# Enough is Enough



## matt.m (Oct 4, 2006)

Look,

In all fairness everyone thinks their style is the best.  If they don't they are spending their money and time recklessly.  That is retarded in my opinion.

Now the whole MMA vs. TMA is ridiculous from a standpoint that and apple to orange comparison is being made.  Look in the first UFC where the Gracie's dominated then there were rules against most throws and locks.

I am sorry but that is hapkido bread and butter.  In olympic style tkd an MMA guy or girl would get owned.  In MMA/UFC type fights the grapplers/wrestlers do the best.  

A few years ago there was a Kuk Sool Won Hapkido practitioner that did quite well but that is besides the point.

Now, in my experience from my time on active duty I saw Marines fight all the time.  I am going to say 3 times a day a fight would break out.  That was the standard norm.

Now, as far as TMA goes you would consider the Marines as unskilled fighters correct?  However, I dare anyone to go onto Camp Lejuene with a couple of buddies and call a few Devil Dogs out.  

No one can question the Marine Corps effectiveness in combat.  Anyway, only a few of us by percentile were specialized in TMA competition. Judo and Greco were the big teams to try and make.  I was on both. I am here to tell you I modified the way I would wrestle or randori vs. a fist fight.

Again, I would commend to everyone's attention that the debate on which is better is crazy.  Everyone believes their camp is the best, if not then why study what you are doing?  You are only wasting time and money.

However, to say one is not effective is also ridiculous.  Define effective vs. ineffective?  The only way for a study to be done in that regard is to have actual combat.  If there are rules then it is a contest.  If it is a contest then it isn't a fight.

So to reiterate, I enjoy watching MMA.  I have respect for the practitioners, they are PT studs that take a lot of abuse.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2006)

I agree, it is silly, and a common thing.  Not just MMA vs TMA, but there is always a style vs style fight going on.  Karate vs TKD was a good one a few years back 

But...



matt.m said:


> Now the whole MMA vs. TMA is ridiculous from a standpoint that and apple to orange comparison is being made.  Look in the first UFC where the Gracie's dominated then there were rules against most throws and locks.




That's not true.  When Royce fought in the UFC there was only two rules, no biting and no eye gouging.  Which would get the offender a fine after the match, but the match would not be stopped because of it.


----------



## matt.m (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks Andy,

I stand corrected.  Just as a side note.  Clay McBride, who the last I heard was a blue belt in Gracie JJ is also a great friend of my dads.

I met the Gracie Brothers one day in 1993 right before UFC I.  They seemed like a good bunch of guys, very nice and accomodating.  To me that is a mark of a good Martial Artist.  By the way, Clay did all the write ups in Black Belt, Inside Karate, and Inside Kung Fu for the Gracies before UFC I.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 4, 2006)

I wholeheartedly agree Matt.

But I would have phrased it better!   

Jeff

(this is a joke)


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

matt.m said:


> Look,
> 
> In all fairness everyone thinks their style is the best. If they don't they are spending their money and time recklessly. That is retarded in my opinion.
> 
> Now the whole MMA vs. TMA is ridiculous from a standpoint that and apple to orange comparison is being made. Look in the first UFC where the Gracie's dominated then there were rules against most throws and locks.


 
I can't think of a singe throw that is outside the rules even now.  The first UFCs only imposed a FINE for biting and eyegouging and nothing else was restricted.  The only locks outside the UFC and PRIDE rules are small joint (ie fingers and toes).  



> I am sorry but that is hapkido bread and butter. In olympic style tkd an MMA guy or girl would get owned. In MMA/UFC type fights the grapplers/wrestlers do the best.


 
This is why we promote no-rules challenge matches as a means of getting to the bottom of the style-vs-style contreversies.  This way, it isn't anyone's rules or someone's homefield judging.  



> A few years ago there was a Kuk Sool Won Hapkido practitioner that did quite well but that is besides the point.


 
If you refer to one Gary "Big Daddy" Goodridge, he never trained in any form in Kuk Sool Won, and was paid to put on their gi - a fact that he himself has admitted even while he continues his end of the deal.  It has been discussed ad nausium on the MMA boards.  



> Now, in my experience from my time on active duty I saw Marines fight all the time. I am going to say 3 times a day a fight would break out. That was the standard norm.
> 
> Now, as far as TMA goes you would consider the Marines as unskilled fighters correct? However, I dare anyone to go onto Camp Lejuene with a couple of buddies and call a few Devil Dogs out.



Are we talking about man-to-man fighting or full-scale international war?  

The Armed Forces Pancration is an entry-level tournament to MMA - I'll look later and see how its winners did in other tournaments.   

Incidentally, the combatives program is largely based on BJJ.



> No one can question the Marine Corps effectiveness in combat. Anyway, only a few of us by percentile were specialized in TMA competition. Judo and Greco were the big teams to try and make. I was on both. I am here to tell you I modified the way I would wrestle or randori vs. a fist fight.
> 
> Again, I would commend to everyone's attention that the debate on which is better is crazy. Everyone believes their camp is the best, if not then why study what you are doing? You are only wasting time and money.
> 
> However, to say one is not effective is also ridiculous. Define effective vs. ineffective? The only way for a study to be done in that regard is to have actual combat. If there are rules then it is a contest. If it is a contest then it isn't a fight.


 
Thats why the Gracies, and Chute Boxe and others have their no-rules challenges... I don't think MMA rules are all that restrictive, but if they are too much, one can always go without them. 



> So to reiterate, I enjoy watching MMA. I have respect for the practitioners, they are PT studs that take a lot of abuse.


 
Ok.


----------



## matt.m (Oct 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> I can't think of a singe throw that is outside the rules even now. The first UFCs only imposed a FINE for biting and eyegouging and nothing else was restricted. The only locks outside the UFC and PRIDE rules are small joint (ie fingers and toes).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


The only thing I disagree wholeheartedly with your post is the adaptiveness of the Marine Corps combat system.  It is not based on BJJ, never has been.  I taught L.I.N.E. training in the 90's to the guys in my unit, and the tan belt system is not based on BJJ.  I got certified from Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Miller, aboard Camp Lejuene North Carolina.  I am also teriffic friends with a Gunnery Sergeant who is a certified instructor in the Martial Arts program that the Marine Corps has adapted.  You are wrong so quit trying.  Showing a picture of the Gracies at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico giving a seminar is not military doctrine.  That my friend is a guest speaker.

In all actuality it is and remains to be more aikido/hapkido based.  Arm bars, punching and kicking from a standing position.  Never a take down.  The last thing you want to do is go to the ground.  They taught us that from day one.  

I find it amazing that everyone has happily stated their background or experience but you have not.  Could you please explain your experiences and background please.  It would help a lot in your arguments.


----------



## zDom (Oct 4, 2006)

Respect is the key word, Matt. We have the capacity for it while some people simply don't.

People need to be careful not to confuse idol worship with respect. Some say respect for others is only possible when you truly respect yourself.

While some may try to reduce the "Do" component of martial arts to nothing but a bunch of "cultural trappings," the truth is instilling character traits such as "respect" is among the many benefits of TMAs.

I strongly suspect the most vocal MMA cheerleaders have the LEAST first-hand experience.

I've seen some youtube videos of "MMA classes" that look as legitimate and organized as backyard "professional wrestling" bouts.

On the other hand, I strongly suspect that those who TRULY TRAIN in MMA gyms and have a foundation with an established fighting art have probably developed enough character to respect those who also train hard, regardless of their art or style.

Over the years I have met plenty of people who hold ranks higher than myself who have less fighting ability/"effectiveness."

Over those same years, I have learned to respect many of them for their dedication and knowledge, despite any shortcomings.

On the other hand, I have seen fighters with tremendous physical ability who have completely lost my respect (Mike Tyson) for their inability to behave as a mature adult. Watching them crash and burn is a pleasure I shouldn't indulge in, but then I still have some character growth to go through myself.

There are plenty of martial art schools I have seen that make me feel sorry for their students, but I keep that to myself: it would only make ME look bad to trash them. And who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. I have been in the past.

I agree "enough is enough" but experience has shown me some people will simply continue to ramble on because that is ALL THEY HAVE:

Some people play football; others eat hot wings on a couch while they watch football and hold forth to anyone who will sit still for it.

Likewise, some people train hard in the martial art school they believe offers the best training while others will just run their mouths about what they see on the television.

All we can hope for in a forum like this is that those with an ear for truth will be receptive to the advice offered by those who truly have something to offer rather than swallow opinions of what is best and make decisions based on libelous comments about other people's arts and training methods.

Thankfully, it doesn't affect our training either way. Those who really want to see what we are about are welcome to come try a class or sit and watch any time.

Those who believe allegations from a third party with no personal experience in what we do proably aren't cut out for a hard core traditional martial art anyway


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 4, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> I agree, it is silly, and a common thing. Not just MMA vs TMA, but there is always a style vs style fight going on. Karate vs TKD was a good one a few years back
> 
> But...
> 
> ...




Shamrock was one of those who kept the complaining up about the small circle joint locks, i.e. fingers as he kept getting them broke and could not fight on the pay per view events. Once they were implemented about UFC 3 which is also when the time limits went into place, that there became a longer list of rules.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 4, 2006)

Love the comments so far!

I would like to point out one fundamental rule they had in place for the first UFC tournaments.  
"Don't go out there and try to maim and kill your opponent."
We can talk all about rules against only gouges and bites, but there is more to it than that.  It takes a completely different mindset to fight like that, regardless of how few or many rules you impose.
If in fact only gouges and bites were illegal, then we saw some seriously flawed fighting in those early days!  
Bill Wallace said it best...paraphrase "I mean, its ok for somebody to snap my arm in an armbar but I can't destroy their knees?"  I think he was talking about UFC 3 or 4.  He was there after all.
Thanks for all the nice comments.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 4, 2006)

The Marine hand to hand combatives are not based on BJJ.  Unfortunately, the Army's is.  They've been getting some negative feedback from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan about it as well.  

This isn't a dig on BJJ, it's a great art.  Not suited for working while wearing body armor and lots of gear though.

Jeff


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

Warrior-Scholar said:


> Love the comments so far!
> 
> I would like to point out one fundamental rule they had in place for the first UFC tournaments.
> "Don't go out there and try to maim and kill your opponent."


 
That wasn't true at all.  Several early competitors said that they had expected or anticipated a death in the competition - some said they expected to kill an opponent.  Ussually those were the ones who ended up doing the worst.  A SAFSA student in a later UFC said that he intended to break all the rules in order to demonstrate how unprepared people were for it - he was symbolically scratched back in the eye and beaten to a bloody pulp.  



> We can talk all about rules against only gouges and bites, but there is more to it than that. It takes a completely different mindset to fight like that, regardless of how few or many rules you impose.
> If in fact only gouges and bites were illegal, then we saw some seriously flawed fighting in those early days!


 
I think the early fighters were not up to the same levels as modern fighters, so I don't doubt that they missed many opportunities. 



> Bill Wallace said it best...paraphrase "I mean, its ok for somebody to snap my arm in an armbar but I can't destroy their knees?" I think he was talking about UFC 3 or 4. He was there after all.
> Thanks for all the nice comments.


 
You are allowed to destroy knees in each and every MMA contest ever held; I am not aware of a single one that in any way restricted knee attacks.  The easy breaking of knees is a tired myth.


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> The Marine hand to hand combatives are not based on BJJ. Unfortunately, the Army's is. They've been getting some negative feedback from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan about it as well.
> 
> This isn't a dig on BJJ, it's a great art. Not suited for working while wearing body armor and lots of gear though.
> 
> Jeff


 
There is a lot of debate on military combatives at any given time and no doubt every person has their own pet theory on how it could be done better.  I don't think its an insult to BJJ at all to question whether it is the most appropriate for the situation or whether it could use more supplements.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 4, 2006)

Those early guys sure didn't look like they were fighting for their lives!!!!
I don't mean to say the rule about not killing your opponent was a written rule, only understood.  Of course, you state that some competitors anticipated death.  Interesting...I wonder how that would have gone over legally.  

No one ever said anything about breaking a knee being easy...so don't accuse me of the "tired myth" claim.
I am merely stating from my observations that the guys in the early UFC seem very tactically unsound when it came to certain opportunities.  I don't know why Mr. Wallace would make the aforementioned statement if such attacks were legal...maybe he was misinformed.  Since he was closer to those early fights than I am, I am not qualified to say.  Guess you can't even trust a hall of famer sometimes!  

Anyway, love the discussion.


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

Warrior-Scholar said:


> Those early guys sure didn't look like they were fighting for their lives!!!!


 
What would fighting for their lives look like?  



> I don't mean to say the rule about not killing your opponent was a written rule, only understood. Of course, you state that some competitors anticipated death. Interesting...I wonder how that would have gone over legally.


 
The fights were legal and there was extensive waivers signed - I don't know if someone could have pulled off a loophole lawsuit in the first UFC (held in Colorado where there is no athletic comission and hence no distiction between sanctioned and unsanctioned fights).  After the first one, all subsequent UFCs were sanctioned, and a lawsuit would have been very difficult to win.  



> No one ever said anything about breaking a knee being easy...so don't accuse me of the "tired myth" claim.
> I am merely stating from my observations that the guys in the early UFC seem very tactically unsound when it came to certain opportunities.


 
I think the early UFCs exposed the poverty of real fighting ability in the martial arts community of the time.  



> I don't know why Mr. Wallace would make the aforementioned statement if such attacks were legal...maybe he was misinformed. Since he was closer to those early fights than I am, I am not qualified to say. Guess you can't even trust a hall of famer sometimes!
> 
> Anyway, love the discussion.


 
Mr. Wallace, while he was initially enthusiastic to serve as commentator, ended up deciding that the UFCs were too brutal and thought that they should be banned as a threat to the health of the participants.  He used his influence to try to discourage people from competing in mixed martial arts and disparaged them in the media as barbaric.  I think his statement about the knee probably fit somewhere in that context.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 4, 2006)

Yeah, especially in America we have so many self-proclaimed Masters and Grandmasters...I mean per capita how many are there compared to say...China or Japan?  i know some of those early guys were from Europe and competed in Japan, but Americans were and still are deluding themselves in many ways.

On the issue of fighting for your life...well, that's a subjective statement of my own...I just don't feel the fire man...can you dig it?  I still don't...heck I think these guys are nuts anyway.  If someone can smash my knee etc., why the heck would I VOLUNTARILY subject myself to such possibilities?  Much nicer to watch on my big screen.

While they are at it, I think broken glass and 2x4s should be strewn across the ring for added entertainment.  Why not throw in some lions and bears to boot?  Oh wait, we aren't killing Christians anymore.


----------



## Ybot (Oct 4, 2006)

Warrior-Scholar said:


> Bill Wallace said it best...paraphrase "I mean, its ok for somebody to snap my arm in an armbar but I can't destroy their knees?" I think he was talking about UFC 3 or 4. He was there after all.
> Thanks for all the nice comments.


Not questioning your quote, but reading it here out of context I'm trying to figure out what Mr. Wallace meant.  Do you know what kind of attack he was refering to?  Does he mean attacking the knees of a cross body arm lock?  An arm lock from the guard maybe?  Just curious, because I'm wracking my brain trying to think of a knee attack that can be done while your getting your arm broken.  The one I hear all the time is that they'd bit my leg, but that doesn't seem to be an attack capable of "destroying the knees".

Anyway, good stuff.

I do want to state that I don't believe those early UFC guys (the first 4 or so UFC's) were the best representitives of their respective style.  Most of them seemed to be self proclaimed tough guys, who also had a Martial Arts background.  That said, and meaning no respect to Royce Gracie, but Royce was not the greatest representitive of BJJ either (which is why he was picked actually), but he knew what to expect, and knew how to pull his opponents out of their game.

Anyway, although billed as style verses style, I personally don't see the early UFC's as proof by them selves (Actually I think there are some better style versus style fights on the Gracies In Action tapes, parts of which Andrew has posted in other threads) most of the guys forgot their style in the first couple of seconds of the fight and just started brawling.  I see them more as a wake up call to Martial Artists that there was a range of fighting that was being neglected.  That if you don't know how to keep the fight in the range that your an expert in, then no matter how good you are, you can be put in some serious trouble.


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

Ybot said:


> Not questioning your quote, but reading it here out of context I'm trying to figure out what Mr. Wallace meant. Do you know what kind of attack he was refering to? Does he mean attacking the knees of a cross body arm lock? An arm lock from the guard maybe? Just curious, because I'm wracking my brain trying to think of a knee attack that can be done while your getting your arm broken. The one I hear all the time is that they'd bit my leg, but that doesn't seem to be an attack capable of "destroying the knees".


 
I thought it was a referance to kicking the knees during the standup portion... I'm not sure how you could break a knee on the ground without good grappling skills.  



> Anyway, good stuff.
> 
> I do want to state that I don't believe those early UFC guys (the first 4 or so UFC's) were the best representitives of their respective style.


 
They were the best that the Gracies could get.  They challenged the top kyokushin, Enshin and Ashihara guys for karate as well as sending letters to the Okinawan headquarters of the more traditional styles.  They also sent letters by registered mail to Taiwanese and South East Asian fighters and famous masters.  Alot of the those people both declined to fight and did not send anyone in their place, which is truly unfortunate.  



> Most of them seemed to be self proclaimed tough guys, who also had a Martial Arts background. That said, and meaning no respect to Royce Gracie, but Royce was not the greatest representitive of BJJ either (which is why he was picked actually), but he knew what to expect, and knew how to pull his opponents out of their game.


 
The family talked about swapping Royce out for Rickson at the end of several tournaments but that never happened because Rickson chose go do his own thing.  Royce was supposed to beat early reps, and when the competition improved Rickson was supposed to take over, possibly supplemented by other BJJ guys.  Royce ended up not needing replacement.  



> Anyway, although billed as style verses style, I personally don't see the early UFC's as proof by them selves (Actually I think there are some better style versus style fights on the Gracies In Action tapes, parts of which Andrew has posted in other threads) most of the guys forgot their style in the first couple of seconds of the fight and just started brawling. I see them more as a wake up call to Martial Artists that there was a range of fighting that was being neglected. That if you don't know how to keep the fight in the range that your an expert in, then no matter how good you are, you can be put in some serious trouble.


 
I think that the early UFCs were one of many indications that traditional martial arts were not living up to their hype by a long shot.  The UFCs on their own didn't prove it, but they are one part of the arguement along with the Gracies in Action series, the Gracie and Chute-Boxe challenges that are still unclaimed and the Bullshido and local no-rules matches.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 4, 2006)

Well, I am not a UFC officionado, but I was under the impression that he meant someone couldn't kick out a knee from a standing position, whereas a grappler could break your arm in an armbar, not once you are on the ground.  However, Rook has addressed this issue a few posts earlier.

Its seems most traditionalists were too busy fighting one another-they didn't bother to think someone might try to stick to them like a tick! 
The overblown ego of one group has now shifted to another...who's next?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 4, 2006)

Ybot said:


> Not questioning your quote, but reading it here out of context I'm trying to figure out what Mr. Wallace meant. Do you know what kind of attack he was refering to? Does he mean attacking the knees of a cross body arm lock? An arm lock from the guard maybe? Just curious, because I'm wracking my brain trying to think of a knee attack that can be done while your getting your arm broken. The one I hear all the time is that they'd bit my leg, but that doesn't seem to be an attack capable of "destroying the knees".
> 
> Anyway, good stuff.
> 
> ...


 
I think that sums it all up perfectly. Your explanations always contain a great does of both insight and humility.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2006)

Rook said:


> I can't think of a singe throw that is outside the rules even now. The first UFCs only imposed a FINE for biting and eyegouging and nothing else was restricted. The only locks outside the UFC and PRIDE rules are small joint (ie fingers and toes).


You can't drop someone on their head. That blunts the effectiveness of some throws. Are neck cranks illegal, or just never attempted?


----------



## Ybot (Oct 5, 2006)

Marginal said:


> You can't drop someone on their head. That blunts the effectiveness of some throws. Are neck cranks illegal, or just never attempted?


MMA neck cranks are legal, but usually easy to defend.  There was a fighter named Tim Catalpho (sp?) who was a Chiroprator, and who claimed to have a hugh arsenal of various cranks from various positions.  The funny thing is that I never saw him pull them off (though I only saw a few of his fights).

Mark Kerr pulls off a vicious neck crank in Pride 10- Return Of The Warriors.  This is a good show by the way, and if your into MMA at all I highly recomend this DVD.


----------



## Rook (Oct 5, 2006)

Marginal said:


> You can't drop someone on their head. That blunts the effectiveness of some throws. Are neck cranks illegal, or just never attempted?


 
You can throw a person on their head in every MMA competition I am aware of.  

You can even use huge suplexes like this one which failed to even faze the PRIDE heavyweight champion.  

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2609598051531896141&q=fedor+randleman&hl=en

Neck cranks are legal.


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2006)

Rook said:


> You can throw a person on their head in every MMA competition I am aware of.
> 
> You can even use huge suplexes like this one which failed to even faze the PRIDE heavyweight champion.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps this is what he is talking about:
http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules

18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.

It should also be noted, that the rules for Pride:
http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/whats_rules.htm

contain less DQ rules than the UFC.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 5, 2006)

That's why PRIDE is more exciting!!!

I bet that suplex would have had a bit more sting outside of a cushy ring!


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 5, 2006)

Kicking the knees is legal, always has been.  And yes, it gets done, but not to the end result some people think it "should" have.


----------



## Rook (Oct 5, 2006)

MJS said:


> Perhaps this is what he is talking about:
> http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules
> 
> 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.


 
That refers to a pro-wrestling style pile-driver, not a suplex or judo throw.  It's another of those stupid political rules we only have to deal with on American soil.  



> It should also be noted, that the rules for Pride:
> http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/whats_rules.htm
> 
> contain less DQ rules than the UFC.


 
True.


----------



## zDom (Oct 5, 2006)

I think it bears mentioning that while certain injuries may not prevent a fighter from pushing through and finishing a match (endorphins and adrenaline enable this), they can take a long time and a lot of effort to rehabilitate,

and some atheletes are never the same again after an injuries even with rehab.

There are people I know that are presently not able to work out in the martial art of their choice because of knee or neck injuries.

Allowed, not allowed, easy to break, not easy to break, good rule, stupid rule -- it is easy to throw around comments when it isn't YOUR knee or YOUR neck that have been injured, when it isn't YOUR martial art career that has ended prematurely.

As somebody who has spent many years learning to kick really, really hard and fall really, really well (part of learning to throw really well), risking the ability to use these skills for money or bragging rights just doesn't seem worth it.

Nor does taking away someone else's ability for anything less than a geniune unprovoked attack.


----------



## Selfcritical (Oct 5, 2006)

matt.m said:


> The only thing I disagree wholeheartedly with your post is the adaptiveness of the Marine Corps combat system. It is not based on BJJ, never has been. I taught L.I.N.E. training in the 90's to the guys in my unit, and the tan belt system is not based on BJJ. I got certified from Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Miller, aboard Camp Lejuene North Carolina. I am also teriffic friends with a Gunnery Sergeant who is a certified instructor in the Martial Arts program that the Marine Corps has adapted. You are wrong so quit trying. Showing a picture of the Gracies at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico giving a seminar is not military doctrine. That my friend is a guest speaker.
> 
> In all actuality it is and remains to be more aikido/hapkido based. Arm bars, punching and kicking from a standing position. Never a take down. The last thing you want to do is go to the ground. They taught us that from day one.
> 
> I find it amazing that everyone has happily stated their background or experience but you have not. Could you please explain your experiences and background please. It would help a lot in your arguments.


 

Then it's changed significantly since you've done it. Ground positions are the VERY FIRST THINGS TAUGHT in the current MCMAP.


----------



## born_fighting (Oct 5, 2006)

I trained in take downs for one reason, (and this is aplyed to untrained fighters,)  who when desperate will try to take out your legs or take you off your feet, watch some videos of untrained fighters online, 100% of the fights start on there feet and 85% go to the ground.

    I met and trained with Royce Gracy did a 6 hr seminar in Port Alburnie about 2 months after his fight with Matt Huges, And the stuff he was teaching was pritty basic... Thats saying How fast things Advance, when gracy's jujutsu is basic Knowledg.. That also means there are more ground fighters out there then one would think.. It's the flavour of our century, CATCH UP!


----------



## Kreth (Oct 5, 2006)

born_fighting said:


> 100% of the fights start on there feet and 85% go to the ground.


Check out the quote in my sig... :uhyeah:


----------



## Ybot (Oct 5, 2006)

born_fighting said:


> I trained in take downs for one reason, (and this is aplyed to untrained fighters,) who when desperate will try to take out your legs or take you off your feet, watch some videos of untrained fighters online, 100% of the fights start on there feet and 85% go to the ground.
> 
> I met and trained with Royce Gracy did a 6 hr seminar in Port Alburnie about 2 months after his fight with Matt Huges, And the stuff he was teaching was pritty basic... Thats saying How fast things Advance, when gracy's jujutsu is basic Knowledg.. That also means there are more ground fighters out there then one would think.. It's the flavour of our century, CATCH UP!


I want to say that I have taken several seminars with Royce Gracie, and have had the oppertunity to roll with him.  He does teach a lot of basic stuff at his seminars, but you have to remember that he is adjusting his instruction to the people attending.  I found that his name drew people who had no previous experience in BJJ.  In these cases it's a good thing to teach basic stuff.  Most of his seminars were on the basic side, but don't mistake that for Royce not knowing more advanced stuff.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar (Oct 5, 2006)

Name a seminar that didn't spend much of time on basics?  Unless you went to an all black belt training seminar or something like that, you will most likely be taught basic ideas.


----------



## Ybot (Oct 6, 2006)

Warrior-Scholar said:


> Name a seminar that didn't spend much of time on basics? Unless you went to an all black belt training seminar or something like that, you will most likely be taught basic ideas.


We also had Rolker Gracie give a seminar at the place I use to train.  Pretty much the only ones there were members of our school.  His audience had more mat savy than the audience Royce taught.  He was able to see we had a good base, so he could build a bit more.  Still not super advanced, but definitely beyond what Royce was able to teach.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 8, 2006)

Rook said:


> That refers to a pro-wrestling style pile-driver...


Possibly. Somehow I think they were reacting to a Frank Shamrock fight moreso than pro wrestling.


----------



## Marvin (Oct 9, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> The Marine hand to hand combatives are not based on BJJ. Unfortunately, the Army's is. They've been getting some negative feedback from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan about it as well.
> 
> This isn't a dig on BJJ, it's a great art. Not suited for working while wearing body armor and lots of gear though.
> 
> Jeff


I don't think any martial art translates well while wearing body armor and lots of gear.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 14, 2006)

I'm not trying to start another argument here but when someone said about going into a Marine barracks and calling them out I had to laugh. I know many people where I am ( the largest Garrison in Europe - full of British Paras, Gurkhas and Infantry) who would be more than happy - no I'd say down right eager to do it! That aside, I think people seem to be hung up on BJJ as opposed to MMA. To my mind these are two different things.


----------



## matt.m (Oct 14, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not trying to start another argument here but when someone said about going into a Marine barracks and calling them out I had to laugh. I know many people where I am ( the largest Garrison in Europe - full of British Paras, Gurkhas and Infantry) who would be more than happy - no I'd say down right eager to do it! That aside, I think people seem to be hung up on BJJ as opposed to MMA. To my mind these are two different things.


 

Tez3, Me and the mates have many hrs logged getting pissed and scraping the ole blimey Brits overseas. Some great scraps.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2006)

matt.m said:


> Tez3, Me and the mates have many hrs logged getting pissed and scraping the ole blimey Brits overseas. Some great scraps.


 
LOL! The British squaddie is never backwards in coming forward to fight! Sadly at the moment the Garrison is fairly empty as most are in that sandy place while others are in Afghanistan.I also teach children at our club and most of their fathers are away, as are a lot of the adult members, men and women. I'm very afraid that some of them aren't coming back.


----------

