# How close do UFC fights come to real life self defence?



## Corporal Hicks (Dec 8, 2004)

I saw a UFC championship fight the other and noticed how almost all of the time the fights end up ground fighting of some kind. Is the UFC rules of fighting closer to self defence than to sparring do you think? Or does it depend?

Cheers


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 8, 2004)

I'd say it's closer to real world fighting than sparring.  Most street fights end up on the ground.


----------



## The Kai (Dec 8, 2004)

Some aspects were cool, however the hype about street fights all going to the ground .... wrong!  But, it hyped up BJJ
Todd


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 8, 2004)

It's not really close at all. Environment, available weapons, other people, and rules makes a "real fight" completely different then a NHB match. Not to mention that most people on the street are not going to be as well trained as an NHB fighter, so they are going to fight differently and employ different tactics.

That said, NHB fighting is still a great learning tool...

Paul


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 8, 2004)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Some aspects were cool, however the hype about street fights all going to the ground .... wrong! But, it hyped up BJJ
> Todd


I've heard that from a few of my instructors.  I don't really agree with it either but that's what I was told.  Personally the ground is the last place I want to go!


----------



## tmonis (Dec 8, 2004)

UFC is awesome. However I think Karazenpo posted not to long ago about Larry King showing some videos on his show from street gangs that had actually started real fight clubs in California. He was saying that those are the kinds of tapes we need as Martial Artist to see how a real street fight goes down. (I think it was Karazenpo. Somebody did anyway.)

I can tell you from back in my day of street fighting, if you overwelm your opponent, they usually will try to cover up and go to the ground in a ball at first. Then when they see no way out of the fight, they begin to fight harder.

Prof. Todd


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2004)

NHB/UFC is in most cases a sport, and sports have rules.
Real street fights don't, beyond "survive".

So, until I see Shamrock pull out a punch dagger or Rus a glock, I'll remain a sceptic.

I don't deny it's a physical competition, but "Self Defence"? Nope.


----------



## tmonis (Dec 8, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> NHB/UFC is in most cases a sport, and sports have rules.
> Real street fights don't, beyond "survive".
> 
> So, until I see Shamrock pull out a punch dagger or Rus a glock, I'll remain a sceptic.
> ...


Kaith,

That is a very good call. I can remember as a kid I use to love wrestling on TV and thought that they were all true enemies. Until I went in a resturant and saw 4 of the worst enemies eating breakfast together and having a good time. I was crushed. Never crossed my mind it was just entertainment. lol.

Prof. Todd


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2004)

Heh, I've got 20+ years of pro-wrestling watching experience (plus a few injuries from back-yarding it....)  

Pro-wrestling (especially the older stuff) is a good example of legitimate martial arts used in an entertainment fashion. (old-school wrestling is based on judo and aikido techniques.  Modern is based on gymnastics.) 

The stuff you see 'might' work, if somewhat modified, but.....it's just not 'street fight' material, y'know?


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Dec 8, 2004)

> It's not really close at all. Environment, available weapons, other people, and rules makes a "real fight" completely different then a NHB match. Not to mention that most people on the street are not going to be as well trained as an NHB fighter, so they are going to fight differently and employ different tactics.
> That said, NHB fighting is still a great learning tool...
> 
> Paul



I would agree. Also

The octogon floor is nice and padded. The street is not. The UFC early years, the Dog Brothers were to have a stick fight. The Promotors back then, thought that they were too brutal for the UFC. So the fight never happen. Considering the UFC don't have matches that involve multiple attackers, weapons, tight quarters. Look at the NBA fight that happen in the stands. How are you going to grapple there.


----------



## James Kovacich (Dec 8, 2004)

Everythings been covered already except a NHB will be quick to overwelm their opponent and thats a big plus. The initial confrontation is something that is at times neglected. 

I tell my students not to be thinking about what they are going to do. Just stop the opponents initial movement and THEN deal with them appropriately.


----------



## shane23ss (Dec 8, 2004)

Sorry, but i disagree with some points made here. (Agree with most). 

1) I think the early days of UFC were alot closer to a street fight than now because of the rule changes, such as time limits and breaking up a guard position for crowd enjoyment.

2) akja has a good point about the fighters overwelming their opponent. That is probably as close to a street fight as you can get. 

3) Tulisan said most people on the street are not as well trained, that is correct, so alot of people will just rush in as fast as possible, trying to do some damage, completely ignorant to what their "trained" opponent is about to do to them. As far as weapons, that is a factor, but not a huge one. Most "untrained" people really don't think to pick up a weapon simply cause they don't see "weapons" the same as a "trained" people, and if they did pick up one they would probably just injure themselves. lol. Also, unless you are trained (or maybe disturbed), it is not really human nature to use a weapon against another human being. (thus the slash wound instead of stab seen so often in knife attacks).

4) Going to the ground: alot of street fights do end up on the ground. some falls, trips over something, knocked down by opponent, etc. or like tmonis said, some one might go to the ground and curl into a ball. In most instances, if one goes to the ground, then the untrained opponent might see it as him winning and jump on you.

O.K. to get back to the topic (sorry) the UFC is fairly close to a real street fight in the way of the fighters rushing one or the other, and a lot of them ending up on the ground.

Respectfully, 
Shane


----------



## Dragon Fist (Dec 8, 2004)

Lots of good issues covered on this thread, I'd have to agree that it is totally deferent. Besides the padded floor, there is also the rules. In a real fight, there are no rules. No cups and eye poking and fish hooking can be used, to mention a few. And this is if the opponent hasnt already picked up some kind of weapon.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2004)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> I saw a UFC championship fight the other and noticed how almost all of the time the fights end up ground fighting of some kind. Is the UFC rules of fighting closer to self defence than to sparring do you think? Or does it depend?
> 
> Cheers



It prepares you to an extent, but not fully.  Its better than regular sparring due to the fact that it has nowhere near the rules.  However, it does have rules, where the street does not.  The first few UFC events had a few rules, but again, nowhere near what they have today.

As for the ground fighting...its important to have those skills under your belt due to the fact that we can't predict if a fight will go down or not.

Better to be safe than sorry.

Mike


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 9, 2004)

i think any fight that is done for "contest" as opposed to a life saving  or protection measure is entirely different. when someone is contest fighting they have time to prepare, view another fighters prior matches, develop some sort of strategy or game plan and finally to mentally prepare themselves to do battle.
in a life saving or life preserving confrontation, none of this prior knowledge or preparation is available, so an entirely different approach to being prepared must be taken.
you cant stand there wondering if the fight is going to go to the ground, with a bunch of statistics that dont matter running through your head. 
what are you going to do when that first attack comes?

shawn


----------



## auxprix (Dec 9, 2004)

I'll admit, I've never been in a fight. But I HAVE been close, and the environment was not a large open space. The encounters were in tighter spaces.

Another thing that's missing in UFC is the sucker punch. Two people go at eachother knowing they're going to fight. But on this side of the TV screen, things can change from an argument into a broken nose in a matter of seconds. 

So, no, not very realistic. I have no doubts that the UFC guys could destroy an assailant in a real fight though.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Dec 9, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think any fight that is done for "contest" as opposed to a life saving or protection measure is entirely different. when someone is contest fighting they have time to prepare, view another fighters prior matches, develop some sort of strategy or game plan and finally to mentally prepare themselves to do battle.
> 
> 
> Yeah but surely as Martial Artists who train in self defence we do to an exent train ourselves to do battle with an opponent with somebody who may come to fight us in real life. We prepare through mental prep and physical prep, so to an exent we are pre-prepared!
> I dont know i may be wrong!


----------



## Dragon Fist (Dec 9, 2004)

As Shawn pointed out, in a contest, the fighters have a chance to train and get their self prepared. In a real fight, you have but seconds to prepare. You can prepare your body physically by training, but it is different when you dont have the time to get your adrenalin flowing. I once asked a doctor why fighters can take so much punishment and not get knocked out or hurt right away. He said its because the fighters adrenalin is already working. When someone gets caught cold, thats when they can get seriously injured or even die.


----------



## Bod (Dec 9, 2004)

The UFC is never going to be 'like a street fight'. Only a street fight is like a street fight.

That said, is the UFC closer to a street fight than boxing? I'd say yes. More than wrestling? I'd say yes again. The UFC is going to be closer in terms of skills that are street effective than most one on one martial sports.

However, like any form of training, there are always limitations, and if you are looking to be street survival effective, then you must know what your practice is missing, and what parts of your practice are detrimental to 'streetfighting'. Examples of these limitations have been given earlier in this thread.

One practice that is detrimental to street survival in MMA training is the tendency to grab the head for a choke when you are lunged at, and then to get a guard position as you fall back. The guard is a poor position to be in a streetfight (though far better than being mounted of course).

Another detrimental practice is learning to fight defensively. Clearly when fighting one-on-one it is most effective to balance attack and defence. But when fighting against more than one person it is better to immediately attack one person very hard to create a gap, and then escape out of that gap.

I think UFC style training is good for self-defence up to a point. It is important to know what that point is though, whatever type of fighting training you are doing.


----------



## shane23ss (Dec 9, 2004)

Good points made


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 9, 2004)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> BlackCatBonz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 19, 2004)

Honestly, with as much time as the UFC competitiors spend circling each other and jockying for a better position, I would be 10 blocks away and still running in a self-defense situation.


----------



## KenpoGuy71 (Dec 19, 2004)

Combat sports is definitely not the same as self-defense.
But, I think we could learn a lot from training in an "alive" fashion as these individuals do. 

Mix it in with awareness training, fear reactivity training, weapons etc.
A lot of the sparring I've seen is a game of tag... very little intent, imho.

When I say "Alive training", I mean "sparring". That doesn't mean sparring should replace your other training (including solo forms training), all I'm saying is that it should be an important aspect of your training

By the way, sparring to me is an integral part of the training process, not a means to an end. It is a way to train your fear reactivity, i.e. how to cope with your flinch reflex and adrenal response. This type of training (again imho) should be done at various speeds, such as slow movement sparring (without changing physics, i.e. track someones head by changing your force vector in the middle of your strike, which would be impossible at full speed); to full contact training wearing something like Tony Blauer's 'High Gear'.

People train for different reasons, but if you are serious about DEFENDING yourself, you should take the precautionary steps and train to defend yourself by training alive against fully resistant opponents.

Of course, the chances that anyone is going to get attacked are rather slim, much less being able to use your chosen art during a panicked state. However many people are under the illusion that they can actually defend themselves which in many cases are not the case (even with many years of training) when put in a stressful situation. I've seen a lot of "experienced" practiotioners panic and "freak out" during training sessions where we try to create and work on their fear reactivity.

Just my $0.02.

KG


----------



## Shu2jack (Dec 19, 2004)

> I've seen a lot of "experienced" practiotioners panic and "freak out" during training sessions where we try to create and work on their fear reactivity.


What kinds of things do you do to train one's "fear reactivity"?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2004)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> I saw a UFC championship fight the other and noticed how almost all of the time the fights end up ground fighting of some kind. Is the UFC rules of fighting closer to self defence than to sparring do you think? Or does it depend?
> 
> Cheers


If you want the closest thing to a street fight, watch Tank Abbott fight. That's what most street fights look like. Sometimes they do end up on the ground, but it rarely ends in an arm bar (Notice I didn't say never does). It's fast paced and brutal.

I've been in several street fights and i've had to control aggressive subjects numerous times in my 8 year career as a street cop. The difference between the street and the UFC? Here's a few.

The guys you'll fight on the street aren't as tough (lets hope) as the guys you'll meet in the UFC, but that doesn't mean they can't fight.

There's an element of surprise on the street not present in the Octagon. If you're in the ring, you know why you're there and what you need to do. It's different on the street, where you have to decide when and IF to hit the other guy.  There's no Ref to tell you when the fight starts and when it stops.

You don't always just fight one guy on the street.

They don't allow weapons in the Octagon (goes both ways).

One final important difference. There's no Ref to stop the fight and no ringside physician.

That having been said, an arm bar is an arm bar, a choke is a choke, a knock out punch is a knock out punch, in the UFC or on the street. (hint, the choke and the punch work even BETTER sometimes on the street, because you have the element of surprise). 

I can tell you as a police defensive tactics instructor, if you're planning on that fancy combination to save your life, you've already lost. Keep it simple, because when the adrenaline kicks in, all you'll remember are the simple techniques.   And you can't be afraid to hurt someone else.  That's one of the most misunderstood parts of self-defense.  Many people really don't want to hurt someone else, so they try to fight defensively (i.e., keep the other guy from hurting them).  A good defense will get you hurt, aggression wins fights.

Just remember three important aspects of street combat....Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action.....and you'll probably be ok.  (the fourth aspect of street combat is to accept that there are no guarantees, that's why there are very few old street fighters)


----------



## tmanifold (Dec 29, 2004)

I would say that the UFC actually comes pretty close to a "street fight" but is light years away from Self Defense. When one thinks Street fight they tend to think of those fights they have seen at the bar. Self defense is more of the mugging, or straight assualt scenario. In a street fight both are will participants but in self defense only one wants the fight. 

Tony


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2004)

tmanifold said:
			
		

> I would say that the UFC actually comes pretty close to a "street fight" but is light years away from Self Defense. When one thinks Street fight they tend to think of those fights they have seen at the bar. Self defense is more of the mugging, or straight assualt scenario. In a street fight both are will participants but in self defense only one wants the fight.
> 
> Tony


"Self-Defense" is a word I have to wonder sometimes doesn't put us behind the curve. Thinking defensively in certain situations may be a mistake. I find that taking the offense and becoming the aggressor, taking control and dominating and imposing my will in certain situations, results in a greater likelyhood of a positive outcome for me. Just a thought. If someone assaults me to dominate and destroy me, the last thing I want to be thinking is "Defense". I should be thinking "Attack, Attack, Attack". Defense is what the predator is prepared to deal with. Aggression usually scares predators away.  Anyone who has been in the military and learned basic small unit tactics knows that when you are ambushed, you don't flee, you don't try and fight defensively, those responses are what the ambush is designed around and they will get you killed.  You attack in to the ambush, as many times breaking the will of the ambushing party and causing enough damage to them by bringing the fight to them is the only hope you have.


----------



## Kunoichi (Dec 30, 2004)

I dont think they have much in common to self defence but UFC fights are full contact so competitors are used to full force strikes.  I think most people are not prepared for the shock from being hit and this causes them to lose the fight at the start. The UFC fighter might not have adrenalin going right away in the self-defence situation but I think they would be less off guard after they get hit first compared to the majority of people. This might just save them if they are surprise attacked.


----------



## ace (Dec 30, 2004)

Having been in Streetfights & cadge Fights
I can say for sure it's dam harder in the cadge...

When im Fighting in the cadge the other Fighter
is trained to to do what ever it takes to win...

I've been in Street fights with a few Big Mouths
Who looked the looked & talked the Talk but when
the **** hit the Fan most Chumped out in a Matter of Seconds..

The danger in the St. is aganist Multi. Fighters 
 & Weapons.. But thats something no matter how hard U
Train U can never be 100% Ready..

MMA Fighters Train hard for a fight & Yes we have
the a chance to view tapes but when U are in the Dressing room
& they Say Your Up U have to be ready to give 100%

If U want to find out how good your Selfdefence is
Then Try MMA if Your Technique is as good as U think
Then U should have noproblems.

If U get Spanked down quick Maybe it's Time
to Rethink about the Training U are doing :asian:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 30, 2004)

ace, would you not agree then that ufc full contact fighting is nothing like street self defense...or real life self defense?
like you said, "the **** hit the fan  most chumped out in a matter of seconds"
i definitely think contest fighting is a different animal altogether from self defense.
it takes more stamina, strength, strategy and pre training in order to keep in top notch shape.
but each fighter isnt going into the ring with the intent of killing the other guy, and if they are......what the heck is wrong with them?

shawn


----------



## SammyB57 (Dec 31, 2004)

The UFC's taught one lesson. A striker with no grappling is screwed.

Personally, I like Bas Rutten's style. He is a very good kickboxer, but he can also fight on the ground.

I dont think 95% of fights end up on the ground UFC style, but I do think knowing how to use a clinch and knowing how to protect yourself on the ground is important.


----------



## SammyB57 (Dec 31, 2004)

Street fights and self-defense are different too.

Honestly, if you are defending your life, you need a gun nowadays. If someone is trying to kill you, they're just going to shoot you.

If they just want your money, give it to them.

If you're at a bar, you should just avoid fights, but if you cant, the sucker punch works nicely.

But karate doesn't matter.... being able to use a hammer you find in your garage as an improvised weapon is a much better skill.


----------



## Simon Curran (Dec 31, 2004)

SammyB57 said:
			
		

> Street fights and self-defense are different too.
> 
> Honestly, if you are defending your life, you need a gun nowadays. If someone is trying to kill you, they're just going to shoot you.
> 
> ...


I agree with you in general, but most predators aren't looking to work too hard, and if they look like they might be getting in the crap with a particaular person then they are just gonna look for an easier prey...


----------



## TChase (Dec 31, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> the course of action in self defense is action itself. when being attacked, there is no defense......only a concentrated effort to total offense





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Self-Defense" is a word I have to wonder sometimes doesn't put us behind the curve. Thinking defensively in certain situations may be a mistake. I find that taking the offense and becoming the aggressor, taking control and dominating and imposing my will in certain situations, results in a greater likelyhood of a positive outcome for me. Just a thought. If someone assaults me to dominate and destroy me, the last thing I want to be thinking is "Defense". I should be thinking "Attack, Attack, Attack". Defense is what the predator is prepared to deal with. Aggression usually scares predators away. Anyone who has been in the military and learned basic small unit tactics knows that when you are ambushed, you don't flee, you don't try and fight defensively, those responses are what the ambush is designed around and they will get you killed. You attack in to the ambush, as many times breaking the will of the ambushing party and causing enough damage to them by bringing the fight to them is the only hope you have.


 
ABSOLUTELY!!!  Truer words have never been spoken.  I believe a certain wise old Japanese swordsman spoke those same words about 450 years ago.   The "self defense" mindset is an illusion.  If you want to beat the action you have to meet the action.  Attack the Attack.


----------



## ace (Dec 31, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> ace, would you not agree then that ufc full contact fighting is nothing like street self defense...or real life self defense?
> like you said, "the **** hit the fan  most chumped out in a matter of seconds"
> i definitely think contest fighting is a different animal altogether from self defense.
> it takes more stamina, strength, strategy and pre training in order to keep in top notch shape.
> ...



Yes I agree 100% They are Different
There are things I would do in St Fight That
I would not do in The Ring Such as start of with A Nut Buster
or Pull My Knife. 

MMA Fights are Much Tuffer than most St Fights
Many St Fights are stoped as they Happen.

I can Recall a Time I got Smacked in My Face
I shot a Double Leg Picked The Guy & Slamed Him
We were pounced on By Everyone in the Room & taken away
from Each other.

MMA is a form of Empty hand Self Defence for sure But
in Real Life The Hand is not alway's Empty.


----------



## Adept (Jan 1, 2005)

ace said:
			
		

> MMA Fights are Much Tuffer than most St Fights
> Many St Fights are stoped as they Happen.


 I'll agree with that. However, it is important to remember that the stakes are much higher in the street, and the variables much harder to calculate. So while physically less challenging, it is 'harder' to succesfully fight in the street.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 1, 2005)

The UFC proved that the best prepared fighter is the one that will win (strategy, technique, physical attributes and conditioning etc).  Anything further about style vs. style and what you are really arguing is the man in the fight and the training methods used to get there.

One fallacy that I hear about MMA and "self-defense" is the assumption that they are ONLY trained as sports and the instructors don't talk at all about de-escalation, awareness, etc.

One fallacy that I hear about TMAs and "self-defense" is that they NEVER do sparring or practice against resisting opponents to in a "real fight" they won't know what to do.

I think that both camps can learn from each other and incorporate certain methodologies into their training to make them better prepared for a conflict outside of a ring.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2005)

It might bare keeping in mind the purpose of MMA.  It was to test which styles worked best against each other.  The Gracies and others were teaching guys to fight in the streets for years before the UFC.  All the MMA tournaments did was seperate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 3, 2005)

> It was to test which styles worked best against each other. The Gracies and others were teaching guys to fight in the streets for years before the UFC. All the MMA tournaments did was seperate the wheat from the chaff.


 I don't that it was that way totally.  The first UFC's  had the Gracies knowing exactly who was fighting and could train for it.  Gracies had also spent all of their time training to defeat a striker and their system is largely based on that.  People then looked at their strategy and filled the holes in it, so it all comes down to who has the better strategy and the tools/techniques to implement it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2005)

Good point!  The quality of people in the first few UFC events were really no match for Gracie.  Notice though that by 3, when Gracie fought Kimo, and then went quite the distance with Severn, it was apparent that the quality had greatly risen.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2005)

The reason for that is because the BJJ had been being tested on the streets of Brazil for years.  They knew what worked because they tested it.  It wasn't the fault of the Gracies that the first few contestants demonstrating other styles were clueless because they assumed it would work as advertised.  That was the point.


----------



## Strat_Tones (Jan 26, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Good point! The quality of people in the first few UFC events were really no match for Gracie. Notice though that by 3, when Gracie fought Kimo, and then went quite the distance with Severn, it was apparent that the quality had greatly risen.
> 
> Mike


You are correct that the talent pool in MMA has risen greatly, but you are wrong on a few points.

When I was a semi-traditional martial artist, I thought Kimo did great against Royce Gracie, and I thought Severn almost beat him.  After training Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for a while now, I can certainly say that Kimo never had Royce in trouble, AT ALL, and Severn, while he lasted a long time, did not have the tools to beat Royce.  And no, I'm not a Gracie nuthugger.  I've just had skilled BJJ people in positions similar to Kimo vs. Royce and then find out they were only setting me up, just like Kimo vs. Royce.


----------



## Strat_Tones (Jan 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The reason for that is because the BJJ had been being tested on the streets of Brazil for years. They knew what worked because they tested it. It wasn't the fault of the Gracies that the first few contestants demonstrating other styles were clueless because they assumed it would work as advertised. That was the point.


This is very true.  In many parts of Brazil, Jiu-Jitsu players are looked at as bullying scum, because they constantly pick fights to test their jiu-jitsu.  I know a few Brazilians (and non-Brazilians) who have trained BJJ in Brazil.  It isn't (or wasn't, back in the day) uncommon to learn a new position, and then go pick a fight after class to test it out.  BJJ was developed for self-defense, not for fighting in a ring.  It always makes me laugh when people think that BJJ players will fare poorly in a street fight -- this art was forged on the streets!!!


----------



## Strat_Tones (Jan 26, 2005)

Sorry, one more post.  I swear this one will be on topic.

I agree that the UFC doesn't EXACTLY resemble a street fight.  Everyone knows that.  But if you're using that as an excuse to avoid training in MMA, then you're deluding yourself.

However, for real-life self defense, there is simply no better training than MMA style training, no matter what you're background.  

Spouting theories on self defense, knife attacks, biting, eye gouging, broken glass, concrete, etc. is absolutely worthless.  The only thing that will save your skin (other than a gun/knife/etc) is lots of real training, with proven techniques, against a resisting opponent.  
If you spend the majority of your time training in the empty air, or with a willing opponent, then you are not training for real life.  Simple as that, and irrefutable.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2005)

Strat_Tones said:
			
		

> You are correct that the talent pool in MMA has risen greatly, but you are wrong on a few points.
> 
> When I was a semi-traditional martial artist, I thought Kimo did great against Royce Gracie, and I thought Severn almost beat him.  After training Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for a while now, I can certainly say that Kimo never had Royce in trouble, AT ALL, and Severn, while he lasted a long time, did not have the tools to beat Royce.  And no, I'm not a Gracie nuthugger.  I've just had skilled BJJ people in positions similar to Kimo vs. Royce and then find out they were only setting me up, just like Kimo vs. Royce.



Just for clarification, I was not attempting to compare any of the Gracie fights, but simply comparing two fighters to those in the first few UFC events, showing that as time went on, the fighters got better.  Seeing that you're addressing Kimo and Severn in your post, I'll reply to that.

Severn, like many of the first contenders, entered as a one dimensional fighter.  He was using strictly wrestling, and it was not until UFC 5, that you actually saw him throw any serious blows.  In UFC 4, he basically layed on Gracie, keeping him against the fence.  Gracie was finally able to get a triangle.  

As for Kimo.  I just finished watching the fight in question.  Gracie was doing his textbook moves: Get to the clinch and pull the person into the guard, and work from there.  Kimo was giving him some probs. early on due to the fact that it was almost 2min. before the fight went to the ground.  Twice, Kimo got his back.  Both fighters were extremely tired by the end, but it was Royce who was not able to continue.  

As for this:





> I've just had skilled BJJ people in positions similar to Kimo vs. Royce and then find out they were only setting me up, just like Kimo vs. Royce.



I too have a background in BJJ, so I think its safe to assume that anyone who has done any grappling, has been in both the top and bottom position.  One thing to keep in mind here:  We are looking at a fight from the early 90's.  The majority of fighters then, did not have the exp. on the ground as they do today.  Again, Gracie was, in all of his fights, doing his textbook moves..clinch, and pull to the guard.  Due to the fact that not many fighters knew much about grappling, let alone the guard, it was fairly easy for Royce to dominate in this position.  Look at the fights of today and what do you see?  Ground and Pound from the guard position.  Once fighters started to understand the ground game, they were able to begin to be able to counter the move that won so many fights.  Its easy to vie for position and work the guard when nobody is punching you, but when those strikes are added in, it changes the game entirely.

Thank you for the discussion.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2005)

Strat_Tones said:
			
		

> Sorry, one more post.  I swear this one will be on topic.
> 
> I agree that the UFC doesn't EXACTLY resemble a street fight.  Everyone knows that.  But if you're using that as an excuse to avoid training in MMA, then you're deluding yourself.
> 
> ...



Interesting post.  I have to say that I agree and disagree with some of what you're saying here.  MMA does bring the fight aspect closer to a street fight, compared to point sparring, but we need to keep in mind that it is not the end all-be all of real self defense.  I agree with your statement that it is important to make sure that training is done with resistance and aliveness.  That is something that I have been saying for a long time.  However, we can't forget that the ring is not the street.  Not taking into consideration mult. attackers, weapons, the environment that you're in at the time, etc. is a mistake!  

Keep in mind that we fight like we train.  That being said, while it does not take a rocket scientist to do a groin kick or eye jab, the fact remains that MMA does have rules and the fighters need to gear their training for those rules.  When you're in the heat of battle, you're going to fall back on whats been drilled into you.  Forgetting that while you have your opp. mounted in the street, he could be gouging your eyes or biting you is also a mistake.  

If one is serious about SD, they should make sure that they address all possible areas into their training.  Punching, Kicking, Clinch, Grappling, Weapons, Mult. attackers, knowledge of SD laws, etc. is key to being as effective as one can get.

Mike


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 27, 2005)

One thing to keep in mind, I think, in all ths is that all MA were designed for fighting, for combat.  Whether you train in them as a sport, an art, or a fighting skill is really a matter of the student and the instructor, you are going to get a much different result depending on how you approach it.  If you train TKD for point sparring or for Olympic sparring or for combat, it's going to be different. If you train it for fighting it's going to be *much* different because if you go in with an attitude that 'this is to protect myself from someone who *really* wants tohurt me and he doesn't play by the rules!', you suddenly have also sorts of new ways to attack and new targets to train for.  Most MA have a *lot* of techniques that are simply not allowed in the sparring arena, which means if you train for sparring then you may be missing some important combat techniques but if you train in the full MA, and train for combat/SD, you're probably in pretty good shape.  Anyway, most or all TMA were designed at one point as fighting techniques against real opponents who wanted someone dead; if being ready for that matters to you, then the techniques are in there

Any sporting event, even those that allow for mixed approaches, are going to be artifical, as has been pointed out  Nice padded floors (not hardwood or concrete or asphalt), no street poles or tables to duck behind, limited room for evasion, no buddies with bottles or shivs hidden in boots or, no eye gouging or biting or...   Even if person A using style X can beat person B using style Y in the limited format of an organized sparring match; does not mean that X is better than Y at street-fighting/SD or is 'designed for the street' or whatever.  Could be that A is merely better trained and better conditioned than B, could be that A is better at applying X in that situation than B is with Y.  Could be the rules don't allow all of Y to be used because they don't allow breaking knees and snapping elbows and crushing trachea, etc...etc...

What you see in a ring is, well, what you see in a ring.  People good in a ring are good and what it takes to be good and a ring.  I think extrapolating much beyond that is....not easily done


----------



## Baytor (Jan 27, 2005)

Strat_Tones said:
			
		

> Sorry, one more post. I swear this one will be on topic.
> 
> I agree that the UFC doesn't EXACTLY resemble a street fight. Everyone knows that. But if you're using that as an excuse to avoid training in MMA, then you're deluding yourself.
> 
> ...


I completely agree that training with aliveness is an important part of realistic self defense training.  I also think a strong working knowledge of ground grappling is very important for a well rounded martial artist.  On the other hand, I think that going to the ground really places you in danger in a "street" situation.  For one thing, I've seen too many street fights where friends jump in.  If you think your opponent's buddies won't jump in and club the back your head like a baby harp seal, you're in for a painful lesson.


----------



## still learning (Jan 27, 2005)

Hello, We will never see real fighing and no rules in the ring of any kind (Romans did) . UFC does bring an almost like real fighting. I agree with the police officer in the early post, real fights are unpredictable. 

 Is there a way to train in real fighting situations? Can all the different variations of real fighting be taught? and defense learned? Is this what we all are looking for? 

 I like the idea of training hard, avoid all troubles and walk (run if needed) away, and live to enjoy the next day. Hospital bills, law suits and jail time may not be fun, if you decide to use your pride (Ego's) to fight back. ...Aloha ( (Yes! sometimes we need to fight back because of no choice.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Interesting post. I have to say that I agree and disagree with some of what you're saying here. MMA does bring the fight aspect closer to a street fight, compared to point sparring, but we need to keep in mind that it is not the end all-be all of real self defense. I agree with your statement that it is important to make sure that training is done with resistance and aliveness. That is something that I have been saying for a long time. However, we can't forget that the ring is not the street. Not taking into consideration mult. attackers, weapons, the environment that you're in at the time, etc. is a mistake!
> 
> Keep in mind that we fight like we train. That being said, while it does not take a rocket scientist to do a groin kick or eye jab, the fact remains that MMA does have rules and the fighters need to gear their training for those rules. When you're in the heat of battle, you're going to fall back on whats been drilled into you. Forgetting that while you have your opp. mounted in the street, he could be gouging your eyes or biting you is also a mistake.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to take issue with the bulk of what you said, but I do want to pose a question.  Undoubtedly, getting eye gouged would be a very painful and a possibly fight ending thing.  

Biting, however, has never seemed very effective to me.  I saw this having been bitten a few times in fights.  The interesting thing about being bitten was that during the fight, I never felt anything but a vague, distant pain.  It was never enough to make me stop what i'm doing, or alter my strategy (except make me mad).  

In addition, i've seen guys biting in a fight, and it was usually the guy losing who did the biting, and just after the bite occurred, the guy doing the biting invariably got seriously hurt, as the bitting seemed to make the bittee mad.  

So, from a practical stand point, is the fact that UFC fighters can't bite, in anyway make it less effective for self-defense.  I once saw a guy who got part of his ear bitten off in a fight, he didn't know it until the fight was over. 

Unless someone bites me in the neck or the groin (ouch), it's not going to work anyway, so is this even a serious self-defense technique that someone can count on?  Granted, if the chips are down and I have nothing else, i'll probably give it a shot myself, but how often does it change the course of a fight?


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2005)

Sgtmac- I'll address 2 parts of your post.

1-  Will a NHB fighter do well?? I guess it all depends on the person.  As I said, NHB is not the end all be all to SD!  You're going to fight like you train.  We can't compare street to MMA due to the rules. Biting is one example that I used.  Keep in mind that there are other things to take into consideration.

2-  Biting in fact can be very effective.  Paul Vunak has a tape out called Kino Mutai.  He focuses strictly on how to bite.  Like anything, it all comes down on how you apply it.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 28, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Sgtmac- I'll address 2 parts of your post.
> 
> 1- Will a NHB fighter do well?? I guess it all depends on the person. As I said, NHB is not the end all be all to SD! You're going to fight like you train. We can't compare street to MMA due to the rules. Biting is one example that I used. Keep in mind that there are other things to take into consideration.
> 
> ...


Biting is a PAIN to deal with as a distraction technique, let alone as a dysfunctioning technique.

I would say sinking your chompers down to the bone on someones thumb would be really distracting as well as an effective way of disabling someone's ability to grab, clutch or even make a good fist for striking.  The number of sensory receptors in the fingers is really high therefore the intensity of pain that they register is higher than a body blow in some cases.

Biting is effective, if anyone doubts it, just incorporate it into sparring or self defense scenarios once and see the effect on others and feel it on yourself....not fun.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to take issue with the bulk of what you said, but I do want to pose a question. Undoubtedly, getting eye gouged would be a very painful and a possibly fight ending thing.


This is a misconception because organs don't have sensory receptors in them.  You can touch organs and not 'feel' the touch but 'feel' the effect in areas around the touch.  Sort of like when you get numbed up by the Dentist.  You can't feel that portion of your face, but you still register the 'touch' because of the areas around it.

Eye gouges won't cause severe amounts of pain relative to some other attacks.  It will cause lose of vision/visual aquity/depth perception and such as well as some serious psychological impact if the bad guy is not absolutely berzerked.


----------



## Adept (Jan 28, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Eye gouges won't cause severe amounts of pain relative to some other attacks. It will cause lose of vision/visual aquity/depth perception and such as well as some serious psychological impact if the bad guy is not absolutely berzerked.


 I dont know, whenever I get poked in the eye with any kind of seriousness, it _really frickin hurts_. Like a red-hot poker being shoved into my skull. Obviously, it might not hurt as much as some other attacks, but it still causes a large amount of pain.


----------



## Turbo (Jan 28, 2005)

Yes getting poked in the eye hurts, getting bit hurts....the only way you will know how close it comes is to step into a match...can be a ring, or cage....The guy across the ring is going to try and F... you up....

Look at V. Silva when he fights....even if I could use a eye gouge or a bit I still wouldnt think about getting in the ring with him.  HE is still out to kill you legally within the rules (sometimes not within the rules).

You will learn alot from it thou!


----------



## Baytor (Jan 29, 2005)

I think that something that a lot of MMA guys have going for them for self defense is their physical fitness.  A lot of these guys work out hardcore and are that is something that will help them.  While it's not even the biggest factor, it is one to consider.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 29, 2005)

I'd like to hear Loren Christensen or Karazenpo or John Bishop weigh in on this. Police officers with a lot of experience in dealing with street situations. I read in one of his books that Christensen said his fights NEVER went to the ground.


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2005)

Turbo said:
			
		

> Yes getting poked in the eye hurts, getting bit hurts....the only way you will know how close it comes is to step into a match...can be a ring, or cage....The guy across the ring is going to try and F... you up....
> 
> Look at V. Silva when he fights....even if I could use a eye gouge or a bit I still wouldnt think about getting in the ring with him.  HE is still out to kill you legally within the rules (sometimes not within the rules).
> 
> You will learn alot from it thou!



I agree with the fingers in the eye.  I mean, think about when something blows into your eye, an eye lash falls in, etc....it hurts and you certainly get a reaction.  

As for Silva...yes, hes an awesome fighter.  I have a few tapes of him fighting..definately a terror in the ring!!  That is one of the reasons I always talk about keeping aliveness and resistance in training, because someone on the street who wants to carjack you, mug you, someone who thinks you cut them off in traffic and now you have a case of road rage to deal with, etc. is going to have that 'killer' mentality as well.  

Mike


----------



## Adept (Jan 29, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear Loren Christensen or Karazenpo or John Bishop weigh in on this. Police officers with a lot of experience in dealing with street situations. I read in one of his books that Christensen said his fights NEVER went to the ground.


 All the LEOs I've talked to (online and off) said nearly all of their fights end on the ground, since thats where you usually cuff a suspect.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 30, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> All the LEOs I've talked to (online and off) said nearly all of their fights end on the ground, since thats where you usually cuff a suspect.


Like I said, I'd like to hear from any police officers out there that would care to respond to this. I do think that there is a difference between taking a suspect to the ground and handcuffing him there etc. and having the fight go to the ground. In the first situation, the officer is in control of the suspect, in the latter, the one in control is yet to be determined and the fight will be decided on the ground. When most people talk about a fight going to the ground, I believe that they are talking about the latter scenario where clear control or dominance had not been determined. After all, by the broader definition one could say that most of Mike Tyson's early fights "went to the ground" because that's where the opponents ended up. But the handcuffing and knockouts is not what I'm talking about. I'd like to find out what percent of fights end up on the ground when the outcome is undetermined.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This is a misconception because organs don't have sensory receptors in them. You can touch organs and not 'feel' the touch but 'feel' the effect in areas around the touch. Sort of like when you get numbed up by the Dentist. You can't feel that portion of your face, but you still register the 'touch' because of the areas around it.
> 
> Eye gouges won't cause severe amounts of pain relative to some other attacks. It will cause lose of vision/visual aquity/depth perception and such as well as some serious psychological impact if the bad guy is not absolutely berzerked.


I'm not sure i'm following what you are trying to say.  Getting an eye gouged out would definitlely result in being impeded in your fighting ability, other than that i'm not sure what it would feel like, not having been eye gouged.  So i'm not sure what the 'misconception' is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 31, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear Loren Christensen or Karazenpo or John Bishop weigh in on this. Police officers with a lot of experience in dealing with street situations. I read in one of his books that Christensen said his fights NEVER went to the ground.


While i'm not Loren Christensen, i've been a police officer for nearly 10 years, and i've had well over a thousand arrests in my career. I've taken numerous suspects to the ground on purpose, and i've ended up on the ground (with my in a mount) on a couple accidentally because we tripped. 

I've also known of several officers ending up accidentally on the ground with people. Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "went to the ground" means, as I handcuff most resisting suspects by forcing them to the ground. 

I won't handcuff a resisting subject from a standing position, because it's easier to control and stablize them from the ground, preferably with them face down and me on their back. 

The difference is one of the level of resistance. If a subject is passive resisting, or actively trying to escape, he'll go to the ground and you'll be in a position of relative control. 

If an officer is being assaulted, however, he may end up on the ground not by his choice. Since most officers don't find themselves here very often, this is not a position they'll usually find themselves in. If they are in this position, though, it's because the suspect is trying to hurt or kill them, making ground combatives that much more necessary.  This is the once in a great while fight for your life.

If a suspect is actively attacking an officer like this, it is to take their gun and kill them. The irony is that most people might think this kind of struggle occurs in a big city, with big city criminals. The fact is, this is a myth. Large cities usually have 30 or 40 officers responding as backup on a critical call. 

Therefore, this type of struggle with a suspect isn't likely to happen with 12 other officers laying boots and mag lights to the suspects skull while he's attacking you. 

This type of assault usually occurs on smaller and rural police departments and with highway patrols where back up is several minutes away and a single officer deals with one (or more) suspects. This kind of prolonged struggle isn't likely in a large city, but is much more likely with a single responding officer. This is the kind of struggle that results in the 20% figure of officers who are shot with their own firearm.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> While i'm not Loren Christensen, i've been a police officer for nearly 10 years, and i've had well over a thousand arrests in my career. I've taken numerous suspects to the ground on purpose, and i've ended up on the ground (with my in a mount) on a couple accidentally because we tripped.
> 
> I've also known of several officers ending up accidentally on the ground with people. Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "went to the ground" means, as I handcuff most resisting suspects by forcing them to the ground.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your insight here. This is the type of info I was wanting.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> All the LEOs I've talked to (online and off) said nearly all of their fights end on the ground, since thats where you usually cuff a suspect.


That is part of their job and 'going to the ground' is going to happen when you engage and stay there.

As a civilian, my job is to neutralize the threat and retreat when it is reasonable to do so.  Fights going to the ground for civilians involved in self defense is an area to be versed in but I would say trying to take the fight there as a standard tactic is a big mistake - friends can sprout from anywhere and the uncertainty of what is on the ground (glass, curbs, gravel, ....) doesn't make it a place I want to go voluntarily as a first choice.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure i'm following what you are trying to say. Getting an eye gouged out would definitlely result in being impeded in your fighting ability, other than that i'm not sure what it would feel like, not having been eye gouged. So i'm not sure what the 'misconception' is.


 
Agreed, eye gouge will impede fight.  The misconception is that a nose shot is going to be less effective.

What most people are talking about when it comes to eye pokes/gauge experience is the chemical reaction/irritation around the eye (inside the eyelid, socket, muscles that contract/control eye movement....) the actual organ of the eye will not register 'pain' just like your lungs, if touched won't register 'pain.'  That is why people with internal injuries walk away and show symptoms later because the organ itself does not throb/ache like a broken finger or a cut arm.

Yes, eye gouges are painful, irritating and psychologically 'icky.' I don't dispute that.


----------



## Loren W. Christensen (Jan 31, 2005)

This is always such a tough topic because everyones reality is different as to what real fighting is. That doesnt make everyone wrong; it just might make everyone right. That said, I think blanket statements are always wrong (hmm, thats a blanket statement). 



A real fight always goes to the ground. A real fight is never like a point karate sparring match. A guy will never attack with a knife that way. And so on. These are all blanket statements, and therefore wrong. Absolutes  always, never  automatically make them wrong. Whenever Ive said this in police academies there is always some guy who cracks, A bullet in the head is an absolute. To that I say, not so. I had a man in one incident and a woman in another who had both been shot five times in the head and both still fought the police. But I digress.   



A guy who has been in a couple fights might have had both of them go to the ground, while another guy who has been in a couple fights defeated his attackers with a  tournament-like backfist. Thats their reality. So when they both think that that is how real fights go, theyre right. 



My reality is that most fights dont go to the ground. I once did an informal survey of cops as to how many of their fights went to the ground, and they all said the same as I had found: maybe one out of 10. That was our reality. Maybe its the nature of the police fight, who knows. 



I also noticed after 29 years of scrapping with bozos on the street as a cop that not one of the fights I was in or that I witnessed happened like a tournament fight. But again, thats just my experience.  A friend of mine, Wim Demeere, a Belgium kickboxing champ, has defeated several attackers with head-high, tournament-like roundhouse kicks. So there you go.



Perhaps instead of wondering which is best or which is more real, or who would win in a fight, Bruce Lee or Jet Li, a better expenditure of energy would be to train hard physically, study all that you can about the physiological and psychological effects of combat on the human body, and work to be the best that you can be. 



Loren  

wwwlwcbooks.com


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 31, 2005)

Hi to all, a friend on this forum asked me to check out this post and also asked what I thought and for my input. I appreciate that. Actually, imho, as my viewpoint goes, everyone here had something to offer that I can agree with, there are a few areas that I may vary slightly but all in all, very interesting perspectives.

Again, respectfully these are only my opinions:

Nothing can really simulate a good rock'n sock'n all out reality fight, although, boxers, kickboxers, wrestlers and UFC type fighters are about as close as you're going to get while still keeping things civil. I believe these are referred to as the 'live arts'. What you use, is not in theory or suggested in the sense, okay, good point if it landed.........in these fights as we all know, the technique either does it's job or it doesn't. No gray area, no debate. 

Next, the measure of a man/woman's toughness is not how much they can dish out but how much they can take. Anyone can deliver a beating, it's perservering that makes the victor. That's why I'll always believe in that old Hawaiian way of training that is talked about and for those old enough who can remmebr as it carried over into the 60's and 70's. Some schools still do it. How about John Hackleman 'The Pit Master' and his students of the Walter L.N. Godin lineage? Part of this toughness is also the physical conditoning, so although still not an actual no holds barred fights, the training and experience is about as close as you're going to come. I agree, though, there are still rules whereas there are no rules in reality fighting.

Now, about not going to the ground. Well, I understand the point of view but in reality we may have no choice. Icy parking lot, wet sidewalk, light snow, sandy street, the beach, crowded apartment or nightclub with furniture, simply tripping, maybe over a curb, dress shoes, especially women, one too many drinks if you indulge, I guess you could say a simple act of God, or let's put ego aside, your opponent was just that damn good and 'took you down'. As far as how many fights go to the ground, all I can say is you better be prepared because it happens. Like others here, I'm a veteran police offcier and I also worked in clubs and I guess you could say I was a bit of a scrapper growing up when I had to be. It happens and it happens more than you might believe. Now, if you throw a pre-emptive strike and overwelm your opponent with a good tactical blitz or knock him out with the first one or two shots, ya, I grant you, he'll be the one going to the ground but you may have to be reactionary and now that changes everything. Two many varibables, two many things can happen and you should feel just as comfortable on the ground as on your feet. Reason? hey, there's some good grapplers out there, not too mention just a good old 'tough as nails' football player and they are going to be very comfortable taking you there. I don't underestimate know one's ability and I am not arrogant to think I can't be taken down, so fine, if it happens, I want to feel comfortable there. I don't want to feel like I was taken out of my environment because then, you lose!

Another reason it may be you that decides to take it to the ground. Hold on before I get lambasted for this,lol. Let's say you happen to know your opponent and let's say from your knowledge of him he is superior to you with his hands, a knockout reputation but has no experience in grappling, why? because he's never on the ground, his rep is a successful KO punch. You on the other hand are very good but not a fair match with your hands, however, you are one helluva grappler and have been known to take them down and choke them out! Now, you take him out of his environment, you know, like a fish out of water!

In closing, I think a fair share of fights go to the ground but I don't think we should dwell on a percentage for it doesn't matter. If a minimal went down who's to say it can't happen to you. It's simply planning for what the military calls 'friction'. Back in the Carter administration we sent some special ops helicopters during the Iran hostage situation for a rescue mission. It was a disaster because we didn't plan for sand stroms over the desert and the engines on the choppers weren't protected properly and they went down with no survivors. Hey, sandstorms in that region didn't happen every day but the point is, they do happen and there was no precaution taken, hense, the 'friction' concept of your ideal plan and then you cover anything that can go wrong to screw it up. Thanks guys, just my perspective.


----------



## Danjo (Feb 1, 2005)

Thanks for responding sgtmac_46, Loren and Prof. Joe Shuras. These are easily the most balanced views of this I have read yet. It's good to get away from the propaganda that's out there in order to sell someone on a particular style of MA, and hear from people that have had to use their MA experience in the real world.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 1, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Like I said, I'd like to hear from any police officers out there that would care to respond to this. I do think that there is a difference between taking a suspect to the ground and handcuffing him there etc. and having the fight go to the ground. In the first situation, the officer is in control of the suspect, in the latter, the one in control is yet to be determined and the fight will be decided on the ground. When most people talk about a fight going to the ground, I believe that they are talking about the latter scenario where clear control or dominance had not been determined. After all, by the broader definition one could say that most of Mike Tyson's early fights "went to the ground" because that's where the opponents ended up. But the handcuffing and knockouts is not what I'm talking about. I'd like to find out what percent of fights end up on the ground when the outcome is undetermined.



Dan, yes, a cop will intentionally take a resisting suspect to the ground or over, let's say the trunk/hood of a car or even forced up against wall/building for cuffing. However, there are passive resistors and active resistors. A passive resisitor doesn't try to assault you but uses resistive tension to keep you from cuffing them. A good shot with a knee to the peronial nerve has a high probability of working on the most 'wired' resistors (I never commit to say anything works 100 per cent of the time but this has never let me down). Nothing is a given so a passive resistor can turn into an active one and now you're in a fight. Some are immediately active resistors and you'll probably figure that out ahead of time by simply reading their body language or you'll know it for sure the minute you move in to take custody of them. 

Now, if I am alone, which happens quite often as we rarely ride double or walk a beat double, including your average bar detail, then my mindset is merely to overwelm and defeat the attacker. At that point, you do what you have to do, you don't think about handcuffing the guy, your only drive is to survive the encounter, after that, ya, there is a good possibility he will be on the ground (providing you win,lol) and you will be cuffing him. My point is a guy that dangerous and that tough will have to be on the ground and incapacitated to some degree for one person to handcuff him successfully anyway. For those not in law enforcement or have never seen someone actively resisting being cuffed, it can be one of the hardest things to do be it a male or female. So a suspect doesn't even have to be big, he/she could be wired on something or an E.D.P. (emotionally disturberd person).

When I was teaching at the police academy, I would give a talk about how handcuffs are temporary restraining devices. I would pass around a picture of a pair of cuffs of 'twisted' metal and 'vice-grip' type marks and tell the class it appears this suspect got away from police and found a friend with a pair of vice grips to remove the handcuffs. I wait until everyone views the picture and agrees. The I pass it around for a second time and tell them those so-called vice grip marks were from the teeth of an E.D.P who the cops could only get the cuffs on from the front and then he bit them off! (photo was a copy courtesy of Charles Remsberg and Dennis Anderson of the Calibre Press Officer Survival seminars). You should see the looks on some the officers' faces, including streetwise veterans. This is what I try to get across to my students of what they're facing out there in reality. I had put that picture on the frame of the doorway so that it could be seen after leaving my dojo as a 'reminder' to my students. Loren made a great point when he said he never saw a real fight look like a tournament. 

Again, most of what I've seen that went to the ground was unintentional, just tripping over things, even your own or the suspect's feet, slipping off a curbing, sand and and ice, stuff like that. Once in a while, some start the fight by tackling their opponent and taking him down or pouncing on him with a chokehold (that works a great percentage of the time), some go to the ground and keep it on others maintain their balance in a deep low stance. Some suspects will drop low while standing in front of you and go for a double leg takedown, a quick 'wrestler's sprawl' into a frontal headlock will neutralize that one.  Of cource, sometimes just a well placed punch, strike or kick will take him to the ground, too, lol. What's Shotokan call that?  "One punch, one kill". Respectfully, Prof. Joe


----------



## MJS (Feb 2, 2005)

First off, I'd like to thank the LEOs here...Mr. Christensen, Sgtmac, and Prof. Joe, for their valuable insight that they have provided here!! :asian:  :asian:  :asian:   

After reading through the past few posts, its apparent that yes, there are very different goals between the UFC and the LEO.  2 different 'arenas' 2 different goals.

Thanks again guys!!!

Mike


----------



## samuelpont (Feb 2, 2005)

From my experience fights in real life do tend to end up on the ground but usually with one pounding the other one. You don`t normally end up rolling around on each other but with one person establishing dominance fairly quickly. Its o.k to go to the ground with someone if your sure they have no friends nearby and you don`t attempt anything that leaves you at risk from being bitten etc.The best thing if your fighting one opponent is to ground them and try establish mount position and pound away this way the fight can be over very quickly, so yes certain types of ufc fighting are very handy in self defence.
The normal man indeed won`t (hopefully!) behave and fight like a mixed martial artist and so is even easier to take to the ground.

That said if your fighting more than one person the ground is the last place you want to be and learning to stand up quickly after being knocked over is crucial unless you fancy a size 11 in the head. Ufc style fightin can also help with this as through the training you are repeatedly grounded, knocked, kicked down and if you want to work at your quick standing technique you are at liberty to do so in a much more real environment than most martial arts classes


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 2, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> In closing, I think a fair share of fights go to the ground but I don't think we should dwell on a percentage for it doesn't matter. If a minimal went down who's to say it can't happen to you.


That sums it up right there and part of the reason I stress a complete understanding in all ranges. I also tell my students that if they are going into a fight, they are going to get hit. Pretty simple. If you're looking for a knock out or a certain technique. It's not going to happen. We need to be ready to fight the fight before us. 

And when we gain control and take them out of their element, then we punish them. :uhyeah:


----------



## Kane (Feb 15, 2005)

Now that I think about more, UFC does not come at all that close to street fights. In the street, everything is legal. If I find a baseballbat lying on the floor I can easily bash the head open of Tito Ortiz or Ken Shamrock. I know this sounds kind of overconfident, but I have the feeling I can beat any UFC fighter in a street fight:wink1:. I know if I get a weapon I would own most people, unless it is some fencing or kendo world champion. Because in a street fight weapons are all around, so because of my fencing experiance, I'm sure I would own anyone in a fight on the street, even a UFC fighter.

Not only that but bites and throat strikes are legal, because there are no rules. If I was to bite the attacker or kick his windpipe........goodbye.


----------



## RMACKD (Feb 15, 2005)

What would stop the UFC fighter from grabbing a weapon and attacking you? Especially since many UFC fighters have more street experience than most martial artist have and a lot more than a lot of the so called reality self defense experts out there. Ken Shamrock ran away from home when he about twelve years old and was arrested for fighting several times. Bas Rutten has knocked out as many people outside the ring as he has inside the ring. kimo was a former gang banger. Both Brazil and Russia have some violent areas and many fighters come from them. Not to mention considering how much some of these fighters can bench. I bet Mark Kerr can swing a mean table. But if you are against a UFC fighter in a streetfight I do not think you would have an oppurtunity to bite their throat.


----------



## Kane (Feb 15, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> What would stop the UFC fighter from grabbing a weapon and attacking you? Especially since many UFC fighters have more street experience than most martial artist have and a lot more than a lot of the so called reality self defense experts out there. Ken Shamrock ran away from home when he about twelve years old and was arrested for fighting several times. Bas Rutten has knocked out as many people outside the ring as he has inside the ring. kimo was a former gang banger. Both Brazil and Russia have some violent areas and many fighters come from them. Not to mention considering how much some of these fighters can bench. I bet Mark Kerr can swing a mean table. But if you are against a UFC fighter in a streetfight I do not think you would have an oppurtunity to bite their throat.


Because I have an experiance in fencing, meaning I know how to use a weapon. I've done fencing for a long while now, so I can apply the moves I learn in fencing to a tire-iron or some crow bar lying around. Basicly any type of object I can use to my advantage with fencing skills. I doubt any UFC fighters have any weapons training, especially fencing.

Plus I am a pretty tough SOB without weapons too. I am a 4-time All American in freestyle wrestling and greco wrestling. I have also done ju jitsu for so long I don't even remembered when I started. I am also pretty strong guy. I think even without weapons I would give them a run for their money, but maybe they will win in the end due to more experiance but in a weapons battle I will own.


----------



## Danjo (Feb 15, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I doubt any UFC fighters have any weapons training,


Iwouldn't bet the farm on that


----------



## MJS (Feb 15, 2005)

A few things to keep in mind here.  First, just because someone trains, that does not turn that person into a Superman!  There is always someone bigger, badder and better out there.  Its one thing to be confident in your skills, but being over confident can be a mistake.  As for being good with weapons.  Again, when it comes to a weapon, it is going to depend on the situation.  We need to keep in mind the use of force levels here as well.  Also, just because we may have a weapon, again, we should not get too confident.  I've been training in Arnis for 7yrs now.  However, I certainly don't run around saying that I'm the best because again, there is always someone better.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 16, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Now that I think about more, UFC does not come at all that close to street fights. In the street, everything is legal. If I find a baseballbat lying on the floor I can easily bash the head open of Tito Ortiz or Ken Shamrock. I know this sounds kind of overconfident, but I have the feeling I can beat any UFC fighter in a street fight:wink1:. I know if I get a weapon I would own most people, unless it is some fencing or kendo world champion. Because in a street fight weapons are all around, so because of my fencing experiance, I'm sure I would own anyone in a fight on the street, even a UFC fighter.
> 
> Not only that but bites and throat strikes are legal, because there are no rules. If I was to bite the attacker or kick his windpipe........goodbye.


I wouldn't be so sure of that.  Besides, biting is overrated.  I've been bitten in a fight, and I didn't even feel it.  I also wouldn't be so sure about easily bashing Tito or Ken's head open.  A punch is a punch, on the street or in the ring, a kick is a kick, a choke is a choke.  You want to throw a bat in?  That's fine too.  UFC/NHB fighting is close enough to a street fight to determine what works empty hand.  

Of course, if you're training for the street you want to add weapons skills.  But that doesn't say that the UFC isn't realistic.  I've seen a number of street fights, and most folks can't fight.  Fighting in the UFC is tougher than any street fight i've been in, so if anything the UFC is tougher than the street.  You don't think some of these guys have been in a few street fights involving weapons?  

Dan Severn was saying that Tank Abbott's claim to fame was that his rap sheet was longer than all the other competitors in the UFC put together.  Severn said that he asked John McCarthy, who's an LAPD officer, about it and Big John said that it was true.  Tank Abbott has a long history of assaults and drunken disorderly charges, among others, and he's banned from 90% of the bars in Huntington Beach for fighting.  You don't think someone has ever pulled out a baseball bat or a tire tool on Tank?  Not that I like the guy, but i'm sure he's not hard to find in Huntington Beach (Just find one of the few bars he isn't banned from). If you want to test out your theory that you can beat up any UFC fighter in a street fight, i'm sure David "Tank" Abbott would oblige you, with or without a bat.  I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because he often get's his butt beat in the Octagon, that he's a punk on the street.  I think you might just be a little too over confident on this one.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 16, 2005)

<Disclaimer> The preceeding post was meant strictly for satirical purposes and was in no way meant to encourage an assault on David "Tank" Abbott, any other member of the UFC, or anyone for that matter.  Assault is a crime, and assault with a deadly weapon is a felony in virtually all jurisdictions.  <Disclaimer>


----------



## shane23ss (Feb 16, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Like I said, I'd like to hear from any police officers out there that would care to respond to this. I do think that there is a difference between taking a suspect to the ground and handcuffing him there etc. and having the fight go to the ground. In the first situation, the officer is in control of the suspect, in the latter, the one in control is yet to be determined and the fight will be decided on the ground. When most people talk about a fight going to the ground, I believe that they are talking about the latter scenario where clear control or dominance had not been determined. After all, by the broader definition one could say that most of Mike Tyson's early fights "went to the ground" because that's where the opponents ended up. But the handcuffing and knockouts is not what I'm talking about. I'd like to find out what percent of fights end up on the ground when the outcome is undetermined.


I have been a police officer for some time myself. As far as the fights/struggles going to the ground. Most police officers will tell you they try to do that as soon as the struggle starts. As for me, I can't recall a single time a fight/struggle has gone to the ground without me doing it on purpose. Most officers try to do this quickly to get the situation under control. But to answer your question point blank Danjo, I have never ended up on the ground without doing it on purpose.


----------



## Danjo (Feb 16, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> I have been a police officer for some time myself. As far as the fights/struggles going to the ground. Most police officers will tell you they try to do that as soon as the struggle starts. As for me, I can't recall a single time a fight/struggle has gone to the ground without me doing it on purpose. Most officers try to do this quickly to get the situation under control. But to answer your question point blank Danjo, I have never ended up on the ground without doing it on purpose.


Thanks Shane23ss,

that seems to be a common thing with the various LEOs here, i.e., they DO end up on the ground, but mostly because the LEO takes it there. However, be prepared to handle yourself there in any case because you never know.


----------



## RMACKD (Feb 16, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Because I have an experiance in fencing, meaning I know how to use a weapon. I've done fencing for a long while now, so I can apply the moves I learn in fencing to a tire-iron or some crow bar lying around. Basicly any type of object I can use to my advantage with fencing skills. I doubt any UFC fighters have any weapons training, especially fencing.
> 
> Plus I am a pretty tough SOB without weapons too. I am a 4-time All American in freestyle wrestling and greco wrestling. I have also done ju jitsu for so long I don't even remembered when I started. I am also pretty strong guy. I think even without weapons I would give them a run for their money, but maybe they will win in the end due to more experiance but in a weapons battle I will own.


 Personally I do not think the techniques of fencing are that applicable to a streetfight. I really doubt you could give any UFC fighter a run for their money. Being good at wrestling is one thing but Ultimate Fighting is a whole other sport and just knowing wrestling and jiu-jitsu will not cut it. But you could always challenge them. They are not some monks living in a mountain and they are very accesible. Most have taken a few challenge matches.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 16, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Thanks Shane23ss,
> 
> that seems to be a common thing with the various LEOs here, i.e., they DO end up on the ground, but mostly because the LEO takes it there. However, be prepared to handle yourself there in any case because you never know.


Since you seem pretty interested in the topic, i've got a story of a ground fight involving a fellow officer.  He showed up at a disturbance call. When he walked in to the guys bedroom the guy attacked him.  They both fell on the ground, fortunately with the officer on top.  The suspect kept saying he was going to kill him.  This officer had no ground training what so ever, so all he could do was try to lay on top of the guy and wait for backup.  Law Enforcement ground fighting skills are a lot like ejection seats in jet fighters.  You may never need one, you hope to never need one, but when you need one, nothing else will do.


----------



## shane23ss (Feb 16, 2005)

I have had LOTS of grappling training, and see where it is useful in this line of work. I have never trained in Aikido, but could see how that could also be helpful.


----------



## Kane (Feb 17, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> Personally I do not think the techniques of fencing are that applicable to a streetfight. I really doubt you could give any UFC fighter a run for their money. Being good at wrestling is one thing but Ultimate Fighting is a whole other sport and just knowing wrestling and jiu-jitsu will not cut it. But you could always challenge them. They are not some monks living in a mountain and they are very accesible. Most have taken a few challenge matches.


You think fencing wouldn't be helpful for weapons fighting? It works quite efective with long blunt objects as well as knives.

Actually I am not too bad at striking either. I'm not trying to say I can beat any of these fighters in a UFC match. I am saying I already have a good amount of default fighting power and adding my weapons skills would make me very powerful. I don't think many UFC fighters have practiced in weapons as much as I, because their focus if for MMA, not weapons fighting. That is why I think that I can match them in a street fight IF I had a weapon.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You think fencing wouldn't be helpful for weapons fighting? It works quite efective with long blunt objects as well as knives.
> 
> Actually I am not too bad at striking either. I'm not trying to say I can beat any of these fighters in a UFC match. I am saying I already have a good amount of default fighting power and adding my weapons skills would make me very powerful. I don't think many UFC fighters have practiced in weapons as much as I, because their focus if for MMA, not weapons fighting. That is why I think that I can match them in a street fight IF I had a weapon.


I used to fence. That barbed wire cuts you if you aren't careful when you unroll it, though. I'm not sure what good it does in a fight, unless you smack someone with a fence post.


----------



## Kane (Feb 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I used to fence. That barbed wire cuts you if you aren't careful when you unroll it, though. I'm not sure what good it does in a fight, unless you smack someone with a fence post.


LOL, not that type of fencing.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Sometimes just being big, bad and willing to fight trumps training. In those cases you need a bigger hammer. Or faster feet.


----------



## Adept (Feb 18, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> LOL, not that type of fencing.


 I'd actually back that kind of fencer over the other type. Most fencers I've met were blue collar workers with gigantic arms (doe to extremely strenuous work) and not shy of a blue or three.

 As Tgace said, big bad and willing to fight.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 23, 2005)

The will kills.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 23, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> What would stop the UFC fighter from grabbing a weapon and attacking you? Especially since many UFC fighters have more street experience than most martial artist have and a lot more than a lot of the so called reality self defense experts out there. Ken Shamrock ran away from home when he about twelve years old and was arrested for fighting several times. Bas Rutten has knocked out as many people outside the ring as he has inside the ring. kimo was a former gang banger. Both Brazil and Russia have some violent areas and many fighters come from them. Not to mention considering how much some of these fighters can bench. I bet Mark Kerr can swing a mean table. But if you are against a UFC fighter in a streetfight I do not think you would have an oppurtunity to bite their throat.


Yeah I see that, not that its revelant to UFC but look at upbringing of some of MA of our time seem to have rougher backgrounds. Then again thats cultural conditioning to force people to get an advantage over their environment when it comes to fighting. Best way to learn to fight is to learn a martial art.


----------



## JKD_Silat (Mar 7, 2005)

In my humble opinion, there is a world of difference between ground fighting/self defense, and mma/grappling. The difference can be a combination of physical, and mental training. Grappling tends to have more of a sport mentality, where as groung fighting, in my opinion, tends to have more of a survival/self defense ideal, where foul tactics are viable, if not encouraged. It's kinda tough to expect foul tactics to be there when you need them when you train countless hours NOT to use them because you train for a mma/grappling/submission wrestling  competition. 
    I believe that would put one at a marked dissadvantage in a fight against a comparably skilled adversairy, with comparable size/attributes. You fight like how you train. 
    That being said, even though the early UFC fighters  had no real weight classes, time limits, and a lot of rules, they still "made an appoinment to fight". They even knew for the most part WHO they were fighting, and had the time luxury to train accordingly. Unfortunately, in real life, we ALWAYS have to be in reasonable "combat ready" condition to protect ourselves, and loved ones.  Thats my 2 cents worth.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 7, 2005)

Its apples to oranges.


----------



## RMACKD (Mar 7, 2005)

JKD_Silat said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, there is a world of difference between ground fighting/self defense, and mma/grappling. The difference can be a combination of physical, and mental training. Grappling tends to have more of a sport mentality, where as groung fighting, in my opinion, tends to have more of a survival/self defense ideal, where foul tactics are viable, if not encouraged. It's kinda tough to expect foul tactics to be there when you need them when you train countless hours NOT to use them because you train for a mma/grappling/submission wrestling competition.
> I believe that would put one at a marked dissadvantage in a fight against a comparably skilled adversairy, with comparable size/attributes. You fight like how you train.
> That being said, even though the early UFC fighters had no real weight classes, time limits, and a lot of rules, they still "made an appoinment to fight". They even knew for the most part WHO they were fighting, and had the time luxury to train accordingly. Unfortunately, in real life, we ALWAYS have to be in reasonable "combat ready" condition to protect ourselves, and loved ones. Thats my 2 cents worth.


 How do you really "train" these dirty tatics when you can not use them against fully resisting opponents. It would be like practicing punching without ever using it in an alive sitiuation. I would not say the first UFC's had a lot of rules. The two rules were no biting or eye gouging. However if you did do any of these two techniques the fight would not be stopped and the only penalty was that they had to pay the other competitor a small fee if they caused any major damage. Gordeau actually bit Royces ear and Tank Abbot had been eye gouged during his match and Frank Shamrock has been eye gouged but they still made no difference in the outcome of the match. There has been many mma matches that have had biting or eye gouging occur. Just my .9 cents.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 7, 2005)

It could be argued that because of the underlying knowledge of the rules that any bites or gouges performed were done tentatively and/or without malice. After all they all know that they are merely in a competion, not fighting for their lives. A properly executed eye gouge, would likely rupture the eye, or cause its removal, that might sway the outcome, same with biting, the human mouth can apply a great deal of bite force, but mentally this would not come about in a competitve arena.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

UFC is not so UF

http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 7, 2005)

I counted at least five or six 'fouls' that we practice in self-defense, and that's just trying to keep it confined to Tae Kwon Do and similar wihout getting 'dirty'.  Just today I practiced a small-joint manipulation to move a guy down followed with a knee to the face and/or head.

Number 22 seems to be a catch all that could cover a lot of stuff.  I'm not sure if a sidekick to break the knee or a few moves designed to potentially hyperextend or break elbows would be allowed


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

If one enjoys to see or participate in such contact events-whatever "floats the boat".

I just have a little strange feeling when I see something worded that is beyond the actual representation.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 7, 2005)

_I just have a little strange feeling when I see something worded that is beyond the actual representation._

Not in sales, are you?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

And that is one of my points-the "sales" pitch...if it sounds too good to be true....


----------



## DarrenJew (Mar 7, 2005)

I havent been in a fight in 20 years...(not counting the zero tolerance issue Im having at work... currently) But being young and stupid at one point (like any other guy) Ive had my share of black eyes. Fortunately none went to the ground, none ever had weapons involved other than a car one time. Maybe times have changed, and young st*p*d people prefer ground fighting now a days? Oh the car incident... I remember having to flee from a bar fight, a few blows thrown and a couple of kicks... Both sides knew the police was called (considering the Bar Tender said, "Stop, I calling the Cops", and a massive exit by both parties became priority over beating each other up. As one of my buddies was leaving he was run over by a 240z exiting the parking lot... Luckily he had enough sense to jump just before the car struck him... Ended up rolling over the top of the car as it sped away. Another time I also remember sitting in a bar when I see my friend Bob sitting across the table from me get that look... Hes staring another guy down that appears to be sitting behind me. Finally hed had enough slams his drink down on the table and stands up. First thing I think is Oh S**t here we go again... my adrenaline kicks in.... but all of the sudden he sits back down... I turn around and about 35 feet behind me is one of those walls with a large mirror covering it. Bob is the only guy I know that ever picked a fight with himself. lol 

Sometimes it the company that you keep which bring those situations about.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2005)

Usually, when I hear someone saying that the UFC isn't realistic, it's coming from "reality based martial arts" exponents or traditional martial artists, who have rarely, or never been in a fight. I always walk away wondering what they know about it. On the part of some traditional martial artists, they are trying to discredit mma/nhb fighting because it conflicts with their traditional system. On the part of reality based teachers, they don't want to have to enter a ring to convince people that their theoretically based system works on the street. Always look at the source. Are there modifications that need to be done to adapt what we learn in UFC style competition to the street? Yes. Is it more realistic than a lot of the other crap out there? YES!!! It's a lot easier to add an eye gouge to a UFC useful system, than to invent an untested system that will work in the street, if eye gouging is all people are worried about.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 9, 2005)

Well surely the fact that it has rules automaticly reduces its validity? The fact that they are in a ring and wearing only shorts reduces its validity. I'm a RBSD Martial Artist and I'm beginning to think that UFC doesnt become close to self defence. RBSD fights (i know because I have been there) are bang bang bang dead quick, you looking at fights that last 20 seconds starting generally with the typical sucker punch. UFC has time to prepare for fights, they have mental and physical preperation which can start two/three hours before their SCHEDULED fights. In RBSD training you gotto train to have 2/3 seconds to get into that mind set!


----------



## Bod (Mar 9, 2005)

UFC style fights are also over quickly. Certainly the standing to floor grappling part, after which the skill of the sportsmen on the floor slows the action down.

And it's in a *dominant* position during floor grappling that a gouge or other dirty trick is most effective - this includes the scoring non-submission holds in judo and wrestling that are used to transition to a submission hold in UFC style fights. You can easily bight the nose on top in Kesa-Gatami (scarf hold far easier than the chap underneath can pinch your ribs.

It is also of note that small time thugs do actually watch UFC style fights on TV. A close friend of mine with no MA experience was recently kicked, tackled and then beaten about the face from his attackers mount. The kid attacking him was about 15-18 years old and won by surprise and then using pretty standard MMA techniques. By the way my friend describes finally pushing off the attacker it is quite likely that the attacker had no actual MMA training.

Even _if_ the UFC is not like real fights, real fights are getting more like the UFC.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Usually, when I hear someone saying that the UFC isn't realistic, it's coming from "reality based martial arts" exponents or traditional martial artists, who have rarely, or never been in a fight..


Not so true, per many fghits in the real world do not look that way.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I always walk away wondering what they know about it. On the part of some traditional martial artists, they are trying to discredit mma/nhb fighting because it conflicts with their traditional system.


It should not. Trad MA were for realistic fighting, generallly to the death per its development per its era.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> On the part of reality based teachers, they don't want to have to enter a ring to convince people that their theoretically based system works on the street.


Perhaps they already had and that they already made adjustments.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Always look at the source. Are there modifications that need to be done to adapt what we learn in UFC style competition to the street? Yes. Is it more realistic than a lot of the other crap out there? YES!!! It's a lot easier to add an eye gouge to a UFC useful system, than to invent an untested system that will work in the street, if eye gouging is all people are worried about.


Is not if UFC can adept or work on the street. it is the name that is blown out. It is not truely UFC in the ring.


----------



## RMACKD (Mar 9, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> UFC is not so UF
> 
> http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp


 Those are the rules currently. But the rules when the tma and rbsd people were coming into it was no biting or eye gouging. Neither which are severely disabling techniques. Biting and eye gouging is a very small part of the martial arts arsenal and if you can not fight well without those two techniques then you probably going to get stomped on in a streetfight. There is a vid on the internet with a kung fu guy fighting an mma fighter andwhen the fight went to the ground the kung fu guy tried to claw his eyes but the mma dude just broke with his arm with a key lock and walked out unscathed. Besides that where is the litimus test for streetfighting? Are you going to beat up that drunk at the bar? That will prove nothing. Fighters are also able to turn on that switch that turns them from an average person to an aggressive "beast" I guess you could say. The adrenaline rush before a fight also is more similar to what you will feel when you are about to fight on the street than doing some role playing sparring in class. How do people know that there eye gouges or bite techniques will work on a partner if you can not use them in all out sparring? But even if the eye gouges and biting were not allowed in the early UFC's that would still mean that the mma fighters were better at groundwork, takedowns, striking, ect and the other fighters might have been better at 2 techniques. Those are not very good odds. The fights in the UFC do take a while because the fighters are pretty equally in skill. However when Vitor Blefort fought a practicioner of an RBSD system (under rules that allowed biting and eye gouging, the man actually viciously attacked another mans eyes in another match) it happened very quick. TMA's and RBSD lack testing grounds, you can not prove somethign is better in a life and death situation without doing it.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 9, 2005)

Biting and eye gouging are not severely disabling techniques? This debate is officially impossible to rationally continue.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 9, 2005)

Come on, if it was Ultimate, then rhere will be no rules!


----------



## MJS (Mar 9, 2005)

IMO, I think that the name of the event was a little mis-leading.  When it was first aired, it was billed as a no rules, anything goes event.  However, there were still rules in place.  Compared to the first few shows, there currently are many more rules in place.

One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that this is a sport event.  That being said, there are going to be rules in place for fighter safety.  I would think that some aspects would be able to be applied to a street fight, but again, we need to keep in mind that we are talking about 2 very different things here.

Mike


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 9, 2005)

You are absolutely right. UFC is a sporting event, and I havent chimed in all the heated this is better than that stuff finger pointing. I draw the line though, when you try to sell the idea that biting and gouging are not severely damaging. I posted something similar somewhere, and the reason bites or might may be lessoned in effect is the fact these fighters realize they are in a sporting event, NOT a real fight. Although this will never justify anyone, grappler or otherwise to boost and/or promote a style, by belittling real world proven techniques. We shouldnt allow that sort of thing to happen. Its dangerous misinformation.


----------



## Paul Genge (Mar 10, 2005)

I recently took part in a Bullshido Throw down.  During this we had a match under Vale Tudo rules.  I also have alot of real world experience gained during 9 years of being a cop.  

Real fights and competitions are two different beasts.  In a competion there is a presure to win.  This causes tension and fear which is different from what is caused when there is only presure to survive.  In a real fight you do not get penalised if you do not attack or offer aggression towards your partner, you do not get disqualified for climbing out of the ring at the first opportunity to do so safely.

Having said that fighting under these sorts of rules does give us the opportunity to feel some of the sensations experienced during combat and a chance to apply parts of whatever system you study to a full speed and often aggressive assailent.  If your goal in martial arts is more than sporting it can be healthy to use MMA type bouts as a form of extreme trainng.  The only difficulty comes if you are not prepared enough for it.  People who have not been prepared enough for this experience will either suffer the effects of injury to either their physical or phycological health.

For more articles on subjects such as surviving kicks on the floor and applying systema to a MMA environment please checkout my site.

Paul Genge
Russian Martial Arts Northwest (UK)


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 10, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> Those are the rules currently. But the rules when the tma and rbsd people were coming into it was no biting or eye gouging. Neither which are severely disabling techniques. Biting and eye gouging is a very small part of the martial arts arsenal and if you can not fight well without those two techniques then you probably going to get stomped on in a streetfight. There is a vid on the internet with a kung fu guy fighting an mma fighter andwhen the fight went to the ground the kung fu guy tried to claw his eyes but the mma dude just broke with his arm with a key lock and walked out unscathed. QUOTE]
> 
> Can I just say that this video is actually fake, that guy in that video does not do Kung Fu, its a scam that was set up I believe by another website to get their point across. Can I add that a real Kung Fu MA does not go out of his/her way to fight an MMA fighter or other fighter for that instance, if he/she does then she is not very good and does not understand the system.
> 
> Regards


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 10, 2005)

Again, the only difference between the UFC style competition and the street is the element of surprise. That's it. The techiques are the same. The only difference is that you get to deliver the punch with the other person not expecting it. That's why street fights are over so fast, not because there's a different technique that works in the ring versus the street. An understanding of Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action is all that's missing between the MMA ring and the street. Anyone thing otherwise, pick a street fight with an MMA practioner and we can solve this argument real quick.  As i've said before, if eye gouging is all people are worried about, big deal.  How hard is it to add eye gouges to an MMA system?  As far as bites, i've been bitten in fights and it isn't a big deal.  The pain I felt was very distant and dissassociated.  I found the experience more annoying than painful or disabling.  The last guy that did it found getting his head bashed in to the asphalt afterwards more disconcerting that I found his bite.  I can further back this up by saying that i've been bitten by a couple of police K9's, including my Belgian Malinois, and no human being bites like that.  Again, the experience was one of pain disassociation and I was able to work through it.  A human bite is nasty, but it does nothing to render someone combat ineffective.  Eye gouges are a different story, but again, you can't eye gouge anyone if you get knocked unconcious or tied up on the ground.


----------



## dsp921 (Mar 10, 2005)

I haven't read this entire thread so maybe this stuff was covered...
To me, there are some big differences between a UFC (or Pride or K1) fight and a street defense situation. On the street you don't necessarily know you are going to fight, who you are fighting and what their skill level is, you don't know if they are armed or if their friends are going to jump in. In a UFC match you know well in advance who and when you are fighting, you know what their skills are and you are matched up (at least size-wise). There is no chance of a weapon or a gang of friends piling in. You can be pretty sure you won't be killed or beaten beyond a "reasonable" level. You have ample time to prepare. 
That said, the UFC, K1, Pride, etc guys are most definitely some tough fighters. They are out there in the ring putting in on the line and seeing what they have. That I have great respect for. There is no doubt in my miind they are tough, skilled fighters. UFC, etc, are most likely the best test of your skill, but it still isn't the same as a street defense.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2005)

One thing that I'd like to say regarding the eye gouges and bites.  IMO, they are not meant to be fight stoppers.  At the very least, they can be simple distractions, used by the defender to set up other moves.  They are right up there with a pinch, spitting, a low line kick, etc., to momentarily distract the attacker from his primary attack, so that you can execute your defense a little easier.

Mike


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

agatanai atsilahu said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right. UFC is a sporting event, and I havent chimed in all the heated this is better than that stuff finger pointing. I draw the line though, when you try to sell the idea that biting and gouging are not severely damaging. I posted something similar somewhere, and the reason bites or might may be lessoned in effect is the fact these fighters realize they are in a sporting event, NOT a real fight. Although this will never justify anyone, grappler or otherwise to boost and/or promote a style, by belittling real world proven techniques. We shouldnt allow that sort of thing to happen. Its dangerous misinformation.


So why call it "Ultimate"? Why not "Hard Core Ring", or Rong Supremacy"....


----------



## RMACKD (Mar 10, 2005)

Biting and eye gouging are not necesarily fight stoppers. Eye gouging can help blind an attacker but most people find it hard to launch and eye gouge attack in the free movement phase of the fight when there heart is pumping and they are in the middle of an adrenaline spurt and they are trying to stick a dime sized finger into a dime sized target. Besides that realize that you can not train biting and eye gouging at full force. Thats like trying to become a good basketball player by shooting all the time with no one to block you. The fight between John Marsh and the kung fu guy definitely not fake. But by the way why is it always when a practicioner challenges an mma fighter and gets whooped he did not know real kung fu? How come most of the traditional fighters in the beginning UFC realized the shortcomings and started training mma? Can someone define severely damaging? I simply consider something that can really wreck you like being crippled, your face smashed in, broken bones. While biting and eye gouging are definitely nasty things.(Thats why they are not allowed in most sporting events) they are in my opinion not deadly as simply holding the crucifix neck crank until their neck breaks. I should have elaborated that in my first posts. As for why it is called Ultimate? Who cares! The definition of ultimate is not no rules. If you call something Ultimate Fighting it does not have to have no rules. It is Ultimate in the fact that you can strike both in free movement and grappling phases, wrestle, position and do submissions. No other martial arts sport allows you to do that. But there have been some competitions where biting and eye gouging is allowed held in brazil and russia(which has a long lineage of mma combat). The most people do forget that the rules do protect the man fighting for the rbsd and traditional systems as well. If they did not than in those fights between people of those systems between mma fighters they would get curbed after they were beat half the death. I do not however believe that the UFC is the same as a streetfight. They do however say something about a persons ability under full contact situations. I just find saying that a system can not function in a full contactenviroment because of biting and eye gouging not being allowed is a very, very poor excuse.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 10, 2005)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> I haven't read this entire thread so maybe this stuff was covered...
> To me, there are some big differences between a UFC (or Pride or K1) fight and a street defense situation. On the street you don't necessarily know you are going to fight, who you are fighting and what their skill level is, you don't know if they are armed or if their friends are going to jump in. In a UFC match you know well in advance who and when you are fighting, you know what their skills are and you are matched up (at least size-wise). There is no chance of a weapon or a gang of friends piling in. You can be pretty sure you won't be killed or beaten beyond a "reasonable" level. You have ample time to prepare.
> That said, the UFC, K1, Pride, etc guys are most definitely some tough fighters. They are out there in the ring putting in on the line and seeing what they have. That I have great respect for. There is no doubt in my miind they are tough, skilled fighters. UFC, etc, are most likely the best test of your skill, but it still isn't the same as a street defense.


I think the real question everyone is trying to dodge around, is whether or not techniques that work to damage a human being in the NHB ring work on human beings in the street. Human physiology being what it is, there is nothing difference between in the ring and on the street. So now we've established that the techniques are the same.

That having been settled, we can debate whether the strategy is the same. The easy answer is "of course not". The strategy in the ring is to gain a submission of some sort, whether by tap out or knock out, or to gain a decision. The strategy in the street is to survive relatively unscathed. In the ring everyone is there for the same reason, so the element of surprise is limited. On the street, the element of surprise is a HUGE element. 

Competitors in combat arts like boxing, muay thai, and the UFC (as opposed to point fighting styles) rarely lose street fights. I've seen this with my own eyes, boxers in a bar fight usually render people unconcious (this, despite the fact that there isn't a square ring and a referee).  The surest way to learn to fight human beings...is to fight human beings.  NHB fighting is the closest thing we legally have to a real street fight.  Of course it's not exactly like a street fight, but no one has pointed toward anything better.

So, in short, the techniques that work in NHB fighting directly transfer to the street, which was really the point to begin with. At no point did anyone claim that fights on the street happen in a big octagon, with a referee and a time limit. The question settled by the UFC is what techniques work best to fight other human beings. The application of that lesson on the street is up to you.  Lest we forget, BJJ was being tested in the streets in REAL street fights for years before the UFC came along.  Ditto boxing and muay thai.


----------



## JKD_Silat (Mar 10, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> How do you really "train" these dirty tatics when you can not use them against fully resisting opponents. It would be like practicing punching without ever using it in an alive sitiuation. I would not say the first UFC's had a lot of rules. The two rules were no biting or eye gouging. However if you did do any of these two techniques the fight would not be stopped and the only penalty was that they had to pay the other competitor a small fee if they caused any major damage. Gordeau actually bit Royces ear and Tank Abbot had been eye gouged during his match and Frank Shamrock has been eye gouged but they still made no difference in the outcome of the match. There has been many mma matches that have had biting or eye gouging occur. Just my .9 cents.


I'm actually agreeing with you about the early UFC's not having a lot of rules. I suppose I should have made my point more clear. That is, in spite of all that, the MMA fights at the pro level nowadays are still pretty much a "level playing field", where as with real life street fights , it is seldom the case. To take " you know who you are going to fight in advance, and have the luxury of training for them accordingly " point even further, it's also possible that you may have to deal with multiple opponents in the street. Also, god knows what kind of "ground" your dealing with (broken glass, rain, concrete, asphalt, ect.). MMA fights, however they may promote themselves as NHB (no holds barred), are still very much controlled situations. How many street fights have a ref, or a doctor to step in when a fighters saftey is in question? Yes, a lot of sport martial arts are very effective in real life self defense, however, martial arts training for sport, and training for self defense are two different worlds. One not better than the other, just different. 
You asked a good question about how do you actually "train" these dirty tactics. Simply put,  you need body armor of some sort (think womens rape prevention classes where the assailant wheres full body padding), and some tactics you obviously can't train 100%, but you go to the point where it's understood that you could have applied the tactic. Even If you only train at say 30% to at least ingrain it into your muscle memory, and be able to recognize opportunities to apply the tactics, its still far better than never training it at all.

Regards


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

Yeah...I am not sayong they are not effective either....I am only hashing on the technicality of the name-not the fighters.


----------



## JKD_Silat (Mar 10, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> Those are the rules currently. But the rules when the tma and rbsd people were coming into it was no biting or eye gouging. Neither which are severely disabling techniques. Biting and eye gouging is a very small part of the martial arts arsenal and if you can not fight well without those two techniques then you probably going to get stomped on in a streetfight. There is a vid on the internet with a kung fu guy fighting an mma fighter andwhen the fight went to the ground the kung fu guy tried to claw his eyes but the mma dude just broke with his arm with a key lock and walked out unscathed. Besides that where is the litimus test for streetfighting? Are you going to beat up that drunk at the bar? That will prove nothing. Fighters are also able to turn on that switch that turns them from an average person to an aggressive "beast" I guess you could say. The adrenaline rush before a fight also is more similar to what you will feel when you are about to fight on the street than doing some role playing sparring in class. How do people know that there eye gouges or bite techniques will work on a partner if you can not use them in all out sparring? But even if the eye gouges and biting were not allowed in the early UFC's that would still mean that the mma fighters were better at groundwork, takedowns, striking, ect and the other fighters might have been better at 2 techniques. Those are not very good ...odds. The fights in the UFC do take a while because the fighters are pretty equally in skill. However when Vitor Blefort fought a practicioner of an RBSD system (under rules that allowed biting and eye gouging, the man actually viciously attacked another mans eyes in another match) it happened very quick. TMA's and RBSD lack testing grounds, you can not prove somethign is better in a life and death situation without doing it.


 
Agreed. "Testing grounds" are vital. I train in Jeet Kune Do, where we actually spar and try things out on each other "live". We are anything but compliant when we spar, because that would actually hurt our brothers development, and encourege a false sense of security. Sparring in all ranges of combat, armed unarmed, multiple assailents ect. is great laboratory, designed specificly to expose weaknesses to be improved upon, and raise awareness.


----------



## JKD_Silat (Mar 10, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> One thing that I'd like to say regarding the eye gouges and bites. IMO, they are not meant to be fight stoppers. At the very least, they can be simple distractions, used by the defender to set up other moves. They are right up there with a pinch, spitting, a low line kick, etc., to momentarily distract the attacker from his primary attack, so that you can execute your defense a little easier.
> 
> Mike


I agree completely. Even throwing change in your pocket, or whatever happens to be in you hand at the moment  can serve a simmilar purpose to distract, or  bridge the gap to engage. I'd like to make one point. In self defense, the goal is not to "win", but to go home to your loved ones. Even if that means doing enough to facilitate escape, and run.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, the only difference between the UFC style competition and the street is the element of surprise. That's it. The techiques are the same. The only difference is that you get to deliver the punch with the other person not expecting it. That's why street fights are over so fast, not because there's a different technique that works in the ring versus the street. An understanding of Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action is all that's missing between the MMA ring and the street. Anyone thing otherwise, pick a street fight with an MMA practioner and we can solve this argument real quick. As i've said before, if eye gouging is all people are worried about, big deal. How hard is it to add eye gouges to an MMA system? As far as bites, i've been bitten in fights and it isn't a big deal. The pain I felt was very distant and dissassociated. I found the experience more annoying than painful or disabling. The last guy that did it found getting his head bashed in to the asphalt afterwards more disconcerting that I found his bite. I can further back this up by saying that i've been bitten by a couple of police K9's, including my Belgian Malinois, and no human being bites like that. Again, the experience was one of pain disassociation and I was able to work through it. A human bite is nasty, but it does nothing to render someone combat ineffective. Eye gouges are a different story, but again, you can't eye gouge anyone if you get knocked unconcious or tied up on the ground.


pick a street fight with an MMA practioner and we can solve this argument real quick?

Right that works! Why do MMA practioners think they are always superiour to us? It depends on the environment your in? Remember that MMA and BJJ is a recent system and has not have the refining of other arts had over thousands of years. Why do MMA and BJJ always shut up if you mention JKD too? Cos its superiour? Cos you cannot beat it?


----------



## Bod (Mar 16, 2005)

TKD and Japanese karate, JKD and so on are all recent systems without thousands of years to settle in.

One of the oldest verifiable arts is Cornish wrestling (500 years old, some would say 1500 years old). It is virtually indistinguishable from the much more modern Judo (about 150 years old). Why? Because they are sports with similar training methods and clothing.

Generally people will work out what works and doesn't in a given environment in about 50 years or so. 

Apart from the yoga aspects, inherent in many chinese martial arts, the rest can be figured out by anyone with the will and competence. However most people restrict themselves to a small subset of self-defence/fighting.

This is gradually happening with the UFC, where only one-on-one fighting within a certain environment is considered. That's fine by me, and I'm sure it has huge self defence benefits. It's not the be all and end all of fighting though.


----------



## bluenosekenpo (Mar 16, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Remember that MMA and BJJ is a recent system and has not have the refining of other arts had over thousands of years.


hhmmm??? mma is a direct decendant of pankration, the following provides a general outline, sound familiar? that would put it at ~ 3000 years old. doesn't sound too recent to me.

http://www.hellenism.com/olympics/ancientgames/pankration.htm

bjj? taken from japanese jj, which was used by samurai in feudal japan. seems like it's been around for awhile too.

personally, people get too caught up in the hype of their _chosen way_. all arts have merit but it is ultimately the student who will prove the validity and effectiveness of an art, not the reverse. imho
:asian:


----------



## CMack11 (Mar 16, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> pick a street fight with an MMA practioner and we can solve this argument real quick?
> 
> Right that works! Why do MMA practioners think they are always superiour to us? It depends on the environment your in? Remember that MMA and BJJ is a recent system and has not have the refining of other arts had over thousands of years. Why do MMA and BJJ always shut up if you mention JKD too? Cos its superiour? Cos you cannot beat it?


I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point of what he was trying to say.  I don't think he was saying, "go pick a fight with an MMA practicioner and you will get beaten down." 

I think it was more, "Go pick a street fight with an MMA practicioner and you will see that what they train translates to street fighting pretty well."

I know for darn sure I'm not going to go pick a fight w/ most guys in the UFC any time soon.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 17, 2005)

CMack11 said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point of what he was trying to say. I don't think he was saying, "go pick a fight with an MMA practicioner and you will get beaten down."
> 
> I think it was more, "Go pick a street fight with an MMA practicioner and you will see that what they train translates to street fighting pretty well."
> 
> I know for darn sure I'm not going to go pick a fight w/ most guys in the UFC any time soon.


I think I did, sorry!


----------



## Bod (Mar 17, 2005)

> _BlueNoseKempo_
> hhmmm??? mma is a direct decendant of pankration, the following provides a general outline, sound familiar? that would put it at ~ 3000 years old. doesn't sound too recent to me.
> 
> http://www.hellenism.com/olympics/a.../pankration.htm
> ...



Your history is a bit out bnk. UFC is by no means a direct descendant of Pankration. Pankration was an ancient olympic competition with few rules. Then there was a 3000 year gap. I'm sure people all over the world were fighting no rules competitions in the mean time, but that is not 'direct descent'.

BJJ is taken from Judo and not Japanese Jujitsu. Judo was developed to be considerably different from much of the Japanese Jujitsu that preceded it. Also the BJJ guys developed BJJ further tan the Judo from which it evolved.

Although there is nothing new undere the sun, nothing is truly old either.


----------



## bluenosekenpo (Mar 17, 2005)

Bod said:
			
		

> Your history is a bit out bnk. UFC is by no means a direct descendant of Pankration. Pankration was an ancient olympic competition with few rules. Then there was a 3000 year gap. I'm sure people all over the world were fighting no rules competitions in the mean time, but that is not 'direct descent'.
> 
> BJJ is taken from Judo and not Japanese Jujitsu. Judo was developed to be considerably different from much of the Japanese Jujitsu that preceded it. Also the BJJ guys developed BJJ further tan the Judo from which it evolved.
> 
> Although there is nothing new undere the sun, nothing is truly old either.


i think i left a link to follow that explained what pankration is, point taken though, i shouldn't have said direct, but you'd have to be extremely naive and narrow minded to think that pankration didn't have an impact on the current MMA's. 

bjj? judo influence? yup. judo founded in late 1800's by j. kano, derived from japanese jj, but made kinder and gentler for sport(and public consumption). so, historically speaking it is in fact derived from jjj. 

however, if these are your views on the history of these arts, that's ok, we just read different books.


----------



## Bod (Mar 17, 2005)

I was a bit intrigued by some of the claims from the site:



> *Rules of the Game *
> All the holds used in wrestling and all the blows used in boxing were allowed. The only things forbidden were biting and gouging. Therefore, the pankration was the most dangerous and toughest of all events, since victory was sought with no consideration of the danger to the body or the life of one's opponent.
> 
> The pankration had two forms:
> ...



Later on finger snapping was also banned. The rules progressed as competition did. 

I'm surprised they think the standing game was safer than the ground game. Ground fighting is generally safer to practise than standing fighting in my experience. Also gloves do not make punching more painful. In fact gloves make boxing safer for both opponents. I know this having spoken to some ofthe guys at my boxing gym who do bare knuckle fighting on the side.

As for BJJ having a Judo influence, well that is pretty much accepted as the chap who taught Helio Gracie was from the Kodokan. A small amount of time doing both will convince you that they are very similar arts.

Still, arts grow. Things get rediscovered, just as the Gracies introduced the world to wrestling again, 40 years after Judo was the 'ultimate' martial art.

History is interesting, but is ultimately a distraction. Only training, now, will make you (and me) a better fighter.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 17, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> pick a street fight with an MMA practioner and we can solve this argument real quick?
> 
> Right that works! Why do MMA practioners think they are always superiour to us? It depends on the environment your in? Remember that MMA and BJJ is a recent system and has not have the refining of other arts had over thousands of years. Why do MMA and BJJ always shut up if you mention JKD too? Cos its superiour? Cos you cannot beat it?


Don't forget...JKD IS MMA. Doubt that? Remember what Bruce said: What works! UFC isn't a style...It's ALL styles that work.  CMack11 was right, though, my point wasn't that an MMA practioner would beat everyone, just that the best way to test it would be to do it on the street.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 17, 2005)

Bod said:
			
		

> Your history is a bit out bnk. UFC is by no means a direct descendant of Pankration. Pankration was an ancient olympic competition with few rules. Then there was a 3000 year gap. I'm sure people all over the world were fighting no rules competitions in the mean time, but that is not 'direct descent'.
> 
> BJJ is taken from Judo and not Japanese Jujitsu. Judo was developed to be considerably different from much of the Japanese Jujitsu that preceded it. Also the BJJ guys developed BJJ further tan the Judo from which it evolved.
> 
> Although there is nothing new undere the sun, nothing is truly old either.


I think the point is that we all keep coming back to no rules fighting that involves punching, kicking, grappling, wrestling, etc. In that sense, MMA is the world's oldest style of competition.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 3, 2014)

Corporal Hicks said:


> I saw a UFC championship fight the other and noticed how almost all of the time the fights end up ground fighting of some kind. Is the UFC rules of fighting closer to self defence than to sparring do you think? Or does it depend?
> 
> Cheers



It's real to an extent. A lot of fights go to the ground, but then again you wouldn't see a situation where two guys were grappling on the ground for a half hour or more. (I remember an early UFC fight where one guy had mounted the other, but then it stalemated...and the clock went over FORTY minutes.) At some point, an officer would come along to break it up.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Mar 3, 2014)

We all imagine the fight, where we use our training and skills. We may or may not include in this imagining low light conditions, uneven terrain, multiple attackers, objects like cars or furniture in our way, knives and guns, the impact of our emotional state as the encounter proceeds, becoming partially incapacitated during the fight, attackers under the influence of powerful mind-altering substances or the need to defend a friend or loved one as well as ourselves.

 It is a daunting prospect.

 I am reluctant to rule out any training approach however I can analyze any approach from many different angles and decide whether or not it is for me.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

I have done a mma fight and have had street fights and they are pretty similar. The skills transfer.

This is also the anecdotal feed back from others who have done both.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> It's real to an extent. A lot of fights go to the ground, but then again you wouldn't see a situation where two guys were grappling on the ground for a half hour or more. (I remember an early UFC fight where one guy had mounted the other, but then it stalemated...and the clock went over FORTY minutes.) At some point, an officer would come along to break it up.



In theory that should work in your favor as hopefully you are the innocent victim in that engagement.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

Bod said:


> TKD and Japanese karate, JKD and so on are all recent systems without thousands of years to settle in.
> 
> One of the oldest verifiable arts is Cornish wrestling (500 years old, some would say 1500 years old). It is virtually indistinguishable from the much more modern Judo (about 150 years old). Why? Because they are sports with similar training methods and clothing.
> 
> ...




You didn't  have the collaboration then or the numbers practicing martial arts or the technology to share Information like we do now. Martial arts in general is getting better.


----------



## Jason (Apr 20, 2014)

Corporal Hicks said:


> I saw a UFC championship fight the other and noticed how almost all of the time the fights end up ground fighting of some kind. Is the UFC rules of fighting closer to self defence than to sparring do you think? Or does it depend?
> 
> Cheers



It doesn't. UFC and those alike are social events that people can enjoy. It looks nothing like violence. The majority of martial artists/self-defense practitioners/competition fighters have a very skewed misconception of violence. MMA fighters are amazing athletes but training in that manner for personal protection can get you killed. You do want someone to end up on the ground but you want that to be the other guy because you are shutting him down. SUCCESSFUL VIOLENCE is not a dual. There is always someone giving the the violence and the one receiving it. Not a give and take. The only thing that you should be focusing on when approached with asocial behavior is finding a really important part of his anatomy and wrecking it so that it doesn't work anymore. Then you keep doing that until he can no longer function as a threat. Anything short of that and your idea of violence is wrong and can get you killed. Step into reality. Violence is one of the easiest things you can do. It is available to anyone and it can happen to anyone. Once someone gets it right on someone else there is nothing they can do. This we can both respect and take advantage of.


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2014)

In my opinion, mixed martial artists are excellent fighters.  At the level that most people train in martial arts, I'll take a friendly, amateur MMAist who is self aware over just about anybody else in a self defense situation. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> In my opinion, mixed martial artists are excellent fighters. *At the level that most people train in martial arts*, I'll take a friendly, amateur MMAist who is self aware over just about anybody else in a self defense situation.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Agreed, also why MOST contact sport fighters will do better than most casual strip mall martial artists.  The highlighted part is what is important I think.  With more and more "MMA gyms" popping up we are starting to see the empty shell of MMA taught without the harder training aspects.  Just like the spread of BJJ, we are seeing some schools that only teach sparring from the knees and what works in the sport arena and don't concentrate on the self-defense portions that were originally taught in GJJ.  That doesn't mean that those arts aren't good or effective, but when the training paradigm shifts for ANY martial art the end result will also shift.

It doesn't take much to "tweak" your MMA program and understand the "hows" and "whys" that a good self-defense program teaches.  An MMAist is VERY aware of distancing and environment, it's part of their sport.  They also learn how to use the environment to work their techniques.  I also get frustrated when people talk about a BJJer or MMAist and think the ONLY thing that they do is close the distance and then take it to the ground, as if that is their only option.  It's not.  In fact, I would say knowing how to avoid the takedown and having the ground skills to avoid and nullify the ground attack and get back up on your feet is a skill that ALL people should learn how to do.  It should also be learned what to do IF you are both on the ground and can't disengage immediately what to do.  There are many RSBD schools that do instruct what could be looked at as an MMA approach with all the dirty tactics included that is trained for self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 20, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> Agreed, also why MOST contact sport fighters will do better than most casual strip mall martial artists.  The highlighted part is what is important I think.  With more and more "MMA gyms" popping up we are starting to see the empty shell of MMA taught without the harder training aspects.  Just like the spread of BJJ, we are seeing some schools that only teach sparring from the knees and what works in the sport arena and don't concentrate on the self-defense portions that were originally taught in GJJ.  That doesn't mean that those arts aren't good or effective, but when the training paradigm shifts for ANY martial art the end result will also shift.
> 
> It doesn't take much to "tweak" your MMA program and understand the "hows" and "whys" that a good self-defense program teaches.  An MMAist is VERY aware of distancing and environment, it's part of their sport.  They also learn how to use the environment to work their techniques.  I also get frustrated when people talk about a BJJer or MMAist and think the ONLY thing that they do is close the distance and then take it to the ground, as if that is their only option.  It's not.  In fact, I would say knowing how to avoid the takedown and having the ground skills to avoid and nullify the ground attack and get back up on your feet is a skill that ALL people should learn how to do.  It should also be learned what to do IF you are both on the ground and can't disengage immediately what to do.  There are many RSBD schools that do instruct what could be looked at as an MMA approach with all the dirty tactics included that is trained for self-defense.




 Mc map looks like it has pretty much gone that way now.


----------

