# Wake-up Call: Takedowns=Fighting Ability



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

I know this is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who doesn't even engage in streetfighting, but of all the fights I witnessed when I was in 'a bad place' they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown, sometimes 'tori' would throw 'uki' on his head!

In this 'bad place', where i spent 8 months, I saw at least one fight per week, and it was all rather similar.  Angry words, the two combatants grab each other, and then the inevitable throw to the floor.  No Kickboxing, people don't politely circle and jab, and no thirty minute groundfights that end with a choke or armlock.  If this streetfighting resembled any sport, I would say Greco-roman Wrestling and Judo are the only two that even remotely fit the bill.

The obsession with MMA, which is merely modern pankration, will pass, as all things do.  You can't make money off of wrestling and judo, they're amateur sports primarily, so people will erroneously go after fads that have their beginnings and ends.  It's rather depressing.

From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.

If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.

My point is, fighting is for retarts, wrestling and judo is self defense, and people are wasting a lot of precious time doing things that don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.

And don't give me bs about 'completeness'.  'Completeness' is not an indicator of what is important in real combat.  'Effectiveness' is.  And takedown sports are both safe, and 'quick kill' which means they take seconds to take effect, not 12 rounds or thirty minutes or an hour.

And I'm sure a few karate purists will get angry at this post, and say that wrestling and judo are just scholastic sports, but I will refer you to Lao Tzu who said, 'That the soft can overcome the hard, and the gentle overcome the rigid- few in the world can realize this!"  Takedown sports are fun, healthy, a good social activity, a teacher of positive sportsmanlike values, and the best self-defense.  

"No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!"  -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo.  I think that just about says it all.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 27, 2007)

Could you be more specific as to what sort of "bad place" this was? It might shed light as to what kind of people were fighting and thus what kind of actions they may have been predisposed towards.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

A state mental hospital.  Before you assume that I am a babbling retart, let me pre-inform you that the majority of the people fighting where either criminals who _elected_ to go to the hospital rather than jail (although they found out later that some say it is worse than jail)  or just useless hobos.  These were not martial artists, these were people who fight in the street often.  Streetfighters are a better indication of what goes on in real streetfights, than any martial artist or athlete, because criminals actually fight.  

I saw men vs men, women vs women, men vs women, Staff versus Patients, you name it!

One time, A therapy aide named Timmy threw this old black man Sammis with a perfect Osoto-gari and pinned him with knee on stomach.  It was obvious in Timmy's face and in Sammis' innocence that Timmy was just dying to use his skills on someone, even a hapless victim like Sammis.

And that was one fight, I witnessed dozens.  Most fights began in the clinch and ended with the uki falling down.  The 'uki' usually gave up after being thrown down to the floor (horrible fighting spirit) or was too injured to continue.  

I grant you these were not the big fish, but they were eye-opening enough to see that MA is largely hogwash.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 27, 2007)

OK, just so you know, observations aren't that help full. Especially since Judo is heavily about this thing we "Karate Purists" called ground fighting. Yes there are many throws/sweeps/reaps taught in Judo, but the focus is on ground fighting. 
Also, maybe these would be better to base your oppion off.





 




 
Both real Martial Artists. The second one debatable though. Anyways, I have anouther one, but it's been demaned inapporiate. It's a Long Fist guy knocking a dude out. 

By the way, if you ever say anything is retarded (Martial or not), you will regret it. Meaning you will be the first to get negitive rep from me. I don't care what narrrow minded, half baked ideas you have come up with from watching mental patients (crimminals or not) going at it. There are plently of street fight videos out there where it's one dude beating on (not throwing) another dude.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 27, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> A state mental hospital. Before you assume that I am a babbling retart, let me pre-inform you that the majority of the people fighting where either criminals who _elected_ to go to the hospital rather than jail (although they found out later that some say it is worse than jail) or just useless hobos. These were not martial artists, these were people who fight in the street often. Streetfighters are a better indication of what goes on in real streetfights, than any martial artist or athlete, because criminals actually fight.
> 
> I saw men vs men, women vs women, men vs women, Staff versus Patients, you name it!
> 
> ...


 

I don't think you're a "babbling retard" at all, Freestyler. I just wonder if being exposed to only one environment has created a limited view of what "fighting" is. 

In this case you describe to me, where most of the people involved in the fights appear to go only on natural instinct because of no formal training, then, absolutely--apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled.  Striking in a scienced manner came a bit later because , from a purely "Man vs. Wild" perspective, human bodies , compared to other natural creatures, are not optimized to be used as weapons--We don't have muscles and strength the way a gorilla or a yeti has muscles and strength, we don't have claws, we don't have jaws and teeth the way a bear, tiger, or crocodile has jaws and teeth.  We don't have horns, we don't have natural armor the way a turtle, alligator or armadillo has--just a ribcage over our organs and a skull over our brain.

Our bodies aren't naturally optimized to be used as striking weapons, so it takes more training to GET them turned into striking weapons than to wrestle. That doesn't automatically render such training useless.

I'm not saying there isn't a disconnect between What goes on when things turn violent and what is taught in many MA schools, because there absolutely is, but I also believe you would be missing out if you discounted them all out of hand based on one reference point. 

It could also be a case of guidelines set by the institution--My good friend's mother used to work in such a place, and they were taught several takedowns, joint locks and such but were repeatedly *told* never to strike. I don't know the rules for the specific place you refer to but it wouldn't surprise me if they were similar and it is possible  this could account for any fights you saw between a staff member and a patient.

I happen to like takedowns a lot too--it's what I primarily train in now due to my Silat training. But having striking skills and a knowledge of what to hit and with which body part opens more avenues to me to GET to that takedown more easily. I've never met anyone willing to just let me walk right up and have my way with them, so being able to soften an attacker up/make something hurt so they have something else occupying their mind while I continue on into a takedown is an idea I find quite helpful. 

The thing you have to remember when you enter a discussion of "this" is better than "that" with regards to striking arts/takedown arts/groundwork/whatever, is this:

Striking and grappling were never *intended* to be taught seperately. And back in the way-back-when, they weren't. The seperation took place largely in the late 19th/early 20th centuries because of several factors: The disappearance of the old ways of war in an age when gunpowder was rising in dominance, a desire to keep the old traditions and "fighting spirit" alive anyway, and certain teachers , due to their own preference/temperament/physical makeup, choosing to emphasize certain techniques and dropping others, and *BOOM* thus were born "styles". 

So no, I don't think you are a "retard", I just think you haven't seen it all--you mention in that institution, most fights were decided by a takedown, I could mention that in the few bars I went into in my youth, most fights I saw were decided by punches to the head, according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports, an average of about 8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons which changes the ENTIRE situation, and so on.

Don't be so quick to judge and dismiss.


----------



## Adept (Jul 27, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> And I'm sure a few karate purists will get angry at this post,



Don't be silly. Why would I get angry? I'd just wait until some ground fighter took one of my buddies to the ground, and while he was lying there effectively immobile with his arms (and attention) occupied elsewhere, I'd beat him in the back of the head with a bar-stool.

It was very sporting of them to limit fights to one per side, and prohibit pre-emptive striking. Having worked as a bouncer, witnessing and participating in actual streetfights (often on an actual street!) I can tell you that the 'clinch' part of a fight is, while very important, not always (or even often) the initial stage of the fight.

It's very different working in a mental hospital, just as it is different working as a bouncer. Your job is to safely restrain (and /or remove) people, not beat them into unconsciousness, and so you will often have no choice but to grapple. In addition, as a civilian on 'the street', for lack of a better term, you can usually tell who is going to attack you. You can keep your distance, and certainly stay within striking range and avoid a clinch. I've certainly seen more 'one punch' fights, than I've seen clinches and take-downs.

I'd go so far as to say that clinches and takedowns are more prevalent among the untrained, simply because they don't know any better. 'Grab the other guy and hit him until he stops twitching' seems to be the extent of their game-plan. A natural result of this is that two untrained fighters who have entered a clinch will lose their balance, and simply fall over where a skilled fighter will engage his takedown defence (or go to the ground, if that is his preference) and fight on his own terms, or simply prevent his opponent from entering grappling range.

You are right though, in that a lot of martial arts schools teach BS. Not because they teach striking skills, but because they don't teach a well rounded skill set in an alive and resisting environment.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

Thank you Andy for a very well thought out and compassionate answer.

You bring up some interesting points.  

Obviously striking with the hands is the main feature of trained marital artist's repertoire.  I was more condemming MMA and combat sports in general, not martial arts.

And you are very insightful when you point out that wrestling is the 'natural' method of combat, and these were untrained fighters.  Of the people I've asked outside the hospital, the majority of fights are won with punches, they've told me.

But I was right in saying very few fights entail a lot of jabbing, circling, or thirty minute ground fights.  I often misuse terms.  I was saying that COMBAT SPORTS are not realitic, traditional throwing arts like wrestling and judo, are the oldest and most natural method of unarmed combat.  Obviously, there are karate guys who can kill with a single blow.


So I learned a lot from being in a state mental hospital, even if I didn't see the whole picture.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 27, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I grant you these were not the big fish, but they were eye-opening enough to see that MA is largely hogwash.



Yeah and at one time people believe the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe. I am sure they would have thought anything contradictory would have been hogwash. :shrug:


----------



## Garth Barnard (Jul 27, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> The 'uki' usually gave up after being thrown down to the floor (horrible fighting spirit) or was too injured to continue.


I've seen, and been involved in, 100's of physical confrontations in my time, some whilst 'Minding', some personal scuffles, but most during my work as a Door Supervisor (Bouncer).  I can honestly say that your statement (above) is not only untrue, but based on a observations made in a synthetic environment.

Your agument (read: sweeping statement) would be better substantiated (relevant) if your opinion was based on real world experience.  For example; I've seen more people dropped by a right cross than any other technique.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

Thank you Adept

You bring some good experience to the discussion.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 27, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Thank you Andy for a very well thought out and compassionate answer.
> 
> You bring up some interesting points.
> 
> ...


 

Okay....that helps clear up a *lot* about where you're coming from. 

And yes, combat sports, by nature, have to be different from "combat" to a certain degree or they can't be safely enjoyed. 

The main two things you can still take away from such a training format are a chance to experience resisting opponents you might not elsewhere, and consistent enough practice will give you increased fitness and the better your general health, the better your ability to resist injury and the more time it will take to reach exhaustion.

That's what makes Martial Arts so awesome is *everything* has something you can take and benefit from.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

Let me ask another question.  Which art/sport/method is best?  What is the most realistic martial art?  Most martial artists and cops I've talked to say sambo, most med-taking/dubious background people say boxing,  and I hear a lot about MMA on this and other message boards.  Ive seen a lot of MMA on DVD and whatnot.  Which is most realistic?  Or is it a combination of things, like Muay Thai and Wrestling, or karate and jiu-jitsu, etc...?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 27, 2007)

This might end up going to General Martial Arts talk, and I am sorry to the Karateka here for the minor subject drift,  but I think it's worth answering best I can:

So, Freestyler, in order to answer *that* question, you have to answer *these* :

*what is my current/previous training? (if you're already training enough that a certain way of moving has become more "natural" to you, keep it and build on it)

*If I have no training, what is my physical makeup? ( are you a relatively tall, skinny person who may have the long limbs, and thus the reach, that a striking approach might help you? Are you more of a stocky person, maybe your legs and back are thick and strong such that lifting/throwing a person would be easier for you? and so on)

* What is my temperament?( Are you someone who takes your time, likes to react to an incoming attack? something like Aikido, Jujutsu Taijiquan, or similar might be for you. Are you a go-get-em hard charger? like to stay on offense? Boxing/Kickboxing, Muay Thai, many types of Karate, and so on could be for you. You might even find a style you never thought you'd like or would match with you, DOES match with you--it sounds like metaphysical nonsense, but if a style doesn't "click" right with who and what you are, it may not be as effective when it's go time, however hard you train at it.)

*Am I of a legal/mental capacity where I can handle using/training in weapons? ( The only thing that raised humans above the other animals in Nature was our ability to think along the lines of making tools. That means weapons have always been humans' first choice for fighting, which therefore means you should be alert for them, and know them yourself, if you can. Don't break the law, but learn what you can.)


You don't have to answer these questions to me, just save them and think about them.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks again Andy.

I think I will finally take up boxing/Muay Thai with my old friend Ray.

For a long time, I've trained in judo, and sometimes BJJ, but both never went well with my extensive wrestling experience.  It seemed like the idea didn't fit the reality of what I can do.  I'll go to boxing or muay thai, it's never too late, and even though I am not tall, I have excellent reach and agility standing up.

Thank you for taking so much time to talk to me, Andy.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 27, 2007)

No problem. Enjoy your training.


----------



## Mark L (Jul 27, 2007)

Andy and Adept, among others, both make excellent points.  My reaction to your observations is similar to others, you've witnessed (perhaps) experienced fighters but maybe not trained fighters.  I've been practicing for quite a while, and one of the most illustrative practices in our dojo is to periodically gather all of the students and have a sparring/grappling/MMA/weapons battling night.  The perspective offered by such encounters is eye opening to most participants.  We apply random match-up criteria: sometimes rank, or size, or fitness level, experience, or the whim of the ring master (who can be the boss or the newest student).  *My* experience is that the folks who I learn the most from engaging are those that haven't been training for long.  Experienced karate/grappling guys vs. experienced karate/grappling guys is fun & interesting, but nothing new under the sun.  Matching against an opponent that hasn't been conditioned yet to fight like _us_ offers surprises.  

The last time we did this I got an extremely fit, long limbed, LEO who'd been with us for about 6 months.  As a beginner I hadn't seen him yet.  He didn't move like he was _supposed_ to, he jabbed me and pawed me all over the ring for about 30 seconds.  What the hell was going on with this?  Quickly tiring of playing defense, I took the opportunity to demonstrate the relative lengths of legs vs. arms.  The takeaway for me is that while I was able to turn the tables on the guy, he offered an entirely unexpected challenge.  And taking 30 seconds to adjust just ain't cuttin' it.  It was the best class I've had all year.


----------



## Mark L (Jul 27, 2007)

I submitted my last post before I could finish my thought ...

So watching and learning from what you see and experience, regardless of the source, is of value to a martial artist.  The difference that I'm striving for is the ability to recognize (more quickly) what's going on, and using my training, thwart it before it can cause me harm.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 28, 2007)

Mark L., thank you.

That is quite a good, but strict, school you go to!  Being matched against anybody at random must be very nerve-racking!  Even wrestlers only compete against people their own size!  Your school has a very good training methodology.  It accounts for the randomness of varous attackers' sizes and strengths.


----------



## Wild Bill (Jul 28, 2007)

I work in a prison.  I don't see a lot of throws and not much clenching either.  I do see a lot of wild undisciplined punches.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 28, 2007)

I guess I was a bit hasty to draw conclusions based on my limited observations.  

And maybe I'm a bit partial to wrestling.


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I know this is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who doesn't even engage in streetfighting, but of all the fights I witnessed when I was in 'a bad place' they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown, sometimes 'tori' would throw 'uki' on his head!
> 
> In this 'bad place', where i spent 8 months, I saw at least one fight per week, and it was all rather similar. Angry words, the two combatants grab each other, and then the inevitable throw to the floor. No Kickboxing, people don't politely circle and jab, and no thirty minute groundfights that end with a choke or armlock. If this streetfighting resembled any sport, I would say Greco-roman Wrestling and Judo are the only two that even remotely fit the bill.
> 
> ...


 
I'll start by saying two things.  Nice post and no, I dont think you're babbling.   I agree, that having a knowledge of takedowns/groundwork is important.  Many places, such as what you described, such as a mental hospital, prison, etc., don't favor trading blows with the patients/inmates, so a controlling method would most likely be better.  

As for the completeness and effectiveness...IMO, I think that the two actually go a little hand in hand.  Being effective is of course very important.  There are some arts out there that, while they may address controlling methods, don't get as deep as some other arts, therefore, in order to be 'complete' it may be necessary to look elsewhere for those skills.  For example:  there are weapon defenses in Kenpo.  However, I wanted to further expand on my knowledge of them, so I looked towards a weapon based art, Modern Arnis.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Let me ask another question. Which art/sport/method is best? What is the most realistic martial art? Most martial artists and cops I've talked to say sambo, most med-taking/dubious background people say boxing, and I hear a lot about MMA on this and other message boards. Ive seen a lot of MMA on DVD and whatnot. Which is most realistic? Or is it a combination of things, like Muay Thai and Wrestling, or karate and jiu-jitsu, etc...?


 
Keep in mind a few things.  First, any art can be effective.  IMHO, its the way its trained that makes a big difference.  Second, for myself, I would rather go with something that works for me, rather than jump on the bandwagon, and go with the latest fad.  We had the Kickboxing craze, the Ninjutsu craze and in the 90's we had the MMA craze.  Dont mistake this as me saying that those things are not good, as they are, but again, I'm going to go with what works for me, not run out because someone else says its the best. 

Mike


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jul 28, 2007)

Thank you for a sober and clear reply.


----------



## Last Fearner (Jul 29, 2007)

I'm going to start with the following quote:



Freestyler777 said:


> "No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo.


In my opinion, I think this is a rather foolish statement. If someone trained and competed in Judo, then what they learned was, in fact, techniques from the orient. Until the 20th century, most of these advanced fighting skills could have been considered "secret" as non-Asians were not aware of them. "Hard work" is an important factor, but what was he working so hard on all the years of his training? It was the oriental technique of Judo.




Freestyler777 said:


> all the fights I witnessed....


This has proven to be the most pertinent part of many misconceptions about any subject - - including the Martial Art, street fighting, and what works or does not work. What you have personally witnessed is a small slice of reality, and does not really complete the whole picture of *why* what you saw worked!



Freestyler777 said:


> they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown....


In my experience (which is not limited by any means), the reason that a fight either begins with a clinch or involves clinching is as follows: 1. either both people want to clinch because that is what they are trained for, or 2. one person wants to clinch, but the other one does not, however the second person is not trained on how to avoid the clinch.

If we are talking about two random individuals (in an institution or otherwise) the quickest way to end a physical altercation is to strike the opponent fast enough, hard enough, and accurately enough to either knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from continuing. If one strike does not accomplish this, multiple strikes might be necessary.

The second quickest way (and not by a margin of much) is to effectively throw an attacker to the ground hard enough to knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from attacking. The third method is to apply a control, restraint, or submission hold which can knock them out (cut off air or blood supply), disable them (dislocating joints, breaking bones, or damaging muscles), or discouraging with pain so that they submit. The latter one takes a bit longer, and usually involves tying up of your own limbs to maintain control. This has disadvantages if there are multiple attackers.

Any close contact fighting runs the risk of being limited when dealing with multiple attackers (although it can be done), and has increased risk of being injured by a previously concealed weapon.

One thing that has been mentioned, which I will confirm, is that you really should lose this notion of "one art is better than another." Which weapon is better for killing: a sling shot, a bow and arrow, a hand-gun, a shotgun, or a riffle? Obviously, they can all do the job, and it depends on the situation, and how well trained the person using each "tool" is. Each weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, and some are better for long range, but they can all kill you.



Andy Moynihan said:


> In this case you describe to me, where most of the people involved in the fights appear to go only on natural instinct because of no formal training, then, absolutely--


This is 100% right on. You could witness ten thousand street-fights, and if every one of them used a clinch or went to the ground, that does not mean that this is the best choice for a trained Martial Artist. It just means that those people chose that route, perhaps because they lacked skills that would give them an alternate option. I would not say to a highly skilled punching/kicking Martial Artist that you should abandon those things and opt for ground-fighting because that is what most street-fighters do. The idea is that a Martial Artist should know what to do *IF* the fight goes to the ground, but their skills should prevent that in most cases.



Andy Moynihan said:


> --apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled. Striking in a scienced manner came a bit later


I don't want to disagree with this statement, but I would like to add my personal perspective. I believe that early fighting included both crude, unskilled and unrefined striking as well as wrestling. I don't believe that every conflict among early man started with, or was exclusively limited to wrestling. I can picture a couple of cavemen fighting over a piece of meat around the campfire, and one hits the other with his fist. Flinging fists of fury might ensue with little or no grappling.

While we can surmise that any form of fighting was the "seed" of modern fighting or even the "Martial Art," I don't consider these early fighting methods to be the earliest form of Martial Art. For two people to tackle one another, and roll around on the ground squeezing, twisting, biting and gouging does not qualify as "technical skill." Personally, I think that in order for a grappling technique to qualify as a Martial Art technique, it has to rise above the crude movements of natural responses, and be technically superior to your opponent's strength.

To fight an opponent who beats you because he is bigger or stronger is just crude, natural fighting ability. To make a hold work on a stronger person because you have applied the correct leverage, and used your strongest muscles against their weakest muscles is "smart" technical fighting and that is what creates a Martial Art curriculum. To swing your fist and randomly hit an opponent, by chance, in the head which knocks him out is not Martial Art skill. To utilize scientific principles to thrust with acceleration, strike a specific vulnerable area with pin-point accuracy, and to reinforce and support your power with internal reactionary movements and proper stances is superior fighting skills associated with the Martial Art.

Any of the Modern Day Martial Art systems contain these to varying degrees. Original Martial Art was not limited to a personal preference over striking, throwing or holding, but used any technique created, borrowed, or stolen that worked in combat. Many of today's schools and instructors are the product of those who came before them, dissecting the art, ripping it apart, and applying only those things *they* liked or worked for *them*. This is fine for a personal strategy, but does little to preserve the integrity of the whole Martial Art, thereby limiting options for future generations. How can you teach what you have not perfected in training. Then students are forced to seek elsewhere, and try to "mix" their training to re-make the whole again. "Mixed Martial Art" (MMA) is a good concept, but I believe it is a misnomer, and it is nothing new. It is merely reassembling the parts that were once considered to be the whole body of Martial Art training.

Limit yourself, if you want, but it is unwise to limit an entire system, lest future students find themselves playing hopscotch from school to school, retrieving all the parts that have been thrown about. Those who are serious, dedicated instructors should know better.

This is my humble opinion
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## still learning (Jul 29, 2007)

Hello, They say NO two fights are the same?  NO two combatants will be the same too? 

So how a fight ends up or ended...?  might not be the answer for the way we are training?,  because some fights do end with ONE punch, some with throws, and many with combintions of both.

Answer is we must train for all situtions!  At the same time we must also learn NO-rules of fighting (anything goes) style of fighing, biting,crawling,pinching,yelling,ripping,hair pulling,bust ear drums,breaking fingers/toes/ and anything else (except what MOM tell us).

Physcial fittness?  If you are not? expect the worst!  (take up VERBAL JUDO) instead!.........if you need to take them down? ...hit them with the book...............Aloha


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 29, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I know this is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who doesn't even engage in streetfighting, but of all the fights I witnessed when I was in 'a bad place' they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown, sometimes 'tori' would throw 'uki' on his head!



Question: The fight stopped with the takedown? Why? Did they hit their head into something? Did the person then strike them out? Or others stopped it by geting involved?

NOTE: My experience is that Most Fights have a weapon, stick, chain, bottle, knife, car, something that someone is using to take the advantage. When there is not weapon they use surprise and the sucker punch.



Freestyler777 said:


> In this 'bad place', where i spent 8 months, I saw at least one fight per week, and it was all rather similar. Angry words, the two combatants grab each other, and then the inevitable throw to the floor. No Kickboxing, people don't politely circle and jab, and no thirty minute groundfights that end with a choke or armlock. If this streetfighting resembled any sport, I would say Greco-roman Wrestling and Judo are the only two that even remotely fit the bill.



In places I worked for a few years to help pay for college, I saw fights nightly and multiple on Fridays and Saturdays. 

Angry words, maybe a sucker punch, or an improvised weapon, or even a carried weapon were used to start and or finish. Many times the first strike would stun the person enough so yes they went to the ground but to finish and do damage not because they both had to go. 

Now I did see some clinch and go down. I even saw some who rolled around trying to hit and or pin the others. (* late 80's so before the MMA craze *) They just did what they knew which was wrestiling from High School. 

I knew a guy that so many people were afraid of becuase he had two moves. Trap your hand down and hit hard in the face usually before you knew it was a fight. Most noses were broken. He hit me and my nose bent , no blood, it did hurt but I hit him back. His friends then got involved and tried to pull me off, so I started poking eyes, and slammed one into a wall to get away and get space. (* Yes, I forgot most fights I also saw had superior numbers on the agressive side. If not then they believed they had superior weapons. *)



Freestyler777 said:


> The obsession with MMA, which is merely modern pankration, will pass, as all things do. You can't make money off of wrestling and judo, they're amateur sports primarily, so people will erroneously go after fads that have their beginnings and ends. It's rather depressing.



In the 60's it was Judo and Ju-jitsu then it turned into Hard sparring with Karated and then some MT as well in the late 70's. Then in the 80's the Weapons' arts and other eclectic arts became more popular. 

I agree it is a circle, people concentrate on one area so much and then forgot another, or people get tired of somethign and move on. 



Freestyler777 said:


> From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.



No art is Best. 

It is the person. 

Untrained people who have no issue with killing you are more dangerous than the "BEST" fighter in the world who cares about people. 



Freestyler777 said:


> If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.




I am really confused about this. 

People who enjoy doing something, now are being told they should volunteer instead. Why? 

I repeat Why?

This arguement does not follow. 

If anyone who studied any art gave up the time and volunteered there should be an improvement. Why is it limited to one group? 

Pesonally I practice my art, and teach it and also give to charities and donations to help private citizens, so I do both. 



Freestyler777 said:


> My point is, fighting is for retarts, wrestling and judo is self defense, and people are wasting a lot of precious time doing things that don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.



I thought the word was retard, no matter how negative the word sounds, it has a "d" and not a "t" at the end. 

In the grand scheme of things it is all wasting a lot of precious time. going to work, for what Money? An abstract item that one can use to trade for goods one wants, that most likely they do not need or could get cheaper but they "WANT it". 

Look at the number of assaults in the area one lives. Then look at the type of assault and who did it. Then ask yourself what is the probability of you needing to defend yourself. Then see how little sense it makes to even try. For those I know work with, many of them have never even been in a fight let alone seen one. Now some are at more risk due to work or living locations, but even then ask yourself what is the rate of return? 

One only studies an art if one truly likes it. Now they might get some weight benefits and self-defense benefits as well, but in today's worl people do not do things they do not like to do. 



Freestyler777 said:


> And don't give me bs about 'completeness'. 'Completeness' is not an indicator of what is important in real combat. 'Effectiveness' is. And takedown sports are both safe, and 'quick kill' which means they take seconds to take effect, not 12 rounds or thirty minutes or an hour.



I agree that Effectiveness is important.

I disagree that Takedowns are both safe and quick kill. In my expereince it was not a real quick take down there was clinch work going on when it happened. In my experience those that went down got hurt, as the other guys' friends would kick him and or hit him with weapons. 

And I agree the fight would last 30 seconds to a couple of minutes and not rounds. But the problem is that they either gave it all and brought violence to the table or lost real quick as they guy was bringing it. 

And please do not give me an BS about "Real Combative"  as there are too many situations to one thing is true for all. 



Freestyler777 said:


> And I'm sure a few karate purists will get angry at this post, and say that wrestling and judo are just scholastic sports, but I will refer you to Lao Tzu who said, 'That the soft can overcome the hard, and the gentle overcome the rigid- few in the world can realize this!" Takedown sports are fun, healthy, a good social activity, a teacher of positive sportsmanlike values, and the best self-defense.



I do not study Karate. I am not angry. I am confused by your comments and by your lack in insight that you claim. 


Now, I agree that takedown sports are fun ad they can be healthy, as I have seen some take it to tapping or choking out the underbelts to prove their dominance, which I dod not consider safe. I have seen people hit their head in falls which is not safe or healthy. But can it be, yes, it can be, but then it losses some of its' effectiveness. 

I agree that a positive teacher and values are good. 

I disagree that it is the best self-defense. 



Freestyler777 said:


> "No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo. I think that just about says it all.



I think Mr. Rogers was trying to say that it was not the art, but what he did to get where he is. And also maybe give credit to the GOLD medal winner, for where he got with his training.


----------



## Yeti (Jul 30, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I was more condemming MMA and combat sports in general, not martial arts.


 
No you weren't - your condemnation seems pretty clear...see your other post.



Freestyler777 said:


> I grant you these were not the big fish, but they were eye-opening enough to see that MA is largely hogwash.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Aug 1, 2007)

It's times like this I laugh because I'm a face biter.


----------



## Odin (Aug 1, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.
> 
> If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.
> 
> ...


----------

