all know that the Wing Chun aspects of JKD really work in a close quarters situation, but you just don't see them in MMA competition and in the early days of UFC, they just didn't get their practitioners past the preliminaries, and the JKD fighters seemed to drop those apsects in the ocatagon. Is it the sweat? Is it that the Muay Thai approach to controlling the distance and the fact that they go to a clinch/grapple as soon as possible rather than fight like boxers or wing chun practitioners up close.
> 
> And lastly, back to my earlier points that have been discussed since, it is a lot about the individual and their background, the nastier and tougher the upbringing, the greater inherent ability to overhwhelm an opponent with sheer aggression and psychological aspects. Like some of the British MMA comentators say to the extent that it has become something of a cliché, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".


I'll try to keep it straightforward so no one misunderstands.  I agree.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> Come on, Tez. You're doing it again. Who gives a crap whether it was greco roman or just regular wrestling? By fixating on that, you're missing the point, which is that you're agreeing with me, and I'm agreeing with ElfTengu. The only reason I posted in response to you at all is that you implied (again, whether you meant to or not) that your guy was a strict TKD black belt by omitting any of his other training and mentioning only his TKD training. I pointed out that he clearly isn't training _just_ TKD anymore, if he trains TKD anymore at all. And you got your hackles up, even though you agree with me. And then we go through 6 or 8 posts where I tell you repeatedly that you're parroting my point but doing so as though you're correcting me.
> 
> If you were, as you say now, putting him out there as an MMA fighter and waiting for an equally competent TMA guy to be nominated, why did you mention his TKD BB at all? It only confused the issue.
> 
> I'll try to keep it straightforward so no one misunderstands. I agree.


 


Wow, you are way off with my posts! I did say what his training was...it's MMA! He's an MMA fighter so of course his training is MMA with all the usual constituents, do I have to write them out every time?
I really think you are reading stuff into posts that isn't there at all and you are worrying me taking what is basically a jokey post so very seriously. 

I read the bit about parkour and thought I know just the lad to do the MMA bit that so I smiled to myself and thought I'd give Scraps a bit of a write up. There was very little thought put into it, I added the TKD bit because I'm always telling people that our fighters come from a TMA background and that is just a bit of proof, lord, there was nothing else in there.

I'm fixating on nothing, just very confused as to why you are basically picking apart my posts and reading into them loads of things that aren't there. I haven't had my hackles up at all, just been sat scratching my head, I said he was an MMA fighter what more do you want? I'm correcting you because you seem intent on thinking I'm saying and feeling something I'm not, I have no idea whether I agree with you or not because you have got me totally foxed by whatever game you're playng.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Wow, you are way off with my posts! I did say what his training was...it's MMA! He's an MMA fighter so of course his training is MMA with all the usual constituents, do I have to write them out every time?
> I really think you are reading stuff into posts that isn't there at all and you are worrying me taking what is basically a jokey post so very seriously.
> 
> I read the bit about parkour and thought I know just the lad to do the MMA bit that so I smiled to myself and thought I'd give Scraps a bit of a write up. There was very little thought put into it, I added the TKD bit because I'm always telling people that our fighters come from a TMA background and that is just a bit of proof, lord, there was nothing else in there.
> 
> I'm fixating on nothing, just very confused as to why you are basically picking apart my posts and reading into them loads of things that aren't there. I haven't had my hackles up at all, just been sat scratching my head, I said he was an MMA fighter what more do you want? I'm correcting you because you seem intent on thinking I'm saying and feeling something I'm not, I have no idea whether I agree with you or not because you have got me totally foxed by whatever game you're playng.


Okay.  You're right.  You caught me.  I'm just playing a game.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> Okay. You're right. You caught me. I'm just playing a game.


 

Don't be like that, I really don't know what you thought I was thinking when I posted and I really am baffled by your posts, genuinely. I know what I meant when I wrote them but you have read something totally different into them and taken the conversation into places where I really don't know what we are talking about.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Of course but like all wise sayings it bears repeating! Both Ian and Leigh (the latter almost indecently so lol) are very well educated so would know the origins of the saying.


 
It use to be part of my sig


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Don't be like that, I really don't know what you thought I was thinking when I posted and I really am baffled by your posts, genuinely. I know what I meant when I wrote them but you have read something totally different into them and taken the conversation into places where I really don't know what we are talking about.


It's going both ways. Honestly guys, I communicate in writing all day long and have no problems making myself clear everywhere but here.  It's frustrating.   I'll happily admit that it's me, because I seem to be having these issues constantly here, but I'll be damned if I know why.  I go back and re-read my posts and, to me, they're very clear.  I just don't get it.  But time and again, I'll post something and someone will counter points I'm making with the same points.

Here's my plan.  Short posts and as many bullets as I can.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> It's going both ways. Honestly guys, I communicate in writing all day long and have no problems making myself clear everywhere but here. It's frustrating. I'll happily admit that it's me, because I seem to be having these issues constantly here, but I'll be damned if I know why. I go back and re-read my posts and, to me, they're very clear. I just don't get it. But time and again, I'll post something and someone will counter points I'm making with the same points.
> 
> Here's my plan. Short posts and as many bullets as I can.


 

The thing was though when talking about the MMA fighter I wasn't making any point just that I know a lad who does MMA and parkour, there wasn't a point to the post really, it was just a bit of a jokey comment on ElfTengu's point. I only metioned the TKD because as I said, I do go on about how we come from a TMA background, I just wanted to show that nothing else. Plus you are attributing emotions to me that I wasn't experiencing, I wasn't getting my hackles up, I reserve that for my stalker lol! 

On MMA training....in James' gym as in our club and all the fighter's gyms we train MMA, that's what we call it, we don't train arts separately, we don't have a class for MT, another for boxing and another for BJJ, we will train it as a whole, MMA training. There may be a class for beginners and another for the gym's team but everything is trained together so it all flows so when I say James trains MMA that's exactly what I mean.
 Last Thursday we started with a warm up and fitness, then went on to defences from the ground, then pad work, kicking and punching then some grappling. It varies on the night depending on who's in and whether anyone has a fight coming up but that's how we train so I didn't omit any of James' training at all. I thought you understood how we train.
In James' gym they have more than one instructor, they have a ground coach and a standup coach so in the same session some could be with one or the other. Plus people can go into the gym to train on their own. Some places which have their own buildings will have a standup class or a ground class but it's for MMA it's not Muay Thai or BJJ as such but still just MMA. The standup will be a mixture of boxing, karate and MT with kicks, elbows and knees which are common to all martial arts except modern boxing. The groundwork is again a mixture of Judo, wrestling and BJJ all specifically for MMA not a single style. We also use karate and Aikido takedowns. It's all non Gi too. The classes will be advertised as MMA standup and MMA groundwork.
 Some gyms are also able to rent out space to other styles which have nothing to do with MMA, it just brings in  revenue and helps pay the bills. If they are lucky it could be a boxing club or a BJJ class which means extra training for the MMAers if they wish.
I hope that explains why I said James' trains MMA and why I didn't mean TKD was his only style.


----------



## ElfTengu

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually Mark Twain said it first


 
What?

Mark Twain commentated at Mixed Martial Arts events? :xtrmshock



(hee hee snicker)


----------



## Xue Sheng

ElfTengu said:


> What?
> 
> Mark Twain commentated at Mixed Martial Arts events? :xtrmshock
> 
> 
> 
> (hee hee snicker)


 
Yes, yes he did 

I know this is hard to take for many in MMA but there actually was life before MMA..... Unlike Xingyiquan... there was nothing before Xingyiquan


----------



## ElfTengu

Xue Sheng said:


> Unlike Xingyiquan... there was nothing before Xingyiquan


 
That's easy for you to say.

You can probably pronounce it for one thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ElfTengu said:


> That's easy for you to say.
> 
> You can probably pronounce it for one thing.


 
Yes, yes I can :EG:


----------



## trexeden@yahoo.com

Great points!  Opposing limitations does limit the progression of martial arts for combative purposes.  I also hate to throw another issue in, but many of the concepts based JKD guys also throw in weapons and mass attack, which I dont see the UFC ever intergrading.  

Just passing on what I learned from other JKD instructors Ive interviewed.  If you want to check out some of them, go to www.JKDnewsletter.com


----------



## Xael

trexeden@yahoo.com said:


> Great points! Opposing limitations does limit the progression of martial arts for combative purposes. I also hate to throw another issue in, but many of the concepts based JKD guys also throw in weapons and mass attack, which I dont see the UFC ever intergrading.
> 
> Just passing on what I learned from other JKD instructors Ive interviewed. If you want to check out some of them, go to www.JKDnewsletter.com


 

That is because the UFC is not JKD. The UFC is a sport... it is not streetfighting.


----------



## ElfTengu

Xael said:


> That is because the UFC is not JKD. The UFC is a sport... it is not streetfighting.


 
I was wondering about a guy called Eric Paulson, who does MMA allegedly based on JKD, although it looks like any other MMA but with added nastiness for the street.

I saw him on a documentary about Alex Reid, about whom the less is said the better.

So what's all that about?


----------



## Xael

Erik used to do JKD, if I am not mistaken he taught Jun Fan at the Inosanto academy for a stint in the 90's, though I could be wrong. I have seen some of his newer stuff via video. It's ok if thats the stuff you are into, though it's not my cup of tea. 

I definitely know he knows his way around a ring though. If you are going to compete, hooking up with him would be a blessing I am sure.


----------



## ElfTengu

Xael said:


> Erik used to do JKD, if I am not mistaken he taught Jun Fan at the Inosanto academy for a stint in the 90's, though I could be wrong. I have seen some of his newer stuff via video. It's ok if thats the stuff you are into, though it's not my cup of tea.
> 
> I definitely know he knows his way around a ring though. If you are going to compete, hooking up with him would be a blessing I am sure.


 
Yeah that's the impression I got so thanks for confirming.

I guess anyone who can 'wow' a professional cage fighter (even if it is Alex Reid) is worth training with if that is your area of interest. It's not my cup of cocoa either btw, but I wouldn't want to be up against one these athletes without (or with) a referee.


----------



## Tez3

ElfTengu said:


> I was wondering about a guy called Eric Paulson, who does MMA allegedly based on JKD, although it looks like any other MMA but with added nastiness for the street.
> 
> I saw him on a documentary about Alex Reid, about whom the less is said the better.
> 
> So what's all that about?


 
How dare you malign dear Alex! roflmao! 

Actually he's an okay guy, just has appalling taste in women. People forget or don't know that he is an actor, was in Hollyoaks and is naturally full of ego and a taste for publicity. He's not a bad fighter or ref actually. It's disconcerting though to be chatting to him and he's always looking over your shoulder asking if that or this girl is looking at him though I'm sure he doesn't do that now lol! the orange skin and mascara too is distracting and this is from years ago.


----------



## mook jong man

Tez3 said:


> How dare you malign dear Alex! roflmao!
> 
> Actually he's an okay guy, just has appalling taste in women. People forget or don't know that he is an actor, was in Hollyoaks and is naturally full of ego and a taste for publicity. He's not a bad fighter or ref actually. It's disconcerting though to be chatting to him and he's always looking over your shoulder asking if that or this girl is looking at him though I'm sure he doesn't do that now lol! the orange skin and mascara too is distracting and this is from years ago.


 
Is he that cross dressing bloke  that is going out with that Katie Price sheila , the one with the big ......... er personality ?

She was on the Graham Norton show saying how they dress up together and put on make up , actually she came across as being as dumb as a hair brush , but then again Peter Andre was no Rhodes scholar either.


----------



## Tez3

mook jong man said:


> Is he that cross dressing bloke that is going out with that Katie Price sheila , the one with the big ......... er personality ?
> 
> She was on the Graham Norton show saying how they dress up together and put on make up , actually she came across as being as dumb as a hair brush , but then again Peter Andre was no Rhodes scholar either.


 

Yeah they actually got married after she got divorced from Peter Andre. Alex is okay, his fight record isn't brilliant something like 8-9-1, he's lost to some very good fighters and beaten other good fighters like Lee 
Murray (who no longer fights being in Morocco after allegedly stealing £54 million) four of his losses were due to cuts or injury. 

The thing that annoys me most about the Alex and Jordan thing is the publicity and the way MMA is portrayed by the media. This I think influences the way many non MMA people see the sport. Alex and Jordan were at a show in London a while back, the media came out with all these stories about riots at the show, fighting and how Jordan got smacked as they were leaving. Nothing could have been further from the truth, there was only a minor scuffle that happened after they had left, the promoter having arranged for a taxi and escorted them to it after the bouts were finished. So many people see this type of behaviour as 'typical' of MMA when frankly it isn't. Alex isn't a typical fighter either as I said before his proper job is acting, fighting was/is a hobby for him.


----------



## mook jong man

Tez3 said:


> Yeah they actually got married after she got divorced from Peter Andre. Alex is okay, his fight record isn't brilliant something like 8-9-1, he's lost to some very good fighters and beaten other good fighters like Lee
> Murray (who no longer fights being in Morocco after allegedly stealing £54 million) four of his losses were due to cuts or injury.
> 
> The thing that annoys me most about the Alex and Jordan thing is the publicity and the way MMA is portrayed by the media. This I think influences the way many non MMA people see the sport. Alex and Jordan were at a show in London a while back, the media came out with all these *stories about riots at the show, fighting and how Jordan got smacked as they were leaving. *Nothing could have been further from the truth, there was only a minor scuffle that happened after they had left, the promoter having arranged for a taxi and escorted them to it after the bouts were finished. So many people see this type of behaviour as 'typical' of MMA when frankly it isn't. Alex isn't a typical fighter either as I said before his proper job is acting, fighting was/is a hobby for him.


 
At least if she got knocked down , she wouldn't of fell on her face , not with those protective dual airbags , actually she'd most likely bounce straight back up again lol.


----------



## Tez3

Spoiler alert!


Just watched Alex fight Tom Watson for British middleweight title, 5x5 min rounds. He lost on points 49-46 but it was a tough fight, both cut and bleeding, Alex's eye closed. Alex took elbows and some shocking knees, man deserves respect but it wasn't a technically good fight more a brusing fight literally.


----------

