# Animal MacYoung on the MAs



## auxprix (Jul 9, 2004)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/martialarts.html

This website was posted on a different forum. I explored it further and read a bit on this guy's take on the martial arts. Supposedly, he's a self defense expert. 

My questions are: 
1) What do you think about his views of our beloved MAs
2) Does this guy have the credentials to claim himself an expert

I'm also wondering what those heavy in "self defence" oriented MAs (like bjj) think about this; he attacks schools that claim to teach street effective and deadly self defense.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 9, 2004)

Macyoung talks straight from his nalgas.


My dissection of one of macyoung's articles: 

The original article has quote on the top and brackets on the bottom of each
section I dissect.

Quote:
I have taken extreme flak from people about my views on grappling. Usually
these people are grappling proponents and believe that my answers to grappling
challenges are re too simplistic. >>>

That and they're just plain wrong. 
Quote:
Well, as long as we are talking about simple, I have three basic standards:

1) If you end up on the ground against someone trying to seriously hurt you,
you ****ed up
2) Get up immediately
3) Submission fighting is to be used only on people who you want to control,
*not* hurt (e.g. a drunk friend) >>>

All wrong.
Quote:

Does this mean I am "against" grappling? Does it mean I don't think it's worth
learning? Does this mean I am inexperienced on the ground? >>>

Yes. Yes. Name the groundfighting school you learned at, please.
Quote:
No.

What it does mean, however, is that I have experience with issues that
grappling's "true believers" don't like to look at. Those experiences --
including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the
ground (he spent six months in the hospital) -- makes me a little leery about
the universal applicability of groundfighting in so-called "real fights." >>>

Of course whatever it is "the animal" teaches will get you out of trouble when
20 guys want to stomp your head in.
Quote:
In fact, my experiences with being on the ground, tend to make me far, more of
a savage than most people feel comfortable with.>>> 

Oooohhh, spoooky...
Quote:
But that isn't what this page is about, what it is about is should you cross
train? >>>

It's about me not wanting to lose students to MMA gyms.
Quote:
Why is grappling effective?
In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if
an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the
Crusades. The premise of the book was that these aliens had become extremely
adept at long-range, artillery-type warfare. They were shocked and confused
when the knights, instead of hanging back and attempting to do battle at a
distance, charged them and overwhelmed their positions. This simple, savage
strategy worked only because the aliens had lost the ability to effectively
fight at close quarters.>>>


He talks about "REAL STR33TFIGHTING" and his main arguement comes from a SCIFI
BOOK? OMG! WTF! BBQ!
Quote:
The success of grappling is due, in a large part, to the failure of
sports-based martial arts in the West. >>>

Actually it's due to the success of sports based martial arts in brazil.
Quote:
Ever since the introduction of gloved boxing, sport fighting has moved away
from the old "bare knuckle/London rules" form. That kind of pugilism was
designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other
vicious in-close tricks associated with their version of grappling. >>>

So you're telling me bare knuckle boxers didn't grapple? Despite the fact that
we've seen plenty of pictures of it? Despite the existence of throws in BKB?
Despite the fact that groundfighting was illegal in many BKB matches? Have you
even read the history of wrestling and jiujitsu vs boxing challenge matches?
They go back to the turn of the century. Read those.
Quote:
The addition of padded gloves prevented many of these moves. And in time, sport
fighting became a "sniping" game. Opponents do not rush each other, but hang
back and exchanged blows and kicks from a distance. >>>

Except for the thais.
Quote:
And in doing so, they forgot that an opponent could charge in and take them
down.

Wrestling and grappling are very popular sporting events in South America,
however. "Brazilian" Jujitsu matches are events. These fighters hadn't
forgotten about charging in -- but it was still a sport. And that means it had
events, rules, weight division, safety equipment and organizations to give
ranks, belts and titles. >>>

Why yes. That's why they're called sport jiujitsu matches. However, a sport
jiujitsu competitor will still kick your ***, macyoung.
Quote:
In the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, Northern Hemisphere fighters were
just run over. Like the aliens in Anderson's book, they had forgotten that this
kind of fighting even existed, much less had the vaguest idea how to counter
it. >>>

There's that scifi metaphor again.
Quote:
People flocked to the Gracie Jujitsu Academy(s), other so-called "Brazilian"
Jujitsu schools and Val Tudo institutes to fill this hole in their training.
>>>

It's spelled ValE tudo. And thanks for the patronising quotes.
Quote:
You will notice, however, their reputation made, the Gracies withdrew from the
later UFC events. >>>

...To go fight in pride, a more prestigous event with more skilled opponents,
which they are still doing. They may not be undefeated but they are still a
huge force to be reckoned with in NHB.
Quote:
We can safely assume that by that time, Northern Hemisphere fighters had begun
to watch tapes, study their moves to discover ways to counter what had at first
flummoxed them. >>>>

Translation: You either learn how to grapple, or you get the hell out of the
cage.
Quote:
A point proven by the fact that later UFC champs had names like Shamrock and
Severson.>>> 

First of all it's dan SEVERN. Not SEVERSON. 

Second, they are both experienced grapplers. 

Third, neither has ever beaten a gracie.
Quote:
In short, both the shock -- and the new -- had worn off and people once again
remembered that grappling was an issue to be dealt with. >>>

Damn straight. "Dealt with" as in "Learned how to do".
Quote:
This is not to disparage the Gracies, they are fine athletes and, in their
time, they ruled the ring. >>>

They still fight NHB. And I bet helio's great grandsons could kick your ***.
Quote:
But, as they introduced a new and evolutionary change to sports fighting, other
people have continued to evolve and introduce new developments -- including
ways to counter their changes. Thus is the cycle of the martial arts, they is
always changing and evolving to meet "new" influences. >>>

Translation: They learned how to grapple and groundfight.
Quote:
It is never static, it is always changing. And sometimes what is "new" is
something that is actually old, but left behind because people had found a
counter way back then. Often until the counter is "rediscovered" this will
create the latest fad in martial arts training. >>>

Translation: I know nothing about taoism, but let me try to sound like bruce
lee for a second here.

Quote:
Where doesn't submission fighting work?
While it is important to know how to keep your head when you go to the ground,
let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies
would lie down when they fought. >>>

This has got to be one of the most assinine statements ever published.

First of all a STR33TFIGHT is not a BATTLEFIELD. Soldiers SHOOT EACH OTHER.
They don't slug it out. THEY USE GUNS.

Second of all, any grunt or jarhead can tell you they spend plenty of time
crawling on their bellies.
Quote:
As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use submission
holds and mounting positions to defeat the other army's soldiers. >>>

I take it back. THIS is the most assinine statement ever.
Quote:
Since that is not the case, we must assume that grappling is not as universally
effective as its proponents would claim.* 
>>>

So, because it's easier to shoot the enemy than to figh him hand to hand that
makes grappling innefective? Wouldn't that apply to ALL unarmed martial arts
then? Including yours?
Quote:
To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand
where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).

1) In a one-on-one confrontation
2) In an open, but limited, space
3) On padded, clear surfaces
4) Without weapons
5) With rules
6) When people aren't trying to kill each other
>>> 

All wrong.
Quote:
In otherwords, in a sporting event.

We can also say that it works under *very* limited conditions in a so-called
'real' fight. But it has to be a very specific kind of confrontation. In fact,
it could be termed "a friendly" fight. But you can't rely on an altercation
being of this self-limiting, non-destructive type. >>>

Jargon.
Quote:
So let's look at the elements, or more specifically the issues that *will*
undermine submission fighting's effectiveness. 
>>>

Yes, let's.
Quote:
Multiple opponents - Trouble most often runs in packs. If you don't plan to
face multiple opponents, you are not really training for self defense. Seldom
will a friend watch another friend be defeated without making at least a token
effort to join help. That is human nature, and ignoring it is a dangerous
mistake -- especially since a friend's help can often be in the form of a
bottle or a rock. Since you are involved on the ground in a one-on-one contest
with all your limbs engaged and limited mobility you are vulnerable to a second
attack from above. There is also the issue -- in less reputable locations -- of
spectators joining in and kicking you both ... just for the fun of it.>>>


First of all macyoung makes the false assumption that "grappling" always means
"groundfighting". 

Second of all, if onlookers or friends are going to join in, how is striking
any more usefull than grappling? You're gonna get stomped either way.

Third, he doesn't address the knee on stomach position, ideal for keeping a
lookout for friends while eliminating the fighting ability of one opponent
(which striking doesn't do!)

Continued: 

Fourth he doesn't address another advantage of grappling when you're being
jumped: Hostage taking. 

Fifth he assumes that all grapplers will immediately go to the ground, rather
than asess the situation and determine wether it's appropriate

Sixth, He doesn't address the fact that a joint lock will put an opponent
IMMEDIATELY and permanently out of commision. 

Seventh he doesn't address the issue of standing submissions.
Quote:
In a not so open space, e.g. furniture, curbs and other people - While the
floor work itself may not take a lot of room, going down usually does. Objects
such as tables, chairs and bystanders pose chances of serious injury if you
fall onto them -- especially if you have someone else's body weight driving you
there. >>>

Wrong. Furniture and closed in space is good for grappling. See we're not gonna
be the ones falling. With grappling you can drive your opponent INTO the
obstacles. 

Striking, however (besides elbows and knees), is much harder to do in an
enclosed space.
Quote:
In a truly open space - Since "grappling" made it's name in the UFC, we need to
look at the circumstances of that event. You will see in many of the take downs
that the "victim" had run out of room when it came to backing up. He was
trapped against the "ropes." It's amazing how hard it is to catch someone, much
less take them down, who has lots of room to backpedal or dodge. 
>>>

So which is it, macyoung? Closed space or open space? Is there furniture and
obstacles there or not?
Quote:
Asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc. - Many "going to the ground" techniques are
designed to work on pads, mats and smooth floors. Seldom do these conditions
exist outside the dojo. >>>

We WANT asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc. 

Because when we shoot a double leg it's our OPPONENT who has his face in it. 
Quote:
A slap fall on asphalt will not only tear up your hand, but it can result in a
shattered bones. 
>>>

I'll leave this to the judoka.

Quote:
Hitting concrete with another person landing on top of you is a painful --
often fight stopping -- experience. Now you may think "that is the idea," but
that is assuming that you are controlling the fall. A cagey fighter might not
let you land on top of him, and that makes it as much your problem as his. >>>

I don't care if he's a "cagey fighter". If he can't grapple, he goes down. 

Quote:
Then there is the issue of bottles and glasses that you might land on. While
you might at first think, "there aren't glasses/bottles/etc laying on the floor
of the bar," that's under normal conditions, but if someone tackles you and you
run into another person or tip over a table, those items can and will be
knocked to the ground at the same speed as you. >>>

See my closed in space commentary.

Quote:
Without weapons - This is even more dangerous misconception than assuming that
you will only be fighting one person at a time. Once weapons come into play, it
is no longer fighting, it's combat. >>>

More sppppoooooookiiiineeeessss.

Quote:
The ground is the absolute *last* place you want to be with an armed opponent.
Under those circumstances, all your so-called "advantage" turns against you
because you cannot escape or avoid a weapon attack fast enough when you are on
the ground. >>>

Actually a high top mount, with your knees in his pits, is the best place to be
with an armed opponent (assuming you can't run). From there you have his arms
totally controlled, making it very hard for him to pull a weapon.

Secondly any weapon defense worth it's salt relies on some grappling, seeing as
you must CONTROL THE WEAPON HAND. 

Thirdly for an example of grappling's effectiveness when both sticks and knives
are employed, one need only look to the dog brothers.

Quote:
Rules - Although the UFC was touted as "no rules," or more specifically "no
holds barred," many of the more nasty and brutal moves were banned. >>>

Wrong. For the first few UFCs there truly were no rules (although you could be
fined for one or two things), and there are still competitions that ban two,
one or no techniques. The later introduction of rules is the fault of ignorant
congressmen.

Quote:
Until you have endured these moves, it is easy to assume that you can "tough
them out." Experience proves differently. Many of these techniques are so
savage that people don't believe others would stoop so low -- and are therefore
unprepared to handle them. This utterly undermines the assertion of many
grapplers that "Well, we can do them too!" >>>


We can. We can do them better than you. The man in the SUPERIOR position has
the option to bite or not. 
Not the guy getting his face pounded from under knee on belly.

Quote:
It isn't a matter of doing it "too" it is a matter of who does it first -- as
many of these moves are fight stoppers. >>>

I have scads of video evidence of people trying to use such "deadly" moves
which proves you very wrong.

Quote:
Not trying to kill each other - Grappling is probably best understood as
"dominating" your opponent. >>>

Also "humiliating", "putting into a position of total helplessness" and
occasionally "making you my prison wife".

Quote:
It is used to subdue and force him to submit. In terms of "fighting" hat is a
social function, it is not, however, combat. In combat, you are not trying to
prove anything, you are not trying to force compliance. You are trying to kill
him before he kills you. >>>

Macyoung seems entirely ignorant of the fact that a submission taken all the
way will break a bone or put you to sleep.

Quote:
There are severe psychological differences in intent. And you fight totally
differently. A fight with a drunken friend that you are trying to control (or
prove he is out of line) is not the same as some evil ******* coming at you
with intent to kill you. The same standards apply to the difference between
fighting and self-defense. >>>

What this has to do with grappling, i'm not sure

Quote:
If you know where groundfighting is effective, you can then deduce where it
isn't safe -- and why. >>>

Go fight a grappler, macyoung.

Return to top of page

Quote:
Don't fight his fight 
Staying in a ground fight with a grappler is guaranteed to get your *** kicked.

>>>

Finally, he gets SOMETHING right. But remove "ground".

Quote:
It is where his fighting style is designed to work best. He has the home field
advantage, and all the moves that will trap you. On top of that most
"grapplers" are in mighty fine physical condition. >>>

You know it.

Quote:
The longer you stay on the ground with a grappler, the more chances you give
him to use these tactical advantage against you.

This is where my first two rules regarding grappling come into effect.

If you couldn't stop or avoid the rush, you weren't in control of your
long-range weapons. Lack of control can be directly traced to a lack of
understanding about those very tools. You didn't control the range, nor did you
understand those things that could have saved you from being taken down
(structure and mobility). These elements while critical in a real fight, are
not needed or understood in sport fighting -- where a ref will separate you if
you clinch. >>>

Translation: I can suggest some vague "principles" but no actual counters to a
double leg, seeing as I don't know any.

Quote:
But those issues are a massive can of worms and is beyond the scope of this Web
site. What I can say is, most often, the error wasn't in what you did per se,
but rather in your training. If your instructor doesn't know it, there is no
way he could teach you. >>>

More specifically in your training under a charlatan like marc macyoung.

Quote:
What I can tell you, is that the second rule applies in spades. You need to get
out of the grappler's preferred range. Even if the person you are fighting is
not a grappler, the "get-up" rule still applies due to danger from his friends
and vicious on-lookers. >>>

So marc, tell us how to escape mount.


Quote:
To this end, I heartily recommend you inflict some kind of intense and savage
pain. While he is reeling from it, you use the opportunity to scramble back up
to your feet. That is going to be your only window of opportunity. >>>

And you do this from under mount...how? Magically grow arms that are six feet
long and can't be armbarred? 

Again, every time we've seen a "deadly streetfighter" fight a grappler, we find
the tactics that macyoung suggests DO NOT WORK.

Quote:
This is significantly different than trying to fight your way out of the
situation. If you attempt to fight through his tactics, you will be defeated.
Remember, these are his strengths, contesting them is not going to work unless
you are a superior grappler. Your safest strategy is *not* to play his game.
Get back to where your strengths are. >>>

Like writing horrible essays on the internet.


<snipped section, where he points out that grappling is good for subduing
people without harming them>
Quote:
However, when you have several sociopathic gangbangers coming at you, a
knife-wielding mugger threatening your life or are in a large, unruly crowd,
you *don't* want to try to grapple. >>>

You want to try to *run*. Not use whatever it is macyoung teaches you.

Quote:
In fact, you don't even want to try to fight. Escape should be your number one
priority. Charging in and wrestling him to the ground, doesn't conform to the
definition of escape. >>>

Nor does slugging it out.

Return to top of page

Quote:
When not to use grappling
Basically don't use it in a "self-defense" situation. 

You are not there to engage an opponent. You are not there to fight an
opponent. In a self-defense situation you are seeking to protect your life or
prevent "grievous bodily injury" to yourself. That is not time to be thinking
about fighting, you need to concern yourself more with getting the hell out of
there and to safety. Most legitimate self-defense situations are not single
adversary or without weapons. >>>

I think I can figure out how to be a complete wuss by myself, thanks.

Quote:
Even if it is a one-on-one situation, a basic problem arises if you are
attempting to subdue someone in a self-defense situation: After you have him in
a nice submission hold, how are you going to get to the phone to call the
police? >>>

Well first of all I don't screw around with 5-0. 

But if I wanted to, I would get up, watching him clutch his shattered joint as
he screams in pain (HURF, SO MACHO). Then I would go make the call.

Quote:
This is just one of the problems that arises out of not knowing the difference
between self-defense and fighting, much less the difference between martial
arts and fighting.. >>>

This is also one of the problems with not knowing what the hell you're talking
about.
Quote:
And while we are on the subject, it's probably not the best idea to use it in a
fight either.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are serious legal consequences
about fighting. What's worse is, even if the other guy "started it ," if your
actions "go over the top" abpit what a "reasonable" person would consider
"self-defense" you are in deep trouble. While it may be acceptable to do a knee
mount and strike a downed opponent in the ring, sitting on someone's chest and
jack-hammering his head off off the concrete isn't going to pass for anybody's
definition of "self-defense." In many states, a choke hold is considered use of
lethal force. 
>>>

So in essence you're saying "don't fight him, you might get in trouble".
Wouldn't this apply just as much to standup striking?
Quote:
You're going to be in some deep legal trouble if you use your hardcore,
kick-*** grappling techniques on someone and they suffer serious injury. Which
is really likely if you are sitting on his chest punching him. >>>

I'm confused. Didn't you say grappling isn't lethal at all?

Return to top of page


<snip macyoung covering his ***>


----------



## OC Kid (Jul 9, 2004)

Im gonna have to go through his stuff in debth before I can make/give a opinion dont have the time now.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 9, 2004)

Holy smokes! I have been known for long posts, but geeberz, hedgehoey!!  :anic: 

Although I haven't had time to read through hedge's post yet, I do have an opinion on the subject.

Macyoung's site remains a permenant resource for me. In fact, my e-zine below has a link to his article on "martial cults." To go through the numbers...

#1. His view on out "beloved" martial arts: You'd have to name specifics, however, I don't have a problem with his assessment, and I find myself in agreement with the much of what he says. If you bring something specific up, I can state whether or not I agree specifically on that point, and I can state my reasoning.

#2. "2) Does this guy have the credentials to claim himself an expert"

Because there is no set standard regarding martial arts as a whole, "credentials," such as "black belt" "soke" "master" "guro" or whatever title or rank you pick, are not true credentials at all. Now, if you look at the bibliography page, you will see that he has done his research. However, "research" is not a true credential either. The only true determination of proficiency in martial arts is "the rule of effectiveness" (See my website under the link "The Gild."), meaning, your performance/demonstration of skill in self-defense/combative arts, and the quality of products you can put out from this are all that can truely determine "credentials."

For that matter, credentials are nice to have, in that they show your background (provided that they are not fabricated or inflated, which is another problem). But still, they are not true determinations of skill. 

I did not see on his site where he presented his "credentials," so direct me too it if I missed it. However, he can claim whatever he wants, regardless of credentials. If he claims to be a "self defense expert," then his work will only expose him or promote him. On that note, his website is expertly done, as are his essays. I have yet to see him perform or teach, but based on his website alone...I think he has every right to call himself an expert.

So, I say "yes" as the short answer, and the proof is in his writing.

#3.  I can't believe that you said "self defense" oriented martial art refering to BJJ. I like BJJ, and I think it is great for the mats, and for competition/sport oriented environment, but it is not a "self defense" art. This does not mean that you can't be effective at defending yourself with this art, but the art is not oriented towards the goal of "self defense."

There...I hope that I covered everything!

 :asian:


----------



## rompida (Jul 9, 2004)

Jeez, hedgehogey.  A little pent up agression? You even attack the guy on his spelling - very petty, don't you think?

I have criticisms for both you and him.  MacYoung has some good points, but also tends to have the same ego problem that you have, hedgehogey.  Both of you think that "your style" is not beatable.  Everytime I see one of your posts, you tout grappling as the end all - be all of fighting.  Yes, grappling is excellent to learn and have as a PART of your arsenal.  

Consider this, MacYoung does have some experience in H2H combat.  Can you say the same?  I'm not talking about stupid barfights either.  But, he isn't exactly humble either.  I think you both need to realize that training in all ranges - weapons,long, medium, short, grappling is what makes a good fighter.  When you train those ranges, you can adapt to the situations as they change in a fight - and they do change.  Fights are not static situations. They change.  I'd rather have my butt covered and be ready for anything.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 9, 2004)

"Hogey"

O.K...just read your post. I see what this is all about now...pick apart the guys essay so you can resort to personal attacks, illogic, and "straw man" arguements, instead of creating an intelligable arguement. :bs1: 

Not very effective, IMHO. I am starting to regret having come on to this thread at all... :shrug:


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 9, 2004)

rompida said:
			
		

> Jeez, hedgehogey.  A little pent up agression? You even attack the guy on his spelling - very petty, don't you think?
> 
> I have criticisms for both you and him.  MacYoung has some good points, but also tends to have the same ego problem that you have, hedgehogey.  Both of you think that "your style" is not beatable.  Everytime I see one of your posts, you tout grappling as the end all - be all of fighting.  Yes, grappling is excellent to learn and have as a PART of your arsenal.
> 
> Consider this, MacYoung does have some experience in H2H combat.  Can you say the same?  I'm not talking about stupid barfights either.  But, he isn't exactly humble either.  I think you both need to realize that training in all ranges - weapons,long, medium, short, grappling is what makes a good fighter.  When you train those ranges, you can adapt to the situations as they change in a fight - and they do change.  Fights are not static situations. They change.  I'd rather have my butt covered and be ready for anything.



Good post sir. I would also agree that macyoung isn't exactly humble. :ultracool


----------



## Baytor (Jul 9, 2004)

I think Macyoung makes some good points, and I like to read his page just to get another point of view.  That said, I think he also does the whole "my way is the best" thing a bit much.  In my opinion, he does it to diferentiate himself from other people for the name recognition and to sell his books/services/whaterver.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 9, 2004)

I have never meet Mr. MacYoung or Animal.

I have read some of his stuff over the last 5 to 8 years. I have liked it. Many of his points are very similiar to my own, from my time as a bouncer.

If you are not in a nice bouncer job where all you do is check ID's and ask the guy to leave and no fights ever break out then, you a bouncing because you are into the adrenaline rush or into hurting others, for this is where you can get a chance to do it. To be really effective you have to become an animal and not care about your opponent. Just some of the stuff I thought up and he had very similiar points.

Does he have credentials? I do not care. I know from how he writes, and what he writes he has at least walked some miles, in shoes that others would never walk in or want to walk in.

So with a grain of salt read his stuff, and take it or leave it.

 :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Does he have credentials? I do not care. I know from how he writes, and what he writes he has at least walked some miles, in shoes that others would never walk in or want to walk in.
> 
> So with a grain of salt read his stuff, and take it or leave it.
> 
> :asian:



I agree.  I have never met the man, but have looked at some of his stuff.  I agree...just like the old JKD saying goes, "Take whats useful and discard the rest"  Just because something may not be useful to one person, does not mean that someone else can't find something useful from it.  

Mike


----------



## auxprix (Jul 9, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Because there is no set standard regarding martial arts as a whole, "credentials," such as "black belt" "soke" "master" "guro" or whatever title or rank you pick, are not true credentials at all. Now, if you look at the bibliography page, you will see that he has done his research. However, "research" is not a true credential either. The only true determination of proficiency in martial arts is "the rule of effectiveness" (See my website under the link "The Gild."), meaning, your performance/demonstration of skill in self-defense/combative arts, and the quality of products you can put out from this are all that can truely determine "credentials."
> 
> For that matter, credentials are nice to have, in that they show your background (provided that they are not fabricated or inflated, which is another problem). But still, they are not true determinations of skill.



I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that someone supply some sort of documentation that legitimizes what they are saying. He doesn't have to hold advanced ranks in the martial arts, but I do think that he has an obligation to the reader to supply specifically how he came upon his information. He also should be able to show some sort of resume that shows is experience teaching his self defense system.



> I did not see on his site where he presented his "credentials," so direct me too it if I missed it. However, he can claim whatever he wants, regardless of credentials. If he claims to be a "self defense expert," then his work will only expose him or promote him. On that note, his website is expertly done, as are his essays. I have yet to see him perform or teach, but based on his website alone...I think he has every right to call himself an expert.



The fact that he didn't have a page listing them was part of my point. Actually, I find his website to be a bit amateurish. His essays are more like rants, he contradicts himself on numerous points, and he doens't supply anything concrete as far as what makes him a self defense expert. hedgehogey's right, using a crappy scifi novel is not the way to make your points.



> #3.  I can't believe that you said "self defense" oriented martial art refering to BJJ. I like BJJ, and I think it is great for the mats, and for competition/sport oriented environment, but it is not a "self defense" art.



Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that. What I was meaning were the MAs that  advertise their street effectiveness. In my experience, BJJ has really touted its self defense effectiveness.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 9, 2004)

rompida said:
			
		

> Jeez, hedgehogey. A little pent up agression? You even attack the guy on his spelling - very petty, don't you think?


It shows he gave only a cursory glance of the matches in question, if he watched them at all.



> I have criticisms for both you and him. MacYoung has some good points, but also tends to have the same ego problem that you have, hedgehogey. Both of you think that "your style" is not beatable.


Tell me where I said that. 



> Everytime I see one of your posts, you tout grappling as the end all - be all of fighting. Yes, grappling is excellent to learn and have as a PART of your arsenal.
> 
> Consider this, MacYoung does have some experience in H2H combat.


Pics? Videos? Anything? Has he ever fought a SKILLED opponent?



> Can you say the same? I'm not talking about stupid barfights either. But, he isn't exactly humble either. I think you both need to realize that training in all ranges - weapons,long, medium, short, grappling is what makes a good fighter. When you train those ranges, you can adapt to the situations as they change in a fight - and they do change.


Congragulations. You've discovered MMA and dog brother's full contact weapon fighting.



> Fights are not static situations. They change. I'd rather have my butt covered and be ready for anything.


Muay thai, boxing, greco, judo, BJJ. Add some weapons work and you've got it all covered.


----------



## rompida (Jul 9, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> It shows he gave only a cursory glance of the matches in question, if he watched them at all..



You could always just ask him.... 



			
				hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Tell me where I said that. .



 You didn't.  It is easily inferred from the sarcastic tone of your silly little rants.




			
				hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Pics? Videos? Anything? Has he ever fought a SKILLED opponent?.



Here's a novel idea slick.  WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM?  Have YOU ever fought a skilled opponent - in a real fight situation?  




			
				hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Congragulations. You've discovered MMA and dog brother's full contact weapon fighting..



Hmmm.... have something against styles other than BJJ?  More of that smart@ss tone I referred to earlier.  You really make yourself look childish.  




			
				hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Muay thai, boxing, greco, judo, BJJ. Add some weapons work and you've got it all covered.




 Yes!!! We agree!  But why limit it to just those?  How about JKD, Arnis, Silat, chin-na, and any other art?  What makes you think that the ones you listed are the final answer?  

With that, I refuse to participate in this thread anymore.  Unless you invite MacYoung to respond, I don't want a part of it.  Better things to do than read posts by the inexperienced criticizing the experienced.


----------



## auxprix (Jul 9, 2004)

Ah, I found his biopage. It was a little easy to over-look.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/marcmacyoung.html#streetfighter

It looks like I was wrong to question his qualifications. He seems pretty well rounded. 

For those interested, here's a bibliography of his inspirations (all of which I assume he's read):

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/bibliography.html

I do wish that these pages were a bit easier to find. Having reading them, I have much more respect for the guy. I can see that he has experience, and I trust that he's teaching a good program.

This is one quote that struck me:

Using the "martial arts" for fighting is like going into the Louvre museum, taking all the priceless works of art there and using them to wallpaper an outhouse. 

I sort of agree with this, though I have (luckily) never been in a fight in my life. I don't really have the experience of what works and what doesn't. I started this thread to find out if you agree. Do martial arts really suck for fighting? It wasn't my intention to start a war, but I guess that just happends sometimes. :shrug:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 9, 2004)

As my Kali instructor told me when I complained about the grief I get as publisher of _The Martialist_ -- most often from people who create nothing of value themselves -- "Big people make big targets."


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 9, 2004)

Man, Phil, that is so true.  People shoot for the target that's easiest to hit.  The more you dangle it out, the more likely someone'll smack it.  Oh, well.  Everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 9, 2004)

From the few articles I have read on his page, I do not think he was putting down martial arts or anything else. I think he understands fighting and what it is to fight and he realizes the limitations and the benifits of various types of training for the most part.

I am kind of paraphrasing (is that the word I want?) his words, but he mentioned that learning to fight is like a hallway, with different side doors and hallways being little sub-divisions of the main hallway and sub-divisions of fighting. In order to master fighting, you need to master all the parts of fighting. In that sense all martial arts and fighting systems, traditional or not, have something to offer that will help lead you to mastery of fighting.

He makes a good point, fighting is not fighting a drunk. It involves weapons, being out-numbered, and death/serious injury. How many martial arts or fighting styles teach that. How many martial arts or fighting style who do teach that have partners that attack with the intention to kill and the entire atmoshpere is if you fail in this class you will be killed? What teacher can teach that? Are you willing to kill your students in training to really show people how to fight?

I think what he is saying, and this gos along with my belief, is that to "win" fights and avoid serious harm, you need a few things.

1) Know how to aviod fights, how to walk away from fights, how deescalate fights, etc. If there isn't a fight, you (and everyone) win.

2) Know how to react and what to do in a violent situation.

3) When physically fighting, know how to effectively stop your 
attacker(s) /avoid harm.

4) How to deal with the psychological and mental stresses of fighting.

I am generalizing here and I put in a few of my own ideas, but in this sense, every QUALITY fighting system, traditional martial, MMA, etc. have something to help us master fighting. I think what he is argueing against is any fighting system or person saying they have it all. They don't.

Grappling has it's place.
Striking has it's place.
Traditional martial arts have their place.
Mixed martial arts have their place.
"Reality" or "Scenario" based systems have their place.

Like what has been said many times- Cross train.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 9, 2004)

rompida said:
			
		

> You could always just ask him....


It's been asked.



> You didn't. It is easily inferred from the sarcastic tone of your silly little rants.


Don't infer or assume anything.



> Here's a novel idea slick. WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Have YOU ever fought a skilled opponent - in a real fight situation?


Define "real fight situation". Cause me and batman once used only matches and duct tape to destroy a warehouse full of cloned "dark chi" masters.

Is it just me, or do RBSDers add "situation" or "scenario" on to everything? I wouldn't be surprised if some of them call going to the mom and pop to buy a couple bags of chips a "Real world multiple fried vegetable strip purchasing situation".



> Hmmm.... have something against styles other than BJJ? More of that smart@ss tone I referred to earlier. You really make yourself look childish.


Where can I buy whatever it is you're taking? Cause i've always had a burning desire to have my humor gland shrivel up and my skin become too tight. 



> Yes!!! We agree! But why limit it to just those? How about JKD, Arnis, Silat, chin-na, and any other art? What makes you think that the ones you listed are the final answer?


They were examples. Any other arts that deal with standing, clinch and ground games would work well. The only caveat is that they must be trained "alive".



> With that, I refuse to participate in this thread anymore. Unless you invite MacYoung to respond, I don't want a part of it. Better things to do than read posts by the inexperienced criticizing the experienced.


I and friends have attempted to get macyoung to debate in public forum's several times. He never responds. 

By the way, what exactly am I inexperienced in?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2004)

Good manners.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 10, 2004)

> Good manners.


:boing2:


----------



## gusano (Jul 10, 2004)

Wow, no way i'm reading all that. I perused it though and i can agree with some things he said. How could you not agree with _something _when he says sooooo much. Other portions he talked alot but didn't say anything! As to the man himself, I think he is just another quack on the net! If you disagree then go ahead and train with him and you can be just like him. For people interested in self defense allow me to make the following recommendation. If you have a fear for your personal safety and want to be able to protect yourself from being attacked then you should apply for a pistol permit and arm yourself with a firearm. It's a dangerous world we live in depending on where you are at. Don't waste your time training martial arts if you want to protect yourself. Get proper firearms instruction. As some people note, there is a difference between "sport" fights and "street" fights. I reply to you critics of "sport" fighters. If you can not even win a "sporting" fight against a fighter bound by rules, how will you survive the violence of the "streets" against those who place no value on YOUR life or THEIRS?


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 10, 2004)

> For people interested in self defense allow me to make the following recommendation. If you have a fear for your personal safety and want to be able to protect yourself from being attacked then you should apply for a pistol permit and arm yourself with a firearm. It's a dangerous world we live in depending on where you are at. Don't waste your time training martial arts if you want to protect yourself


Not all situations require a gun. I have been in incidents that required use of physical force, but not a gun because lethal force was not required. I am not going to shoot a guy simply because he threw a punch at me because he is being an ***.

Also, a lot of attacks are sudden and split second to react. It is faster to "pull out" my punch than it is to pull out my gun. It is useful to know how to quickly and effectivly handle an attacker bare handed in case you are not give the time or opportunity to draw your gun.



> As some people note, there is a difference between "sport" fights and "street" fights. I reply to you critics of "sport" fighters. If you can not even win a "sporting" fight against a fighter bound by rules, how will you survive the violence of the "streets" against those who place no value on YOUR life or THEIRS?


How many sports fighters are taught the signs of possible trobule and how to spot them? Are they taught how to be aware of their surroundings "on the street"? Are they taught how to safely disarm an attacker with a weapon? Are they taught how to de-escalate a fight or avoid one all together? Are they taught the laws regarding violence? Etc.

I could also ask the question, "Take a look at the majority of street thugs that have assaulted people. Take a look a some serial killers. Put them in a ring 1 on 1 against a skilled "sports" fighters. I bet in the ring/cage the sports fighter will win. Out in the real world, I think the serial killers and thugs would fare better. Why would that be?"


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 10, 2004)

> Not all situations require a gun. I have been in incidents that required use of physical force, but not a gun because lethal force was not required.



Not all situations require a corkscrew or a samurai sword or a blender or a piece of duct tape, either.  That doesn't mean none of those things are important or useful.  The problem of realistic self-defense is, you don't get to choose ahead of time what you will or won't need.



> I and friends have attempted to get macyoung to debate in public forum's several times. He never responds.



Well, see, there's a reason for that -- you're beneath him.  

Remember the story of the lion and the skunk?

The skunk challenges the lion to a fight.  He spends all his time swaggering around telling everyone who'll listen why the lion's wrong, why it's time someone put him in his place, how the skunk doesn't respect him, etc.

The lion ignores him.

When the lion's friends finally come to him, they say, "Hey, Lion, my man.  This skunk is wandering around talking trash about you.  Why don't you do something about it?"

The lion looks at them like they're all nuts and finally says, "If I fight him and somehow, by some miracle, he wins, a skunk will have defeated a lion.  He'll have what he wants -- fame and fortune at my expense.

"If I fight him and I win, everyone will say, 'Of course he won.  He's a lion and the skunk is just a skunk.'

"Why would I bother?"


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 10, 2004)

> As some people note, there is a difference between "sport" fights and "street" fights. I reply to you critics of "sport" fighters. If you can not even win a "sporting" fight against a fighter bound by rules, how will you survive the violence of the "streets" against those who place no value on YOUR life or THEIRS?



I will reply to this with an analogy. I have a friend who is very "street tough" he is the type of person who we train to beat. If I had to guess, his street encounters would number over a hundred. That doesn't include hockey fights in which he probably has close to another hundred or the sparring he did when he took kickboxing for a little while. He rarely loses fights and normally when he does it is to large groups of people.

Without boasting, I know that I could beat him in any type of sport fighting you could name. MMA, Judo, kickboxing, etc. I know that game very well. If he played by the rules he couldn't beat me. In the street it would be a different story. I don't know if I would win or not. It is hard to say because I fight differently for sport than I would for street. He absorbs punishment like no ones business and fights almost as dirty as I do. I can compare my abilities to his easliy because I have witnessed both. It would be a different game on the street and no where near as certain as in the ring.

They are two different games and experience is a very good teacher. It is a mcuh better teacher than some one with a black belt or two. The black belt teacher is easier on your body and your health, that is why we go there. But don't make the mistake that a blackbelt or a few MMA fights trumps the experience of real, down and dirty fights.

Tony


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 10, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Well, see, there's a reason for that -- you're beneath him.


Or maybe he'd just LOCK ALL THREADS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT and forbid it from coming up again. A familiar response, eh?

It's not just me. Proffesional NHB fighters have asked him to debate, point-for-point. He won't. He knows his arguements would be ripped to shreds, just like that article.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 10, 2004)

If believing that helps you overcome the cognitive dissonance, go ahead.  The fact remains that he is an established figure in the self-defense community, and you are nobody, which is why your attempts to debate him have been met with indifference.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 10, 2004)

You call what you did ripping his article apart? You must be kidding. You set up staw man arguements by selectful quoting and ripped those arguements apart. You did nothng but knock down arguements _you_ set up. Lets look at some examples shall we:



> Well, as long as we are talking about simple, I have three basic standards:
> 
> 1) If you end up on the ground against someone trying to seriously hurt you,
> you ****ed up
> ...


How are these wrong? If you are trying to stay up and fight as Animal expouses and you go to the ground, then #1 is right, you F *@$ed up. As a stand up fighter you should be on your feet so 2 is right also. "Submission" fighting relies on the premise that some one will submit and stay submitted. It also relies on the premise that you want them to submit ie. not hurt them. therefore 3 is right.
Good ripping, Hedge
Next:


> Quote:
> Why is grappling effective?
> In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if
> an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the
> ...


Its an analogy you moron. He is drawing a comparison from fiction in a novel by an excellent writer to illustrae his point.
Good ripping, hedge.
Next:


> Quote:
> Ever since the introduction of gloved boxing, sport fighting has moved away
> from the old "bare knuckle/London rules" form. That kind of pugilism was
> designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other
> ...


Actually he is saying there was grappling in BKB methods and ever since gloves became the standard, boxing methods have moved away from the old mehtods that could defend against grappling. So no he is not telling you BKBers did not grapple.
Good ripping, hedge.
Next:


> Quote:
> And in doing so, they forgot that an opponent could charge in and take them
> down.
> 
> ...


And your proof is? From what I know of Animal, that poor sacrificial sportfighter who tries to jump animal may end up stabbed. He could probably beat him in the ring and Animal does not deny that. Another straw man.
Good ripping, Hedge.
Next:


> Quote:
> A point proven by the fact that later UFC champs had names like Shamrock and
> Severson.>>>
> 
> ...


One could argue that Shamrock dominated Gracie in there super fight. If theyhad ben using a point system back then Shamrock would have won. The point he was making was that Gracie Jujutsu no longer was the only force. Westerner had caught back up.
Nice ripping, Hedge
Next:


> Quote:
> Where doesn't submission fighting work?
> While it is important to know how to keep your head when you go to the ground,
> let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies
> ...


Real criminals use guns, they don't slug it out. They also use knives, bats and large quantities of steel toed boots when people hit the ground.
Second, of all crawling on their bellies is not the same as fighting on your back.
Thirdly, I don't remember reading of the Mongol invasion of ground fighters or the Norman submission techniques. Almost all wrestling that was equated with combat was stand up.
Nice ripping, hedge
Next


> To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand
> where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).
> 
> 1) In a one-on-one confrontation
> ...


Nope, he is right again. Grappling works very well in that arena. Much high effectiveness then in real fighting.
Good ripping, hedge.
Next:


> Quote:
> In otherwords, in a sporting event.
> 
> We can also say that it works under *very* limited conditions in a so-called
> ...


No preciseness. Something you sorrly lack. He is saying exactly where grappling works, from experience not conjecture.
Nice ripping, Hedge
next


> Hitting concrete with another person landing on top of you is a painful --
> often fight stopping -- experience. Now you may think "that is the idea," but
> that is assuming that you are controlling the fall. A cagey fighter might not
> let you land on top of him, and that makes it as much your problem as his. >>>
> ...


Why do you assume that you will be the only grappler in the fight. Not only should you assume he can grapple, you should assume he can do so better than you. Plan for the best, assume the worst. That is reality. Animal has you there too
Nice ripping, Hedge
Next


> Quote:
> Without weapons - This is even more dangerous misconception than assuming that
> you will only be fighting one person at a time. Once weapons come into play, it
> is no longer fighting, it's combat. >>>
> ...


What are you some kid who, when presented with something he doesn't want to admit, pretends to shake and says. "Oh, Now I am shaking in my boots". This isn't grade school, this is combat. Real combat.
Nice ripping, Hedge.
Last one


> Quote:
> This is just one of the problems that arises out of not knowing the difference
> between self-defense and fighting, much less the difference between martial
> arts and fighting.. >>>
> ...


One person here has real first hand experience with street violence. It ain't you hedge, so maybe he "knows what the hell he is talking about".
Nice ripping, Hedge.

You didn't rip his article to shreds, you showed youself to be completely closed minded and ignorant of the reality of criminal violence. You made no serious dents in his article - except for some spellchecking -  and made a fool of yourself in the process.
Great ripping, Hedge

Tony

Ps. _That_ is how you rip an article


----------



## gusano (Jul 10, 2004)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> How many sports fighters are taught the signs of possible trobule and how to spot them? Are they taught how to be aware of their surroundings "on the street"? Are they taught how to safely disarm an attacker with a weapon? Are they taught how to de-escalate a fight or avoid one all together? Are they taught the laws regarding violence? Etc.


STOP IT! Just stop already! That is a weak argument. Do sport fighters wander the earth in a haze oblivious to their surroundings? I think that they would know if they are being attacked. As for disarming attackers, now your gonna get killed. Cut to shreds or shot TFU at best, ...dead at worst. Attacking a "sport" fighter is not the wisest choice you will ever make. Better stick to old ladies and drunks. I'd like to see some street PUNK, attack "Minotauro" , Emilianenko Fedor, or even any of dozens of guys I train with. You think if you practice katas, forms, and one step sparring you will be ANY better prepared to fight the SAME "thug" if he attacked you? ANY sport fighter could go out ANY Friday or Saturday night and amass a 100 and 0 fight record, beating up "tough guys", "street fighters", and "thugs". 



			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I could also ask the question, "Take a look at the majority of street thugs that have assaulted people. Take a look a some serial killers. Put them in a ring 1 on 1 against a skilled "sports" fighters. I bet in the ring/cage the sports fighter will win. Out in the real world, I think the serial killers and thugs would fare better. Why would that be?"


Why would they fare any better "out in the real world"? Because they introduced a weapon? And you think the poor bastard who just completed Joe Smuckatelli's "distance learning course" would be better suited to fight the same attacker? I'm not saying that there arent situations that can and do arise in the street that a "sport fighter" wouldn't be able to handle. The fight is a mess and ALOT can happen. *BUT* I am saying THIS " Whatever scenario the "sport fighter would be killed or maimed in........NOONE else would fare any better! Unless you had a gun, MAYBE.

One final point. All this B.S. about, "this guy can be beat with rules but in the street he'd win, ......blah blah blah. Don't believe it one bit. All the "tough guys" that can't even get through a set of warm up exercises without stopping to rest, would get their arses kicked in the street even quicker than the "ring". Save that baloney for a sandwich!


----------



## gusano (Jul 10, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> "Submission" fighting relies on the premise that some one will submit and stay submitted. It also relies on the premise that you want them to submit ie. not hurt them. therefore 3 is right.


*WRONG!!!!!!!!* In "the street" or "the real world", there are *NO *submissions. If you are choking the streetfighter, you don't wait for him to "tap"! You put that SOB to sleep!!!!! You don't "armbar" anyone, you* BREAK *their arm. Remember, this is "the street", the "real world"!

I know, I know, I know. Now you're gonna rip me about "excessive use of force" right? Alot of folks here seem to be fond of quotes so let me use these. 1.You can't eat your cake and have it too. 2. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 10, 2004)

> One final point. All this B.S. about, "this guy can be beat with rules but in the street he'd win, ......blah blah blah. Don't believe it one bit. All the "tough guys" that can't even get through a set of warm up exercises without stopping to rest, would get their arses kicked in the street even quicker than the "ring". Save that baloney for a sandwich!



Refer to my analogy above. That is not theory but real life. My friend can, and has, beat sportfighters. I also know of some real champion sport fighters, as well as normal everyday sportfighters, who have lost bar fights to regular toughs. They have one alot but when they lose it is normally because they tried to sport fight and the situation did not allow it. An example, would be trying to double leg a member of a group. At least standing you would  be able to move, hit and run.

No one is saying, that sport fighters are not Tough SOBs, at least I am not. I know too many really tough sport fighters. But what we are saying is that "tough" is one thing and the specific methodoly is another. I have had the pleasure of meeting and training with Oleg Taktarov, winner or UFC 6. He is a tough, tough man. If he was a figure skater he would still kick some ***. If he wins fights, it does mean sambo is the street fightingstyle we should all choose.
Sportfighters often say things like, "I'd like to see some street PUNK, attack "Minotauro" , Emilianenko Fedor," when we say the average person. That includes 90 lbs females, Guys who could work out for a year and never break 130, older people, people with injuries that would prevent sport fighting. RBSD is - or should be - about the best set of techniques that woud benefit everyone. There is nothing saying you can't add to that. I am a grappler, always have been and if I was getting right F$#$ed on my feet, your damn right I would take the guy down and see if I can't do something there. I am good on the ground. It isn't the best place for me to be but if I have to go there I will and I will take the guy down hard.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 10, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> *WRONG!!!!!!!!* In "the street" or "the real world", there are *NO *submissions. If you are choking the streetfighter, you don't wait for him to "tap"! You put that SOB to sleep!!!!! You don't "armbar" anyone, you* BREAK *their arm. Remember, this is "the street", the "real world"!
> 
> I know, I know, I know. Now you're gonna rip me about "excessive use of force" right? Alot of folks here seem to be fond of quotes so let me use these. 1.You can't eat your cake and have it too. 2. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.




I totally agree with you but that isn't what hedge said was it? Gusano, if you had read any of my work you would have known I am not gonna rip you for excessive force.


----------



## gusano (Jul 10, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you but that isn't what hedge said was it? Gusano, if you had read any of my work you would have known I am not gonna rip you for excessive force.


Often, my response is prompted by a post but I am speaking in general terms when I use "you". Meaning everyone. Any confusion is my fault.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 10, 2004)

I knew there was a reason Tony was my favorite Canadian.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 10, 2004)

> Not all situations require a corkscrew or a samurai sword or a blender or a piece of duct tape, either. That doesn't mean none of those things are important or useful. The problem of realistic self-defense is, you don't get to choose ahead of time what you will or won't need.


I agree with you Sharp Phil. I was responding to the comment that if you need to learn self-defense, don't bother with the martial arts, only use a gun. One should learn the martial arts because not all situations require the use of a gun, much like one should know how to use a gun when a situation would require it.



> STOP IT! Just stop already! That is a weak argument. Do sport fighters wander the earth in a haze oblivious to their surroundings? I think that they would know if they are being attacked. As for disarming attackers, now your gonna get killed. Cut to shreds or shot TFU at best, ...dead at worst. Attacking a "sport" fighter is not the wisest choice you will ever make. Better stick to old ladies and drunks. I'd like to see some street PUNK, attack "Minotauro" , Emilianenko Fedor, or even any of dozens of guys I train with. You think if you practice katas, forms, and one step sparring you will be ANY better prepared to fight the SAME "thug" if he attacked you? ANY sport fighter could go out ANY Friday or Saturday night and amass a 100 and 0 fight record, beating up "tough guys", "street fighters", and "thugs".


That was not what I was saying. Police officers are taught the signs of possible trobule and what to look out for. As they spend time on the job it becomes second nature. I am not saying sports fighters walk around in a haze, what I was saying is that other programs and systems teach situational awareness and study possible "signs" of trobule.

Nor did I say that katas, one-steps, or anything else would make me better prepared to fight an attacker than a sports fighter. I think quite the oppisate. One needs to fight to learn how to fight. However, fighting is not the only way to "win" or avoid violence. If you went off on the wrong person in the street like you did on me in your post, you might have a fight (and legal action) to deal with later.

And yes, a "sports" fighter would amass a 100 and 0 fight record fighting street punks. A lot of sports fighters can kick my *** just like there are sports fighters who could kick yours. However, I think either one of us would be in serious trobule with 3 on 1 odds or if they had weapons. Sports fighting mostly focuses on that-fighting. There are a lot of styles that focus on how to stay out of violent situations and how to control your attitude (like you should learn) so you don't get into stupid fights. Each fighting style has it's place.



> Why would they fare any better "out in the real world"? Because they introduced a weapon? And you think the poor bastard who just completed Joe Smuckatelli's "distance learning course" would be better suited to fight the same attacker? I'm not saying that there arent situations that can and do arise in the street that a "sport fighter" wouldn't be able to handle. The fight is a mess and ALOT can happen. *BUT* I am saying THIS " Whatever scenario the "sport fighter would be killed or maimed in........NOONE else would fare any better! Unless you had a gun, MAYBE.


Yes, because they introduce a weapon. Because they have friends. Because they design situations that have the greatest chance of you being screwed. And you are right, people who do not learn how to fight by fighting would be screwed as well, even moreso than sports fighters, but in the end, we are both screwed. Sports fighting just teaches you how to fight. Other systems teach you how to get out of fighting or to survive without "duking" it out until one side is beaten senseless.




> One final point. All this B.S. about, "this guy can be beat with rules but in the street he'd win, ......blah blah blah. Don't believe it one bit. All the "tough guys" that can't even get through a set of warm up exercises without stopping to rest, would get their arses kicked in the street even quicker than the "ring". Save that baloney for a sandwich!


I don't remember ever agreeing with the idea about the sports fighter only being able to win with rules. I disagree with that. I think sports fighters will kick ***. Unfortunately a lot of street thugs who CAN make it through a warm up and then some, choose not to. A lot of times, they don't need to. I am sure a group of people don't need to be able to run 10 miles, do 100 push ups, spar for X rounds for X amount of minutes, to be able to plan and succeed in distracting us, hitting us from behind, then robbing our asses.

Basically what I am saying is this. Sports fighters are good at just that-fighting. They do it very well.

Unfortunetly not all situations need to be solved with violence and a lot of violent situations can be avioded if you are taught how to.


----------



## gusano (Jul 10, 2004)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> However, fighting is not the only way to "win" or avoid violence. If you went off on the wrong person in the street like you did on me in your post, you might have a fight (and legal action) to deal with later.


I am only talking about *fighting,* period. I didn't go off on you nor would I go off on someone in the street either. Don't get all sensitive on me, we're just talking.



			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> And yes, a "sports" fighter would amass a 100 and 0 fight record fighting street punks. A lot of sports fighters can kick my *** just like there are sports fighters who could kick yours. However, I think either one of us would be in serious trobule with 3 on 1 odds or if they had weapons.


 Look, we even agree on something!



			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> There are a lot of styles that focus on how to stay out of violent situations and how to control your attitude (like you should learn) so you don't get into stupid fights.


I have no desire to train in these methods. I have no trouble avoiding fights and can't remember the last time I was in one. My attitude is just that, *mine .* Nobody is required to adopt my attitude.




			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Sports fighting just teaches you how to fight.


We agree again.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 10, 2004)

> I agree with you Sharp Phil. I was responding to the comment that if you need to learn self-defense, don't bother with the martial arts, only use a gun. One should learn the martial arts because not all situations require the use of a gun, much like one should know how to use a gun when a situation would require it.



Someone once told me that he preferred to rely on a handgun for self-defense because he didn't want to have to get close enough (to someone meaning him harm) to use the "martial arts."

I told him that I prefer that, too -- I just don't know as I'll get a choice in the matter.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 10, 2004)

> I am only talking about *fighting,* period. I didn't go off on you nor would I go off on someone in the street either. Don't get all sensitive on me, we're just talking.


But I am a very sensitive man...:uhyeah:  Honestly though, it is hard to tell over the internet, but contents of your post looked to me like you were going off on me. I apologize if I mistook you.

Now, while I agree that "sport" fighters are good at what they do, I also think that those who do not partcipate in "sport" fights can handle themselves in a fight as long as they do spend a good amount of time working out against/with another person. Bag work, target work, conditioning, partner work, etc. Not all of us who practice a TMA just practice katas and one-steps. It is just a part of our training. Just practicing katas would be like if you just shadow boxed and never fought anyone in the ring.

I am not really sure we disagreed with anything to begin with, just misunderstandings.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 10, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> How are these wrong? If you are trying to stay up and fight as Animal expouses and you go to the ground, then #1 is right, you F *@$ed up. As a stand up fighter you should be on your feet so 2 is right also.


You assume that without proof. What nonanecdotal evidence do you have for that?



> "Submission" fighting relies on the premise that some one will submit and stay submitted. It also relies on the premise that you want them to submit ie. not hurt them. therefore 3 is right.
> Good ripping, Hedge


Sir, have you completely missed the point of, for instance, an armbar? IT BREAKS THE ARM, GENIUS. 

Next:


> Its an analogy you moron. He is drawing a comparison from fiction in a novel by an excellent writer to illustrae his point.
> Good ripping, hedge.


He's using an analogy from a SCIFI NOVEL! I love scifi, but I wouldn't use ender's game as an analogy against forms training.



> Next:
> 
> Actually he is saying there was grappling in BKB methods and ever since gloves became the standard, boxing methods have moved away from the old mehtods that could defend against grappling. So no he is not telling you BKBers did not grapple.


So what's his point then?



> Next:
> And your proof is? From what I know of Animal, that poor sacrificial sportfighter who tries to jump animal may end up stabbed. He could probably beat him in the ring and Animal does not deny that. Another straw man.
> Good ripping, Hedge.


So? Give the sportfighter a weapon and he'd win too. That proves nothing about hand to hand skill. 

By the way, are sportfighters so scary that having a knife is the only way you can think of to beat us? Are we that invincible?



> Next:
> 
> One could argue that Shamrock dominated Gracie in there super fight. If theyhad ben using a point system back then Shamrock would have won. The point he was making was that Gracie Jujutsu no longer was the only force. Westerner had caught back up.
> Nice ripping, Hedge


I don't deny shamrock's skill. And a wrestler is certainly a formidable opponent. But he did not sign up for a point match. He signed up for a submission match. 

Shamrock is not an rbsd guy. He is primarily a wrestler. And rules or no rules, he would rip "animal" to shreds.



> Next:
> 
> Real criminals use guns, they don't slug it out. They also use knives, bats and large quantities of steel toed boots when people hit the ground.


Or when people are standing up. You think i'm stupid? I'm from southeast dc. Gun fights are much more common than fistfights. And nothing animal teaches you will prepare you for a drive by.



> Second, of all crawling on their bellies is not the same as fighting on your back.


And shooting with a rifle is a lot different from fighting hand to hand. The army does little to no hand to hand training. What little they do is based on BJJ.



> Thirdly, I don't remember reading of the Mongol invasion of ground fighters or the Norman submission techniques. Almost all wrestling that was equated with combat was stand up.
> Nice ripping, hedge


What. 



> Nope, he is right again. Grappling works very well in that arena. Much high effectiveness then in real fighting.
> Good ripping, hedge.
> Next:


YOUR **** DOES NOT WORK IN REAL FIGHTING. Boxing works. Wrestling works. Breaking a joint or choking works. Street lethal eye boinks do not work.



> No preciseness. Something you sorrly lack. He is saying exactly where grappling works, from experience not conjecture.
> Nice ripping, Hedge


Animal has no grappling experience! How in the world would he know where it works?



> Why do you assume that you will be the only grappler in the fight. Not only should you assume he can grapple, you should assume he can do so better than you. Plan for the best, assume the worst. That is reality. Animal has you there too
> Nice ripping, Hedge


Wow. You miss the point entirely. Or more accurately you make my point for me. You basically just said "Don't grapple, he might be better at grappling." But that applies equally to striking!

Next


> What are you some kid who, when presented with something he doesn't want to admit, pretends to shake and says. "Oh, Now I am shaking in my boots". This isn't grade school, this is combat. Real combat.
> Nice ripping, Hedge.


HAHAHA "this is combat. Real combat.". 

Actually, this is corny. Real corny. You're practicing RBSP:Reality based self parody.



> One person here has real first hand experience with street violence. It ain't you hedge, so maybe he "knows what the hell he is talking about".
> Nice ripping, Hedge.


Define "real street combat". Because, as I pointed out, I am from literally the worst area in the united states (at the time). 

My father was a junky who died when I was 10 of aids from a dirty needle. I've been in a few beefs. 

All of which is irrelevant to hand to hand fighting.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 11, 2004)

Has anyone considered contacting MacYoung through his website to discuss what he meant with his site, what his views are on the topics being bantered around here, or even attending his training or inviting him in to your school to teach?  Has anyone tried to invite him to subscribe here to discuss this directly?

It isn't as cryptic a thing as trying to figure out a dead artists work.  He is still alive and training.  And, from checking out his website, he and his wife do teach a systemized art form along with his no nonsense programs, so I don't think he is 'tradition bashing' as much as how realistically the majority of practioners are truly prepared or understand what a 'fight/combat/self defense' can be like.


----------



## mcjon77 (Jul 11, 2004)

Honestly, I don't see why Mr MacYoung's comments upset people so much.  From my experience, what he is saying is dead on.  I think the confusion stems from the use of the term "street fighting".  A more accurate description of what he is talking about is "street violence". 

People seem so concerned with the martial arts/fighting aspect of what he is talking about.  What is really important are the avoidance/awareness issues.   Avoidance/awareness skills are IMHO 100 to 1000 times more important in self-defense than Hand to Hand Combat skills.  The reason for this is simple, if someone is attacking you, unless they are insane or idiots, they're doing it because they are pretty cofidant that they can win.  This means that they are significantly bigger than you, have a weapon, or have a group of friends nearby.

The situations in which 2 people go at each other, one on one, has one major quality that true street violence does not have.  That is that it is consentual.  By consentual,  I don't mean that the 2 guys shake hands and come out swinging.  I mean that at some point either party could have backed out of the fight.  let me put it this way, if you have ever been in a fight where you could have backed away/run away/got  the bouncer/threatened to call the police/apologized to avoid the fight, and you didn't (perhaps because you didn't wan't to look like a punk) then you were not involved in a self defense situation, you were involved in a consentual fight.

If you read most of Mr. MacYoung's site he seems to be making a few big points:
1) never get into a consentual fight, because you will always be on the wrong side of the law if you do.
2) Avoidance, awareness and diplomacy are the ABSOLUTE BEST methods for dealing with true street violence.

I really didn't see any area on his page where he said his fighting system will teach you how to defeat most street predators.  Rather, he seems to be stating that street violence is so extreme that the vast majority of martial artists are simply not prepared to deal with it.  Unless someone has a martial art that teaches people how to dodge bullets, I believe he is accurate in his assessment..


Jon


----------



## rompida (Jul 11, 2004)

I knew I said I wasn't going to post anymore... but heck, I couldn't resist.  For all you wondering what gives hedgehogey the "expertise" to criticize MacYoung, or any other seasoned martial artist, here it goes....

6 months Shotokan (everhart) 

6 months TKD (DCSDKA) 

6 months daito ryu (Quoc dong) 

3 years traditional vietnamese (su phoo quoc dong)

2 years muay thai, vo tu do (quoc dong, p cardella) 

9 months bjj/vale tudo (relson gracie)


Sorry hedgehogey, but you asked me why I consider you inexperienced.  There you go.  Talk to us in a few more years.  Flame on.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 11, 2004)

9 months of BJJ? And you are lecturing me on grappling. Take your experience and say years not months and you have close to my grappling experience.

Oh boy.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 12, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> 9 months of BJJ? And you are lecturing me on grappling. Take your experience and say years not months and you have close to my grappling experience.
> 
> Oh boy.


School and competition rankings please. 

I am a blue belt under relson gracie. austin relson gracie jiujits, 4-4.

And don't forfeit the debate to go ad hominem.


----------



## Bod (Jul 12, 2004)

Sport fighting is deficient when it comes to self defence. That is not the same as 'sport fighters are deficient at self defence'.

By deficient I don't mean useless, I mean deficient.

I do judo. Judo is a sport-fighting style. As such it is deficient when it comes to self defence. In order to ameliorate this deficiency I prefer to practise a select group of techniques in randori, which are more applicable to self defence.

For example, I try to avoid the double leg takedown. In fact, I try to avoid any technique which does not either control both arms or control one arm from the side of the opponent. Why? The unseen knife problem. Sometimes in my 'backyard' study I or my training partner do a sneaky one, and pick up the rubber knife while the other has his back turned. Pretty soon that led me to only practise techniques which have a better probability against an unseen weapon. The double leg takedown wasn't one of them (think 'knifed in the back').

Hedge, you have to remember that Mr. MacYoung probably isn't speaking to you. I come from a toughish background, and don't need to be told how to spot and avoid trouble, or that technique/sparring/competition ability is not the be all and end all.

I'm always open to suggestion on where trouble may be coming from, but I am more interested in training my technique/sparring/competition ability. But I am not everyone. Some people need to learn this stuff.

Point by point refutation is a pretty stupid way to debate on line. It's quick and easy because you don't have to form a fluent argument _for_  anything, just rail _against_ something. But in the end you find yourself running into a paragraph you agree with. Then you have to rip their spelling, or style. That looks stupid to most people over 15 years old.

Find a point you don't agree with and attack that. Then, come up with something better. That way you'll advance the debate rather than merely retard it.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 12, 2004)

Hedge, I have done years of judo, submission wrestling under a frank shamrock instructor, freestyle wrestling, a little sambo and BJJ. That's just the sport grappling. The only one of those which came with a belt was judo. I quit thinking about belts years ago, all I care about is my knowledge. As such most of my knowledge come informally these days. If I don't want the belts, I don't have to pay the high prices. I started as a grappler and never stopped. I am going on 12 years now. I have rolled hundreds of times and probably competed in some form of grappling matches about a hundred times. Wins and losses are sketchy because I didn't keep track but I did medal the last two judo tourneys I went too.

One of the things that really drives me about this debate is you get guys who watched a few UFC or Prides then found a gappling school and are now expert grapplers. Those of us who knew all about grappling way before the UFCs are apparently ignorant now of how grappling works. For those of you who don't know, a blue belt in BJJ is about the same as a yellow belt in Judo, in that it is the first colored belt. In terms of skill level it would probably be given to a high yellow or low orange level player.

The other thing that drives me when argueing with sport fights is that they compare what they could do to a untrained person but then try to compare what an RBSD person would do to a sport fighter. There are a couple problems with that. One, that untrained fighter probably has more real fights under his belt then you do sport matches. He is hardly untrained, he just doesn't have any belt. Second, many RBSD guys are experienced sport fighters. One of the premier combatives instructors out there Carl Cestari has an extensive judo background and his head instructor has an extensive wrestling background. They just released a video set designed to show how to take sport fighting back in to the street.

Lastly, no one is saying sport fighters aren't tough. They are tough like football player, hockey players and soldiers are tough. They are highly athletic and used to absorbing pain to accomplish their goals. They are also highly agressive. If I were to take a 40 year old female and a 26 year old MMAist and train them, it is obvious who would be the more dangerous. What we are saying is that the methods taught sport fighters are not he methods needed for real world self defence. A juji gatame, is a great sport move but is damn near suicide on the street. Also give a housewife a week of training in mma she knows just enough to get herself hurt. Give her a week of training with me and she know just enough to increase her odds of survival.


Tony


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 12, 2004)

I've found this to be a common attitude among judo players. They say things like "Oh no, judo isn't for self defense, go to the karate guys for that." When a low level judo player could obviously beat most karate "masters". 

It's puzzling, but nevertheless...

First of all, it was the RBSD guys who started the "who-beats-who" debate. Them and certain wing chunnists first came up with the idea of "anti-grappling". It was they who first started saying "sport fighting no good for teh str33t." 

I do not fear the untrained man. Why? Because even if he got in two fights every weekend, it still wouldn't add up to a third of my own meager amount of fighting I do every day in class. Sport fighters are better at fighting because it's what they DO. Every day. 



> What we are saying is that the methods taught sport fighters are not he methods needed for real world self defence. A juji gatame, is a great sport move but is damn near suicide on the street.



Do you have any, yknow, proof of this? Because this appears to be just another "self evident" assumption. You of course know that a juji gatame breaks the arm at the elbow joint. Why are we ASSUMING without proof that it doesn't work on t5h str33t?



> Also give a housewife a week of training in mma she knows just enough to get herself hurt. Give her a week of training with me and she know just enough to increase her odds of survival.



Prove it. What exactly are you teaching her that's so special? Kick the groin and kneecap? More eye gouging? Model mugging? "Awareness skills"? 

If a technique doesn't work for a 26 years old athlete, it's not gonna work for a 40 year old housewife. 

This bears repeating IF A FIT YOUNG ATHLETE CAN'T USE IT, A MIDDLE AGED HOUSEWIFE DEFINETELY CAN'T USE IT.

I've seen "women's self defense" up close when I watched both of my mother's IMPACT graduations. It's bollocks. All of it. (Mom does bjj with me now and I am much more confident in her self defense ability.)

By the way, a blue belt is a certificate of the ability to beat every white belt at the school. It can take two years to earn. 

What's your competition record?


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 12, 2004)

> If a technique doesn't work for a 26 years old athlete, it's not gonna work for a 40 year old housewife.



That's true but if it does work for a 26 year old athlete, it may not work for a 40 year old housewife. Sportfighting methods are designed for the athlete not the housewife. Lets use juji gatame. Lets assume we use it as a break not a submission. In an ideal situation, you would catch the arm quickly and break it. However, life is rarely ideal. A pooched juji leaves you in a very bad postion. If you manage to get it but he grabs his arms, it can take a lot of strength or time to break it. A housewife with a week of training is not going to be able to do it. A sportfighter with a year or more will have the experience to use leverage to help break it but could still take more time then you want to be dealling with it.



> I've found this to be a common attitude among judo players.


I don't agree. I think most judo player feel they could hammer the karate guys if they play under their rules. I also believe that old school judo is a great self defence system. Modern Judo not so much.



> even if he got in two fights every weekend, it still wouldn't add up to a third of my own meager amount of fighting I do every day in class.


But he is really fighting. You are just playing. Serious play but still play. You say you have eight fights under your belt now, so I am sure you know that real competion and sparring are not the same. The same goes for real fighting vs sparring or even competion. Competition has a lot of parallels but comparing it to real fighting is probably analagous to comparing sparring to real competion.



> Prove it. What exactly are you teaching her that's so special?


How? How can I prove something like that? I am teaching simple effective technique that anyone can use. A chin jab is a powerful technique that has been proven effective in real combat, not sport. A knee to the groin works, I can verify that from both ends of the equation. Eye gouges are simple and effective. So is a foot or knee stomp. It isn't so much what I am teaching, it is what I am not teaching.



> First of all, it was the RBSD guys who started the "who-beats-who" debate.



That is just plain false. These arguements have been going on since before RBSD was RBSD. In particular though, this grappling/MMA argurment is only about less then ten years old. Before the UFC no one could use an arguement that "it works in the octogon" so it must work on the street.



> By the way, a blue belt is a certificate of the ability to beat every white belt at the school. It can take two years to earn.


Or six months or apparently 9 months.. The blue belt curriculm that I have seen is very similar to the yellow orange belt curriculum of most judo schools. Depending on the judo school, some orange belts are more advanced on the ground than that. My last judo club spent about an hour of every practice on Ne waza.



> What's your competition record?


I don't know. Some of this stuff goes back 12 years. Like I said, the last two Judo tourneys I went to, I stood on the podium.

Tony


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 13, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> That's true but if it does work for a 26 year old athlete, it may not work for a 40 year old housewife. Sportfighting methods are designed for the athlete not the housewife. Lets use juji gatame. Lets assume we use it as a break not a submission. In an ideal situation, you would catch the arm quickly and break it. However, life is rarely ideal. A pooched juji leaves you in a very bad postion. If you manage to get it but he grabs his arms, it can take a lot of strength or time to break it. A housewife with a week of training is not going to be able to do it. A sportfighter with a year or more will have the experience to use leverage to help break it but could still take more time then you want to be dealling with it.


EVERYTHING takes strength. You are not going to teach anybody something in only a week that will signifigantly improve their fighting ability. That's because, even if you drilled the technique until it was pat, you wouldn't have enough time for the essential live contact sparring to truly "own" the technique. 



> I don't agree. I think most judo player feel they could hammer the karate guys if they play under their rules. I also believe that old school judo is a great self defence system. Modern Judo not so much.


Even throw oriented modern judo beats 99% of karate. It even beats heavyweight boxers (see lebell vs savage). 

Hell, see yoshida vs silva. Yoshida managed to go the distance with "the axe murderer". I wouldn't give a shotokan black belt fifteen seconds versus silva.



> But he is really fighting. You are just playing. Serious play but still play. You say you have eight fights under your belt now, so I am sure you know that real competion and sparring are not the same. The same goes for real fighting vs sparring or even competion. Competition has a lot of parallels but comparing it to real fighting is probably analagous to comparing sparring to real competion.


Sure, I know all about TEH STR33T. I'm from a "bad" place, been shot at once, etc. 

Every str33tfight i've ever been in doesn't add up to the difficulty of one competition fight.



> How? How can I prove something like that? I am teaching simple effective technique that anyone can use. A chin jab is a powerful technique that has been proven effective in real combat, not sport.


Proven huh? How about pics? Videos? 



> A knee to the groin works, I can verify that from both ends of the equation.


It sure don't work on me, and i'm a buck fifty soaking wet. It won't work on a huge ex con.



> Eye gouges are simple and effective. So is a foot or knee stomp. It isn't so much what I am teaching, it is what I am not teaching.


Bollock. What you're "not teaching" is everything useful. If you really cared about women's self defense, you'd be teaching things like mount escapes and guard work, and would be having them fight with real, aggresive opponents.



> That is just plain false. These arguements have been going on since before RBSD was RBSD. In particular though, this grappling/MMA argurment is only about less then ten years old. Before the UFC no one could use an arguement that "it works in the octogon" so it must work on the street.


We certainly didn't invent the term "anti-grappling".


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 13, 2004)

*Taken from the MacYoung Website:*

In the hope of redirecting this thread back on topic, the following information was taken directly from MacYoungs own website.  It doesn't look like he is bashing the richness of martial arts to me as much as he is saying that the current trend is not a practice that is aligned to what the 'street' can through at you.  THere is more than 'fighting' needed to be self defense prepared according to his sight.

It might be better if the current tangent of "my style of practice and I are superior than all this other stuff" were to be take to its own thread.  The original intent was to discuss MacYoung and his statements about martial arts.

"Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.  It's always about Marcia!"

*The ultimate Streetfighter -- NOT* 
If you're interested in learning the "ultimate martial art," he is not your man. As Bob Taylor once said of him "There are a lot of people who can beat Animal on the mat with rules, but they wouldn't walk out of a dark alley after tangling with him, because he'd run them over with a truck." This is true because violence is not a game for him, but a horrible reality. One that, since he knows it first hand, he would like to help other people to avoid. Encouraging people to be violent like he was is not what he is about.
He's come a long way from his violent and savage past. Putting it simply, "he's mellowed." He no longer has to be that dangerous, angry  and violent person he was. Unfortunately, this leads many people to think that the funny, bouncy, happy-go-lucky  little ferret he is now can't turn into the vicious wolverine he once was. This is not true, when it comes to violence, he has "a gift." A gift, that while it helped him survive extreme violence, countless fights and altercations, these days he prefers to leave it slumbering in his subconscious. The Beast was awakened within him many years ago and he has learned how to live with it and not let it rule his life anymore. It is something  about him that truly dangerous people around the world have looked into his eyes and recognized as something they don't want to tangle with. 

The sad thing is many keyboard warriors, cyber-street fighters and dojo darlings fail to see this about him. They take his message of avoidance, prevention and de-escalation as "proof" that he hasn't been there. In their eyes, "why should someone who is so good at fighting avoid it?" That is a very silly and juvenile question. Those who have "been there" know what he is by his words, actions and the subtle cues he sends out; they recognize the Beast part of him and are thankful that it isn't out hunting anymore, because that part of him is extremely cold-blooded and nasty.

 Unfortunately, these signals often go zipping right past internet warriors, kung-fu-killer-commandos and MacKarate masters...who will go to great lengths to tell you why they know better what's involved in "real fighting." If someone thinks they know better, his response is both simple and from the Beast: _Vaya con Dios, Mo'fo_. Go with God...because, he's the only one who will be able to save your ***. 

If you go down that dark path it's on your head and no amount of training in some macho ultimate fighting system will save you. If you insist on going swaggering down alleys and picking fights, it's likely some nasty person - like he was - will just blow your head off when you turn your back on him. That's the reality of street fighting that Marc  knows and teaches. But that isn't what a whole lot of people who are looking for the "ultimate street fighting system" want to hear or learn. They want to learn how to fight and beat streetfighters...with no idea how street violence really occurs.

The bad news is the Beast aspect of him has little tolerance for macho fantasy about what is involved in a "real fight." The good news is that aspect isn't the one who does the teaching. Marc is very analytical and will try his best to explain to people what is involved with violence and the best ways to survive it. What's more he rechecks his work. Nothing he teaches hasn't been field tested and reviewed by professionals in this and other field. He is one of the few self defense instructors who puts his information through peer review to see if he is missing anything. What's more, he will refer people to these other experts  as proof that he isn't making this information up.

Of greater import  to him, however, is that his students learn and grow as people. He is not looking to create a cult of adoring worshipers. He is not seeking to certify others in his reality based fighting system.  He is here to help you. He does this by having levels of goals. His self-defense goal is to help people stay alive when violence occurs, not "win," but survive. (Which as he knows all too well is often the best you can hope for in an actual violent encounter). His martial arts goal to help people grow in their understanding of what they do already.  His overall goal  is to help people grow and learn. It is a painful path that he walked to get out of where he was and these days it is one of the greatest joys in his life to see others growing and learning as well.

This is why the photo gallery is not filled with impressive photos of him looking tough or taking dangerous poses to show what a bad *** he is. It is instead filled with photos of him teaching and having a good time with people he works with and respects.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2004)

Very good post Paul!!! :asian:  I, like you, also hope that this thread can get back on topic.  I havent really posted much on this thread, because it seems like it was taking the same road of some other threads...the sport vs. traditional vs MMA/NHB, etc.  

I really dont think that the intention of this thread was to compare this to that, but instead to talk about "Animal" and the other RBSD guys that are out there.  

I have read some about Marc, and IMO, he does have some good things to offer.  Is everyone gonna agree with what he says?? Of course not.  But like I said in my last post here, take what is usefull and discard the rest.  If even one thing can be gained from what he says, that is what counts.

Mike


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 13, 2004)

I am sorry this thread has drifted, Hedge wants to make this about me and him not about Animal or RBSD, hence is comments about my record.  If I could condense what Animal is saying into one phrase it would probably be: Train for what you are going to do. If you sport fight train for sport, or if you are worried about the street train with the street in mind. Don't train for sport and hope it transfers over.

I am not saying - nor is Animal - that sport fighters aren't tough. I would have considered myself a sportfighter up until a couple of years ago, and I have known some amazing sport fighters that could and did transfer that to the street. I know of one kickboxing champion that knocked out an individual in a bar with a roundhouse to the head. We know those work in competion  (Smith, Lidell and others have shown that) but do we really believe we shoudl be using those for Self Defense? 

That you fight the way you train has been said so many times it is a cliche but that doesn't make it any less true. If you practice, high round kicks, struggling for an armbar or patiently working the guard, you will do these things in combat. These they will probably not work (although they might, I now know 3 people who have used high round kicks in a fight succesfully).

What I, Animal and most RBSD people are saying is the best way to practice Real SD is to make the scenarios as close to real as possible. We know that we can never truely replicate it but we do the best we can. We also try and make it the worst possible scenario we can think of. That means groups, weapons, firearms, enclosed spaces. I know of one instructor who does things like using googles with vaseline on one eye piece to simulate getting poked in the eye. He also sets up strobe light and loud music to simulate a bar.

I like sparring and I think it is an excellent tool. I like to use it (especially grappling) as a warm up. It is a great work out and it get you used to moving someone who doesn't want to move while he is trying to do the same thing. But it is just a single tool, not the be all and end all of combat.

Since my true interest lays in Mlitary Combatives (I am in the military) I will give you a list of what I think should be in every combatives program. Most of it will apply to civilians, especially in the states.

Gross motor skill strikes- chin jab, edge of hand, low kicks, right cross, tiger claw, etc.
Stand up grappling concepts - controlling the inside, stay low and wide, mix with strikes, takedowns
Ground grappling - postional fighting ie. gaining and maintaining dominate postion, Mount escapes, getting to your feet from the guard (top and bottom)
Chokes and neck cranks/breaks 
Arresting techniques
Use of force ladder
De-escalation / conflict resolution skills
Non lethal weapons -asp baton/stick, etc
Firearms -  longarm, pistol
Knife work
Defense against weapons
Weapon retention skills
Situational awareness - when to engage and when to wait for back up or retreat
Mulitiple opponent strategies

RBSD and combatives deal with that whole gamut (with the possible exception of firearms or arresting techniques depending on the school or situation) and they have to do it in a short time. Sport fighting programs deal with, up to, the first four (you could probably include arresting techniques since they are in many cases submissions). As such the techniques they use predominatly are the ones that work best in those situations. These are the one they train 90 percent of the time. Some of those techniques work great in the street some don't. the same goes for TMA as well. A reverse punch works were ever you throw it, be it the dojo, the ring or the street. A spinning reverse kick, maybe not so flexible. The trick, I believe is to find the techniques that work best in the enviroment you enviroment you plan to fight in. It is also to train against techniques that you are likely going to see. What good is defending against a juji when you will likely never see that in the street?

I personally use a lot of sport figting methods, perhaps more than many other RBSD exponenets, because I have a long sport fighting background and that is what I know best. I just try to take what will easily translate to a street enviroment. One of the knife defenses I teach, essentially starts with an armdrag. I also have long advocated that people who can do some sport fighting, to do so. It will do nothing but toughen you up. One must remember that sport fighting is rule based fighting and that many techniques that are succesful are so because the rule allow them to be.

One last thing that needs mentioning:


> That's because, even if you drilled the technique until it was pat, you wouldn't have enough time for the essential live contact sparring to truly "own" the technique.


This is the reason for the reliance on gross motor skills. They have been proven to be easier to retain and use effectively. For as far back as Fairbairn or as recently as Peyton Quinn, people have been learning to use gross motor skill techniques effectively in under a week.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 13, 2004)

I find a great deal of the material on this thread to be wrong-headed, and in many cases actively dangerous--which is odd, because the more I read about Mr. Mac Young, the more rational and accurate he seems.

You should teach women dismounts and all the rest right away, as opposed to stuff like arch stomps and eye-pokes and, yes, knees to the groin? or even better, how to park the car and get into the house safely?

You can learn to use, "gross motor skills," and defend yourself in a week? 

I have to say that I don't see a great deal of understanding of teaching, or learning, here. 

Among other things, Fairbairn was not teaching novices or ordinary people. he was teaching already-trained soldiers, in wartime--young men, very highly motivated. In fact, he was teaching the cream of the physical crop, because for the most part he was teaching the elite--young, gifted athletes in special forces. Nor was he teaching self-defense: he was teaching killing. Personally, I think too many martial artists lose sight of who they are and what it is they're studying.

Mac Young, from what's been described here, teaches exactly what the traditional arts have taught: use your  brain first and avoid fighting if at all possible, because once It starts, you are in the world of Bad Things whatever happens.

Looks to me, so far, like he's right.


----------



## ppko (Jul 13, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> I am sorry this thread has drifted, Hedge wants to make this about me and him not about Animal or RBSD, hence is comments about my record. If I could condense what Animal is saying into one phrase it would probably be: Train for what you are going to do. If you sport fight train for sport, or if you are worried about the street train with the street in mind. Don't train for sport and hope it transfers over.
> 
> I am not saying - nor is Animal - that sport fighters aren't tough. I would have considered myself a sportfighter up until a couple of years ago, and I have known some amazing sport fighters that could and did transfer that to the street. I know of one kickboxing champion that knocked out an individual in a bar with a roundhouse to the head. We know those work in competion (Smith, Lidell and others have shown that) but do we really believe we shoudl be using those for Self Defense?


I have nothing to do with this conversation but that is what hedge does he just wants proof that everybody that makes claims can be proven.  Hedge and I are not the best of friends and I still stand behind that just because you are a good NHB fighter doesn't make you a good street fighter.  With that said the only way to get hedge off of your back is to provide him with some proof that will satisfy him

PPKO


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 13, 2004)

ppko said:
			
		

> I have nothing to do with this conversation but that is what hedge does he just wants proof that everybody that makes claims can be proven.  Hedge and I are not the best of friends and I still stand behind that just because you are a good NHB fighter doesn't make you a good street fighter.  With that said the only way to get hedge off of your back is to provide him with some proof that will satisfy him
> 
> PPKO



I really don't care if hedge is on my back, it's no big deal.  I mean the guy doesn't even believe a knee to the nuts is an effective technique. :idunno: I am not going to go out with a video camera and try and get mugged so some novice on an internet forum will "see the light". If he doesn't agree with the way I see things, He is the only one who could suffer. Also I am beginning to think there is no proof that will satisfy him. Example:



> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by tmanifold
> >
> >
> ...


That is simple logic. It does not require proof as the proof is in the statement.  It goes like this:
A stand up fighter will remain standing if he does everthing right.
Person A is a stand up fighter
Person A ended up on the ground
Therefore Person A F#$%ed up



> You can learn to use, "gross motor skills," and defend yourself in a week?



I am not saying point blank that they can defend themselves in a week. No amount of instruction will make people able to defend themselves. All I can do is give them the tools. What I am saying is that gross motor skill movement can be easily learned an retained. A chin jab can be learned and retained in HOURS. It doesn't require precise form just a general movement that is easy to remember and preform. 



> Fairbairn was not teaching novices or ordinary people. he was teaching already-trained soldiers, in wartime--young men, very highly motivated.


Fairbairn is just one person among many that were teaching these or similar methods during WW2 as well as before and after. Others include Applegate, O'Niell, Derewelysk, Hancock, Kahn, Hanley and Cosneck just to name a few. also Fairbairn taught women as did Derewelysk and others. I know of a story of one gentlemen who was held up some 40 years after the war and he instantly attacked with the methods he was taught (edge of the hand blows mostly) and he successfully defeated his assailant. If he can do it in his 60s (maybe older I don't recall) so can you.

Tony


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 13, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Very good post Paul!!! :asian: I, like you, also hope that this thread can get back on topic. I havent really posted much on this thread, because it seems like it was taking the same road of some other threads...the sport vs. traditional vs MMA/NHB, etc.
> 
> I really dont think that the intention of this thread was to compare this to that, but instead to talk about "Animal" and the other RBSD guys that are out there.
> 
> ...


Well, in keeping with the idea of going to the source, I actually emailed Mr. MacYoung via his website contact and invited him, if he is interested to make himself available to answer questions and discuss his ideas and training approach. 

Honestly, I think he will not participate because he will read this stuff, roll his eyes and see how it affirms his ideas and move on.  He also has a discussion forum linked to his website for those who have the gonads to take their disputes to him directly.  I personally agree with his approach.  I am sure that there will be details and specifics that I wouldn't agree with here and there if I could train with him, but that is personal practice/stylistic differences that don't amount to much.  The ideas fit the reality of what real self defense needs:  Smarts, skill/ability and judgement.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 13, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> That is simple logic. It does not require proof as the proof is in the statement.  It goes like this:
> A stand up fighter will remain standing if he does everthing right.
> Person A is a stand up fighter
> Person A ended up on the ground
> Therefore Person A F#$%ed up



Sometimes the art f***s up.  For instance, a TKDer begins the fight with a sidekick then follows it up with a jump spinning crescent kick. Predictably, the opponent jams the TKDer's kick and he falls to the ground. That could happen even if the technique was delivered with perfect form and power. 




> I am not saying point blank that they can defend themselves in a week. No amount of instruction will make people able to defend themselves. All I can do is give them the tools. What I am saying is that gross motor skill movement can be easily learned an retained. A chin jab can be learned and retained in HOURS. It doesn't require precise form just a general movement that is easy to remember and preform.



That's a pretty outrageous claim right there. Have you missed the whole point of "aliveness"? Seriously, how in the hell are you going to give a 40 year old soccer mom with no power whatsoever knockout power in a few hours instruction? Do you REALLY believe that's possible? Cause that's pure bullshido if you do.  Even if her technique was perfect, she lacks the physical strength and familiarity with aggresion to use it! HOW IN THE WORLD DOES A WOMAN WHO CAN'T LIFT FIFTY POUNDS SUDDENLY BECOME ABLE TO INCAPACITATE A LARGE, AGGRESIVE MAN WITH ONLY A WEEK'S INSTRUCTION? 

There are no shortcuts in the MA. It takes hundreds of hours of dedication and hard sparring.

You are giving these women very dangerously inflated views of their own abilities and if one of them gets raped it's YOUR fault.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2004)

Yes.... self defense is totally hopeless unless you pack on 50lbs of muscle, train for years (must be MMA/BJJ though), and make certain you get some nice tribal tattoos....seriously, Ive been accidentally poked in the eye by a 3yo and couldnt see straight for a while, caught an elbow/knee to the temple by a teen girl that "rang my bell" pretty good. Sorry, I think that proper "self defense" techniques, properly taught can work.....that being said they should be taught as "last ditch" emergency options. Who said anybody was telling 40 yo women they were killing machines after taking a SD course anyway?????????


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 13, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> There are no shortcuts in the MA. It takes hundreds of hours of dedication and hard sparring.
> 
> You are giving these women very dangerously inflated views of their own abilities and if one of them gets raped it's YOUR fault.


Okay....I see that the adult conversations have started up again.

The disconnect here seems to be in stylistic/situational goals and intent.  In grappling arts, MMA, submission fighting the goal is to 'win' the match with power striking techniques and out maneuvering the SINGLE opponent with technique and local/general muscular strength and endurance.  That requires a different set of skills and different fitness standard than self defense focused martial arts.

Self defense focused training is about judgement, awareness, tool usage, legal/societal understanding (use of force/deadly force) along with the martial arts techniques.  The GOAL and INTENT of self defense martial arts is the quick hit and escape.  That means that you train to create distraction and dysfunction of your opponent and not to force them to SUBMIT within some spoken or unspoken set of rules.

Take for instance the idea of attacking the throat or the hands.  If you can affect the airway (including muscular contraction because of impact) the bad guy isn't so interested in attacking you anymore.  YOU RUN!  If you damage the hand reaching for your or holding you by creating dysfunction (break, dislocation, temporary nerve damage) he can't use it to grab hold you and you RUN... are you seeing a common theme?

Self Defense/physical technique training is like an immediate action/counter ambush drill in the infantry. It is something you do when you have to because the other skills of tactical awareness have not worked.  You do it automatically, quickly and then you get out of there and regroup.

ALL those skills are important in combination.  You are focusing on only one aspect and not even considering how the art has to be tailored to the person/situation.  WHy are there so many "90 pound weaklings" of old master instructors who can still pound some of the young studs.  Even the original Gracie, as an old man with far less muscular strength than the young studs was kicking *** and taking names.  It is not youth and muscle but it is wisdom and skill.

If you fight like you write, you would be so easy to trigger and bait.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 13, 2004)

There ya go: grown-up reality. 

And why are some of the posters on this thread abruptly contradicting things they've been saying?

Oh well. I agree; a big chunk of what good martial arts instruction teaches is rational self-defense--which, most certainly, includes staying out of trouble first and foremost.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> There ya go: grown-up reality.
> 
> And why are some of the posters on this thread abruptly contradicting things they've been saying?
> 
> ...


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 14, 2004)

[qoute]Self defense focused training is about judgement, awareness, tool usage, legal/societal understanding (use of force/deadly force) along with the martial arts techniques. The GOAL and INTENT of self defense martial arts is the quick hit and escape. That means that you train to create distraction and dysfunction of your opponent and not to force them to SUBMIT within some spoken or unspoken set of rules.
[/quote]

That was well put. There are do ways to win a sport fight. Points and making your opponent unable or unwilling to continue. To "win" in self defense you could, de-escalate, escape, stun and run, hold on until help arrives, hurt them bad enough you can win, break something, knock them out, kill them, etc. It goes on and on.

As Hedgey said there are no shortcuts in martial arts training nor in sport fighting. But we aren't talking about that. One of the reasons you must put in the hundreds of hour of training for sport fighting is your opponent will be doing the same and in a similar manner to you. You fight under the same rules, use pretty much the same techniques, so all that is left (besides innate talent) is how hard you prepared.

SD is about changing the rules. Lets role with this 120 pound housewife idea because quite frankly me being able to defend myself does really prove RBSD. I am 190 pounds, very solid, with years of martial arts training (Traditional, Sport and Reality based) with 6 years in the infantry. I can handle myself and I can say that without boasting. Lets look at out housewife. She is 120 pounds, of middle years, she may or may not be in shape but she definatly is no match physically for say someone of my size. She is not going to get called out in a bar and she is not going to get in a consensual one on one fight. She will most likely be defending herself from a rape or mugging or she will be defending her children. She is most likely going to be attacked by someone who will use his size and the fact that he is male to initmidate her.

This person will most likely be operating under the assumption that this women is an easy target who will not fight back much. If our housewife fights back at all, she will have automatically created an opening by changing the percieved rules of the encounter. She must follow up quickly so she doesn't lose what little advantage she gained. She will be in a highly emotional state, she will have achieved a full adrenal dump and she will be thinking on a fairly primal level. Lets be clear on this, this won't be the "Cerebral Assassin", she will be more like the enraged cavegirl. A double leg is pretty easy to do even under extreme stress but it is normally more like a tackle then a clean double leg. Our 120 pound housewife may not have the bodyweight to drive our attacker off his feet if she doesn't get it right. Even if she does then what? She would have to follow up mighty fast or risk losing her momentum. I can say from long personal experience and watching literally hundred of grappling matches, that groundfighting is not fast. If she loses her momentum she is in trouble, I know I could bench a struggling 120 female of of me easy, so we should assume that our attacker can too. She has now lost her advantage.

Same scenario but now our housewife uses combatives methods. She drives forward drop stepping into a lead hand edge of hand blow to the throat. That takes very little strength. She follows up with a chin jab. I understand that people died during WW2 practicing the technique, so I think it is safe to assume that our housewife could stun our assailant a bit. She follows that up with a knee to the groin. Unless she is fighting Hedgy, assailant is hurt now. She stomps on the attackers knee or foot to impair his mobility then she turns tail and runs.

The second scenario doesn't take years of dedication. I believe it takes more than a 4 hour seminar but it can be taught relatively quickly and retained fairly easily.


----------



## ppko (Jul 14, 2004)

a good post .


PPKO


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 14, 2004)

> Same scenario but now our housewife uses combatives methods. She drives forward drop stepping into a lead hand edge of hand blow to the throat.



So you're basically advocating KNIFE HAND STRIKES for women's self defense? Are you insane?! 



> That takes very little strength.



Crushing the throat takes a LOT of strength! The only documented cases of it ever happening are from flying hockey pucks.



> She follows up with a chin jab. I understand that people died during WW2 practicing the technique, so I think it is safe to assume that our housewife could stun our assailant a bit.



A CHIN JAB? A chin jab is a PALM STRIKE TO THE CHIN. It is LESS POWERFUL than the equivalent boxing punch. When was the last time you saw someone knocked out by a palm strike in an mma match? There are whole MMA events where closed fist punches aren't allowed, only palm strikes. 



> She follows that up with a knee to the groin. Unless she is fighting Hedgy, assailant is hurt now.



You do understand that the groin is not a magic button that you can push whenever you're in trouble, right? It is a PAIN BASED MOVE. It only incapacitates you if you can't take the pain. If you CAN take the pain...well god help the woman.



> She stomps on the attackers knee or foot to impair his mobility then she turns tail and runs.



After performing four other moves where the attacker just STANDS THERE. 

I can't believe you're advocating this stuff. Even if the techniques were perfect, there is no way a soccer mom can become a person capable of serious harm in ONE WEEK. Even if her techniques were perfect, even if they worked wonderfully, she'd lack the neccesary physical and mental toughness! She doesn't have the arm, shoulder or waist strength to hurt anyone with a "lead edge of hand strike" or a "chin jab". She doesn't have the toned legs to hurt anyone with a knee to the nuts. 
And she WILL panic if her attacker starts raining down blows. 

Do you even address the ground at all? 

I've seen these kind of programs in action. I watched my mom take the IMPACT course twice. Her self defense ability did not improve one bit. 

She does GJJ with me now.

You sir, are going to get some woman seriously hurt or raped one day. I hope you feel real good about yourself.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> So you're basically advocating KNIFE HAND STRIKES for women's self defense? Are you insane?!


I believe that in terms of rapid learning, a knife hand strike is quicker to learn than a properly executed punch.  As well, the hand remains open, making a grab much easier.  I would expect you would be the first to advocate anything that might facillitate a grab.



> Crushing the throat takes a LOT of strength! The only documented cases of it ever happening are from flying hockey pucks


I have a couple of problems with this statement.  First, a throat crush technique requires very little strength, rather, good technique and targeting ought to be sufficient, perhaps something one would gain from hours and hours of kata practice.  Secondly, I rather doubt that the only throats ever crushed in the history of humanity were due to hockey pucks.



> A CHIN JAB? A chin jab is a PALM STRIKE TO THE CHIN. It is LESS POWERFUL than the equivalent boxing punch. When was the last time you saw someone knocked out by a palm strike in an mma match? There are whole MMA events where closed fist punches aren't allowed, only palm strikes.


Effectiveness of open hand techniques adressed above.  Now, are we talking MMA sports, or women's self defence?  I don't think anyone has claimed that they could train anyone to fare well in a MMA event in one week's time.



> I've seen these kind of programs in action. I watched my mom take the IMPACT course twice. Her self defense ability did not improve one bit.


This does not provide adequate evidence as to the effectiveness of the course.  The sample size is too small, and only one instructor was referenced.  I'm sure that you can recieve different training value from different instructors.  Once again, I would expect you to advocate this practice as an advanced MMA practitioner.



> You sir, are going to get some woman seriously hurt or raped one day. I hope you feel real good about yourself.


This was unnecessary, don't you think?  I don't think this type of language is necessary in a friendly discussion.  I will submit that I have been this passionate about my viewpoints as well at times, but the more we point this out to eachother, the better we'll all get.

Respectfully, 

Me.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2004)

This threads in a flat spin and heading out to sea.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

Yep, you're right.  I probably should have stayed out of it.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 14, 2004)

You know, your right this thread is over. The is no arguing with this guy. Knife hands to the throat aren't effective. Open handed blows don't hurt or do any damage. Tell that to Keith Hackney or Bas Rutten. A knee to the balls is an ineffective technique. If these don't work, god help us. If you can't hurt someone by attacking his throat and his nuts what can you possibly do?


Hedgey you really need to sit back an look at what you posted to see just what you denied in your quest to hack RBSD. I teach this stuff because I know it works, it has been proven over and over again, and I sleep fine at night.


Tony


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 15, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I believe that in terms of rapid learning, a knife hand strike is quicker to learn than a properly executed punch. As well, the hand remains open, making a grab much easier. I would expect you would be the first to advocate anything that might facillitate a grab.


Targeting the throat? The throat is a very small target! This is a KARATE CHOP. Have we learned nothing about fighting since the 1950s?



> I have a couple of problems with this statement. First, a throat crush technique requires very little strength,


How do you know? How is she even going to have the neccesary timing and aggresiveness if she's never hit a resisting opponent? 



> rather, good technique and targeting ought to be sufficient, perhaps something one would gain from hours and hours of kata practice.


You have got to be kidding me. Do you seriously believe that hours of kata practice will help a woman defend herself?



> Secondly, I rather doubt that the only throats ever crushed in the history of humanity were due to hockey pucks.


I said the only DOCUMENTED MEDICAL CASES of this happening are through hockey pucks. And a golf club. 

There are plenty of MMA events where this is legal. Of course you're gonna say it's different for a weak woman being attacked. But then why aren't strong young athletes using it? It obviously doesn't seem to be working for them. These men have a natural advantage over a small woman, yet they've tossed that technique in the trash. Even vs barroom brawlers like tank abbot it never seems to happen. 
And MMA fighters have throats like anyone elses. Why aren't they being crushed?



> Effectiveness of open hand techniques adressed above. Now, are we talking MMA sports, or women's self defence? I don't think anyone has claimed that they could train anyone to fare well in a MMA event in one week's time.


It doesn't matter. It's a PALM STRIKE TO THE CHIN. It doesn't work for young men in peak physical condition. It is NOT going to work for a frail middle aged woman.



> This does not provide adequate evidence as to the effectiveness of the course. The sample size is too small, and only one instructor was referenced. I'm sure that you can recieve different training value from different instructors. Once again, I would expect you to advocate this practice as an advanced MMA practitioner.


I observed the same thing with the other couple dozen women taking the course. I even spoke with the guys in the suits. They're not really attacking. They "go with the technique". 



> This was unnecessary, don't you think? I don't think this type of language is necessary in a friendly discussion. I will submit that I have been this passionate about my viewpoints as well at times, but the more we point this out to eachother, the better we'll all get.


I'm sorry, but that is what I believe is going to happen. Think long and hard about this, because you are responsible if you give them false confidence, or if they get raped.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2004)

Of course, maybe the claim that you watched your mom take the whole course twice should suggest something about the usefulness of quick courses for most people.

My guess is that for most people, ANY good martial art taught by a good instructuor and practiced diligently will help. 

However, many people--myself included, and a lot of women--will not learn to strike back in a week or two. Unfortunately, the flat reality is that many--for the 93rd time, not all, but many--people need longer than that. And they need the forms, and the sets, and the long slow practice that so often gets insulted by people who don't actually pay attention to what students are doing.

HH, you're utterly contradicting yourself in your last post. A little way back, you were claiming that gross motor skills could be taught to provide effective self-defense within a week; now, you're arguing that practice, 'against a resisting opponent," is essential. I agree--is this supposed to all take place in that one action-packed week. 

You're doing what works for you. That's excellent. Still...


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2004)

WOW!!! Its great to see that the topic got back on track!  

Mike


----------



## OULobo (Jul 15, 2004)

I keep telling my self to stay out of it, but as Pacino said, "Every time I get out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN!"

It seems the heart of the issue is the resiliancy of the human body verses the effectivness of the logical targeted attacks. Both have very valid defenses. The human body will constantly amaze you in it's ability to withstand attack and it's propensity to continue fighting. On the other hand martial arts in general are based on the idea of using the many aspects of science and logic to make a person's body more effective against an opponent's body, more so than instinct makes us naturally. 

The problem with the whole "that won't work" or the "this always works" statements is that there are too many other issues that come into play during a real confrontation; the experience of an defender/attacker, their physical condition, their mental state, their setting, weapons, friends, motivation, ect. The best way to train a disadvantaged (read less physically fit) person to defend themselves is through strict, regimented, repetitious training and application in fast paced or real-time, open-ended situational drills. This allows for both refinment of technique and becoming accustomed to applying said technique to real world situations. However if you do these things, which will take time, motivation and dedication, you will be becoming both a martial artist and a fit person in the process. 

Although many people down play it's effectivness, I would still venture to say the easiest to learn and most effective way to avoid or deal with a situation, is awarness and weaponry. Both are part of the truly well rounded fighter, but generally they are easier to learn and more well suited for the less physically capable. I will qualify the statement with the notion that no matter what you do or train, an extremely motivated and dedicated individual will find a way to get what they want, just like a cop telling you that if a car theif really wants your car, he will find a way to get it. It may sound fatalistic, but if someone is single minded in their goal of killing you and has a modicom of intelligence and resource, you might as well buy a plot early. The key is using as many tools as possible to make the idea of attaining his goal not worth his effort and risk.  

I think Mr. MacYoung's main idea is at least partially valid, but his eloquence, communication and argument abilities are lacking. I have met many great fighters that have no ability to teach. This doesn't mean they don't have good info, just that they have no good way of making you understand it.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 15, 2004)

> The human body will constantly amaze you in it's ability to withstand attack and it's propensity to continue fighting.



You don't have to crush the windpipe (for example) for it to be an effective technique. All youhave to do is hurt them enough to allow you to follow up with another technique. I have been popped in the throat before, albeit lightly, and it made my head snap back and my hands reach for my throat. It is like the eye attack, that is commonly given as a defense on the ground by RBSD people. Sportfighters say that it is hard to really gouge someones eyes out while you are a bad position on the ground. You know what, they're right. However, while your thumbs are digging the eyes, you can be working your hips to gain better position or you can combine it with a buck and roll to get the guy off of you.

The reason places like the throat and groin are targeted more often is because they can be, which is different than every major sport fighting styles and that they have a high effectiveness to needed strength ratio. It takes alot of strength to concuss someone's brain with a punch. It takes even more to seriously injure someone with a roundhouse to the thigh (unless you use the toe of your Doc Martins, but that is a different story).

Tony


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 15, 2004)

Yah know it is funny the timing:

I was flipping through the channels today and the local sport channel was playing one of the current UFC championship matches.  Both guys were VERY fit and VERY powerful but there were somethings I noticed that just reaffirms my statements/observations about the difference between Self Defense focused training and Sport/MMA type training - to include BJJ in the competative training.

1.  I saw one fighter actually remove his thumb from his opponent's mouth when he realized it was hooked on the guys lip.  If it was a 'no rules' fight why wouldn't the guy have clamped down and used that lip rip to distract/control the head at the very least?

2.  When the guy's thumb was in the opponent's mouth, The opponent didn't Clamp down on it with his chompers and take it clean off!  Again, no rules would imply that these techniques would not only be allowed, but encouraged as examples of craftiness and 'economy of motion' (getting maximum results from minimum energy expenditure).

3.  Not a single eye gouge.  Not one.

4.  Not a single throat shot.  I don't mean a choke but a strike.

5.  When one fighter was trying to get a 'sleeper' type choke set on the other fighter, he never reached over and grabbed the guys nose as a lever, hooked under the filtrup (sp?) as a lever, or just covered the other guys mouth/nose with his hand to block off air to force him to throw his head around and open the path to his throat.....

I guess I might not know my mount from my guard very well, but I do now that it will take more fitness and strength to take your opponent out if you restrict yourself to powershots, strength moves and don't use the little pinches, jabs, bites, grabs and the million other 'dirty shots' you picked up just wrestling in grammar school playgrounds....

I am ALL about working smart instead of just hard.


----------



## mcjon77 (Jul 16, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Targeting the throat? The throat is a very small target! This is a KARATE CHOP.
> I said the only DOCUMENTED MEDICAL CASES of this happening are through hockey pucks. And a golf club.



:bs: 

Just wanted to make a note of something here.  Before the internet, statements like this (usually made in a face to face verbal debate/argument) had to go unanswered .  God bless google.  For a simple test as to whether hedge's statement is true, simply go to google and type in "crushed windpipe" "crushed trachea"  and "crushed larynx" in separate searches (the medical term for windpipe is trachea and the larynx is just above the trachea).  I did and got 401 hits for the larynx, 362 for the windpipe, and 146 for the trachea.  I added the word "puck" to my searches (so it looked like this:  "crushed larynx"  puck) and got *2 hits* with larynx, *0 hits* with windpipe, and *1 hit* with trachea .  For "golf club" I got another 2 hits  with larynx, *0 hits* with windpipe, and *0 hits* with trachea .  Since many of the reports were the result of autopsies and/or medical examinations/treatment (including a few links to medical journals) this pretty much throws the whole hockey pucks and golf club statement out of the window.

A large number of the links which involved crushed tracheas/windpipes/larynxes seemed to refer to either machine related accidents or physical assualts on people by people (a few by police, one by North Korean Guards on a US  Army Major).  One refered to a woman being mauled by a dog.  Hedgehogey, where did you get this whole hockey puck and golf club idea?  Did someone tell this "fact" to you? Did you read it somewhere? Did you just make it up based on events you have heard? 

Maybe I shouldn't be as disturbed by your statement as I am, but I have an extreme problem when people disseminate obviously false information.  Especially when that information relates to something as important as personal safety.   This may seem like a trivial point to you, however to me it is extremely telling.  This is beyond a simple "TMA sucks,/MMA is best for self defense" statement.  That is only an opinion.  It doesn't matter if you are some 11 yr old kid who saw his first UFc, or Rickson Gracie with 400 fights under your belt.  It is your opinion and you have the right to keep it, express it, and argue in favor of it.  But when you include completely false statements and present them as fact you are IMHO crossing the line.  This false statement you made calls into extreme doubt not only your stance in the argument, but the honesty and thoroughness with which you present it.   It really calls your credibility as an honest debater and poster into question.   While I wont go as far as to call you an internet troll yet, I am having serious doubts about other parts of your story.

In reality, this really wasn't necessary to do a formal check.  We could simply use a good old common sense to see the effectiveness of a throat strike.  Simply swinging at my own throat with a light ridge hand strike causes me to automaticlly gag and cough up phlem.  You don't have to crush the trachea with the strike to get the person to stop his attack long enough for her to escape.  Hedge, if you still don't believe that a strike to the throat by a small woman is effective, why don't you get some 100-110 pound women with no martial arts training.  Show her how to make a lepoard fist (thats what we called it in goju-shorei) let her take a few shots with it at a focus mit, and then tell her to hit you right in the throat at full power  :btg: .   

Second thought, don't do it (at least don't try to sue me after you do  ).  Just to cover my own butt, I'm going to state what should be painfully obvious to almost everyone who reads this.  If you let this women do this, there is a very strong chance you will be seriously injured or killed.  She really does not need to even crush it with the first shot.  From what I understand, if she strikes hard enough to cause swelling, that could constrict your oxygen supply and lead to death (I would have to check with my father, who is an ear, nose, and throat specialist to be sure about this point).  If she does crush your larynx or trachea you stand a good chance of dying due to lack of oxygen.  These types of injuries have an extremely high mortality rate, in large part due to the fact that people can't receive treatment quick enough.

Jon


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

Good post Jon!  Way to Google and share!


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 16, 2004)

Mcjon77: I read those back when bullshido was still mcdojo.com but they seem to have gotten lost in the transition to bullshido. Obviously you've dug up more. Good for you.

I have been hit in the throat in sparring, mostly accidentally. It is no big deal. Obviously, anything is effective if you just stand there and let yourself be hit. A better test would be if I were moving around and hitting back. 

Loki: This is getting very frustrating. How many times do I have to explain to you. The current UFC has a bunch of retarded rules. This is due to ignorant lawmakers. BACK WHEN IT STARTED there were "no rules". Today in brazil you can still find no rules events.
They look the same as MMA with rules.The stuff you listed (except the last one) do not work, even when allowed in the sporting arena. You seem to have a preconcieved idea of what a fight looks like.



> HH, you're utterly contradicting yourself in your last post. A little way back, you were claiming that gross motor skills could be taught to provide effective self-defense within a week; now, you're arguing that practice, 'against a resisting opponent," is essential. I agree--is this supposed to all take place in that one action-packed week.



If I ever advocated any training being effective without a resisting opponent, I was being a massive dumbass. 
What i'm trying to say is, a week is not long enough to impart real self defense skills.

Tmanifold: You still haven't answered my question. Where, in a week, will a woman get the required physical strength to fight off a male attacker? Where will she get the ability to knock someone out with a "chin jab"? Don't tell me "you don't need strength", you know that's BS. 

And most importantly, how will she get any sparring done in that time? 

Once again, a week is not long enough to impart real self defense skills.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 16, 2004)

"Back when UFC started, there were NO rules!"

Wrong! They had the same "retarded rules" that all the vale tudo and other events had. They weren't widely advertized, but they were there. Usually in the form of major fines for breaking them.

Sorry to crush your worldview, though. Back to the conversation about how grappling and steroids rock, and how any other form of self-defense the doesn't apply in the cage much suck. I'm learnin' lots...

Yours,

Mick Foley


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 16, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Loki: This is getting very frustrating. How many times do I have to explain to you. The current UFC has a bunch of retarded rules. This is due to ignorant lawmakers. BACK WHEN IT STARTED there were "no rules". Today in brazil you can still find no rules events.
> They look the same as MMA with rules.The stuff you listed (except the last one) do not work, even when allowed in the sporting arena. You seem to have a preconcieved idea of what a fight looks like.


Yes, this is getting frustrating.  The "old UFC" fight look EXACTLY the same in regards to the stuff I posted.  The "retarded rules" you are referring to are the same conceptually as those "retarded laws" around justified use of force/deadly force - keep people alive and show some measure of socially acceptable sportsmanship and concern for safety.  I don't think these rules are "retarded" as much as "lies" to the public when advertising says "no rules."

IF the "No rules" MMA fights in Brazil look the same as MMA 'with rules' then there are either 'gentlemanly rules' or 'fine enforcement' as Janulis has mentioned.  Do some research on the UFC "old RULES" and get back to me.

That stuff won't work?  I think someone beat me to it, but I lay it before you again:  Put your finger in your little 5 year old brother/sister/cousin/whatever's mouth and say "Bite me as hard as you want." and tell me that won't take some of the steam out of you.  Do the same with the other things listed - have someone do it with at least a measure of intention and then tell me it doesn't work. (You are responsible for your own choices if you choose to act on that stuff BTW.)

You are confusing "neural response" and dysfunction with someone being 'tough enough' to gut out the hit/attack.  The brain can only focus on one thing at a time (learned that in my Ed Psych classes before you want to dispute brain studies).  If I can cause pain/dysfunction/distraction because I bite down on your finger then you will not be able to focus your 'mind on the muscles' that you are using to try and lock me/strike me/choke me....what ever for at least a moment.  I can use that moment to escape or counter attack.  That stuff will work as long as YOU know how to make it work.

I have noticed that I, along with others have acknowledged that your preferred style of training is a valid component but not the end all be all of self defense training.  As a martial artist why would you ignore/resist information from respectable people and sources that might make you more well rounded?  I am not a rival grappler/school saying that "My kung fu is stronger than your kung fu"... I am saying that there are other ways/goals and tools that will work.  I have felt them, used them and trust their effectiveness.  Before you ask, yes in reality (though not very much THANK GOD) as well as in training.  I will not tote my 'fight resume' because it is tacky.

What is the risk in demonstrating some respect for other ways?  Will it topple your instructor and your training?  No, because it is not in competition with you - whole different venue.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 16, 2004)

The original rules of the UFC were: Not biting, no eye gouging and no fish hooking. Right from the start they played it fairly safe. Groin shots were allowed and they were put to effective use (remember Joe Son?) Those three moves are what turn groundfighting into a mainly physical contest to one of violence and aggression. As for the fights in Brazil, I have seen some of them and they fight under essentially the same rules as the original UFC, where do you think the gracies got the rules? To my knowledge, biting and eye gouging are not legal in any sport style competion in the world.

Tony


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 16, 2004)

Gentlemanly rules? Are you kidding me? Brazilian vale tudo fighters HATE each other. Look at pele fight and tell me he'd adhere to any "gentleman's agreement". 

As for your experiment suggestion, I told you before, anything works on someone who's not fighting back. The experiment you should be doing is wether you can do it vs a resisting opponent. 

I shouldn't say eye gouging/throat attacks/peeing in his mouth/whatever don't work. But they're neither fight enders, nor something you should focus more than 5% of your training on. The rest should be dedicated to conditioning and acquiring the alive, athletic base that will allow you to use these techniques. 

Let me use an old example: Teach an amatuer boxer how to eye poke or strike the throat and he could be an eye boinking machine, able to burst anyone's eyeballs. 

But a "streetfighting expert" who's never put on gloves and got in the ring won't get much better at eye boinking and won't ever reach the boxer's level. This is because he does not even have the timing, coordination, etc. to hit a target as big as a face with a weapon as big as a fist. 

In other words, if you don't have the timing, conditioning, mental toughness etc. you get from hard sparring you are never going to be able to pull off those str33t lethal moves.  

Techniques do not happen in a vacuum where the size of the fighters isn't a factor. In order to get to his eyes, you have to know how to not get ground and pounded, be able to get past his hands, to make sure he doesn't grab your wrists, should be able to attain at least an equal, if not dominant position (try eye gouging from under mount. not fun, huh?)...in other words, you gotta grapple. 

All this applies equally to housewives. 

Tulisan: Do you really think that with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line and the whole country watching, any fighter wouldn't use whatever he though neccesary to win? Also, see this quote by a cool man: 

"It's not about training for 26 hours a day and taking 'roids to fight in a cage. It's about not waving your arms and legs in the air against invisible opponents and pretending that makes you better at fighting."


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 16, 2004)

I am done with this.  I notice that you are not touching the idea of dysfunction/neural response.  Nor, are you answering the questions at the end of my last post.  Instead you are beating the same drum you have been all along.  Fine.  I have had strong stances that I would not capitulate on as well.  If this feels like a victory to you, then you are just as dillusional about verbal discourse as you are about the human body.


----------



## Ippon Ken (Jul 16, 2004)

This post is interesting. Not that my opinion matters much, but I find merit in Hogey's and AM's arguments. 

Hedge is right to say you should be versed in a good grappling style, like wrestling (preferably freestyle or catch), Judo, Shuai Jiao, Tegumi (only some know this nowadays) or GJJ/BJJ. When I say versed I mean you should have a good fundamental understanding of how to stay on your feet, reverse a mount, keep someone in your guard and how to submit someone if the fight does go to the ground. This doesn't mean you need to be first kyu or higher in Judo or a BJJ Purple Belt or > (although that wouldn't hurt). It means you should understand some basic principles that apply to standing and ground grappling.

In a one-on-one confrontation an art like GJJ can be very effective. I don't know how you'd be sure that there is only one opponent involved, but if you are doing sentry disposal or are a SpecOps guy who confronts an enemy soldier down some dark corridor, it would help to know how to choke him the f-ck out! In the streets of most major cities around the world, friendly mano-a-mano matches are very unlikely. Maybe on the beaches of Brazil, but not anywhere I've lived. If someone attacks you on the street always assume that there are multiple attackers just waiting in the shadows. In this instance even getting a knee-on-chest mount is not safe. BTW I have seen the knee-on-chest mount from folks who were not formally trained in anything. A strong cat that understands his strengths will often employ this tech against a oblivious and often weaker opponent. I've seen it twice in my college days and twice when I was in HS in the mid-80s. This was way before anyone where I was at knew about GJJ or groundfighting. In a "fair" fight it is a good position to be in. In the streets it's just as dangerous as the full mount or the guard.

For those martial sport types who claim that you can't defeat multiple opponents on the street, I say what's your evidence? I have seen it multiple times, and even an instance where 3 guys back-to-back in a club fought off dozens of idiots rushing them from all sides. Know that only a certain number of dudes could get at them at one time. The sheer number of folks involved in the fracas shielded the three guys from the other attackers. They clocked suckers rushing straight in, punted a few, threw a lot (the three were all big football players) and didn't stop striking and moving as one mass. In the end the cops came and all that happened to the attacked was one guy had a "shiner" under his right eye. I don't need any proof that fighting multiple opponents can work. I've seen it.

I saw the same guy who used the knee-on-chest mount, we called him P.S. (for Pitiful Specimen), beat three policemen severely after they tried to punk him at a BBQ stand outside the Maingate of Clark AB, Philippines. He didn't know any MAs, just football , but his pops was a big Combat Controller who could bench like 600 pounds. This kid was about 70" and 180 pounds. Not a brute by any stretch of the imagination, and actually someone who we considered on the lower end of our crew's hierarchy, in physical and mental toughness. He was 18 when he kicked the SPs asses and then ran back on base before they knew what even hit them. It was hella funny!

On to AMs assessment of real fighting. You better have a good foundation in street fighting or a good MAs foundation in all ranges of combat. Sure you can be a karate-ka or TKD cat with awesome striking skills, but if you don't end the fight fast you better know how to choke someone. In order to choke someone you have to get them, or better yet you have to let them get theirselves into a position to choke them. Hand chokes as found in styles like Kuntaw Silat, Karate Jutsu and Eagle Claw Chuan Fa are the best for the street. Rear naked chokes are good, but they take sometime to act on the opponent. Constricting the carotids can be done much easier with a grasp of your hand. Pure grapplers better understand that if 90% of fights end up on the ground, then almost all fights (99%) start out standing. Learn to keep it here. Learn to punch without padding and with a good understanding of biomechanics and A&P. This takes years of bone, muscle and sinew conditioning. You don't get that from hand wraps and gloves. You get that from Ktoeate/kotkitai and other "iron body" exercises. Hiting a heavybag as hard as you can without gloves is the beginning. Moving on to makiwara and other hard objects polishes this skill. Kata conditions the sinews. Two-man drills done full force makes your weapons and your body strong without causing brain damage and unnecessary injury.

Weak bones come from years of wrapping pillows around your hands and feet. If you break your hands how will you grapple or punch? This is what the BJJ guys don't understand. This is what the very deadly ring tacticians like boxers and Thai Boxers have forgotten with the advent of more and more rules.

As for animalistic fighting traits. All the bestial instinct in the wolrd will not save you from someone who is more animalistic, bigger, faster, stronger and more intent on getting at you than you are. Being strong from weight training, being able to absorb blows and remaining calm with the undercurrent of brutal intentions takes years of training and practice. TOMAs address this well, as do good Chuan Fa styles and even good Japanese karate styles like Kyokushinkai. 

What I've seen is some gain this "animalistic" ability from getting stole a lot and fighting on the street. Others get it from hard sparring and intense training. Some acquire it from having their older bros, moms and pops kicking that **** regularly. 

It is not innate, it is conditioned like every other habit or learned "trait". So no matter how many years you practice rape safe or Animal's **** Saving SD, you just are not gonna ingrain that type of attitude and stance. It comes from misfortune, training and practice in entropic situations. The killer instinct is cultivated and not innate. An example is the fact that research shows prior to Vietnam the troops trained to be soldiers, not killers. As a result studies have shown that only 10-15% of the troops on the ground in WWI-Korea actually fought! The rest cowered, hid under dead bodies or ran like beyotches. After this problem was identified the Army and Marines changed their training from a chivalrous stance to that of sociopathic killer school. You have to kill the conscience to a certain degree so that when it comes to life-or-death preservation you take the opponents life and spare you and your buddie's own.

You know, if you fight on the street with the intent of winning through technique and restraint you've already lost. If someone attacks you on the street you have to think "this dude don't know me, he obviously wants to kill, rape or maim me or mine" and act accordingly. Deal with the litigation later. It's you or him/them. If AM is teaching this type of training it is more suited for protecting your neck, but no moreso than training in good combat sports like Thai Boxing and BJJ. 

In the streets a GOOD TMAs type has just as much chance to be victorious as a PROFICIENT MMAs cat does. Intent, EXPERIENCE, LUCK and mindset are what set apart the victimimized from the victorious, in a street situation.

If what you do in your combat sport (like Gracie Self Defense Techs) or your Animal fighting ingrains true intent then it will be more effective than patented TMAs and MMAs theory. That's MY facts, Jack!

Peace.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

Good Post Ken.  I liked it.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 16, 2004)

Ippon Ken said:
			
		

> Hedge is right to say you should be versed in a good grappling style, like wrestling (preferably freestyle or catch), Judo, Shuai Jiao, Tegumi (only some know this nowadays) or GJJ/BJJ. When I say versed I mean you should have a good fundamental understanding of how to stay on your feet, reverse a mount, keep someone in your guard and how to submit someone if the fight does go to the ground. This doesn't mean you need to be first kyu or higher in Judo or a BJJ Purple Belt or > (although that wouldn't hurt). It means you should understand some basic principles that apply to standing and ground grappling.



Excuse me, but why is this even in this thread? You guys have done some increadible bits of thread drift before I could jump in.

Marc would probably agree with your statement above, along with most of your post. (Except about getting someone to submit if you are a civilian.) He has a book on floor fighting, teaches throws, etc. So why have we been sucked into another "Grappling Uber Alles" debate?

Oh, I should say right up front that I have trained with Marc and consider him a friend. He and his wife helped me when I really needed it. They call me the "Wildman". If I was 6'9 they would probably call me "Tiny" in the same manner.

In regards to the _original point of this thread_ I think that I should point out that Marc does train in martial arts. His wife and he run a martial arts school. They even do sparring at the school. Imagine that! Marc trains with Steve Plinkt last I heard in Silat. He is also very fond of another guy who teaches Silat who you can find at www.silat-video.com. I have trained under the latter and he is a truely scary guy- in a nice way. He teaches martial arts, but it is not like the stuff you see in a McDojo or on the WWF.

Take a look at the following link and you may understand a little more about how Marc seems to think about martial arts.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/four_focuses.html

So, what is the emphisis of your martial art? Did you start under someone because they managed to defeat someone else on TV? That may be described as a sport orientation. Do you train to defeat someone in the ring, or merely use the ring as part of your training and you do nothing specifically geared to the ring style of fighting? A lot of people who do the former will claim the latter. I have seen it.

But the important thing is to understand the ultimate goal you are trying to reach. If you are studying martial arts to defend yourself, you need to strip away anything that gets in the way of that. If you practice a form in your martial art for self defnese, you should not be fooling with it in order to impress judges. If you have to learn a move, you need to understand the "why" behind it. Do you know ho many people I have seen that practice sword forms but have no idea of the realities of combat with one?

Sorry about the rant. I just get irritated with people who think that a chin jab will not work unles you are buff and who seem to have NO experience in real combat trying to tear down a friend because they are scared by the reality he represents.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yes, this is getting frustrating.



YES!!!  This is getting very frustrating.  HH, I have a question for you.  What do all of your posts have to do with the topic at hand here??? I mean, the title and main point of this thread is to talk about "Animal", NOT about MMA/NHB/Sport vs. TMA, etc.  Yet it seems like every post that you make, regardless of the topic of the thread, ALWAYS seems to turn into that sort of a debate.  I mean, come on man, dont you think that we've beat that crap like a dead horse by now???  Who the hell cares what strike is gonna work and what isnt.  If that is what you want to discuss, the please start a new topic. But in the meantime, can we PLEASE get the topic back on track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Again, I believe that the topic is to discuss Animal, not about the UFC rules, what strike works best under pressure, aliveness, sport vs TMA, and all of the other NON related stuff!!!!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Loki: This is getting very frustrating. How many times do I have to explain to you. The current UFC has a bunch of retarded rules. This is due to ignorant lawmakers. BACK WHEN IT STARTED there were "no rules". Today in brazil you can still find no rules events.
> They look the same as MMA with rules.The stuff you listed (except the last one) do not work, even when allowed in the sporting arena. You seem to have a preconcieved idea of what a fight looks like.



I did a search of the first UFC rules and the only ones that they had were no biting and no eye gouging.  Yes, it was stated that there were no rules, but come on man, this is a sport and that being said, there will be rules.  Maybe thats the reason why the name got changed from NHB to MMA.  

Could you provide a list of rules from these other events??  I find it a little hard to belive that they are totally no rules events.  So you're basically saying that they allow biting??

Mike


----------



## hedgehogey (Jul 17, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> I did a search of the first UFC rules and the only ones that they had were no biting and no eye gouging.  Yes, it was stated that there were no rules, but come on man, this is a sport and that being said, there will be rules.  Maybe thats the reason why the name got changed from NHB to MMA.
> 
> Could you provide a list of rules from these other events??  I find it a little hard to belive that they are totally no rules events.  So you're basically saying that they allow biting??
> 
> Mike



Russian absolute: No rules

BVT, IVT, Maybe inoki bom ba ye, and one other VT event I can't remember all restrict only one rule. I can't remember which one only bans biting, which only bans eye gouging and which only bans groin shots. You can see one such event  on GJJ in action 2. 

Which segues into another thing: It's all legal in the gracie challenge, and that pays even more than most vale tudo events.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Russian absolute: No rules
> 
> BVT, IVT, Maybe inoki bom ba ye, and one other VT event I can't remember all restrict only one rule. I can't remember which one only bans biting, which only bans eye gouging and which only bans groin shots. You can see one such event  on GJJ in action 2.
> 
> Which segues into another thing: It's all legal in the gracie challenge, and that pays even more than most vale tudo events.



And this just shows that there are differences with the NHB/MMA fights.  Its impossible to compare something that takes place in the US and something outside of the US.  Soooo...why are we still talking about it???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  I actually have a few NHB tapes that took place in Brazil and I saw no biting, eye gouges, etc.  Again, things change with the times.  What is legal in Brazil, Japan and Russia may not be legal here, so again, we're continuing to beat a dead horse, and its really getting pretty old.

Anyway....back to the main point of this thread which is NOT about MMA/NHB, but about Marc Macyoung!!!  I believe that we should be talking about him and the other RBSD guys, not the UFC!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2004)

Did a little search online and came up with this.



> This third installment of the Absolute series comes from Tel Aviv, Israel for the first time, matching 3 Americans against 5 Russians in the usual 8-man tournament style. As ever, this was a Frederico Don King of MMA Lapenda production, with regular duo Gary Cruz and Greg Friedman commentating.
> 
> All fights would be a maximum of 30 minutes, with a possible 5 minute overtime in the event of a draw. The rules were kept to a minimum, with the basic no biting, eye gouging, or fishooking laws implemented. This is Lapendas style, and is the essence of true Vale Tudo.



This fight took place in May of '99.  Now, the rules may have changed, but as of this time, it looks like there were rules.

Mike


----------



## ppko (Jul 17, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> And this just shows that there are differences with the NHB/MMA fights. Its impossible to compare something that takes place in the US and something outside of the US. Soooo...why are we still talking about it??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I actually have a few NHB tapes that took place in Brazil and I saw no biting, eye gouges, etc. Again, things change with the times. What is legal in Brazil, Japan and Russia may not be legal here, so again, we're continuing to beat a dead horse, and its really getting pretty old.
> 
> Anyway....back to the main point of this thread which is NOT about MMA/NHB, but about Marc Macyoung!!! I believe that we should be talking about him and the other RBSD guys, not the UFC!
> 
> Mike


I agree it seems that no matter the subject HH always finds a way to change it to himself and it is getting a little tiresome.

PPKO


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jul 17, 2004)

> agree it seems that no matter the subject HH always finds a way to change it to himself and it is getting a little tiresome.



That's the personality type with which you deal in those circles.  It's fairly typical.  I've seen people like him have the same argument in countless places along the same lines.


----------



## gusano (Jul 17, 2004)

I just got back from a week of training in Chicago. This thread sucks! It makes me wonder if any of you guys train? When do you have the time with all the lengthy posts you put up? Armchair quarterbacks.


----------



## ppko (Jul 17, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> I just got back from a week of training in Chicago. This thread sucks! It makes me wonder if any of you guys train? When do you have the time with all the lengthy posts you put up? Armchair quarterbacks.


Yes of course we train I have my own school and so do many other people here on MT. Who do you train with in Chicago if you don't mind my asking, I have a friend in chicago that teaches, his name is Dusty Seale.


PPKO


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 17, 2004)

> When do you have the time with all the lengthy posts you put up?


I type fast.

Tony


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 17, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> I just got back from a week of training in Chicago. This thread sucks! It makes me wonder if any of you guys train? When do you have the time with all the lengthy posts you put up? Armchair quarterbacks.


Balance the physical with intellectual, if you are able.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 17, 2004)

> Tmanifold: You still haven't answered my question. Where, in a week, will a woman get the required physical strength to fight off a male attacker? Where will she get the ability to knock someone out with a "chin jab"? Don't tell me "you don't need strength", you know that's BS.



If you put it that way, are correct but I didn't put it that way. What I said is that a week of MMA training would harm someone because they knew just enough to try something they didn't have enough time to learn. A week of a good gross motor skill based combatives program will only enhance her abilities because gross motor skills do not take long to train and retain.

I will tell you that a chin jab doesn't take as much strength as a punch to Ko someone. But even if it did, a KO is only icing on the cake. All that is required is to stun or knock them back a step. A edge of hand to the throat or neck doesn't take a huge amount of strength neither does a stomp to the knee or any of the other techniques I have mentioned.

The main thing is not that someone shouldn't train for 6 month, a year or more but can it be effective right away. Although, to be honest, with combative methods you reach a point of diminishing returns where you are just retaining the skills and enhancing you flexibily in their use.

Tony


----------



## gusano (Jul 18, 2004)

ppko said:
			
		

> Yes of course we train I have my own school and so do many other people here on MT. Who do you train with in Chicago if you don't mind my asking, I have a friend in chicago that teaches, his name is Dusty Seale.PPKO


it was more of a rhetorical question than anything. I have my own academy also, but I frequently travel to Chicago to train with Carlson Gracie Sr. Where and what does your friend teach?



			
				tmanifold said:
			
		

> I type fast.


Good answer. I don't type worth a darn, myself. I would like to respond to some of the things I've read in this thread but I don't want to go back and quote everyone line for line. 

 The comparison of a belt color in one art to another art is meaningless.
You can't say a BJJ blue belt is equal to a whatever color judo belt or vice versa. It would depend on the rules of the match. In a judo match, the judo player should school the bjj player more times than not. In a bjj match, it should be the opposite. I too, am "only" a blue belt in bjj. I have a student who is a brown belt in judo and a white belt in bjj. I am able to tap him at will. However, in a judo match he would be much harder to beat. What if someone has a blue belt in bjj *and *lets say a orange belt in judo. If these belts are "equal" to each other, does that mean that he has not increased his skill by training in both arts? In essense, that he would be the same skill level he is now if he had only studied one of either art?

Win/ Loss records, unless you are a professional prize fighter, don't mean anything. Amateur martial arts competitions are a great way to test your skills and improve your game. A brown belt I train with in Chicago believes in entering every tournament he can find to bring his game up to it's peak. He reasons that if you enter a 1000 tournaments and win 10 gold medals, people remember that you are a 10 time gold medal winner, not that you didn't even place in 990!

I would say that if anyone gets a blue belt from Relson in 9 months, he must have some mat skills. It is not uncommon for guys to be 3 year white belts and then remain a blue belt for 5 years in BJJ! In some martial arts you can be a black belt in 1 year! It is not uncommon for it to take 15 years to earn a black belt in BJJ.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 18, 2004)

> The comparison of a belt color in one art to another art is meaningless.



It was an equivlent skill level comparison. A blue belt is quite high in many martial arts but is relatively low in BJJ. Most people I know can rank a blue belt in BJJ in under 6 months. I know a few people who have ranked to blue belt just by travelling down to one of the Gracies for a few weeks. A modern Judo vs. BJJ comparison straight up is not fair because they are different games; especially, if you come from a school that does not emphasize mat work. Both the schools I went to were big on the mat work.


Tony


----------



## ppko (Jul 18, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> it was more of a rhetorical question than anything. I have my own academy also, but I frequently travel to Chicago to train with Carlson Gracie Sr. Where and what does your friend teach?


It is on the southside of Chicago Dusty teaches Modern Arnis, Wei Kwan Do, Kyusho Jitsu, and Jodoryu Jujitsu (he is a member of DKI)

PPKO


----------



## gusano (Jul 18, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> Most people I know can rank a blue belt in BJJ in under 6 months. I know a few people who have ranked to blue belt just by travelling down to one of the Gracies for a few weeks. Tony


I agree that there are people who have a grappling background that could possibly earn a blue belt in 6 months. But *most* people? I would say that they are not earning their belts but *buying *them! There is no way in hell, that *most *people can *earn *a blue belt in less than 6 months. I know at Carlson Sr's academy, there are 3 year white belts who should have been blue belts for a year in my opinion. He is hardest on Brazilians. I know a Brazilian blue belt that has been blue for 5 years! He skills are undoubetly purple belt level. Sr believes in a person EARNING his belt. I can't speak for how everyone runs their school, but 6 months or less for a blue belt is ABSURD! I would love to see them spar with some of the white belts in Chicago.


----------



## tmanifold (Jul 18, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> I agree that there are people who have a grappling background that could possibly earn a blue belt in 6 months. But *most* people? I would say that they are not earning their belts but *buying *them! There is no way in hell, that *most *people can *earn *a blue belt in less than 6 months. I know at Carlson Sr's academy, there are 3 year white belts who should have been blue belts for a year in my opinion. He is hardest on Brazilians. I know a Brazilian blue belt that has been blue for 5 years! He skills are undoubetly purple belt level. Sr believes in a person EARNING his belt. I can't speak for how everyone runs their school, but 6 months or less for a blue belt is ABSURD! I would love to see them spar with some of the white belts in Chicago.



Sounds like a good school.

Tony


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 19, 2004)

I think that this link perhaps tells best what Marc "The Mummy" MacYoung thinks about martial arts, fighting and self defense.

I think it also is good reason why some people just stand besided themselves with hatred towards MacYoung. What do you expect them to do except try straw man tactics, etc,  when their sacred cows are served up with BBQ sauce?


----------



## Emptyglass (Jul 19, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> My questions are:
> 1) What do you think about his views of our beloved MAs
> 2) Does this guy have the credentials to claim himself an expert



Hi there:

1. I think Mr. MacYoung's website is definitely worth reading. You'll have to make your own decision about whether he is correct or not. Personally I think he's spot on.

2. In my opinion, yes.

Rich Curren


----------



## ppko (Jul 19, 2004)

Emptyglass said:
			
		

> Hi there:
> 
> 1. I think Mr. MacYoung's website is definitely worth reading. You'll have to make your own decision about whether he is correct or not. Personally I think he's spot on.
> 
> ...


now we are back on the subject.

Thank You,
PPKO


----------

