# Dangerous habits



## Stealthy (Sep 1, 2011)

Which common place techniques facilitated by the protection the Rules offer lend themselves to becoming quite deadly without the Rules for protection?

For example sitting down in front of a person and hugging his leg seems like a pretty crazy move that would more than likely result in a knee in the face or elbow to the back of the head or spine.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 1, 2011)

The Standard Takedown. If met with a Sprawl, and Elbow or Hammerfist to the Back would be childs play.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2011)

Dangerous habit no 1.. dropping your hands. No 2 .. dropping an arm while kicking.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Dangerous habit no 1.. dropping your hands. No 2 .. dropping an arm while kicking.



Not relevant to the question, got any other ideas?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 2, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Which common place techniques facilitated by the protection the Rules offer lend themselves to becoming quite deadly without the Rules for protection?



Hmm, I'm not sure that anything really comes under the description you mention here. I can't think of any techniques that become "deadly" (to the performer of them) outside of the rules. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that, in competition, MMA athletes are used to defending against these techniques, and working them in ways that make them very hard to defend against.

The argument against training methods such as MMA specifically for self defence aren't anything to do with the techniques (which are very solid!), or even the ruleset (because it really isn't limiting in a self defence scenario). It's more to do with the tactics and strategies employed, the mindset utilised, and the vast difference in the timetables, as well as the differences in the form and effects of adrenaline between the two. But the techniques of MMA, rules or no, work. As does their training methods. It's just geared towards a different result.



Stealthy said:


> For example sitting down in front of a person and hugging his leg seems like a pretty crazy move that would more than likely result in a knee in the face or elbow to the back of the head or spine.


 
"Sitting down in front of a person"? When have you seen that? I've seen the athletes end up on the ground in front of their opponent, but that's about as close as it gets. And as far as getting a knee in the face or an elbow to the back of the head, I've seen that in MMA competition, under the rules. So this doesn't seem to be a good example, to my mind.



Cyriacus said:


> The Standard Takedown. If met with a Sprawl, and Elbow or Hammerfist to the Back would be childs play.



Ha, the standard MMA answer to that would be "try it". Personally, I feel that "child's play" is taking things a little lightly... but again, how would that be against the rules of MMA competition?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2011)

Dangerous habit 3.. giving your back up.


What the OP seems to be trying to say is the old thing about 'fighting as you train' and the old chestnut that MMA fighters can only fight by the rules which leaves them open when it's 'non rules' fighting.

There's dangerous habits you can get into full stop.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, the standard MMA answer to that would be "try it". Personally, I feel that "child's play" is taking things a little lightly... but again, how would that be against the rules of MMA competition?



Fair Question.
Though in MMA, you cant hit someone in the Spine, so i doubt you could really "Try" it.
Im not going to Claim anything about Myself VS MMA Competition Rules, since ive not Competed in enough of anything to be comfortable debating such things. Yet.


----------



## Steve (Sep 2, 2011)

Just to add with the takedown, sprawling isn't as easy in practice as it sounds in theory.   The "child's play" remark gets right to the heart of the entire "aliveness" issue.  

As a tactic, in the UFC, fighters take advantage of the ban on kicks/knees to the head of a "downed opponent."  I remember an old episode of TUF... can't remember who said it now, but someone suggested as a tactic putting a knee down to avoid knees/kicks to the head.  There was outrage at the very idea, but then it started showing up in matches.

So, I would say that the tactic of dropping to one's knee or putting a hand on the ground in a fight is a bad idea.  But, to be clear, there aren't bad techniques.  Just bad tactics and I believe that any MMA'ist would know better than to do these things in a survival type setting.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 2, 2011)

Butting with the head
Eye gouging of any kind
Biting
Spitting at an opponent
Hair pulling
Fish hooking
Groin attacks of any kind
Putting a finger into any orifice or any cut or laceration of an opponent
Small joint manipulation
Striking downward using the point of the elbow
Striking to the spine or the back of the head
Kicking to the kidney with a heel
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
Grabbing the clavicle
Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
Stomping a grounded opponent
Holding the fence
Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
Using abusive language in fenced ring/fighting area
Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent
Attacking an opponent on or during the break
Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee
Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the round
Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury
Throwing opponent out of ring/fighting area
Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee
Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck
Interference by the corner
Applying any foreign substance to the hair or body to gain an advantage
These are the rules, I posted in this forum because I specifically wanted to ask the MMA guys and gals what they thought due to the very valid "try it" argument. For those not already familiar with the rules here they are.

There are a few stand outs that have stood the test of time, things like Head butts, poking eyes, small joint manipulation, flesh twisting, fish hooking, clavicle ripping, throat strikes, Spiking into the canvas, abusive language(kiai), spitting, holding clothing, kneeing and kicking to the head of a grounded opponent, kidney shots with the heel, downward elbow strikes, strikes to the spine, biting, hair pulling and groin strikes all have the potential to either buy you a few extra precious milliseconds or end the fight quickly. I've deliberatly excluded the use of foreign objects which would clearly come up in a street fight.

So the real essence of the question is with the absence of these tools can the fighter over time develop an unnatural skill set which would lend itself to brutal punishment and if so which particular bad habits are they?

An often overlooked element is the use of gloves, I fought a boxer once who was substantially better than me so I knew I could not afford to let his fists get anywhere near my head or body. Since it was Bare knuckle all I had to do was punch the crap out of his hands, if he threw a punch I smashed it, if he held his guard up I smashed it, a few times he tried to meet fire with fire but he came off second best. After a while he dropped his guard so I moved in a little and started getting in body shots. As soon as his guard went back up I moved out of his range and punched crap out of his fists...the rest is as they say...history. Even the skimpy little 4oz MMA gloves would have stopped me from doing this and I would have been smashed, he was taller, faster and stronger.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Rules 17 and 18 don't apply in all promotions fights btw.

The rules are rules only in the cage or ring, MMA fighters can just as easily ignore all of them when outside the ring/cage.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> So the real essence of the question is with the absence of these tools can the fighter over time develop an unnatural skill set which would lend itself to brutal punishment and if so which particular bad habits are they?


 
Honestly, I don't think that's really the right question, though. Each and every art has aspects that are strengths, and each and every art has aspects that can be exploited, but that's fairly different to saying that there are necessarily bad habits being developed.



Cyriacus said:


> Fair Question.
> Though in MMA, you cant hit someone in the Spine, so i doubt you could really "Try" it.
> Im not going to Claim anything about Myself VS MMA Competition Rules, since ive not Competed in enough of anything to be comfortable debating such things. Yet.



Ha, what I meant by the standard response of "try it" is that the MMA practitioner is very experienced in making their "standard takedown" against people trying to stop them, by sprawling and hitting them as they come in, and as a result, their "standard takedown" isn't anywhere near as easy to stop as you seemed to be implying. Add to that the basic biomechanics that, if you are sprawling enough to stop the takedown then your weight is in the exact wrong direction for any real power in the strikes you're describing, or, if you're upright enough to get something into the strikes, then you're going to get taken down pretty quickly.

And that really starts to get into the heart of Stealthy's question - although there are weaknesses that can be exploited (and no, I'm not giving those away here...), when you look at a system which is performance driven, the practitioners get very good at making sure that they can make things work. And that tends to lead to "good" habits, in this regard. Defences are tight, offence is direct and powerful, changes in range are smooth etc, and the rules aren't really limitations unless you decide to see them as such. With all the rules of forbidden techniques listed, who says that a self defence situation will go much past the first punch?

Really, the strength of MMA is it's training methods, and they are not to be taken lightly (for the record, although I haven't trained in MMA myself, I have trained in similar approaches in a few arts, such as BJJ and boxing, and a number of our seniors have been, and in some cases still are, cross-training in MMA, which leads to some very insightful conversations). And that training method can generate certain issues, but nothing that I would describe as a potentially dangerous (to the practitioner) habit. Some maybe less advised, but that's really not the same thing.


----------



## Buka (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't understand the question. (I'm old and somewhat slow)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Buka said:


> I don't understand the question. (I'm old and somewhat slow)



I don't actually understand it either so I've answered what I think he's asking! It seems to be yet another one on how MMA fighters can't actually fight outside their ruleset because they get into 'bad' habits for self defence but hey I could be wrong...


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't actually understand it either so I've answered what I think he's asking! It seems to be yet another one on how MMA fighters can't actually fight outside their ruleset because they get into 'bad' habits for self defence but hey I could be wrong...



Yes, you are wrong.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, what I meant by the standard response of "try it" is that the MMA practitioner is very experienced in making their "standard takedown" against people trying to stop them, by sprawling and hitting them as they come in, and as a result, their "standard takedown" isn't anywhere near as easy to stop as you seemed to be implying. Add to that the basic biomechanics that, if you are sprawling enough to stop the takedown then your weight is in the exact wrong direction for any real power in the strikes you're describing, or, if you're upright enough to get something into the strikes, then you're going to get taken down pretty quickly.
> 
> *Mm. This assumes you Sprawl. You only need to keep the Person still for a second - They are the one lowering themself to attempt the Takedown.*
> 
> ...



I think were enough on the same Track for now, Good Sir


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 3, 2011)

Perhaps rephrasing your question might help...  It didn't make much sense to me, either.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Mm. This assumes you Sprawl. You only need to keep the Person still for a second - They are the one lowering themself to attempt the Takedown.



Actually, I took that from your first post in this thread, in which you said "If met with a Sprawl, and (an?) Elbow or Hammerfist to the Back would be childs play." And, having dealt with BJJ trained guys (and some MMA trained friends) shooting in for a takedown, you do need to sprawl. Them lowering themselves actually increases the need for it, really.



Cyriacus said:


> I think were enough on the same Track for now, Good Sir



Ha, cool.



jks9199 said:


> Perhaps rephrasing your question might help...  It didn't make much sense to me, either.



Agreed. Oh, and Stealthy? Perhaps a little less attitude in your responces will serve you better, as this:



Stealthy said:


> Yes, you are wrong.


 
is not what turned up in my email as your actual responce.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, I took that from your first post in this thread, in which you said "If met with a Sprawl, and (an?) Elbow or Hammerfist to the Back would be childs play." And, having dealt with BJJ trained guys (and some MMA trained friends) shooting in for a takedown, you do need to sprawl. Them lowering themselves actually increases the need for it, really.
> 
> *Hm. My Bad - I know that isnt what i was directly referring to for the most part, but I may have not included sufficient detail, and ended up Looping words a bit.
> 
> From what Takedowns ive Practiced, you need to Sprawl to stop yourself being Taken right down. But there is a Delay. Its brief, but if you were already intent on your Response it seems Viable, at least.*



This is quite an Interesting Topic


----------



## seasoned (Sep 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't actually understand it either so I've answered what I think he's asking! It seems to be yet another one on how MMA fighters can't actually fight outside their ruleset because they get into 'bad' habits for self defence but hey I could be wrong...



I would agree that at face value it sounds like this to me also. 

As a side note. 
I am, a firm believer that what you train in,* is* the way you will use it, but, I am also of the belief, that once you have underestimated another arts/sports ability, that that in itself is a 

"Dangerous habit" 

That must be avoided.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> This is quite an Interesting Topic



Intelligent conversationalists make for interesting conversation, my friend.

We have a range of takedown defences, but understanding the way such things happen in MMA approaches, a sprawl is about the only thing that'll help you. From there you may have a chance to use a few different responces, but the ones you listed are actually fairly weak, and there are better ones to look to...


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and Stealthy? Perhaps a little less attitude in your responces will serve you better



I do have issue with rewording the same question ten times though, it feels like baby sitting which is okay if I'm in the mood but more importantly it just feels like my chain is being jerked when intelligent people pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.

 There is nothing wrong with the wording, I've even re-worded it once already because I am such a nice guy.

 If someone doesn't understand the question then it is unlikely they have the intelligence to answer it anyway.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> I do have issue with rewording the same question ten times though, it feels like baby sitting which is okay if I'm in the mood but more importantly it just feels like my chain is being jerked when semi-intelligent people pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the wording, I've even re-worded it once already because I am such a nice guy.
> 
> If someone doesn't understand the question then it is unlikely they have the intelligence to answer it anyway.



This is what I'm referring to, really. Your question may have been clear to you, but not to anyone else, and that is far from a reflection on their intelligence. It's honestly more a reflection on your clear communication abilities. You complained about the state of your reputation points at one stage, this is how you get them.

Oh, and Tez is precisely who you want to answer your questions about MMA, insulting her is really not the way to go. Not to mention the offence I may take at your comment here.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> This is what I'm referring to, really. Your question may have been clear to you, but not to anyone else, and that is far from a reflection on their intelligence. It's honestly more a reflection on your clear communication abilities. You complained about the state of your reputation points at one stage, this is how you get them.
> 
> Oh, and Tez is precisely who you want to answer your questions about MMA, insulting her is really not the way to go. Not to mention the offence I may take at your comment here.



Tez has no interest in answering my question and you along with a bunch of other people did understand it at least enough to respond intelligently so I don't know why you would take offense to my comment but my apologies if you did.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

My offence is taken to the attitude you are showing a friend of mine, not to mention someone who you are specifically trying to reach, as Tez trains in MMA, and trains others, as well as ref'ing from time to time. Cool your jets, and understand that if people are seeking clarification, it doesn't mean that they are lacking in intelligence, it means that you haven't explained yourself clearly. That happens to everyone, I've clarified myself many times over the time here, all you do is come at it from another angle. Insulting people's intelligence won't get you any points or answers. Okay?


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Intelligent conversationalists make for interesting conversation, my friend.
> 
> We have a range of takedown defences, but understanding the way such things happen in MMA approaches, a sprawl is about the only thing that'll help you. From there you may have a chance to use a few different responces, but the ones you listed are actually fairly weak, and there are better ones to look to...



Indeed 
And as ever, my Knowledge has only been expanded by Deconstructing and Skeptically Interrogating perfectly functional Techniques

Good Day to you, Sir!



Chris Parker said:


> My offence is taken to the attitude you are  showing a friend of mine, not to mention someone who you are  specifically trying to reach, as Tez trains in MMA, and trains others,  as well as ref'ing from time to time. Cool your jets, and understand  that if people are seeking clarification, it doesn't mean that they are  lacking in intelligence, it means that you haven't explained yourself  clearly. That happens to everyone, I've clarified myself many times over  the time here, all you do is come at it from another angle. Insulting  people's intelligence won't get you any points or answers. Okay?



Im just going to overally Support this Statement. (As in, im Supporting the Statement as a whole. Not just its use in this Thread)

People tend to hear someone Question something theyve said, and take it like some kind of Attack.
And unfortunately, Few Gentlemen can end such Squabbles before they have a chance to begin, and end up being Derailed by Negativity.
Theres a Certain Thread in the WC Section i could Drag up as an Example


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> My offence is taken to the attitude you are showing a friend of mine, not to mention someone who you are specifically trying to reach, as Tez trains in MMA, and trains others, as well as ref'ing from time to time. Cool your jets, and understand that if people are seeking clarification, it doesn't mean that they are lacking in intelligence, it means that you haven't explained yourself clearly. That happens to everyone, I've clarified myself many times over the time here, all you do is come at it from another angle. Insulting people's intelligence won't get you any points or answers. Okay?



Okay, good advice.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Tez has no interest in answering my question and you along with a bunch of other people did understand it at least enough to respond intelligently so I don't know why you would take offense to my comment but my apologies if you did.




Well, sir, as you seem to know my mind better than I do you may be the first man to totally understand women, congratulations.

The written word isn't always as clear as we think it is when we write it, I've had my posts misunderstood or not understood at all, sometimes it's because I use English words instead of American ( the 'spanking' thread in the Study is a case in point as spanking here is a sexual activity, what you do here to children is smack them. It can make a serious subject seem odd), sometimes it's because I didn't explain properly a concept which seems fine in my head but not when written down. It's always, always better to say you don't understand and maybe look like a fool rather than answer and confirm you are. It is intelligent to say you don't understand when others appear to, we all think in different ways about things. It can be frustrating when people don't understand, I teach children TSD kata and Bunkai and often I have to rethink how I explain things but it can be done.

Thanks Chris much appreciated!


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

And here was me thinking I was the first one to understand women completely.... er, they're the ones that wear the dresses, right? Or am I confusing them with Scotland again...


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> And here was me thinking I was the first one to understand women completely.... er, they're the ones that wear the dresses, right? Or am I confusing them with Scotland again...



No, not at all, Sir.

Youre thinking of Kendo Practitioners!
(No Offense to any Kendo Practitioners. This is meant strictly in humor, the same way he made reference to Scots )


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well, sir, as you seem to know my mind better than I do you may be the first man to totally understand women, congratulations.



To be honest I assumed you never bothered to read my post when you commented on dropping the guard as a bad habit. Then you did read my post and did understand my question but still threw in a completely unrelated comment about not turning your back. I could have taken offense to receiving such basic advice but since you don't know me from a bar of soap it's okay if you think I don't know about things like dropping the guard and protecting your back.

What I really took offense to was this comment:


Tez3 said:


> It seems to be yet another one on how MMA fighters can't actually fight outside their ruleset because they get into 'bad' habits for self defence



It is in the interests of clearing the air that I am pointing this out but the real reason I am posting is to a) Apologise to Mr Parker for the attitude I have shown his friend(you) and b) To apologise to you for taking offense to the above comment.

I assure you it is my intention to exploit any viable weaknesses were I to need to deal with a trained MMA fighter but it is not my intention to make some remark about how MMA fighters are no good at real fighting.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> No, not at all, Sir.
> 
> Youre thinking of Kendo Practitioners!
> (No Offense to any Kendo Practitioners. This is meant strictly in humor, the same way he made reference to Scots )



(Ahem!) And this is where I break out pictures of myself in hakama for my Kenjutsu and Iai training, is it...? 

Although, I will say that I was teaching a couple of my guys in a park a number of years ago, and I was wearing a hakama, with my hair flowing freely in the wind, and a young girl and her little brother wandered past. I heard the young lad ask her what those two guys and that girl were doing.... hmm, woulda thought the goatee at least would have been a clue!


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> To be honest I assumed you never bothered to read my post when you commented on dropping the guard as a bad habit. Then you did read my post and did understand my question but still threw in a completely unrelated comment about not turning your back. I could have taken offense to receiving such basic advice but since you don't know me from a bar of soap it's okay if you think I don't know about things like dropping the guard and protecting your back.
> 
> What I really took offense to was this comment:
> 
> ...





Er...giving up your back is common in Judo but the worst possible thing you can do in MMA and in self defence. Dropping your guard is common in amateur MMA as there are no head shots but it can lead to people not keeping their guard up not only in semi and pro rules but in the 'street'.
Are we supposed to post only things *you* understand? If so we aren't going to be passing on any information are we, you may know that giving your back up is 'not good' in MMA but we get Judoka coming into train with us who don't know that and follow their habit of doing just that. The same with keeping hands up, it seems a very basic thing but again to those who don't know about am rules they may not realise that fighters get into the habit of not keeping their hands up. Keeping hands up when kicking is something many martial artists don't do, one arm is dropped when kicking through, some places even teach people to do this but to many it's a very bad habit.

Chris, the Scots aren't the only ones to wear 'skirts', the Welsh have kilts as do the Irish and the Fijians soldiers walk around here on the very odd days we have when the sun is hot enough in what appears to be sarongs!


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Are we supposed to post only things *you* understand? If so we aren't going to be passing on any information are we...



Definitely not but even if you were to, I am sure you have a lot to pass on. I certainly don't know everything and when it comes to MMA I know very little that's why I came here to ask the experts what they(you) think.

I imagine it is something you have thought about before since everyone likes to know their weaknesses so they can shore them up but it is a difficult question since in essence it involves thinking outside the box.

I think I gave a pretty good example about boxers getting over complacent because of the protection gloves offer, not many people would even consider this viable but there's one boxer out there that wishes he'd taken hand conditioning a little more seriously. If you are wondering why I didn't just kick him, I had to agree not to use kicks prior to the fight.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2011)

Hey... soo...  the thread has drifted along, but I would like to go back to the take down/sprawl/elbow to the back of the neck thing.  

Be sure you have in mind the technique executed by someone doing it correctly.  For example, in wrestling, a double leg take down isn't done by bending over and charging in until you barrel through and over the other guy.  That doesn't work.  It's easy to read, easy to stop and because the dude is bent over at the waist charging in, it's easy (at least not impossible) to drop an elbow on the back of the neck.

A properly executed take down doesn't work like this, though.  It looks like this:






Some keys that would prevent the average person from dropping an elbow or successfully sprawling.  First, notice that the first thing he does is changes levels.  He drops straight down so that when he shoots in, he's not bent over and he's driving straight in.  Second, he doesn't shoot from Georgia.  He's close enough that he penetrates with good posture all the way into the hip.  Third, his head is pinned to his opponent's side and is high.   You can also take the single leg and keep your head inside.  Either way, you shouldn't be looking at the floor.  Finally, the entire motion is smooth, powerful and executed very quickly.






In the video above, you can see how easy it is to defend against someone bending over and reaching out.  This entire animation is ridiculous.  Every one of the keys mentioned above are conspicuously absent.  And as a result, the takedown defense looks really easy.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Hey... soo...  the thread has drifted along, but I would like to go back to the take down/sprawl/elbow to the back of the neck thing.
> 
> Be sure you have in mind the technique executed by someone doing it correctly.  For example, in wrestling, a double leg take down isn't done by bending over and charging in until you barrel through and over the other guy.  That doesn't work.  It's easy to read, easy to stop and because the dude is bent over at the waist charging in, it's easy (at least not impossible) to drop an elbow on the back of the neck.
> 
> ...


Not to worry, im Clear of mind 
This has been Discussed, however. Saying that Sprawling was necessarily involved was an Error on my Part. I didnt mean to imply that as part of the Cycle.

Now;
The Main Factor is, and I plan to Test this Theory on Thursday, is that even in a Swift Takedown, there can be either a Delay during the Takedown, or once you are Taken Down. There is also the chance of Jamming the Technique, or entering a Long Stance (Forcing a MINOR Delay).
My Point is mainly that its Possible, and that most Takedowns dont particularly take the possibility of Spinal Strikes into account.
Take Chancery, for example. Or being... I dont know the MMA Term. When someone is on the bottom, and holds the Tops head with both hands; From either Position, one could deliver Short Strikes to the Neck or Spine, as their Hands are already back there.
If someone can be Delayed, even for a moment, during a Takedown, it can be enough.

Now, im not saying its Easy. Not AT ALL. Speed is the biggest factor in that. But my Main Idealogy is the Possibility.

I shall allow you to Reply before I go on - It will make for awekward conversation, otherwise. 
This way, we can Directly Point/Counterpoint.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 3, 2011)

Or, perhaps, what you're saying is not what people are receiving.

Communication is a 2-sided endeavor.  If the sender and receiver aren't on the same page, it's kind of like using a radio tuned to the wrong frequency.  If it's close, something gets through, but it may not be intelligible.  If they're far apart... nothing gets through.

Here's an example:_How hard the stretchy string yanks back is depends on__ how long it's stretched between the two things.
_
That'd make perfect sense to some of my buddies from high school; it's built on an inside joke.  It might make sense to other people, if they recognize the relationship it's describing.  To others?  It's English words, but they don't really make much sense.

(Try it this way: The force of gravitational attachment varies inversely with the square of the distance between two masses.)

Your original post is:





Stealthy said:


> Which common place techniques facilitated by the  protection the Rules offer lend themselves to becoming quite deadly  without the Rules for protection?
> 
> For example sitting down in front of a person and hugging his leg seems  like a pretty crazy move that would more than likely result in a knee in  the face or elbow to the back of the head or spine.



Taking it in the context of MMA, since that's where you posted it, it's still pretty unclear.  You capitalize Rules; is there a particular reason?  You seem to be asking "what techniques that work in the context of sport are dangerous in the context of a real violent encounter?"  but you've said anyone answering that question is wrong.  Then you describe a situation that I honestly have never seen in a MMA match.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Which common place techniques facilitated by the protection the Rules offer lend themselves to becoming quite deadly without the Rules for protection?
> .



Well, "without the rules for protection" implies a few things. Truly violent encounters happen suddenly and without warning-most martial arts, including most MMA gyms, don't really train for that,and they all offer varying degrees of conditioning for it, with those like MMA and judo, where the practitioner is inured to impact by being taken down to the ground and/or struck, leading the way-their practioners are used to getting hit, so it comes as less of a shock. After the violence has been perpetrated, of course, technique doesn't matter nearly as much as will-though bing able to do _something_ in given scenarios is better than not being trained at all, provided your technique is sound.

On the other hand, if you're talking about facing off against some stranger who's mouthed you off or something, well, who does that anyway? 

I mean, in that case, the most dangerous technique is the one that you do instead of walking away.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> You capitalize Rules; is there a particular reason? .


If you are not here to discuss the question and only interested in picking apart my use of the English language I have no interest in continuing any form of dialogue with you. If I want English lessons I'll visit a languages forum.



jks9199 said:


> You seem to be asking "what techniques that work in the context of sport are dangerous in the context of a real violent encounter?"



Seem to be? I asked no such thing, exactly when did I refer to a real violent encounter? What is your fixation with violence and what does that have to do with my question. I said in the absence of the rules, if taking the rules away means getting all violent on someone to you, how about you leave me out of it.


jks9199 said:


> but you've said anyone answering that question is wrong.



That is a complete lie, I said one specific thing said by one specific person was wrong. I have no time for your lies, please leave me alone.


jks9199 said:


> Then you describe a situation that I honestly have never seen in a MMA match


So what, I have. How about you just leave me alone please Sir.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, "without the rules for protection" implies a few things.



I didn't specify any specific encounter or I would have specified a specific encounter. How about you assume I meant....any encounter "without the rules for protection".

To that end you've given two sample encounters the second of which includes a pretty good answer to my very open ended question, allow me to paraphrase so it actually makes sense relative to the question.

"MMA fighters are repeatedly trained to engage opponents, this is a *dangerous habit *because in some situations where they don't have the rules to protect them, the reflex of engaging opponents is detrimental to rapid disengagement and escape from the conflict".


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> If you are not here to discuss the question and only interested in picking apart my use of the English language I have no interest in continuing any form of dialogue with you. If I want English lessons I'll visit a languages forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Temper, temper.

English is an odd language, the rules of grammar are there to ensure we mean what we say and not something else. Look at these examples from a website on words.
Beware of armed Arctic mammals. Murray Ball spotted the following 
headline on a story in the Calgary Herald on 27 August: "Polar bear 
dies after shooting at oil workers' compound."

This grisly story may remind you of an ancient horror film. Part of 
a long-dead body had been found in Peckham, south London, the Daily 
Mail reported on 25 August: "The hand, thought to be Mr Benit's, was 
discovered by council workers at the run-down third-floor flat on 
the Tustin estate and immediately alerted police." 

Louis Cohen wrote, "An email announcement of the opening of the 
student restaurant at the local community college culinary program 
included a sample lunch menu item: Grilled Chicken Noodle Soup. When 
I took classes there, they never taught us how to grill soup."

We are talking on this thread about techniques and movements, we need to say exactly what we mean or else the meaning changes and we have bears armed with rifles and dead body parts phoning the police. It's perfectly reasonable to assume you thought 'rules' had an importance that we hadn't seen.

You start a thread on a public forum you cannot then pick and chose who you will allow to answer, if you don't like the answer you can ignore it, put the poster on ignore or you can answer it politely refuting the other's argument. Being childish isn't an option that reflects well on you nor is making allegations of lying, something I've never seen from jks on here and I never will. An apology is due to him I think.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> I didn't specify any specific encounter or I would have specified a specific encounter. How about you assume I meant....any encounter "without the rules for protection".
> 
> To that end you've given two sample encounters the second of which includes a pretty good answer to my very open ended question, allow me to paraphrase so it actually makes sense relative to the question.
> 
> "MMA fighters are repeatedly trained to engage opponents, this is a *dangerous habit *because in some situations where they don't have the rules to protect them, the reflex of engaging opponents is detrimental to rapid disengagement and escape from the conflict".



Most MMA fighters are well trained in Nike-do and do not engage in random engagements of either the marital or martial type. Others of us, the door staff, the police officers etc have little choice and have to stop around, but hey ho, it's a living.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> making allegations of lying, something I've never seen from jks on here and I never will. An apology is due to him I think.


I will apologise for pulling him up for lying if you show me where I said this:



jks9199 said:


> You seem to be asking "what techniques that work in the context of sport are dangerous in the context of a real violent encounter?"



In the meantime I am not even asking for an apology from him I just want him to leave me alone. This is not the first time he has lied about what I have said but I do hope it will be the last.

Not sure what you mean by childish but I think I'll just let the comment slide.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> I will apologise for pulling him up for lying if you show me where I said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh dear.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> "MMA fighters are repeatedly trained to engage opponents, this is a *dangerous habit *because in some situations where they don't have the rules to protect them, the reflex of engaging opponents is detrimental to rapid disengagement and escape from the conflict".


That isn't at all what I meant.


----------



## Buka (Sep 3, 2011)

Oh. Yes, of course, I understand the question now.

First bad habit that can come back to haunt a warrior is attitude. Too much yang, to be specific. Makes them ice cream on a hot, sunny day.
Second bad habit is lack of patience. You can even scout it well before a match or real encounter. It's evident in much of a participants social demeanor.
Third bad habit is barking. If a fighter isn't actually fighting he should wag more and bark less.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 3, 2011)

Buka said:


> Oh. Yes, of course, I understand the question now.
> 
> First bad habit that can come back to haunt a warrior is attitude. Too much yang, to be specific. Makes them ice cream on a hot, sunny day.
> Second bad habit is lack of patience. You can even scout it well before a match or real encounter. It's evident in much of a participants social demeanor.
> Third bad habit is barking. If a fighter isn't actually fighting he should wag more and bark less.



I am not surprised to have got on your bad side Buka. You just happened along at the wrong time with the wrong question when I was all out of patience. My apologies if it appeared I was curt with you it was not my intention.

I can fix this, few seem to want to answer intelligent questions so I'll start the thread the rest of you want.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 4, 2011)

Gentlemen, must we Derail things?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 4, 2011)

Stealthy, the issue has not been asking the "wrong" questions, it has been that the questions have been unclear to most people here. When that happens, take a moment to step back, and try to simplify the way you are saying things. For example, you may try this:

"I have been thinking about MMA a bit, and was wondering something. We all know that every martial art has it's strengths and it's limitations, and MMA's strengths are very obvious. But I was wondering what the people who train in MMA thought were it's limitations, or if you had ever thought about that. I look forward to hearing from you about this! Thanks, guys"

Next is to read what is written a bit more closely. There is often a lot more information given than you may realise (or sometimes than the writer may intend... but that's getting more into the "information gathering" skill set, and I'm not giving that out in public here, you understand, right?). For example, when Tez says "this looks like another of those 'MMA won't work in the street because of the rules' threads", the thing to take out of that is that she is revealing that such threads are relatively common, and she has gone through a number of them herself. In other words, she has just told you that she is involved in MMA discussion (at least), and has been for long enough to recognise patterns in the threads. This indicates experience in MMA, which is exactly what you were looking for. So it was a comment that should have been the catalyst for you to ask more in particular, not be offended by. After all, as Tez indicated later, her initial comments were very much habits that can be formed by competitive rule sets (the lowering of your hands is also fairly common in Kyokushin competition, as punches to the head are illegal... although kicks to the head are fine, and have a high success rate due to a lack of a guard, leading to Kyokushin practitioners to defend the idea of head kicks in self defence, as they see a lot of knockouts from them!), so she was answering your question from the outset, you just didn't understand what she was saying in the context she meant it. Again, just a matter of clarification from both sides.

With regard to JKS, you really do owe him an apology as well. You are accusing him of lying when he states the way he (and I, and I feel everyone else who read your post) interpreted your words. Besides being very experienced, an LEO, very well respected, and a stand-up participant in every single discussion I have seen him in, he is also a Senior Moderator here. Your entire tirade against him missed the point of what he was saying entirely, and you acted out of emotion, which is something JKS has avoided doing in kind. He deserves an apology for this alone, frankly.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> "I have been thinking about MMA a bit, and was wondering something. We all know that every martial art has it's strengths and it's limitations, and MMA's strengths are very obvious. But I was wondering what the people who train in MMA thought were it's limitations, or if you had ever thought about that. I look forward to hearing from you about this! Thanks, guys"



Yep that's my question in one.

I've done my best to clear the air with Tez and Buka was unfortunately caught up in the middle of something through no fault of his own for which I have also apologised about.



Chris Parker said:


> With regard to JKS, you really do owe him an apology as well. You are accusing him of lying when he states the way he (and I, and I feel everyone else who read your post) interpreted your words. Besides being very experienced, an LEO, very well respected, and a stand-up participant in every single discussion I have seen him in, he is also a Senior Moderator here. Your entire tirade against him missed the point of what he was saying entirely, and you acted out of emotion, which is something JKS has avoided doing in kind. He deserves an apology for this alone, frankly.



Since I have the utmost respect for Sensei Parker, I apologise for getting upset with jks9199.


----------

